[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 71 (Monday, April 14, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17920-17924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-9058]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 032502D]


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 2002 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, e-mail 
[email protected].
    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, e-mail [email protected] or 
Steven Swartz, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach 
Dr., Miami, FL 33149, e-mail [email protected].
    Copies of the Pacific Regional SARs may be requested from Cathy 
Campbell, Southwest Regional Office (F/SWO3), NMFS, 501 West Ocean 
Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, e-mail [email protected].

[[Page 17921]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Eagle, Office of Protected 
Resources, 301-713-2322, e-mail [email protected]; Robyn Angliss 206-
526-4032, regarding Alaska regional stock assessments; Janeen Quintal, 
508-495-2252, regarding Northwest Atlantic regional stock assessments; 
Steven Swartz, 305-361-4487, regarding Mid-Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 
regional stock assessments; or Cathy Campbell, 562-980-4020, 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 marine mammals 
that occurs in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States. 
These reports must, among other things, 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 2002 SARs were made available for a 90-day public review and 
comment period on April 19, 2002 (67 FR 19417). 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 2002 SARs. Printed copies may be obtained by request (see 
ADDRESSES).
    The FWS updated the most recent versions of the SARs for polar 
bears, sea otters, walrus, and manatees and they were appended to NMFS' 
final 2002 SARs. These reports were included so that interested 
constituents would have reports for all regional stocks in a single 
document.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received two letters, one from the National Wildlife 
Federation and the other from the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) which 
contained comments on the draft 2002 SARs. The comments and responses 
below are separated according to the regional scope of the comments. 
Many of the comments on specific SARs addressed minor editorial points 
for clarification. Most of these comments were included into the final 
reports or will be included in future reports and are not included in 
the following segment of this document.

Comments on National Issues

    Comment 1: Combining species groups is inconsistent with Sections 
117 and 3(11) of the MMPA. Also, species with lower abundance, slower 
growth rates, and higher interaction (mortality and serious injury) 
rates may be more vulnerable to fisheries and other human activities, 
and the risk to those species may be increased when analyses are 
conducted on species groups.
    Response: NMFS concurs that some populations or species may be more 
vulnerable to human-caused mortality than others; however, NMFS 
disagrees that stock assessment reports describing groups of 
populations or stocks are necessarily inconsistent with the MMPA. The 
MMPA states that stock assessment reports must be based upon the best 
scientific information available. In many cases, the best available 
information is limited to species groups. For example, in its initial 
SARs, NMFS reported on each species of beaked whale in a separate 
report, and most reports indicated that the species-specific abundance 
and mortality estimates used in management decisions were unknown. 
Thus, the species-specific reports were not informative. As a result, 
NMFS, in consultation with the SRGs, prepared subsequent reports for 
beaked whales and some other stocks as grouped reports. The information 
in these grouped reports must be interpreted with caution to avoid the 
conservation issues identified in this comment. When the methodologies 
to obtain data supporting stock-specific reports are available and 
sufficient data are collected, NMFS will use these methods to collect 
and analyze the appropriate information to prepare separate reports on 
each stock of beaked whale and other marine mammals where grouped data 
are used.
    Comment 2: Requiring confirmation of human-caused effects to assess 
serious injuries and mortalities is contrary to the precautionary 
approach and incorporates several sources of negative bias; thus, it 
may not represent the best scientific information available. NMFS 
should report all injuries that could be serious and provide the 
rationale for discounting them in mortality estimates. An alternative 
approach, which was recommended in NMFS's 1997 workshop on 
differentiating serious and non-serious injuries would be to prorate 
cases where seriousness could not be determined using data from cases 
where such determination could be made. These approaches would provide 
a more realistic view of the uncertainty associated with the potential 
effects of fishing and other human activities.
    Response: NMFS realizes that requiring evidence that human factors 
were, indeed, related to deaths of marine mammals could result in an 
underestimate of such mortality and may not be the most precautionary 
assessment of human-caused mortality. Most cases where we require such 
confirmation are those mortalities identified from stranded carcasses. 
These stranding records provide only minimum estimates of mortality, 
and the value of such data is related more to illustrating where 
quantitative data are needed rather than as substitutes for more 
reliable estimates. NMFS will continue using the summary approach in 
the SARs to realize the benefit of short documents that describe the 
status of each stock of marine mammal. Longer-more detailed discussion 
of this summary information will be contained in supporting reports and 
data, and this supporting information will continue to be cited in the 
reference section of each report.
    Comment 3: The SARs are inconsistent in their use of observer data. 
For example, an observed mortality of one humpback whale as a result of 
a fishery interaction in the Pacific was not used as a basis for 
extrapolation because observer coverage was less than one percent; 
however, observer coverage of less than one percent is extrapolated for 
several Atlantic fisheries that appear to take large numbers of marine 
mammals. Also, the use of estimates based upon low levels of observer 
coverage and the use of a 5-year average fail to inspire confidence in 
the resulting estimates and are not sufficiently reliable to assess the 
efficacy of take reduction measures.
    Response: In the case of the Central North Pacific stock of 
Humpback whales, the observed take was not used

[[Page 17922]]

because it was more than 5 years old, not because only one mortality 
was observed. If the single observed take had been no more than 5 years 
old, the observed take would have been extrapolated to a mortality 
estimate. Thus, both reports are consistent with existing guidelines.
    Uncertainty in mortality estimates due to low levels of observer 
coverage does, indeed, make it difficult to assess the efficacy of take 
reduction measures. However, low levels of observer coverage are 
primarily a result of budget limitations. NMFS considers monitoring in 
fisheries with an existing take reduction plan or in fisheries for 
which take reduction plans are being developed as its highest 
priorities. These priorities are consistent with priorities for 
observer coverage provided in the MMPA. NMFS gives priority to 
monitoring incidental takes and development and implementation of take 
reduction plans for commercial fisheries that have incidental mortality 
and serious injury of strategic stocks of marine mammals. 
Unfortunately, due to insufficient funding, NMFS will continue to have 
some fisheries for which incidental mortality estimates are highly 
uncertain due to low levels of observer coverage.
    Comment 4: The Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SAR does not adhere to 
the requirements of the MMPA regarding inclusion of descriptive data on 
fisheries that interact with marine mammals.
    Response: The individual Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs contain 
summary data for fisheries that interact with marine mammals. In 
addition a new table (Appendix I) has been added to the 2002 report, 
which provides the required information in summary form. Presenting the 
fishery descriptions in a single table avoids unnecessary duplication 
in the descriptions of fisheries where the same fishery interacts with 
several stocks of marine mammals.
    Comment 5: Data standards need to be established to set the level 
of observer coverage for each fishery, particularly Atlantic trawl 
fisheries. The development and implementation of data standards should 
provide assurance that the effect of fisheries and other human 
activities are being assessed reliably.
    Response: NMFS concurs that the level of observer coverage in 
Atlantic trawl fisheries has been insufficient to obtain reliable 
bycatch estimates. However, using data standards to set observer levels 
is not likely to alleviate this problem because observer coverage is 
limited by available funding.

Alaska Regional SARs

    Comment 6: The SAR for the western stock of Steller sea lions 
includes fishery-specific mean annual mortality levels that are more 
than a decade old. The report should either explain why such data are 
considered reliable indicators of current take levels or remove the 
data from the table.
    Response: NMFS agrees that some estimates of fishery-specific 
incidental mortality are quite old. Removing the data from the table 
would result in an apparent decrease in take level, which could lead 
the reader to conclude that mortalities have not occurred incidental to 
these fisheries. Thus, because these take levels constitute the best 
available information on the level of incidental mortality in these 
fisheries, the data will be retained in the table.
    Comment 7: It is not clear why harbor seal stock structure 
designations in Alaska have not yet been changed. The genetics studies 
that are providing the basis for the revision were initiated 4 to 5 
years ago, and the studies have since provided the best available 
scientific information upon which to base a revision of stocks. NMFS 
has been fully informed of the results and should have anticipated the 
possibility that they would indicate a more complex stock structure 
than was recognized in the past. The need for a stock-specific 
management program seems clear based on significant harbor seal 
declines in a number of locations in Alaska.
    Response: NMFS is evaluating the stock structure of harbor seals in 
Alaska through a process that includes discussions with the Alaska 
Native Harbor Seal Commission under a co-management agreement. NMFS and 
the Harbor Seal Commission have discussed the available scientific 
information, and the next steps include compiling and incorporating 
Alaska Natives' knowledge into a recommended population structure.
    Comment 8: The SAR for the eastern Chukchi Sea stock of beluga 
whales includes an estimate of 3,710 whales which is now based on data 
that are more than 8 years old. This estimate should be treated as 
outdated unless evidence can be provided that it is still a valid 
estimate.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the estimate of 3,710 obtained from 
surveys conducted in 1989-91 would generally be considered outdated. 
However, the maximum count from surveys in 1998 (1,172 animals) is very 
similar to the maximum count during the summers of 1989-91 (- 1,200 
animals). In addition, both counts are similar to those conducted in 
the summer of 1979. These counts indicate that no major changes in 
abundance have occurred; thus, the use of the older estimate is 
consistent with SAR guidelines. The SAR for this stock will next be 
reviewed in 2004; at that time, NMFS will revisit whether using this 
information for abundance is still appropriate.
    Comment 9: The SAR for the Chukchi Sea stock of beluga whales does 
not provide sufficient information to distinguish between two 
alternative hypotheses: (1) There have been no takes of beluga whales 
as a result of gillnet and personal-use fisheries and (2) there have 
been takes but they have not been reported. The conclusion drawn is 
consistent with the first hypothesis, but the basis for distinguishing 
between these hypotheses is not clear and should be explained.
    Response: The only data available to distinguish between these two 
hypotheses are contained in injury reports. No injuries (including 
mortalities) have been reported; therefore, the best available data 
support the hypothesis that no mortality incidental to the personal-use 
fisheries has occurred. Most beluga whales taken in personal-use 
fisheries are used for subsistence purposes and are reported as 
subsistence takes through the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee; thus, the 
estimate of total human-caused mortality is not significantly affected.
    Comment 10: The SAR for the Cook Inlet stock of beluga whales 
indicates that there were no indications that the large stranding 
events from 1996-1999 resulted from human interactions. However, the 
information provided in the SAR does not indicate the nature and extent 
of efforts to determine the cause, so the reader cannot distinguish 
between (1) the events were unrelated to human activities and (2) the 
events were related to human activities but the relationship was not 
evaluated or detected. Essentially, it is not clear that the causes of 
the stranding events could be determined, and if this is the case, the 
SAR should state as much.
    Response: The exact cause of the stranding cannot be determined. 
Stranding records and a knowledge of the dynamics of Cook Inlet (e.g., 
tidal changes) indicate that human factors were not responsible for the 
mass strandings.
    Comment 11: The SAR for the Cook Inlet stock of beluga includes a 
statement in the section entitled ``Habitat Concerns'' that there is no 
indication that municipal, commercial, and industrial activities have 
had a quantifiable adverse impact on the beluga whale population. The 
absence

[[Page 17923]]

of evidence in support of a particular hypothesis is not necessarily 
evidence that the hypothesis is false if a rigorous, powerful 
investigation has not been conducted.
    Response: Specific investigations have not been carried out to 
determine whether municipal, commercial, and industrial activities have 
had a quantifiable adverse impact on the bowhead whale population. 
However, a review of the available information indicated that the 
observed population decline could be explained solely by subsistence 
harvest levels. Further, a review of available information on Cook 
Inlet beluga whales and their habitat did not provide any indication 
that activities other than the harvest were resulting in population-
level effects.
    Comment 12: The SAR for eastern North Pacific northern resident 
killer whale states that a population increases at the maximum growth 
rate only when the population is at extremely low levels; thus, the 
estimate of 2.92 percent is not a reliable estimate of Rmax. While this 
statement may be generally true, or at least is consistent with 
density-dependence theory, it is not necessarily always the case, 
particularly for K-selected species in fluctuating environments (e.g., 
where life history or vital rates are limited by biological rather than 
ecological factors). In these cases, growth rates could approximate 
Rmax at intermediate population levels.
    Response: NMFS agrees that population growth rates could 
approximate Rmax at intermediate population levels. However, the 
generalized logistic model is the best available scientific information 
in this case. Under the logistic model, Rmax occurs only when 
population levels are low.
    Comment 13: The AT1 group of transient killer whales is a discrete 
unit and should be a stock separate from the North Pacific transient 
killer whale stock.
    Response: This comment was subsequently attached to a petition 
submitted to NMFS pursuant to section 115 of the MMPA requesting that 
the AT1 group of killer whales be recognized as a separate stock and 
designated as depleted. NMFS is currently evaluating the petition and 
will respond as required by the MMPA. If stock structure of transient 
killer whales in Alaska is modified as a result of this evaluation, 
NMFS will modify the SARs accordingly.
    Comment 14: The range of observer coverage is not provided in Table 
22 of the Gulf of Alaska harbor porpoise SAR. Although there is almost 
no observer coverage for gillnet fisheries that take harbor porpoise, 
the level of coverage should be provided.
    Response: The SARs for harbor porpoise were not updated in 2002. 
These SARs will be updated in 2003 and information on the range of 
observer coverage will be provided at that time.
    Comment 15: It is not clear how estimated mortality rates were 
calculated from observed mortality rates in the SARs for Dall's 
porpoise. For example, observed mortality in 1990 was 6, and at the 74 
percent coverage, the estimated mortality should have been 8.
    Response: The estimated mortality rates cannot be calculated 
directly by multiplying the observer coverage by the observed mortality 
for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands groundfish trawl fishery. The 
overall estimated mortality rates, which are provided in the SAR, were 
calculated by multiplying the observer coverage in each fishery 
management zone by the observed mortality rates in each zone and 
summing the estimated mortality levels per zone. The level of observer 
coverage reflected in the table is the average over all the zones. 
Thus, if the observer coverage in one area is very high, the estimated 
mortality level will be only slightly higher than the observed 
mortality level, as was the case in 1990.
    Comment 16: The population size and minimum population abundance 
estimates for the central North Pacific humpback whale are both based 
on data from 1991-1993 and are, therefore, out of date.
    Response: In 2002, NMFS convened a small workshop to begin the 
development of a new estimate for a portion of this stock, and 
preliminary information will be available to include in the draft SAR 
for 2003. Because the estimate based on the 1991-1993 information is 
the best available for this stock, it will be retained until a new 
estimate is available.
    Comment 17: The SAR for the North Pacific right whale states that 
there are no known habitat issues for this stock and also indicates 
that the NMFS has been petitioned to designate critical habitat for 
this species. These two statements seem inconsistent. More importantly, 
a concern leading to the petition seems to have been ignored. The only 
recent observations of right whales have occurred in an area where much 
commercial fishing occurs. If whales are disturbed by fishing 
activities, their use of potentially important habitat may be precluded 
by the presence of fishing vessels and fishing operations that generate 
extensive noise.
    Response: There is not necessarily an inconsistency simply because 
the SAR states no habitat concerns concurrently with NMFS receiving a 
petition to designate critical habitat. Although petitioners expressed 
a concern that commercial fishing vessels may disturb whales by 
generating excessive noise, preliminary results of studies conducted on 
North Atlantic right whales indicate the whales have not changed their 
distribution or behavior in response to vessel noise. It is premature 
to list vessel disturbance as a ``concern'' in the SAR until the 
impacts of vessel noise on behavior or distribution is better 
understood.

Atlantic Regional SARs

    Comment 18: The section of the Western North Atlantic right whale 
SAR related to net productivity rates states that no population growth 
rate can be used because the population is in decline.
    Response: NMFS changed the PBR of this stock of right whales to 0.0 
in the 2000 revision of the SARs. At that time, it was estimated that 
the stock was not likely to recover to its Optimum Sustainable 
Population levels if there was any recurring human-caused mortality. 
Because the population remains small and critically endangered, NMFS 
continues to hold that position. Therefore, whether or not there is a 
value that could be reported for the maximum net productivity rate, 
NMFS maintains that the PBR for the stock is 0.0 and that this estimate 
is consistent with the definition of PBR.
    Comment 19: The population estimate for the Western North Atlantic 
stock of blue whales is at least 15 years old, therefore, cannot be 
assumed to be a reliable, current estimate.
    Response: NMFS agrees, and a blue whale PBR has not been calculated 
in the final report.
    Comment 20: SARs should not be limited to records of mortality and 
serious injury that occur only in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 
(EEZ). Similar to other species reports, all human caused mortality of 
Western North Atlantic blue whales should be included in the report.
    Response: NMFS does not have mortality data on Western North 
Atlantic blue whales outside U.S. waters and is not aware of incidents 
of human-caused deaths or serious injury on this population.
    Comment 21: The ``Fishery Interaction'' section of the SAR for 
common dolphins (Western North Atlantic stock) describes a pelagic 
longline fishery, but the level of take is not provided in the text or 
in Table 2.

[[Page 17924]]

    Response: Although 16 common dolphins were killed incidental to the 
pelagic longline fishery between 1990-2000, no animals were killed or 
seriously injured during the 5-year period (1996-2000). Therefore, the 
data were not included in Table 2.

Pacific Regional SARs

    Comment 22: For Hawaiian monk seals, the pattern of residuals in 
the graph showing mean number of non-pups by year suggests that the 
fitted model may be too linear, and other models should be investigated 
to provide a better fit. The title for the Y-axis overlaps the units of 
measurement and is difficult to read.
    Response: NMFS is currently investigating other analyses to 
interpret the data more precisely. However, the slope of the current 
model provides an average rate of population decline during the entire 
period covered in the graph.
    Comment 23: Data for population size of Hawaiian Monk Seals in 2001 
are available, and it would be useful to include them in the discussion 
and the graph.
    Response: Although the data for 2001 are currently available, the 
estimates resulting from these data were not completed and reviewed 
prior to completion of the 2002 draft SARs. The new estimates will be 
included in future drafts for public review and comment.
    Comment 24: In the fourth paragraph in the Hawaiian monk seal 
section and in the section on Other Mortality, references to biotoxins 
(e.g., ciguatoxins) have been removed. Although mortality due to 
biotoxins has not been confirmed, it has long been a matter of concern 
stemming largely from (1) the 1978 mass mortality of seals at Laysan 
Island, which may have resulted from ciguatoxins, and (2) observations 
that monk seals consumed fish that were discarded during bottomfish 
operations because those fish are known to contain potentially high 
levels of biotoxins (i.e., were not considered fit for human 
consumption). The lack of confirmation that biotoxins do, in fact, 
cause mortality could indicate they do not, but it could also indicate 
that methods for detection or monitoring of such mortality are 
inadequate. In view of the fact that the potential threat posed to monk 
seals by biotoxins cannot be reliably characterized and concerns about 
such threats appear to be justified on the basis of the existing 
information on monk seals (as well as information on biotoxin effects 
on other marine mammal species), this potential source of mortality 
should be described in the report.
    Response: The role of biotoxins, such as ciguatoxin, in mortality 
of monk seals remains speculative. Any number of other factors could 
also be hypothesized to cause mortality to monk seals, but are not 
listed because they are not confirmed. As relevant information becomes 
available, NMFS will include a summary of this information in the SARs, 
including the effects of biotoxins on monk seals.
    Comment 25: In the Fisheries Information section, there was 
confusion over the total number of sets and hooks fished in Hawaiian 
waters.
    Response: Two sets of values were presented: one for Hawaii-based 
vessels and another for vessels landing on the U.S. west coast 
(excluding Alaska and Hawaii). The reported value of 20.2 million hooks 
fished in 2000 refers to Hawaiian-based vessels, which corresponds to 
approximately 12,000 fishing trips, or 1,700 hooks per set. The cited 
value of 285 sets in year 2000 refers to boats landing on the 
continental U.S. west coast. Information on the number of Hawaiian-
based sets will be clarified in the final stock assessment.
    Comment 26: The commenter noted that the abundance of false killer 
whales in regions yet unsurveyed is unknown, nor has their presence 
been established in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The commenter 
also suggested that it might be more accurate to state that current 
estimates are negatively biased, with the extent of the potential bias 
being unknown.
    Response: The abundance of Hawaiian false killer whales outside of 
previously surveyed areas is unknown, but their presence has been 
documented through longline fishery interactions. Given even a low 
density of animals outside previously surveyed areas and the large 
expanse of the study area, new population estimates are likely to 
exceed the currently published estimate by an unknown amount. Thus the 
current aerial survey estimate represents an underestimate, owing to a 
lack of survey coverage throughout the stock's range. Current abundance 
estimates are also negatively-biased because correction factors for the 
proportion of animals missed by the survey aircraft due to diving 
(availability bias) and poor searching conditions (perception bias) are 
not available. A research cruise conducted in summer and autumn 2002 in 
the Hawaiian EEZ is expected to provide reliable estimates of abundance 
of false killer whales throughout the Hawaiian EEZ. Revised abundances 
estimates for Hawaiian cetaceans are expected to appear in the 2004 
SARs, which will be reviewed by the Pacific SRG in late summer and fall 
of 2003 prior to public review and comment.
    Comment 27: In Table 1 of the Fisheries Information section for 
harbor porpoise (Oregon/Washington coastal stock), estimates of mean 
annual take have not been included even though estimated mortality 
levels are included and, in most cases, are not zero. Although the 
observed mortality was recorded during experiments with pingers, it is 
not clear why the resulting take levels are not carried over into the 
final column.
    Response: The mean annual take is included in Table 1 and is 
calculated as the average of the most recent 5 years of mortality 
estimates. The mean annual take of 9 (CV=0.62) harbor porpoise, 
calculated for the northern Washington marine set gillnet fishery in 
1996-2000, includes mortality estimates for two of the years (1996 and 
1997) in which acoustic alarm experiments were conducted in this 
fishery.

    Dated: April 7, 2003.
Laurie K. Allen,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 03-9058 Filed 4-11-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S