[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54262-54268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-20343]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 051404A]


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; response to comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has incorporated public comments into revisions of marine 
mammal stock assessment reports (SARs). The 2003 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, email [email protected]. Copies of the 
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Regional SARs may be requested from Gordon 
Waring, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water St., Woods Hole, 
MA 02543, email [email protected] or Lance Garrison, 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].

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; Gordon Waring, 
508-495-2311, regarding Northwest Atlantic regional stock assessments; 
Lance Garrison, 305-361-4488, 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 nonstrategic 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 2003 SARs were made available for a 90 day public review and 
comment period on August 27, 2003 (68 FR 51561). 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 2003 SARs. Printed copies may be obtained by request (see 
ADDRESSES), and electronic copies are available on the Internet (see 
Electronic Access).
    The most recent versions of the SARs for polar bears, sea otters, 
walrus, and manatees, prepared by FWS, are appended to NMFS' final 2003 
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 three letters with comments on the draft 2003 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.

[[Page 54263]]

 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: Draft 2003 SARs are being commented on by the public 
while regional scientific review groups are reviewing draft 2004 SARs. 
Thus, the public may be commenting on reports that are soon to be out 
of date. For example, information on the continued decline of Cook 
Inlet belugas after reduction in subsistence harvests and the recent 
decline in gray whale abundance are not covered in the 2003 reports. 
NMFS should work with the scientific review groups from each region and 
the MMC to investigate means to update the data in the stock assessment 
reports in a more timely fashion and to better coordinate the review 
process for the reports.
    Response: The current process for preparing, reviewing, and 
adjusting SARs was developed in conjunction with the regional SRGs. 
Resources and competing priorities have resulted in the process being 
delayed after the initial SRG reviews, and NMFS is working to get the 
process back on schedule. The 2004 draft SARs are already late; 
therefore, the opportunity for returning to the schedule will be for 
the 2005 revisions to the SARs. NMFS would consider alternatives 
submitted by the public or other agencies to update the reports in a 
more timely and coordinated manner.
    Comment 2: Information on fisheries interactions needs to be 
presented in a more systematic and consistent approach. Some basic 
information should be reported clearly in all SARs and should include 
answers to questions such as: (1) which fisheries might interact with 
the stock; (2) which of those fisheries are monitored for interactions; 
(3) how effective are the monitoring efforts; and (4) how many 
individuals from the stock are killed or seriously injured.
    Response: Each SAR contains a discussion of fishery-related 
mortality, which includes fishery-specific information on data sources 
and mortality estimates. The SARs do not contain a list of fisheries 
that may interact with stocks of marine mammals nor an analysis of the 
effectiveness of monitoring efforts. The latter is usually apparent 
from levels of observer coverage and frequency of mortality in the 
fishery, which is included in each SAR for the marine mammal stocks 
that experience incidental mortality in commercial fisheries. Expanding 
the SARs to all information on each stock would be inconsistent with 
their purpose, a summary of the status of each stock of marine mammals 
and of factors that may affect the status.
    Comment 3: Reports from the different regions are not consistent 
with regard to use of and/or reporting of observer coverage; thus, 
monitoring standards are needed to assist with understanding mortality 
and serious injury estimates and to distinguish those cases where 
estimates are actually low compared to those cases where they may 
appear low due to inadequate observer coverage.
    Response: NMFS is producing a document to identify resource 
requirements for adequate protected species stock assessment, and the 
document will describe desired levels of data quality, quantity, and 
timeliness. These levels will represent goals to which NMFS would like 
to achieve; achievement of the goals will require additional resources 
to support stock assessment activities. The requested information is 
available from NMFS' fishery science centers, and its inclusion within 
SARs would expand the reports beyond the scope of information required 
by the MMPA (see also response to comment 2).
    Comment 4: A number of reports assumed that the absence of evidence 
for mortality and serious injury reasonably could be construed as 
evidence that mortality and serious injury did not occur, even without 
effective monitoring. In addition, NMFS needs to review and revise its 
approach for determining when right whales have been seriously injured. 
The requirement that mortality of an injured animal be confirmed before 
it can be considered a ``serious injury'' clearly biases estimates of 
``mortality and serious injury'' downward, and underestimates the need 
to address the source of the injury.
    Response: When there is a lack of direct information upon which to 
base serious injury and mortality estimates, the SAR contains no 
reported serious injury or mortality. In those cases where indirect 
evidence (e.g., seasonal distribution of the affected marine mammals 
and fisheries) or anecdotal information suggests the lack of reported 
mortality may reflect exceedingly low mortality levels, the SAR assumes 
the absence of reported mortality accurately reflects the situation.
    Mortality and serious injury estimates for North Atlantic right 
whales are likely biased downward because only observation or recovery 
of dead or seriously injured animals is included in the reports. Thus, 
any unobserved mortality or serious injury is not included in the 
reports. NMFS will continue to examine each injured North Atlantic 
right whale on a case-by-case basis in consultation with other North 
Atlantic right whale experts in classifying injuries as serious or non-
serious. However, the details of these analyses will not be included in 
the SARs to ensure reports remain as they were designed, summaries of 
the status of the stocks.
    Comment 5: NMFS should review its interpretation of population 
parameters and status in the absence of adequate information, identify 
measures that can be used to convey the associated uncertainty, and 
incorporate those measures in the stock assessment reports.
    Response: The SARs contain brief descriptions of the evidence used 
to support estimates and report coefficients of variation on estimates 
when these are available. When default parameters are used in PBR 
calculations due to lack of stock-specific estimates, the defaults are 
identified. The bibliography of each report directs interested readers 
to source documents containing the details of the information upon 
which the SARs are based.
    Comment 6: Prepare SARs on prospective stocks, or at least 
incorporate information on the applicable parameters (e.g. minimum 
population estimate, potential biological removal level, mortality 
estimate, and status) in the current SAR. For example, the available 
information on harbor seals in Alaska has not been updated while stock 
structure is being determined. Sufficient information is available to 
identify prospective stocks and report their potential biological 
removal levels and associated parameters.
    Response: In a meeting in September 2003 to discuss guidelines for 
preparing stock assessment reports, NMFS scientists and managers and 
representatives of the regional SRGs and the Marine Mammal Commission 
recommended identifying prospective stocks in SARs and showing 
applicable information on each prospective stock. Prospective stocks 
would be a transition to new stock identification, including reports on 
the new stocks, for the affected marine mammals. The recommendation has 
not been presented to NMFS senior managers for approval, and, if the 
recommendation is approved, it would be incorporated in future SARs.
    Comment 7: Use the SARs as a basis for an overall assessment of key 
issues/problems, and use that assessment to facilitate planning and 
setting of priorities for future research. NMFS

[[Page 54264]]

should consider adding an appendix to these reports to list and 
prioritize research needs and conservation issues.
    Response: The purpose of the SARs is to summarize the status of 
stocks of marine mammals. The requested information is included in 
conservation and recovery plans prepared for depleted, threatened and 
endangered stocks of marine mammals and is used to prioritize NMFS 
activities in the conservation of marine mammals.

Atlantic Regional SARs

    Comment 8: The description of the geographic range of long-finned 
(Globicephala melas) and short-finned (G. macrorhynchus) pilot whales 
is confusing. The third paragraph in the ``Fishery Information'' 
section that explains the overlap of the ranges of the two species has 
been deleted; however, this explanation was more clear than the current 
explanation.
    Response: NMFS has re-instated the former paragraph.
    Comment 9: Unless G. melas and G. macrorhynchus are equivalent in 
every way (e.g., abundance, age structure, life history 
characteristics, interactions with fisheries), combining them for the 
purposes of abundance estimation is not only inconsistent with a 
precautionary approach, but actually may expose one species to levels 
of risk greater than is allowed for under the PBR-based management 
approach. In addition, the most recent abundance estimate for long-
finned pilot whales is five years old and, given that this is a 
strategic stock, abundance surveys on a more frequent basis seem 
necessary.
    Response: Although combined information for these species has its 
limitations, presenting the information at hand is better than 
presenting no information. The situation with pilot whales is similar 
to beaked whales, where species cannot be identified during surveys. 
NMFS understands the limitations of the grouped estimates and uses this 
information accordingly in its conservation programs and decision-
making. To alleviate this problem, NMFS will be conducting a pelagic 
cetacean abundance survey, including dedicated biopsy sampling in the 
region of overlap of these two species. Also, NMFS has made it a high 
priority to collect tissue samples from pilot whales taken incidental 
to fishing operations to further assist in delineating stock 
boundaries.
    Comment 10: For long-finned pilot whales (G. melas), the report 
notes mortality and serious injury has been close to PBR for the last 
few years and its status has fluctuated. It should be clarified that it 
is not possible to determine whether mortality and serious injury have 
fluctuated or the estimates have fluctuated due to lack of precision in 
observer data.
    Response: The text has been revised to clarify the meaning.
    Comment 11: Observer coverage for long-finned pilot whales is 
inadequate for two of the four fisheries that affect this species; 
thus, even relatively large bycatch rates may go undetected. Either 
observer coverage should be increased in the pelagic longline and 
midwater trawl fisheries or alternative methods must be developed to 
assess incidental mortality.
    Response: NMFS has recently completed an analysis on the level of 
sampling required to achieve reasonable precision on estimates of 
mortality for long-finned pilot whales taken incidental to the Illex 
and Loligo squid fisheries prosecuted by trawls in the Mid-Atlantic 
region. NMFS plans to implement increased sampling coverage levels for 
these fisheries in 2004, contingent on funding, and plans to research 
alternative analytical methods to reduce bias in estimated mortality 
rates.
    Comment 12: Increased observer coverage is necessary to better 
characterize fishery interactions with common dolphins (Western North 
Atlantic stock). The extremely high coefficients of variation of 
mortality estimates for the Northeast multi-species sink gillnet 
fishery results in these estimates being highly sensitive to the 
observed bycatch of small numbers of dolphins (e.g., bycatch of 2 
animals increases the mortality estimate from 0 to 146 animals).
    Response: Common dolphin mortality in the Northeast multi-species 
gillnet fishery can be characterized generally as a rare occurrence. 
Rarely-observed mortality is reflected in the coefficients of variation 
associated with the mortality estimates. Increased sampling levels in 
addition to improved analytical procedures for this species would 
improve precision for common dolphin mortality estimates. Increased 
sampling, however, is contingent on increased resources for observer 
coverage.
    Comment 13: Recent genetic evidence has shown that harbor porpoises 
that stranded in the mid-Atlantic region are not exclusively from the 
Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock, but also from the Gulf of St. 
Lawrence and Newfoundland stocks. These latter stocks are not assessed 
by NMFS, but they occur in U.S. waters and are vulnerable to mortality 
in U.S. fisheries.
    Response: NMFS does not have the resources to assess the northern 
Canadian stocks of harbor porpoises. Canada has recently conducted 
abundance surveys in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and around Newfoundland, 
and more surveys are planned for the near future. When results from the 
Canadian surveys and more genetic work from the mid-Atlantic states are 
available, it would be possible to include assessments on these 
populations as well. Additional assessment for these populations as 
well as for many other stocks of marine mammals in waters under US 
jurisdiction would facilitate improved management decisions. Additional 
abundance surveys, like additional observer coverage, are limited by 
available resources to support them.
    Comment 14: The SAR states that the population estimate in 1998 for 
North Atlantic right whales may have been biased in a downward 
direction if animals were not photographed and identified or if some 
living animals were presumed dead. However, this estimate might be 
biased upwards if animals died, but were not confirmed, in the 5-year 
period prior to 1998 and, hence, were assumed alive based on past 
sightings.
    Response: The statistical model used in estimating North Atlantic 
right whale abundance in 1998 incorporated only animals known to have 
been alive (i.e., seen alive) in 1998 and future years; therefore, an 
over-estimate is unlikely.
    Comment 15: There is insufficient information in the SAR on North 
Atlantic right whales to allow the reader to determine if NMFS made an 
accurate assessment of serious injury and mortality. This comment 
specifically refers to two cases of entangled whales (2427 and 3107) 
and the ``gruesome'' appearance of injuries to two other whales.
    Response: In the case of right whale 2427, the entanglement was not 
considered a serious injury. The event involving whale 3107 happened 
after the period addressed by the 2003 SAR and will be included in 
future SARs as an entanglement mortality.
    For the two whales with gruesome-appearing injuries, the injuries 
were deemed not likely to be fatal. Detailed assessments of an injured 
right whale's condition are recorded by NMFS while in the field and are 
reviewed by scientists or other people with certain expertise in the 
biology of right whales. When injured animals are re-sighted, the 
determination of serious injury and mortality is reassessed based upon 
the new information. Hence, the determination of serious injury and 
mortality represents the best scientific information available. As 
noted in

[[Page 54265]]

responses to other comments, the SARs are not designed to present the 
details of each analysis. Rather, the SARs present summaries of 
information available in more detail elsewhere (e.g., in documents 
listed in the reference section of each report).
    Comment 16: The report on sei whales (Nova Scotia stock) states, 
''...there have been no reported entanglements or other interactions 
between sei whales and commercial fishing activities...'', but it is 
not clear if the lack of reported mortality reflects low interaction 
rates or inadequate monitoring.
    Response: The text has been changed to clarify the meaning.
    Comment 17: Evidence from two stranded rough-toothed dolphins 
(Northern Gulf of Mexico stock) indicates fisheries-related mortalities 
occur; however, there is not sufficient information to attribute these 
mortalities to a specific fishery. The pelagic longline fishery is the 
only fishery discussed, but it is unclear if this is the only fishery 
operating in the Gulf of Mexico that may interact with rough-toothed 
dolphins.
    Response: The text has been modified. The pelagic longline fishery 
is not the only fishery operating in the Gulf of Mexico, but it is the 
only one with any appreciable observer coverage and the only one for 
which marine mammal interactions have been documented. The lack of 
information concerning rough-toothed dolphin interactions with other 
fisheries precludes their mention in the 2003 SAR; however, NMFS 
recognizes the review of fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico is incomplete 
and plans to address this issue in future SARs.

Pacific Regional SARs

    Comment 18: The SAR for harbor seals (California stock) indicates a 
``small number'' of seals occurs along the west coast of Baja 
California, but these animals are not included in the assessment 
because the U.S. and Mexico do not have a formal agreement for 
management. It is unclear what constitutes a ``small number'', and why 
a formal agreement is needed to include these animals in the stock 
assessment.
    Response: Harbor seals along Baja California are not considered to 
be a part of the California stock because it is not known if there is 
any demographically significant movement of harbor seals between 
California and Mexico. Although harbor seals occur along the west coast 
of Baja California, at least as far south as Isla Asuncion, which is 
about 100 miles south of Punta Eugenia, numbers are not available. In 
this context, ``small number'' means the actual abundance is unknown; 
however, it is expected to be small compared to the abundance on US 
haul-outs. A formal agreement would ensure mortality estimates are 
available and ensure management efforts are consistent with the MMPA.
    Comment 19: Stranding data on harbor seal (California stock) deaths 
and injuries are attributed to hook-and-line as well as gillnet 
fisheries, but the text does not indicate which fisheries operate in 
the same times and areas as the strandings. This information would be 
useful in determining if observer coverage was adequately capturing 
mortality of harbor seals.
    Response: The SAR has been revised to clarify this information.
    Comment 20: The ``Subsistence Harvests'' section for harbor seals 
(Washington Inland Waters stock) states that few seals are taken in 
subsistence hunts because the tribes utilize seals taken as bycatch in 
fishing operations; yet, it is not clear whether this incidental catch 
is included in the mortality estimates. If the seals utilized by the 
Pacific Northwest treaty Indian tribes are from the set gillnet 
fisheries, a simple reference in this section would be sufficient.
    Response: The text has been modified to identify likely fisheries.
    Comment 21: The SARs for the northern right whale dolphin, striped 
dolphin (CA/OR/WA stock) and Risso's dolphin (CA/OR/WA stock) state 
that surveys were conducted in 1991, 1992, 1998, and 2003; however, 
trends in abundance were not estimated. It is unclear why no conclusion 
was made. The SAR should state if different methods were used and if 
comparisons cannot be made.
    Response: The relative imprecision of abundance estimates for these 
stocks (coefficients of variation are typically > 0.40 for individual 
surveys) renders any trend analysis equivocal. Text has been added to 
these stock assessments comparing estimates of abundance over time, 
with the general statement indicating no evidence of a trend in 
abundance for any of these stocks.
    Comment 22: The SAR for Southern Resident killer whales does not 
reflect NMFS' determination (68 FR 31980; May 29, 2003) that the 
Southern Residents comprise a ``depleted stock'' under the MMPA.
    Response: The final SAR includes the depleted status. The depleted 
status was not final until after the draft SAR was prepared.
    Comment 23: PBR for Southern Resident killer whales should be set 
at zero, not 0.8 whales per year.
    Response: The formula for calculating PBR is specified in the MMPA, 
and the parameters used in the PBR calculation for this stock are 
consistent with NMFS guidelines for preparing marine mammal stock 
assessment reports.
    Comment 24: The minimum population estimate (Nmin) for Southern 
Resident killer whales is an overestimate because L98 is isolated from 
other members of the stock.
    Response: NMFS considers L98 a part of the population at this time. 
Although the whale is separated from other members of the stock, it is 
a sub-adult and would not interbreed with other Southern Residents even 
if it were now associated with the group. If L98 survives to adulthood 
and remains separate from the stock, NMFS would re-consider his status 
in the population.
    Comment 25: NMFS improperly relies on maximum net productivity 
(Rmax) estimates for Southern Resident killer whales when observed data 
for other killer whales are available and may be used to calculate a 
stock-specific Rmax.
    Response: The default (theoretical) Rmax value used in the PBR 
estimate for this stock is consistent with NMFS guidelines for 
preparing SARs. The data from the Northern Resident stock does not 
necessarily reflect Rmax for Southern Resident stock because the 
Norther Resident stock was large when the growth rate was estimated. 
The MMPA defines Rmax as the maximum per capita growth rate when the 
population is at a small size.
    Comment 26:NMFS is using the wrong value for the recovery factor of 
Southern Resident killer whales.
    Response: The recovery factor of 0.5 is consistent with NMFS 
guidelines for preparing marine mammal stock assessment reports, which 
provide the use of 0.5 as the default recovery factor for threatened or 
depleted stocks or stocks of unknown status. NMFS will review this SAR 
annually in consultation with the Pacific SRG and will revise the 
recovery factor and other parameters used in the PBR calculation when 
information suggests a revision is warranted.

Alaska Regional SARs

    Comment 27: The third paragraph under ``Fisheries Information'' of 
the Steller sea lion (Western stock) SAR indicates that precise figures 
for observer coverage will be available when the contract report is 
provided to NMFS in 2001. This statement is out-of-date, as it is 
nearly 2004. The same paragraph includes an incorrect reference to 
table 2b.
    Response: The statement has been revised, indicating precise 
estimates of

[[Page 54266]]

effort will be made available when the report is provided. The 
reference to table 2b should have been to table 2a and will be 
corrected in future reports.
    Comment 28: It is not clear whether the fisheries information 
provided for the western population of Steller sea lions includes any 
interactions with fisheries for herring. It would be helpful if such 
information (e.g., target species) were included in either the body of 
the report or in Appendix 5.
    Response: The SARs report interactions between marine mammals and 
commercial fishing only when these interactions result in mortality and 
serious injury of marine mammals. NMFS has no information indicating 
incidental mortality and serious injury of Steller sea lions occurs in 
herring fisheries. The marine mammal stocks potentially interacting 
with specific fisheries are listed in the annual list of fisheries 
prepared and published in accordance with the MMPA.
    Comment 29: In the SAR for Northern fur seals (Eastern Pacific 
stock), the first sentence under ``Current and Maximum Net Productivity 
Rates'' seems misleading in that the population increased steadily 
until the 1940s and perhaps even the early 1950s. In addition, the 
harvest was discontinued from 1912-1917, resumed and focused on 
juvenile males from 1918 to the mid to late 1950s, and focused on adult 
females after that in an effort to reduce population size and 
interactions with Japanese fisheries.
    Response: NMFS will propose alternate wording in future draft SARs.
    Comment 30: The ``Fisheries Information'' section of the Northern 
fur seal (Eastern Pacific stock) SAR states, ``No observers have been 
assigned to several of the gillnet fisheries that are known to interact 
with this stock, making the estimated mortality unreliable.'' This 
statement may underestimate the number of fisheries involved, and a 
more descriptive statement of the fisheries that might interact with 
Northern fur seals would be useful.
    Response: Information on which fisheries have reported mortality 
and serious injuries of marine mammals is included in Appendices 4 and 
5 of the SARs and is, thus, readily available. These appendices 
identify which fisheries have been observed.
    Comment 31: The ``Habitat Concerns'' section fails to mention the 
Eastern Pacific stock of Northern fur seals may interact indirectly or 
ecologically (i.e., may compete) with the Alaska groundfish fisheries. 
Recently collected information indicates that northern fur seal 
foraging patterns overlap with fishing distributions, and fishing 
remains a reasonable hypothesis to explain, at least partially, the 
decline of the stock from the 1970s to the present.
    Response: NMFS will propose alternative wording in future draft 
SARs.
    Comment 32: The SARs for harbor seals in southeast Alaska, Gulf of 
Alaska, and Bering Sea are out-dated and await revision pending 
determination of harbor seal stock structure in Alaska. The evidence 
indicating finer stock structure is substantial, and assessments for 
the prospective stocks would be useful to identify conservation issues 
of concern.
    Response: The available scientific information suggests fine 
structure in stocks of harbor seals. The process for making the stock 
identification includes working with the Alaska Native Harbor Seal 
Commission pursuant to an agreement under MMPA section 119 and is 
underway. The harbor seal reports will be revised according to the 
stock structure identified in this process.
    Comment 33: The SARs for the Alaska stocks of spotted seals, 
bearded seals, ribbon seals and ringed seals present information that 
seems biased and non-precautionary. Abundance trends are not known, and 
each may be subject to multiple factors that could affect their 
abundance, including subsistence harvests and changes in climate and 
ice conditions. Statements such as ``there is no reason to believe 
there are less than 50,000 spotted seals in U.S. waters,'' and 
``reliable data on trends in population abundance are unavailable, 
though there is no evidence that population levels are declining'' 
imply an absence of evidence is best interpreted as evidence of no 
problems.
    Response: The SARs for spotted, bearded, ribbon, and ringed seals 
have been revised twice in recent years. The reports indicate abundance 
estimates and trends are unknown and state the impacts of climate 
change on these sensitive species is unknown. In a few places, the SARs 
include statements from previous versions postulating lower limits for 
abundance or making unsupported statements about trends. These 
statements will be supported by additional information or analysis or 
removed when the reports are updated in 2005.
    Comment 34: The SAR for beluga whales (Beaufort Sea stock) states 
the stock is stable or increasing. A description of the trend and a 
basis for the statement are needed. The conclusion that ``there is no 
evidence that the eastern Chukchi Sea stock of beluga whales is 
declining'' is based on a number of assumptions that should be 
described and justified. The count data presented are from a limited 
portion of the geographic range of the stock, and it is not clear that 
the counts in this region are indicative of trends for the overall 
population. The Subsistence/Native Harvest section of the beluga whale 
(Bristol Bay stock) states that ``there were 7 reported mortalities of 
beluga in subsistence salmon gillnet fisheries in 2000. If this level 
of mortality is averaged over 5 years, an average of 1.4 beluga per 
year would be caught in subsistence gillnet fisheries in this area''. 
It is not clear why the number from a single year would be averaged 
over 5 years, unless there were no mortalities in those other years, in 
which case the report should state there were no mortalities for those 
other years.
    Response: At the time the report was last reviewed and revised, the 
SAR authors were had received additional reports of mortalities in the 
subsistence gillnet fishery other than the 7 incidental mortalities 
that occurred in 2007. If the reporting of 7 incidental mortalities in 
2000 and none in other years accurately reflects true mortality, then 
averaging the total over the five years is appropriate. Because the 
subsistence gillnet fishery is conducted by Alaska Natives beluga 
whales taken incidental to this fishery are often used for subsistence 
purposes. Thus, care will have to be taken to ensure that incidental 
mortalities in the subsistence gillnet fishery are not double-counted 
as both ``subsistence harvest'' and ``mortalities that occur incidental 
to the subsistence gillnet fishery''. Uncertainty about the level of 
incidental mortality in the subsistence gillnet fishery is reflected in 
the SAR; therefore, this point, like the others noted in the comment, 
will be considered when the beluga SARs (other than for the Cook Inlet 
stock) are scheduled for revision in 2005.
    Comment 35: The Population Size section of the Cook Inlet beluga 
whale SAR states, ``Although the 2001 estimate of abundance is slightly 
lower than the estimate for 2000, the difference is not significant and 
is not believed to represent a decline in the population.'' This 
statement should be updated to indicate the trend is still not clear 
and to explain who believes, and for what reason, the difference does 
not represent a decline.
    Response: The statement has been deleted from the SAR because the 
trend is not clear.
    Comment 36: Under the section Habitat Concerns of the Cook Inlet 
beluga SAR, the statement ``The best

[[Page 54267]]

available information indicated that these activities, alone or 
cumulatively, have not caused the stock to be in danger of extinction'' 
should be corrected. The best available science is unable to describe 
or explain the current population trend or to describe the importance 
of all factors that may be affecting the stock. Further, NMFS should 
specifically list ongoing and proposed developments of concern and 
describe what is being done to provide protection for belugas.
    Response: The wording of the draft SAR was based upon the 12-month 
finding on a petition to list this stock of whales under the Endangered 
Species Act (65 FR 38778, June 22, 2000), and abundance estimates for 
the stock do not show a significant trend since 1998; therefore, 
factors related to habitat or other human activities may be impeding 
recovery. NMFS will consider revisions related to such factors and 
consult with the Alaska SRG when revising the SAR in the future.
    Comment 37: Because results of surveys since 1999 show no sign of 
population recovery, the rationale for the choice of a recovery factor 
for Cook Inlet beluga whales is questionable and should be corrected. 
Similarly, the statement ``once the subsistence harvest ceased, the 
decline in the stock ceased'' is misleading and should be deleted or 
changed.
    Response: Other than the minimal level of subsistence harvest of 
one or two whales per year, no other sources of human-caused mortality 
have been identified. Such a low level of human-caused mortality is not 
expected to delay recovery significantly. Although the abundance 
estimates for Cook Inlet belugas remain near the 1999 levels, the 
precipitous decline of the previous 5 years is no longer apparent. 
Thus, suggesting the decline has ceased is reasonable. The rationale 
explaining the recovery factor notes concern for the population because 
it was reduced to low levels, states that the lower recovery factor 
recommended by the SRG was used for those stocks listed as endangered 
(and Cook Inlet beluga are not listed as endangered), and states the 
stock is designated as depleted (and 0.5 is the default recovery factor 
for depleted stocks). The current recovery factor (0.3) is midway 
between the default for depleted and endangered stocks; thus, it 
reflects the increased concern for the stock compared with other 
depleted stocks.
    Comment 38: The Current and Maximum Net Productivity Rates section 
in the SAR for killer whales (Eastern North Pacific Northern Resident 
stock) states that ``a population typically increases at the maximum 
growth rate (Rmax) only when the population is at extremely low levels; 
thus, the estimate of 2.92 percent is not a reliable estimate of 
Rmax''. This statement is debatable because, under density-dependence 
theory, populations may increase at their maximum rate even when 
population size is beyond extremely low levels.
    Response: The Northern Resident killer whale SAR is scheduled for 
review in 2005, and the comment will be considered at that time. The 
comment is true for some population models; however, the statement in 
the SAR is accurate under the logistic model, the underlying theory 
supporting the PBR approach.
    Comment 39: The estimate of Nmin is outdated for the North Pacific 
stock of Pacific white-sided dolphins.
    Response: The estimate is older than NMFS' guidelines indicate for 
reliable use, and no new data are expected in the near future. 
Therefore, NMFS has revised the PBR for this stock to be ``undefined''.
    Comment 40: The first data row of Table 21 under Fisheries 
Information for Gulf of Alaska harbor porpoises is incomplete and 
unclear.
    Response: The table has been clarified to indicate no harbor 
porpoise were observed killed or seriously injured in fisheries with 
observer programs.
    Comment 41: More up-to-date information on population size of 
Eastern North Pacific gray whales has been available for several years 
and should be included in the report.
    Response: NMFS intends to include updated information when the SAR 
for this stock is next revised.
    Comment 42: Both population size and minimum population estimates 
for Central North Pacific humpback whales are based on outdated 
information.
    Response: The SAR for this stock contains the most current 
information available on the stock's abundance. A major research effort 
directed at North Pacific humpback whales is in progress, and results 
from this research will be incorporated into the SAR when the 
information is compiled, subjected to review, and made available.
    Comment 43: The information on Central North Pacific humpback 
whales for current population trends and current and maximum net 
productivity rates is inconsistent. The section on current population 
trend suggests the available information is not sufficient to estimate 
a trend, even for whales in southeast Alaska, whereas information in 
the section on current and maximum net productivity rates suggests it 
is sufficient. In addition, based on caveats expressed in the trend 
section, the data used to estimate maximum net productivity should be 
examined closely as it is higher than expected. Also, the section on 
Status of Stock for Central North Pacific humpback whales is confusing. 
It is not clear estimated mortality and serious injury rates for the 
entire stock and for southeast Alaska are below respective PBRs. 
Furthermore, it states the rate of increase for whales in southeast 
Alaska may have recently declined, suggesting that this portion of the 
stock may be approaching carrying capacity without providing any basis 
for this statement, and then reports that trends cannot be estimated.
    Response: NMFS will review this SAR in consultation with the Alaska 
SRG and will revise in a future draft as needed.
    Comment 44: The use of a 3-year mean to estimate the population 
size of the Eastern Pacific stock of northern fur seals creates an 
upward bias in the annual population estimate. There has been a 
statistically significant declining trend detected in population 
abundance on both St. Paul and St. George islands since the mid-1990s; 
thus, a 3-year mean creates an upward bias in the annual population 
estimate by effectively ``shadowing'' the real population decline.
    Response: The 3-year (3-estimate) mean is used to reduce the effect 
of variation when applying a constant (the expansion factor) to 
estimate the total population size from pup production estimates. If, 
for example, the reproductive rates are extremely high or low during a 
given year, pup production for the year would result in an 
exceptionally high or low estimate of population size. This variation 
is a problem inherent to the application of the expansion factor to 
estimate total population size from a single year. The use of 3-
estimate means reduces this annual variation.
    The population size listed in the SAR is clearly identified as 
being calculated from an average of the three most recent pup 
production estimates. Therefore, the population size, currently 
calculated as a 3-estimate mean over a 5-year period, represents the 
most recent estimate for the time period, not for the most recent 
estimate of pup production. Consequently, the SAR does not overestimate 
population abundance.
    The SAR documents trends based on estimates of pup production 
rather than population size, and identifies the trends as such. Thus, 
the trends are not calculated using the 3-estimate means, and do not 
reduce the estimated downward trend of the population.

[[Page 54268]]

    Comment 45: In the SAR for Eastern Pacific northern fur seals, it 
is inconsistent with the organization of the assessment to describe the 
entanglement-related mortality in the ``Other Mortality'' section, when 
entanglement is primarily due to fisheries. Also, there is no estimate 
of entanglement-related mortality reported; however, a conservative 
estimate of mortality can be obtained by estimating that 50 percent of 
seals observed entangled, but not captured, die.
    Response: Northen fur seals, like other marine mammals, may become 
entangled in derelict fishing gear and other marine debris. The section 
related to fishery mortality is designed to account for mortality and 
serious injury incidental to active fishing and is used in conservation 
programs under MMPA section 118 (such as classifying fisheries). In 
this regard, NMFS treats such data for northern fur seals in a manner 
similar to the same data for Hawaiian monk seals, where the debris 
(including derelict fishing gear) often originates thousands of miles 
from the Hawaiian Islands. The entanglements are recorded as human-
caused mortality and serious injury and are used to evaluate the level 
of such mortality relative to the stock's PBR.
    Comment 46: The first sentence in the ``Habitat Concerns'' section 
of the SAR for Eastern Pacific northern fur seals reads ``Recent rapid 
development on the Pribilof Islands increases the potential for 
negatively affecting habitat used by northern fur seals.'' It is 
unclear when the ``rapid development'' occurred on the Pribilof 
Islands. The word ``rapid'' should be removed from the first sentence, 
and a follow-up analysis of the relationship between pup production and 
distance from development, as well as text describing the accumulation 
of marine debris, should be included.
    Response: The text in the section ``Habitat Concerns'' is a recent 
addition to the SARs made in response to a public comment and will be 
reviewed and revised, as necessary, during the next revision of the 
SAR.
    Comment 47: It is unclear why Steller sea lion (Western U.S. stock) 
subsistence harvest data from Lestenkof and Zavadil (2001), Lestenkof 
et al. (2003) and Zavadil et al. (2003) were not used in the 
``Subsistence/Native Harvest Information''.
    Response: The 2003 draft SARs were developed using the best 
scientific information available at the time. The reports cited were 
made available to NMFS after the SARs were initially developed. 
Information contained in these reports will be reviewed during 
preparation of future draft SARs.
    Comment 48: For the Western U.S. stock of Steller sea lions, table 
2b in the ``Other Mortality'' section should be placed under the 
``Subsistence/Native Harvest Information'' section.
    Response: The table will be moved when the report is next revised.

    Dated: August 31, 2004.
Donna Wieting,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 04-20343 Filed 9-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S