[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15081-15087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-6452]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 121500C]


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 final marine mammal 
stock assessment reports; response to comments.

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

SUMMARY:  NMFS has incorporated public comments into revisions of 
marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs). The 2000 final SARs are 
now complete and 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: Anita 
Lopez, Alaska Fisheries Science Center (F/AKC), NMFS, 7600 Sand Point 
Way, NE BIN 15700, Seattle, WA 98115-0070 (Alaska); or Richard Merrick, 
Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543 
(Atlantic); or Tim Price, Southwest Regional Office (F/SWO3), NMFS, 501 
West Ocean

[[Page 15082]]

Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 (Pacific).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Eagle, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS,(301) 713-2322, ext. 105; Anita Lopez (206) 526-4045, 
regarding Alaska regional stock assessments; Tim Price, (562) 980-4020, 
regarding Pacific regional stock assessments; and Richard Merrick, 
(508) 495-2291, 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.) required 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 and serious injury 
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 also requires NMFS and FWS to review these reports 
annually or every 3 years for non-strategic stocks and revise them if 
the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately 
determined. These updated reports represent the 2000 revisions of 
reports for which NMFS is responsible.
    Draft 2000 SARs were made available for a 90-day public review and 
comment period on May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31520). Prior to their release 
for public review and comment, NMFS subjected the draft reports to 
internal technical review and to scientific review by regional 
Scientific Review Groups (SRGs) established under the MMPA. Following 
the close of the comment period, NMFS revised the reports as needed to 
prepare final 2000 SARs. Printed copies may be obtained by request (see 
ADDRESSES).
    In response to a request from the three regional SRGs, NMFS 
appended the most recent copies of the SARs for polar bears, sea 
otters, walrus, and manatees to NMFS' final 2000 SARs. These reports 
were prepared by the FWS and were included so that interested 
constituents would have reports for all regional stocks in a single 
document.

Response to Comments

    NMFS received four letters containing comments on the draft 2000 
SARs. Each letter contained multiple comments, and three of these 
letters addressed reports on stocks in each of the three regional 
reports. Other comments were related to national issues common among 
the regional reports. The comments and responses below are separated 
according to the regional scope of the comments. A few of these 
comments addressed minor editorial suggestions for specific reports, 
and these are not included below

National

    Comment 1: Many comments recommended additional research, 
monitoring, or conservation measures based on information contained in 
the draft SARs. For example, several comments noted that mortality 
estimates of some stocks were not reliable because adequate observer 
programs had not been implemented in several fisheries. Others stated 
that NMFS must convene additional take reduction teams.
    Response: NMFS understands that abundance and mortality estimates 
for many stocks of marine mammals are less precise or current than if 
they were based on additional information. Such a situation is the 
unfortunate consequence of a finite budget and many conservation 
issues. NMFS prioritizes abundance estimates according to the age and 
precision of the estimate and the estimated mortality level, 
particularly mortality incidental to commercial fishing interactions. 
When annual mortality is considered to be relatively small, the 
priority for updating the estimate is low. In those cases in which a 
low mortality rate (e.g., less than 10 per year) exceeds a Potential 
Biological Removal (PBR) level calculated from an abundance estimate 
that included only a small part of the stock's range (e.g., false 
killer whale, Hawaiian stock), the priority for obtaining an abundance 
estimate is low relative to many other situations. Other than a 
rotating observer program in the Alaska Region, existing observer 
programs are tied directly to existing take reduction plans. NMFS will 
not be able to implement large, new observer programs until new funds 
are available or until the success of the current take reduction plans 
makes the associated observer programs unnecessary. Although NMFS 
recognizes that fishery-related mortality exceeds PBR in some stocks of 
marine mammals, no new take reduction team, other than one for the 
coastal stock of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins, can be convened until 
additional funds are appropriated or until funds can be redirected from 
existing take reduction plans that have been declared successful.
    Comment 2: The SARs include many stocks of marine mammals with 
abundance estimates that are at least 5 years old. According to the 
guidelines for developing SARs, the calculated PBR values should be 
decreased by 20 percent per year when minimum population estimates are 
more than 5 years old. The commenter encourages NMFS to follow these 
guidelines throughout the SARs and to schedule population surveys to 
obtain current abundance estimates for management and to avoid these 
default PBRs and their possible impacts on fisheries. Other comments 
also noted abundance estimates that were old and recommended that PBR 
be changed to zero for several stocks of marine mammals nationally.
    Response: NMFS and FWS prepared guidelines for the initial stock 
assessment reports in 1995 and included a provision for reducing the 
PBR where abundance estimates were more than 5 years old. NMFS and FWS 
reviewed these guidelines, in consultation with the regional SRGs, 
after the initial reports were completed to evaluate how well the 
guidelines were performing and to revise as appropriate. Following the 
review, the guidelines were revised to state that abundance estimates 
older than 8 years are not reliable indicators of the current number of 
marine mammals in the affected stock. The revised guidelines state that 
PBR will be undefined when abundance estimates are more than 8 years 
old. All assessment reports and the guidelines for preparing them are 
available electronically (see Electronic Access).
    Comment 3: There is an inconsistency to the cycle in which regions 
revise stock assessments. For example, Alaska has revised some stock 
assessments while the Pacific Region revised all stock assessments. 
Some stocks may be experiencing declines or other significant impacts 
and warrant more frequent review.
    Response: MMPA section 117(c) provides that SARs are to be reviewed 
based on an established schedule (at least annually for strategic 
stocks or stocks for which significant new information is available; at 
least once every 3 years for all other stocks). When it is determined, 
based on review, that the status of the stock has changed or can be 
more accurately determined, the SAR must be revised. The Pacific SRG 
requested that reports for non-strategic stocks be reviewed as a group 
every 3 years. The Alaska SRG requested that NMFS review and revise, as 
needed, one third of the reports annually so that each is reviewed 
every 3 years. Thus, the reports for non-strategic stocks in

[[Page 15083]]

both regions are reviewed and updated, as needed, every 3 years.
    Comment 4: All regions s hould provide two summary charts in the 
revised SARs. The first should show which portions of which stock 
assessments had been revised. The second chart would provide a summary 
of the fisheries in each region.
    Response: NMFS will attempt to include these summary tables in 
future SARs.

Alaska Regional SAR

    Comment 1: The lack of monitoring in a number of coastal gillnet 
fisheries appears likely to lead to an underestimate of mortality in 
harbor porpoise stocks.
    Response: NMFS clearly indicates in each harbor porpoise SAR that 
the estimates of mortality in these stocks are underestimated because 
of a lack of monitoring of coastal fisheries.
    Comment 2: The commenter noted that the Gulf of Alaska harbor seal 
stock is not considered strategic at this time. However, because of the 
ongoing decline in this stock and the discussion of the need to split 
the stock into smaller management units, NMFS should consider this 
stock strategic and review the SAR annually.
    Response: NMFS reviews its new information regularly. If 
significant new information became available that would allow the 
status of the harbor seal stocks to be described more accurately, then 
NMFS would update the reports as a result of the new information. In 
addition, it should be noted that, although this stock appears to be at 
a lower population level than estimated during the 1970s and 1980s, 
there is little evidence that the stock is currently declining.
    Comment 3:The commenter suggested that NMFS consider changing the 
stock structure of Dall's porpoise to indicate a delineation between 
the Bering Sea and western North Pacific and that there may also be 
sufficient information to delineate an eastern North Pacific stock of 
Dall's porpoise.
    Response: NMFS will consider this comment during the next review of 
this stock in 2002. The pertinent information has not been sufficiently 
reviewed to include in the final 2000 SAR.
    Comment 4:  The commenter noted that there are no data provided on 
the subsistence harvest of northern fur seals during 1997 and 1998. 
This should be remedied.
    Response: NMFS agrees and will include the information in the 2001 
SAR.
    Comment 5: There is currently no PBR established for the northern 
right whale stock in the north Pacific due to lack of information about 
population size. The commenter recommended that the PBR for this stock 
of right whales be set at zero as it has been for the western North 
Atlantic stock.
    Response: The PBR for the western North Atlantic stock of right 
whales has been set to zero because the population is small and appears 
to be declining. Because no minimum population level or trend is 
currently available for the eastern North Pacific stock of northern 
right whales, a PBR cannot be calculated at this time. When sufficient 
information becomes available, NMFS would include a PBR estimate in the 
report.
    Comment 6: The reports for minke whales and fin whales have not 
been revised, despite the fact that the fin whale stock is a strategic 
stock and the minke whale SAR has not been revised since 1997.
    Response: NMFS reviews the SAR for the fin whale stock every year. 
However, because no new information has become available on the fin 
whale or the minke whale stocks, the SARs have not been updated. The 
SAR must be updated when the status of the stock has changed or new 
information allows its status to be determined more accurately. NMFS, 
however, tries to include any new information when it becomes 
available.
    Comment 7: At this time, the SAR for bowhead whales includes 
estimates of the subsistence harvest only through 1996. These estimates 
are provided annually to the International Whaling Commission, and NMFS 
should update the information in the SAR.
    Response: NMFS agrees and will include the information in the 2001 
SAR.
     Comment 8: NMFS should consider developing an index of abundance 
for those stocks for which entire population estimates will be very 
difficult to obtain.
    Response:  NMFS uses minimum abundance estimates, which may be 
based upon surveys of only a portion of the stock's range, when 
information is available. Section 117(a) gives detailed guidance on the 
information to be included in SARs, and the guidance does not include 
indices of abundance.

Cook Inlet Beluga Whales

    Comment 1: NMFS should include details of the new correction factor 
that has been applied to the counts of beluga whales in Cook Inlet in 
the stock assessment report. Information related to the new correction 
factor should be published for review.
    Response: The SARs are designed to be a brief report on the status 
of the stock, including summaries of specific information required in 
the MMPA. For brevity and clarity, the details and methods used to 
prepare the various estimates in the reports are not included in the 
SAR; rather, interested readers may use the cited references that 
include such detail. Pertinent description of the new correction factor 
can be found in Hobbs et al. 1999, which is currently in review and 
should be published soon. In the interim, a copy of the paper may be 
obtained by contacting NMFS (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Comment 2: One commenter indicated the draft SAR is in error 
because it indicates that early estimates of the beluga whale 
population, such as those in Klinkhart (1966) and Calkins (1983), are 
uncorrected counts rather than population estimates corrected for 
animals that were underwater at the time of the survey.
    Response: NMFS has conducted a review of the literature on which 
this statement is based and is confident that the draft SAR 
appropriately characterizes the early estimates as direct counts of 
individuals. Although Klinkhart (1966) does not identify whether the 
numbers provided are direct counts or estimates, Calkins (1987) clearly 
refers to the numbers reported in Klinkhart (1996) and other reports as 
being direct counts that do not account for animals that were missed 
during the survey.
    Comment 3: Delete the statement that indicated a retraction of the 
range of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet.
    Response: This statement on the range of the beluga stock is based 
on a thorough review of reports and data on beluga whale distribution 
in Cook Inlet in June and July collected through 1999. Beluga were 
sighted frequently in the central and lower regions of Cook Inlet in 
June/July during the 1970s and 1980s. In contrast, virtually no beluga 
have been found in central or lower Cook Inlet during June/July since 
1995. These observations support the statement made in the SAR; 
however, the text of the SAR was modified to specify that the between-
year comparisons of beluga distribution are being made for June/July 
only.
     Comment 4: The only ``habitat concerns'' listed in the SAR 
pertains to the oil and gas industry and imply ``adverse impacts'' 
related to planned lease sales. This section should be updated to 
reflect the conclusions in the Federal Register notice which announced 
that listing of the Cook Inlet beluga stock under the ESA was not 
warranted.

[[Page 15084]]

    Response: NMFS agrees, and the text has been updated.
    Comment 5: NMFS should adhere to the SRG's recommendation and set 
the recovery factor for Cook Inlet beluga whales at 0.1.
    Response: A recovery factor of 0.3 is appropriate. The stock was 
listed as depleted under the MMPA in 2000, and a depleted designation 
is typically associated with a recovery factor of 0.5. Thus, using a 
recovery factor of 0.3 is conservative relative to the typical approach 
used for depleted stocks. Recent observer programs have not documented 
any injuries or mortalities of this stock incidental to commercial 
salmon gillnet fisheries in Cook Inlet. Further, the available evidence 
on contaminants and prey availability indicates that these are not 
likely to be a factor in the observed decline of Cook Inlet beluga 
whales. Therefore, the only known significant human-related mortality 
source for this stock is subsistence harvest. This harvest has been 
substantially reduced through legislation and cooperative efforts 
between NMFS and Alaska Native hunters. Because the only source of 
human-related mortality is being adequately addressed, it is 
unnecessarily conservative to take additional measures to further 
reduce the PBR by reducing the recovery factor below the recommended 
level of 0.3.
    Comment 6: The status of listings and legal action should be 
updated in the final SAR.
    Response: SARs must include information on the status of marine 
mammal stocks. Under this general guidance, NMFS typically includes the 
latest information on any designations under the MMPA or ESA. Thus, the 
SAR for the Cook Inlet stock of beluga whales was changed to show that 
the stock has been designated as depleted under the MMPA. However, 
including information on pending legal action does not provide 
information on the status of the stock, so this information is not 
included in the SAR.
    Comment 7: The omission of 1997 and 1998 estimates of the range of 
the subsistence harvest is troubling.
    Response: A range of the subsistence harvest is not provided for 
1997 and 1998 because the best available information allows only a 
point estimate for each year.

Steller Sea Lions

    Comment 1: NMFS selected a recovery factor of 0.75 for the eastern 
Steller sea lion stock. Given that this stock is listed as threatened 
and is likely to remain so, NMFS should use the more conservative 
recovery factor of 0.5 for this stock, as it has for other threatened 
marine mammal stocks.
    Response: The eastern stock is relatively large and appears to be 
stable in some areas, increasing in others, and decreasing only in 
California; therefore, a recovery factor of 0.75 is reasonable. The 
Alaska SRG reviewed this recovery factor and concurred with its use.
    Comment 2: The draft SAR for the eastern stock of Steller sea lions 
indicates that counts made during 1996 were used as the best estimate 
of minimum population size. The draft SAR also indicates that, in the 
next revision, NMFS will combine counts from a partial survey conducted 
in 1998 with counts from another partial survey in 1999 to provide a 
total count for the entire stock. The commenter suggests combining 1998 
counts with 1996 counts in the final SAR for 2000 to ensure that the 
count data are as updated as possible.
    Response: The steps NMFS uses in preparing and releasing SARs 
include review of the draft reports and associated information by SRGs 
prior to soliciting public review and comment. When a comment requests 
substantive information or analyses be included in a SAR, it would 
cause a long delay to obtain SRG review of reports that have been 
revised following public review and comment. Because the reports are 
revised according to a schedule outlined in the MMPA, substantive 
changes to draft SARs would more efficiently be included in the next 
cycle of review and revision. Therefore, the 2001 revision will include 
the new estimates and will be made available for public review and 
comment after review by the Alaska SRG
    Comment 3: The commenter notes that NMFS included mortality from 
Canadian aquaculture operations in its summary of annual mortality 
estimates for the eastern stock.
    Response: Comment noted.
    Comment 4: The PBR level for the western stock of Steller sea lions 
should be zero in order to be consistent with other regions whose 
endangered stocks are currently declining; it is also inappropriate to 
use a positive maximum productivity value for a stock that is 
declining.
    Response: NMFS continues to use the PBR level included in the draft 
SAR. The abundance of this stock is much higher than that of the other 
endangered stocks that are declining (e.g., Hawaiian monk seal and 
western North Atlantic right whale); therefore, the use of a zero PBR 
level is not necessary for the Western U.S. stock of Steller sea lions.
    Comment 5: Subsistence harvest data are included only for 1993-
1995. The lack of data from 1996-1998 represents a large time lag which 
confounds the understanding of the status of the western stock and the 
relative contribution of various sources of mortality to the ongoing 
decline. NMFS should address the problem of incomplete or disputed kill 
data.
    Response: Reliable harvest data for 1996-1998 are currently not 
available.
    Comment 6: NMFS should address the fact that the subsistence 
harvest of the western stock (412 annual average) is well in excess of 
the calculated PBR (234).
    Response: Although harvest estimates for 1996-1998 are not 
reliable, precise estimates, it appears that recent harvest levels are 
well below the average value shown in the SAR. In addition, NMFS is 
working with appropriate Alaska Native organizations to ensure that 
harvest levels for Steller sea lions are sustainable.
    Comment 7: There is no mention made of strandings in this stock 
assessment. If there are no animals found stranded from this stock, 
this should be clearly stated in the SAR.
    Response: According to NMFS' records, there have been some 
strandings of individuals from the western stock of Steller sea lion. 
This information will be updated in the 2001 SARs.
    Comment 8: Steller sea lions (western U.S. stock) have been 
intentionally killed to reduce perceived damage to commercial fishing 
gear and catch in Japanese waters. If this is still the case, then the 
``Other Mortality'' section of the SAR should be expanded to provide 
information on this source of mortality.
    Response:  Estimates of this intentional mortality will be included 
in the draft 2001 SARs.

Gray Whales

    Comment 1: NMFS should update the gray whale SAR to include the 
recent gray whale strandings observed along the migratory path and the 
reduced birth rate observed in 2000 compared with those in previous 
years.
    Response: At this time, NMFS has been preparing reports presenting 
information on the gray whale strandings. Unfortunately, these reports 
will not be finalized in time to include the results in the SAR for 
2000. NMFS includes a brief update of the recent stranding level in the 
2000 SAR and will provide a full discussion of the topic when the gray 
whale SAR next undergoes a comprehensive review.
    Comment 2:The inclusion of observations of entangled gray whales, 
including incidents that were not deemed ``serious injury'', was very

[[Page 15085]]

helpful in understanding the incidence of entanglements.
    Response: Comment noted.
    Comment 3: NMFS should include habitat concerns for the gray whale 
stock, including possible impacts of whale watching and issues of 
concern in Mexican breeding areas.
    Response: NMFS will consider this comment when the gray whale SAR 
next undergoes a comprehensive review and revision.

Atlantic Regional SAR

    Comment 1: In reference to a fin whale entanglement reported in the 
SAR, one commenter noted that for other species (e.g., bottlenose 
dolphins and right whales), the animal's injury or death would have 
been considered (at least in part) as fishery-related. The commenter 
requested that NMFS treat fin whales equivalently to other species with 
regard to suspicion of fishery-related mortalities.
    Response: The fin whale being referred to showed little evidence 
that entanglement was the cause of death; therefore, NMFS determined 
that this was not a fishery-related death and did not include it as 
fishery mortality in the SAR.
    Comment 2: One commenter stated that it was inappropriate to lump 
species of beaked whales and pilot whales in mortality and abundance 
estimates.
    Response: Current data do not allow species- or stock-specific 
mortality and abundance estimates at this time. NMFS is working on 
methods to enable such estimates. Until NMFS has developed a means to 
distinguish among species during surveys, abundance estimates will 
estimate the species groupings. NMFS anticipates being able to 
calculate species-specific mortality estimates for beaked whales in the 
draft 2001 SARs.
    Comment 3: It was noted that there was no discussion on the impact 
of naval activities on beaked whales.
    Response:  Information and references pertaining to beaked whale 
strandings and mortality associated with naval activities will be 
included in the draft 2001 reports.
    Comment 4: One commenter recommended specific additional 
information to be included in the reports for bottlenose dolphins (for 
both the western north Atlantic offshore and coastal stocks); these 
suggestions are related to evidence for stock separation between the 
two stocks and to discussions of population trends, fishery 
information, and status of the coastal stock.
    Response: No new information is available that would allow a more 
accurate determination of the status of these stocks. Therefore, the 
reports were not modified to address these comments. Revision of the 
reports for these stocks is scheduled for 2002.
     Comment 5: Reports of human-induced mortality around aquaculture 
sites in Maine and eastern Canada and stranding mortality attributable 
to human activities in U.S. waters suggest that harbor seal mortality 
approaches or exceeds PBR.
    Response: NMFS recognizes the existence of unreported human-induced 
mortality of harbor seals. However, no sampling or reporting programs 
exist that can be used to quantify the level of intentional shooting of 
seals around U.S. aquaculture sites. Further, NMFS is not aware of data 
that document human-caused mortality around Canadian aquaculture sites. 
Stranding data are under review, and appropriate levels of human-
induced mortality will be included in future assessments.
    Comment 6: NMFS should clarify whether the Canadian abundance 
estimate of gray seals used to determine PBR is a minimum population 
estimate (Nmin) or whether it is a ``best'' or ``point'' 
estimate. Also, NMFS should include information on native hunting and 
intentional shooting around aquaculture sites.
    Response:  The Canadian abundance estimate is considered to be 
Nmin. However, no estimate of the gray seal population in 
U.S. waters exists. Following the advice of the Atlantic SRG, a proxy 
PBR was calculated using the Canadian abundance estimate. NMFS is not 
aware of data to document native removals and other sources of human-
induced mortality in Canadian waters. However, if such information 
becomes available, it would be included in future assessments.
    Comment 7: A recent paper in Conservation Biology discusses the use 
of harp seal population estimates and calculates PBR. The highest PBR 
(264,000) in that discussion is below the Canadian kill. There is also 
Canadian information pertaining to Greenland catches and current status 
of the harp seal population. These data should be included in the SAR.
    Response: In April 2000 the Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat 
hosted a workshop in Ottawa to review the status of the Northwest 
Atlantic harp seal population. The workshop findings will be 
incorporated into the draft 2001 SAR.

Western North Atlantic Right Whales

    Comment 1: The 1999 data were missing from the section titled 
``Current Population Trend.''
    Response: The 1999 data have been added to the SAR.
     Comment 2:  One commenter recommended the inclusion of a recent 
journal article on the significance of Jeffreys Ledge.
     Response: Information contained in the manuscript pertaining to 
Jeffreys Ledge as a habitat has been included in the draft 2001 SAR.
    Comment 3: One comment stated that the section titled ``Fishery-
related Serious Injury and Mortality'' was misleading because the 
Canadian data were deleted from the calculations. Also, whale #2705 was 
identified as another injured right whale that should be included in 
the text.
    Response: The inclusion of foreign mortality and serious injury 
into the SAR has been initiated. NMFS' staff plan to meet with Canadian 
scientists to coordinate standardized reporting procedures to ensure 
that Canadian data on mortality and serious injuries are available for 
future SARs. Relative to whale #2705, this whale, which lost most of 
its fluke to a mechanical injury, was re-sighted in the Bay of Fundy in 
summer 2000 and appears to be healthy at present despite the severe 
injury. Therefore, it was not included in a discussion of serious 
injury (which is defined in regulations at 50 CFR 229.2 as an injury 
that is likely to result in death) or mortality.

Harbor Porpoise

    Comment 1: One comment suggested that if possible, the population 
size section for harbor porpoise be updated to include results of the 
1999 population survey.
    Response: The results of the 1999 harbor porpoise abundance survey 
and associated changes in PBR will be included in the draft 2001 SAR.
    Comment 2: One commenter recommended that the SRG analyze the 
bycatch and stranding data to determine whether takes of harbor 
porpoise associated with the mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries are, in 
fact, below PBR.
    Response: Since the best available information indicates that 
mortality of harbor porpoise is much reduced, NMFS is re-examining 
mortality along the mid-Atlantic coast to determine whether a bias 
exists in the estimate. The SAR presents the best information currently 
available; however, NMFS realizes that the estimate could change when 
new data are available. The Atlantic SRG reviewed the mortality

[[Page 15086]]

estimates and agreed that these were the best estimates, given the 
information that was available. The SRG also recommended that NMFS 
conduct a power analysis on the observer data to determine the needed 
level of observer coverage to ensure that mortality is below PBR. NMFS 
is currently conducting this analysis.
    Comment 3: One commenter recommended that the ``Status of Stock'' 
section include NMFS' determination that a threatened or endangered 
listing for harbor porpoise was not warranted and that a status review 
is scheduled to be completed by 2001.
    Response: The report was revised accordingly.

Minke Whales

    Comment 1: One commenter asked why the 1995 entanglement records 
have not been audited yet.
    Response: NMFS determined that it was better to complete the 2000 
SARs and make them available rather than delay all reports to include 
specific information in the minke whale SAR. Minke whale records from 
1995 have now been completely audited, and the results will be included 
in the 2001 SAR.
    Comment 2: One commenter asked why the minke whale shot in Florida 
was not included in the stock assessment.
    Response: This minke whale was not mentioned in the SAR because 
NMFS concluded that the gunshot was not a factor in the whale's death.
    Comment 3: One comment noted that two minke whales died as a result 
of ship strikes during the 5-year period; therefore, the average 
mortality due to ship strikes is 0.4 whales per year not 0.3.
    Response: Only one minke whale mortality (in 1998) was caused by 
ship strike during 1994, 1996, 1997, and 1998. The mean value for this 
period is 0.25, which was rounded to 0.3.

Humpback Whales

    Comment 1: For western north Atlantic humpback whales and minke 
whales, one commenter recommended that the section titled ``Other 
Mortality'' be clarified and updated to include new information 
contained in a publication, ``Collisions Between Ships and Whales''.
    Response: Pertinent figures and text from that publication will be 
incorporated into the draft 2001 SAR and reviewed by the Atlantic SRG. 
The minke whale report notes that minke whales are struck and killed by 
ships.
     Comment 2: One comment concurred with the renaming of the humpback 
whale stock as the Gulf of Maine stock but did not support using the 
western North Atlantic population estimate for determining PBR.
    Response: NMFS had insufficient data to calculate an estimate of 
abundance (and therefore a PBR) for the newly defined stock. As data 
become sufficient for an abundance estimate, NMFS will calculate an 
appropriate PBR for the stock.
    Comment 3: NMFS should complete analysis of the photo-
identification data to resolve the stock question regarding Scotian 
Shelf animals.
    Response: The analysis has been completed and the results will be 
included in the draft 2001 SARs.

Pacific Regional SAR

    Comment 1: One commenter remarked that, for a number of stock 
assessments, a decline in overall cetacean entanglement rates in the 
California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery was noted after implementation 
of a 1997 Take Reduction Plan even for those stocks for which mortality 
was already at zero or increased in recent years.
    Response: The statement was inserted to explain why only a limited 
set of data (1997-1998) was used for mortality estimates in the drift 
gillnet fishery. The wording has been revised to clarify the intent.
    Comment 2: One commenter stated that there was no discussion of 
unusual mortality events for the California sea lion.
    Response: A brief discussion of sea lion mortalities attributed to 
domoic acid in central California has been included in the sea lion 
report.
    Comment 3: One commenter noted the paucity of abundance information 
related to Hawaiian cetaceans and recommended that surveys be designed 
and conducted soon.
    Response: NMFS has designed surveys for estimating abundance of 
Hawaiian cetacean stocks and will conduct the surveys when funds become 
available. In the interim, NMFS has collaborated with Hawaiian 
researchers in the analysis of near-shore cetacean aerial surveys and 
is supporting a small research project in the mid-island area.

Hawaiian Monk Seal

    Comment 1: One commenter suggested that estimates of Hawaiian monk 
seal abundance at Necker and Nihoa be reduced to account for the 
possibility that seals are double-counted (at both French Frigate 
Shoals and either Necker or Nihoa).
    Response: The French Frigate Shoals estimate is based upon 
enumeration of all animals identified, while the Necker/Nihoa estimates 
are based upon occasional irregular surveys. Although some individuals 
could be double counted at Necker and Nihoa, the correction for this 
small overestimate is unnecessary. First, these islands represent only 
a small portion of the total abundance. Second, the potential positive 
bias is likely offset by underestimates at other sites. Finally, the 
SAR notes that PBR is not used in the conservation of Hawaiian monk 
seals.
    Comment 2: One commenter asked for a clarification regarding trends 
in the pelagic longline fishery around Hawaii.
    Response: Appendix 1 (Description of U.S. Commercial Fisheries) of 
the stock assessment reports states that overall effort (hooks set) 
increased from 1994 to 1998. The number of hooks that were set by the 
fishery increased steadily since 1994 and peaked in 1998 at 17.4 
million.
    Comment 3: One commenter requested the inclusion of extensive data 
on lobster catch levels and trends at several locations, including 
information on species and amounts of monk seal prey taken.
    Response: The requested information is published annually in 
reports on the Western Pacific Lobster Fishery, the most recent of 
which is cited in the monk seal stock assessment report. Also, 
information on past lobster catch levels, which had been selected for 
deletion, has been reinstated.
    Comment 4: One commenter recommended the inclusion of preliminary 
results from fatty acid signature analysis in order to address the 
potential importance of lobster in the diet of monk seals.
    Response: Preliminary discussion of fatty acid analysis and its 
potential for identifying the importance of lobsters in the diet of 
monk seals has been reinstated in the final stock assessment report.
     Comment 5: One commenter recommended that NMFS contact Canadian 
officials and attempt to obtain data on fishery-related mortality for 
harbor porpoise, Inland Washington stock, that may be occurring in 
Canada.
    Response:  In response to requests by NMFS for annual fishery-
related mortality data, Canadian authorities have responded that these 
data are not collected and, thus, are unavailable.
    Comment 6: One commenter questioned the reasoning for changing the 
status of short-finned pilot whales from strategic to non-strategic, 
given some uncertainties surrounding the

[[Page 15087]]

effectiveness of pingers (the one mortality observed in 1997 was in a 
pingered net). It was also recommended that this stock be reviewed on 
an annual basis until the effectiveness of pingers can be fully 
evaluated.
    Response: Because the annual level of human-caused mortality 
remains below PBR, this stock is defined as non-strategic. NMFS will 
continue to review the incidental mortality of all stocks each year and 
will revise stock assessment reports if a change in status is justified 
by new data.
    Comment 7: One commenter recommended the inclusion of information 
on the recent concerns over the potential impacts of low frequency 
active sonar (LFAS) on beaked whales.
    Response: NMFS has inserted language reflecting recent concerns 
over LFAS for beaked whale stocks.
    Comment 8: One commenter expressed concern that the PBR for 
Blainville's beaked whale, Hawaiian stock, is only 0.4 per year, with 
at least two fishery interactions observed (extrapolated to an average 
of nine per year), with the caveat that it is not clear whether other 
hooked odontocetes may have been Blainville's beaked whales. The 
commenter also questioned whether or not Blainville's beaked whales 
should be a non-strategic stock.
    Response: The entanglement of two unidentified cetaceans was 
mentioned in the stock assessment report for completeness, but they 
were not identified as Blainville's beaked whales. In the absence of 
confirmed fishery-related mortality of Blainville's beaked whales, this 
stock will remain non-strategic. NMFS will continue to review the 
incidental mortality of all stocks each year and will revise stock 
assessment reports if a change in status is justified by new data.

Harbor Seals

    Comment 1: One commenter requested an explanation of the validity 
of using 1990-94 kill rates from the set gillnet fishery to estimate 
harbor seal (California stock) mortality during 1995-1998 when the 
fishery was not observed.
    Response: The lack of an observer program in this fishery did not 
allow for the estimation of kill rates during 1995-98. In the absence 
of an observer program, the most conservative method to estimate 1995-
98 mortality is to use 1990-94 kill rates from the time when the 
fishery was permitted to operate within 3 nautical miles of shore and 
interactions with harbor seals were more likely. Although this approach 
is not ideal, it does use the best available information in this case.
    Comment 2: One commenter suggested that a method for estimating 
harbor seal mortality from ``unmonitored hauls'' be developed for the 
groundfish trawl fishery.
    Response: NMFS has established a sampling protocol, which is based 
on monitored hauls, for estimating incidental mortality and serious 
injury for the groundfish trawl fishery. In most years, NMFS uses the 
estimated mortality calculated from this sampling protocol. The 
observed mortality rate (observed kills per haul) is very low, and 
occasionally there is no observed mortality in the monitored hauls and 
one or more recorded kills in unmonitored hauls. When this situation 
occurs, NMFS uses the total number of observed mortalities as a minimum 
level of mortality for the affected year.
    Comment 3: One commenter requested a clarification regarding 
changes within the Washington and Oregon lower Columbia River drift 
gillnet fishery and their impact on incidental mortality levels.
    Response: The appropriate text in the report has been edited in an 
attempt to make the meaning clearer.
    Comment 4: One commenter requested that the language stating that 
the Oregon component of the harbor seal stock is within its Optimum 
Sustainable Population be removed, citing a lack of quantitative 
support for this statement.
    Response: The statement has been revised.
    Comment 5: One commenter requested a clarification on whether self-
reports of harbor seal (Inland Washington stock) mortalities in salmon 
net pens represented entanglements or animals being shot by pen 
operators.
    Response: The reported harbor seal mortalities in salmon net pens 
in 1997 and 1998 were caused by entanglements.

Killer Whales

    Comment 1: One commenter expressed concerns that unmonitored hauls 
in the longline fishery are not used to estimate mortality levels for 
the eastern north Pacific transient stock.
    Response: NMFS has established a sampling protocol, which is based 
on monitored hauls, for estimating incidental mortality and serious 
injury for the longline fishery. In most years, NMFS uses the estimated 
mortality calculated from this sampling protocol. The observed 
mortality rate (observed kills per haul) is very low, and occasionally 
there are no or very few observed mortalities in the monitored hauls 
and one or more recorded kills in unmonitored hauls. When this 
situation occurs, NMFS uses the total number of observed mortalities as 
a minimum level of mortality for the affected year.
    Comment 2: One commenter noted that the eastern north Pacific 
southern resident stock of killer whales appears to be in decline and 
requested that NMFS speculate on possible causes.
    Response: NMFS sponsored a Southern Resident Killer Whale Workshop 
in Seattle, WA, on 1-2 April 2000. Workshop participants discussed 
possible factors influencing killer whale populations, including 
contaminant levels, whale-watching activities, and the availability of 
prey resources. Text and references pertaining to this meeting have 
been added to the report.

Electronic Access

    All stock assessment reports and the guidelines for preparing them 
are available via the Internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/ Stock--Assessment--Program/sars.html

    Dated: March 7, 2001.
Wanda Cain,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 01-6452 Filed 3-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S