Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 81225 

Galveston, TX 77551, 409–621–5151 

ext. 103, Jennifer.Morgan@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Located in 

the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, the 

Flower Garden Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary includes three separate areas, 

known as East Flower Garden, West 

Flower Garden, and Stetson Banks. The 

Sanctuary was designated on January 

17, 1992. Stetson Bank was added to the 

Sanctuary in 1996. The Sanctuary 

Advisory Council will consist of no 

more than 21 members; 16 non 

governmental voting members and 5 

governmental non-voting members. The 

council may serve as a forum for 

consultation and deliberation among its 

members and as a source of advice to 

the Sanctuary manager regarding the 

management of the Flower Garden 

Banks National Marine Sanctuary. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431, et seq. 

(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 

Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program) 

Dated: December 17, 2010. 

Daniel J. Basta, 

Director, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32369 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA018 

60-Day Finding for a Petition To 

Conduct a Status Review of the 

Eastern North Pacific Population of 

Gray Whale Under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notification of a 60-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: NMFS received a petition to 

conduct a status review under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) for the purpose of designating 

the Eastern North Pacific stock of gray 

whales (Eschrichtius robustus) as 

depleted. NMFS finds that the petition 

does not present substantial information 

indicating that a status review may be 

warranted. 

DATES: This petition finding was made 

on December 20, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the petition and 

a complete list of references cited in this 

notice will be available on the Internet 

at the following address: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Shannon Bettridge or Dr. Thomas C. 

Eagle, Office of Protected Resources, 

Silver Spring, MD, (301) 713–2322. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Statutory Guidance 

Section 3(1)(A) of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 

U.S.C. 1362(1)(A)) defines the term, 

‘‘depletion’’ or ‘‘depleted’’, to include any 

case in which ‘‘ * * * the Secretary, 

after consultation with the Marine 

Mammal Commission and the 

Committee of Scientific Advisors on 

Marine Mammals * * * determines that 

a species or a population stock is below 

its optimum sustainable population.’’ 

Section 3(9) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 

1362(9)) defines ‘‘optimum sustainable 

population [(OSP)] * * * with respect 

to any population stock, [as] the number 

of animals which will result in the 

maximum productivity of the 

population or the species, keeping in 

mind the carrying capacity [(K)] of the 

habitat and the health of the ecosystem 

of which they form a constituent 

element.’’ NMFS’ regulations at 50 CFR 

216.3 clarify the definition of OSP as ‘‘a 

population size which falls within a 

range from the population level of a 

given species or stock which is the 

largest supportable within the 

ecosystem [i.e., K] to the population 

level that results in maximum net 

productivity.’’ Maximum net 

productivity level (MNPL) is the 

population abundance that results in the 

greatest net annual increment in 

population numbers resulting from 

additions to the population from 

reproduction, less losses due to natural 

mortality. 

The MMPA provides for interested 

parties to submit a petition to designate 

a population stock (hereafter ‘‘stock’’) of 

marine mammals as depleted. Section 

115(a)(3) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 

1383b(a)(3)) requires NMFS to publish a 

notice in the Federal Register that such 

a petition has been received and is 

available for public review. Section 

115(a)(3)(B) (16 U.S.C. 1383b(a)(3)(B)) of 

the MMPA requires NMFS to publish a 

notice in the Federal Register as to 

whether the petition presents 

substantial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

within 60 days of receiving a petition. 

NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service define ‘‘substantial information’’ 

under the petition procedural 

regulations of the Endangered Species 

Act as the amount of information that 

would lead a reasonable person to 

believe that the measure proposed in the 

petition may be warranted (see 50 CFR 

424.14(b)). Given that the identical term 

is used in the MMPA with reference to 

petitioned actions, NMFS interprets 

‘‘substantial information’’ under MMPA 

using the same parameters as those used 

under the ESA. 

Status of Gray Whales Under the Law 

Gray whales were listed among 

several genera of baleen whales as 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Conservation Act in June 1970, 

the precursor to the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) (35 FR 8491, June 2, 1970). 

The species was subsequently listed as 

endangered on the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (the 

List) under the ESA in 1973. All marine 

mammal species listed under the ESA 

are defined as ‘‘depleted’’ under the 

MMPA. NMFS completed its first status 

review of gray whales in 1984 and 

concluded that the Eastern North Pacific 

(ENP) stock was not in danger of 

extinction. That review recommended 

changing the status of the ENP stock of 

gray whales from endangered to 

threatened, however, no further action 

was taken at that time (49 FR 44774, 

November 9, 1984). 

NMFS began a subsequent status 

review of gray whales and other listed 

species in 1990, and completed a formal 

report of the review and made it 

available to the public on June 27, 1991 

(56 FR 29471). NMFS published a 

proposed rule to delist the ENP stock of 

gray whales on November 22, 1991 (56 

FR 58869). On January 7, 1993, NMFS 

announced its final determination that 

the stock was no longer in danger of 

extinction and was not likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future, 

and concluded that the stock was 60 to 

90 percent of K (within the accepted 

range of abundances for the stock’s OSP) 

and should be removed from the List (58 

FR 3121). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service removed the ENP stock of gray 

whales from the List on June 16, 1994 

(59 FR 31094). As required by the ESA, 

NMFS conducted a status review five 

years after the delisting, and convened 

a workshop on March 16–17, 1999, in 

Seattle, WA. The workshop participants 

concluded that there was no reason to 

reverse the decision to remove the stock 

from the List. This determination was 

based on the continued growth of the 

population (at that time, increasing at 

2.5 percent annually and with 

abundance estimates well above 20,000) 

and the absence of evidence of any 

imminent threats to the stock. As 

recommended by the workshop 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
81226 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 

participants, NMFS has continued to 

conduct assessments of the stock. 

On March 28, 2001, NMFS received a 

petition to list the ENP stock of gray 

whales as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA to protect the stock from 

substantial threats. NMFS found that the 

petition presented no substantial 

information to warrant the listing, and 

published its 90-day finding on June 14, 

2001 (66 FR 32305). 

The Current Petition 

On October 21, 2010, NMFS received 

a petition from the California Gray 

Whale Coalition (Petitioners) to 

designate the ENP gray whales as a 

depleted stock under the MMPA. 

Pursuant to Section 115(a)(3)(A) of the 

MMPA, NMFS published a notice in the 

Federal Register that the petition had 

been received and was available for 

public review for a 15-day comment 

period (75 FR 68756). NMFS 

subsequently received requests by the 

Petitioners and others to extend the 

public comment period to provide 

interested parties additional time to 

review the petition, compile additional 

materials, and prepare comments for 

submission to the agency. NMFS 

extended the public comment period 

until December 8, 2010 (75 FR 70903). 

Petitioners request a status review of 

the ENP stock of gray whales and assert 

‘‘ * * * that the [ENP] gray whale 

population is in decline sufficient to 

classify the stock as depleted, as defined 

in the MMPA, thereby requiring the 

preparation of a conservation plan to 

restore the stock to its optimum 

[sustainable] population.’’ 

In support of this assertion, the 

Petitioners cite scientific literature to 

present estimates of historical 

abundance derived from a number of 

approaches and suggest that current 

abundance is below MNPL, which is the 

lower bound of OSP. The Petitioners 

also suggest several factors that may 

contribute to the alleged decline that 

caused the stock to be possibly 

depleted, provide comments on 

information available for assessing the 

status of the stock and reported in 

marine mammal stock assessment 

reports (SARs), and provide an 

alternative model to assess the status of 

the stock. There were also comments in 

the petition on previous SARs (e.g., 

2008 SAR) and on agency actions other 

than reviewing the status of the gray 

whale stock (e.g., incidental take 

authorization for an open water marine 

seismic survey, 75 FR 49710, August 13, 

2010). The comments on these 

documents, on previous SARs or on 

documents not related to the status of 

ENP gray whales and responses to these 

comments are not included in this 

document because the comments are not 

related to the petitioned action. In this 

determination notice, NMFS discusses 

the concept of ‘‘depleted’’ as defined by 

the MMPA, evaluates the information 

included in the petition supporting the 

assertion that the ENP gray whale stock 

is depleted, addresses other assertions 

in the petition, and concludes that the 

petition does not present substantial 

information indicating that a status 

review of ENP gray whales may be 

warranted. 

Status of the ENP Gray Whale Stock 

The petition presents three assertions 

that the stock is below its OSP and, 

therefore, that a status review may be 

required. The assertions are as follows: 

(1) K for ENP gray whales is higher 

than previously reported, and the 

current abundance is below 60 percent 

of the alternative estimate of K; 

(2) A non-parametric model suggests 

the population increased from the late 

1960s until the mid-1980s and has been 

decreasing since then; and 

(3) Abundance estimates reported in 

Laake et al. (2009) show that abundance 

estimates since 2000 are below the 

abundance estimate from 1994 when 

ENP gray whales were removed from the 

list of endangered species. 

Below, NMFS addresses each of the 

Petitioners’ assertions suggesting a 

status review may be required. 

Carrying capacity higher than 

reported: In support of their first 

assertion, the Petitioners attribute a 

quote to a document by NMFS scientists 

(Barlow et al., 1995) that preexploitation (historical) abundance is 

generally used as the most readily 

available proxy for K. The citation was 

not included in the reference section of 

the petition. However, a similar 

statement (but not a direct quote) was 

contained in a petition to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service in 2001 by the 

Center for Biological Diversity to 

designate Alaska sea otters as depleted 

(see http://alaska.fws.gov/media/sotter/ 

Pet2.pdf). In the 2001 petition, Barlow 

et al. (1995) was identified as a NMFS 

publication containing guidelines for 

preparation and other information 

related to SARs. Barlow et al. (1995) 

does not include the quoted statement; 

however, NMFS agrees that comparing 

current to pre-exploitation abundance 

has, indeed, been used most often in 

assessing the status of marine mammal 

stocks relative to their OSP. 

Historical population levels may be 

the best scientific information available 

in the cases where it has been used to 

evaluate the status of marine mammal 

populations with respect to a stock’s 

current OSP. The following actions used 

historical abundance as a proxy for K: 

authorizing the taking of dolphin 

populations in the Eastern Tropical 

Pacific Ocean (ETP); depletion 

determinations for bowhead whales, 

Cook Inlet beluga whales, Southern 

Resident and AT1 killer whales, and 

two stocks of dolphins in the ETP; 

northern fur seals; and status reviews of 

northern fur seals and ENP gray whales. 

In each of these cases historical 

abundance was the best available 

information allowing NMFS to estimate 

K; therefore, it was used. Use of 

historical abundance does not indicate 

that historical abundance is the only 

approach to estimate K. 

NMFS submitted a legislative 

proposal to Congress in 1992, which, 

among other things, stated NMFS’ 

intention to use current rather than 

historical K in its OSP analyses. Drafts 

of this proposal were made available for 

public review and comment. Some 

comments indicated that the use of 

current K would not provide adequate 

protection for marine mammal 

populations because human alteration 

of marine ecosystems could result in 

reduced K for the affected stocks of 

marine mammals, and other comments 

supported use of current K. In the 1992 

legislative proposal, NMFS stated, 

‘‘Public comments were divided over 

whether historic [K] (before interference 

by human activities) or current [K] 

should be used to determine K under 

the proposal. NMFS has determined that 

re-creating historical [K] is not possible 

in most cases and would rely on current 

[K], absent human exploitation, to 

determine OSP. NMFS is sensitive to 

concerns that current [K] could shrink 

due to a number of circumstances and 

lead to tolerance of ever lower numbers 

of marine mammals within OSP. 

Consequently, NMFS is proposing to 

factor habitat degradation into the 

determination of OSP. Where humancaused, correctable degradation of the 

marine environment has occurred, OSP 

levels would reflect K modified 

(increased) by habitat restoration efforts. 

If data are available, NMFS would 

determine K based on the long-term 

equilibrium population that can be 

supported under reasonable and proper 

use of the marine environment and 

living marine resources.’’ NMFS 

reiterated this policy in 2008 and 2009 

in responses to comments on the 2007 

and 2008 SARs (73 FR 21111, April 18, 

2008, see response to comment 32; 74 

FR 19530, April 29, 2009, see response 

to comment 21). 

More recently, Wade (2002) reported 

that there was sufficient information in 

the abundance and mortality estimates 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 81227 

of ENP gray whales as described below 

to estimate the current K and MNPL of 

this stock using well-documented 

population models to estimate key 

parameters in the status of the ENP gray 

whale stock. Wade (2002) analyzed 

abundance estimates from 1967/68 

through 1995/96 and catch records from 

1966 through 1995 to determine that the 

stock was within its OSP. Wade and 

Perryman (2002) used similar methods 

to Wade (2002) to update the status 

assessment of ENP gray whales by 

including abundance surveys through 

2001/02 and reported catch through 

2002. These updated analyses 

confirmed that ENP gray whales were 

within OSP levels. These analyses were 

incorporated into the marine mammal 

stock assessment reports when the 

reports were updated in 2007 (Angliss 

and Outlaw, 2008). 

Subsequently, Laake et al. (2009) 

reanalyzed all previous abundance data 

using methods consistent with Wade 

(2002) and Wade and Perryman (2002) 

and incorporated abundance surveys 

through 2006/07 to provide a new time 

series of abundance estimates. Punt and 

Wade (2010) used methods similar to 

those described by Wade (2002) to 

analyze these updated and revised 

abundance estimates and incorporated 

catch records from 1846 through 2008 to 

conclude that ENP gray whales 

remained within their OSP. Because 

Punt and Wade (2010) estimated K over 

the time period of the abundance 

estimates, MNPL, and current 

abundance directly from the data, 

NMFS uses Punt and Wade (2010) as the 

best information available on the status 

of the stock and on the key parameters 

(K, MNPL, and current abundance of 

ENP gray whales). The estimate of K in 

Punt and Wade (2010) is consistent with 

NMFS’ practice of using current K, 

corrected for human-caused degradation 

of the environment, in evaluating a 

stock relative to its OSP. Where a more 

direct estimate of current K is not 

available, the agency has used historical 

abundance as a proxy for K. 

Even if historical abundance had been 

the best information available to 

estimate K, the petition did not present 

substantial information suggesting a 

status review is warranted. The 

Petitioners included two approaches to 

estimate historical abundance in their 

assertion that current abundance was 

below MNPL. First, the Petitioners cited 

Alter et al. (2007) to suggest that K for 

ENP gray whales was 96,000 gray 

whales and the current abundance is 

less than 60 percent of this estimate of 

K. The Petitioners did not note that the 

analysis in Alter et al. (2007) resulted in 

an estimate of total historical abundance 

which likely represents both ENP and 

Western North Pacific gray whale 

stocks. Furthermore, as NMFS has 

reported previously (73 FR 21111, April 

18, 2008; 74 FR 19530, April 29, 2009) 

the methods in Alter et al. (2007) are 

subject to scientific debate and have not 

been accepted as supporting a depletion 

designation. This method relies on the 

use of several parameters, including 

mutation rates and the ratio of effective 

population size to census size, which 

are difficult to measure and which 

strongly influence the estimate of 

historic abundance. In addition, it is 

difficult to determine the temporal and 

spatial scale over which the historic 

abundance estimate is relevant. Alter et 

al. (2007) noted that an important 

question in evaluating the current status 

of ENP gray whales is whether K has 

declined over time due to changes in the 

environment and that, if K has declined, 

the stock may have reached K today. 

Due to these weaknesses in Alter et al. 

(2007), NMFS does not consider 96,000 

as a reasonable estimate of K for ENP 

gray whales. 

For its second approach to estimating 

historical abundance, the Petitioners 

stated that the upper 95 percent 

confidence limits for back calculations 

of historical abundance were as high as 

60,000 to 70,000 whales. Because the 

current abundance was below 60 

percent of these approximations for K, 

they concluded the stock was depleted. 

The Petitioners, however, failed to 

justify why using extreme tails of a 

probability distributions for estimates of 

historical abundance represented the 

best, or even a reasonable, proxy for 

examining depletion level or status 

relative to K. These extremes are not 

reasonable estimates of K and are not a 

substantial indication that a status 

review is warranted. In addition, Punt 

and Wade (2010) considered 70,000 as 

the upper extreme in their starting point 

as an estimate of K (i.e., the upper limit 

of the prior distribution in their 

analysis); however, after using the data 

to inform the analysis, Punt and Wade 

(2010) estimated K as 25,808 (posterior 

mean). 

Nonparametric model: The 

Petitioners’ second major argument 

supporting their assertion that the ENP 

gray whale stock is depleted is 

illustrated by Figure 1 in the petition. 

This figure shows current and previous 

point estimates of abundance from 

Laake et al. (2009) with lines generated 

by a nonparametric smoothing function 

superimposed over the estimates. The 

petition states that this nonparametric 

approach uses the data to determine the 

underlying linear or nonlinear trend 

without having to assume any specific 

functional form and concludes that the 

figure shows the population increased 

from the 1960s until then mid 1980s 

and has been decreasing steadily ever 

since. 

There are two major weaknesses with 

the Petitioners’ analysis as evidence that 

the ENP gray whale stock is below its 

OSP. First, their model was fit to point 

estimates of abundance only, despite 

abundance estimates being subject to 

considerable uncertainty as a result of 

statistical inference from statistical 

analysis of observational data. Ignoring 

important uncertainties has the 

potential to bias results. Second, this 

nonparametric approach is an 

inappropriate test to evaluate the status 

of marine mammal populations because 

it ignores key concepts in population 

biology that are critical to 

understanding stock status under the 

MMPA, such as net productivity rate, 

MNPL, and K. 

Even if the simple smoothing function 

included in the petition was an 

adequate method to evaluate the status 

of the ENP gray whale stock, the 

information included in their 

presentation of this alternative model is 

insufficient to support the Petitioners’ 

assertion that the ENP gray whale stock 

is depleted. The maximum population 

abundance illustrated in the Petitioners’ 

line fitted to the current time series of 

abundance estimates appears to be 

about 23,000 gray whales in about 1985. 

The smoothing function shows the latest 

abundance (in about 2006) to be about 

17,000 gray whales. If the maximum 

value actually represented K, the 2006 

abundance would be about 73 percent of 

K, far above the usually-accepted 

criterion for OSP: 60 percent of K. Thus, 

using the petition’s own model, the 

stock would be within its OSP. 

Because the alternative model 

included in the petition did not show 

that the ENP gray whale stock had 

declined below MNPL and due to the 

two weaknesses described above, this 

alternative model is not reasonable 

evidence that the abundance of the 

stock may be below OSP. 

In contrast, Punt and Wade (2010) 

used an age- and sex-structured 

population dynamics model, which 

estimated key parameters in the status 

of ENP gray whales and incorporated 

uncertainty from input parameters and 

data. A catastrophic mortality event in 

Punt’s and Wade’s (2010) analysis 

incorporated an analysis of the impact 

of the elevated strandings observed in 

1999 and 2000 and was, therefore, an 

improvement over more standard 

population assessment models. 

Abundance below 1994 levels: The 

final argument supporting the petition’s 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
81228 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 

assertion that the ENP gray whale stock 

is depleted includes a statement that 

abundance estimates since 2000 are 

lower than in 1994 when the stock was 

removed from the list of endangered 

species (calculated by Laake et al. 

(2009) as 19,126 and 20,103 

respectively). The petition notes that the 

mean abundance level over the interval 

1967 through 2006 in Laake et al. (2009) 

is below the 1994 level and also below 

60 percent of K when K is 60,000 to 

70,000. 

These statements are unrelated to 

assessing the status of ENP gray whales 

under the MMPA. In the MMPA the 

definition of ‘‘depleted’’ includes that 

the abundance is below the MNPL. The 

definition does not refer to the 

abundance when the stock was removed 

from the list of endangered species. That 

is, the MMPA requires only an 

evaluation whether a stock is above or 

below its MNPL in a status review. 

Accordingly, this final argument in the 

petition adds no credible support to the 

petition’s assertion that the ENP gray 

whale stock is depleted. The best 

available scientific information (Punt 

and Wade, 2010) shows that the ENP 

gray whale stock is above its MNPL. 

Additional Points in the Petition 

Causes of Decline 

The Petitioners present a model 

illustrating that this stock has been 

declining since 1985, and assert that the 

causes of decline include ‘‘PBR has 

resulted in over-harvesting’’, collapse of 

cow/calf numbers, predation by 

transient killer whales, and changes or 

reductions in prey availability. 

Although these causes of decline may 

have relevance to a status review under 

the MMPA if the abundance of the stock 

were below the MNPL, the current 

abundance of the ENP gray whale stock 

is above the MNPL. However, each of 

these causes of decline is addressed 

below. 

Inflated PBR: The Petitioners suggest 

that PBR for the stock (set at 417 per 

year in the 2008 SAR) is too high, and 

the established quota has resulted in 

over-hunting, presumably from the 

aboriginal subsistence hunt that 

represents the only catches of gray 

whales since the PBR approach was 

implemented. The petition’s evidence 

for this assertion is that the 2002 SAR 

did not contain revised abundance 

estimates reported in Laake et al. (2009), 

and that a PBR calculated with a 

recovery factor of 0.1 would have 

resulted in a lower PBR that the one 

reported in 2002, which used a recovery 

factor of 1.0. 

The assertion that PBR caused the 

stock to be in decline cannot be 

substantiated by the petition because 

the petition contained no credible 

evidence that the stock had declined or 

was below OSP. PBR is one of many 

methods to estimate a sustainable level 

of removals of individuals from a 

marine mammal stock and is required 

by the MMPA. The calculation could 

not cause a decline even if a decline had 

occurred. Furthermore, the 2002 SAR 

could not be expected to include an 

analysis that became available in 2009. 

Finally, the PBR is not used to establish 

the aboriginal catch limit for ENP gray 

whales and, therefore, could not result 

in a subsistence quota for ENP gray 

whales. This catch limit is established 

by the International Whaling 

Commission (IWC) and is based on a 

recommendation by the IWC’s Scientific 

Committee following analysis using the 

Strike Limit Algorithm (SLA), a model 

that is more sophisticated than the 

model used as the basis for PBR. The 

SLA and the data analyzed in 

establishing the aboriginal subsistence 

quote were scrutinized by the Scientific 

Committee and fully evaluated before 

their recommendation to the IWC. IWC 

procedures include periodic review of 

the dynamics of the affected large whale 

stocks to ensure that catch levels are 

sustainable; the next such review for the 

ENP gray whale stock is scheduled for 

June 2011. As a result, the Petitioners’ 

assertion that PBR has led to overharvesting is incorrect. 

Collapse of cow/calf numbers: The 

petition asserts that counts of calves in 

the lagoons of Baja California, Mexico, 

demonstrate a major collapse of the 

stock. These counts are informative 

about use of the lagoon systems. 

However, counts within these specific 

lagoons (part of the breeding and 

calving range of ENP gray whales) do 

not estimate annual calf production for 

the stock because some unknown and 

variable numbers of cows with calves do 

not enter the lagoons, and effort for the 

counts reported in the petition is not 

systematic in all lagoons throughout the 

season. The best estimate of calf 

production for this stock is based on 

counts of northbound calves passing the 

Piedras Blancas Light Station (located 

near San Simeon, CA) because virtually 

the entire stock’s calves pass within 

sight of land at this location. 

Accordingly, analyses of Piedras 

Blancas data indicate that the number of 

northbound calves is highly variable 

between years (Perryman et al., 2010). 

In addition, NMFS has found that the 

majority of the variability in estimates 

can be explained by the timing of the 

melt of seasonal ice in the Northern 

Bering Sea (Perryman et al., 2002a, 

2002b). Although the petition correctly 

states that the calf counts throughout 

the calving range, including the northbound migration, of ENP gray whales 

have been low the last four years (2007– 

2010), Perryman et al. (2010) note that 

the 17-year time series of estimates of 

northbound calves from Piedras Blancas 

does not support the assertion of a 

negative trend or ‘‘collapse’’ in 

reproduction as described by the 

Petitioners. 

Predation by transient killer whales: 

The petition states that mortalities 

caused by predation by transient killer 

whales are not included in calculation 

of PBR, in population assessments, or in 

SARs. Further, the Petitioners present 

the results of a model that indicate the 

potential for killer whale predation to 

drive the population to extinction at 35 

percent predation of annual calf 

production. 

Calculation of PBR incorporates 

natural mortality, including predation 

by killer whales, even though PBR only 

includes the number of removals from 

human-caused mortality. Natural 

sources of mortality are not identified 

separately in SARs because the MMPA 

directs that the SARs account for 

human-caused mortality and serious 

injury. Because killer whale predation is 

a natural mortality factor, such mortality 

would be incorporated into the net 

productivity rate, which is the per 

capita rate of increase in a stock 

resulting from additions due to 

reproduction, less losses due to 

mortality (MMPA section 3(26)). 

Also, because killer whales are a 

natural part of the marine ecosystem, 

the extent of predation is one factor 

affecting the K of the environment for 

gray whales. The petition’s model 

output (Figure 1 in the petition) shows 

that gray whale abundance increased 

between the late 1800s and the mid1900s but does not explain how killer 

whale predation was addressed during 

these periods of population increase. 

Through MNPL and K, which are used 

in the scientific basis for calculating 

PBR (the logistics model), killer whale 

predation is, in fact, incorporated into 

the PBR. 

Changes or reductions in prey 

availability: The Petitioners cite a series 

of statements and documents that 

present observations and hypotheses 

regarding the potential impacts of 

climate change on the ENP stock of gray 

whales. Concentrations of feeding gray 

whales are now seen farther north than 

reported in the 1980s, and there has 

likely been a shift in distribution of 

their primary prey. Gray whales are 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 81229 

opportunistic feeders, and it is unclear 

how the changes in the Arctic 

environment are going to affect this 

stock. A loss of sea ice could help gray 

whales (for example, by allowing earlier 

access to foraging habitat) or hurt gray 

whales (for example, through a 

reduction in benthic production from 

differing ice-dynamics), so the effect of 

climate change on gray whales cannot 

be predicted at this time. NMFS agrees 

with the Petitioners’ suggestions that the 

relationship between the changing 

Arctic ecosystem and the overall 

condition of ENP gray whales is an area 

that would benefit from careful study. If 

a future decline of gray whales is linked 

to climate change, a determination 

would need to be made about whether 

the causal mechanisms were natural or 

human-caused. However, the best 

available scientific information as 

reported by Punt and Wade (2010) 

shows that the ENP gray whale stock 

remains with its OSP. 

Draft 2010 Stock Assessment Report 

The petition contains comments about 

the draft 2010 marine mammal SAR. It 

states: ‘‘NMFS fails to indicate the 2006/ 

07 survey was not an abundance 

estimate as required under s. 117 of the 

MMPA. There are no provisions in the 

MMPA which support using the results 

of Field Studies to legitimise (sic) 

SARs.’’ 

These statements are incorrect, and 

neither statement is relevant to the 

status of the ENP gray whale stock. The 

2006/2007 survey was a full abundance 

estimation survey. Field and analysis 

methods, and raw count data, are 

detailed in a NOAA/AFSC Processed 

Report (Rugh et al., 2008). Updated 

estimates and methodologies for this 

survey are presented in Laake et al. 

(2009). MMPA section 117 requires 

NMFS to use the best information 

available to prepare SARs. In the case of 

ENP gray whales, the best information 

available includes results of field 

studies. 

The petition also states, ‘‘The results 

of the most recent abundance estimate, 

(as required under s[ection] 117 of the 

MMPA) undertaken in the 2009/2010 

season, have not been published.’’ This 

statement is correct with respect to the 

abundance estimate from the 2009/10 

survey not being included in the SAR. 

The statement is incorrect in stating that 

MMPA section 117 requires the 2009/ 

2010 estimate to be included. Rather, 

MMPA section 117 requires that SARs 

be prepared using the best scientific 

information available. Estimates from 

the 2009/2010 survey were not available 

when the draft 2010 SAR was prepared. 

NMFS anticipates updating the time 

series of abundance estimates so the 

more recent estimates are available in 

spring 2012 and would be included in 

the next update of the ENP gray whale 

SAR. 

Population Collapse 

The Petitioners point to the Unusual 

Mortality Event of 1999–2000 and assert 

that the agency ignored this decline in 

gray whale abundance. This assertion is 

inaccurate. 

The most recent assessment of the 

ENP gray whale stock status (Punt and 

Wade, 2010) incorporated analyses that 

accounted explicitly for the decreased 

abundance caused by the 1999–2000 

mortality event. Specifically, Punt and 

Wade showed that a model including 

the ‘‘catastrophic mortality event’’ in 

1999–2000 fit the abundance data better 

than a ‘‘no-event’’ analysis. Punt and 

Wade (2010) estimated that 15.3 percent 

of the non-calf population died in each 

of the years in which a catastrophic 

mortality event occurred, compared to 2 

percent in a normal year. Punt and 

Wade (2010) also estimated that the 

population fell from being about 99 

percent of K in 1998 to about 83 percent 

in 1999 and 71 percent in 2000 and 

increased to about 92 percent of K in 

2009. Estimates of the number of whales 

that died in 1999 and 2000 were 

approximately 3,303 (90 percent 

probability interval 1,235–7,988) and 

2,835 (90 percent probability interval 

1,162–6,389), respectively, for a total of 

6,138 (2,398–14,377). Results of Punt 

and Wade (2010) were included in the 

draft 2010 SAR and are included in the 

current determination on the petition 

and status of the ENP gray whale stock. 

With respect to fluctuations in 

population abundance, the draft 2010 

SAR (Allen and Angliss, 2010) notes 

that ENP gray whale stock may rise and 

fall as the population adjusts to natural 

and human-caused factors affecting K of 

the environment and that increased 

susceptibility to environmental 

variability are likely. Allen and Angliss 

(2010) concluded that such year-to-year 

fluctuations in abundance and increased 

susceptibility to environmental 

variability are consistent with a stock 

approaching its K. 

Migration Route Disruption 

The Petitioners claim that wave 

energy projects along the west coast 

could block the migratory pathway of 

gray whales and have the potential to 

expose newborn calves born outside of 

the Baja lagoons to higher level of 

predation. Such exposure, however, has 

not yet occurred and, therefore, has not 

affected the status of the gray whale 

stock. 

In 2007, NOAA/NMFS facilitated a 

workshop to assess the effects of wave 

energy development in the Pacific 

Northwest on marine habitats. An 

expert panel (Boehlert et al. 2008) 

considered potential risks to marine 

mammals, including gray whales, and 

concluded that mooring cable design 

(slack vs. taut, horizontal vs. vertical, 

diameter, density) is the agent or 

stressor most likely to affect the 

magnitude of cetacean entanglement 

incidents for large whales. The panel 

noted that cable design is even more 

critical for slack ‘‘attendant’’ lines 

attached to adjacent buoy lines, which 

may be used (picked up) by service 

vessels to secure the wave energy buoy. 

Similar, but smaller, ‘‘double’’ buoys on 

commercial crab pots used in waters off 

Oregon are the greatest present risk to 

gray whales from commercial fisheries, 

which cause mortalities and serious 

injuries at insignificant levels 

approaching a zero mortality and 

serious injury rate. Presently, there is a 

relatively high level of uncertainty and 

low level of scientific agreement 

concerning the number of energy 

projects, various project designs, and 

the potential impacts of wave energy 

generating devices on gray whales (and 

cetaceans in general). That said, offshore 

wave energy projects may or may not 

pose significant risks to gray whales. 

However, without more case specific 

technical details (e.g. offshore site 

location, buoy configuration, cable 

design, mooring systems), it is not 

possible to properly gage their potential 

impacts. 

If the development occurs, project 

construction and operation will be 

subject to the prohibition on taking 

marine mammals and the exception on 

taking small numbers of marine 

mammals incidental to activities other 

than commercial fishing in MMPA 

section 101(a)(5). Before NOAA/NMFS 

could authorize incidental takes of these 

projects, the agency would have to make 

a finding that the action would have no 

more than a negligible impact on 

affected stocks of marine mammals. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received more than 1,400 

comments on the petition. Most of these 

comments expressed general support for 

the petition or for whale conservation 

and did not contain substantive 

information; therefore, those comments 

are not summarized here. Several 

organizations, including the Marine 

Mammal Commission, the Makah Tribe, 

the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), the 

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) 

and the Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC) made substantive 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
81230 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 

comments and supported the petitioned 

request for a status review or 

recommended that the petition did not 

contain substantial information 

indicating that a status review may be 

warranted. Summaries of key points in 

these substantive comments and 

responses to these comments are 

included below. 

Comment 1: AWI and CBD suggested 

that the standard of review for the 60- 

day determination is whether or not the 

petitioned action (requesting a status 

review) may be warranted. The petition 

does not have to contain substantial 

information to indicate that a depleted 

designation is warranted. 

Response: NMFS followed the 

requirements of MMPA section 115 to 

evaluate the petition. NMFS considers 

Punt and Wade (2010), which was based 

in part upon the updated analyses of 

Laake et al. (2009), as the best scientific 

information available regarding the 

status of ENP gray whales with respect 

to the stock’s OSP. The petition did not 

contain any evidence to suggest that any 

other scientific information was a better 

evaluation of the status of ENP gray 

whales than the evaluation presented in 

Punt and Wade (2010). As NMFS noted 

above, and as recommended by the 

Commission (see comment 8), NMFS 

does not find a status review is 

warranted. 

Comment 2: CBD and AWI noted that 

there are many estimates for historical 

abundance, and some of these estimates 

are higher than those considered by 

NMFS. It is unknown whether the ‘‘onesize-fits-all’’ approach of 60 percent of K 

is an accurate estimate for MNPL. Alter 

et al. (2007) estimate a current K for gray 

whales as about 90,000 based upon a 

simple estimate of the amount of food 

available for gray whales in the Bering 

and Chukchi Seas. AWI concluded that 

until a status review of ENP gray whales 

is completed, NMFS cannot and should 

not settle on an estimate of the actual K 

of ENP gray whale habitat. 

Response: As noted in the discussion 

of the petition, NMFS finds that there is 

no need to use the highest possible 

extremes as reasonable estimates for 

historical abundance as a proxy for K. 

Furthermore, NMFS notes that its 

assessment of the status of ENP gray 

whale stock is not based upon a 

comparison of current abundance to a 

fixed portion (60 percent) of historical 

abundance as an estimate of MNPL. 

Rather, NMFS uses Punt and Wade 

(2010) as the evidence supporting a 

determination that the ENP gray whale 

stock is within its OSP and, therefore, 

not depleted. Punt and Wade (2010) 

used all available abundance estimates 

and catch records to estimate that MNPL 

for this stock is 0.656 (with a 90 percent 

confidence interval of 0.532 to 0.725) of 

K. 

Although Alter et al. (2007) calculated 

that the potential food available for gray 

whales in the Bering and Chukchi Seas 

could support an estimated 90,000 

whales, their estimate of food 

abundance is not a meaningful estimate 

of K for gray whales in the area. 

Although food abundance is one of the 

factors that could affect K for gray 

whales, many other factors affect the 

maximum population of gray whales 

supportable by their habitat. For 

example, gray whale abundance may be 

affected by access to these food 

resources to survive and reproduce. 

Perryman et al. (2002), which was cited 

in AWI’s comments, showed a strong 

correlation between extent of sea ice 

and gray whale calf counts. Also, as 

noted in the petition and within AWI’s 

comments, killer whales prey on gray 

whales and could kill a fairly high 

proportion of the annual calf production 

(the petition suggested up to 35 

percent). Accordingly, the extent of 

killer whale predation on gray whale 

calves could have a substantial effect on 

the upper limit of ENP gray whales 

supportable in their environment. These 

are only two of many factors that must 

be included in a reasonable attempt to 

estimate of K for gray whale. Punt and 

Wade (2010) were able to use gray 

whale abundance estimates, correcting 

for the only substantial human-caused 

mortality factor, aboriginal subsistence 

catch, to conclude that the stock’s status 

is within OSP. 

Comment 3: AWI and CBD noted 

variability in the time series of ENP gray 

whale abundance estimates, including 

some years in which year-to-year 

increases were not biologically 

plausible. Without describing their 

methods, AWI’s comments described 

patterns of relatively short-term 

population trends for the ENP gray 

whale stock and noted that results of the 

latest abundance surveys were not 

available. AWI suggested that because 

the latest abundance surveys had not 

produced available results yet, NMFS 

should issue a positive 60-day finding 

on the petition, noting that without 

disclosing this information it would be 

premature for NMFS to make a ‘‘not 

warranted’’ finding. 

Response: NMFS is aware of the 

variability in the abundance data and is 

aware that each abundance estimate 

may over- or under-estimate the number 

of whales actually in the stock due to 

variability observations and in whale 

migration behavior and how this 

variability may conflict with 

assumptions in the underlying models. 

Accordingly, NMFS does not depend on 

year-to-year comparisons of estimates. 

Rather, NMFS based its determination 

on the status of the ENP gray whale 

stock on the comprehensive analysis of 

the entire time series of abundance and 

mortality estimates as initially described 

in Wade (2002) and updated in Punt 

and Wade (2010). NMFS disagrees that 

the lack of available information should 

be a justification to make a positive 

finding. Rather, NMFS is following the 

explicit direction in MMPA section 115 

to base its determination ‘‘* * * solely 

on the basis of the best scientific 

information available.’’ Results of the 

latest surveys remain in preparation and 

evaluation and are, consequently, not 

available. 

Comment 4: AWI recommended that 

NMFS not rely on a simple comparison 

of the abundance of the ENP gray whale 

stock relative to its MNPL. Rather, 

NMFS should show some flexibility in 

its status assessment by considering 

present and future threats to the 

population. 

Response: NMFS notes that the 

MMPA is explicit in its definition of 

depleted. The ENP gray whale stock is 

not listed under the ESA, and 

management authority for the stock has 

not been transferred to any state. 

Accordingly, the evaluation of its status 

becomes question of whether or not 

NMFS finds the stock is within or below 

its OSP, the lower limit of which is 

MNPL. Although an evaluation of the 

extent to which various factors may 

affect the status and trend of the ENP 

gray whale stock may facilitate some 

conservation decisions, such an 

evaluation is not necessary or even 

relevant to determine whether or not the 

stock is within its OSP. 

Comment 5: The Petitioners provided 

comments on their own petition. In 

their submission they complained about 

the communication process and 

information flow with respect to the 

agency’s receipt and public notification 

of the petition. They also discussed 

abundance estimates, threats, and 

potential threats to gray whales. 

Included with their comments was 

information to supplement the petition 

and a reiteration of some of the points 

contained in the petition. 

Response: NMFS has fully complied 

with the process outlined in section 115 

of the MMPA. The information provided 

by the Petitioners regarding abundance 

estimates and current and future threats 

is unrelated to the agency’s 

determination of the stock’s status as 

defined by the statute. Supplemental 

information provided by the Petitioners 

regarding 1980 and 1981 calf counts has 

already been incorporated into the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 81231 

record (Perryman et al., 2010) and does 

not constitute new information. 

Comment 6: The NRDC pointed to 

differences between Alter et al. (2007) 

abundance estimates and those of NMFS 

scientists and argued that disagreement 

among scientists is reason for an indepth review. The commenter cited 

ESA-related cases supporting this 

argument. 

Response: NMFS maintains that Laake 

et al. (2009) provides the best available 

time series of abundance, and Punt and 

Wade (2010) is the best available 

information regarding status of the 

stock. Neither the petition itself nor 

comments on the petition provide 

information that supplants Punt and 

Wade (2010) as the best available 

science. No information has been 

provided to make the agency cast doubt 

on the Laake et al. (2009) abundance 

estimates and the Punt and Wade (2010) 

analysis and conclusion that the stock is 

within OSP. NMFS accepts Punt’s and 

Wade’s (2010) analysis and conclusion 

as supported by the best available 

science. Therefore, a status review is not 

necessary at this time. 

Comment 7: The Makah Tribe 

provided an evaluation of the strengths 

and weaknesses of the petition with 

respect to population abundance, K, and 

factors that may be affecting gray whale 

population dynamics. They concluded 

that information in the petition did not 

supersede Laake et al. (2009) and Punt 

and Wade (2010) as the best available 

information. Accordingly, the Makah 

Tribe concluded that the petition does 

not present significant information 

indicating that the stock should be 

designated as depleted. 

Response: NMFS concurs with the 

Makah Tribe’s conclusions. 

The Commission, in consultation with 

its Committee of Scientific Advisors on 

Marine Mammals, reviewed the petition 

and recommended, among other things, 

that NMFS defer any status review until 

there is stronger scientific evidence 

indicating that the stock is below 

MNPL. The Commission’s comments, 

summarized below and based on the 

MMPA definition of depleted as below 

OSP (section 3(1)(A) of the MMPA (16 

U.S.C. 1362(1)(A)), and NMFS 

regulations (50 CFR 216.3), state that 

determination of whether a population 

is depleted is based solely on the 

population’s abundance relative to 

MNPL. 

Comment 8: The Commission 

reviewed the two main approaches used 

to evaluate the ENP gray whale 

abundance with respect to its MNPL, 

the methods employed by Alter et al. 

and by Punt and Wade (2010), and 

supported the Punt and Wade approach 

as being more robust. The Commission 

noted that the question of whether 

climate change has reduced K for the 

stock is not factored in to the Punt and 

Wade model, and that it is too soon to 

form conclusions about the long-term 

effects on climate change on the stock. 

The Commission, however, concluded 

that a status review is not warranted at 

this time, and a status review would not 

be a good use of limited resources. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

Commission’s conclusions. 

Comment 9: The Commission 

reviewed the Petitioners’ claims that the 

agency used inappropriate abundance 

estimates and recovery factor to 

calculate PBR for the stock and that PBR 

has resulted in over-exploitation of gray 

whales. The Commission concluded 

that NMFS did, in fact, use proper 

population estimates and that a recovery 

factor of 1.0 was more appropriate than 

0.1 as proposed by the Petitioners. 

Furthermore, the Commission made the 

important distinction that calculation of 

PBR does not have any effect on 

population; rather, actual takings affect 

the stock. 

Response: NMFS agrees with the 

Commission’s assessment, and a more 

detailed discussion of PBR is included 

in the discussion section above. 

Comment 10: Regarding the 

Petitioners’ assertion that recent 

declines in calf production indicate the 

stock is depleted, the Commission 

reiterates the requirements of the 

MMPA, stating that stock status be 

based solely on abundance relative to 

MNPL and reiterates that productivity is 

not a criterion for designation of 

depleted status. The Commission also 

notes, ‘‘When reviewing calf production 

and survival, it is important to look at 

relatively long-term patterns, as 

variation in these parameters over short 

periods (i.e., a few years) can be 

misleading.’’ 

Response: NMFS agrees. 

Comment 11: The Commission noted 

while the petition’s focus on killer 

whale predation on gray whales is 

reasonable, the level of predation is not 

a criterion for designating a stock as 

depleted and is only relevant if 

predation leads a stock to decline below 

MNPL which does not appear to be the 

case. Additionally, the Commission 

noted that the petition does not 

adequately describe the predation 

model included therein; and, thus, it is 

not possible to determine the reliability 

of the model’s results. 

Response: NMFS agrees. 

Comment 12: In addition to 

recommending that the agency not 

conduct a status review of ENP gray 

whales at this time, the Commission 

recommended that NMFS focus research 

and management efforts on continued 

monitoring and expanded study of the 

stock’s natural history, and that the 

agency take advantage of opportunities 

to convene inter-agency groups to 

coordinate gray whale research. 

Response: NMFS agrees that this 

approach to research would be helpful. 

Comment 13: The Commission further 

recommended that the agency establish 

and fund a program to continue to 

monitor gray whale abundance and 

reproduction, and make efforts to 

understand the effect of climate change 

on the stock. 

Response: Such a program would be 

important, and NMFS will pursue such 

monitoring to the extent that the budget 

allows. 

Comment 14: In their letter to NMFS 

on this petition, the Commission noted 

that the MMPA and implementing 

regulations specify that a stock is to be 

designated as depleted only when its 

abundance is less than its OSP. The OSP 

is defined as a range, the lower limit of 

which is the stock’s MNPL. Thus, the 

question to be addressed here is 

whether the petition presents 

substantial information to conclude that 

the ENP gray whale stock may be less 

than its MNPL and, therefore, warrants 

a status review. 

Response: NMFS agrees. 

Petition Finding 

Earlier in this notice, NMFS states 

that the petition included three major 

assertions supporting their allegation 

that the ENP gray whale stock was 

below its MNPL. These assertions were 

as follows: 

(1) K for ENP gray whales is higher 

than previously reported, and the 

current abundance is below 60 percent 

of these estimates of K; 

(2) A non-parametric model suggests 

the population increased from the late 

1960s until the mid-1980s and has been 

decreasing since then; and 

(3) Abundance estimates reported in 

Laake et al. (2009) show that abundance 

estimates since 2000 are below the 

abundance estimate from 1994 when 

ENP gray whales were removed from the 

list of endangered species. 

As discussed above (see Status of the 

ENP Gray Whale Stock), NMFS 

evaluated the evidence supporting these 

arguments and concludes that none 

provide substantial evidence that the 

ENP gray whale stock is below its 

MNPL. Accordingly, NMFS finds that 

the petition does not present substantial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action is warranted. 

In making this finding, NMFS 

thoroughly evaluated the information 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
81232 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 

contained in the petition and other 

scientific information available on the 

status of the ENP gray whale stock. As 

noted in the Commission’s statement 

above, the pertinent analysis for 

assessing the status of the ENP gray 

whale stock is whether or not, based 

upon the best available scientific 

information, the ENP gray whale stock 

is above or below its MNPL. Although 

NMFS is denying the current petition, 

the analysis supporting this denial 

involved an assessment of the status of 

the stock. In this evaluation, NMFS 

concluded that Punt and Wade (2010) 

analyzed and reported the best available 

information assessing the status of the 

ENP gray whale stock. 

Punt and Wade (2010) used an 

accepted age- and sex-structured 

population dynamics model and 

estimated key biological parameters 

from a long time series of data collected 

over a long period of time. Punt and 

Wade (2010) used all available 

information from abundance data 

collected since the mid-1960s to 2006 

(and analyzed using consistent methods 

by Laake et al. (2009)), incorporated 

uncertainty from input parameters and 

data, and simulated key demographic 

parameters, thus capturing key 

biological processes. Punt and Wade 

(2010) included a catastrophic mortality 

event, which accommodated the 

elevated strandings of ENP gray whales 

observed in 1999 and 2000. As a result 

of this catastrophic mortality, which 

was declared and evaluated as an 

unusual mortality event pursuant to 

MMPA section 404 (16 U.S.C. 1421c), 

Punt and Wade (2010) estimated that 

the population was reduced by about 30 

percent (about 15 percent annually for 

two years) due to the elevated mortality 

rates observed in 1999 and 2000. Punt 

and Wade (2010) also estimated that the 

ENP gray whale stock was currently 129 

percent of the MNPL with a probability 

of 0.884 that the stock was within its 

OSP. Punt and Wade (2010) used the 

best and most recent information 

available and adequately incorporated 

uncertainties for model parameters. 

Punt and Wade (2010) may be 

characterized as follows: the approach 

and the information analyzed were 

subjected to internal NMFS and external 

peer review, and this analysis was 

consistent with NMFS’ previously 

stated practice to use current K to make 

OSP determinations where possible. 

NMFS considers Punt and Wade (2010) 

to be the best scientific information 

available for evaluating the status of 

ENP gray whales relative to their OSP 

and has included the Punt and Wade 

(2010) analyses and conclusions in the 

draft 2010 marine mammal stock 

assessment reports in the most recently 

available abundance estimate in 

reporting the status of the stock (Allen 

and Angliss, 2010). Accordingly, NMFS 

reaffirms that the ENP stock of gray 

whales is above its MNPL and, 

therefore, within its OSP. 

Dated: December 20, 2010. 

David Cottingham, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32479 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA101 

Council Coordination Committee 

Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: NMFS will host a meeting of 

the Council Coordination Committee 

(CCC), consisting of the Regional 

Fishery Management Council chairs, 

vice chairs, and executive directors in 

January 2011. The intent of this meeting 

is to discuss issues of relevance to the 

Councils, including FY 2011 budget 

allocations and budget planning, 

Annual Catch Limits (ACLs), Coastal 

and Marine Spatial Planning, 

Recreational Fishery Issues, 

Enforcement, Catch Shares Policy 

Implementation, and other topics 

related to implementation of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

DATES: The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. 

on Tuesday, January 11, 2011, recess at 

5:30 p.m. or when business is complete; 

and reconvene at 8:30 a.m. on 

Wednesday, January 12, 2011, and 

adjourn by 5 p.m. or when business is 

complete. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Phoenix Park Hotel, 520 North 

Capitol Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20001, telephone 1–800–824–5419, fax 

202–638–4025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William D. Chappell: telephone 301– 

713–2337 or e-mail at 

William.Chappell@noaa.gov; or Tara 

Scott: telephone 301–713–2337 or email at Tara.Scott@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act (MSRA) of 2006 

established the Council Coordination 

Committee (CCC) by amending Section 

302 (16 U.S.C. 1852) of the MagnusonStevens Act. The committee consists of 

the chairs, vice chairs, and executive 

directors of each of the eight Regional 

Fishery Management Councils 

authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act or other Council members or staff. 

NMFS will host this meeting and 

provide reports to the CCC for its 

information and discussion. All sessions 

are open to the public. 

Proposed Agenda 

January, 11, 2011 

9 a.m. Morning Session Begins. 

9–10:30 Welcome comments and 

Round Robin with Councils. 

10:30–10:45 Break. 

10:45–11:30 Round Robin with 

Councils (Continued). 

11:30–12 ‘‘Managing Our Nation’s 

Fisheries’’ III Planning. 

12 noon–1:30 p.m. Lunch. 

1:30 Afternoon Session Begins. 

1:30–2:15 Performance Measures. 

2:15–3:15 Budget Issues FY11: 

• Status, Allocation, Council Grants. 

• FY12: Update. 

3:15–3:30 Break. 

3:30–4:15 Budget Issues 

(Continued). 

4:15–5:15 ACLs and Associated 

Science Issues. 

• National Science ACL Workshop. 

• Report of the 2010 National 

Scientific and Statistical Committees 

(SSC) Workshop. 

• Planning for National SSC 

Workshop—MAFMC. 

• Prioritizing Future Stock 

assessments to Meet MSRA 

Requirements. 

5:15–5:30 Review of Procedure for 

Approval of Councils’ Standard 

Operating Policy and Procedures. 

5:30 Adjourn for the Day. 

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 

8:30 a.m. Morning Session Begins. 

8:30–9 Communication on Ending 

Overfishing. 

9–9:30 Recreational Fisheries 

Engagement Strategy. 

9:30–10:30 Marine Recreational 

Information Program (MRIP) Reestimation Project Update. 

10:30–10:45 Break. 

10:45–11:30 Coastal and Marine 

Spatial Planning. 

11:30–1 p.m. Lunch. 

1–Afternoon Session Begins. 

1–2 Catch Shares Policy 

Implementation. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES