Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, 21111-21117 [E8-8406]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 76 (Friday, April 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21111-21117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-8406]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XA34


Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports

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

ACTION: Notice; 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 2007 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.

[[Page 21112]]

    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.) required 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 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 2007, 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 2007 are available.

Comments and Responses

    During the comment period for the draft 2007 SARS, NMFS received 
letters from the Marine Mammal Commission, the Southwest Center for 
Biological Diversity, the Humane Society of the United States, the 
Hawaii Longline Association, Sun Coast Calamari, and Prowler 
Industries. Each letter contained multiple comments.
    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 initiation or repetition of large data 
collection efforts, such as abundance surveys, observer programs, or 
other mortality estimates. Comments on actions not related to the SARs 
(e.g., convening a Take Reduction Team or listing a marine mammal 
species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)) are not included below. 
Many comments recommending additional data collection (e.g., additional 
abundance surveys or observer programs) have been addressed in previous 
years. NMFS' resources for surveys, observer programs, or other 
mortality estimates are fully utilized, and no new large surveys or 
other programs may be initiated until additional resources are 
available or until ongoing monitoring or conservation efforts can be 
terminated so that the resources supporting them can be redirected. 
Such comments on the 2007 SARs and responses to them may not be 
included in the summary below because the responses have not changed.
    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 2007 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 suggests 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.

Comments on National Issues

    Comment 1: Fishery-related mortalities determined from strandings 
should be included in reports of total annual mortality for a stock and 
reported consistently within and between SARs.
    Response: Mortality determined from stranded animals cannot 
necessarily be used or reported in a consistent manner. In some cases, 
stranded marine mammals with evidence of interaction with fishing gear 
occur when and where the death could have resulted from observed 
fisheries. In other cases, there is no observed fishery that could have 
caused the death. For the former cases, the stranded animal should be 
included in the expansion of observed take to an annual estimate of 
mortality for the fishery. These mortalities determined from strandings 
should not be included in the mortality estimates. In the latter cases, 
the stranded animal could not have been included in an estimated take, 
and these should be reported in the SARs. Mortality documented through 
a stranding program represents a minimum estimate (at least that many 
deaths occurred) because some marine mammals that die off shore do not 
subsequently strand.
    Comment 2: All regions should err on the side of precaution when 
assessing serious injuries of marine mammals, stock status, and 
assigning ``undetermined'' PBR levels for stocks.
    Response: NMFS uses appropriate caution in preparing the reports 
and discusses the draft reports with regional SRGs prior to public 
review.
    Comment 3: The quantity and quality of data on fishery-related 
mortality continue to be inadequate for a number of marine mammal 
stocks. There is concern that the SARs tend to lag approximately two 
years behind in incorporating available observer bycatch data. It is 
imperative that SARs use the most recently available data in making 
these determinations.
    Response: NMFS is aware there is a delay between the time data are 
collected and when the resulting estimates are available for use in the 
SARs. Because these data may form the basis for management actions that 
affect constituents as well as marine mammals, NMFS subjects the 
results to stringent review, an important step requiring additional 
time, before including the latest results in the SAR.
    Comment 4: Survey methods could be improved further by the use of 
acoustic, tagging, and genetics tools to complement standard survey 
methods, which will in turn improve the statistical confidence in 
survey data and the statistical power of the analytic approaches used 
to derive stock size, trends, and efficacy of take reduction actions.
    Response: Surveys routinely include collection of information such 
as recommended in the comment. The amounts of additional information, 
as well as the extent and intensity of surveys, are subject to 
limitation due to resources.
    Comment 5: NMFS should work with Federal and state fisheries 
management agencies and industry to develop a funding strategy to 
support stronger observer programs for collecting data on

[[Page 21113]]

incidental mortality and serious injury. This would include training 
and other support for stranding response teams that would lead to 
greater certainty about the cause of strandings and unusual mortality 
events.
    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 6: NMFS should build on recent advances in tag technology, 
as used by the Tagging of Pacific Pelagics program, to better 
understand aspects of population dynamics that surveys alone cannot 
reveal.
    Response: As noted in the response to comment 4, NMFS includes 
additional information in the analysis of marine mammal populations to 
the extent resources allow.
    Comment 7: Methods for identifying strategic stocks should be 
consistent between the NMFS regions.
    Response: The guidelines for preparing marine mammal stock 
assessment reports promote reasonable consistency in determinations; 
however, these guidelines also allow some level of flexibility to 
account for stock-specific circumstances when insufficient information 
results in uncertainty.
    Comment 8: The planned joint SRG meeting should address the 
development of a more effective means of assessing trans-boundary 
stocks and the effects of human activities on them.
    Response: The joint SRG meeting included a lengthy discussion of 
trans-boundary issues. If the SRGs make joint recommendations, NMFS 
would use these recommendations in revising its guidelines for 
preparing SARs.
    Comment 9: A consistent process for incorporating non-fishery 
sources of mortality in the SARs should be developed.
    Response: NMFS has incorporated research-related mortality, as 
appropriate, in SARs and is exploring alternatives for addressing 
taking incidental to activities other than commercial fishing, which 
will account for mortality and serious injury incidental to these 
activities.
    Comment 10: More than 45 stocks cannot be adequately assessed 
because of insufficient data on stock status and trends, mortality, or 
both. A concerted effort should be made between regions to use a 
consistent approach to determine when available data are sufficient to 
calculate the PBR levels and estimate mortality.
    Response: As noted in the response to comment 7, related to 
determining status of the stocks, the guidelines are designed to 
promote general consistency and leave flexibility to address case-
specific circumstances. Appropriate levels of consistency were included 
in discussions at the recent joint SRG meeting; however, clear 
agreements on a need for a more prescriptive approach for the 
guidelines was not apparent.

Comments on Alaska Regional Reports

    Comment 11: The inclusion of research-related mortality is a 
welcome addition to the SARs, and continuation of such reporting is 
encouraged.
    Response: Comment noted.
    Comment 12: The Alaska region needs to devote resources to 
obtaining up-to-date and reliable estimates of subsistence hunting of 
pinnipeds, particularly ice seals; data for some stocks has not been 
updated since 2000.
    Response: NMFS responded to this comment in the notice of 
availability of the final SARs for 2006 (72 FR 12774, March 15, 2007, 
Comment 18). NMFS has insufficient resources to obtain up-to-date 
estimates of subsistence hunting of pinnipeds and will retain old 
information, with appropriate dates and caveats if necessary, to 
document the extent of knowledge on past harvest.
    Comment 13: Previous stock assessments have provided point 
estimates for Alaska Native subsistence kills as well as upper and 
lower estimates bases on the bounds of confidence. These data are no 
longer provided. This practice should be reinstated.
    Response: NMFS responded to this comment in the notice of 
availability of the final SARs for 2006 (72 FR 12774, March 15, 2007, 
Comment 9). These data are not available for most stocks, and, for the 
stocks where the information is available, the reliability is unknown. 
More details on information summarized in the SARs is available in the 
literature cited in each SAR.
    Comment 14: Data should be presented in a manner that reflects a 
more precautionary approach for the Steller sea lion, western U.S. 
stock. A graphic suggesting an overall increase in stock abundance 
masks a 19 percent decline in the western Aleutian range.
    Response: Steller sea lion abundance data are presented in Figure 2 
and illustrate the dynamics of three portions of the stock over the 
past 15 years. Abundance of smaller portions of the range are available 
in the literature cited in the SAR.
    Comment 15: The PBR level for the Steller sea lion, western U.S. 
stock, should be listed as ``undetermined'' because human-related 
causes of mortality are a plausible causative factor for a decline, 
even if not a direct mortality.
    Response: NMFS responded to this comment in the notice of 
availability of the final SARs for 2006 (72 FR 12774, March 15, 2007, 
Comment 8). NMFS disagrees that the PBR level for the Steller sea lion, 
western stock, should be ``undetermined'' because the stock, while at a 
low level relative to historical abundance, is sufficiently large to 
sustain some level of human-caused mortality and because recent data 
from 2002, 2004, and 2006 indicate that the population may have 
stabilized, thus reducing the need for this precautionary 
interpretation.
    Comment 16: Additional observer coverage is needed for the Alaska 
Peninsula and Aleutian Islands salmon drift gillnet fishery and other 
gillnet fisheries that are likely to interact with the Steller sea 
lion, western U.S. stock.
    Response: The NMFS Alaska Region is responsible for implementing 
observer programs in the Alaska state fisheries and is rotating this 
program through various Alaska state fisheries as resources allow. To 
date, this program has implemented observer programs in the Prince 
William Sound set and drift gillnet, South Unimak drift gillnet, Cook 
Inlet set and drift gillnet fishery, and the Kodiak Island set gillnet 
fisheries. In 2007 and 2008, and with the support of the Alaska SRG, 
the Alaska Region is focusing on implementing an observer program for 
the Yakutat Bay gillnet fishery due to concerns about potential harbor 
porpoise and humpback whale serious injury and mortality. Once the 
Yakutat program is completed, the next highest priorities for 
observation in Alaska state-managed fisheries are the salmon drift 
gillnet and purse seine fisheries in Southeast Alaska.

[[Page 21114]]

    Comment 17: Summaries of self-reported mortalities from commercial 
fisheries in Alaska should be reinstated.
    Response: NMFS responded to this comment in the notice of 
availability of the final SARs for 2006 (72 FR 12774, March 15, 2007, 
Comment 7). NMFS no longer includes these data in the body of the SARs 
because the data are unreliable and because the number of reports has 
declined dramatically in recent years. The data are provided in an 
appendix to the SARs as additional information.
    Comment 18: NMFS is encouraged to consider a more real-time harvest 
monitoring program for the Steller sea lion, western U.S. stock. There 
is concern regarding a slightly upward trend in subsistence harvest of 
this stock which is approaching the PBR level.
    Response: NMFS agrees in general that levels of human-caused 
serious injury and mortality approaching PBR are of concern; however, 
the trend in the subsistence harvest is not of concern. In the early 
1990s, subsistence take of Steller sea lions, western, U.S. stock, was 
more than double the current levels. In the late 1990s, the annual 
harvest level decreased to less than 200 and was about 200 in the last 
3 years reported. A more real-time harvest monitoring program is 
unnecessary at this time because harvest levels are reasonably 
consistent from year to year.
    Comment 19: Information on age and sex composition should be 
included in the section on Subsistence Harvest for the Steller sea 
lion, western U.S. stock to aid SRGs in advising NMFS on issues of 
uncertainty relative to mortality of animals in certain age and sex 
classes.
    Response: NMFS responded to this comment in the notice of 
availability of the final SARs for 2006 (72 FR 12774, March 15, 2007, 
Comment 12). NMFS has eliminated this information from the SARs upon 
consultation with the Alaska SRG because its inclusion is of little 
value without modeling to show the importance of the information in the 
context of the stock's population dynamics. NMFS refers the reader to 
the cited literature if additional information is needed.
    Comment 20: Given the variability in population trajectories within 
portions of the stock range, NMFS should consider viewing management 
actions for portions of the Steller sea lion, eastern U.S. stock, 
rather than basing them on the trajectory of the stock as a whole.
    Response: NMFS responded to this comment in the notice of 
availability of the final SARs for 2006 (72 FR 12774, March 15, 2007, 
Comment 14). The prohibitions on take in the MMPA apply to individual 
animals; thus, the management focus applies smaller than the total 
stock. However, the SAR reports values at the stock level. Additional 
details regarding substock population dynamics are available in the 
draft revised recovery plan for Steller sea lions (available on the 
Internet: https://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/stellers/
recovery.htm).
    Comment 21: Table 4 for the Steller sea lion, eastern U.S. stock, 
should be updated with counts post-2002.
    Response: New data on the eastern U.S. stock are not available for 
every year at every site. Some counts from 2002 are currently being 
used because that was the last year that the entire region was surveyed 
for eastern Steller sea lions. NMFS will review available information 
to determine whether an update can be made and, if an update is 
appropriate, will include new information in the draft SARs for 2008.
    Comment 22: The PBR level for the Northern fur seal should be 
listed as ``undetermined'' because there is no net productivity in a 
declining stock.
    Response: NMFS responded to this comment in the notice of 
availability of the final SARs for 2006 (72 FR 12774, March 15, 2007, 
Comments 8 and 15). NMFS disagrees that the PBR level for the northern 
fur seal should be listed as ``undetermined'' because the stock, while 
at a low level relative to historical abundance, is very large and can 
sustain some level of human-caused mortality.
    Comment 23: NMFS should work with co-management partners to 
establish biologically meaningful stock boundaries for harbor seals in 
Alaska and incorporate these boundaries for prospective harbor seal 
stocks into the 2008 SARs. A complete revision of harbor seal stocks 
and recommendations regarding stock structure based on new genetic 
information is awaited, and further sub-division of these stocks is 
encouraged.
    Response: NMFS responded to this comment in the notice of 
availability of the final SARs for 2006 (72 FR 12774, March 15, 2007, 
Comment 16). As in past comments on the SARs, NMFS continues its 
commitment to work with its co-managers in the Alaska Native community 
to evaluate and revise stock structure of harbor seals in Alaska.
    Comment 24: Both the Beaufort and Chukchi stocks of beluga whale 
should be updated and considered for strategic status due to harvest-
related and incidental mortality.
    Response: NMFS responded to this comment in the notice of 
availability of the final SARs for 2006 (72 FR 12774, March 15, 2007, 
Comment 21). The SARs for these stocks will be updated in 2008, and 
this comment will be considered at that time.
    Comment 25: The change in PBR level to ``undetermined'' for beluga 
whale, Cook Inlet stock, is supported.
    Response: Comment noted.
    Comment 26: Oil and gas exploration should be added to the list of 
potential habitat concerns for the beluga whale, Cook Inlet stock.
    Response: NMFS will update this section in the draft SAR for 2008.
    Comment 27: The population estimate for the killer whale, Northern 
Resident stock, should be updated. NMFS should work closely with the 
Canadian government to obtain information on fishery-related mortality 
data given the low PBR level (2).
    Response: The SAR is next scheduled for an update in 2008, for the 
2009 SARs, and this comment will be considered at that time.
    Comment 28: The Pacific white-sided dolphin, North Pacific stock 
SAR has not been updated, and the population estimate is based on 
surveys from 1990. NMFS should obtain current abundance estimates, and 
observers should be assigned to the fisheries that have a likelihood of 
interacting with this stock. It is inappropriate to reclassify this 
stock as non-strategic.
    Response: NMFS responded to this comment in the notice of 
availability of the final SARs for 2006 (72 FR 12774, March 15, 2007, 
Comments 26 and 27). NMFS agrees that the abundance estimate is old 
however, resources do not yet allow NMFS to obtain a new estimate. 
Fisheries that overlap with this stock are observed, sometimes with 
high levels of coverage, and no serious injuries or mortalities have 
been observed. In addition, no other source of information (e.g., 
stranding data) indicates that incidental mortalities are occurring. 
Accordingly, this stock should not be designated as ``strategic'' 
despite uncertainty about the abundance estimate.
    Comment 29: The harbor porpoise, southeast Alaska stock, is 
appropriately classified as strategic; the PBR level should be 
``undetermined''.
    Response: NMFS responded to this comment in the notice of 
availability of the final SARs for 2006 (72 FR 12774, March 15, 2007, 
Comments 8 and 28). NMFS will consider whether the PBR level should be 
set as ``undetermined'' during the revisions made for the 2008 SARs.
    Comment 30: NMFS should collect current abundance data for the 
harbor porpoise, southeast Alaska stock, rather than re-analyze data 
from 10 years ago.

[[Page 21115]]

    Response: NMFS responded to this comment in the notice of 
availability of the final SARs for 2006 (72 FR 12774, March 15, 2007, 
Comment 28). At this time, a re-analysis of past survey data is the 
best available information for the southeast Alaska stock of harbor 
porpoise. NMFS conducted surveys in southeast Alaska in 2006 and 2007 
and will incorporate results from these surveys when estimates have 
been completed and reviewed.
    Comment 31: Dall's porpoise, Alaska stock, should be listed as a 
strategic stock because the abundance data are outdated, and NMFS can 
neither estimate a minimum population or a PBR level.
    Response: NMFS responded to this comment in the notice of 
availability of the final SARs for 2006 (72 FR 12774, March 15, 2007, 
Comments 26 and 30). Although the abundance data are old, the last 
abundance estimate was very high. Because many fisheries that overlap 
with this stock are observed and the level of annual take is very low, 
it is not appropriate to list this as a strategic stock.
    Comment 32: The draft SAR for gray whales, Eastern North Pacific 
stock, does not incorporate recently published genetic information 
indicating that pre-exploitation population size of the gray whale was 
substantially higher than current estimates. (Alter, Rynes, and 
Palumbi. 2007. DNA evidence for historic population size and past 
ecosystem impacts of gray whales. Proceedings of the National Academy 
of Sciences 104 (38): 15162-15167). In light of this information, the 
current population of gray whales is less than 60 percent of its 
historic population and should properly be declared depleted.
    Response: The paper by Alter et al. was published after the draft 
reports were completed and distributed to the SRGs for independent peer 
review prior to public review. Therefore, the information from that 
paper was not included. The next revision of the gray whale SAR will 
include a discussion of the results presented by Alter et al. NMFS is 
evaluating the information presented by Alter et al. to see if future 
action regarding the status of the Eastern North Pacific gray whale 
stock is warranted. The method used by Alter and Palumbi (and 
previously by Roman and Palumbi) is controversial. Many scientists, 
including the International Whaling Commission (IWC) Scientific 
Committee, have questioned the results and conclusions in Alter et al. 
(e.g., Palsboll et al., 2008).
    The lower range of the confidence interval in Alter et al. is 
consistent with a historic abundance of about 30,000 whales each for 
the western and eastern North Pacific stocks of gray whales. An 
abundance of 30,000 gray whales in the Eastern North Pacific stock is 
well within the confidence limits for estimates of carrying capacity 
reported by Wade (2002). Accordingly, for the Eastern North Pacific 
stock of gray whales, the estimate of historic carrying capacity based 
upon the genetic analysis in Alter et al. is reasonably consistent with 
estimates of current carrying capacity based upon Wade's analysis of 
abundance surveys.
    Finally, as stated in a legislative proposal submitted to Congress 
in 1992, NMFS generally relies on current carrying capacity, absent 
human exploitation, to determine OSP, rather than trying to reconstruct 
potential carrying capacities at some time in the distant past. NMFS 
uses current carrying capacity in stock assessment as part of managing 
marine mammal-fishery interactions using the PBR system. The 
application of the PBR system for managing marine mammal-fishery 
interactions implicitly incorporates environmental conditions and their 
associated implications for carrying capacity over the near term (e.g., 
one to three decades).
    NMFS' use of current carrying capacity in analyses supporting 
management is consistent with approaches used elsewhere. For example, 
IWC quotas for native subsistence hunts on both eastern North Pacific 
gray whales and for the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock of bowhead whales 
are set as a function of current (not historic) carrying capacity. For 
IWC's harvest quotas, current carrying capacity refers to the maximum 
number of animals the environment can support or has supported within 
the last 150 years.
    Comment 33: Data on fishery-related mortality in the gray whale, 
eastern North Pacific stock, should be updated since 2003. Both gray 
whale and humpback whale, central North Pacific stock, SARs should 
include evidence from stranded or free-swimming seriously injured 
animals in minimum estimates of mortality and serious injury.
    Response: NMFS updated only a portion of the gray whale SAR in 2007 
and will conduct a thorough update in the draft SARs for humpback 
whales and gray whales in 2008.
    Comment 34: Table 35 of the gray whale, eastern North Pacific 
stock, should clarify whether harpooned whales are included in the 
``struck and lost'' section on native hunting or not.
    Response: NMFS updated only a portion of the gray whale SAR in 2007 
and will conduct a thorough update in the draft SARs for 2008. We do 
not know if the harpooned whales included in the table were also 
included in the ``struck and lost'' estimates included in the 
Subsistence/Native Harvest section of the SAR. The stuck and lost 
estimate in that section was obtained from reports of aboriginal 
subsistence harvest in Russian waters, and the gray whales stranded or 
were observed in CA.
    Comment 35: The humpback whale, western North Pacific stock, SAR 
should not provide conclusions about the adequacy of published 
literature without citing a source more definitive than ``generally 
believed''. This statement should be supported or removed.
    Response: The final SAR was changed to note that the estimate is 
negatively biased because only a portion of the range was surveyed.
    Comment 36: NMFS should declare all the ice-dependent seals under 
its jurisdiction to be strategic stocks based on observed and projected 
impacts of sea-ice loss on ice-dependent pinnipeds.
    Response: ``Strategic stocks'' are defined as those where the level 
of human-related serious injury or mortality is greater than the PBR 
level, or as an stock listed as ``threatened'' or ``endangered'' under 
the ESA, or as ``depleted'' under the MMPA. None of the ice seal 
species meet the requirements of the definition.
    Comment 37: The continuing lack of data from Arctic and Bering Sea 
species, particularly, ice-breeding seals, is noteworthy because major 
population changes are expected to occur as a result of global climate 
change. More information on the impact of climate change should be 
included in the SARs.
    Response: Each of the SARs for ice-breeding seals contains a 
notation that loss of sea ice due to climate change is a habitat 
concern. One of the major strengths of the SARs is their brevity so 
that the status of all marine mammal stocks in a region can be included 
in a single document. To expand each SAR to fully discuss all potential 
threats or other issues would eliminate this benefit. Each SAR 
references documents reporting the details of information summarized in 
the SAR.
    Comment 38: Yakutat belugas are genetically and geographically 
isolated from Cook Inlet belugas; therefore, they should be designated 
a separate stock and declared ``depleted'' given their small population 
size.
    Response: In 2007, NMFS conducted a status review for Cook Inlet 
beluga whales and proposed to list the Cook Inlet population as 
``endangered'' under the ESA (72 FR 19854, April 20, 2007).

[[Page 21116]]

In that proposed rule, Cook Inlet beluga were considered separate from 
the Yakutat beluga group. Should that proposed action become final, 
NMFS would review the depletion determination for the Cook Inlet beluga 
whale stock and would revise the depletion designation and SAR as 
appropriate, including the status of beluga whales found inYakutat Bay.
    Comment 39: The notice announcing availability of the draft SARs 
incorrectly refers to the ``western'' North Pacific stock of gray whale 
as being within its optimum sustainable population. Also, the eastern 
Pacific stock is now properly considered depleted.
    Response: The reference to the ``western'' North Pacific stock was 
an error in NMFS notice reported in the Federal Register; it should 
have referred to the ``eastern'' North Pacific stock. NMFS disagrees 
that the eastern North Pacific stock should be considered ``depleted'', 
as available information on the current dynamics of the stock indicate 
that it is within its optimum sustainable population, and likely near 
it's carrying capacity. Also, see the response to Comment 32.
    Comment 40: The Minerals Management Service 2007-2012 plan for 
outer continental slope oil and gas lease sales, which opens right 
whale critical habitat to oil leasing in 2011, represents a significant 
threat to the habitat of the North Pacific right whale, eastern North 
Pacific stock. The SAR should be modified to reflect this known threat 
to the habitat.
    Response: NMFS will update the habitat section in the 2008 SAR.

Comments on Atlantic Regional Reports

    Comment 41: Efforts to define latitudinal boundaries above or below 
which pilot whales may be assigned to the correct species would avoid 
continued, inappropriate, lumping of the species. 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. As has been presented to several take reduction teams, 
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. See the Alaska SAR for harbor 
seals for an example on how a region can discuss ongoing efforts. 
Response: As noted in the comment, NMFS is continues to conduct 
research to distinguish between short-finned and long-finned pilot 
whales in the Atlantic Ocean, and progress in this effort has been 
reported in different fora. Results remain preliminary and will be 
included in the SARs upon peer-review of results. The SARs currently 
state that such research is underway; therefore, an additional 
discussion of the research would be unnecessary.
    Comment 42: There have been increasing reports over the last 
several years of shooting bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico. It 
would be helpful to address this in the appropriate SARs (e.g., coastal 
or Bays, Sounds and Estuaries).
    Response: SARs for the Gulf of Mexico bottlenose dolphin, Coastal 
stocks and Bays, Sounds and Estuaries stocks, note gunshots as a source 
of mortality. The frequency of mortality for each type of human-related 
mortality is currently not given in these SARs, but we will evaluate 
whether this can be done in an efficient manner for future revisions.
    Comment 43: The 2007 Atlantic Ocean SAR does not cite potential 
risk to Kogia species from sonar sound, even though data in published 
literature support concern that military sonar may affect Kogia much 
like it affects beaked whales, and concern has been expressed about the 
potential effects on Kogia of oil and gas industry activities in the 
Gulf of Mexico. We believe that, to be complete, NMFS should describe 
in the SARs those sources of undetermined effect for which there is a 
reasonable basis for concern, even if conclusive evidence of effect is 
not yet available.
    Response: The two Atlantic Kogia SARs were revised to note 
potential, although undocumented, concerns from such sources.
    Comment 44: NMFS needs to better update bottlenose dolphin stock 
structure in the Gulf of Mexico. Given the difficulty of in ascribing 
fisheries-related mortality to an individual stock, all stocks should 
be designated as strategic.
    Response: Research concerning Gulf of Mexico bottlenose dolphin 
stock structure continued in 2007, and the following fieldwork was 
conducted:
    (1) Winter and summer aerial surveys to estimate the abundance of 
the northern and eastern coastal stocks;
    (2) A summer large-vessel abundance/biopsy survey of continental 
shelf waters to estimate the abundance of the Continental Shelf Stock 
and to provide samples for genetic stock structure studies; and
    (3) A summer photo-identification and biopsy survey of 
Choctawhatchee Bay, FL (one of 33 Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound and 
Estuarine stocks) to estimate the abundance and provide samples for 
genetic stock studies. Data/samples from all of these field efforts are 
currently being analyzed. Additional fieldwork is necessary to update 
all of the Gulf Bay, Sound and Estuarine stocks and Coastal stocks.
    Results from these efforts will be included in SARs when the data 
are fully analyzed and subjected to peer review.
    Comment 45: Given the increasing trend of bycatch, Atlantic white-
sided dolphins should be designated as strategic.
    Response: Although incidental mortality and serious injury have 
increased in recent years, the estimated total remains approximately 40 
percent below PBR (379). The status of this stock has been reviewed 
with the Atlantic SRG, and based, on those discussions, a non-strategic 
status was deemed to be appropriate. NMFS has convened a trawl take 
reduction team to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of 
white-sided dolphins and other small cetaceans.
    Comment 46: Abundance and take estimates for short and long-finned 
pilot whales should be separated based on recent genetic and survey 
data. These stocks should both be considered strategic.
    Response: Genetic sampling and analyses are ongoing. At this time 
the data are insufficient to allocate abundance survey sightings or un-
sampled bycatch to species.
    The status of these stocks has been reviewed with the Atlantic SRG, 
and, based on those discussions, a non-strategic status was deemed to 
be appropriate. To deal with the uncertainty regarding species 
identification, identical abundance and bycatch estimates were assigned 
to each species.

Comments on Pacific Regional Reports

    Comment 47: The draft SAR conflates genetically-distinct false 
killer whale stocks. There is no scientifically-recognized Hawaii stock 
of false killer whales. NMFS' approach is not consistent with the best 
available scientific information.
    Response: NMFS agrees the Hawaii stock of false killer whales 
includes two genetically distinct populations found within the Hawaiian 
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Insufficient information on the 
distribution of each population was available at the time of draft SAR 
preparation to separate these two populations into different stocks. 
The draft SAR states that for management purposes, NMFS has 
provisionally lumped these two genetically distinct groups of false 
killer whales in the EEZ. NMFS also

[[Page 21117]]

recognizes a stock of false killer whales near Palmyra Atoll.
    The report also notes that NMFS continues to collect and analyze 
information to help resolve population structure of false killer whales 
in the North Pacific Ocean. At the most recent SRG meeting, NMFS 
proposed a revision of stock structure for false killer whales within 
the Hawaiian EEZ and anticipates incorporating this proposal into the 
draft 2008 reports.
    NMFS disagrees the approach used in the false killer whale SAR is 
inconsistent with the best available scientific information. The SAR 
partitions abundance, PBR and mortality/serious injury to assess the 
impact of removals of false killer whales incidental to U.S. fisheries 
with the information available (stock boundaries outside the EEZ are 
unknown, abundance of false killer whales outside the EEZ is unknown, 
and mortality and serious injury incidental to foreign fisheries is 
unknown). The approach is consistent with the best available 
information, with NMFS' guidelines for preparing SARs, and with the 
MMPA.
    Comment 48: Human-caused mortality estimates for blue whales should 
be updated to include a number of ship strike events documented in 
2007.
    Response: Human-caused mortality information included in the stock 
assessments represents data for the most recent five-year period for 
which data are available. At the time the 2007 draft stock assessments 
were written, the recent ship strike events had not occurred. Ship 
strike data for the previous calendar year 2006 were also not available 
to the authors at that time.
    Comment 49: The SAR for short-finned pilot whales, CA/OR/WA stock, 
should be updated to report that a pilot observer program was 
implemented in this fishery in 2004 and that no pilot whale 
interactions have been observed in 95 fishing trips through early 2007. 
NMFS should also strike language from the stock assessment that assigns 
responsibility for 14 fishery-related pilot whale strandings between 
1974 and 1990 to the squid purse seine fishery, while not providing 
evidence for the fishery-specific source of the mortalities.
    Response: The report was updated to reflect the recent lack of 
pilot whale interactions in the squid purse seine fishery. There is 
well-documented historical evidence (cited in the stock assessment) of 
pilot whale interactions and mortalities resulting from interactions 
with this fishery, and while no recent interactions have occurred, the 
text on historical interactions is included to give the reader 
perspective on past and current risks to the stock.
    Comment 50: The long-beaked common dolphin stock assessment should 
be modified so that inter-annual variability in abundance estimates is 
adequately addressed. The stock has gone from ``non-strategic'' to 
``strategic'' status, largely because of steep decline in the estimate 
of abundance for this stock, while the annual human-caused mortality 
has not changed significantly (from 11 animals to 17 animals in the 
draft stock assessment).
    Response: The SAR notes the high inter-annual variability in 
abundance estimates for this stock.
    Comment 51: Mortalities in the form of fishery-related strandings 
should be included in the table that summarizes fishery mortality for 
Pacific white-sided dolphins, CA/OR/WA stock.
    Response: Table 1 of the stock assessment includes fishery-related 
strandings in the summation of mortalities although the specific 
fishery responsible for the mortalities is listed as unknown.
    Comment 52: We trust that methodology to allow for species-specific 
management of mesoplodont beaked whales is being developed, rather than 
the current strategy of lumping six species under one management unit.
    Response: NMFS agrees that finer scale resolution of stock 
management for these species is desirable. Unfortunately, field 
identification of most of these species is difficult, which prevents 
species-specific abundance estimates. Progress has been made with the 
identification of Blainville's beaked whales, and a stock-specific 
abundance estimate which appeared in the draft 2007 stock assessment.
    Comment 53: NMFS should use a more precautionary approach in 
designating a strategic status for the CA/OR/WA stocks of pygmy and 
dwarf sperm whales, given the lack of abundance estimates and evidence 
of historic mortality.
    Response: Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales occur only rarely in waters 
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. The fishery with which these stocks 
have interacted in the past is the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery, which 
has been subject to observer coverage since the early 1990s. No 
mortality of these stocks of marine mammals have been noted in recent 
years. In addition, a Take Reduction Plan has been prepared and 
implemented for the fishery to protect offshore cetaceans; presumably, 
these pygmy and dwarf sperm whales are deriving benefit from the plan 
even though the stocks are not driving the need for the plan. 
Therefore, labeling these stocks as ``strategic'' would add no 
additional protection.
    Comment 54: Provide clarification on whether or not estimates of 
sperm whale, CA/OR/WA stock, abundance are corrected for diving whales 
that were not sighted during surveys.
    Response: Estimates are corrected for diving animals not seen 
during surveys. The stock assessment was revised to clarify this point.

    Dated: April 15, 2008.
David Cottingham,
Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Divison, Office of 
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E8-8406 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S