[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 117 (Monday, June 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35397-35403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-12106]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 040705B]


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) and the guidelines for preparing 
marine mammal stock assessment reports. The 2004 final SARs and the 
revised guidelines are now complete and available to the public.

ADDRESSES: Send requests for copies of reports or revised guidelines 
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 
Pacific Regional SARs may be requested from Cathy Campbell, Southwest 
Regional Office, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90802-
4213.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Eagle, Office of Protected 
Resources, 301-713-2322, ext. 105, e-mail [email protected] or Cathy 
Campbell, 562-980-4060, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    Stock assessment reports and the revised guidelines for preparing 
them are available via the Internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/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 
occurring 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. NMFS, in 
conjunction with the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific Scientific Review 
Groups (SRGs), reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required 
and revised reports in the Pacific region.
    The SARs in the Alaska and Atlantic regions were reviewed along 
with new information on these stocks of marine mammals. Although new 
abundance or mortality estimates were available for some stocks in 
these regions, the status of no stocks in these regions would be 
changed. Furthermore, NMFS could not determine the status of marine 
mammal stocks in the Alaska or Atlantic regions with substantially 
improved accuracy. Completion of the draft 2004 reports was delayed due 
to several factors, and the draft 2005 reports are now being completed. 
Therefore, the reports in these two regions were not revised, and 
updated information will be included in the 2005 reports.
    NMFS convened a workshop in June 1994, including representatives 
from NMFS, FWS, and the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), to 
prepare draft guidelines for preparing SARs. The report of this 
workshop (Barlow et al., 1995) included the guidelines for preparing 
SARs and a summary of the discussions upon which the guidelines were 
based. The draft guidelines were made available, along with the initial 
draft SARs, for public review and comment (59 FR 40527, August 9, 
1995).
    In 1996, NMFS convened a second workshop to review the guidelines 
and to recommend changes, if appropriate, to them. Workshop 
participants included representatives from NMFS,

[[Page 35398]]

FWS, the Commission, and the three regional SRGs. The report of that 
workshop (Wade and Angliss, 1997) summarized the discussion at the 
workshop and contained revised guidelines. The revised guidelines 
represented minor changes from the initial version. The revised 
guidelines were made available for public review and comment along with 
revised stock assessment reports on January 21, 1997 (62 FR 3005).
    In September 2003, NMFS again convened a workshop to review 
guidelines for SARs and again has proposed minor changes to the 
guidelines. Participants at the workshop included representatives of 
NMFS, FWS, the Commission, and the regional SRGs. Changes to the 
guidelines resulting from the 2003 workshop were directed primarily 
toward identifying population stocks and estimating PBR for declining 
stocks of marine mammals.

Comments and Responses

    The draft 2004 SARs and the proposed revisions to guidelines were 
available for public review (69 FR 67541, November 18, 2004) for a 90-
day comment period, which ended on February 16, 2005. NMFS received 
five letters (two from the Commission, one each from the Center for 
Biological Diversity and the Ocean Conservancy, and one from a marine 
mammal scientist) with substantive comments on the Pacific SARs or on 
the proposed revisions of guidelines for preparing stock assessment 
reports. Two letters addressed Pacific SARs, and three addressed the 
proposed revisions to the guidelines.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments suggesting editorial or clarifying 
changes were included in the reports. Such editorial comments and 
responses to them are not included in the summary of comments and 
responses below.

Alaska and Atlantic Regional Reports

    Comment 1: We are disappointed that NMFS is declining to follow the 
mandates of the MMPA and prepare new stock assessment reports for the 
Alaska and Atlantic/Gulf regions. The MMPA explicitly requires that 
NMFS review and, if necessary, revise the stock assessments at least 
once annually for stocks which are specified as strategic stocks; at 
least annually for stocks for which significant new information is 
available; and at least once every 3 years for all other stocks. Given 
that we are already well into 2005, it seems too late for NMFS to 
prepare new draft 2004 SARs for the Atlantic and Alaska regions. 
However, we hope that this will not become a pattern and that NMFS will 
promptly finalize the 2004 Pacific SARs and shortly issue proposed 2005 
SARs for all three regions.
    Response: NMFS followed the mandates of the MMPA in reviewing and 
revising reports for the Alaska and Atlantic regions, as well as the 
Pacific region. As the comment notes, the MMPA explicitly requires NMFS 
to review reports on a specific schedule. If the results of a review 
indicate that a change is necessary, then NMFS must revise the reports. 
The conditions for revising the reports are that the status of a stock 
has changed or that its status could be more accurately determined. No 
Alaska or Atlantic stocks would have changed status, and no status 
could be determined with improved accuracy; therefore, NMFS did not 
update the Alaska and Atlantic regional reports.
    In the past, NMFS has updated reports to include the latest 
information whether or not this information changed the status or 
allowed the status to be determined with improved accuracy. Because the 
2004 reports were updated so late in 2004, NMFS limited its updates to 
the reports in the Pacific region where significant new information 
(the results of the first comprehensive cetacean survey in the Hawaii 
Exclusive Economic Zone) was available. NMFS has updated reports in all 
three regions in its 2005 reports and will soon have the draft reports 
available for public review and comment.
    Comment 2: Stock assessment reports were not updated in 2004 for 
the Atlantic and Alaska regions. The proffered reason was that the 
stocks in this region did not change status or the status could not be 
determined more accurately. For the Alaska region, however, fishery 
interactions changed for more than 20 stocks due to the delineation of 
Alaskan fisheries described in the 2004 List of Fisheries: six major 
fisheries were split into 25 smaller fisheries based on target species 
and geographic location, with resulting accounting changes for fishery-
specific interactions. As noted in the Commission's comments on the 
proposed 2005 List of Fisheries, the tally of stocks interacting with 
the original six fisheries is greater than the tally of stocks killed 
or seriously injured incidental to the newly-identified 25 fisheries. 
Revising the reports for Alaska stocks in 2004 may have highlighted 
this error.
    Response: Although NMFS reviewed all reports as required, no stocks 
changed status, and the status of no stocks could be determined with 
improved accuracy in the Alaska and Atlantic regions; therefore, NMFS 
was not required to revise the reports. NMFS could have, as in the 
past, updated the reports to include the latest information. However, 
NMFS determined that leaving the Alaska and Atlantic reports until the 
2005 cycle would increase efficiency in the preparation an review of 
the most recent information for updating the reports (see Comment 3).
    Total fishery mortality for each stock of Alaska marine mammals did 
not change because NMFS split existing fisheries on the basis of target 
species and location of operation. Rather, the total mortality is 
partitioned differently; thus, the status of the stocks would not have 
changed. NMFS will respond to comments on the draft 2005 List of 
Fisheries in a separate notice in the Federal Register.
    Comment 3: In its comments on NMFS' 2003 SARs, the Commission noted 
that the draft 2003 reports were submitted for public review and 
comment while the regional SRGs were reviewing the draft 2004 reports 
and expressed concern that the information in the draft 2003 reports 
would soon be outdated. The fact that NMFS did not update the Atlantic 
and Alaska stock assessments may have been due to efforts to provide 
more timely draft reports incorporating the most current data for 
review and comment.
    Response: In its response to the Commission's comment on the draft 
2003 reports, NMFS noted that the 2004 draft reports were already late 
and that 2005 represented the first opportunity to return to its 
schedule (69 FR 54262, September 8, 2004). NMFS did not update the 
Alaska and Atlantic SARs in 2004 as a mechanism to get back on its 
schedule for annual reports in 2005 and to incorporate the latest 
information available in SARs.

Stock Identification and Definition

    Comment 4: We agree that when data indicate a different stock 
structure or stock boundaries, it is appropriate to include this 
information as ``prospective stocks'' within the SARs. We also agree 
that the SARs should include descriptions of prospective stocks, the 
evidence for the new stocks, calculations of the prospective PBR and 
mortality estimates, by source, for each new stock. NMFS should make 
every effort to secure additional information to make a final 
determination of the stock structure of prospective stocks. The 
guidance related to demographic isolation as the basis for identifying 
stocks of marine mammals and the addition of prospective stocks provide 
a

[[Page 35399]]

conservative and scientifically sound interpretation and approach 
toward the identification of new stocks and are consistent with the 
goals and objectives of the MMPA.
    Response: NMFS agrees.
    Comment 5: We are concerned that by identifying prospective stocks 
rather than by simply re-designating new stock boundaries, NMFS may 
delay proper reclassification of these stocks in the SARs. A 
prospective stock cannot be formally designated as depleted or 
strategic and would, thus, not gain the statutory protections of the 
MMPA that a properly designated stock would. It took FWS over 4 years 
to designate multiple stocks of sea otters in Alaska, and NMFS has long 
known that harbor seals in the Gulf of Alaska constitute more than one 
stock but has not designated them as such.
    Response: There is nothing simple about re-designating a stock 
boundary, which requires substantial information to distinguish between 
adjacent stocks accurately. Therefore, the amount of information 
required to change a stock boundary is much greater than the amount of 
information required to indicate that actual population structure is 
different, generally smaller, than the structure currently identified. 
In this regard, it was relatively easy for NMFS to obtain data 
indicating that there may be more than on stock of harbor seals in the 
Gulf of Alaska; however, identifying new stock boundaries requires more 
information. A review of the genetics information supporting a revision 
of Alaska harbor seal stocks has only recently been completed, and NMFS 
is working with its co-management partners to evaluate the science and 
other information in revising harbor seal stock structure.
    NMFS realizes the limitations of prospective stock identities for 
management purposes. However, NMFS maintains that identifying 
prospective stocks has conservation value by showing areas where 
mortality may be higher than the local aggregation of marine mammals 
can sustain or where abundance trends indicate the potential for 
localized depletions. Thus, prospective stocks would be included in 
SARs as an interim measure during the period when additional 
information supporting a change in stock identity can be collected, 
analyzed, and interpreted.
    Comment 6: The Commission supports the revised definition of stock 
(a management unit that identifies a demographically isolated 
biological population where animals are considered to be 
demographically isolated if the population dynamics of the affected 
group are more a consequence of births and deaths within the group 
(internal dynamics) rather than by immigration or emigration (external 
dynamics).) The revisions arguably are in keeping with the definition 
of stock in the MMPA and the goals of the MMPA; however, we believe 
that a more rigorous analysis of how the proposed distinctions tie into 
the applicable statutory definition is needed.
    Response: NMFS notes that identifying demographically isolated 
groups of marine mammals as population stocks is not new with these 
proposed changes to the guidelines. The original guidelines for 
preparing stock assessments (Barlow et al., 1995) included stock 
identities based upon demographic isolation. The initial guidelines did 
not specifically mention demographic isolation; however, the background 
information discussed at the first PBR workshop, summarized in Barlow 
et al. (1995), clearly describes demographic isolation as the basis for 
stock identity. The first PBR workshop included representatives from 
NMFS, FWS, and the Commission. The initial guidelines were reviewed by 
the three regional SRGs when the SRGs were first convened in October 
1994 and were made available for public review and comment.
    In 1996, NMFS evaluated its initial guidelines in a workshop, 
including representatives from NMFS, FWS, the Commission, and the 
regional SRGs, and changed them to explicitly include demographic 
isolation as a basis for stock identity. Again, the proposed guidelines 
were made available for public review and comment. Thus, the concept of 
demographic isolation as the basis for stock identity has been in 
existence since NMFS and FWS initially complied with MMPA section 117.
    The statutory text related to distinct population segments in the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) is similar to the MMPA's definition of 
population stock. NMFS and FWS implement these concepts differently 
based upon the purposes and policies of the two statutes and on 
Congressional reports (see responses to Comments 7 and 8).
    Comment 7: The Commission believes NMFS should develop criteria for 
applying the modified guidelines to determine when a population is 
demographically isolated to an extent that it is a discrete group that 
warrants recognition as a separate stock and would welcome the 
opportunity to assist in the development of these criteria.
    Response: NMFS is in the process of evaluating how it identifies 
management or conservation units under each of its major statutes (the 
MMPA, the ESA, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act). In the preliminary stages of this evaluation, it is 
becoming apparent that there is wide variation in the degree of 
structuring or demographic isolation among populations. A key question 
in the evaluation will be just what degree of isolation or structuring 
is necessary for groups of marine mammals to be separate stocks. The 
evaluation will address, among other things, if the approaches NMFS 
uses are consistent with the language of the statutes, statutory 
purposes and policies, and pragmatic considerations in implementing its 
stewardship obligations. If the evaluation suggests improvement in 
articulating its policies related to marine mammal population structure 
are warranted, NMFS would use the same steps as were used in the 
initial development and revision of its guidelines for marine mammal 
stock assessment. That is, the revision would include close 
coordination with the Commission, FWS, and the three regional SRGs, and 
it would include an opportunity for public review and comment before 
implementing a policy revision.
    The comments received on these proposed changes to the guidelines 
are sufficient to question the proposed interpretation of ``interbreed 
when mature''. Therefore, NMFS has removed that statement, and its 
example related to humpback whales, from the final revised guidelines.
    Comment 8: The Commission suggests NMFS carefully consider the 
relationship of the term ``population stock'' under the MMPA (``...a 
group of marine mammals of the same species or smaller taxa in a common 
spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature.'') and the term 
``species'' under the ESA (``...any subspecies of fish or wildlife or 
plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of 
vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'') To the 
maximum extent practical, the agencies implementing these statutes 
should adopt compatible definitions of these terms or clearly explain 
why they are treating them differently. The changes proposed to the 
definition of stock in the stock assessment guidelines could lead to 
further distinction of the applicable management unit under the two 
acts, exacerbating differences in their interpretation and 
implementation.
    Response: NMFS is aware that the definition of ``population stock'' 
under the MMPA is very similar to the term

[[Page 35400]]

``distinct population segment'' within the definition of ``species'' 
under the ESA. NMFS and FWS have cooperated in their implementation of 
these terms in management under the two statutes.
    FWS and NMFS jointly developed a policy to identify distinct 
population segments under the ESA (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). The 
agencies, in consultation with the Commission, also jointly developed 
its policies for identifying population stocks under the MMPA. These 
policies were developed with careful consideration of the specific 
wording of pertinent definitions within the statutes, the purposes and 
policies of the statutes, and appropriate legislative history.
    As noted in Barlow et al. (1995) and Wade and Angliss (1977), NMFS 
and FWS relied heavily upon the purposes and policies of the MMPA, 
particularly reference to maintaining marine mammal population stocks 
as functioning elements of their ecosystems, in the policies for 
identifying population stocks. Consequently, the agencies developed 
guidelines for identifying population stocks to minimize the potential 
for localized depletions and concluded that demographic isolation was a 
key consideration in stock identity. As aggregations of marine mammals 
become discrete from one another, with evidence for discreteness 
available from any of several lines of evidence, the groups are 
recognized as separate population stocks.
    As noted in their final policy statement, FWS and NMFS also 
included a discreteness criterion to identify distinct population 
segments under the ESA. However, the purposes of the ESA are different 
from those of the MMPA, and the agencies added a second criterion, 
significance, to their consideration. Thus, to be considered a distinct 
population segment, a group of vertebrates would have to be discrete 
from other aggregations of the same species or subspecies, and it would 
have to be important (or significant) in an evolutionary sense to the 
species or subspecies. The significance criterion was based somewhat 
upon Congressional guidance to list distinct populations segments 
sparingly and only when the biological evidence indicates that such 
action is warranted (Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st session). 
The policy for identifying distinct population segments under the ESA 
has been legally challenged and has withstood judicial review.

PBR Elements, Mortality, and Status of Stocks

    Comment 9: We disagree with NMFS' proposal to label the PBR for 
declining stocks as ``undefined'', including the interpretation, ''...a 
PBR of zero may not reflect the concept of PBR included in the 
narrative definition. Furthermore, a PBR of zero would be inconsistent 
with Congress' concerns about the need to establish a procedure that 
allows for occasional taking of threatened or endangered species 
incidental to commercial fishing.
    Response: The narrative definition of PBR suggests that if human-
caused mortality is less than PBR and the population is below its 
carrying capacity, the population would grow. In some cases, such 
population growth is not realized. For example, human-caused 
mortalities of Hawaiian monk seals and northern fur seals are below the 
stocks' PBR levels; yet both populations are declining. Even if human-
caused mortality were completely eliminated, these stocks would 
continue to decline; therefore, a calculated value for PBR would 
conflict with the narrative definition of PBR in the MMPA.
    However, the MMPA defines PBR explicitly; therefore, the use of 
``undefined'' is in conflict with wording of the statute. In some 
cases, a calculated maximum number of marine mammals that may be 
removed from the stock while allowing the stock to achieve or maintain 
its OSP cannot be determined; therefore, NMFS has altered the final 
guidelines to use the term ``undetermined'' rather than the proposed 
term ``undefined''. NMFS maintains its position that the 
``undetermined'' label for PBR of declining stocks is appropriate in 
some cases and will include it in the final guidelines. The use of an 
undetermined PBR will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and 
explained in the affected SAR. NMFS agrees that the statement quoted in 
the comment may be misleading or confusing and removed it from the 
final guidelines.
    Comment 10: We believe that the undefined PBR proposal would 
undermine rather than further Congressional intent in enacting the 
MMPA. The purpose of PBR is to establish a scientifically conservative 
level of mortality and serious injury whereby ``the maximum number of 
animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a 
marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its 
optimum sustainable population''. If a stock is declining, allowing any 
level of take would likely exacerbate that decline, further preventing 
that stock from achieving its optimum sustainable population (OSP). An 
undefined PBR does nothing to promote the recovery of that stock; 
whereas, a PBR of zero makes it clear that the stock cannot sustain any 
mortality or serious injury.
    Response: In the hypothetical sense, the comment is correct that 
any additional mortality could exacerbate the trend of a declining 
stock. In a more realistic sense, a low level of human-caused mortality 
in a declining stock could not be detected from natural variability in 
mortality.
    Establishing a PBR of zero for all declining stocks of marine 
mammals could have adverse consequences for marine mammal conservation 
as well as for commercial, defense-related, or recreational activities 
within marine ecosystems. On one hand, a PBR of zero would highlight 
even a minor level of incidental mortality as a substantial 
conservation issue and would, therefore, have the potential to take 
resources away from other, more immediate, factors affecting the stock. 
On the other hand, a PBR of zero for all declining stocks of marine 
mammals would mean that even a very small level of incidental mortality 
and serious injury could not be authorized under the MMPA. Thus, 
commercial or recreational opportunity could be diminished with little 
or no benefit to the affected marine mammal stock or stocks. NMFS, 
therefore, will maintain the ability to label PBR as undetermined in a 
limited number of cases, and, when such a label occurs, NMFS will 
include a justification for it in the affected SAR.
    Comment 11: An undefined PBR would undermine and make unworkable 
the provision of the MMPA that allows the incidental take of threatened 
and endangered marine mammals. While Congress intended that there be a 
procedure that would allow for the incidental take by fishermen of 
small numbers of threatened and endangered marine mammals, that 
procedure only allows take when it would have a negligible impact on 
the stock. Because NMFS uses a function of PBR (10 percent of PBR) as a 
benchmark for negligible impact, an undefined PBR would prevent NMFS 
from determining what level of take meets this standard.
    Response: NMFS has used 10 percent of a stock's PBR as a 
quantitative approach to estimate a level of mortality and serious 
injury that would be consistent with the qualitative definition of 
negligible impact. NMFS traced the use of this approach and described 
the reasons for deviating from it in previous documents (see 65 FR

[[Page 35401]]

35904). Briefly, NMFS determined that mortality limited to 10 percent 
of a stock's PBR would meet another performance criterion recommended 
by the Commission for negligible impact determinations (delaying 
recovery of a depleted stock of marine mammals by no more than 10 
percent of the recovery period if the mortality were not occurring).
    NMFS has not investigated the limits of mortality or serious injury 
that would have a negligible impact on a declining stock. However, such 
an investigation is necessary to establish a policy on levels of 
mortality of declining stocks that can be authorized. NMFS is 
initiating research to identify and evaluate the consequences to 
populations of options for a negligible impact threshold for declining 
populations and will use a notice-and-comment process in implementing 
an approach when the initial research is complete.
    Comment 12: We believe that in cases where a stock is declining, 
especially in those cases where the stock may be threatened or 
endangered, NMFS must establish some level of PBR, and in some cases, a 
PBR of zero may be most appropriate.
    Response: NMFS agrees that in some cases, the appropriate PBR will 
be zero. The PBR of Western North Atlantic right whales was changed to 
zero in 2000 to reflect the view that any human-caused mortality would 
inhibit their potential for recovery. In other cases where populations 
are declining, a low level of mortality would not necessarily inhibit 
the stock's potential for recovery, and NMFS has used a number greater 
than zero as the PBR. For a few cases, it is not known what maximum 
number of human-related deaths or serious injuries would allow a 
currently declining population to recover to its OSP. For these few 
unknown situations, the PBR would be undetermined.
    Comment 13: We believe all stocks should have a defined PBR level 
so human-related mortality can be compared to PBR. In circumstances 
where a decline is not apparently the result of direct human-related 
mortality, as with Hawaiian monk seals, the PBR should not be set as 
``undefined'', which would potentially allow high levels of fishery-
related mortality to occur. The PBR should instead be set to zero. An 
undefined PBR could be interpreted as a blank check for fisheries-
related mortality, and such a result is incompatible with the purposes 
of the MMPA.
    Response: As noted in responses to other comments, a PBR of zero 
for declining stocks may be inappropriate for some situations and 
appropriate for others. However, an undetermined PBR does not 
necessarily mean that NMFS could authorize any level of taking for the 
affected stocks. To authorize the take of threatened or endangered 
stocks of marine mammals, NMFS would have to determine that incidental 
mortality and serious injury would have a negligible impact on the 
stock. When the relatively simple approach of comparing expected 
mortality and serious injury to a proportion of PBR would not be 
available because PBR was undetermined, NMFS would include an 
explanation of why the level of mortality and serious injury expected 
for the upcoming 3-year period (as allowed under MMPA section 
101(a)(5)(E)) would have a negligible impact.
    Comment 14: The guidelines for recovery factors in the PBR 
calculation allow the use of a recovery factor above default levels in 
certain circumstances. The Commission recommended that default recovery 
factors be used until such time as NMFS has reviewed situations in 
which the recovery factor might be raised for stocks of unknown status 
and has developed evidence-based criteria that ensure such stocks are 
not further disadvantaged by human-caused mortality.
    Response: The guidelines strictly limit the situations in which 
recovery factors higher than default values can be used. One situation 
includes cases where estimates of human-caused mortality are relatively 
unbiased due to high observer coverage. The guidelines also state that 
recovery factors of 1.0 for stocks of unknown status should be reserved 
for cases where there is assurance that abundance, net productivity, 
and mortality are unbiased and where the stock structure is 
unequivocal.
    The other situation occurs when mortality estimates are higher than 
a PBR calculated with the default recovery factor and the population is 
increasing (for stocks for which the principal mortality factor is 
subsistence harvest, the population is not known to be decreasing). For 
this situation, the guidelines state, ``Values other than the defaults 
for any stock should usually not be used without the approval of the 
regional [SRG], and scientific justification for the change should be 
provided in the Report''. The current guidelines provide reasonable 
assurances related to increasing recovery factors from default values 
in only a few limited situations; therefore, NMFS does not plan to 
change them at this time.
    Comment 15: Regarding NMFS' proposal to assign mortality when dead 
animals are observed or reported where stocks are mixed and there is 
insufficient information to identify which stock dead animals belonged, 
the Commission recommends that NMFS reconsider its options for 
attributing deaths to stocks and develop alternatives that do not pose 
disproportionately larger risks to small, vulnerable stocks.
    Response: NMFS agrees that assigning mortality proportional to 
stock size may cause disproportionate risk for small stocks and, in 
some cases, will maintain the option to evaluate the impact of the 
estimated mortality as if all deaths were assigned to a single stock. 
Consequently, NMFS modified the guidelines to require a discussion of 
the potential for bias in stock-specific mortality in each affected 
report.
    Comment 16: The Commission reiterated a recommendation from a 
previous set of comments that 10 percent of a stock's PBR (using 
northern fur seals, with its PBR of about 12,500, as an example) does 
not seem to be insignificant and approaching zero, particularly in a 
case where recent evidence indicates the stock is declining.
    Response: The Commission points out one of the difficulties of 
using a simple calculation to quantify a difficult concept. Although 
more than 1,000 deaths may seem like a large number, the impact of such 
a level of mortality would be insignificant to the stock (if it were 10 
percent of the stock's PBR). Furthermore, the MMPA uses the term, 
``zero rate'', rather than ``zero''. In the case of a pinniped stock 
with default values used for maximum net productivity rate and the 
recovery factor (0.5 for a stock that is threatened, depleted, or of 
unknown status), 10 percent of PBR represents 3 animals per 1,000 in 
the population. Such a rate (3/1,000) is sufficiently small as to be 
``approaching zero''.
    Comment 17: In the status of stocks section, the default decision 
seems to be that stocks are not strategic until information is 
available, as suggested by the current draft assessments for stocks in 
the Pacific in which all stocks without population trend and mortality 
estimates were considered non-strategic, except for those stocks listed 
as endangered. The Commission recommended NMFS follow its own 
guidelines and take a more precautionary approach when designating 
status for stocks for which essential information is lacking.
    Response: The guidelines state, ``If abundance or human-related 
mortality levels are truly unknown (or if the fishery-related mortality 
level is only

[[Page 35402]]

available from logbook data), some judgement will be required to make 
this determination. If the human-caused mortality is believed to be 
small relative to the stock size based on the best scientific 
judgement, the stock could be considered as non-strategic. If human-
caused mortality is likely to be significant relative to stock size 
(e.g., greater than the annual production increment) the stock could be 
considered strategic. In the complete absence of any information on 
sources of mortality, and without guidance from the Scientific Review 
Groups, the precautionary principle should be followed and the default 
stock status should be strategic until information is available to 
demonstrate otherwise.'' In some cases, NMFS scientists must make a 
recommendation for the status of a stock based upon the scientists' 
best judgement because there is insufficient information available to 
provide an estimate of abundance or mortality, and the MMPA does not 
provide for a status of ``unknown'' when determining whether the stock 
is strategic or not strategic. In each case, the judgement is reviewed 
by, and is often discussed with, the affected regional SRG. Therefore, 
NMFS is following its own guidance.

Pacific Regional Reports

    Comment 18: The distribution maps of Hawaiian cetaceans largely 
reflect the distribution of animals detected during a large-scale 
vessel survey of Hawaiian waters in 2002 (Barlow, 2003), and sighting 
data from nearshore surveys might be included to give the reader a 
better idea of the distribution of some of these species.
    Response: An effort will be made to incorporate more comprehensive 
distribution maps in the next revision of Hawaii stock assessment 
reports.
    Comment 19: The Commission recommended that the agency develop a 
way of assessing potential interactions between Hawaiian monk seals and 
the bottomfish fishery because logbook information does not include 
information on protected species interactions.
    Response: An observer program was initiated in this fishery in late 
2003 with 33 percent observer coverage. No interactions with monk seals 
were observed. This information was not available at the time the 2004 
draft report was prepared and will be included in the draft 2005 monk 
seal assessment. The MMPA and implementing regulations require 
commercial fishers to report all injuries to NMFS within 48 hours of 
the injury or return from the fishing trip.
    Comment 20: Evidence of vessel collision in the form of propeller 
scars should be mentioned as a possible source of mortality for short-
finned pilot whales (Hawaii stock). Photographic ID efforts are being 
used to determine movements of these animals among the main Hawaiian 
Islands.
    Response: A ship-strike section which describes such vessel 
interactions has been added to this stock assessment report. Photo-ID 
information has also been added to this SAR.
    Comment 21: There is new genetic and photo-ID data available on the 
stock structure of bottlenose dolphins around the Hawaiian Islands.
    Response: This information was reviewed in January 2005 by the 
Pacific SRG and was not available at the time the draft 2004 reports 
were prepared. When genetic analyses are complete, this information 
will be incorporated into the next stock assessment revision for this 
stock.
    Comment 22: There is information available on the stock structure 
of rough-tooth dolphins (Hawaii stock) from genetic samples (Formica et 
al., 2003) and additional information from photographic identification 
of individuals.
    Response: The Formica et al. abstract reviewed preliminary 
information on distinct geographic variation among animals from the 
Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico, without 
addressing smaller-scale stock issues around the Hawaiian Islands. The 
draft 2004 SAR stated that there was currently no information available 
on stock identity within the north Pacific. Information on the photo-
identification catalog of individuals from the main Hawaiian Islands 
has been added to the Stock Definition and Geographic Range section of 
this stock assessment report.
    Comment 23: The abundance of dwarf sperm whales in Hawaiian waters 
may be underestimated because of their deep-diving habits, cryptic 
behavior, small size, and the difficulty in identifying this species 
beyond the genus level.
    Response: Additional text reflecting potential bias in estimating 
abundance has been added to this SAR.
    Comment 24: Beaked whales have been involved in mass stranding 
events linked to military active sonars, and these types of military 
activities occur frequently around the Hawaiian Islands.
    Response: The Mortality section of the beaked whale SARs contain a 
discussion of potential mortality or injury related to anthropogenic 
noise. These discussions have been expanded slightly to include 
activities using sonar.
    Comment 25: A commenter provided additional information on photo-ID 
work on Blainville's beaked whales around the Hawaiian Islands and 
noted that this is one species that is sensitive to active military 
sonar activities.
    Response: Information on recent photo-ID work has been included in 
this SAR.
    Comment 26: The Commission recommended updating mortality estimates 
and ZMRG information related to set gillnets for all harbor porpoise 
stocks in California, following the closure of that fishery in 2002.
    Response: Mortality estimates were updated for the Morro Bay and 
Monterey Bay stocks through 2002. The San Francisco-Russian River and 
Northern CA/Southern OR stocks occur outside of the region where the 
set gillnet fishery has been allowed to operate. Further updates on 
fishery mortality related to the set gillnet closure will be added in 
the next revisions of the harbor porpoise stock assessments.
    Comment 27: The Commission recommended describing the previous 
levels of takes of harbor porpoise (Morro Bay stock) in the white 
seabass set gillnet fishery to allow readers to determine if the 
current lack of mortality estimates for this fishery warrant concern.
    Response: The reference to takes of harbor porpoise in the white 
seabass gillnet fishery near Morro Bay are for animals taken late in 
the 1950s (Norris and Prescott, 1961). These takes were documented in 
15 fathoms (27 m) of water. Current regulations prohibit gillnets from 
being fished in waters more shallow than 110 meter, and harbor porpoise 
in this region are found primarily in waters shallower than 60 meters 
(Carretta et al., 2001). Because of these depth restrictions, it is 
expected that harbor porpoise interactions with the white seabass 
fishery would be near zero. The SAR was modified to reflect this 
information.
    Comment 28: The Commission recommended that the Fisheries 
Information section of the humpback whale, (Eastern North Pacific 
stock) be revised to indicate which interactions were considered 
serious injuries and which of these are reported in Table 1. There was 
also a recommendation to move the 1997 incident to the Fishery 
Information section and remove the incident from Table 1 because it 
does not qualify as a serious injury.
    Response: Table 1 of this report summarizes injuries related to 
line/gear entanglement, even if these are not immediately deemed 
``serious injuries'' at the time the whale was sighted. The

[[Page 35403]]

nature of these trailing-gear interactions may result in serous 
injuries long after the whale is initially sighted. It is unclear at 
this point whether to classify these as serious injuries or not, but by 
including them in Table 1, the injuries are effectively tallied as a 
``take'', which is more conservative than excluding them for lack of 
classification. The 1997 incident of a humpback whale swimming away 
with a salmon hook and many feet of monofilament falls in this category 
and is retained in Table 1.
    Comment 29: The Commission suggested adding a figure showing 
population trend data of blue whales (Eastern North Pacific stock) to 
allow the reader to evaluate the apparent decline suggested under 
Current Population Trend.
    Response: A figure showing line-transect abundance estimates from 
1991-2001 in California waters has been added to this SAR to indicate 
trend.

    Dated: June 14, 2005.
James H. Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-12106 Filed 6-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S