[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8323-8330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4137]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 012599A]


Notice of Availability of Final Stock Assessment Reports

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

ACTION: Notice of completion and availability of revised marine mammal 
stock assessment reports; response to comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has incorporated public comments into revisions of marine 
mammal stock assessment reports (SARs). The final revisions, which were 
initiated in 1998, are now complete, and copies of the revised reports 
are available to the public.

ADDRESSES: Send requests for printed copies of reports to: Chief, 
Marine Mammal Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-
3226, Attn: Stock Assessments. Copies of the regional reports may also 
be requested from Douglas P. DeMaster, Alaska Fisheries Science Center 
(F/AKC), NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE BIN 15700, Seattle, WA 98115-
0070 (Alaska); Richard Merrick, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 
Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543 (Atlantic); and Irma Lagomarsino, 
Southwest Regional Office (F/SWO3), NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, 
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 (Pacific). Electronic copies of the reports 
can be found at (http://www.nmfs.gov/prot_res/mammals/sa_rep/sar.html).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Eisele, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, at (301) 713-2322, Douglas P. DeMaster (206) 526-4045, 
regarding Alaska regional stock assessments; Irma Lagomarsino, (310) 
980-4020, regarding Pacific regional stock assessments; or Richard 
Merrick, (508) 495-2311, or Steven Swartz, (305) 361-4487, regarding 
Atlantic regional stock assessments.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act (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 that occurs in waters under the jurisdiction of the 
United States. These reports must contain information regarding the 
distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates and 
trends, estimates of annual human-caused mortality from all sources, 
descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the 
status of the stock.
    Marine mammal SARs were finalized for 1995 (August 25 1995, 60 FR 
44308) and for 1996 (January 2 1998, 63 FR 60). Draft 1998 SARs were 
completed, with a request for public comments, on July 24, 1998 (63 FR 
39814). During and subsequent to the public comment period, NMFS 
consulted with Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), established under the 
MMPA, to discuss their comments and the public comments on the draft 
SARs. NMFS received public comments from a variety of sources, 
including state and Federal agencies, private citizens, conservation 
organizations, fishing industry organizations, and other stakeholder 
groups. Following discussions with the SRGs, the comments were reviewed 
and incorporated into these final reports. Copies of the revised 1998 
marine mammal SARs are now available to the public. Electronic copies 
are currently available, and printed copies may be obtained at request 
(see ADDRESSES).

Response to Comments

    The majority of the comments were about details of specific stock 
assessment reports. These comments are discussed here by region:

Comments on the Alaska Stock Assessment Reports

    Comment 1: It would be helpful to have a single table in all the 
Alaska reports that presented all sources of human related mortalities.
    Response: In general, the best information on human-related 
mortality

[[Page 8324]]

is based on observer data. In this case, a mortality can be assigned to 
a specific fishery. Mortality information from strandings or reports of 
vandalism is not necessarily due to fishery interactions and, if so, is 
difficult to assign to a specific fishery. Because the table presenting 
the information on fishery interactions is already complicated, it was 
thought that additional information, where available, is better 
presented in the text. Also, regarding evaluation of the zero mortality 
rate goal, only those mortalities incidental to commercial fishing are 
to be considered. Therefore, a table of all mortalities might be 
confusing to the reader in trying to understand which subset of the 
mortality data is being used in a particular instance.
    Comment 2: Regarding the maximum net productivity rate 
(Rmax) for the central stock of humpback whales, the rate 
should be higher than 0.04. The rate of 0.04 is unduly conservative, as 
estimates of Rmax for Atlantic humpback whales are as high 
as 0.14.
    Response: There are no reliable estimates of Rmax for 
any stock of humpback whale in U.S. waters. For all other stocks of 
humpback whales in U.S. waters, the recommended value for 
Rmax was 0.04. NMFS agrees that available data for several 
other stocks of humpback whales indicate that, for those stocks, 
maximum net production may exceed 0.04. However, without information on 
maximum rates of increase from any of the North Pacific stocks, an 
Rmax of 0.04 seems appropriate. This, too, was the 
conclusion of the Alaska SRG.
    Comment 3: The Recovery Factor for the central stock of humpback 
whales should be increased to 0.3.
    Response: Unlike the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock of bowhead 
whale, where a long-time series of abundance estimates are available 
and a reliable estimate of trends in abundance exists, relatively 
little is known about the population dynamics of the central North 
Pacific stock of humpback whale. What is known is that this stock 
remains severely depleted. Therefore, until further information becomes 
available on current trends in abundance, a recovery factor of 0.1 is 
appropriate.
    Comment 4: The Recovery Factor for sperm whales should be increased 
to something between 0.5 and 1.0.
    Response: The guidelines for setting recovery factors state that a 
recovery factor of 0.1 should, in general, be used for stocks listed as 
endangered. Very little is known about stock structure of sperm whales 
in the North Pacific; therefore, very little can be said about stock 
size. Further, there is very good evidence to indicate that most or all 
of the stocks of sperm whales in the North Pacific were severely 
depleted as a result of commercial whaling. Therefore, a recovery 
factor of 0.1 is appropriate at this time. 
    Comment 5: Given that an Rmax of less than 1 percent is 
likely, the Rmax for sperm whales should be 1 percent, not 4 
percent.
    Response: There are no reliable estimates of Rmax for 
any population of sperm whales, including populations of sperm whale in 
the North Pacific. NMFS does not consider that an estimate of less than 
1 percent is a credible estimate for the rate of increase for a 
population of sperm whale that is recovering from very low levels. 
    Comment 6: Regarding a minimum population estimate 
(Nmin) for the Cook Inlet stock of beluga whale, the 
estimate should be less than 834 (i.e., the best estimate of 
abundance).
    Response: NMFS agrees. The Nmin used in the Potential 
Biological Removal (PBR) calculation was 712.
     Comment 7: Regarding the Cook Inlet stock of beluga whale, it is 
not clear how using median counts from surveys designed to provide 
estimates of abundance made the results more comparable to other 
surveys that had only one pass over a whale group.
    Response: Prior to the initiation of the survey protocol adopted in 
1994, surveys to determine beluga abundance typically made a single 
pass over aggregations of whales during which time the aggregation was 
counted. Often, counts were made by a single observer. In contrast, the 
1994 protocol involved multiple passes, where multiple observers made 
independent counts of the aggregation. Because the actual number of 
animals at the surface that are available to be counted varies per pass 
(note: the water in the northern part of Cook Inlet where most of the 
beluga whales are counted is very muddy and does not allow observers to 
follow whales as they dive below the surface), the use of the maximum 
count from multiple passes and multiple observers would be biased 
relative to the count of a single observer on an individual pass. 
Therefore, an average of counts was used in the analysis of the data 
collected in 1994 and thereafter. Because the shape of the distribution 
of counts was rather flat (as opposed to being bell shaped) medians 
were used to reflect the central tendency of the count statistic.
    Comment 8: A Recovery Factor of 1.0 for the Cook Inlet stock of 
beluga whale is inappropriate. It was apparently used to help deflect 
concern over the level of the native harvest relative to stock size.
    Response: This is a misinterpretation of the intent of NMFS. NMFS 
has been working closely with the Native community in the Cook Inlet 
Region regarding the co-management of this stock. Over the past 4 
years, efforts have been undertaken to attempt to develop sustainable 
harvest limits through the co-management process. To date, these 
efforts have been unsuccessful. It should be remembered that the PBR 
approach was not designed to manage Native subsistence harvest in 
Alaska. Further, beluga whales are not listed as depleted under the 
MMPA or endangered/threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
(although they are a candidate species for listing under the ESA). 
Therefore, NMFS has extremely limited authority in managing Native 
harvest levels at this time. Until the agency determines that co-
management efforts alone are insufficient to protect this stock from 
extirpation and lists this stock as depleted, threatened, or 
endangered, a recovery factor of 1.0 is most consistent with the 
existing generic agreement regarding co-management negotiated between 
the Indigenous People's Council for Marine Mammals, FWS, and NMFS 
(signed August 27,1997).
    Comment 9: Regarding the eastern North Pacific northern resident 
stock of killer whales, why are the estimates of observed mortality and 
estimated mortality equal, when the level of observer coverage was less 
than 100 percent?
     Response: This was due to rounding. For example, if one mortality 
was observed and the coverage rate was 80 percent, the estimated 
mortality for the entire fishery would be 1.25 animals. This approach 
should not produce biased estimates of mean mortality, when data are 
averaged over a 5-year period.
    Comment 10: Some indication is required as to whether or not the 
techniques used to calculate the abundance correction factor for 
western Steller sea lions took into account time of year of the 
surveys, time of day, weather conditions, survey methodology, and other 
factors.
    Response: The references included in the section of the text on 
population size provide this information. If all of the details 
regarding all of the key parameters presented in the SARs were 
included, the length of the SARs would become unmanageable. Individuals 
or agencies can request copies of any of the references cited in the 
SARs from the appropriate Science Center. The same response applies to 
similar comments regarding the inclusion of details contained in cited 
references.

[[Page 8325]]

    Comment 11: In the status report on the eastern stock of Steller 
sea lion, the actual number of communities within the range of this 
stock should be cited.
    Response: Unfortunately, the number of communities in which 
interviews were conducted that occur within the range of this stock was 
not constant among survey years (1992-96). Sixteen was the average 
number of communities that were interviewed during this time period. 
Therefore, the phrase ``approximately 16 of the interviewed 
communities'' seems appropriate.
    Comment 12: The Southeast Alaska population of harbor seals should 
remain treated as a separate stock.
    Response: NMFS agrees.
    Comment 13: The Recovery Factor for the southeast stock of harbor 
seal should be less than 1.0.
    Response: There are strong indications that this stock is 
increasing despite the current harvest level for Native subsistence. 
This increase is thought to have occurred since at least 1983. 
Therefore, the use of a recovery factor of 1.0 is appropriate. This was 
the conclusion of the Alaska SRG.
    Comment 14: The Gulf of Alaska stock of harbor seal should be 
considered a strategic stock because the PBR for the stock is 868, 
while the estimate for human-caused mortalities was likely not 
significantly different (824 with an unspecified coefficient of 
variation on the estimate).
    Response: NMFS accepts the comment that the PBR is not likely to be 
statistically greater than the estimate for human-related mortalities 
(using traditional type 1 error levels). However, NMFS has not adopted 
such an approach in the classification of a stock as strategic under 
the MMPA. It should be noted that, in the simulations reported by Wade 
(1998), it was assumed that the distribution for the number of animals 
removed annually was centered on the PBR. Therefore, the PBR management 
approach should perform adequately in the situation where the estimated 
annual mortality level is close to the PBR.
    Comment 15: If there has been a significant decline in population 
numbers, the Gulf of Alaska stock of harbor seal may be depleted. 
Consideration of a designation as depleted seems appropriate.
    Response: As noted in the section on Current Population Trend, this 
stock, despite positive growth in some areas, remains small compared to 
its size in the 1970s and 1980s. Scientists at the Alaska Fisheries 
Science Center are currently undertaking a review of the status of this 
stock. Based on the results of this research, NMFS will develop a 
recommendation for classification of this stock as healthy or depleted 
(as defined in the MMPA), or as endangered or threatened (as defined in 
the ESA) and should be listed. The status review should be completed by 
the end of fiscal year 1999. A recommendation regarding status should 
be available early in 2000.
    Comment 16: NMFS should use a Recovery Factor of 0.1 for the 
western stock of Steller sea lion.
    Response: If a recovery factor of 0.15 is used to set the PBR for a 
depleted population with an Rmax of 0.12 and if the PBR is 
not exceeded, the time to recovery will not be significantly different 
(i.e., greater than 10 percent) from a population with a PBR of zero 
from which no removals are allowed. Based on this information, and the 
recommendations of the Alaska SRG, a recovery factor of 0.15 was used 
in the 1998 SARs. However, it should be noted that, in the next 
revision of the SARs, NMFS has proposed using a recovery factor of 0.1 
for the western stock of Steller sea lions. This change was endorsed by 
the Alaska SRG at its most recent meeting in November 1998.
    Comment 17: Mortality of Steller sea lions was observed in the 
Bering Sea trawl fishery during unmonitored hauls, but was not included 
in any estimates of fishery-related deaths. These mortalities should be 
included as at least minimum estimates of mortality.
    Response: In general, adding mortalities that were observed in 
unmonitored hauls to the extrapolated estimate of total mortality 
(based on observed mortalities and the fraction of the hauls that were 
observed) will positively bias the estimate. For that reason, such data 
are not used in estimating total mortality for a given fishery. 
However, in certain situations, observed mortalities from unmonitored 
hauls are used. For example, if only one mortality was observed in an 
unmonitored haul (and no mortalities were observed in the monitored 
hauls), the estimate of total mortality for that fishery would be one 
(not zero). In general, observed mortalities from unmonitored hauls are 
used in the final estimate of total mortality whenever the total number 
of observed mortalities exceeds the estimated total mortality, based on 
data from monitored hauls and on the fraction of hauls observed.
    Comment 18: The Native harvest from the western stock of Steller 
sea lions is inappropriately high.
    Response: The mean annual harvest between 1993 and 1995 was 412 
animals, whereas the PBR for this stock (based on a PBR of 0.15) is 
350. The estimated fraction of the harvest that was female was 19 
percent. Therefore, the removal of an estimated 78 females per year 
from a conservative estimate of female abundance for this stock of 
19,400 (or approximately 0.4 percent) should not adversely affect its 
recovery. Further, the Native hunters in Alaska that utilize animals 
from this stock are very aware of declines in Steller sea lion 
abundance. This is reflected in the general decline of harvested 
animals from 1992 (549 animals) to 1995 (339 animals). This decline was 
caused by changes in the hunting practices of Native hunters, and not 
because of the unavailability of animals.
    Comment 19: Mortality due to shootings of animals from the eastern 
stock of Steller sea lions should be included in the total mortality 
estimate.
    Response: NMFS agrees, and made this change.

Comments on the Atlantic Stock Assessment Reports

    Comment 20: Closed fisheries (i.e., Atlantic pelagic pair trawl) 
should be excluded from the calculation of the annual fishery-related 
mortality.
    Response: The pair-trawl fishery mortality estimates were not 
excluded from the analysis because the observed fishery (1992-95) 
operated within the 5-year (1992-96) window used to determine the 
annual fishery-related mortality. This issue was discussed at the 
November 1998 Scientific Review Group Meeting, and it was agreed that 
the pair-trawl bycatch will be excluded from the calculation of the 
annual fishery-related mortality in future revisions of the SARs. 
Further, inclusion of the pair-trawl data (mortalities of common 
dolphin, pilot whales, Risso's dolphin, and offshore bottlenose 
dolphin) in the 1998 SARs does not affect the status designation for 
any stock.
    Comment 21: The 1997 and 1998 data/information pertaining to the 
Atlantic pelagic drift gillnet should be included, and the status of 
several stocks should be revised accordingly.
    Response: This information was not yet available when these 
revisions were drafted. The 1997 information will be incorporated in 
the next revision of the SARs. Annually, the status of each strategic 
stock is reviewed, based on the most current information that can be 
incorporated into the SARs.
    Comment 22: Information contained in the NMFS's Section 7 
Consultation on the Atlantic Pelagic Fishery (May 1997), and the 
document Managing the Nation's Bycatch (June 1998) should be 
incorporated into the 1998 SARs.
    Response: Information on observed bycatch of one humpback whale, 
one minke whale, and six pilot whales in

[[Page 8326]]

the 1996 tuna purse seine fishery have been incorporated into the SARs. 
Because there were no observed mortalities, these data will not appear 
in the SAR tables that present annual fishery-related mortality.
    Comment 23: References to now non-operational Canadian groundfish 
fisheries are inaccurate because the Canadian Government allowed 
limited harvests in 1997 and 1998.
    Response: The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) has 
recently requested information from Canadian scientists, regarding 
changes in Canadian marine mammal regulations and the current status of 
several fisheries. The NEFSC plans to incorporate the new information 
in the next revision of the SARs.
    Comment 24: The Atlantic SARs do not contain information on 
mortality in Canadian waters or data from strandings and fisher self-
reports (in contrast to Alaska SARs which contain this information).
    Response: Both NEFSC and the Southeast Fisheries Science Center 
(SEFSC) staff involved in preparing the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 
assessments will be participating in the spring 1999 joint SRG meeting. 
One of the discussion items will be consistency of the SARs. Also, 
NEFSC and SEFSC staff will review the format of the Alaska SARs. 
Several of the Atlantic SARs contain information on fishery-related 
mortality in Canadian waters. Once the northeast strandings data are 
computerized and verified, tabular summaries will be included in future 
SARs.
    Comment 25: Information on animals stranded or entangled in fishing 
gear is provided for some species, but these data have not been 
included in estimates of mortality and serious injury.
    Response: When NMFS releases final guidelines for determining 
serious injuries, these will be used to determine what fraction of the 
injured and released alive animals will be added to the estimates of 
annual mortality. For now, except for a few species (as described in 
the SARs), injured animals released alive are not considered seriously 
injured (an injury likely to lead to mortality).
    Comment 26: The ``text obs. data/logbook'' is given in the fishery 
mortality tables under the column heading ``Data Type'', but it would 
be preferable to separate observer data from self-reported data.
    Response: In those assessments under that heading, logbook data 
were only used in the determination of fishing effort; there are 
appropriate footnotes in the table columns explaining this.
    Comment 27: There is new information available on the status of the 
North Atlantic right whale population that was not included in the 
reports.
    Response: At the time the SARs were being finalized, the work 
referred to had yet to be peer reviewed. Given that such a review is 
now occurring, NMFS anticipates incorporating any such new information, 
if relevant, in the next revisions of the SARs.
    Comment 28: Other human-related mortalities of north Atlantic right 
whales beyond ship strike and entanglement, such as those from 1996, 
should be reported in the mortality table and text.
    Response: There are no conclusive data on human-related mortalities 
that do not relate to these two sources; therefore, the section on 
other human related mortality has been deleted from the text. The table 
lists only those animals for which human-related mortality or serious 
injury has been determined on the basis of the best available evidence. 
Since nothing this definitive can be stated regarding the other right 
whale mortalities from 1996, they remain listed within the text rather 
than the table.
    Comment 29: No Canadian right whale mortality data were included in 
the report. Also, this was inconsistent with other transboundary stock 
reports (i.e., minke whale).
    Response: NMFS agrees, and will address this point in the next 
revision of the SARs.
    Comment 30: The potential impact of whale watching vessels should 
be included in the humpback whale SAR.
    Response: A line was added regarding the potential for habitat 
disturbance from this source; it was noted that humpback whales have 
not been routinely hit by whale-watching vessels in the Massachusetts 
Bay region or elsewhere.
    Comment 31: Information on fishery interactions of blue whales 
should be included in the SAR.
    Response: A sentence has been added to reflect this concern.
    Comment 32: Fishery-related mortality and serious injury 
information of western North Atlantic fin whales should be reviewed and 
summarized in a table.
    Response: The number of confirmed records of fishery-related 
mortality and serious injury is insufficient at this time for a table 
to be produced. A review of fin whale records was conducted. Logistical 
problems relating to gathering original data from a variety of sources 
and the time required to edit these records and make Serious Injury 
determinations have precluded a definitive assessment at this time. 
However, a revised provisional estimate of mortality has been included 
in the SAR, which is given with the understanding that changes may be 
required in the future once all records have been vetted. NMFS 
anticipates this issue will be resolved in the next revision of the 
SARs.
    Comment 33: The proposed International Whaling Commission (IWC) 
stock definition for western North Atlantic sei whales should be 
described.
    Response: The comment prompted a review and revision of the 
management unit being used for Atlantic sei whales. The IWC definition 
follows that of Mitchell, who (rather than using a single western North 
Atlantic stock) hypothesizes the existence of two stocks, Nova Scotia 
and Labrador Sea. NMFS has included this definition in the amended text 
and has changed the management unit used in this section from western 
North Atlantic stock to Nova Scotia stock.
    Comment 34: The basis for the determination that the human-caused 
mortality of Atlantic sei whales is insignificant should be explained.
    Response: The reason for the belief concerning human-related 
mortality being insignificant is due to the rarity of reports of such 
mortality for this species. The text has been amended to clarify this.
    Comment 35: Documented mortalities of minke whales from strandings, 
entanglements, and ship strikes should be included in Table 2 in the 
SAR.
    Response: Table 2 has been used to summarize takes of species that 
were observed during a NMFS observer program. For some species (large 
whales in particular), another table has been included that describes 
in detail the strandings, entanglements and ship strikes of that 
species. Because such species as right whales are more critical, all 
the strandings, entanglement and ship strike records of minke whales 
have not yet been verified. Minke whale records are currently being 
validated; it is expected that a detailed table for minke whales will 
be included in the next revision of the SARs. It should also be noted 
that records of stranded or entangled animals that have gear from a 
fishery that is being observed cannot simply be added onto an estimated 
mortality for that fishery. The reason for this is that interaction is 
part of the estimated mortality that is already reported in Table 2 in 
the SAR. Comment 36: The statement in the Atlantic minke whale SAR 
that,

[[Page 8327]]

between 1979 and 1990, it was estimated that 15 percent of the Canadian 
minke whale takes were in salmon gillnets was questioned.
    Response: To clarify, the text has been modified to state ``In 
Newfoundland and Labrador, between 1979 and 1990, it was estimated that 
15 percent of the Canadian minke whale takes were in salmon gillnets, 
where a total of 124 minke whale interactions were documented in cod 
traps, groundfish gillnets, salmon gillnets, other gillnets and other 
traps.''
    Comment 37: The recovery factor used to calculate PBR for Atlantic 
minke whales was incorrect.
    Response: This typographical error, along with other such errors 
that were pointed out, has been corrected. Similar typographical errors 
for long-finned and short-finned pilot whales, Atlantic spotted 
dolphins, Pantropical spotted dolphins, common dolphin, Risso's 
dolphin, offshore bottlenose dolphin, and humpback whales were also 
corrected.
     Comment 38: Data on entangled Atlantic sperm whales should be 
presented in a tabular format similar to that used by the Alaska 
region.
     Response: Beginning with the next revision of the SARs, 
entanglement data will be presented in a tabular format identical to 
that used for the entanglement tables presented in the right whale and 
humpback whale assessments. 
    Comment 39: Regarding Cuvier's and mesoplodont beaked whales, it is 
inappropriate to provide a PBR for a stock based on the 
undifferentiated complex of beaked whales, and it is further noted that 
this is not a standard wildlife practice. Additionally, footnote 5 in 
Table 2 in the SAR (on fishing mortality) is unclear.
    Response: The issue of using an undifferentiated beaked whale 
abundance estimate has been raised on several occasions. As noted in 
previous responses, at-sea identification of beaked whales is 
difficult, although the NEFSC is making progress on this. The utility 
of a pooled abundance estimate has been reviewed and supported by the 
Atlantic SRG. However, the SRG has recommended that NEFSC continue to 
collect and evaluate data (i.e., photographs, swimming profiles, 
coloration, etc.) that can be used during abundance surveys to identify 
beaked whale sightings.
    Footnote 5 in Table 2 in the SAR clearly indicates how the data on 
the one 1995 unsampled pelagic drift gillnet vessel were used in the 
calculation of estimated mortality. The SEFSC data were taken at face 
value, and the point estimate was increased by 0.1 animals.
     Comment 40: The Nmin for western north Atlantic pilot 
whales published in the Federal Register (63 FR 39817, July 24, 1998) 
was different from the number cited in the draft SAR. The larger number 
in the Federal Register document should be used because of the size of 
the eastern Atlantic population and because of an article in the Wall 
Street Journal (October 13, 1998) stating a journalist's observation of 
vast pods of pilot whales. Further, Canadian abundance estimates should 
be incorporated into the SA, and Canadian assessments for transboundary 
stocks should be incorporated into the assessments.
    Response: The Nmin reported in the Federal Register 
document was incorrect; the correct estimate of Nmin is 
4,968, based on the 1995 survey estimate of the best population 
estimate (Nbest) of 8,176. The 1995 survey, which included Canadian 
waters, was designed to cover important habitats for several strategic 
stocks, including pilot whales. Although, known pilot whale habitat on 
Georges Bank was not completely surveyed in August 1995 due to 
Hurricane Felix, it is extremely unlikely that pilot whale densities in 
the non-surveyed area would significantly increase the estimate of 
Nbest. Although long-finned pilot whales occur in the western and 
eastern Atlantic Ocean, and perhaps in the Baltic Sea, stock boundaries 
are unknown. Combining eastern and western Atlantic abundance estimates 
(i.e., assuming one stock) would create an indefensible management 
unit, based on both biological and habitat considerations. Relative to 
reports of vast pods of pilot whales, these data cannot be quantified 
or examined in the context of protocols followed in a formally designed 
abundance survey. Excluding area-specific species surveys for several 
marine mammal stocks (harbor porpoise, beluga whales, grey seals, harp 
seals, and hooded seals), Canada has not conducted broad scale (i.e., 
Scotian Shelf) marine mammal abundance surveys. The only current data 
available for the Scotian Shelf was collected during the NEFSC 1995 
summer surveys. Data from these surveys have been included in the SARs.
    Comment 41: Regarding Atlantic short-finned pilot whales, a request 
was made to provide some measure of effort for bycatch by Spanish deep 
water trawlers observed off the Grand Banks, and to explain the basis 
for classifying four strandings from 1987 to August 1996 as likely 
caused by fishery interactions.
    Response: The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 
(ICES) paper by Lens (1997) was reviewed, and a measure of effort 
(kills/set) was derived and incorporated into the SAR. Similarly, 
effort data were incorporated into the pilot whale, common dolphin, 
striped dolphin, and white-sided dolphin assessments. The basis for 
classifying four of the stranded short-finned pilot whales as likely 
caused by fishery interactions will require a review of the SEFSC 
stranding records. Such a review has been requested. Comment 42: In the 
Atlantic Risso's dolphin SAR, the text and serious injury should be 
removed from the section Annual Human-caused Mortality because serious 
injuries were not included in the estimate of fishery mortality. 
Additionally, concern was expressed about an inconsistency in the 
longline mortality data (Table 2), a lack of 1996 pelagic longline 
data, a need for a definition for serious injury, and a clarification 
on how animals caught and released alive in the pelagic long line 
fishery were determined to be injured or uninjured.
     Response: To avoid confusion, the text and ``serious injury'' have 
been deleted from the sentence in that section of the SAR. A similar 
modification was also made for long-finned and short-finned pilot 
whales. The inconsistency in Table 2 for the longline fishery has been 
corrected. There was one mortality observed in 1994. The SEFSC has 
recently revised the bycatch analysis of the 1992 through 1997 pelagic 
longline fishery. A draft manuscript has been circulated to the NMFS 
Science Centers and to the Office of Protected Resources for review, 
and it was also presented at the November 1998 SRG meeting. These new 
analyses will be presented in the next revision of the SARs. 
Furthermore, the SEFSC has recently developed a new group to conduct 
analysis of protected species bycatch from the pelagic longline and 
other fisheries. This will result in data being available in a more 
timely manner. A description of an animal's condition at the time of 
release was made by the observers. The observer's comments for each 
animal are contained in the Table 3 footnotes.
    Comment 43: Clarification was requested on the SARs for long-finned 
and short-finned pilot whales regarding Table 2, footnote 8 (effort 
data are currently under review) and Table 3, footnote 2 (animal 
released alive with moderate injury).
     Response: The superscript for footnote 8, Table 2 has been added 
into Table 2. It pertains to an evaluation of

[[Page 8328]]

effort for the Atlantic squid, mackerel, butterfish trawl fishery. The 
determination of animal condition was made by the observers. The 
observers make the determination based on a list of conditions 
contained on the biological sampling forms. It cannot be determined 
whether the condition code for ``moderate injury'' is synonymous with 
``serious injury'' because the selected code is based on the observer's 
best judgement of an animal released from the gear.
    Comment 44: A mortality estimate for common dolphin from the mid-
Atlantic coastal sink gillnet fishery was not presented.
     Response: Although bycatch of common dolphins has been observed in 
the mid-Atlantic coastal sink gillnet fishery, extrapolated mortality 
estimates were not presented because fishery effort is under review. 
This issue was reviewed at the November 1998 SRG meeting and will be 
addressed in the next revision of the SARs.
    Comment 45: Text for Atlantic white-sided dolphins states that 
``between 1990 and 1996 there were 35 mortalities observed in the New 
England multispecies sink gill net fishery,'' whereas Table 2 indicates 
34 mortalities were observed.
     Response: Both statements are correct. The explanation is in 
footnote 3 for Table 2, which states that one additional white-sided 
dolphin was observed taken in a pinger trip in 1994 (thus 35 
mortalities), but the animals observed in pinger trips are added 
directly to the estimated total bycatch for that year because the 
observer coverage of pinger trips in 1994 was much higher than for 
other parts of the fishery during the same year. Thus, 34 white-sided 
dolphins were used in the estimation process, and 35 dolphins were 
observed taken.
     Comment 46: Concern was expressed regarding the grouping of 
Atlantic spotted dolphins and Pantropical spotted dolphins into an 
undifferentiated group.
     Response: As noted in previous responses, the grouping of the two 
spotted dolphins into an undifferentiated group for determining PBR and 
stock status has been reviewed and recommended by the SRG. Until the 
NEFSC and SEFSC can develop methods (particularly based on visual cues) 
it will be difficult to separate the two species at sea. During the 
1998 surveys, the Centers collected photographic and biopsy data to 
help separate the sightings data. Also, fishery observers are 
instructed to collect tissue samples from bycaught animals.
    Comment 47: Text pertaining to the 1991 mortality of striped 
dolphins in the North Atlantic Bottom Trawl Fishery should be 
maintained.
     Response: Although the data were removed from Table 1, information 
on this interaction will remain in the section titled Fisheries 
Information.
    Comment 48: Mortality data for bottlenose dolphins in the mid-
Atlantic coastal sink gillnet data provided to the Atlantic SRG (May 
1998), which appeared in an earlier draft SAR for offshore bottlenose 
dolphins, were not included in the draft 1998 SAR that was put out for 
public review. Further, because an updated SAR for the Atlantic coastal 
stock was not presented, the mortality data are unavailable for public 
review. Information on the number of stranded animals was also not 
presented.
     Response: At the November 1998 SRG Meeting, NEFSC presented a 
revised analysis of the bottlenose dolphin bycatch in the mid-Atlantic 
coastal sink gillnet fishery. The NEFSC review raised several question 
regarding effort extrapolations, and stock origin of the observed 
bycatch. Based on the SRG review, the NEFSC will re-examine the 
procedures used to estimate annual mortality. These data will be 
presented in the next revision of the SARs. Although NMFS concurs that 
standings data should be included in the assessments, data on the total 
number of bottlenose strandings per year and information on possible 
fishery interactions are still under review. The northeast strandings 
data have not been completely computerized and verified. An unknown 
number of the stranded animals were taken to research facilities for 
further examination, therefore information on possible cause of the 
mortalities and species identification (coastal or offshore form) 
contained in the initial written stranding reports may be revised. Once 
the northeast reports are computerized, the data will be cross 
referenced with other data bases.
    Comment 49: The default value for Rmax is still used for 
the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise when a new manuscript indicates that 
a different value may be appropriate.
     Response: The value of Rmax should be either the 
default value if no information is available or the best scientifically 
reviewed information. Because the new manuscript was not yet published 
when the final SAR was being prepared, the Atlantic SRG could not 
review this new information. Also, because the value proposed is over 
two times the default value and is partly based on survival data from 
such terrestrial species as elephants, it is critical the new 
information be carefully reviewed before going into the SAR. Thus, the 
steps are to review this new information at the spring 1999 Atlantic 
SRG meeting and then consider incorporating this new information into 
the next revision of the SAR.
    Comment 50: A caveat should be included in the harbor porpoise 
Annual Human-caused Mortality section that clarifies that the mortality 
estimates are likely downwardly biased because data are absent for some 
mid-Atlantic fisheries.
     Response: A statement was added to clarify that point.
    Comment 51: The average annual mortality of harbor porpoises in the 
draft 1998 SAR differs from the mortality estimate in the Environmental 
Assessment (EA) dated June 15, 1998. The explanation for the difference 
is apparently that the averages are from different years and the EA 
includes Canadian takes. However, NMFS must include all sources of 
mortality for a trans-boundary stock in the SAR.
     Response: The commenter is correct; the two mortality estimates 
are different for the exact stated reasons. At the most recent meeting 
of the Atlantic SRG, this issue was discussed, and it was recommended 
that Canadian takes be included in the required estimate of total 
human-caused mortality for the stock. This will be addressed in the 
next revision of the SARs.
    Comment 52: In the harbor porpoise stock assessment, strandings 
should be added into each year in which they occurred as a minimum 
estimate of mortality. A separate chart showing strandings by year 
should be included in the SAR.
     Response: A separate chart showing strandings by year could be 
included in the SAR however, the information in that table will 
probably be misinterpreted. The reason is that strandings of harbor 
porpoises take place during areas and times when fisheries are being 
observed to take harbor porpoises. This is especially true for 1995 and 
1996, the years included in this SAR. Thus, there is a good chance that 
at least some (and possibly all) of the human-caused strandings are 
coming from the observed fishery and, so, have already been counted. 
Because of this, strandings should not be added to the mortality 
estimates for that year. However, for the next SAR that will include 
1997 data, NMFS will investigate to ensure that takes were observed in 
times and areas in which strandings have been documented. If there are 
cases where gillnet-caused strandings are in areas and times when there 
is either no observer coverage or

[[Page 8329]]

no observed takes, these strandings will be added to the estimated 
mortality from the gillnet fishery. Strandings that appear to be caused 
by a fishery that has not been observed will be added to the other 
fishery-related mortality estimates. A table reporting these type of 
strandings will then be included in the SAR.
    Comment 53: The statement in the SAR, under the Current Population 
Trend for harbor porpoises, that says it is not possible to determine a 
trend is incorrect. The reason is that, in October 1998, NMFS published 
a notice that cites a population viability analysis that projects a 
high probability of extinction within 100 years at the current rate of 
take. Thus, this clearly indicates a downward trend in the population.
     Response: The information to be reported in the Current Population 
Trend section is on current (or recent past) observed trends. It is not 
meant for the reporting of potential future trends if the current level 
of bycatch continues. Additionally, the analysis mentioned was written 
after the draft SAR was finished. After the 1999 harbor porpoise 
abundance survey is completed, an analysis investigating trends from 
1991 to 1999 will be conducted. The results of this trend analysis will 
then be reported in this section at a later date.
    Comment 54: Discrepancies were noted in the Atlantic Harbor seal 
and gray seal SARs under the following sections: Current Population 
Trend; Potential Biological Removal; Status of Stock; and Optimum 
Sustainable Population (OSP).
     Response: The text in the harbor seal PBR section was revised to 
``The recovery factor for this stock is 1.0, the value for stocks with 
unknown population status, but known to be increasing.'' NMFS believes 
that recovery factor of 1.0 rather than 0.5 (default value) is 
justified based on current data on abundance and population growth 
rates. The reference to OSP, which is unknown, has been deleted. 
Similar modifications were made to the gray seal, harp, and hooded seal 
SARs.
     Comment 55: Information on harbor seal mortality in aquaculture 
facilities and power plants and on strandings should be presented in 
tabular form and included with fishery-related mortality as minimum 
estimates of mortality.
     Response: When the northeast strandings data are computerized and 
verified, they will be used to generate tabular summaries. If 
documented, non fishery-related sources of human-induced mortality will 
be added to the annual mortality estimates in future assessments.
     Comment 56: The deleted text pertaining to hunting gray seals in 
Canadian waters should be left in the report. Also, strandings data for 
gray seals should be presented in tabular form.
     Response: The text in question will be left in the 1998 SAR. 
Further, the NEFSC has contacted Canadian officials to obtain updated 
information on current rules and regulations regarding seal hunting.
     Comment 57: Several estimates of harp seal abundance were included 
for 1990, but there was no explanation of the data. Also, it was not 
clear whether these estimates represented the best abundance estimates 
(Nbest) or the minimum abundance estimates 
(Nmin). Additionally, estimates of Canadian kill should be 
included.
     Response: The text in the section Population Size was edited to 
explain the differences in the 1990 data. One estimate is for pups, and 
two independent estimates of total population were derived using pup 
counts and various assumptions on mortality. Details are in the 
referenced papers. The data presented in Table 1 are appropriate for 
Nmin. The assessment contains information on the Canadian commercial 
hunt.
     Comment 58: Population estimates from Shelton et al. (1996) were 
not mentioned in the harp seal section titled Population Size.
     Response: The population estimates by Shelton et al. (1996) have 
been incorporated into the text in the Population Size section. 
    Comment 59: A request was made for additional data on the cause of 
hooded seal strandings.
     Response: Most of the stranded hooded seals are yearlings; 
annually, adults account for less than 10 of the total. Researchers at 
the New England Aquarium have been monitoring ice seal strandings for 
nearly a decade, but have not identified a singular cause for the 
strandings.
    Comments on the Pacific Stock Assessment Reports
    Comment 60: The FWS and NMFS should jointly publish SARs that have 
been considered by both agencies.
    Response: Although both agencies see a clear advantage to this, the 
internal review systems in each agency are not synchronized, and, in 
the past, a joint publication would have significantly delayed the 
publication of the SARs from one agency. In the Pacific Region, joint 
publication on the Internet is being considered as an alternative to a 
joint printed publication.
     Comment 61: Because the tables provided in Appendix 2 of the 
Pacific SARs do not present estimates of PBR for stocks that were not 
revised this year, one cannot compare PBR with estimated mortality.
     Response: The established PBR for a stock changes only when the 
SARs are revised. The intent of the table is to show the information on 
which NMFS based its MMPA review of which stock assessments to revise. 
If putative (conditional on published revision) PBR values were 
presented in that table, the public would be likely to confuse these 
with the actual PBR from previously published reports.
    Comment 62: The lack of abundance and mortality data for Hawaii is 
unacceptable, given that there are known fishery interactions with 
marine mammals.
     Response: Estimates of marine mammal mortality and injury in the 
Hawaii-based long-line fishery will be available in the near future, 
but were not available for the 1998 revisions. Cetacean abundances from 
Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC)-sponsored aerial surveys 
are being estimated and are expected to be available for the 1999 
revisions to the SARs for Hawaiian cetaceans. A large-scale ship survey 
of Hawaiian waters is being planned for 2001.
    Comment 63: The recovery factor for minke whales should not have 
been changed from 0.40 to 0.45.
     Response: The recovery factor was justifiably changed from 0.40 to 
0.45 because the coefficient of variation of the mortality estimate 
improved from 0.91 to 0.67. This change was based on recommendations 
made in the original guidelines for preparing SARs and estimating PBR 
(Barlow et al., 1995).
     Comment 64: An estimate of harbor porpoise mortality in Canadian 
waters should be provided for the Inland Washington stock, as is done 
for the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock, or an explanation of why it 
cannot be provided.
     Response: Unlike in the Bay of Fundy, the Provincial government in 
British Columbia does not estimate the number of harbor porpoise 
incidentally taken in their waters; therefore, the assessment states 
that the number taken in southern British Columbia waters is not known. 
The abundance estimate for this stock also includes only U.S. waters.
    Comment 65: It is inappropriate to lump multiple species into a 
single stock, as was done for Mesoplodont Beaked Whales.
     Response: NMFS is aware that it is inappropriate to lump species 
together to obtain a pooled PBR; however, because field identification 
is usually impossible, this appears to be the only

[[Page 8330]]

practical alternative. This approach will achieve species-specific 
conservation objectives if gillnets are not selective and if they take 
species in proportion to their abundance. Evidence to date supports 
this assumption.
    Comment 66: A new SAR should have been produced for Hawaiian Monk 
Seals.
     Response: The MMPA requires that new information be reviewed every 
year for all strategic stocks, but it only requires a new report if 
such a review indicates that the status of the stock has changed or can 
be more accurately determined. The review by NMFS (in collaboration 
with the Pacific Scientific Review Group, PSRG) indicated that the new 
information available in 1997 did not warrant a revision at that time. 
A new SAR for monk seals was reviewed at the Fall 1998 meeting of the 
PSRG and will be available soon for public comment.
    Comment 67: The effects of the recent El Nino should be included in 
the reports for the Oregon and Washington coast and inland Washington 
stocks of Harbor seal, and the San Miguel Island stock of northern fur 
seal.
     Response: The 1998 SARs include data only through the first half 
of 1997; therefore, no attempt is made to assess the impact of the 
1997-98 El Nino. This information will be included in future revisions.
    Comment 68: Regarding the inland Washington stock of harbor seal, 
NMFS should re-establish an observer program for treaty gillnet boats.
     Response: Takes from the Northern Washington marine set gillnet 
fishery (treaty) and most segments of the Washington Puget Sound salmon 
set/drift gillnet fishery (treaty and non-treaty) are included in Table 
1 and used to calculate the mortality for the stock. Also included in 
the table are additional data for the Washington Puget Sound salmon 
set/drift gillnet fishery, from fisher self-reports. Since the observer 
data are considered more reliable than the fisher self-reported data, 
the observer data was used in the mortality calculation.

    Dated: February 12, 1999.
Hilda Diaz-Soltero,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 99-4137 Filed 2-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F