12774 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 

pre-launch levels within 1 day of the 

launch. 

Authorization 

Accordingly, NMFS has issued an 

LOA to AADC authorizing takes of 

marine mammals incidental to rocket 

launches at the KLC. Issuance of this 

LOA is based on findings, described in 

the preamble to the final rule (71 FR 

4297, January 26, 2006) and supported 

by information contained in AADC’s 

required 2006 annual report, that the 

activities described under this LOA will 

result in the take of small numbers of 

marine mammals, have a negligible 

impact on marine mammal stocks, and 

will not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of the affected 

marine mammal stocks for subsistence 

uses. 

Dated: March 12, 2007. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–4885 Filed 3–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 021207D] 

Notice of Availability of Final Stock 

Assessment Reports 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; response 

to comments. 

SUMMARY: As required by the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 

has incorporated public comments into 

revisions of marine mammal stock 

assessment reports (SARs). These 

reports for 2006 are now final and 

available to the public. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of SARs 

are available on the Internet as regional 

compilations and individual reports at 

the following address: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. You also 

may send requests for copies of reports 

to: Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea 

Turtle Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–

3226, Attn: Stock Assessments. 

Copies of the Alaska Regional SARs 

may be requested from Robyn Angliss, 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 

Sand Point Way, BIN 15700, Seattle, 

WA 98115. 

Copies of the Atlantic Regional SARs 

may be requested from Gordon Waring, 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 

Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543. 

Copies of the Pacific Regional SARs 

may be requested from Jim Carretta, 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 

NMFS, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La 

Jolla, CA 92037–1508. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Eagle, Office of Protected Resources, 

301–713–2322, ext. 105, e-mail 

Tom.Eagle@noaa.gov; Robyn Angliss, 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 206–

526–4032, email 

Robyn.Angliss@noaa.gov; Gordon 

Waring, Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center, email Gordon.Waring@noaa.gov; 

or Jim Carretta, Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center, 858–546–7171, email 

Jim.Carretta @noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 

1361 et seq.) requires NMFS and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to 

prepare stock assessments for each stock 

of marine mammals occurring in waters 

under the jurisdiction of the United 

States. These reports must contain 

information regarding the distribution 

and abundance of the stock, population 

growth rates and trends, the stock’s 

Potential Biological Removal level 

(PBR), estimates of annual humancaused mortality and serious injury 

from all sources, descriptions of the 

fisheries with which the stock interacts, 

and the status of the stock. Initial 

reports were completed in 1995. 

The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS 

to review the SARs at least annually for 

strategic stocks and stocks for which 

significant new information is available, 

and at least once every 3 years for nonstrategic stocks. NMFS and FWS are 

required to revise a SAR if the status of 

the stock has changed or can be more 

accurately determined. NMFS, in 

conjunction with the Alaska, Atlantic, 

and Pacific Scientific Review Groups 

(SRGs), reviewed the status of marine 

mammal stocks as required and revised 

reports in each of the three regions. 

As required by the MMPA, NMFS 

updated SARs for 2006, and the revised 

reports were made available for public 

review and comment (71 FR 42815, July 

28, 2006). The MMPA also specifies that 

the comment period on draft SARs must 

be 90 days. NMFS received comments 

on the draft SARs and has revised the 

reports as necessary. The final reports 

for 2006 are available. 

Comments and Responses 

At the end of the comment period on 

October 26, 2005 NMFS received letters 

from three organizations (Marine 

Mammal Commission (Commission), 

Hawaii Longline Association (HLA), and 

the Humane Society of the United 

States) and two individuals. Each letter 

contained more than one comment. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments 

suggesting editorial or minor clarifying 

changes were included in the reports. 

Such editorial comments and responses 

to them are not included in the 

summary of comments and responses 

below. Other comments recommended 

development of Take Reduction Plans or 

to initiate or repeat large data collection 

efforts, such as abundance surveys or 

observer programs. Comments on the 

need to develop additional Take 

Reduction Plans are not related to the 

SARs; therefore, these comments are not 

included below. Comments 

recommending additional data 

collection (e.g., additional abundance 

surveys or observer programs) have been 

addressed in recent years. NMFS’

resources for surveys or observer 

programs are fully utilized, and no new 

large surveys or observer programs may 

be initiated until additional resources 

are available or ongoing monitoring or 

conservation efforts can be terminated. 

Such comments on the 2006 SARs and 

responses to them may not be included 

in the summary below because the 

responses have not changed. 

Uncertainties in each of the reports (e.g., 

age of estimates, large coefficients of 

variation (CVs), or lack of available data) 

in each of the affected SARs are clearly 

indicated. 

In some cases, NMFS’ responses state 

that comments would be considered for, 

or incorporated into, future revisions of 

the SAR rather than being incorporated 

into the final 2006 SARs. The delay is 

due to review of the reports by the 

regional SRGs. NMFS provides 

preliminary copies of updated SARs to 

SRGs prior to release for public review 

and comment. If a comment on the draft 

SAR results in a substantive change to 

the SAR, NMFS may discuss the 

comment and prospective change with 

the SRG at its next meeting prior to 

incorporating the change. Some new 

events that may affect marine mammal 

status or take (e.g., the establishment of 

the Northwest Hawaiian Islands 

National Monument in 2006) are not 

included in the 2006 SARs because 

these reports were initially drafted in 

the fall of 2005 to begin the internal and 

SRG review prior to their availability for 

public review and comment. Such new 

events would be incorporated in the 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 12775 

next revision of the SARs. In the 

example of the Northwest Hawaiian 

Islands National Monument, the draft 

2007 SAR for Hawaiian monk seals will 

include reference to its establishment 

and the subsequent implications for 

monk seal status. 

Comments on National Issues 

Comment 1: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS work with 

Federal and state fisheries management 

agencies and the fishing industry to 

develop a fair and sustainable funding 

strategy to support effective observer 

programs for collecting information on 

incidental mortality and serious injury. 

Response: NMFS established a 

National Observer Program in 1999 to 

combine program-specific observer 

effort for efficiency and to promote 

sustainable funding for a comprehensive 

marine resource observer program. The 

National Observer Program has been 

working with fishery management 

agencies and the fishing industry to 

meet these objectives and will continue 

to do so. The National Observer 

Program, in coordination with all six 

NMFS regions, has initiated 

development of a National Bycatch 

Report to compile species- and fisheryspecific bycatch estimates for fish, 

marine mammals, sea turtles, and sea 

birds. This initiative will incorporate 

the development of fishery 

improvement plans to improve the 

collection of bycatch data and bycatch 

estimation methodologies. These 

improvement plans will also provide a 

comprehensive assessment of resources 

required to improve bycatch in U.S. 

commercial fisheries. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS adjust its 

guidelines for preparing stock 

assessment reports to ensure consistent 

methods for identifying strategic stocks. 

Response: NMFS revised the 

guidelines in 2005 to promote such 

consistency. In the most recent meetings 

of the three regional SRGs, each SRG 

recommended a joint meeting to 

evaluate various aspects of the PBR/SAR 

process. If the results of the joint SRG 

meeting suggest another review and 

revision of guidelines for preparing 

SARs, NMFS would initiate the process 

to review and revise the guidelines. 

Comment 3: Although SARs generally 

report non-fishery-related mortality 

from anthropogenic sources, one source, 

scientific research on marine mammals, 

is generally not addressed. SARs should 

include mortality that is attributable to 

scientific research. 

Response: Research-related mortality 

and serious injury is included in the 

2007 draft reports in the Alaska and 

Atlantic regions. The information will 

be made available to the authors of 

Pacific SARs beginning with the 2008 

reports. Although such reporting is 

necessary to be fully consistent with the 

provisions of MMPA section 117, NMFS 

notes that such mortality or serious 

injury is rare and is not likely to alter 

the status of any stock. 

Comment 4: A number of SARs rely 

on unpublished information. The 

guidelines for SARs stipulate that 

literature used for key aspects of stock 

assessment should be peer reviewed. 

Efforts should be made to assure that 

information reported in SARs comes 

from published sources and/or to assure 

that NMFS employees providing this 

information incorporate it in published 

reports in the future. 

Response: This comment misinterprets the guidelines for preparing 

SARs. The guidelines, which when 

published in 1995 and revised in 1997, 

were parts of larger reports of 

workshops, do not include statements 

regarding standards for review of 

information in SARs. Wade and Angliss 

(1977, Guidelines for Assessing Marine 

Mammal Stocks: Report of the GAMMS 

Workshop April 3–5, 1996, Seattle, 

Washington, NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFSOPR–12.) included a summary of 

discussions among NMFS staff, 

members of SRGs, and representatives 

of the Commission which noted general 

agreement that peer-reviewed 

information was the most reliable and 

encouraged the use of peer review when 

possible. However, there is sometimes a 

trade-off between peer review and 

freshness of information, and the 

MMPA requires SARs to be based upon 

the best available scientific information. 

Consequently, each new estimate or 

other key element of a SAR is not 

necessarily subjected to peer review; 

however, the methods and analyses that 

produce the estimates used in SARs 

should be published in peer-reviewed 

journals or in a similar forum that is 

most appropriate, such as a NOAA 

Technical Memorandum. Merrick (1999, 

Report of the Joint Scientific Review 

Group Workshop, April 13–14, 1999, 

Seattle, Washington, NOAA Tech. Mem. 

NMFS-NE–154) summarizes additional 

discussion and agreements on 

information used in SARs and was in 

general agreement with Wade and 

Angliss (1977). 

Comments on Alaska Regional Reports 

Comment 5: One comment noted that 

Steller sea lion abundance and trends 

are estimated from research occurring at 

one rookery. 

Response: Estimates of Steller sea lion 

abundance trends result from surveys of 

many haulouts and rookeries 

throughout the range of the population. 

For specific lists of which haulouts and 

rookeries are surveyed, the SAR refers to 

published reports, such as Fritz and 

Stinchcomb, 2005 and Loughlin and 

York, 2000. 

Comment 6: Use of data acquired 

through personal communication is 

discouraged in the GAMMS report, and 

major issues of management and policy 

should not be made on the basis of these 

data. For example, a new boundary for 

the Western stock of Steller sea lions 

has been proposed and the citation for 

active Asian haulouts and rookeries that 

would fall under a new stock boundary 

is attributed to an unpublished or 

reviewed personal communication. 

Response: NMFS makes every effort to 

rely on information in peer-reviewed 

publications and to use unpublished 

data or ‘‘personal communication’’ as 

little as possible. Further, NMFS 

replaces ‘‘unpublished data’’ or 

‘‘personnel communication’’ citations 

with peer reviewed publications as soon 

as the more substantiated reference is 

available. However, when peerreviewed data are unavailable and will 

not be available in the immediate future, 

the best scientific information available 

may sometimes come from personal 

communication or another nonreviewed source. With regard to changes 

in the structure of the western Steller 

sea lion stock, new publications 

occurred between the draft and final 

SAR which indicated lack of clarity 

about the proposed stock boundary 

between the western stock and a 

hypothetical Asian stock. The final SAR 

describes the different analyses and 

retains the original stock identification. 

Comment 7: One commenter objected 

to the removal of fishery self-report 

information from the commercial 

fisheries mortalities sections of the 

SARs. The reports are negatively biased 

but are as reliable as stranding data 

which have been retained in the SARs. 

Fishery self-reports should remain in 

the SARs. 

Response: Fishery self-reports are not 

as reliable as stranding data. Stranding 

reports are reviewed and assessed to 

promote correct species identification. 

Humpback whale stranding reports are 

reviewed by both agency staff and 

members of the Alaska SRG prior to 

inclusion in the SARs. Because the 

number of self-reports submitted 

annually has declined drastically, most 

self-reported mortalities are more than 

10 years old. Based on the unreliability 

and age of available self-report data, 

NMFS does not include these data in 

the body of the SARs. However, the data 

will continue to be reported in an 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
12776 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 

appendix to the SARs as additional 

information. 

Comment 8: In other regions, stocks 

that are declining set the PBR as 

‘‘undetermined’’ (e.g., Hawaiian monk 

seals) or as zero (North Atlantic right 

whales), because the stocks do not meet 

the assumptions inherent to calculating 

a PBR. In the Alaska region several 

stocks are declining, including the 

western stock of Steller sea lions and 

northern fur seals; therefore, it would be 

precautionary to adopt the same 

practice as other regions (note that the 

Alaska region has set the Cook Inlet 

beluga whale PBR as ‘‘undetermined’’). 

This rationale should be used for all 

stocks in which declines are apparent, 

even if the declines are not a result of 

anthropogenic mortality. 

Response: In the Alaska SARs, a caseby-case approach is taken when 

assessing whether the PBR should be set 

to ‘‘undetermined’’ for a declining stock. 

For the Cook Inlet beluga stock, setting 

the PBR to ‘‘undetermined’’ was 

appropriate because the stock has been 

at a critically low abundance (2005 

abundance of 278) for several years and 

the stock shows no signs of recovery, 

even after initiating very conservative 

management of the subsistence harvest, 

which was the largest source of humanrelated mortality. 

The western stock of Steller sea lions 

is currently at a low level relative to the 

historical size of the population, but the 

number of animals (47,885) is 

substantially larger than the abundance 

of the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock, 

and the ability of the population to 

sustain some level of human-related 

impact is larger. Further, it is no longer 

clear that the population remains in 

decline. While the population was 

clearly in decline until 2000, recent 

estimates in 2002 and 2004 may 

indicate that the population may have 

stabilized. Thus, it is not necessary to 

set the PBR level as ‘‘undetermined’’ as 

a precautionary management step. 

The northern fur seal population is 

currently declining, but is very large. 

Human-related mortality or serious 

injury does not contribute substantially 

to the decline. However, northern fur 

seals, with an abundance estimate of 

721,935, are one of the most abundant 

marine mammals in Alaska. Thus, it is 

not necessary to set the PBR level as 

‘‘undetermined’’ as a precautionary 

management step. 

Comment 9: Previous stock 

assessments have provided point 

estimates for native subsistence harvest, 

as well as upper and lower estimates 

based on bounds of confidence. Given 

the low precision of these estimates, this 

information should be included so that 

reviewers may gauge the possible range 

of impacts. 

Response: Several years ago, NMFS 

received a recommendation to remove 

the upper and lower estimates for the 

subsistence harvest of all stocks 

because, for most stocks, this 

information is not available. For the 

stocks where this information is 

available, the reliability of the 

information is unknown. In all cases, 

the primary literature where this 

information can be found is cited. More 

detailed information is contained in the 

references cited in the SARs. 

Comment 10: Data provided in the 

draft recovery plan for Steller sea lions 

indicated that the trend in pup counts 

for the Western stock was not uniform 

and that declines were still occurring at 

some key trend sites. This information 

should be included in this stock 

assessment. 

Response: Data from the draft 

recovery plan will be included in the 

draft 2007 Steller sea lion SARs. 

Comment 11: The slightly upward 

trend in subsistence harvest of Western 

Steller sea lions, which is approaching 

PBR and may exceed it, given the likely 

margin of error, is of concern. 

Response: NMFS agrees that mortality 

and serious injury of Steller sea lions 

approaching PBR are of concern and 

continues a dialog with Alaska Native 

subsistence users through the comanagement process. 

Comment 12: One commenter 

objected to the elimination of age and 

sex of sea lions killed in native 

subsistence hunts. It remains unclear 

why the NMFS proposed to delete this 

information. The MMPA provides for 

the SRG to advise on issues of 

uncertainty relative to mortality of 

animals in certain age and sex classes. 

Having this information in the SARs 

makes the discussion easier and more 

transparent. 

Response: NMFS eliminated this 

information upon consultation with the 

Alaska SRG because sex and age class 

information was of little value without 

modeling to put the information into the 

context of the stock’s population 

dynamics. The additional information is 

available in the references cited in the 

SAR. 

Comment 13: One commenter 

objected to a clause in the SAR for the 

Western stock of Steller sea lions (‘‘ if 

the population is still declining’’). The 

statement is unnecessary and provides a 

misleading impression of the stock’s 

status. NMFS should be precautionary 

in its assessments. 

Response: Given the recent counts of 

Steller sea lions, it is no longer clear 

that the abundance is still in decline. 

The statement ‘‘if the population is still 

declining’’ is an accurate reflection of 

the current uncertainty in the trend. 

Comment 14: Because the population 

trajectory for the Eastern stock of Steller 

sea lions differs in a portion of its range 

(e.g., Central California), NMFS may 

wish to consider viewing management 

actions for portions of this stock rather 

than basing them on the trajectory for 

the stock as a whole. 

Response: Separating the central 

California portion of the eastern stock of 

Steller sea lions was discussed and 

ultimately rejected by the Steller sea 

lion recovery team. At this time, NMFS 

will retain the animals in central 

California area in the eastern stock for 

management purposes. It is not 

surprising that populations of marine 

mammals or other species fluctuate in 

the margins of their ranges. 

Comment 15: The northern fur seal 

and Steller sea lion, western stock, 

SARs state that because the stock ‘‘is 

declining for unknown reasons that are 

not explained by the level of direct 

human-caused mortality, there is no 

guarantee that limiting those mortalities 

to the level of the PBR will reverse the 

decline’’. While this may be true, it is 

also true that limiting the anthropogenic 

mortalities will prevent them from 

contributing to the decline. This logic is 

contradicted by the rationale used in the 

Cook Inlet beluga SAR which designates 

an ‘‘undetermined’’ PBR. The PBR for 

fur seals should be undetermined. 

Response: NMFS explained its 

rationale for including a PBR for these 

stocks in the response to comment 8. It 

is not necessarily true that limiting 

anthropogenic mortality in a declining 

stock would prevent such mortality 

from contributing substantially to the 

decline. 

Comment 16: One commenter 

strongly supports the urgent need to 

sub-divide harbor seal stocks into 

discrete management units and 

expresses disappointment that NMFS 

has again postponed this decision. 

These stocks should be re-classified so 

that each will have appropriate PBR and 

assessments of trends and status. 

Response: As in past responses to 

public comments on the SARs, NMFS 

reiterates its commitment to work with 

its co-managers in the Alaska Native 

community to make recommendations 

regarding stock structure of harbor seals 

in Alaska. 

Comment 17: It is unfortunate that 

abundance estimates of harbor seals are 

still calculated based on 1996–2000 

surveys and that all, or at least part, of 

the 2001–2005 surveys data remain 

unreported in the SAR. That data from 

2000 remain unpublished six years after 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 12777 

they are gathered is unfortunate, to say 

the least. 

Response: In recent years, analysis of 

the harbor seal abundance information 

has been slowed due to a backlog of data 

and advances in abundance estimate 

procedures. New estimates for 2001–05 

are under development and should be 

available for inclusion in the draft SARs 

for 2008. 

Comment 18: The subsistence harvest 

data for ice seals (spotted, bearded, 

ringed, and ribbon) are old and there are 

no ongoing efforts to collect more recent 

data. NMFS should include a chart that 

reports annual subsistence harvests 

Response: NMFS has insufficient 

resources to collect information on the 

subsistence harvest of ice seals on an 

annual basis. Old information on 

harvests will be retained as the best 

available information on harvest levels 

until more current information becomes 

available, and the dates of these 

estimates will be retained so that the 

underlying uncertainty is obvious. 

NMFS will consider the inclusion of a 

chart reporting annual subsistence 

harvests for future versions of the SARs 

and after consultation with the SRG. 

Comment 19: NMFS should remedy 

the factors leading to its inability to 

estimate a PBR and assess stock status 

for all stocks of ice seals. Considering 

that harvest data are old and ice 

conditions are deteriorating 

significantly, it is vital that updated 

estimates be made. 

Response: NMFS will pursue the 

collection of information needed to 

identify stocks and estimate the PBR 

levels and harvest data for ice seals 

when resources are available. 

Comment 20: It is unclear why NMFS 

made changes to the Habitat Concerns 

sections of ice seal SARs that 

downgrades the assessment of changes 

in climate from ‘‘drastic’’ to 

‘‘significant’’. 

Response: This modification to the 

report should not be interpreted to 

indicate a difference in the assessed 

level for effects of climate change. The 

published literature used to document 

these specific habitat concerns actually 

uses the term ‘‘significant’’, which is 

defined and supported quantitatively. 

Comment 21: The population 

estimates for the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi 

Sea, and Eastern Bering Sea beluga 

whale stocks are substantially and 

inappropriately outdated, and the stocks 

are subjected to harvest-related and 

incidental mortality. These stocks 

should be considered potentially 

strategic for these reasons. 

Response: The SAR for these four 

stocks of beluga whales are next 

scheduled for a review and update in 

2008, and this comment will be 

considered at that time. 

Comment 22: The Cook Inlet beluga 

whale stock is of considerable concern. 

We support the adopted precautionary 

PBR set at ‘‘undetermined’’ and believe 

the stock should be listed as endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). 

Response: NMFS agrees with the PBR 

comment. A status review of the Cook 

Inlet beluga stock is currently 

underway. The report of the biological 

information related to their status is 

available at: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/ 

Publications/ProcRpt/PR%202006–

16.pdf. 

Comment 23: One commenter 

supports the precautionary approach 

used when reducing the Alaska 

Resident killer whale abundance 

estimate based on the age of the data. 

Response: NMFS agrees. 

Comment 24: The data used for 

developing the population estimate for 

Northern Resident killer whale are at 

least 6 years old. NMFS should update 

this in the near future and given the low 

PBR (2), we are concerned about the 

lack of Canadian fishery mortality 

information. NMFS should work with 

Canada to obtain these data. 

Response: The SAR for the Northern 

Resident killer whale stock is next 

scheduled for a review and update in 

2008, and this comment will be 

considered at that time. 

Comment 25: The abundance and 

sightings data for AT1 transient killer 

whale stock are old and should be 

updated. 

Response: The abundance of AT1 

killer whales is monitored each year by 

an independent researcher, who is a 

member of the SRG. The report cites 

personal communication with that 

research for an abundance estimate of 

eight whales in 2004. Since 2004, the 

researcher’s observations have not 

indicated that the status of the stock has 

changed or that the status could be 

assessed more accurately. Therefore, 

NMFS has not revised the rerport. As 

new information is presented indicating 

a change in abundance, NMFS will 

incorporate such a change in future 

revisions of the report. 

Comment 26: The use of an 

abundance estimate for Pacific whitesided dolphin that is outdated and 

derived from personal communications 

is inappropriate. The region has 

appropriately left the PBR undefined. 

Response: NMFS agrees. 

Comment 27: It is inappropriate to reclassify the Pacific white-sided dolphin 

stock as non-strategic simply because 

there is no evidence that take exceeds 

PBR. There is also no evidence that it 

does not. There is no PBR and no 

reliable fishery data even though there 

is acknowledgment that takes are likely 

to occur in fisheries. The stock should 

be retained as strategic. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. Although 

many of the fisheries that overlap with 

this stock are observed, and some 

fisheries are subject to high levels of 

observer coverage, no mortality or 

serious injury of Pacific white-sided 

dolphins has been observed. In 

addition, there have been no self reports 

or stranding data indicating that serious 

injuries or mortalities have occurred. 

Because the estimated level of serious 

injury and mortality is zero, this stock 

should no longer be designated as 

‘‘strategic’’ despite uncertainty due to 

age of the abundance estimate. 

Comment 28: The surveys used for 

estimating Southeast Alaska harbor 

porpoise abundance are older than 

recommended under GAMMS. Reanalyzing these data does not make 

them new. Therefore the PBR should be 

undetermined. 

Response: NMFS recognizes that the 

estimates for the harbor porpoise stock 

in southeast Alaska are dated. Setting 

the PBR level as ‘‘undetermined’’ is not 

necessary as updated abundance 

estimate for this stock is forthcoming 

due to surveys conducted in 2006. 

Comment 29: One commenter agreed 

that all three stocks of harbor porpoise 

in Alaska should be classified as 

strategic. 

Response: NMFS agrees. 

Comment 30: Using the region’s 

rationale for classifying Alaska harbor 

porpoise stocks as strategic, the Alaska 

stock of Dall’s porpoise should also be 

classified as strategic. The abundance 

data are old and cannot be used to 

estimate either a minimum population 

or PBR. While there are no data to 

indicate that mortality exceeds PBR, 

there are no data to indicate that it does 

not, since PBR is undetermined. 

Response: Although the abundance 

estimate is old, the last estimate of this 

population indicated that the 

population is very abundant. Further, 

there is no information that would 

indicate that the abundance has 

changed appreciably over the past 

several years; observer programs on the 

fisheries overlapping with this stock 

have not reported substantial incidental 

mortality or serious injury. NMFS will 

continue to calculate a PBR for the 

Alaska stock of Dall’s porpoise. 

Comment 31: The fact that there are 

no recent estimates of abundance, that 

PBR is unknown, and that fisheryrelated mortality could be occurring in 

all stocks of beaked whales in Alaska 

(Baird’s, Cuvier’s, and Stejneger’s) 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
12778 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 

argues for designating these stocks as 

strategic. 

Response: NMFS recognizes that the 

abundance estimates are old and, in 

consultation with the SRG will consider 

whether to continue reporting the PBR 

for these stocks in future reports. 

Comments on Atlantic Regional Reports 

Comment 32: We reiterate our belief 

that data on mortalities of large whales 

(e.g., humpback, finback and Northern 

right whale) can be provided on a more 

timely basis than data on small 

cetaceans and should be more current 

than 2004. The need to extrapolate 

observed mortality of small cetaceans to 

fleet-wide mortality estimates results in 

the understandable situation in which 

small cetacean mortality estimates are 

only for years up to 2004. But the ‘‘body 

count’’ of ship-struck or entangled large 

whales needs no such extrapolation and 

the data should be the most recently 

available - in this case at least through 

2005. 

Response: A review of entanglement 

and injury reports is not a straight 

forward ‘‘body count’’ because the 

evidence has to be evaluated to 

distinguish between serious and nonserious injury. After each case has been 

evaluated and a determination made for 

each injury, the results are subjected to 

scientific review. This process was not 

complete when the 2006 draft SARs 

were completed for review by the SRGs; 

therefore, the mortality estimates for 

large whales consist of the latest year of 

information that has been subjected to 

evaluation and scientific review. The 

latest reviewed information will be 

included as SARs are updated in the 

future. NMFS will consider changes to 

this procedure in future meetings with 

the SRG. 

Comment 33: For short and longfinned pilot whales, Risso’s dolphins 

and white-sided dolphins, estimates of 

mortality and other important 

information have been withheld 

pending presentation to a take reduction 

team that met in September 2006. The 

new verbiage states that the data are 

undergoing ‘‘scientific review’’ which 

implies review by the SRG. This is not 

the case, and the language should be 

changed to reflect that this is solely an 

internal NMFS review. We assume these 

data will be incorporated in the next 

SAR. 

Response: Reference to the Take 

Reduction Team has been removed. The 

new information is expected to be 

included in the 2007 SARs, and it will 

have been subjected to scientific review, 

including the SRG, before the draft is 

made available for public review and 

comment. 

Comment 34: Until new information 

is available, it is not appropriate to omit 

older information. Reviewers need to 

have some estimates on which to base 

a general understanding of fisheries that 

interact with the species (e.g., the 

discussion of various bottom trawl 

fisheries and incidental mortality of 

Risso’s dolphins and pilot whales). 

Please reinstate the original omitted 

verbiage until it can be replaced by 

newer information. 

Response: The older numbers were 

calculated using different analytical 

methods, and the fisheries have been 

revised. The old information is not 

applicable to the new categories, and its 

inclusion could be confusing and 

misleading to reinstate the old data. 

Therefore, NMFS has omitted the older 

information. 

Comment 35: We renew our request 

that NMFS continue its focal efforts to 

define the boundaries of short-finned 

and long-finned pilot whales which are 

taken in multiple fisheries and yet are 

managed with a single PBR as though 

they are a single stock. The NMFS has 

been undertaking analysis of stock 

boundaries for pilot whales that it is 

inappropriately managing as a single 

stock This sort of analysis should be 

discussed, or at least alluded to in the 

SAR so that reviewers understand that 

efforts are underway to appropriately 

separate the two stocks as was done for 

harbor seals in Alaska. 

Response: The SARs were revised to 

allude to ongoing research activity to 

identify stock boundaries and assign 

abundance and mortality accordingly. 

Comments on Pacific Regional Reports 

Comment 36: It is inappropriate to 

remove discussion of various 

anthropogenic threats to the Southern 

Resident stock of killer whales as well 

as mention of this stock’s special status 

in Canada, into which the stock’s range 

extends. 

Response: The discussion relating to 

the natural and anthropogenic threats of 

this stock was included in the report 

during its status review. When the 

status under the ESA was changed due 

to the stock’s listing as ‘‘endangered’’, 

the narrative in the ‘‘Status of the 

Stock’’ section became unnecessary. 

Comment 37: Recent information on 

gillnet-related mortality of Hawaiian 

monk seals was not included in the 

draft stock assessment and a 

clarification on whether monk seal 

interactions with gillnets typically 

involve debris or active gear was 

requested. 

Response: No gillnet deaths are listed 

in the table because none were 

documented during the 5 years covered 

in the table. There was one recent pup 

death (2006), but it is not included in 

the draft 2007 SAR which covers fishery 

data through 2005. The reason for this 

is that preparation of the 2007 draft SAR 

occurs in late 2006, before complete 

annual data for 2006 are available. 

There was a gillnet-related serious 

injury in 2005 that will appear in the 

2007 draft table. Monk seal 

entanglement in debris, whether the 

remains of fishing gear or other material, 

is reported in the section of the report 

on other human-caused mortality rather 

than in the fishery mortality section. 

Comment 38: Personal 

communications are used as the source 

of information for mortality of the San 

Miguel Island stock of northern fur seals 

from 2001 and 2003. Effort should be 

made to assure that these sorts of 

information come from published 

sources where possible and/or to assure 

the NMFS employees providing this 

information incorporate it into 

published reports for future use. 

Response: The SAR has been changed 

to cite Marine Mammal Stranding 

Network records maintained by NMFS 

Regional Offices as the source of 

information for fishery-related 

strandings. Because this information is 

meant only as background rather than as 

an estimate of fishery-caused mortality 

or serious injury, the information may 

not be included in a future publication. 

Comment 39: In the face of evidence 

that mortality of short-finned pilot 

whales is occurring (with wide CVs) and 

the knowledge that this fishing gear is 

insufficiently monitored, it would be 

precautionary to consider the stock 

strategic until more precise abundance 

and mortality information is available. 

Response: The assessments explicitly 

take uncertainties in mortality and 

abundance estimates into account in a 

standardized way, consistent with the 

guidelines developed for assessing 

marine mammal stocks. The level of 

uncertainty in mortality and abundance 

of short-finned pilot whales is within 

the range of those addressed in these 

guidelines. Mortality estimates are 

based on 12–26 percent observer 

coverage in the Hawaii-based longline 

fleet. The PBR for the Hawaiian stock of 

short-finned pilot whales is 65 animals. 

There was no mortality or serious injury 

documented within the Hawaiian EEZ 

during 2000–2004. Therefore, a strategic 

designation is not warranted. 

Bottlenose Dolphin, California Coastal 

Stock 

Comment 40: NMFS is applying a 

new methodology for calculating PBR 

because the stock spends only part of its 

time in U.S. waters. It appears a portion 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 12779 

of the PBR is allocated to Mexico. The 

SAR states a correction factor of 0.82 

could be used if the population were 

distributed randomly and then notes 

that the populations is not distributed 

randomly. Thus, use of 0.82 as the 

correction factor seems inappropriate 

Response: Decreasing PBR for 

transboundary stocks is not a new 

methodology, and the method used for 

this report is consistent with NMFS’

guidelines for calculating PBR for stocks 

that spend only a portion of the time in 

waters under U.S. jurisdiction. It was 

first used in 1995 for humpback whales, 

CA/OR/WA stock. Although the 

commenter suggested an implicit 

allocation of PBR to Mexico, PBR is not 

allocated. Rather, at the end of the year, 

human-caused mortality is compared to 

PBR to assess the stock’s status (strategic 

vs. non-strategic). In the case of 

California coastal bottlenose dolphins, 

NMFS has no estimate for humancaused mortality outside the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone and has 

reduced the PBR so that the effect of 

human-caused mortality and serious 

injury in the U.S. is not underestimated. 

The report states explicitly that the 

correction factor of 0.82 is applied until 

sufficient information is available to 

calculate an appropriate correction. 

When research yields sufficient 

information to calculate a more 

appropriate correction, the newer value 

will be used. Until then, use of the 

interim correction provides a better 

approximation of the effect of humancaused mortality and serious injury in 

the U.S. than an uncorrected PBR would 

provide. 

Comment 41: The stock assessment 

does not state whether or not estimates 

of mortality are available from Mexican 

waters. 

Response: The stock assessment states 

that coastal gillnet fisheries exist in 

Mexico and may take animals from this 

population, but no details are available. 

The statement means that estimates of 

mortality in Mexico are not available. 

NMFS will continue to seek information 

on possible fishery interactions with 

this stock in Mexican waters. 

Comment 42: Concern was expressed 

that observer coverage in the halibut set 

gillnet fishery has been nonexistent to 

low over the last several years. A 

clarification of fishery-related mortality 

for this stock was also requested. 

Response: A renewed observer 

program began in the California halibut 

set gillnet fishery in 2006, which will 

provide approximately 10 percent 

observer coverage for this fishery. 

Fishery-related mortality is included in 

Table 1 of the stock assessment report, 

which details one animal that was 

entangled in 3.5 inch mesh netting from 

an unknown fishery 

Harbor Porpoise, Oregon and 

Washington Stocks 

Comment 43: Oregon and Washington 

harbor porpoise abundance data are 

from an unpublished source. 

Response: Oregon and Washington 

harbor porpoise abundance data from 

the most recent aerial surveys have not 

yet been published but will be 

published in the future. The 

methodologies and analyses used in 

these abundance estimates have been 

peer-reviewed and applied for years. 

Comment 44: In the report for the 

Oregon and Washington coast stock, the 

chart showing fishery-related mortality 

states that there was ‘‘no fishery’’ for the 

past several years for the Northern 

Washington marine set gillnet fishery. 

The text should briefly discuss possible 

reasons for this. 

Response: Text has been added to the 

Oregon/Washington Coast harbor 

porpoise SAR to discuss the reduction 

in fishing effort in the Northern 

Washington marine set gillnet fishery in 

recent years due to reduced numbers of 

chinook salmon (a target species) in 

coastal waters. 

Comment 45: The SAR for the 

Washington inland waters stock 

provides a substantially higher estimate 

of abundance than in the previous SAR 

and a much greater minimum 

population estimate. It would be helpful 

to discuss possible reasons for this. 

Response: The abundance of the 

Washington Inland Waters harbor 

porpoise stock has increased since the 

previous survey in 1996. The most 

recent abundance estimate for this stock 

is an average of estimates from surveys 

in 2002 and 2003 and both of these 

surveys produced very similar results. 

Calves comprised 10 percent of the 

counts in 2002 and 2003 compared to 2 

percent of the count in 1996, suggesting 

an increase in reproduction which 

would provide population growth. 

During this same time, the percentage of 

calves in counts of the Oregon/ 

Washington Coast stock of harbor 

porpoise remained the same (10 percent 

in both the 1997 and 2002 surveys). 

Information in the SAR is limited to a 

reporting of the abundance estimates 

and does not include the explanation 

above because NMFS has maintained 

the SARs as very brief presentations of 

the information required by the MMPA; 

interested readers can obtain the 

literature cited in each SAR for addition 

details. 

False Killer Whales, Hawaii Stock 

Comment 46: NMFS should explain 

the limitations and the agency’s use of 

the population data currently available, 

as well as clarify the discussion of 

mortality and serious injury attributable 

to the fishery in the SAR. 

Response: The population data in the 

current SAR are used according to 

established and published guidelines 

(Wade and Angliss, 1997, and the 2005 

revisions to the guidelines, both of 

which are available on the Internet; see 

ADDRESSES). Details of the mortality 

and serious injury attributable to the 

fishery are provided in the reference 

cited in the SAR (Forney and 

Kobayashi). The SARs are intended to 

summarize results of references related 

to population status, not reproduce 

details available in the cited reports. 

Comment 47: NMFS should provide a 

range of plausible abundance estimates, 

minimum population estimates, and 

PBR levels for false killer whales in the 

Hawaiian Economic Exclusive Zone 

(EEZ), similar to the approach used for 

false killer whales in the Palmyra Atoll 

EEZ. 

Response: The estimated range of 

plausible estimates for the Palmyra 

Atoll EEZ was previously provided 

because there were no survey data 

available for that geographic region. In 

contrast, there have been multiple 

surveys (Barlow, 2006, Mobley et al., 

2001, Baird et al., 2003, 2005, within 

waters of the Hawaiian EEZ (one 

extending throughout the EEZ and the 

others closer to the Main Hawaiian 

Islands). All existing data indicate that 

the population size of false killer whales 

in Hawaiian EEZ waters is small. When 

survey data are available, it is always 

preferable to use the actual data, rather 

than rely on plausible estimates based 

on surveys conducted elsewhere. In the 

2007 draft SAR the range of plausible 

estimates for the Palmyra EEZ has 

accordingly been replaced with the 

actual estimates of the 2005 shipboard 

survey in that region. 

Comment 48: Issue a revised draft 

SAR, which addresses the concerns 

expressed in this comment letter, and 

submit it for meaningful public 

comment. 

Response: The comments on this SAR 

did not warrant revision of the SAR. As 

new information becomes available, 

NMFS will update the SAR and solicit 

public review and comment as required 

by the MMPA. 

Comment 49: NMFS should undertake 

a new population survey that accounts 

for the known seasonality of false killer 

whale abundance in the Hawaiian EEZ 

and the presence of false killer whales 

near the Main Hawaiian Islands and 

outside the EEZ. 

Response: NMFS will continue to 

conduct population surveys and 

improve analysis methodology for the 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
12780 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 

assessment of cetaceans in U.S. waters 

as resources. However, there is no 

scientific evidence of seasonality in 

occurrence of false killer whales within 

the Hawaiian EEZ (see detailed 

comments below). During 2005, a 

survey was completed that provided 

additional data for estimation of false 

killer whale abundance in waters of the 

Hawaiian EEZ, the Palmyra Atoll EEZ, 

in international waters these two EEZ, 

and westward to the Johnston Atoll 

EEZ. 

Comment 50: NMFS should revise its 

1998 guidelines on mortality and 

serious injury to provide an accurate 

methodology for assessing the impacts 

of fishery-related take of false killer 

whales. 

Response: NMFS, in conjunction with 

the Commission, FWS, and 

representatives of regional SRGs, 

reviewed and revised its guidelines for 

preparing SARs in 2003 and issued final 

revisions in 2005 following public 

review and comment. The guidelines 

provide accurate methodologies for 

evaluating mortality and serious injury 

of marine mammals incidental to 

commercial fishing and other sources. 

The SAR guidelines note that NMFS 

anticipates periodic review and revision 

of the SAR guidelines to incorporate 

new information and experience in 

implementing the MMPA. Also, see 

response to comment 4. 

Comment 51: The numerous flaws in 

extrapolating from the limited 

population data available for the 

Hawaiian stock of false killer whales 

have been acknowledged for some time. 

Response: The ‘‘flaws’’ alleged in this 

comment refer to older population data 

that are not used for the current 

assessment and are provided in the 

stock assessment report only as 

background information. The current 

abundance estimate, based on the 2002 

survey, is not subject to these same 

limitations, and there is no scientific 

evidence to suggest that this estimate is 

biased or is an underestimate of the 

population size. 

Comment 52: The population estimate 

appears to be extrapolated from a single 

false killer whale sighting made during 

the 2002 survey, and numerous false 

killer whales have been sighted in the 

Main Hawaiian Islands. Consequently, 

the SAR must acknowledge the high 

degree of uncertainty and potential for 

error. 

Response: The population estimate is 

based on the overall encounter rate of 

false killer whales during an extensive 

5–month ship survey, according to 

established line-transect methodology. 

Although the observation of only one 

false killer whale sighting during these 

surveys increases the uncertainty (CV) 

around the estimate, it is a valid 

scientific estimate. This uncertainty is 

clearly stated in the SAR. This comment 

focuses only on the sighting and does 

not note the survey effort by welltrained observers using powerful 

binoculars that produced no additional 

false killer whale sightings, despite 

many sightings of other dolphins and 

whales. The lack of false killer whale 

sightings through much of the survey 

indicates that false killer whales are 

sparsely distributed over a very large 

area in the Pacific Ocean. Observations 

of false killer whale sightings around 

the main Hawaiian Islands include 

many of the same individuals, seen 

repeatedly over many years by other 

researchers. The incidence of 

resightings in these nearshore waters 

indicates that the population of false 

killer whales around the Hawaiian 

Islands is small. 

Comment 53: Assuming 236 is the 

mean for calculating the CV, the 

estimated population could be 

anywhere from -30 to 472. 

Response: The range of populations 

sizes suggested in this comment is 

inappropriate. Abundance estimates 

generally have log-normally distributed 

errors, and the resulting 90 percent 

confidence interval of the population 

estimate, calculated for a CV=1.13, is 

44–1,252. 

Comment 54: NMFS must explain 

why the abundance and minimum 

population estimates for Hawaiian false 

killer whales are lower in the draft SAR 

than in previous SARs, even though 

these estimates are based on the same 

2002 survey. 

Response: Following submission of 

the original analysis as a manuscript for 

publication in Marine Mammal Science, 

a reviewer recommended some 

improvements to the analyses. These 

improvements were made, and the 

revised analysis yielded slightly lower 

estimates. Such an approach is in 

accordance with standard review 

procedures. Thus, the lower estimate 

resulted from an improved analysis of 

the same survey data. 

Comment 55: The abundance survey 

was conducted between August and 

November, a time of year when false 

killer whales abundance and pod size is 

believed to be low. Reliable anecdotal 

information, confirmed by the results of 

an analysis by NMFS’s Pacific Islands 

Fisheries Science Center (supporting 

information was included in the 

comment), indicates that the Hawaiian 

stock of false killer whales exhibits 

seasonal behavior. 

Response: There is no scientific 

evidence of seasonality in false killer 

whale abundance or pod size within the 

Hawaiian EEZ. In contrast to the 

comment’s claim of seasonality, the 

information supplied by the commenter 

states that ‘‘month’’ was not a 

significant factor in the observer data 

analyzed. In addition, ongoing studies 

of cetaceans around the main Hawaiian 

Islands (Baird et al., 2003, 2005, cited in 

the SAR) have documented false killer 

whales in nearly all months surveyed, 

with no evidence of seasonality in their 

occurrence. Additional published 

information cited by the commenter 

indicates seasonal influence on 

distribution of false killer whales; 

however, these papers refer to the 

seasonal occurrence of this tropical 

species in temperate waters off Japan, 

Russia and Canada, rather than the 

tropical waters around Hawaii. 

Comment 56: Given the difficulties in 

observing false killer whales, the 

extreme limitations of the known data, 

and the seasonal variations in 

abundance and pod size, extrapolations 

from the sighting of a single individual, 

assumed to represent a very modest pod 

size of 10 individuals, cannot 

reasonably be supported as a basis for 

reliable population estimate. 

Response: MMPA section 117 requires 

NMFS to prepare marine mammal stock 

assessment reports that are ‘‘based on 

the best scientific information 

available.’’ The abundance estimate for 

false killer whales was based on an 

extensive ship-board survey designed 

and conducted by experts in marine 

mammal population assessment. The 

survey design and subsequent data 

analyses were consistent with peerreviewed, established methods, and the 

results have been published in the peerreviewed literature. Accordingly, the 

estimates presented are based on the 

‘‘best scientific information available’’, 

as required by the MMPA. 

Comment 57: NMFS applied a diving 

correction factor of 0.76, meaning that 

NMFS estimates that about 75 percent of 

false killer whale species should be 

observable at the surface of the ocean 

during survey work. False killer whales 

are a cryptic species that follow schools 

of prey species, such as tuna. In many 

cases, commercial fisheries have 

experienced severe depredation of catch 

by false killer whales, yet participants in 

the fishery have not seen signs of the 

species at the surface of the water. 

Accordingly, NMFS’ assumptions 

regarding diving behavior are biased 

and do not reflect the species actual 

behaviors. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The 

commenter has misunderstood the 

application and significance of the 

correction factor of 0.76 applied by 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 12781 

NMFS and is inappropriately comparing 

observations made by personnel on 

fishing vessels to observations made by 

trained marine mammal observers using 

high-powered binoculars during 

dedicated marine mammal surveys. The 

correction factor of 0.76 does not 

represent the proportion of time animals 

are at the surface, as suggested by the 

commenter. Rather, the correction factor 

accounts for animals that are present on 

the survey trackline, (that is, during the 

time the vessel was in sight of the 

animals, the animals were at the surface 

at least briefly along the trackline), but 

not detected by the observer. Although 

animal behavior is part of the 

correction, there are other important 

factors that must be considered, such as 

weather (e.g., wind), the height of the 

viewing platform, the number of 

observers, and the use of high powered 

binoculars. The correction factor 

developed by NMFS is appropriate and 

scientifically valid for estimation of 

abundance based on the NMFS ship 

survey. 

Comment 58: The population 

estimates contained in the draft SAR are 

prone to underestimation because they 

are premised on the assumption that the 

Hawaiian population of false killer 

whales is genetically distinct. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The linetransect methodology used to estimate 

the abundance of false killer whales 

does not rely on genetic distinctness. 

Rather, it reflects the total number of 

animals estimated to have been in the 

study area during the survey period. 

Furthermore, the genetic distinctness of 

false killer whales around the main 

Hawaiian Islands (described in the SAR) 

is based on an analysis of a large 

number of samples collected throughout 

the eastern and central Pacific, not 

merely on two samples obtained by 

fishery observers. NMFS continues to 

collect additional samples when 

possible and will refine stock structure 

as additional evidence becomes 

available; however, it is important to 

note that the finding of unique 

haplotypes around the main Hawaiian 

Islands confirms that these animals 

represent a distinct stock. NMFS will 

continue to provide updated 

information in the SARs as new results 

become available. 

Comment 59: The actual distribution 

of the Hawaiian population of false 

killer whales is unknown. It is a 

certainty that the Hawaiian population 

of false killer whales is not 

geographically confined to the Hawaiian 

EEZ, as suggested by NMFS’s regulatory 

definition of the stock. However, the 

extent of the stock’s distribution beyond 

the Hawaiian EEZ is unknown, and so 

is the relative abundance of the 

population within the nearshore and 

open ocean areas of the EEZ. 

Nevertheless, the population estimate 

contained in the draft SAR assumes a 

static population confined to the 

Hawaiian EEZ. 

Response: NMFS agrees with this 

comment only to the limited extent that 

stock or population structure of false 

killer whales in the Pacific Ocean is 

unknown. NMFS disagrees with the 

assertions, ‘‘ as suggested by NMFS’

regulatory definition of the stock’’ and 

‘‘the draft SAR assumes a static 

population confined to the Hawaiian 

EEZ’’. 

False killer whales are widely 

distributed in tropical and warm 

temperate waters of the Pacific Ocean. 

The available data indicate that there is 

population structure; however, there is 

insufficient information to identify each 

demographically independent 

aggregation (stock) or to identify the 

boundaries between adjacent 

aggregations. In the face of this 

uncertainty, NMFS has identified stocks 

(as management units) in accordance 

with the agency’s established 

guidelines, which, in turn, were based, 

among other things, upon the policies 

and purposes of the MMPA. The initial 

guidelines and subsequent revisions of 

them were based upon workshops with 

participants from NMFS, FWS, the 

Commission, and representatives of the 

three regional SRGs and were made 

available for public review and 

comment (59 FR 40527, August 9, 1994; 

62 FR 3005, June 2, 1997; and 69 FR 

67541, November 18, 2004). Each set of 

guidelines has addressed stocks such as 

false killer whales that are broadly 

distributed in pelagic waters beyond the 

U.S. EEZ. The 1995 and 1997 guidelines 

stated, ‘‘For situations where a species 

with a broad pelagic distribution which 

extends into international waters 

experiences mortalities within the U.S. 

EEZ, PBR calculations should be based 

on the abundance in the EEZ area unless 

there is evidence for movement of 

individuals between the EEZ and 

offshore pelagic areas.’’ In the 

subsequent review and revision of the 

guidelines (2003–2005), NMFS modified 

these instructions to be more clear, due 

in large part to uncertainties and 

distribution of false killer whales in the 

Pacific Ocean. The current guidelines 

state, ‘‘For situations where a species 

with a broad pelagic distribution which 

extends into international waters 

experiences mortalities within the U.S. 

EEZ, PBR calculations should be based 

on the abundance in the EEZ. If there is 

evidence for movement of individuals 

between the EEZ and offshore pelagic 

areas and there are estimates of 

mortality from U.S. and other sources 

throughout the stock’s range, then PBR 

calculations may be based upon a rangewide abundance estimate for the stock.’’

False killer whales are distributed 

beyond the U.S. EEZ surrounding 

Hawaii and are taken in fisheries within 

and outside the EEZ. Fishery mortality 

and serious injury within the EEZ can 

be estimated from data collected by 

fishery observers in the U.S. fishing fleet 

within and outside the EEZ. Mortality 

and serious injury incidental to fishing 

by vessels of other nations is unknown; 

however, these vessels do not fish 

within the U.S. EEZ and, accordingly, 

do not kill marine mammals within the 

U.S. EEZ. 

Although it would be ideal to have 

sufficient information to identify the 

complete stock structure and boundaries 

for all false killer whales in the Pacific 

Ocean, to estimate mortality and serious 

injury from human-causes from all 

stocks, and to estimate the abundance 

(thus, calculate a PBR) for each stock of 

false killer whales, such a case does not 

exist, which results in several 

uncertainties. Accordingly, NMFS has 

limited the effect of uncertainty by 

identifying the Hawaiian stock to assess 

the impact of U.S. fishery-caused 

mortality and serious injury where the 

existing data allow. Such an approach 

allows NMFS to compare U.S. fisherycaused mortality and serious injury to a 

PBR where the stock is subject only to 

loss from U.S. fisheries. To do otherwise 

would be inconsistent with established 

guidelines, sound principles of wildlife 

management, and the purposes and 

policies of the MMPA. 

Comment 60: Given the limited 

population data available for false killer 

whales in the Hawaiian EEZ, NMFS 

should explain why it did not use an 

approach similar that employed for the 

Palmyra Atoll. 

Response: NMFS has not used this 

approach because it would not be based 

on the best scientific information 

available. A range of estimated plausible 

estimates was previously provided for 

the Palmyra Atoll EEZ because there 

were no survey data available for that 

geographic region. In contrast, there 

have been multiple surveys (Barlow, 

2006, Mobley et al. 2001, Baird et al., 

2003, 2005) within waters of the 

Hawaiian EEZ (one extending 

throughout the EEZ and the others 

closer to the Main Hawaiian Islands). 

All existing data indicate that the 

population size of false killer whales in 

Hawaiian EEZ waters is small. When 

survey data are available, it is 

appropriate to use the actual data and 

associated estimates, rather than rely on 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
12782 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 

plausible estimates based on surveys 

conducted elsewhere. 

Comment 61: There are serious 

uncertainties in the existing population 

data and flaws in the agency’s 

assumptions about take attributable to 

the Hawaii longline fishery that case 

NMFS to underestimate false killer 

whale populations and overestimate 

fishery-related mortality and serious 

injury. 

Response: NMFS agrees that there are 

uncertainties in the data. However, the 

assessments explicitly take these 

uncertainties into account in a 

standardized way, consistent with the 

guidelines developed for assessing 

marine mammal stocks. There is no 

scientific evidence that indicates the 

abundance of false killer whales is 

underestimated or the mortality and 

injury of false killer whales in the 

Hawaii-based long-line fishery is 

overestimated. The methods used to 

estimate abundance have been peerreviewed and published in a respected 

scientific journal. Furthermore, several 

of the unidentified cetaceans that were 

injured or killed in the fishery were 

likely short-finned pilot whales or false 

killer whales, based on the observer’s 

descriptions. These animals were not 

included in the estimation of serious 

injury and mortality of false killer 

whales; therefore, fishery-related 

mortality and serious injury were likely 

underestimated, not overestimated. 

Comment 62: NMFS has not 

explained its rationale for classifying all 

take by the longline fishery as mortality 

or serious injury. Participants in a 

workshop on false killer whales have 

confirmed the view that the NMFS’s 

working assumption (i.e. that all 

hookings results in death or serious 

injury) is likely to be incorrect. 

Response: This comment mischaracterizes NMFS’ approach to 

distinguishing between serious and nonserious injury by saying that NMFS 

considers all take by the longline fishery 

or all hookings to be serious injuries. 

The paper by Forney and Kobayashi 

(2005), reviewed and accepted by the 

SRG and cited in the SAR, clearly 

describes the rationale and process by 

which injuries are classified either as 

serious or as not serious. 

Comment 63: NMFS should revisit its 

1998 guidelines for distinguishing 

between serious and non-serious injury 

to develop a more refined method of 

assessing false killer whale takes. 

Response: NMFS plans to review and, 

as appropriate, revise its guidance for 

distinguishing between serious and nonserious injury. A workshop initiating 

such an effort was originally scheduled 

for November 2006; however, it was 

postponed for budget reasons. When 

funding for FY 2007 is finalized by 

Congress, NMFS will assess options to 

convene the workshop and initiate the 

review of its serious injury guidance. 

Comment 64: The Hawaiian pelagic 

longline fishery includes two separately 

managed fishing efforts, the shallow set 

swordfish fishery and the deep-set tuna 

fishery, which operate at different times 

of the year. Yet, NMFS does not 

distinguish between the swordfish and 

tuna fishery or address how bait, gear, 

timing and seasonal differences between 

the two pelagic longline fisheries affect 

the take of false killer whales. As a 

result, the draft SAR inaccurately 

suggests that the entire pelagic longline 

fishery should be treated as a uniform 

industry subject to the same false killer 

whale restrictions. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The 

report on mortality and serious injury of 

cetaceans in the Hawaii-based longline 

fishery (Forney and Kobayashi, 2005) 

clearly outlines the methodology used 

to differentiate between the different 

types of longline fishing that takes 

place. Estimates are based on a stratified 

analysis that takes into account 

differences in the types of cetaceans that 

interact with each component of the 

fishery, as well as inter-annual changes 

in fishing behavior and effort, such as 

those caused by regulations to protect 

sea turtles. The SAR reports the level of 

estimated serious injury and mortality 

of false killer whales but does not 

describe the details of the methods used 

in the estimates, which are available in 

the cited literature. Furthermore, the 

Hawaii-based longline fishery is under 

no restriction due to its false killer 

whale interactions. 

Comment 65: The draft SAR overgeneralizes the number and nature of 

false killer whale takes attributable to 

the Hawaiian pelagic longline fishery. 

Figure 3 in the SAR contains markers 

for ‘‘possible’’ false killer whale takes. 

However the draft SAR does not reveal 

why these possible takes should be 

considered false killer whales rather 

than other cetacean species. Figure 3, 

therefore, creates an unsupportable 

implication that the fishery has taken 

more false killer whales than indicated 

by fishermen’s logs and observer 

reports. 

Response: NMFS disagrees that the 

SAR over-generalizes the number and 

nature of false killer whale takes 

attributable to the longline fishery. The 

report on mortality and serious injury of 

cetaceans in the Hawaii-based longline 

fishery (Forney and Kobayashi, 2005) 

clearly describes that the 

characterization of some unidentified 

cetacean takes as possible false killer 

whale takes is based on the observers’

descriptions of the animals. To clarify 

this, we have added text to the final 

2006 SAR that the designation as 

possible false killer whales was based 

on the observers’ descriptions. Figure 3 

in the Draft SAR presents the most 

accurate picture of false killer whale 

mortality and serious injury in the 

Hawaii-based longline fishery, and the 

caption clearly describes the source of 

the information. The inference that a 

reader makes from Figure 3 is not 

important from a conservation or 

management perspective. Rather, the 

important information from a 

management perspective in the SAR is 

the number of fishery-caused mortalities 

and serious injuries included in the text 

and the summary table. The ‘‘possible’’

takes are not included in the mortality 

and serious injury attributed to the 

fishery. 

Comment 66: Successful catch 

depredation indicates that there are 

false killer whale interactions with the 

fishery which do not result in mortality 

or significant injury. As written, it is not 

clear whether the take accounted for in 

Figure 3 and/or Table 1 of the draft SAR 

includes this information. 

Response: Forney and Kobyashi, 

2005, clearly explains that only 

interactions resulting in hooking and/or 

entanglement of cetaceans are included, 

not other types of interactions, such as 

depredation. We have added some text 

to the Draft 2006 SAR to clarify this. 

However, NMFS does not intend to 

expand SARs to include every possible 

bit of information related to the affected 

stock of marine mammals. The MMPA 

is clear that certain information is 

required, and NMFS has implemented 

MMPA section 117 to produce concise 

SARs that contain only the brief 

summaries required by the Act. Each 

SAR contains an extensive literature 

cited section so that interested readers 

may obtain more detail than is included 

in the SAR. 

Comment 67: NMFS must explain 

why the estimated mortality and serious 

injury to false killer whales increased in 

the 2006 draft SAR, when the estimated 

overall interactions with the longline 

fishery decreased. To the extent NMFS 

believes the answer lies in maintaining 

a consistent 5–year time period for 

analyzing mortality and serious injury, 

HLA submits that such an approach is 

not reasonable given the rarity of an 

observed false killer whale take. HLA 

believes the more prudent approach is 

to consider observer data from all 11 

years for which it is available in order 

to account for the variable nature of take 

data. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices 12783 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The 

fishery underwent significant regulatory 

modification, including seasons and 

gear, to protect sea turtles beginning in 

2000, and the gear and set 

characteristics of the fishery changed. 

Thus, it would not be appropriate to 

include data for the earlier fishing 

practices. The guidelines for assessing 

marine mammal stocks recommend 

using the most recent 5 years of 

available data to balance the use of 

current information with the need to 

average across multiple years for rarely 

observed events. 

Dated: March 13, 2007. 

James H. Lecky, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–4956 Filed 3–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(Health Affairs)/TRICARE Management 

Activity 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice of a disease management 

demonstration project for TRICARE 

Standard beneficiaries. 

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise 

interested parties of a Military Health 

System (MHS) demonstration project 

entitled Disease Management 

Demonstration Project for TRICARE 

Standard Beneficiaries. Although there 

are many similarities between TRICARE 

Standard and TRICARE Prime as to the 

preventive health care services that may 

be provided in the current benefit, there 

are services that are expressly excluded 

under TRICARE Standard that may be 

offered under TRICARE Prime which 

are the essence of a disease management 

(DM) program. TRICARE currently 

requires the Managed Care Support 

Contractors (MCSCs) to provide 

‘‘disease management services’’ under 

the current contracts, without specific 

guidance. Based upon the current legal 

statutes authorizing preventive health 

care services, TRICARE must conduct a 

demonstration under 10 U.S.C. 1092 in 

order to offer TRICARE Prime benefits 

to TRICARE Standard beneficiaries 

under the DM program already in 

existence. (Section 734 of the John 

Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (henceforth 

NDAA 2007) does not give any broader 

authority than exists today). Under this 

demonstration, disease management 

services will be provided to TRICARE 

Standard beneficiaries as part of the 

current MHS DM programs. The 

demonstration project will enable the 

MHS to provide uniform policies and 

practices on disease and chronic care 

management throughout the TRICARE 

network. Additionally, the 

demonstration will help determine the 

effectiveness of DM programs in 

improving the health status of 

beneficiaries with targeted chronic 

diseases or conditions, and any 

associated cost savings. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 1, 2007. 

This demonstration will remain in effect 

until March 31, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: TRICARE Management 

Activity (TMA), Office of the Chief 

Medical Officer, 5111 Leesburg Pike, 

Suite 810, Falls Church, VA 22041–

3206. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CDR 

Cynthia Gantt, Office of the Chief 

Medical Officer—TRICARE 

Management Activity, telephone (703) 

681–0064. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The Military Health System (MHS) is 

a $33 billion dollar enterprise, 

consisting of 76 military hospitals, over 

500 military health clinics, and an 

extensive network of private sector 

health care partners, which provides 

medical care for over 9 million 

beneficiaries and active duty service 

members. Of these beneficiaries, 

approximately 5 million are classified as 

TRICARE Prime enrollees and 4.2 

million are TRICARE Standard 

participants. 

The MHS is facing significant fiscal 

challenges in the coming years due to 

the rising costs of providing health care, 

coupled with recent expansions to the 

pool of eligible beneficiaries. The MHS 

recognizes these challenges and has 

implemented several new initiatives to 

help control costs. Disease management 

(DM) programs have become popular in 

the private sector as a means to 

accomplish this goal, with varying 

levels of effectiveness having been 

documented. The MHS has the 

opportunity to become a leader in DM, 

due to its population of long term or life 

time eligible beneficiaries and robust 

information systems. 

B. MHS Disease Management Program 

On September 1, 2006, the MHS 

implemented a new DM initiative based 

on a consistent approach across all three 

managed care regions, focusing on 

asthma and congestive heart failure. 

These programs run by the Managed 

Care Support Contractors (MCSCs) 

include beneficiaries from military 

treatment facilities and those seen by 

civilian healthcare providers within the 

TRICARE network. In this revised 

uniform approach to DM, the 

Government, with the assistance of a 

program evaluation contractor, provides 

the MCSCs risk-stratified patient lists 

and conducts a formal evaluation across 

all three Regions using national 

benchmarks. 

TRICARE’s approach to disease 

management is two-fold: (1) Keep the 

well healthy with a focus on healthy 

lifestyles, disease prevention and health 

promotion and (2) maintain an active 

disease management program for high 

risk beneficiaries with specific chronic 

disease conditions. Evidence-based 

clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and 

educational resources developed jointly 

by the Departments of Defense (DoD) 

and Veterans Affairs (VA) are used in 

both the military treatment facility and 

MCSC DM programs. 

The MHS DM program directly 

supports the MHS strategic goal of 

effective patient partnerships by 

advocating the use of evidence-based 

practice guidelines and emphasizing 

patient self management skills. The 

goals of the DM initiatives are to 

improve clinical outcomes, increase 

patient and provider satisfaction, and 

ensure appropriate utilization of 

resources. 

C. Current TRICARE Standard Benefit 

Under 10 U.S.C. 1079(a)(13), 

TRICARE may cost share only services 

or supplies that are medically or 

psychologically necessary to prevent, 

diagnose, or treat a mental or physical 

illness, injury, or bodily malfunction as 

assessed or diagnosed by an authorized 

provider. There is additional statutory 

authority that describes what are 

preventive health care services. Under 

10 U.S.C. 1074d, members and former 

members of the uniformed services are 

entitled to preventive health care 

services including cervical cancer 

screening, breast cancer screening, and 

screening for colon and prostate cancer, 

all at intervals and using methods the 

Secretary considers appropriate. These 

same services are available to them and 

all dependents in MTFs under 10 U.S.C. 

1077(a)(14), and to all covered 

beneficiaries under TRICARE under 10 

U.S.C. 1079(a)(2). Under 10 U.S.C. 

1079(a)(2)(B), other health promotion 

and disease prevention visits for those 

over six years of age are authorized 

under TRICARE Standard only when 

done in connection with immunizations 

or with diagnostic or preventive cancer 

screening tests. (See also, 32 CFR 

199.4(g)(37)). 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES