[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69139-69143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30908]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R9-FHC-2009-N234; 71490-1351-0000-M2-FY10]
Marine Mammal Protection Act; Stock Assessment Report
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of final 2009 revised marine mammal
stock assessment reports for the Pacific walrus stock and two stocks of
polar bears; response to comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
as amended (MMPA), and its implementing regulations, we, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service), announce that we have revised our stock
assessment reports (SARs) for the Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus
divergens) stock and for each of the two polar bear (Ursus maritimus)
stocks in Alaska: The Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear stock and the
Chukchi/Bering Seas polar bear stock, including incorporation of public
comments. We now make these three final 2009 revised SARs available to
the public.
ADDRESSES: To obtain the SARs for the Pacific walrus or either polar
bear stock, see Document Availability under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosa Meehan, Marine Mammals Management
Office, (800) 362-5148 (telephone) or [email protected] (e-
mail).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and its implementing
regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR part 18,
we regulate the taking, transportation, purchasing, selling, offering
for sale, exporting, and importing of marine mammals. One of the MMPA's
goals is to ensure that stocks of marine mammals occurring in waters
under U.S. jurisdiction do not experience a level of human-caused
mortality and serious injury that is likely to cause the stock to be
reduced below its optimum sustainable population level (OSP). OSP is
defined as ``the number of animals which will result in the maximum
productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the
carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of
which they form a constituent element.''
To help accomplish the goal of maintaining marine mammal stocks at
[[Page 69140]]
their OSPs, section 117 of the MMPA requires us and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) to prepare a SAR for each marine mammal stock
that occurs in waters under U.S. jurisdiction. A SAR must be based on
the best scientific information available; therefore, we prepare it in
consultation with established regional scientific review groups. Each
SAR must include: (1) A description of the stock and its geographic
range; (2) a minimum population estimate, maximum net productivity
rate, and current population trend; (3) an estimate of human-caused
mortality and serious injury; (4) a description of commercial fishery
interactions; (5) a categorization of the status of the stock; and (6)
an estimate of the potential biological removal (PBR) level. The PBR is
defined as ``the maximum number of animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while
allowing that stock to reach or maintain its OSP.'' The PBR is the
product of the minimum population estimate of the stock
(Nmin); one-half the maximum theoretical or estimated net
productivity rate of the stock at a small population size
(Rmax); and a recovery factor (Fr) of between 0.1
and 1.0, which is intended to compensate for uncertainty and unknown
estimation errors.
Section 117 of the MMPA also requires us and NMFS to review the
SARs (a) at least annually for stocks that are specified as strategic
stocks, (b) at least annually for stocks for which significant new
information is available, and (c) at least once every 3 years for all
other stocks.
A strategic stock is defined in the MMPA as a marine mammal stock
(a) for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the
PBR; (b) which, based on the best available scientific information, is
declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.;
ESA), within the foreseeable future; or (c) which is listed as a
threatened or endangered species under the ESA, or is designated as
depleted under the MMPA.
Before releasing our draft SARs for public review and comment, we
submitted them for technical review internally and also for scientific
review by the Alaska Regional Scientific Review Group, which was
established under the MMPA. In a June 18, 2009 (74 FR 28946), Federal
Register notice, we made available our draft SARs for the MMPA-required
90-day public review and comment period. Following the close of the
comment period, we revised the SARs based on public comments we
received (see below) and prepared the final 2009 revised SARs. Between
publication of the draft and final SAR for the Pacific walrus, the
estimate of walrus population size resulting from the 2006 survey was
completed, and we revised the SAR using the new information. We have
not revised the status of the Pacific walrus stock itself (i.e.,
strategic). However, as a result of the new analyses, we estimate the
size of the Pacific walrus population as 129,000 individuals within the
surveyed area. This estimate does not account for areas not surveyed,
and is therefore negatively biased to an unknown degree. To compensate
for this bias, we are using our estimate of population size, 129,000,
as Nmin. In response to a comment, we revised Fr
to 0.50. Therefore, the updated estimate of PBR is 2,580. We addressed
other concerns identified in the public comments in the following
section or by adding text to the SAR for clarity. Between publication
of the draft and final SARs for both polar bear stocks, we also have
not revised the status for either, i.e., both are strategic. We
addressed the public comments received in the following section or by
adding text to the SAR for clarity.
The following table summarizes the final 2009 revised SARs for the
Pacific walrus, the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear, and the Chukchi/
Bering Seas polar bear stocks, listing each stock's Nmin,
Rmax, Fr, PBR, annual estimated human-caused
mortality and serious injury, and status.
Table 1--Summary: Final Revised Stock Assessment Reports for the Pacific Walrus, Southern Beaufort Sea Polar
Bear, and Chukchi/Bering Seas Polar Bear
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual estimated
average human-
Stock Nmin Rmax Fr PBR caused mortality Stock status
and serious
injury
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Walrus................ 129,000 0.08 0.5 2,580 4,963-5,460..... Strategic.
Southern Beaufort Sea Polar 1,397 0.0603 0.5 22 33 (Alaska)..... Strategic.
Bear. 21 (Canada).....
Chukchi/Bering Seas Polar Bear 2,000 0.0603 0.5 30 37 (Alaska)..... Strategic.
--(Russia)......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document Availability
Final Revised SARs for Pacific Walrus, Southern Beaufort Sea Polar
Bear, and Chukchi/Bering Seas Polar Bear
You may obtain copies by any one of the following methods:
Internet: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/walrus/reports.htm (for the walrus stock) and http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/reports.htm (for both polar bear stocks).
Write to or visit (during normal business hours from 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday) the Chief, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management Office, 1011 East Tudor
Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; telephone: (800) 362-3800.
Responding to Public Comments
Pacific Walrus
We received five sets of comments on the draft Pacific walrus SAR
(74 FR 28946). We present issues raised in those comments, along with
our responses, below.
Comment 1: The Service should complete analysis of the 2006 walrus
survey data as soon as possible, and use a final estimate of Pacific
walrus population size for the stock assessment report.
Response: The estimate of walrus population size resulting from the
2006 survey has been completed, and the stock assessment report has
been revised using the new information.
Comment 2: The population estimate will not be meaningful without
accounting for the numbers of walrus in areas not surveyed, hauled out
on land, and in the water, and the SAR should state that the estimate
``is negatively biased to an unknown degree,'' and that the bias is
most likely quite large.
Response: The estimate of walrus population size resulting from the
2006 survey accounts for individuals in the water. During April, when
the aerial survey took place, virtually the entire population of
Pacific walrus uses sea ice habitats, and few if any haul out on land
[[Page 69141]]
at that time. The 2006 estimate does not account for areas not
surveyed, and the Service therefore recognizes that the estimate is
negatively biased to an unknown degree. This is stated in the stock
assessment report.
Comment 3: If a final estimate of population size resulting from a
complete analysis of the 2006 survey data is not available, the
``Minimum Population Estimate'' section should read as follows: ``A
reliable minimum population estimate (Nmin) for this stock
can not presently be determined because current reliable estimates of
abundance are not available.''
Response: Results of the 2006 survey are now available. An
estimated 129,000 Pacific walrus were found within the surveyed area.
This estimate does not account for areas not surveyed, and is therefore
negatively biased to an unknown degree. To counterbalance this bias, we
are using our estimate of population size, 129,000, as Nmin
for the Pacific walrus stock assessment report. This provides
reasonable assurance that the stock size is equal to or greater than
the estimate.
Comment 4: The use of a recovery factor of 1.0 is too high, and
assumes the stock is stable; a recovery factor of 0.50 for unknown
status should be used instead.
Response: Results of the 2006 walrus survey, in combination with
other estimates of walrus population size and sources of information on
walrus, do not provide a definitive basis for determining Pacific
walrus population status. We agree that status of the population should
be considered ``unknown,'' and have reduced the recovery factor to
0.50.
Comment 5: If a final estimate of population size resulting from a
complete analysis of the 2006 survey data is not available, the
``Potential Biological Removal'' section should read as follows:
``However, because a reliable estimate of minimum abundance
(Nmin) is currently not available, the PBR for this stock is
unknown.''
Response: The Service used the 2006 estimate of population size of
129,000 for Nmin. This provides reasonable assurance that
the stock size is equal to or greater than the estimate, and is
therefore a reasonable basis for estimating PBR.
Comment 6: The draft report contained a population estimate that
was only a snapshot of walrus population size in a certain area in a
certain period of time, and does not support determination of PBR.
Response: The Service acknowledges the shortcomings of the 2006
estimate of Pacific walrus population size. However, the 2006 estimate
remains the best scientific information available at this time, as
specified under Section 117 of the MMPA.
Comment 7: The PBR value of 607 is so low in relation to harvested
numbers that it cannot be correct, or there would be no walrus
remaining.
Response: We recalculated an estimate for PBR using the revised
Nmin of 129,000 and revised Fr of 0.50. The
estimate of Rmax remained the same at 0.08. These revisions
yielded an estimated PBR of 2,580, which is greater than the
preliminary estimate in the draft stock assessment report. Estimated
total human-caused removals of 4,963-5,460 walrus per year are higher
than estimated PBR. However, estimated PBR is not the appropriate
mechanism for assessing the sustainability of the subsistence harvest.
Comment 8: Take is above PBR, so the Service should promptly begin
a status review of the Pacific walrus under 16 U.S.C. 1383b(a) to
determine whether the stock may warrant listing as ``depleted,'' and
whether rulemaking pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1371(b) is warranted.
Response: In February 2008, the Service received a petition to list
the Pacific walrus as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The 90-
day finding on this petition was published in the Federal Register on
September 10, 2009 (74 FR 46548), and found that there was substantial
information in the petition to indicate that listing the Pacific walrus
under the ESA may be warranted. The Service has initiated a status
review of the Pacific walrus to determine whether the stock should be
listed under the ESA. If the species is listed under the ESA, it is
considered depleted under the MMPA. The finding on the merits of the
listing petition will be published in the Federal Register on or before
September 10, 2010.
Comment 9: The Pacific walrus should not be declared a
``strategic'' stock until a final estimate of walrus population size is
completed.
Response: The estimate of walrus population size resulting from the
2006 survey has been completed, and we revised the stock assessment
report using the new information. PBR was re-estimated using the
revised Nmin of 129,000; the revised Fr of 0.50;
and the same estimate of Rmax, 0.08. The revisions yielded
an estimated PBR of 2,580. The estimated level of total direct human-
caused mortality is 4,963-5,460 walrus per year, which exceeds the
estimated PBR level. Therefore, the Pacific walrus is classified as
strategic as defined under the MMPA.
Comment 10: Information provided in Garlich-Miller et al. (2006)
regarding the use of population information derived from harvested
walruses (e.g., age at harvest, fecundity, age at first reproduction)
to evaluate population status should be included in the assessment of
population status.
Response: Information provided in Garlich-Miller et al. 2006 is
equivocal regarding population status, and text has been updated in the
stock assessment to make this clearer.
Comment 11: The Service should state the variances and biases of
all walrus surveys from 1975 through 1990 in the SAR.
Response: Many scientific articles have been published on
estimating walrus population size, including survey methods, sources of
variation, and sources of bias. Surveys from 1975, 1980, 1985, and 1990
do not have estimates of variance associated with the total population
estimate, because part of each estimate was derived from highest counts
of walruses using terrestrial haulouts, for which variance cannot be
estimated. Biases for most surveys are simply unknown. For the
interested reader, Table 1 in the SAR cites the original sources of
literature for each U.S.-Russia joint estimate of walrus population
size. Other summary works are cited in the ``Population Size'' section
of the SAR.
Comment 12: How many walrus were not counted in the unsurveyed
areas?
Response: To date, the Service has not attempted to estimate the
number of walrus in areas that were not surveyed in 2006. However, the
Service is considering how this might be done. Once completed, this
analysis would be used to update future Pacific walrus SARs.
Comment 13: The new method used to count walrus and make an
estimate is no better than the method used before.
Response: The 2006 walrus survey covered more area than earlier
surveys, more accurately estimated numbers of walrus in groups,
accounted for the probability of detecting groups of different sizes,
accounted for the proportion of the population that was in the water,
and fully quantified the uncertainty associated with the estimation
process. It produced the most accurate estimation of Pacific walrus
population size to date. However, other longstanding issues were still
problematic, such as the extreme spatial and temporal aggregation of
this species on ice, the vast ice-covered area it inhabits, and
severity of weather.
[[Page 69142]]
Discussions of methods for future efforts to estimate Pacific walrus
population size are ongoing.
Comment 14: Destruction of walrus by the U.S. Navy is not being
regulated.
Response: The Service is not aware of any cases of walrus
destruction by the U.S. Navy.
Comment 15: The estimates of take by commercial fisheries
identified in the SAR are inaccurate by at least 50 percent because we
do not receive reports from Russian commercial fisheries.
Response: In accordance with the MMPA, NMFS is required to place
all U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on the
level of serious injury and mortality of marine mammals that occur
incidental to that fishery. Any vessel owner or operator or gear owner
or operator participating under these categories must report to NMFS
all incidental injuries and mortalities that occur during commercial
fishing operations. The Service used information from these reports,
which are provided to us by NMFS, to estimate take by commercial
fisheries in the preparation of the SAR for the Alaska stock of Pacific
walrus. We acknowledge the limitations of the data; however, this
constitutes the best available scientific information. A complete list
of fisheries and marine mammal interactions is published annually by
NMFS, the most recent of which was published on December 1, 2008 (73 FR
73032).
Comment 16: The Service should explain the calculations for
estimating the total number harvested in more detail.
Response: Information about the subsistence harvest is collected
through several observer programs. We have added information to the SAR
to clarify this point.
Comment 17: The Service should state that Fay et al. (1994) used
data collected between 1952 and 1972, and that changes may have
occurred over the last 35 years that would result in the need to re-
evaluate the struck and lost rate of 42 percent.
Response: We agree with this comment, and the stock assessment text
has been revised accordingly. However, we continue to use the value of
42 percent estimated by Fay et al. (1994) because it is the only
estimate available and, therefore, the best available scientific
information for preparation of the SAR.
Polar Bear
We received four sets of comments on the draft polar bear SARs (74
FR 28946). We present issues raised in those comments, along with our
responses, below.
Southern Beaufort Sea Polar Bear
Comment 1: The Service should reassess all relevant data on polar
bear distribution and movements to determine the eastern boundary of
the Southern Beaufort Sea stock in the most scientifically credible
manner and then reassess the minimum population estimate to account for
the new stock boundary.
Response: A new population estimate could be determined once the
new eastern boundary for the Southern Beaufort Sea is determined and
agreed upon by the Board of Commissioners for the Inuvialuit/Inupiat
Agreement. However, this decision has not been made and given the
current staffing and previous commitments by the polar bear program of
U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, a new analysis cannot be
done in a timely manner. In addition, boundaries for many of the polar
bear populations may be changing in response to changes in the sea ice
habitat. Thus we chose to use the old boundary for the Southern
Beaufort Sea SAR at this time.
Comment 2: The Service should revise downward its estimate of
maximum net productivity rate for this population to reflect ongoing
and predicted changes in polar bear habitat that will prevent polar
bear stock from achieving growth rates that might be expected in a
favorable environment.
Response: Currently there is not enough data to estimate maximum
net productivity rate (Rmax) based on ongoing and predicted
changes in the sea ice habitat. Thus we used the best scientific
information available for Rmax.
Comment 3: The Service should work with the North Slope Borough,
the Inuvialuit Game Council, and the Canadian authorities to review
whether the current harvest limits for this population are sustainable
and consider whether they should be reduced.
Our Response: We have made recommendations that the current harvest
limits should be reduced.
Comment 4: The second paragraph states that the boundaries
delineated by Bethke et al. (1996) will continue to be used for the
Southern Beaufort Sea SAR. However, prior to that statement there is
substantial information presented pertinent to boundary considerations,
yet Bethke et al. is not mentioned.
Response: We corrected the citation from Bethke et al. (1996) to
Amstrup et al. (2000) and added a sentence referring to the southern
boundary, which was based on Bethke et al. (1996).
Comment 5: For the Southern Beaufort Sea stock, revise the last
sentence such that the estimate from Regehr et al. 2006 is recognized
as the most current and valid estimate of abundance to use in
calculating Nmin.
Response: We revised the sentence accordingly. The discussion of
Nmin in the last paragraph in the ``Population Size''
section of the SAR clearly states that the population estimate of 1,526
was used in the calculation.
Comment 6: The last sentence in the Chukchi/Bering Seas SAR states
that ``Harvest levels are not limited at this time.'' If this also
applies to the Southern Beaufort Sea stock, it should be included; if
it does not, the means by which the harvest is limited should be
presented.
Response: The harvest for the Southern Beaufort Sea has been
actively managed since the passage of the Polar Bear Agreement for the
Southern Beaufort Sea between the Inuvialuit of Canada and the Inupiat
in the United States (Alaska) in 1988. Using Maximum Sustained Yield
Method (Taylor et al. 1987) and a two-to-one male-to-female sex ratio
in the harvest, a sustainable yield was calculated for the Southern
Beaufort Sea population. The average annual harvest level since 1988
(56.9) has been well below the sustainable harvest of 80 bears (40 for
the United States and 40 for Canada) since 1988. To minimize confusion
with the discussion of PBR, we did not include this information in the
SAR.
Comment 7: The recent harvest levels are above PBR, and thus the
Service should discuss the effects of the harvest on the population and
the potential for recovery in the section Conservation Issues and
Concerns--Subsistence Harvest. The Service should mention the
management agreements that are in place to determine sustainable
harvest levels if PBR is not used.
Response: We added a paragraph at the end of this section to
clarify the concern of overharvest with a declining population and how
the quota is managed relative to PBR. The estimated PBR is not the
appropriate mechanism for assessing the sustainability of the
subsistence harvest.
Chukchi/Bering Seas Polar Bear
Comment 8: The Service should give its highest priority to reaching
an agreement with Russia on a joint strategy to determine the status of
this stock, identify current levels of productivity in major denning
areas, and establish a management and research program to monitor this
stock.
Response: The first meeting of the commissioners for the U.S/Russia
[[Page 69143]]
Bilateral Agreement for the conservation of the polar bears occurred in
Moscow, Russia in September, 2009. The Scientific Working Group, which
is established under this Bilateral Agreement, will make
recommendations on management and research needs to the four
commissioners.
Comment 9: The Service should provide an explanation as to why it
believes that 2,000 can be used as the best population estimate as well
as the minimum population size.
Response: The population estimate of 2,000 is based on extrapolated
den data and is over 10 years old. Although this number is not
considered reliable for management purposes, it is currently the best
scientific information available for these calculations.
Comment 10: The Service should revise downward its estimate of the
maximum net productivity rate for this population to reflect ongoing
and predicted changes in polar bear habitat that will prevent polar
bear stocks from achieving growth rates that might be expected in a
favorable environment.
Response: See response to Comment 2 for the Southern Beaufort Sea
SAR.
Comment 11: The Service should use the first meeting of the United
States-Russia Polar Bear Commission to address the over harvest of this
stock.
Response: This is one of the action items assigned to the
Scientific Working Group, which will make recommendations to the
Bilateral Commission in 2010.
Comment 12: The Service should mention that since the stock is now
considered depleted under the MMPA, the Federal Government now has
authority to regulate harvest levels.
Response: Although we concur with the above statement, the Service
would rather work through the U.S. Russia Bilateral Agreement for the
Conservation of Polar Bears to develop management and research
priorities, including guidelines for determining appropriate harvest
levels for this population stock. We believe that working cooperatively
with our Russian colleagues will result in a more effective management
strategy for this population.
Additional References Cited
Pacific Walrus
Acquarone, M., E.W. Born, and J.R. Speakman. 2006. Field
metabolic rates of walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) measured by doubly
labeled water method. Aquatic Mammals 32: 363-369.
Born, E. W., M. Acquarone, L.[Oslash]. Knutsen, and L. Toudal.
2005. Homing behaviour in an Atlantic walrus (Odobenus rosmarus
rosmarus). Aquatic Mammals 31: 23-33.
Born, E.W. and L.[Oslash]. Knutsen. 1997. Haul-out and diving
activity of male Atlantic walruses (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) in
NE Greenland. Journal of Zoology 243: 381-396.
Braham H.W., J.J. Burns, G.A. Fedoseev, and B.D. Krogman. 1984.
Habitat partitioning by ice-associated pinnipeds: distribution and
density of seals and walruses in the Bering sea, April 1976. Pages
25-47 in F.H. Fay, G.A. Fedoseev, eds. Soviet-American Cooperative
Research on Marine Mammals. Vol. 1. Pinnipeds. NOAA Technical
Report. NMFS 12.
Burn, D., M.S. Udevitz, S.G. Speckman, and R.B. Benter. 2009. An
improved procedure for detection and enumeration of walrus
signatures in airborne thermal imagery. International Journal of
Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 11:324-333.
Fay, F.H. 1957. History and present status of the Pacific walrus
population. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference
22:431-445.
Fay, F.H., B.P Kelly, P.H. Gehnrich, J.L. Sease, and A.A. Hoover.
1986. Modern populations, migrations, demography, trophics, and
historical status of the Pacific walrus. U.S. Department of
Commerce, NOAA, Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Impact
Assessment Program, Final Reports of Principal Investigators 37:
231-376. NOAA, National Ocean Service, Anchorage, Alaska.
Fay, F.H. and S.W. Stoker. 1982a. Analysis of reproductive organs
and stomach contents from walruses taken in the Alaskan native
harvest, spring 1980. Final Report contract 14-16-0007-81-5216. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 86pp.
Fay, F.H. and S.W. Stoker. 1982b. Reproductive success and feeding
habits of walruses taken in the 1982 spring harvest, with
comparisons from previous years. Eskimo Walrus Commission, Nome, AK.
91pp.
Fedoseev, G.A. 1979. Material on aerovisual observations on
distribution and abundance of ice forms of seals, walruses, and
migrating whales in the ice of the Bering Sea in spring 1979. Pages
17-44 in Scientific Investigations of Marine Mammals in the Northern
Part of the Pacific Ocean in 1978 and 1979. All-Union Scientific
Investigational Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography
(VNIRO), Moscow. In Russian.
Fedoseev, G.A., E.V. Razlivalov, and G.G. Bobrova. 1988.
Distribution and abundance of ice forms of pinnipeds on ice of the
Bering Sea in April and May 1987. Pages 44-70 in Scientific
Investigations of Marine Mammals in the Northern Part of the Pacific
Ocean in 1986 and 1987. All-Union Scientific Investigational
Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (VNIRO), Moscow. In
Russian.
Garlich-Miller, J.L., L.T. Quakenbush, and J.F. Bromaghin. 2006.
Trends in age structure and productivity of Pacific walruses
harvested in the Bering Strait region of Alaska, 1952-2002. Marine
Mammal Science 22:880-896.
Gol'tsev, V.N. 1976. Aerial surveys of Pacific walrus in the Soviet
sector during fall 1975. Procedural Report TINRO, Magadan, USSR. 22
pp. Translated by J.J. Burns and the U.S. State Department.
Gjertz, I., D. Griffiths, B.A. Krafft, C. Lydersen, and [Oslash]
Wiig. 2001. Diving and haul-out patterns of walruses Odobenus
rosmarus on Svalbard. Polar Biology 24: 314-319.
Jay, C.V., S.D. Farley, and G.W. Garner. 2001. Summer diving
behavior of male walruses in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Marine Mammal
Science 17:617-631.
Krogman, B.D., H.W. Braham, R.M. Sontag, and R.G. Punsley. 1979.
Early spring distribution, density, and abundance of the Pacific
walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens). Final Report, Contract No.
R7120804, NOAA Outer Continental Shelf, Environmental Assessment
Program, Juneau Project Office, Juneau, AK. 47 pp.
Lydersen, C., J. Aars, and K.M. Kovacs. 2008. Estimating the number
of walruses in Svalbard from aerial surveys and behavioral data from
satellite telemetry. Arctic 61:119-128.
NMFS. 2005. Revisions to Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammals
Stocks. 24 pp. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/gamms2005.pdf.
Ovsyanikov, N.G., L.L. Bove, and A.A. Kochnev. 1994. Causes of mass
mortality of walruses on coastal haulouts. Zoologichesky Zhurnal
73:80-87.
Speckman, S.G., V.I. Chernook, D.M. Burn, M.S. Udevitz, A.A.
Kochnev, A. Vasilev, C.V. Jay, A. Lisovsky, R.B. Benter, and A.S.
Fischbach. In prep. Estimated size of the Pacific walrus population,
2006.
Authority: The authority for this action is the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et al.).
Dated: December 14, 2009.
Sam Hamilton,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E9-30908 Filed 12-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P