[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 46 (Friday, March 8, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10671-10680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5617]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 051101B]


Notice of Availability of Final Stock Assessment Reports

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

ACTION: Notice of 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 2001 final SARs are now 
complete and available to the public.

ADDRESSES: Send requests for printed copies of reports to: Chief, 
Marine Mammal Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver 
Spring, MD 20910-3226, Attn: Stock Assessments. Copies of the Alaska 
Regional SARs may be requested from Robyn Angliss, Alaska Fisheries 
Science Center (F/AKC), NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE BIN 15700, 
Seattle, WA 98115-0070.
    Copies of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Regional SARs may be 
requested from Janeen Quintal, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 
Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543 or Steven Swartz, Southeast Fisheries 
Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Dr., Miami, FL 33149.
    Copies of the Pacific Regional SARs may be requested from Tim 
Price, Southwest Regional Office (F/SWO3), NMFS, 501 West Ocean 
Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Menashes, Office of Protected 
Resources, 301-713-2322, ext. 101, e-mail [email protected]; 
Robyn Angliss 206- 526-4032, e-mail [email protected], regarding 
Alaska regional stock assessments; Janeen Quintal, 508-495-2252, e-mail 
[email protected], regarding Northwest Atlantic regional stock 
assessments; Steven Swartz, 305-361-4487, e-mail 
[email protected], regarding Mid-Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 
regional stock assessments; or Tim Price, 562-980-4020, e-mail 
[email protected], regarding Pacific regional stock assessments.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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.

Background

    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

[[Page 10672]]

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 requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually 
for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information 
is available and at least once every 3 years for non-strategic stocks. 
NMFS and the FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the 
stock has changed or can be more accurately determined.
    Draft 2001 SARs were made available for a 90-day public review and 
comment period on June 7, 2001 (66 FR 30706). 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 2001 SARs. Printed copies may be obtained by request (see 
ADDRESSES).
    NMFS appended the most recent versions of the SARs for polar bears, 
sea otters, walrus, and manatees to NMFS' final 2001 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.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received three letters containing comments on the draft 2001 
SARs. Each letter contained multiple comments 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.

Comments on National Issues

    Comment 1: Commenters recommended additional research, monitoring, 
or conservation measures based on information contained in the draft 
SARs. For example, commenters noted that revised abundance and 
mortality estimates are needed for some marine mammal stocks or that 
additional observer coverage is needed in some fisheries. Commenters 
also stated that NMFS should 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, current funding levels limit NMFS' 
ability to implement additional take reduction programs.
    Comment 2: Commenters noted that 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. Commenters encouraged 
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 PBR levels 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 unless there is compelling evidence that the stock has not declined 
since the last abundance estimate. All assessment reports and the 
guidelines for preparing them are available electronically (see 
Electronic Access).
    Comment 3: One commenter stated that some regions included all 
stock assessments, whether or not they are revised, while some only 
include those that have been revised. Some regions did not review all 
strategic stocks. Stock assessments for all strategic stocks must be 
revised annually as required by the MMPA. The commenter also stated 
that the MMPA requires that stock assessments for strategic stocks be 
reviewed annually and stipulates that updates are also warranted when 
new information is available that may affect the status of the stocks.
    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.
    All strategic stocks are reviewed each year. However, the stock 
assessment reports must be revised only when the review indicates that 
the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately 
determined. For example, new abundance estimates or new information on 
fishery and/or natural mortality could result in the revision of a 
stock assessment report. However, NMFS routinely revises the SARs with 
new information even when it is not significant or does not indicate 
that the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately 
determined.
    To make it easier to find information on marine mammal stocks, NMFS 
is printing all SARs, revised or not, in the final SARs for each year. 
However, for the draft report, the regions have only been asked to 
include revised SARs.
    Additionally, the review schedules for non-strategic stocks vary 
across regions. For example, the Pacific SRG requested that reports for 
non-strategic stocks be reviewed as a group every 3 years. The

[[Page 10673]]

Alaska SRG requested that NMFS review and revise, as needed, one third 
of the reports annually so that each is reviewed every 3 years.
    Comment 4: One commenter noted that the SARs only included 
information through 1999 and asked why it was not possible to provide 
more updated information.
    Response: The process of preparing and reviewing SARs takes time, 
which results in an unfortunate but necessary lag in the data that is 
included in each SAR relative to when that SAR is published. NMFS staff 
began working on the draft 2001 SARs in the summer of 2000. At that 
time, the most recent full year of data were used. In the case of the 
2001 SARs, 1999 data were available, but a full year of 2000 data were 
not yet available. The SARs were reviewed by the appropriate SRG in the 
fall of 2000. Based on comments received from the SRGs, the draft SARs 
were revised before being released for public review and comment in the 
summer of 2001. The draft 2001 SARs were made available for a 90-day 
public comment period, after which NMFS staff needed to respond to 
comments received and revise the SARs accordingly.
    NMFS does use more updated information than is presented in the 
most recent final SAR. For example, the newly formed Bottlenose Dolphin 
Take Reduction Team is considering information about Atlantic coastal 
bottlenose dolphins that has been reviewed by the Atlantic SRG, but 
that will not be available for public review and comment in the SAR 
until the draft 2002 SARs are released in the spring of 2002. 
Similarly, information on marine mammal mortality of relevance to other 
Take Reduction Teams are made available for Team use prior to being 
published in a final SAR.
    Comment 5: One commenter recommended that estimates of 
entanglement- or collision-related mortality should consider all 
available data and use analytical procedures intended to provide the 
best possible estimates of mortality rather than minimum estimates. The 
commenter specifically expressed concern about the SARs for right 
whales and humpback whales in the North Atlantic, which base estimates 
of entanglement- or collision-related mortality only on those cases 
where ``substantial evidence'' is available.
    Response: NMFS uses all available data and analytical procedures to 
develop estimates of mortality and takes a precautionary approach by 
using standards for interpreting serious injuries that equate seriously 
injured animals with mortalities. However, it is not appropriate to 
apply the bycatch estimation protocols used for small cetaceans to 
entangled animals. Any attempt to do this with the current limited 
knowledge of entanglement rates would yield unreliable estimates.
    It is also not correct to assume that all injuries are serious and 
lead to the mortality of an animal. For example, we know from scarring 
and other data that many entanglements are not serious. NMFS has 
determined that the best approach is to investigate each case 
individually, collecting all available information and assigning 
anthropogenic causes to those cases for which there is appropriate 
evidence.
    The quality of the reports received from the field has the greatest 
impact on NMFS' ability to assess and injury as serious or not. NMFS is 
working to improve reporting on the beach by requiring stranding 
personnel to complete a new ``Human Interaction Form'' in addition to 
the standard Level A stranding reporting form. The new form prompts 
responders to look for and report indications of human interactions on 
stranded animals in greater detail, which should allow NMFS to make 
determinations with a higher degree of confidence. To address reports 
of entanglements and mortalities offshore, NMFS initiated a 
streamlined, East and Gulf coast-wide communications network involving 
the Coast Guard to assist in realtime reporting of events. The system 
will put observers in direct contact with experts who can then ask 
case-specific questions to thoroughly assess each event.
    Comment 6: One commenter stated that NMFS should incorporate in the 
SARS analyses to measure the power with which observer programs can 
estimate mortality and serious injury levels equivalent to the 
potential PBR level.
    Response: NMFS is aware of the limitations of the observer program 
to yield precise estimates of mortality rates. Considering available 
funding, NMFS tries to balance the need to obtain marine mammal 
mortality estimates for a variety of fisheries with the need to obtain 
mortality estimates that are as precise as possible. NMFS will consider 
the suggestion to include a power analysis for future SARs.
    Comment 7: One commenter stated that for some stocks, it may be 
more efficient for NMFS to develop mechanisms to calculate PBR or a 
PBR-equivalent using general density or relative indices of abundance.
    Response: For some stocks, NMFS has used the approach suggested by 
the commenter. In cases where a mortality estimate is available, but 
reliable abundance estimates are not, NMFS has used the PBR equation to 
calculate the population size that would be needed to support known 
mortality levels. This method provides an idea of whether the mortality 
level is sustainable. However, section 3(20) the MMPA includes an 
equation to calculate PBR levels.
    Comment 8: One commenter noted that the SARs describe mortality and 
serious injury that occur as a result of direct interactions with 
commercial fisheries, but do not address indirect interactions with 
commercial fisheries, which also may restrict population growth. NMFS 
should expand the reports to include all human-related factors that 
could impede population growth or recovery as required by section 
117(a)(3) of the MMPA. Although quantitative descriptions of indirect 
effects will be very difficult, the potential for such effects should 
be described for each species or stock vulnerable to such effects.
    Response: Section 117(a)(3) of the MMPA requires NMFS to, 
``estimate the annual human-caused mortality and serious injury of the 
stock by source and, for a strategic stock, other factors that may be 
causing a decline or impeding recovery of the stock, including effects 
on marine mammal habitat and prey.'' NMFS recognizes the need to 
identify other factors that may affect a marine mammal population in 
the Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks (Wade and Angliss 
1997): ``A statement about habitat issues should be included in the 
Status section of the Reports, or, if needed, in a separate section 
titled ``Habitat Issues''. If data exist that indicate a problem, they 
should be summarized and included in the Reports. If there are no known 
habitat issues for a stock, this should be explicitly stated, as 
consideration of habitat issues are mandated by the act.'' However, 
NMFS does not have the information necessary to make a statement in the 
SARs indicating whether habitat issues are or are not of concern for 
each marine mammal stock. NMFS has been focusing its limited resources 
on improving estimates of direct interactions with commercial 
fisheries.
    Comment 9: One commenter recommended that NMFS should improve the 
incorporation of stranding data in fishery mortality estimates for all 
stocks.
    Response: NMFS considers stranding data and incorporates it as 
appropriate into the SARs. In situations where observer coverage allows 
calculation of a mortality estimate, it is not appropriate to use 
stranding data to

[[Page 10674]]

supplement the mortality estimate if the stranded animal could be 
included in the projection of a mortality estimate resulting from 
observer coverage. However, NMFS has used stranding data to supplement 
mortality estimates if observer coverage is not available or if the 
stranded animal would not have been included in the mortality estimate 
from observer coverage.
    Comment 10: One commenter recommended that NMFS make every effort 
to increase compliance with the self-reporting requirements of the 
MMPA.
    Response: NMFS conducts outreach and education to the fishing 
industry that informs them of the requirement to report incidental 
mortality and serious injury of marine mammals incidental to commercial 
fishing activities. To expand these efforts, NMFS would have to 
redirect funding and staff from other research and conservation needs, 
such as abundance estimates, observer coverage, or implementation of 
take reduction plans. Other comments note that these other research and 
conservation efforts should be expanded.
    Comment 11: One commenter stated that NMFS should finalize its 
definition of serious injury. NMFS should then provide the SRGs with 
clear guidance, so they may consistently determine what constitutes 
serious injury and incorporate that into their assessments.
    Response: NMFS agrees and will make finalizing the serious injury 
guidelines a priority.
    Comment 12: One commenter suggested that NMFS publish the 
recommendations made by the SRGs with the SARs, as well as NMFS' plans 
to implement the recommendations. Additionally, NMFS should include 
proposed budgets to undertake these programs. Publishing this 
information could potentially facilitate greater involvement and 
support from interest groups who are dedicated in their efforts to 
secure adequate funding for NMFS and its programs.
    Response: NMFS will consider the commenter's recommendation to make 
SRG comments, NMFS response, and budget information more widely 
available.

Alaska Regional SARs

    Comment 13: One commenter stated that the preface to the Alaska 
SARs should be modified to indicate that descriptions of geographic 
range, a minimum population estimate, current population trends, 
current and maximum net productivity rates, optimum sustainable 
population levels and allowable removals, and estimates of annual 
human-caused mortality and serious injury are estimated when sufficient 
data are available.
    Response: NMFS will make the recommended change in the preface to 
the Alaska SARs.
    Comment 14: One commenter noted that sections of the SAR for Cook 
Inlet beluga whales contain different estimates of population 
abundance. This should be corrected.
    Response: The SAR has been corrected to identify 435 whales as the 
correct estimate of abundance.
    Comment 15: One commenter stated that, given the extremely low 
abundance of the Cook Inlet stock of beluga whales, the recovery factor 
should be set to 0.1, as recommended by the Alaska SRG or NMFS should 
provide a justification for the selection of 0.3 based on an analysis 
of factors that may affect the population in the future.
    Response: NMFS determined that it was not appropriate to list this 
stock under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2000 (65 FR 38778, June 
22, 2000). If an ESA listing was determined to be appropriate, NMFS 
would have considered using the default recovery factor of 0.1, which 
is typically used for endangered species. NMFS determined that it was 
appropriate to designate this stock as depleted under the MMPA (65 FR 
34590; May 31, 2000). The default recovery factor for a depleted stock 
is 0.5. However, because of the small size of the population, NMFS 
decreased the recovery factor from 0.5 to 0.3. A more conservative 
recovery factor is not necessary because the largest source of 
mortality, which is from the local subsistence harvest, has greatly 
decreased since 1999 and is being carefully managed through statutory 
authority and a co-management agreement between the Cook Inlet Marine 
Mammal Council and NMFS.
    Because the harvest has been limited, direct human-caused mortality 
is not an important factor for Cook Inlet beluga whales; thus, a lower 
PBR level would serve no purpose.
    Comment 16: One commenter stated that reliable, updated, or 
improved estimates of abundance are needed for stocks of spotted seal, 
Pacific white-sided dolphin, Dall's porpoise, sperm whale, all stocks 
of beaked whales, both stocks of humpback whale, fin whale, minke 
whale, ribbon seal, North Pacific right whale, and bowhead whale. In 
addition, estimates for stocks of bearded seal and ringed seal are 
based on an incomplete survey of their range. This should be rectified.
    Response: NMFS has obtained abundance estimates of pinnipeds and 
cetaceans that are of highest conservation concern, including Steller 
sea lions, Cook Inlet beluga whales, humpback whales, northern fur 
seals, harbor seals, killer whales and harbor porpoise. Surveys to 
collect abundance estimates of other species are conducted as funds are 
available. Conducting surveys for stocks that are known or strongly 
suspected to be abundant and broadly distributed are prioritized lower 
than stocks that are designated as threatened or endangered under the 
ESA, as depleted under the MMPA, or for which the conservation issues 
are known or severe. NMFS determines population abundance estimates for 
all marine mammal stocks as required by the MMPA as resources allow.
    NMFS' plans to collect information on the stocks identified by the 
commenter follow.
    Spotted seal, bearded seal, ringed seal: surveys of a portion of 
each stock's range were conducted during the 1990's. Based on these 
surveys, other stocks of ``ice seals'' are suspected to be abundant and 
broadly distributed across the Arctic based on surveys that include at 
least a portion of the stock's range. Available information about 
human-related mortality of these stocks indicates that direct mortality 
is not likely to negatively affect these stocks in the foreseeable 
future. Conducting surveys of these stocks is very expensive and likely 
to be a low priority because there are no immediate conservation 
concerns. NMFS is currently exploring options for collecting 
information on stock abundance of these animals using remote sensing.
    Ribbon seal: ribbon seals are distributed far offshore in the ice 
pack during the winter and spring; thus, traditional aerial surveys 
with a land-based aircraft are unable to census a representative 
portion of this stock's range. Alternative survey techniques, such as 
remote sensing or conducting surveys from helicopters based on ice 
breakers, will have to be explored. Because of these logistic and 
technological challenges, NMFS does not expect to be able to develop a 
minimum population estimate for this stock in the near future.
    Pacific white-sided dolphin and Dall's porpoise: the most recent 
abundance estimates for these stocks were based on data collected 
during 1987-1990 during a vessel survey designed to collect information 
on cetaceans in offshore waters. At this time, there are no current 
plans to conduct a similar vessel survey, so new estimates of total 
abundance should not be expected within the next few years. NMFS will 
be investigating whether estimates and relative distribution of these 
stocks in coastal

[[Page 10675]]

waters might be obtained from a variety of aerial and vessel line-
transect surveys conducted in Alaska over the past 10 years.
    Humpback whales: humpback whale population size is estimated either 
by applying mark-recapture techniques to photo-identification data 
(estimate published in 1997) or by vessel line transect surveys (most 
recently conducted in 1999). NMFS has supported the collection of one 
or both types of data annually for many years, and substantial amounts 
of new information has been collected since the last population 
estimate was made. NMFS plans to support the analysis of these new data 
and be able to include a new population estimate in the draft SARs for 
2002.
    Bowhead whales: Congress provides funding to the North Slope 
Borough each year to support the collection of information on bowhead 
whale biology, abundance, and population dynamics. The North Slope 
Borough completed a census of the population during the spring of 2001. 
A new abundance estimate based on this census will be included in the 
draft SARs for 2002.
    North Pacific right whales: North Pacific right whales have only 
recently been documented to be seasonally present in a limited area in 
the Bering Sea. Both vessel and aerial surveys for this stock have 
occurred annually since 1996, and additional surveys are planned for 
2002. Because NMFS' research on this stock has only recently begun, it 
will likely be several more years before sufficient information is 
available to provide a reliable population estimate. In addition, the 
discreteness of the population in the western North Pacific (e.g., Sea 
of Okhotsk) and eastern North Pacific remains to be determined.
    Fin whales: new information on the abundance of fin whales in a 
portion of their range has been collected during the past 3-4 years, 
and additional information will be forthcoming as a result of vessels 
surveys in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. However, an abundance 
estimate of their entire range would require a dedicated vessel survey 
in the North Pacific. At this time, this type of survey is not being 
planned. However, the surveys conducted and planned for a portion of 
their range should be sufficient to calculate a minimum population 
estimate for a portion of the stock's range within a few years.
    Minke whales, sperm whales, and beaked whales: these stocks are 
broadly distributed over the North Pacific. Ideally, population 
estimates for these stocks would be based on sightings from dedicated 
vessel surveys. At this time, this type of survey is not being planned.
    Comment 17: One commenter requested that NMFS should improve the 
estimates of fisheries and subsistence takes. NMFS should aggressively 
pursue developing and implementing an observer program for those 
fisheries that have had documented marine mammal takes.
    Response: Estimates of incidental mortality of marine mammals from 
commercial fisheries that are observed are quite good, including the 
Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska groundfish trawl and longline fisheries, 
and the crab pot fisheries. NMFS currently only has funding available 
to observe one Alaska fishery for marine mammal interactions each year 
(not including fisheries that are observed for fishery management 
reasons). Because previous observer programs for the Prince William 
Sound salmon drift gillnet fishery and self-reported information 
documented some mortality of marine mammals incidental to salmon 
gillnet operations in the 1990s, NMFS is rotating an observer program 
among various gillnet fisheries.
    The Cook Inlet set and drift gillnet fisheries were observed in 
1999 and 2000. During the two years of the program, no mortalities of 
any marine mammals were observed, although one serious injury of a 
harbor porpoise was observed. In 2001, NMFS began working to implement 
an observer program in the salmon gillnet fisheries around Kodiak 
Island. That observer program will be fully implemented for the 2002 
fishing season. NMFS continues developing the program to rotate among 
other fisheries in the future.
    Reliable subsistence harvest information is available for some 
species, such as bowhead whales, beluga whales, and fur seals. 
Subsistence harvest information for harbor seals and Steller sea lions 
was collected annually by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game 
Division of Subsistence for several years. There was a hiatus in data 
collection in the late 1990's because of a lack of funding. A grant was 
provided to the Alaska Steller Sea Lion and Sea Otter Commission 
(ASSLOC) for the collection of information on the Steller sea lion 
subsistence harvest. NMFS will include information on the subsistence 
harvest provided by the ASSLOC in the draft SAR for 2003. NMFS will 
continue to work with the Alaskan Native community to collect 
information on the subsistence use of other species as resources allow.
    Comment 18: One commenter stated that it is important to obtain 
reliable and recent information on the level of mortality that results 
from native hunting. Another commenter recommended that NMFS continue 
to pursue co-management agreements with the Alaskan native community 
that would result in the effective monitoring, reporting, and control 
of subsistence takes.
    Response: NMFS uses the best data available on the level of 
mortality of marine mammals that results from Alaska Native subsistence 
harvest. The amount of data available on subsistence harvests varies 
widely by species. For example, data on harbor seal and Steller sea 
lion subsistence harvest has been collected by the Alaska Department of 
Fish and Game nearly annually at all villages that hunt these species 
at least since 1996. Collection of data on ice seal subsistence harvest 
by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has occurred less frequently, 
and are only available for some villages during some years. Preliminary 
information on ice seal harvest levels were presented to the Alaska SRG 
in 2001, but the data were too preliminary to include in the 2001 SARs. 
This information will be included in the draft 2002 SARs.
    NMFS has aggressively pursued co-management agreements for stocks 
such as Cook Inlet beluga whales and the three Alaska harbor seal 
stocks because of known declines in all or a portion of the stock's 
respective ranges. NMFS will pursue other co-management agreements as 
resources allow.
    Comment 19: One commenter requested that the SAR for the eastern 
stock of Steller sea lions should include data on take in the Canadian 
fisheries and in the Canadian subsistence harvest.
    Response: The draft SAR for 2001 indicates that an average of about 
41 Steller sea lions per year are intentionally killed in the British 
Columbia aquaculture predator control program. NMFS is not aware of any 
additional intentional or incidental mortalities of Steller sea lions 
in Canadian fisheries, although NMFS formally requested such 
information from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 
Additional information on mortalities in Canadian waters will be 
included in the SARs when it becomes available.
    Comment 20: One commenter stated that the magnitude of intentional 
killing, disturbance, and illegal fishing on the high seas on the 
eastern Pacific stock of northern fur seals is unknown. Stranding data 
and other information should be collected to develop a better 
understanding of this situation and its effect on the population.

[[Page 10676]]

    Response: Stranding data are already collected and reported 
routinely in the SARs for northern fur seals and for all other marine 
mammal stocks in Alaska.
    Comment 21: One commenter stated that NMFS should evaluate the 
current divisions between the Alaska harbor seal stocks and redefine 
these stocks in accordance with new harbor seal genetic information. In 
addition, new abundance estimates should be incorporated into the SARs.
    Response: NMFS now has sufficient information on the genetics of 
harbor seals in Alaska to be confident that the current boundaries 
between the stocks are incorrect. However, sufficient information is 
not yet available to identify new stock boundaries. NMFS, in 
cooperation with the Alaskan Native community, is working to identify 
the new stock boundaries and provide new abundance estimates for all 
Alaska harbor seal stocks in the draft SARs for 2003.
    Comment 22: One commenter stated that NMFS should work with Alaskan 
Natives to finalize the co-management agreement for Cook Inlet beluga 
whales and to ensure that the subsistence harvest level is below the 
PBR level.
    Response: Co-management agreements for Cook Inlet beluga whales 
were signed in 2000 and 2001. NMFS is working with Alaskan natives on a 
long-term agreement to co-manage the harvest.
    Comment 23: One commenter stated that NMFS should continue to 
improve observer coverage of the Cook Inlet purse seine and gillnet 
fisheries, increase compliance for self reporting, and monitor the 
subsistence harvest to improve the estimates of mortality from these 
sources.
    Response: See response to comments 1 and 17 regarding observer 
coverage. There is no evidence at this time that monitoring of the 
subsistence harvest of beluga whales in Cook Inlet needs to be 
improved. See response to comment 10 regarding improvements to 
compliance with self-reporting.
    Comment 24: One commenter stated that NMFS should revise the SAR 
for Dall's porpoise and divide it into at least two stocks based on 
genetics data indicating delineation between animals in the Bering Sea 
and the Gulf of Alaska and based on the phylogeographic criteria 
outlined in Dizon et al (1992).
    Response: NMFS will provide a revised SAR for Dall's porpoise in 
the draft SARs for 2003 and will consider this recommendation at that 
time.
    Comment 25: One commenter stated that NMFS should intensify efforts 
to assess the magnitude of harbor porpoise mortality in Alaskan gillnet 
fisheries. The mortality estimates reported in the SARs are minimum 
estimates and the actual mortality level could be approaching the PBR 
level.
    Response: See response to comments 1 and 17 regarding the rotation 
of marine mammal observer programs in Alaskan commercial fisheries.
    Comment 26: One commenter stated that the PBR level for North 
Pacific right whales should be set at zero as it is likely the most 
endangered population of large whales in the world.
    Response: Despite having insufficient information to estimate the 
abundance of this stock, NMFS is confident that the stock size is quite 
small. The PBR level will remain ``undetermined'' in the 2001 SARs, but 
NMFS will propose to change the PBR level to zero in the draft SARs for 
2002.
    Comment 27: One commenter requested that estimates of the 
subsistence harvest of bowhead whales since 1996 be included in the 
SAR.
    Response: Estimates of the subsistence harvest for 1995-1999 were 
included in the draft SAR for 2001 in the section entitled 
``Subsistence/Native Harvest Information''.
    Comment 28: One commenter noted that several of the SARs contain 
the phrase ``It is not possible to produce a reliable estimate of 
abundance for this stock, as a current estimate of abundance is not 
available.'' This is redundant and should be corrected.
    Response: NMFS agrees and will change the text in the SARs as are 
they are reviewed and revised.
    Comment 29: One commenter stated that the western U.S. stock of 
Steller sea lions continues to decline in abundance. Because of this, 
the recovery factor should be set to zero, as is done with other stocks 
which are declining in abundance (e.g. North Atlantic right whales). 
Furthermore, NMFS uses a default of 0.5 for the maximum rate of 
reproduction. This stock is declining, and so its rate of reproduction 
would appear to be a negative number.
    Response: The recovery factor for the western stock of Steller sea 
lions has been set to 0.1 as recommended by the Alaska SRG in 1998. 
This is the lowest value for a recovery factor allowed under the MMPA. 
The recovery factor for North Atlantic right whales is also 0.1.
    The PBR level for North Atlantic right whales was set at zero 
because the stock is very small in size (300 animals) and the 
reproductive rate is naturally very low. Despite the decline of the 
western stock of Steller sea lions, the population includes over 30,000 
animals and has a reproductive rate that is substantially higher than 
that for right whales. The likelihood of extinction of the western 
stock of Steller sea lions is considerably lower than the likelihood of 
extinction of North Atlantic right whales. Thus, NMFS does not set the 
PBR level for the western stock of Steller sea lions to zero.
    Comment 30: One commenter stated that the high level of Alaskan 
Native subsistence harvest of Steller sea lions should be immediately 
addressed.
    Response: See the response to comment 17 regarding the availability 
of information on the subsistence harvest of Steller sea lions. NMFS 
continues to work with the Alaskan Native community to determine what, 
if anything, should be done to manage the level of subsistence take of 
Steller sea lions.
    Comment 31: One commenter noted that the SAR for spotted seals 
indicates that no estimates of mortality in the subsistence harvest are 
available after 1995. This should be remedied immediately, particularly 
since the stock assessment states that the reported estimate 
underestimates the statewide total.
    Response: A source of information on subsistence harvest of ice 
seals has been located and revised estimates will be provided in the 
draft SARs for 2002.
    Comment 32: One commenter noted that native hunting of beluga 
whales in the eastern Bering Sea stock through 1997 is reported to 
average 121 whales per year. This harvest level is very close to the 
PBR level for this stock, and the level in some years has exceeded the 
PBR. This situation requires immediate management attention.
    Response: NMFS realizes that the average harvest level is near the 
PBR level and that the annual level of subsistence harvest has 
occasionally been above the PBR level. Although it is not appropriate 
for NMFS to manage subsistence harvest based solely on comparisons 
between the subsistence harvest level and the PBR level, NMFS has 
worked closely with the Alaska Beluga Whale Commission to insure that 
animal removals are sustainable as required by the by-laws of the 
Alaska Beluga Whale Commission.
    Comment 33: One commenter noted that the SAR for gray whales makes 
no mention of the elevated number of strandings of gray whales that 
occurred in 1999 and 2000. This phenomenon should be discussed.
    Response: NMFS did not revise the SAR for gray whales in 2001. The 
elevated number of strandings will be discussed in the draft SAR for 
2002.
    Comment 34: One commenter commended NMFS for including new 
information in the draft SAR for the western North Pacific humpback 
whale

[[Page 10677]]

that indicates humpback whale meat is being sold in Japanese markets. 
Unless there is sufficient information to indicate that the whale meat 
is from animals solely in this stock, statements regarding the sale of 
meat should also be added to the SAR for the central North Pacific 
stock of humpback whales.
    Response: NMFS will review the available information and, if 
appropriate, add the statements regarding the sale of meat to the SAR 
for the central North Pacific stock of humpback whales.
    Comment 35: One commenter stated that it is likely that the numbers 
of entanglements and ship strikes incurred by the central North Pacific 
stock of humpback whales is higher than reported in the draft SAR 
because the animals are primarily in populated areas and much of 
coastal Alaska is sparsely populated.
    Response: All available information about the actual level of 
entanglements and ship strikes of humpback whales is provided in the 
SAR. Additional information will be incorporated in the SAR as it 
becomes available.
    Comment 36: The stock assessment report for the Eastern North 
Pacific, Northern Resident Stock of Killer whales states that this 
stock, or portions of it, ``where apparently approaching carrying 
capacity since the rates of increase appeared to be slowing.'' The 
commenter recommends that the statement about carrying capacity be 
deleted from the SAR because there are a number of reasons for rates of 
increase slowing.
    Response: This conclusion cited in the SAR was reported in a 
workshop report (Dahlheim et al., 2000). As this is one reasonable 
hypothesis for a decline in the population growth rate, the statement 
will remain in the SAR. However, the commenter is correct that there 
may be other hypotheses for the decline in the population growth rate, 
and NMFS revised the SAR to clarify that point.

Atlantic Regional SARs

    Comment 37: One commenter noted that Sei whales have not been 
surveyed for almost 20 years and the estimate in the SAR probably does 
not reflect current abundance. New surveys should be conducted to 
estimate abundance for this stock.
    Response: NMFS agrees. However, funding for such surveys is 
currently unavailable.
    Comment 38: One commenter stated that the PBR level for blue whales 
should be set to zero given that the abundance estimate is more than 10 
years old. New surveys should be conducted.
    Response: NMFS guidelines state that if abundance estimates are 
more than eight years old or are unavailable, then the PBR level is 
considered to be unknown, but not zero (Wade and Angliss 1997). The 
text of the SAR has been amended to reflect this. However, it is 
important to note that blue whales are very rarely found in US Atlantic 
waters, and, therefore, the PBR issue is of limited importance because 
no U.S. fisheries are involved in the incidental mortality or serious 
injury of blue whales.
    Funding for blue whale abundance surveys is currently unavailable. 
Furthermore, obtaining useful survey results for blue whales would be 
difficult given that little is known about population structure. The 
southernmost limit of this stock's range is the Scotian Shelf in 
Canadian (not U.S.) waters, and it is not clear how the animals found 
on the Scotian Shelf relate to animals in other areas. NMFS plans to 
conduct a survey of the entire Scotian Shelf in the summer of 2002 to 
follow up on recommendations made by the recent International Whaling 
Commission Comprehensive Assessment of North Atlantic Humpback Whales 
and the need to further define the humpback population on the Scotian 
Shelf. Blue whale surveys would be a secondary part of this effort, but 
are unlikely to yield enough information to resolve either abundance or 
population structure issues for this stock of blue whales.
    Comment 39: One commenter recommended that NMFS include Canadian 
fishery-related mortality in the total annual estimated average 
fishery-related mortality for the Canadian East Coast stock of minke 
whales.
    Response: NMFS will investigate if sources of information about 
Canadian mortalities other than those already reported in the SAR are 
available for including in future SARs.
    Comment 40: One commenter recommended that NMFS continue to improve 
population abundance and bycatch mortality estimates for beaked whales 
and study the impacts of acoustic pollution on these and other marine 
mammals.
    Response: NMFS has designated beaked whales as high priority 
species to sample (e.g., photographs, tissues, body measurements) in 
the fishery observer sampling manual, to obtain biological and human 
interaction data on stranded beaked whales, and to photograph and 
collect biopsy samples of during abundance surveys. Collected tissue 
samples are analyzed for genetic studies. Genetic and photographic data 
have been used to confirm or correct initial species identification of 
bycatches, abundance survey sightings, and strandings.
    NMFS is coordinating with other agencies and researchers to answer 
the most critical questions related to the impacts of acoustics on 
marine mammals. NMFS is currently working with the Navy to resolve the 
effects of noise on marine mammal hearing and behavior.
    Comment 41: One commenter recommended that NMFS continue to improve 
population abundance and bycatch mortality estimates for long-finned 
pilot whale and short-finned pilot whales.
    Response: Assessing pilot whale fishery bycatch, strandings, and 
obtaining photographs and biopsy samples during abundance surveys are 
high priorities for NMFS. Because at-sea identification of pilot whales 
is difficult, fishery observers are requested to assign 
undifferentiated species identification to bycaught animals that are 
not photographed or sampled. Genetic and photographic data have been 
and will continue to be used to confirm or correct initial species 
identification of bycatches, abundance survey sightings, and 
strandings.
    Comment 42: One commenter recommended that NMFS continue to pursue 
spotted dolphin stock identification studies, and species 
identification of the bycatch of common dolphin, Atlantic spotted 
dolphin, Pantropical spotted dolphin, and Striped dolphin.
    Response: Sampling spotted dolphins is a high priority. Tissue 
samples obtained from bycatches, research vessel, and stranding events 
are processed and analyzed by NMFS. Genetic and photographic data have 
been used to confirm or correct initial species identification of 
bycatches, abundance survey sightings, and strandings.
    Comment 43: One commenter stated that the stock assessments for 
harbor seals, gray seals, and harp seals are inadequate because they 
lack reliable population abundance data.
    Response: NMFS has taken and is taking the following steps to 
improve population abundance data and stock assessments for these 
species. In the spring of 2001, NMFS and the University of Maine 
conducted harbor seal studies (radio tagging and replicate aerial 
surveys) designed to obtain a more precise estimate of harbor seal 
abundance. Also, all haulout sites containing gray seals were surveyed 
and

[[Page 10678]]

photographed. Survey data are being analyzed and will be submitted to 
the SRG in mid-2002 for review.
    From the autumn of 2001 to the spring of 2002, NMFS will be 
monitoring harbor seal and gray seal seasonal abundance in southern New 
England. Also, NMFS is collecting harbor seal and gray seal tissue 
samples for stock studies. An unknown, and perhaps significant, 
fraction of the gray seals seasonally residing in U.S. waters are 
migrants from Canada.
    Harp seal population estimates are obtained from Canadian 
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) scientific reports. DFO 
scientists employ results of pup surveys (e.g., pup production) in 
models to estimate total abundance and population trends. Recently, 
survey design, modeling techniques and data sets (e.g., shoot/lost 
statistics, fishery bycatch) have been critiqued by several 
international scientific panels. NMFS staff have participated in some 
of these reviews. Based on panel findings, population estimates and 
trends have been revised and incorporated into the SARs.
    As noted, the western North Atlantic harp seal population is 
centered in eastern Canada. Harp seals are highly migratory, and 
seasonally a small number of juveniles disperse southward into U.S. 
waters. Although bycatch occurs in U.S. fisheries, there is not a sound 
methodology for assessing seals at sea.
    Comment 44: One commenter stated that there should be updated 
literature citations for right whales through 2000.
    Response: It is not clear to what literature the commenter is 
referring. Many of the right whale papers produced in 1999 and 2000 are 
due to be published in the International Whaling Commission Special 
Issue volume on right whales, to appear in the fall of 2001. This new 
information will be incorporated into the 2002 SAR as appropriate.
    Comment 45: One commenter stated that the PBR level for humpback 
whales has been exceeded if it is assumed that all mid-Atlantic 
mortalities are from the Gulf of Maine stock.
    Response: The commenter is correct. However, NMFS does not know 
whether the mid-Atlantic mortalities occurred to the Gulf of Maine 
stock. A NMFS-sponsored study (Barco et al. 2001) determined that 
humpback whales observed in the mid-Atlantic are not all from the Gulf 
of Maine stock. A survey is planned for the spring of 2002 that will 
collect biopsies and photographs of humpback whales to better evaluate 
whether the Gulf of Maine stock is occurring in the mid-Atlantic and 
therefore could be subjected to the fishery-related mortality that has 
occurred in that area.
    Comment 46: One commenter noted that a humpback whale named Zenith 
was struck by a whale-watching vessel in 1998 and has not been seen 
since (except for 3 weeks after the incident). It should be reported as 
a serious injury.
    Response: NMFS is reviewing this case. Any change in the 
determination will be incorporated into the SAR.
    Comment 47: One commenter noted that the sei whale recovery plan is 
cited as ``in effect in early 2000'', yet it is now well beyond that 
date, and the plan is still not in place.
    Response: The commenter is correct. The plan has not yet been 
released due to legal issues. The SAR text has been amended 
accordingly.
    Comment 48: One commenter stated that NMFS should not imply that 
the reduction in harbor porpoise bycatch is a consequence of the take 
reduction plan.
    Response: The text was modified so as not to attribute the 
reduction to any particular action, but to a combination of the marine 
mammal and fish management plans that were put into place.
    Comment 49: One commenter stated that it is inappropriate to lump 
Cuvier's beaked whale and Mesoplodon complex whales and manage them as 
a single stock.
    Response: NMFS supports the goal of providing species specific 
abundance estimates. Observers participating in abundance surveys are 
instructed to collect descriptive, behavioral, and photographic data, 
as feasible, for each beaked whale sighting. Attempts to collect at-sea 
biopsy samples will continue. The current assessment contains revised 
mortality estimates by species for some years.
    Comment 50: One commenter recommended that the section on human-
induced mortality of harbor seals be revised to include all non-fishery 
related mortality.
    Response: The estimate of the total human-caused mortality will be 
corrected to include non-fishery mortality contained in the draft 2001 
assessment. Although, shooting of harbor seals at Maine salmon 
aquaculture sites has been suggested, NMFS' documentation to confirm 
and quantify mortality is not available. NMFS is aware of the 
University of Maine seal/salmon interaction project. If University of 
Maine researchers provide data on the number of seals shot around 
salmon pens, these data will be included in future SARs. NMFS staff 
have made inquiries to the DFO regarding statistics on the number of 
harbor seals shot at aquaculture sites. However, to date NMFS has not 
received any official information. NMFS agrees that all sources of 
human induced mortality or serious injury should be included in the 
SARs. However, it is not appropriate to include anecdotal data in the 
summary chart.
    Comment 51: One commenter recommended that the section on human 
induced mortality of gray seals be revised to include all non-fishery 
related mortality.
    Response: NMFS agrees that all directed and incidental mortality 
for the stock should be included in the SAR, and the statistics for the 
total human-caused mortality will be corrected to include non-fishery 
mortality. If current statistics on human-induced mortality in Canadian 
waters are available, they will also be included in the SAR.
    Comment 52: One commenter recommended that the section on human-
induced mortality of harp seals be revised to include all non-fishery 
related mortality. Also, the commenter noted pertinent references that 
should be cited and considered in the assessment.
    Response: The statistics for the total human-caused mortality will 
be corrected to include non-fishery mortality. The statistics on the 
Canadian hunt and fishery bycatch are updated if data are available 
when the draft SAR is produced. New and significant reports were 
reviewed and incorporated into the final report.
    Comment 53: One commenter recommended that the western North 
Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin stock assessment include a sentence 
indicating that this is a strategic stock, not only because it is 
listed as depleted under the MMPA, but also because fishery-related 
mortality and serious injury exceeds the PBR.
    Response: The clarification will be added to the SAR.
    Comment 54: One commenter recommended revising abundance estimates 
for the coastal stock of bottlenose dolphins.
    Response: The SAR for the North Atlantic coastal stock of 
bottlenose dolphins is in the process of being revised for the draft 
2002 SARs, including information on all recent mortality estimates.
    Comment 55: One commenter stated that additional data on the stock 
structure of coastal and offshore western North Atlantic bottlenose 
dolphin stocks is needed.
    Response: NMFS agrees. Research efforts will continue to focus on

[[Page 10679]]

answering questions related to stock structure, abundance, and fishery-
related mortality of Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins.
    Comment 56: Two commenters noted that stock assessment for the 
bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico bays, sounds and estuaries 
have not been updated. One of the commenters suggested NMFS continue to 
work with stranding networks to recognize signs of fishery interactions 
on stranded animals.
    Response: There are no new data available to make significant 
changes in these stock assessments. Work will continue on training 
stranding network volunteers to recognize and report fishery-related 
strandings.
    Comment 57: One commenter noted that more recent abundance 
estimates are needed for the Northern Gulf of Mexico dwarf and pygmy 
sperm whales.
    Response: NMFS is aware that the abundance estimates for pygmy and 
dwarf sperm whales, as well as other cetaceans, in the Gulf of Mexico 
are old and that it would be helpful to obtain new estimates.
    Comment 58: One commenter urged re-examination of the stranding 
data and inclusion of fishery mortality estimates for strandings which 
may be fishery related, as it pertains to dwarf and pygmy sperm whales 
in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.
    Response: A review of stranding data showed no Kogia spp. 
strandings in the Gulf of Mexico with confirmed human interactions, 
including fishery interactions, from 1997 through 2000.
    Comment 59: One commenter recommended including assessments of 
stocks under the jurisdiction of the FWS in the final stock 
assessments, as was proposed by the Alaska region.
    Response: NMFS has contacted the FWS requesting information on the 
West Indian manatee for inclusion in the 2001 SAR. FWS responded in 
early November that a draft revised stock assessment for that stock of 
manatee should be available for SRG review in the winter of 2002. This 
information will be included in the 2002 SAR.

Pacific Regional SARs

    Comment 60: Two commenters noted that updated estimates of 
abundance are needed for many U.S. west coast stocks, and that stocks 
from the Hawaiian Islands region suffer from a paucity of data.
    Response: NMFS has taken and is taking the following steps to 
update cetacean abundance for waters around the Hawaiian Islands. Plans 
for a comprehensive ship survey of cetaceans in these waters have been 
delayed due to ship-time requirements of other Congressionally mandated 
research. A cetacean survey of the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone is 
planned for summer/autumn 2002. In the interim, NMFS has collaborated 
with Hawaiian researchers in the analysis of near-shore cetacean aerial 
surveys and is funding a small cetacean research project in the mid-
island area. A line-transect survey of the U.S. west coast out to 300 
nautical miles was conducted from July-December of 2001 and updated 
estimates of abundance for those stocks will be updated after 
completion of the cruise and analysis of the data.
    Comment 61: One commenter requested more specific information on 
the depth distribution and distance from shore of California coastal 
bottlenose dolphins with an emphasis on whether or not coastal gillnet 
fisheries may still interact with this stock.
    Response: Behavioral studies on southern California coastal 
bottlenose dolphins have shown that animals spend 90% of the time 
within 250 meters of the shoreline and 99% of their time within 500 
meters. Gillnet fishing within 3 nautical miles of shore has been 
banned in southern California since 1994 and set gillnet fishing 
inshore of 60 fathoms from Point Reyes to Point Arguello was eliminated 
in 2001 by the California Department of Fish and Game. Clarification of 
these facts has been added to the 2001 SAR.
    Comment 62: One commenter noted that the southern resident stock of 
killer whales has been listed as ``threatened'' in Canada, yet this is 
not mentioned in the Status of the Stock section of the SAR.
    Response: The draft 2001 stock assessment included the following 
statement in the ``Status of Stock'' section: ``In April 1999, Canada's 
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 
listed resident killer whales in British Columbia as ``threatened,'' 
i.e., likely to become ``endangered'' if limiting factors are not 
reversed (Baird 1999). In June 2000, the Washington Department of Fish 
and Wildlife designated killer whales in Washington State as a ``state 
candidate species'' (a species that the Department will review for 
possible listing as ``state endangered, threatened, or sensitive'').''
    Comment 63: One commenter stated that the discussion of the status 
of the southern resident stock of killer whales should be updated to 
reflect the continued population decline and the petition to list the 
stock under the ESA.
    Response: NMFS agrees and will update information on the status of 
this stock in the draft 2002 stock assessment and add the following 
text to the ``Status of Stock'' section in the final 2001 stock 
assessment: ``On 2 May 2001, NMFS received a petition from the Center 
for Biological Diversity and 10 co-petitioners (an 11th co-petitioner 
was added on 16 July 2001) to list the Eastern North Pacific Southern 
Resident stock of killer whales as an endangered or threatened species 
under the ESA and to designate critical habitat for this stock under 
that act. On 13 August 2001 (66 FR 42499), NMFS determined that the 
petition presented substantial scientific information indicating that a 
listing may be warranted; thus, NMFS is required to conduct an ESA 
status review of the stock and issue a report on its findings by 2 May 
2002. NMFS established a Biological Review Team for this purpose in 
late August 2001.''
    Comment 64: Two commenters recommended that the PBR level for 
Hawaiian monk seals remain at zero.
    Response: The concern over an apparent change of the PBR level from 
zero to five Hawaiian monk seals is based on a misunderstanding of a 
sentence NMFS deleted from the draft SAR: ``However, the Endangered 
Species Act takes precedence in management of this species and, under 
the Act, allowable take is 0.'' It was because of the confusion between 
the PBR level and the concept of allowable take under the ESA that this 
sentence was deleted. The PBR level is a legal term, which by itself 
does not authorize any take, but is instead the maximum number of 
marine mammals that may be removed from a stock while allowing that 
stock to reach its optimum sustainable population. The PBR level is 
determined from the formula in section 3(20) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 
1362(20)). Based upon this formula, the PBR level for Hawaiian monk 
seals has been calculated for this year, as for the last two years, at 
5. The deleted sentence did not state that the PBR level had become 
zero, but rather emphasized that the PBR itself does not authorize take 
of Hawaiian monk seals.
    As noted above, the PBR level is generated from an MMPA process, 
and it thus remains reported as such in the SAR. However, new revisions 
to the PBR section of the SAR discuss the concerns regarding the 
current lack of growth in the population.
    Comment 65: One commenter noted that the section on the fishery 
mortality in the Hawaiian monk seal SAR discusses the fact that persons 
with State permits are not required to submit data on protected species 
bycatch. This is a Federal requirement, and NMFS should work with the 
state to remedy discrepancies.

[[Page 10680]]

    Response: Serious injury and mortality forms will be sent to the 
fishery permit holders, and by law, participants in the fishery are 
required to report serious injury/mortalities within 48 hours of 
return.
    Comment 66: One commenter noted that in the SAR for Hawaiian monk 
seals there is a statement that fishery interactions with the species 
``remain to be thoroughly evaluated...'' However, the stock assessment 
cites a 1993 paper by Nitta and Henderson that found one ``event'' per 
34.4 hours of fishing. This sort of study should be repeated with a 
better attempt to obtain confidence intervals. A brief discussion of 
efforts that are underway would help in understanding whether these 
impacts are being assessed and/or addressed. The commenter requested an 
evaluation of fishery impacts.
    Response: With regard to the bottomfish fishery, NMFS is discussing 
and planning for increased observer coverage. Also, new data forms for 
observers are being developed to collect more information on protected 
species. However, the type and degree of observer coverage needed in 
the bottomfish fishery has yet to be determined.
    Comment 67: One commenter recommended that the SAR for Hawaiian 
monk seals include discussion of some of the research alluded to in 
previous stock assessments including scat analysis and at-sea tracking. 
This research had been recommended since at least 1995.
    Response: An extensive study of at-sea movements of monk seals was 
funded and resumed in 2000. Because this SAR only covers information 
through 1999, this information is not included. A description of the 
study will appear in the 2002 SAR. No new reports or data summaries are 
available at this time.
    Comment 68: One commenter noted that, although it appears that 246 
Hawaiian monk seals have been entangled since 1982, there is little 
discussion as to when many of these entanglements were observed and no 
speculation on average annual serious injury and mortality. It is also 
not clear from the text whether this number is separate from or 
inclusive of later discussion of monk seals hooked in the pelagic 
longline fishery and recreational fisheries.
    Response: The SAR does not state that 246 seal entanglements in 
marine debris have occurred. Rather, the report notes that there have 
been 197 entanglements observed, plus 6 deaths attributed to 
entanglement in debris. A parenthetical phrase indicating that the 
three longline hookings are included in the total count of hookings has 
been added. A reference to a newly published paper has also been added 
to the revised report, which summarizes the data on entanglement in 
detail.

    Dated: March 4, 2002.
David Cottingham,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 02-5617 Filed 3-7-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S