Notice of Availability of Final Stock Assessment Reports, 12774-12783 [E7-4956]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 52 (Monday, March 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12774-12783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4956]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 021207D]


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: As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 
has incorporated public comments into revisions of marine mammal stock 
assessment reports (SARs). These reports for 2006 are now final and 
available to the public.

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of SARs are available on the Internet as 
regional compilations and individual reports at the following address: 
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. You also may send requests for 
copies of reports to: Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle 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, 7600 Sand Point Way, BIN 
15700, Seattle, WA 98115.
    Copies of the Atlantic Regional SARs may be requested from Gordon 
Waring, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods 
Hole, MA 02543.
    Copies of the Pacific Regional SARs may be requested from Jim 
Carretta, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, 8604 La Jolla 
Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037-1508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Eagle, Office of Protected 
Resources, 301-713-2322, ext. 105, e-mail Tom.Eagle@noaa.gov; Robyn 
Angliss, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 206-526-4032, email 
Robyn.Angliss@noaa.gov; Gordon Waring, Northeast Fisheries Science 
Center, email Gordon.Waring@noaa.gov; or Jim Carretta, Southwest 
Fisheries Science Center, 858-546-7171, email Jim.Carretta @noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 117 of the 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, the stock's Potential Biological 
Removal level (PBR), 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 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 each of the three regions.
    As required by the MMPA, NMFS updated SARs for 2006, and the 
revised reports were made available for public review and comment (71 
FR 42815, July 28, 2006). The MMPA also specifies that the comment 
period on draft SARs must be 90 days. NMFS received comments on the 
draft SARs and has revised the reports as necessary. The final reports 
for 2006 are available.

Comments and Responses

    At the end of the comment period on October 26, 2005 NMFS received 
letters from three organizations (Marine Mammal Commission 
(Commission), Hawaii Longline Association (HLA), and the Humane Society 
of the United States) and two individuals. Each letter contained more 
than one comment.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments suggesting editorial or minor 
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. Other comments recommended development of 
Take Reduction Plans or to initiate or repeat large data collection 
efforts, such as abundance surveys or observer programs. Comments on 
the need to develop additional Take Reduction Plans are not related to 
the SARs; therefore, these comments are not included below. Comments 
recommending additional data collection (e.g., additional abundance 
surveys or observer programs) have been addressed in recent years. 
NMFS' resources for surveys or observer programs are fully utilized, 
and no new large surveys or observer programs may be initiated until 
additional resources are available or ongoing monitoring or 
conservation efforts can be terminated. Such comments on the 2006 SARs 
and responses to them may not be included in the summary below because 
the responses have not changed. Uncertainties in each of the reports 
(e.g., age of estimates, large coefficients of variation (CVs), or lack 
of available data) in each of the affected SARs are clearly indicated.
    In some cases, NMFS' responses state that comments would be 
considered for, or incorporated into, future revisions of the SAR 
rather than being incorporated into the final 2006 SARs. The delay is 
due to review of the reports by the regional SRGs. NMFS provides 
preliminary copies of updated SARs to SRGs prior to release for public 
review and comment. If a comment on the draft SAR results in a 
substantive change to the SAR, NMFS may discuss the comment and 
prospective change with the SRG at its next meeting prior to 
incorporating the change. Some new events that may affect marine mammal 
status or take (e.g., the establishment of the Northwest Hawaiian 
Islands National Monument in 2006) are not included in the 2006 SARs 
because these reports were initially drafted in the fall of 2005 to 
begin the internal and SRG review prior to their availability for 
public review and comment. Such new events would be incorporated in the

[[Page 12775]]

next revision of the SARs. In the example of the Northwest Hawaiian 
Islands National Monument, the draft 2007 SAR for Hawaiian monk seals 
will include reference to its establishment and the subsequent 
implications for monk seal status.

Comments on National Issues

    Comment 1: The Commission recommended that NMFS work with Federal 
and state fisheries management agencies and the fishing industry to 
develop a fair and sustainable funding strategy to support effective 
observer programs for collecting information on incidental mortality 
and serious injury.
    Response: NMFS established a National Observer Program in 1999 to 
combine program-specific observer effort for efficiency and to promote 
sustainable funding for a comprehensive marine resource observer 
program. The National Observer Program has been working with fishery 
management agencies and the fishing industry to meet these objectives 
and will continue to do so. The National Observer Program, in 
coordination with all six NMFS regions, has initiated development of a 
National Bycatch Report to compile species- and fishery-specific 
bycatch estimates for fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, and sea birds. 
This initiative will incorporate the development of fishery improvement 
plans to improve the collection of bycatch data and bycatch estimation 
methodologies. These improvement plans will also provide a 
comprehensive assessment of resources required to improve bycatch in 
U.S. commercial fisheries.
    Comment 2: The Commission recommended that NMFS adjust its 
guidelines for preparing stock assessment reports to ensure consistent 
methods for identifying strategic stocks.
    Response: NMFS revised the guidelines in 2005 to promote such 
consistency. In the most recent meetings of the three regional SRGs, 
each SRG recommended a joint meeting to evaluate various aspects of the 
PBR/SAR process. If the results of the joint SRG meeting suggest 
another review and revision of guidelines for preparing SARs, NMFS 
would initiate the process to review and revise the guidelines.
    Comment 3: Although SARs generally report non-fishery-related 
mortality from anthropogenic sources, one source, scientific research 
on marine mammals, is generally not addressed. SARs should include 
mortality that is attributable to scientific research.
    Response: Research-related mortality and serious injury is included 
in the 2007 draft reports in the Alaska and Atlantic regions. The 
information will be made available to the authors of Pacific SARs 
beginning with the 2008 reports. Although such reporting is necessary 
to be fully consistent with the provisions of MMPA section 117, NMFS 
notes that such mortality or serious injury is rare and is not likely 
to alter the status of any stock.
    Comment 4: A number of SARs rely on unpublished information. The 
guidelines for SARs stipulate that literature used for key aspects of 
stock assessment should be peer reviewed. Efforts should be made to 
assure that information reported in SARs comes from published sources 
and/or to assure that NMFS employees providing this information 
incorporate it in published reports in the future.
    Response: This comment mis-interprets the guidelines for preparing 
SARs. The guidelines, which when published in 1995 and revised in 1997, 
were parts of larger reports of workshops, do not include statements 
regarding standards for review of information in SARs. Wade and Angliss 
(1977, Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks: Report of the 
GAMMS Workshop April 3-5, 1996, Seattle, Washington, NOAA Tech. Mem. 
NMFS-OPR-12.) included a summary of discussions among NMFS staff, 
members of SRGs, and representatives of the Commission which noted 
general agreement that peer-reviewed information was the most reliable 
and encouraged the use of peer review when possible. However, there is 
sometimes a trade-off between peer review and freshness of information, 
and the MMPA requires SARs to be based upon the best available 
scientific information. Consequently, each new estimate or other key 
element of a SAR is not necessarily subjected to peer review; however, 
the methods and analyses that produce the estimates used in SARs should 
be published in peer-reviewed journals or in a similar forum that is 
most appropriate, such as a NOAA Technical Memorandum. Merrick (1999, 
Report of the Joint Scientific Review Group Workshop, April 13-14, 
1999, Seattle, Washington, NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE-154) summarizes 
additional discussion and agreements on information used in SARs and 
was in general agreement with Wade and Angliss (1977).

Comments on Alaska Regional Reports

    Comment 5: One comment noted that Steller sea lion abundance and 
trends are estimated from research occurring at one rookery.
    Response: Estimates of Steller sea lion abundance trends result 
from surveys of many haulouts and rookeries throughout the range of the 
population. For specific lists of which haulouts and rookeries are 
surveyed, the SAR refers to published reports, such as Fritz and 
Stinchcomb, 2005 and Loughlin and York, 2000.
    Comment 6: Use of data acquired through personal communication is 
discouraged in the GAMMS report, and major issues of management and 
policy should not be made on the basis of these data. For example, a 
new boundary for the Western stock of Steller sea lions has been 
proposed and the citation for active Asian haulouts and rookeries that 
would fall under a new stock boundary is attributed to an unpublished 
or reviewed personal communication.
    Response: NMFS makes every effort to rely on information in peer-
reviewed publications and to use unpublished data or ``personal 
communication'' as little as possible. Further, NMFS replaces 
``unpublished data'' or ``personnel communication'' citations with peer 
reviewed publications as soon as the more substantiated reference is 
available. However, when peer-reviewed data are unavailable and will 
not be available in the immediate future, the best scientific 
information available may sometimes come from personal communication or 
another non-reviewed source. With regard to changes in the structure of 
the western Steller sea lion stock, new publications occurred between 
the draft and final SAR which indicated lack of clarity about the 
proposed stock boundary between the western stock and a hypothetical 
Asian stock. The final SAR describes the different analyses and retains 
the original stock identification.
    Comment 7: One commenter objected to the removal of fishery self-
report information from the commercial fisheries mortalities sections 
of the SARs. The reports are negatively biased but are as reliable as 
stranding data which have been retained in the SARs. Fishery self-
reports should remain in the SARs.
    Response: Fishery self-reports are not as reliable as stranding 
data. Stranding reports are reviewed and assessed to promote correct 
species identification. Humpback whale stranding reports are reviewed 
by both agency staff and members of the Alaska SRG prior to inclusion 
in the SARs. Because the number of self-reports submitted annually has 
declined drastically, most self-reported mortalities are more than 10 
years old. Based on the unreliability and age of available self-report 
data, NMFS does not include these data in the body of the SARs. 
However, the data will continue to be reported in an

[[Page 12776]]

appendix to the SARs as additional information.
    Comment 8: In other regions, stocks that are declining set the PBR 
as ``undetermined'' (e.g., Hawaiian monk seals) or as zero (North 
Atlantic right whales), because the stocks do not meet the assumptions 
inherent to calculating a PBR. In the Alaska region several stocks are 
declining, including the western stock of Steller sea lions and 
northern fur seals; therefore, it would be precautionary to adopt the 
same practice as other regions (note that the Alaska region has set the 
Cook Inlet beluga whale PBR as ``undetermined''). This rationale should 
be used for all stocks in which declines are apparent, even if the 
declines are not a result of anthropogenic mortality.
    Response: In the Alaska SARs, a case-by-case approach is taken when 
assessing whether the PBR should be set to ``undetermined'' for a 
declining stock. For the Cook Inlet beluga stock, setting the PBR to 
``undetermined'' was appropriate because the stock has been at a 
critically low abundance (2005 abundance of 278) for several years and 
the stock shows no signs of recovery, even after initiating very 
conservative management of the subsistence harvest, which was the 
largest source of human-related mortality.
    The western stock of Steller sea lions is currently at a low level 
relative to the historical size of the population, but the number of 
animals (47,885) is substantially larger than the abundance of the Cook 
Inlet beluga whale stock, and the ability of the population to sustain 
some level of human-related impact is larger. Further, it is no longer 
clear that the population remains in decline. While the population was 
clearly in decline until 2000, recent estimates in 2002 and 2004 may 
indicate that the population may have stabilized. Thus, it is not 
necessary to set the PBR level as ``undetermined'' as a precautionary 
management step.
    The northern fur seal population is currently declining, but is 
very large. Human-related mortality or serious injury does not 
contribute substantially to the decline. However, northern fur seals, 
with an abundance estimate of 721,935, are one of the most abundant 
marine mammals in Alaska. Thus, it is not necessary to set the PBR 
level as ``undetermined'' as a precautionary management step.
    Comment 9: Previous stock assessments have provided point estimates 
for native subsistence harvest, as well as upper and lower estimates 
based on bounds of confidence. Given the low precision of these 
estimates, this information should be included so that reviewers may 
gauge the possible range of impacts.
    Response: Several years ago, NMFS received a recommendation to 
remove the upper and lower estimates for the subsistence harvest of all 
stocks because, for most stocks, this information is not available. For 
the stocks where this information is available, the reliability of the 
information is unknown. In all cases, the primary literature where this 
information can be found is cited. More detailed information is 
contained in the references cited in the SARs.
    Comment 10: Data provided in the draft recovery plan for Steller 
sea lions indicated that the trend in pup counts for the Western stock 
was not uniform and that declines were still occurring at some key 
trend sites. This information should be included in this stock 
assessment.
    Response: Data from the draft recovery plan will be included in the 
draft 2007 Steller sea lion SARs.
    Comment 11: The slightly upward trend in subsistence harvest of 
Western Steller sea lions, which is approaching PBR and may exceed it, 
given the likely margin of error, is of concern.
    Response: NMFS agrees that mortality and serious injury of Steller 
sea lions approaching PBR are of concern and continues a dialog with 
Alaska Native subsistence users through the co-management process.
    Comment 12: One commenter objected to the elimination of age and 
sex of sea lions killed in native subsistence hunts. It remains unclear 
why the NMFS proposed to delete this information. The MMPA provides for 
the SRG to advise on issues of uncertainty relative to mortality of 
animals in certain age and sex classes. Having this information in the 
SARs makes the discussion easier and more transparent.
    Response: NMFS eliminated this information upon consultation with 
the Alaska SRG because sex and age class information was of little 
value without modeling to put the information into the context of the 
stock's population dynamics. The additional information is available in 
the references cited in the SAR.
    Comment 13: One commenter objected to a clause in the SAR for the 
Western stock of Steller sea lions (`` if the population is still 
declining''). The statement is unnecessary and provides a misleading 
impression of the stock's status. NMFS should be precautionary in its 
assessments.
    Response: Given the recent counts of Steller sea lions, it is no 
longer clear that the abundance is still in decline. The statement ``if 
the population is still declining'' is an accurate reflection of the 
current uncertainty in the trend.
    Comment 14: Because the population trajectory for the Eastern stock 
of Steller sea lions differs in a portion of its range (e.g., Central 
California), NMFS may wish to consider viewing management actions for 
portions of this stock rather than basing them on the trajectory for 
the stock as a whole.
    Response: Separating the central California portion of the eastern 
stock of Steller sea lions was discussed and ultimately rejected by the 
Steller sea lion recovery team. At this time, NMFS will retain the 
animals in central California area in the eastern stock for management 
purposes. It is not surprising that populations of marine mammals or 
other species fluctuate in the margins of their ranges.
    Comment 15: The northern fur seal and Steller sea lion, western 
stock, SARs state that because the stock ``is declining for unknown 
reasons that are not explained by the level of direct human-caused 
mortality, there is no guarantee that limiting those mortalities to the 
level of the PBR will reverse the decline''. While this may be true, it 
is also true that limiting the anthropogenic mortalities will prevent 
them from contributing to the decline. This logic is contradicted by 
the rationale used in the Cook Inlet beluga SAR which designates an 
``undetermined'' PBR. The PBR for fur seals should be undetermined.
    Response: NMFS explained its rationale for including a PBR for 
these stocks in the response to comment 8. It is not necessarily true 
that limiting anthropogenic mortality in a declining stock would 
prevent such mortality from contributing substantially to the decline.
    Comment 16: One commenter strongly supports the urgent need to sub-
divide harbor seal stocks into discrete management units and expresses 
disappointment that NMFS has again postponed this decision. These 
stocks should be re-classified so that each will have appropriate PBR 
and assessments of trends and status.
    Response: As in past responses to public comments on the SARs, NMFS 
reiterates its commitment to work with its co-managers in the Alaska 
Native community to make recommendations regarding stock structure of 
harbor seals in Alaska.
    Comment 17: It is unfortunate that abundance estimates of harbor 
seals are still calculated based on 1996-2000 surveys and that all, or 
at least part, of the 2001-2005 surveys data remain unreported in the 
SAR. That data from 2000 remain unpublished six years after

[[Page 12777]]

they are gathered is unfortunate, to say the least.
    Response: In recent years, analysis of the harbor seal abundance 
information has been slowed due to a backlog of data and advances in 
abundance estimate procedures. New estimates for 2001-05 are under 
development and should be available for inclusion in the draft SARs for 
2008.
    Comment 18: The subsistence harvest data for ice seals (spotted, 
bearded, ringed, and ribbon) are old and there are no ongoing efforts 
to collect more recent data. NMFS should include a chart that reports 
annual subsistence harvests
    Response: NMFS has insufficient resources to collect information on 
the subsistence harvest of ice seals on an annual basis. Old 
information on harvests will be retained as the best available 
information on harvest levels until more current information becomes 
available, and the dates of these estimates will be retained so that 
the underlying uncertainty is obvious. NMFS will consider the inclusion 
of a chart reporting annual subsistence harvests for future versions of 
the SARs and after consultation with the SRG.
    Comment 19: NMFS should remedy the factors leading to its inability 
to estimate a PBR and assess stock status for all stocks of ice seals. 
Considering that harvest data are old and ice conditions are 
deteriorating significantly, it is vital that updated estimates be 
made.
    Response: NMFS will pursue the collection of information needed to 
identify stocks and estimate the PBR levels and harvest data for ice 
seals when resources are available.
    Comment 20: It is unclear why NMFS made changes to the Habitat 
Concerns sections of ice seal SARs that downgrades the assessment of 
changes in climate from ``drastic'' to ``significant''.
    Response: This modification to the report should not be interpreted 
to indicate a difference in the assessed level for effects of climate 
change. The published literature used to document these specific 
habitat concerns actually uses the term ``significant'', which is 
defined and supported quantitatively.
    Comment 21: The population estimates for the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi 
Sea, and Eastern Bering Sea beluga whale stocks are substantially and 
inappropriately outdated, and the stocks are subjected to harvest-
related and incidental mortality. These stocks should be considered 
potentially strategic for these reasons.
    Response: The SAR for these four stocks of beluga whales are next 
scheduled for a review and update in 2008, and this comment will be 
considered at that time.
    Comment 22: The Cook Inlet beluga whale stock is of considerable 
concern. We support the adopted precautionary PBR set at 
``undetermined'' and believe the stock should be listed as endangered 
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
    Response: NMFS agrees with the PBR comment. A status review of the 
Cook Inlet beluga stock is currently underway. The report of the 
biological information related to their status is available at: https://
www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/ProcRpt/PR%202006-16.pdf.
    Comment 23: One commenter supports the precautionary approach used 
when reducing the Alaska Resident killer whale abundance estimate based 
on the age of the data.
    Response: NMFS agrees.
    Comment 24: The data used for developing the population estimate 
for Northern Resident killer whale are at least 6 years old. NMFS 
should update this in the near future and given the low PBR (2), we are 
concerned about the lack of Canadian fishery mortality information. 
NMFS should work with Canada to obtain these data.
    Response: The SAR for the Northern Resident killer whale stock is 
next scheduled for a review and update in 2008, and this comment will 
be considered at that time.
    Comment 25: The abundance and sightings data for AT1 transient 
killer whale stock are old and should be updated.
    Response: The abundance of AT1 killer whales is monitored each year 
by an independent researcher, who is a member of the SRG. The report 
cites personal communication with that research for an abundance 
estimate of eight whales in 2004. Since 2004, the researcher's 
observations have not indicated that the status of the stock has 
changed or that the status could be assessed more accurately. 
Therefore, NMFS has not revised the rerport. As new information is 
presented indicating a change in abundance, NMFS will incorporate such 
a change in future revisions of the report.
    Comment 26: The use of an abundance estimate for Pacific white-
sided dolphin that is outdated and derived from personal communications 
is inappropriate. The region has appropriately left the PBR undefined.
    Response: NMFS agrees.
    Comment 27: It is inappropriate to re-classify the Pacific white-
sided dolphin stock as non-strategic simply because there is no 
evidence that take exceeds PBR. There is also no evidence that it does 
not. There is no PBR and no reliable fishery data even though there is 
acknowledgment that takes are likely to occur in fisheries. The stock 
should be retained as strategic.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Although many of the fisheries that 
overlap with this stock are observed, and some fisheries are subject to 
high levels of observer coverage, no mortality or serious injury of 
Pacific white-sided dolphins has been observed. In addition, there have 
been no self reports or stranding data indicating that serious injuries 
or mortalities have occurred. Because the estimated level of serious 
injury and mortality is zero, this stock should no longer be designated 
as ``strategic'' despite uncertainty due to age of the abundance 
estimate.
    Comment 28: The surveys used for estimating Southeast Alaska harbor 
porpoise abundance are older than recommended under GAMMS. Re-analyzing 
these data does not make them new. Therefore the PBR should be 
undetermined.
    Response: NMFS recognizes that the estimates for the harbor 
porpoise stock in southeast Alaska are dated. Setting the PBR level as 
``undetermined'' is not necessary as updated abundance estimate for 
this stock is forthcoming due to surveys conducted in 2006.
    Comment 29: One commenter agreed that all three stocks of harbor 
porpoise in Alaska should be classified as strategic.
    Response: NMFS agrees.
    Comment 30: Using the region's rationale for classifying Alaska 
harbor porpoise stocks as strategic, the Alaska stock of Dall's 
porpoise should also be classified as strategic. The abundance data are 
old and cannot be used to estimate either a minimum population or PBR. 
While there are no data to indicate that mortality exceeds PBR, there 
are no data to indicate that it does not, since PBR is undetermined.
    Response: Although the abundance estimate is old, the last estimate 
of this population indicated that the population is very abundant. 
Further, there is no information that would indicate that the abundance 
has changed appreciably over the past several years; observer programs 
on the fisheries overlapping with this stock have not reported 
substantial incidental mortality or serious injury. NMFS will continue 
to calculate a PBR for the Alaska stock of Dall's porpoise.
    Comment 31: The fact that there are no recent estimates of 
abundance, that PBR is unknown, and that fishery-related mortality 
could be occurring in all stocks of beaked whales in Alaska (Baird's, 
Cuvier's, and Stejneger's)

[[Page 12778]]

argues for designating these stocks as strategic.
    Response: NMFS recognizes that the abundance estimates are old and, 
in consultation with the SRG will consider whether to continue 
reporting the PBR for these stocks in future reports.

Comments on Atlantic Regional Reports

    Comment 32: We reiterate our belief that data on mortalities of 
large whales (e.g., humpback, finback and Northern right whale) can be 
provided on a more timely basis than data on small cetaceans and should 
be more current than 2004. The need to extrapolate observed mortality 
of small cetaceans to fleet-wide mortality estimates results in the 
understandable situation in which small cetacean mortality estimates 
are only for years up to 2004. But the ``body count'' of ship-struck or 
entangled large whales needs no such extrapolation and the data should 
be the most recently available - in this case at least through 2005.
    Response: A review of entanglement and injury reports is not a 
straight forward ``body count'' because the evidence has to be 
evaluated to distinguish between serious and non-serious injury. After 
each case has been evaluated and a determination made for each injury, 
the results are subjected to scientific review. This process was not 
complete when the 2006 draft SARs were completed for review by the 
SRGs; therefore, the mortality estimates for large whales consist of 
the latest year of information that has been subjected to evaluation 
and scientific review. The latest reviewed information will be included 
as SARs are updated in the future. NMFS will consider changes to this 
procedure in future meetings with the SRG.
    Comment 33: For short and long-finned pilot whales, Risso's 
dolphins and white-sided dolphins, estimates of mortality and other 
important information have been withheld pending presentation to a take 
reduction team that met in September 2006. The new verbiage states that 
the data are undergoing ``scientific review'' which implies review by 
the SRG. This is not the case, and the language should be changed to 
reflect that this is solely an internal NMFS review. We assume these 
data will be incorporated in the next SAR.
    Response: Reference to the Take Reduction Team has been removed. 
The new information is expected to be included in the 2007 SARs, and it 
will have been subjected to scientific review, including the SRG, 
before the draft is made available for public review and comment.
    Comment 34: Until new information is available, it is not 
appropriate to omit older information. Reviewers need to have some 
estimates on which to base a general understanding of fisheries that 
interact with the species (e.g., the discussion of various bottom trawl 
fisheries and incidental mortality of Risso's dolphins and pilot 
whales). Please reinstate the original omitted verbiage until it can be 
replaced by newer information.
    Response: The older numbers were calculated using different 
analytical methods, and the fisheries have been revised. The old 
information is not applicable to the new categories, and its inclusion 
could be confusing and misleading to reinstate the old data. Therefore, 
NMFS has omitted the older information.
    Comment 35: We renew our request that NMFS continue its focal 
efforts to define the boundaries of short-finned and long-finned pilot 
whales which are taken in multiple fisheries and yet are managed with a 
single PBR as though they are a single stock. The NMFS has been 
undertaking analysis of stock boundaries for pilot whales that it is 
inappropriately managing as a single stock This sort of analysis should 
be discussed, or at least alluded to in the SAR so that reviewers 
understand that efforts are underway to appropriately separate the two 
stocks as was done for harbor seals in Alaska.
    Response: The SARs were revised to allude to ongoing research 
activity to identify stock boundaries and assign abundance and 
mortality accordingly.

Comments on Pacific Regional Reports

    Comment 36: It is inappropriate to remove discussion of various 
anthropogenic threats to the Southern Resident stock of killer whales 
as well as mention of this stock's special status in Canada, into which 
the stock's range extends.
    Response: The discussion relating to the natural and anthropogenic 
threats of this stock was included in the report during its status 
review. When the status under the ESA was changed due to the stock's 
listing as ``endangered'', the narrative in the ``Status of the Stock'' 
section became unnecessary.
    Comment 37: Recent information on gillnet-related mortality of 
Hawaiian monk seals was not included in the draft stock assessment and 
a clarification on whether monk seal interactions with gillnets 
typically involve debris or active gear was requested.
    Response: No gillnet deaths are listed in the table because none 
were documented during the 5 years covered in the table. There was one 
recent pup death (2006), but it is not included in the draft 2007 SAR 
which covers fishery data through 2005. The reason for this is that 
preparation of the 2007 draft SAR occurs in late 2006, before complete 
annual data for 2006 are available. There was a gillnet-related serious 
injury in 2005 that will appear in the 2007 draft table. Monk seal 
entanglement in debris, whether the remains of fishing gear or other 
material, is reported in the section of the report on other human-
caused mortality rather than in the fishery mortality section.
    Comment 38: Personal communications are used as the source of 
information for mortality of the San Miguel Island stock of northern 
fur seals from 2001 and 2003. Effort should be made to assure that 
these sorts of information come from published sources where possible 
and/or to assure the NMFS employees providing this information 
incorporate it into published reports for future use.
    Response: The SAR has been changed to cite Marine Mammal Stranding 
Network records maintained by NMFS Regional Offices as the source of 
information for fishery-related strandings. Because this information is 
meant only as background rather than as an estimate of fishery-caused 
mortality or serious injury, the information may not be included in a 
future publication.
    Comment 39: In the face of evidence that mortality of short-finned 
pilot whales is occurring (with wide CVs) and the knowledge that this 
fishing gear is insufficiently monitored, it would be precautionary to 
consider the stock strategic until more precise abundance and mortality 
information is available.
    Response: The assessments explicitly take uncertainties in 
mortality and abundance estimates into account in a standardized way, 
consistent with the guidelines developed for assessing marine mammal 
stocks. The level of uncertainty in mortality and abundance of short-
finned pilot whales is within the range of those addressed in these 
guidelines. Mortality estimates are based on 12-26 percent observer 
coverage in the Hawaii-based longline fleet. The PBR for the Hawaiian 
stock of short-finned pilot whales is 65 animals. There was no 
mortality or serious injury documented within the Hawaiian EEZ during 
2000-2004. Therefore, a strategic designation is not warranted.

Bottlenose Dolphin, California Coastal Stock

    Comment 40: NMFS is applying a new methodology for calculating PBR 
because the stock spends only part of its time in U.S. waters. It 
appears a portion

[[Page 12779]]

of the PBR is allocated to Mexico. The SAR states a correction factor 
of 0.82 could be used if the population were distributed randomly and 
then notes that the populations is not distributed randomly. Thus, use 
of 0.82 as the correction factor seems inappropriate
    Response: Decreasing PBR for transboundary stocks is not a new 
methodology, and the method used for this report is consistent with 
NMFS' guidelines for calculating PBR for stocks that spend only a 
portion of the time in waters under U.S. jurisdiction. It was first 
used in 1995 for humpback whales, CA/OR/WA stock. Although the 
commenter suggested an implicit allocation of PBR to Mexico, PBR is not 
allocated. Rather, at the end of the year, human-caused mortality is 
compared to PBR to assess the stock's status (strategic vs. non-
strategic). In the case of California coastal bottlenose dolphins, NMFS 
has no estimate for human-caused mortality outside the U.S. Exclusive 
Economic Zone and has reduced the PBR so that the effect of human-
caused mortality and serious injury in the U.S. is not underestimated. 
The report states explicitly that the correction factor of 0.82 is 
applied until sufficient information is available to calculate an 
appropriate correction. When research yields sufficient information to 
calculate a more appropriate correction, the newer value will be used. 
Until then, use of the interim correction provides a better 
approximation of the effect of human-caused mortality and serious 
injury in the U.S. than an uncorrected PBR would provide.
    Comment 41: The stock assessment does not state whether or not 
estimates of mortality are available from Mexican waters.
    Response: The stock assessment states that coastal gillnet 
fisheries exist in Mexico and may take animals from this population, 
but no details are available. The statement means that estimates of 
mortality in Mexico are not available. NMFS will continue to seek 
information on possible fishery interactions with this stock in Mexican 
waters.
    Comment 42: Concern was expressed that observer coverage in the 
halibut set gillnet fishery has been nonexistent to low over the last 
several years. A clarification of fishery-related mortality for this 
stock was also requested.
    Response: A renewed observer program began in the California 
halibut set gillnet fishery in 2006, which will provide approximately 
10 percent observer coverage for this fishery. Fishery-related 
mortality is included in Table 1 of the stock assessment report, which 
details one animal that was entangled in 3.5 inch mesh netting from an 
unknown fishery
    Harbor Porpoise, Oregon and Washington Stocks
    Comment 43: Oregon and Washington harbor porpoise abundance data 
are from an unpublished source.
    Response: Oregon and Washington harbor porpoise abundance data from 
the most recent aerial surveys have not yet been published but will be 
published in the future. The methodologies and analyses used in these 
abundance estimates have been peer-reviewed and applied for years.
    Comment 44: In the report for the Oregon and Washington coast 
stock, the chart showing fishery-related mortality states that there 
was ``no fishery'' for the past several years for the Northern 
Washington marine set gillnet fishery. The text should briefly discuss 
possible reasons for this.
    Response: Text has been added to the Oregon/Washington Coast harbor 
porpoise SAR to discuss the reduction in fishing effort in the Northern 
Washington marine set gillnet fishery in recent years due to reduced 
numbers of chinook salmon (a target species) in coastal waters.
    Comment 45: The SAR for the Washington inland waters stock provides 
a substantially higher estimate of abundance than in the previous SAR 
and a much greater minimum population estimate. It would be helpful to 
discuss possible reasons for this.
    Response: The abundance of the Washington Inland Waters harbor 
porpoise stock has increased since the previous survey in 1996. The 
most recent abundance estimate for this stock is an average of 
estimates from surveys in 2002 and 2003 and both of these surveys 
produced very similar results. Calves comprised 10 percent of the 
counts in 2002 and 2003 compared to 2 percent of the count in 1996, 
suggesting an increase in reproduction which would provide population 
growth. During this same time, the percentage of calves in counts of 
the Oregon/Washington Coast stock of harbor porpoise remained the same 
(10 percent in both the 1997 and 2002 surveys). Information in the SAR 
is limited to a reporting of the abundance estimates and does not 
include the explanation above because NMFS has maintained the SARs as 
very brief presentations of the information required by the MMPA; 
interested readers can obtain the literature cited in each SAR for 
addition details.
    False Killer Whales, Hawaii Stock
    Comment 46: NMFS should explain the limitations and the agency's 
use of the population data currently available, as well as clarify the 
discussion of mortality and serious injury attributable to the fishery 
in the SAR.
    Response: The population data in the current SAR are used according 
to established and published guidelines (Wade and Angliss, 1997, and 
the 2005 revisions to the guidelines, both of which are available on 
the Internet; see ADDRESSES). Details of the mortality and serious 
injury attributable to the fishery are provided in the reference cited 
in the SAR (Forney and Kobayashi). The SARs are intended to summarize 
results of references related to population status, not reproduce 
details available in the cited reports.
    Comment 47: NMFS should provide a range of plausible abundance 
estimates, minimum population estimates, and PBR levels for false 
killer whales in the Hawaiian Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ), similar to 
the approach used for false killer whales in the Palmyra Atoll EEZ.
    Response: The estimated range of plausible estimates for the 
Palmyra Atoll EEZ was previously provided because there were no survey 
data available for that geographic region. In contrast, there have been 
multiple surveys (Barlow, 2006, Mobley et al., 2001, Baird et al., 
2003, 2005, within waters of the Hawaiian EEZ (one extending throughout 
the EEZ and the others closer to the Main Hawaiian Islands). All 
existing data indicate that the population size of false killer whales 
in Hawaiian EEZ waters is small. When survey data are available, it is 
always preferable to use the actual data, rather than rely on plausible 
estimates based on surveys conducted elsewhere. In the 2007 draft SAR 
the range of plausible estimates for the Palmyra EEZ has accordingly 
been replaced with the actual estimates of the 2005 shipboard survey in 
that region.
    Comment 48: Issue a revised draft SAR, which addresses the concerns 
expressed in this comment letter, and submit it for meaningful public 
comment.
    Response: The comments on this SAR did not warrant revision of the 
SAR. As new information becomes available, NMFS will update the SAR and 
solicit public review and comment as required by the MMPA.
    Comment 49: NMFS should undertake a new population survey that 
accounts for the known seasonality of false killer whale abundance in 
the Hawaiian EEZ and the presence of false killer whales near the Main 
Hawaiian Islands and outside the EEZ.
    Response: NMFS will continue to conduct population surveys and 
improve analysis methodology for the

[[Page 12780]]

assessment of cetaceans in U.S. waters as resources. However, there is 
no scientific evidence of seasonality in occurrence of false killer 
whales within the Hawaiian EEZ (see detailed comments below). During 
2005, a survey was completed that provided additional data for 
estimation of false killer whale abundance in waters of the Hawaiian 
EEZ, the Palmyra Atoll EEZ, in international waters these two EEZ, and 
westward to the Johnston Atoll EEZ.
    Comment 50: NMFS should revise its 1998 guidelines on mortality and 
serious injury to provide an accurate methodology for assessing the 
impacts of fishery-related take of false killer whales.
    Response: NMFS, in conjunction with the Commission, FWS, and 
representatives of regional SRGs, reviewed and revised its guidelines 
for preparing SARs in 2003 and issued final revisions in 2005 following 
public review and comment. The guidelines provide accurate 
methodologies for evaluating mortality and serious injury of marine 
mammals incidental to commercial fishing and other sources. The SAR 
guidelines note that NMFS anticipates periodic review and revision of 
the SAR guidelines to incorporate new information and experience in 
implementing the MMPA. Also, see response to comment 4.
    Comment 51: The numerous flaws in extrapolating from the limited 
population data available for the Hawaiian stock of false killer whales 
have been acknowledged for some time.
    Response: The ``flaws'' alleged in this comment refer to older 
population data that are not used for the current assessment and are 
provided in the stock assessment report only as background information. 
The current abundance estimate, based on the 2002 survey, is not 
subject to these same limitations, and there is no scientific evidence 
to suggest that this estimate is biased or is an underestimate of the 
population size.
    Comment 52: The population estimate appears to be extrapolated from 
a single false killer whale sighting made during the 2002 survey, and 
numerous false killer whales have been sighted in the Main Hawaiian 
Islands. Consequently, the SAR must acknowledge the high degree of 
uncertainty and potential for error.
    Response: The population estimate is based on the overall encounter 
rate of false killer whales during an extensive 5-month ship survey, 
according to established line-transect methodology. Although the 
observation of only one false killer whale sighting during these 
surveys increases the uncertainty (CV) around the estimate, it is a 
valid scientific estimate. This uncertainty is clearly stated in the 
SAR. This comment focuses only on the sighting and does not note the 
survey effort by well-trained observers using powerful binoculars that 
produced no additional false killer whale sightings, despite many 
sightings of other dolphins and whales. The lack of false killer whale 
sightings through much of the survey indicates that false killer whales 
are sparsely distributed over a very large area in the Pacific Ocean. 
Observations of false killer whale sightings around the main Hawaiian 
Islands include many of the same individuals, seen repeatedly over many 
years by other researchers. The incidence of resightings in these 
nearshore waters indicates that the population of false killer whales 
around the Hawaiian Islands is small.
    Comment 53: Assuming 236 is the mean for calculating the CV, the 
estimated population could be anywhere from -30 to 472.
    Response: The range of populations sizes suggested in this comment 
is inappropriate. Abundance estimates generally have log-normally 
distributed errors, and the resulting 90 percent confidence interval of 
the population estimate, calculated for a CV=1.13, is 44-1,252.
    Comment 54: NMFS must explain why the abundance and minimum 
population estimates for Hawaiian false killer whales are lower in the 
draft SAR than in previous SARs, even though these estimates are based 
on the same 2002 survey.
    Response: Following submission of the original analysis as a 
manuscript for publication in Marine Mammal Science, a reviewer 
recommended some improvements to the analyses. These improvements were 
made, and the revised analysis yielded slightly lower estimates. Such 
an approach is in accordance with standard review procedures. Thus, the 
lower estimate resulted from an improved analysis of the same survey 
data.
    Comment 55: The abundance survey was conducted between August and 
November, a time of year when false killer whales abundance and pod 
size is believed to be low. Reliable anecdotal information, confirmed 
by the results of an analysis by NMFS's Pacific Islands Fisheries 
Science Center (supporting information was included in the comment), 
indicates that the Hawaiian stock of false killer whales exhibits 
seasonal behavior.
    Response: There is no scientific evidence of seasonality in false 
killer whale abundance or pod size within the Hawaiian EEZ. In contrast 
to the comment's claim of seasonality, the information supplied by the 
commenter states that ``month'' was not a significant factor in the 
observer data analyzed. In addition, ongoing studies of cetaceans 
around the main Hawaiian Islands (Baird et al., 2003, 2005, cited in 
the SAR) have documented false killer whales in nearly all months 
surveyed, with no evidence of seasonality in their occurrence. 
Additional published information cited by the commenter indicates 
seasonal influence on distribution of false killer whales; however, 
these papers refer to the seasonal occurrence of this tropical species 
in temperate waters off Japan, Russia and Canada, rather than the 
tropical waters around Hawaii.
    Comment 56: Given the difficulties in observing false killer 
whales, the extreme limitations of the known data, and the seasonal 
variations in abundance and pod size, extrapolations from the sighting 
of a single individual, assumed to represent a very modest pod size of 
10 individuals, cannot reasonably be supported as a basis for reliable 
population estimate.
    Response: MMPA section 117 requires NMFS to prepare marine mammal 
stock assessment reports that are ``based on the best scientific 
information available.'' The abundance estimate for false killer whales 
was based on an extensive ship-board survey designed and conducted by 
experts in marine mammal population assessment. The survey design and 
subsequent data analyses were consistent with peer-reviewed, 
established methods, and the results have been published in the peer-
reviewed literature. Accordingly, the estimates presented are based on 
the ``best scientific information available'', as required by the MMPA.
    Comment 57: NMFS applied a diving correction factor of 0.76, 
meaning that NMFS estimates that about 75 percent of false killer whale 
species should be observable at the surface of the ocean during survey 
work. False killer whales are a cryptic species that follow schools of 
prey species, such as tuna. In many cases, commercial fisheries have 
experienced severe depredation of catch by false killer whales, yet 
participants in the fishery have not seen signs of the species at the 
surface of the water. Accordingly, NMFS' assumptions regarding diving 
behavior are biased and do not reflect the species actual behaviors.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. The commenter has misunderstood the 
application and significance of the correction factor of 0.76 applied 
by

[[Page 12781]]

NMFS and is inappropriately comparing observations made by personnel on 
fishing vessels to observations made by trained marine mammal observers 
using high-powered binoculars during dedicated marine mammal surveys. 
The correction factor of 0.76 does not represent the proportion of time 
animals are at the surface, as suggested by the commenter. Rather, the 
correction factor accounts for animals that are present on the survey 
trackline, (that is, during the time the vessel was in sight of the 
animals, the animals were at the surface at least briefly along the 
trackline), but not detected by the observer. Although animal behavior 
is part of the correction, there are other important factors that must 
be considered, such as weather (e.g., wind), the height of the viewing 
platform, the number of observers, and the use of high powered 
binoculars. The correction factor developed by NMFS is appropriate and 
scientifically valid for estimation of abundance based on the NMFS ship 
survey.
    Comment 58: The population estimates contained in the draft SAR are 
prone to underestimation because they are premised on the assumption 
that the Hawaiian population of false killer whales is genetically 
distinct.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. The line-transect methodology used to 
estimate the abundance of false killer whales does not rely on genetic 
distinctness. Rather, it reflects the total number of animals estimated 
to have been in the study area during the survey period. Furthermore, 
the genetic distinctness of false killer whales around the main 
Hawaiian Islands (described in the SAR) is based on an analysis of a 
large number of samples collected throughout the eastern and central 
Pacific, not merely on two samples obtained by fishery observers. NMFS 
continues to collect additional samples when possible and will refine 
stock structure as additional evidence becomes available; however, it 
is important to note that the finding of unique haplotypes around the 
main Hawaiian Islands confirms that these animals represent a distinct 
stock. NMFS will continue to provide updated information in the SARs as 
new results become available.
    Comment 59: The actual distribution of the Hawaiian population of 
false killer whales is unknown. It is a certainty that the Hawaiian 
population of false killer whales is not geographically confined to the 
Hawaiian EEZ, as suggested by NMFS's regulatory definition of the 
stock. However, the extent of the stock's distribution beyond the 
Hawaiian EEZ is unknown, and so is the relative abundance of the 
population within the nearshore and open ocean areas of the EEZ. 
Nevertheless, the population estimate contained in the draft SAR 
assumes a static population confined to the Hawaiian EEZ.
    Response: NMFS agrees with this comment only to the limited extent 
that stock or population structure of false killer whales in the 
Pacific Ocean is unknown. NMFS disagrees with the assertions, `` as 
suggested by NMFS' regulatory definition of the stock'' and ``the draft 
SAR assumes a static population confined to the Hawaiian EEZ''.
    False killer whales are widely distributed in tropical and warm 
temperate waters of the Pacific Ocean. The available data indicate that 
there is population structure; however, there is insufficient 
information to identify each demographically independent aggregation 
(stock) or to identify the boundaries between adjacent aggregations. In 
the face of this uncertainty, NMFS has identified stocks (as management 
units) in accordance with the agency's established guidelines, which, 
in turn, were based, among other things, upon the policies and purposes 
of the MMPA. The initial guidelines and subsequent revisions of them 
were based upon workshops with participants from NMFS, FWS, the 
Commission, and representatives of the three regional SRGs and were 
made available for public review and comment (59 FR 40527, August 9, 
1994; 62 FR 3005, June 2, 1997; and 69 FR 67541, November 18, 2004). 
Each set of guidelines has addressed stocks such as false killer whales 
that are broadly distributed in pelagic waters beyond the U.S. EEZ. The 
1995 and 1997 guidelines stated, ``For situations where a species with 
a broad pelagic distribution which extends into international waters 
experiences mortalities within the U.S. EEZ, PBR calculations should be 
based on the abundance in the EEZ area unless there is evidence for 
movement of individuals between the EEZ and offshore pelagic areas.'' 
In the subsequent review and revision of the guidelines (2003-2005), 
NMFS modified these instructions to be more clear, due in large part to 
uncertainties and distribution of false killer whales in the Pacific 
Ocean. The current guidelines state, ``For situations where a species 
with a broad pelagic distribution which extends into international 
waters experiences mortalities within the U.S. EEZ, PBR calculations 
should be based on the abundance in the EEZ. If there is evidence for 
movement of individuals between the EEZ and offshore pelagic areas and 
there are estimates of mortality from U.S. and other sources throughout 
the stock's range, then PBR calculations may be based upon a range-wide 
abundance estimate for the stock.''
    False killer whales are distributed beyond the U.S. EEZ surrounding 
Hawaii and are taken in fisheries within and outside the EEZ. Fishery 
mortality and serious injury within the EEZ can be estimated from data 
collected by fishery observers in the U.S. fishing fleet within and 
outside the EEZ. Mortality and serious injury incidental to fishing by 
vessels of other nations is unknown; however, these vessels do not fish 
within the U.S. EEZ and, accordingly, do not kill marine mammals within 
the U.S. EEZ.
    Although it would be ideal to have sufficient information to 
identify the complete stock structure and boundaries for all false 
killer whales in the Pacific Ocean, to estimate mortality and serious 
injury from human-causes from all stocks, and to estimate the abundance 
(thus, calculate a PBR) for each stock of false killer whales, such a 
case does not exist, which results in several uncertainties. 
Accordingly, NMFS has limited the effect of uncertainty by identifying 
the Hawaiian stock to assess the impact of U.S. fishery-caused 
mortality and serious injury where the existing data allow. Such an 
approach allows NMFS to compare U.S. fishery-caused mortality and 
serious injury to a PBR where the stock is subject only to loss from 
U.S. fisheries. To do otherwise would be inconsistent with established 
guidelines, sound principles of wildlife management, and the purposes 
and policies of the MMPA.
    Comment 60: Given the limited population data available for false 
killer whales in the Hawaiian EEZ, NMFS should explain why it did not 
use an approach similar that employed for the Palmyra Atoll.
    Response: NMFS has not used this approach because it would not be 
based on the best scientific information available. A range of 
estimated plausible estimates was previously provided for the Palmyra 
Atoll EEZ because there were no survey data available for that 
geographic region. In contrast, there have been multiple surveys 
(Barlow, 2006, Mobley et al. 2001, Baird et al., 2003, 2005) within 
waters of the Hawaiian EEZ (one extending throughout the EEZ and the 
others closer to the Main Hawaiian Islands). All existing data indicate 
that the population size of false killer whales in Hawaiian EEZ waters 
is small. When survey data are available, it is appropriate to use the 
actual data and associated estimates, rather than rely on

[[Page 12782]]

plausible estimates based on surveys conducted elsewhere.
    Comment 61: There are serious uncertainties in the existing 
population data and flaws in the agency's assumptions about take 
attributable to the Hawaii longline fishery that case NMFS to 
underestimate false killer whale populations and overestimate fishery-
related mortality and serious injury.
    Response: NMFS agrees that there are uncertainties in the data. 
However, the assessments explicitly take these uncertainties into 
account in a standardized way, consistent with the guidelines developed 
for assessing marine mammal stocks. There is no scientific evidence 
that indicates the abundance of false killer whales is underestimated 
or the mortality and injury of false killer whales in the Hawaii-based 
long-line fishery is overestimated. The methods used to estimate 
abundance have been peer-reviewed and published in a respected 
scientific journal. Furthermore, several of the unidentified cetaceans 
that were injured or killed in the fishery were likely short-finned 
pilot whales or false killer whales, based on the observer's 
descriptions. These animals were not included in the estimation of 
serious injury and mortality of false killer whales; therefore, 
fishery-related mortality and serious injury were likely 
underestimated, not overestimated.
    Comment 62: NMFS has not explained its rationale for classifying 
all take by the longline fishery as mortality or serious injury. 
Participants in a workshop on false killer whales have confirmed the 
view that the NMFS's working assumption (i.e. that all hookings results 
in death or serious injury) is likely to be incorrect.
    Response: This comment mis-characterizes NMFS' approach to 
distinguishing between serious and non-serious injury by saying that 
NMFS considers all take by the longline fishery or all hookings to be 
serious injuries. The paper by Forney and Kobayashi (2005), reviewed 
and accepted by the SRG and cited in the SAR, clearly describes the 
rationale and process by which injuries are classified either as 
serious or as not serious.
    Comment 63: NMFS should revisit its 1998 guidelines for 
distinguishing between serious and non-serious injury to develop a more 
refined method of assessing false killer whale takes.
    Response: NMFS plans to review and, as appropriate, revise its 
guidance for distinguishing between serious and non-serious injury. A 
workshop initiating such an effort was originally scheduled for 
November 2006; however, it was postponed for budget reasons. When 
funding for FY 2007 is finalized by Congress, NMFS will assess options 
to convene the workshop and initiate the review of its serious injury 
guidance.
    Comment 64: The Hawaiian pelagic longline fishery includes two 
separately managed fishing efforts, the shallow set swordfish fishery 
and the deep-set tuna fishery, which operate at different times of the 
year. Yet, NMFS does not distinguish between the swordfish and tuna 
fishery or address how bait, gear, timing and seasonal differences 
between the two pelagic longline fisheries affect the take of false 
killer whales. As a result, the draft SAR inaccurately suggests that 
the entire pelagic longline fishery should be treated as a uniform 
industry subject to the same false killer whale restrictions.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. The report on mortality and serious 
injury of cetaceans in the Hawaii-based longline fishery (Forney and 
Kobayashi, 2005) clearly outlines the methodology used to differentiate 
between the different types of longline fishing that takes place. 
Estimates are based on a stratified analysis that takes into account 
differences in the types of cetaceans that interact with each component 
of the fishery, as well as inter-annual changes in fishing behavior and 
effort, such as those caused by regulations to protect sea turtles. The 
SAR reports the level of estimated serious injury and mortality of 
false killer whales but does not describe the details of the methods 
used in the estimates, which are available in the cited literature. 
Furthermore, the Hawaii-based longline fishery is under no restriction 
due to its false killer whale interactions.
    Comment 65: The draft SAR over-generalizes the number and nature of 
false killer whale takes attributable to the Hawaiian pelagic longline 
fishery. Figure 3 in the SAR contains markers for ``possible'' false 
killer whale takes. However the draft SAR does not reveal why these 
possible takes should be considered false killer whales rather than 
other cetacean species. Figure 3, therefore, creates an unsupportable 
implication that the fishery has taken more false killer whales than 
indicated by fishermen's logs and observer reports.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the SAR over-generalizes the number 
and nature of false killer whale takes attributable to the longline 
fishery. The report on mortality and serious injury of cetaceans in the 
Hawaii-based longline fishery (Forney and Kobayashi, 2005) clearly 
describes that the characterization of some unidentified cetacean takes 
as possible false killer whale takes is based on the observers' 
descriptions of the animals. To clarify this, we have added text to the 
final 2006 SAR that the designation as possible false killer whales was 
based on the observers' descriptions. Figure 3 in the Draft SAR 
presents the most accurate picture of false killer whale mortality and 
serious injury in the Hawaii-based longline fishery, and the caption 
clearly describes the source of the information. The inference that a 
reader makes from Figure 3 is not important from a conservation or 
management perspective. Rather, the important information from a 
management perspective in the SAR is the number of fishery-caused 
mortalities and serious injuries included in the text and the summary 
table. The ``possible'' takes are not included in the mortality and 
serious injury at