Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 38991 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 9, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments by the following method: 

• Email: nmfs.gar.efp@noaa.gov. 

Include in the subject line ‘‘Nordic 

Scallop Transplanting EFP.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shannah Jaburek, Fishery Management 

Specialist, shannah.jaburek@noaa.gov, 

(978) 281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Nordic, 

Inc. submitted a complete application 

for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) to 

conduct commercial fishing activities 

that the regulations would otherwise 

restrict. This EFP would exempt the 

participating vessels from: Day-at-sea 

requirements at 50 CFR 648.53; crew 

size restrictions at § 648.51(c); scallop 

fishing restrictions in the Nantucket 

Lightship Closed Area—South at 

§ 648.60(g); scallop trawl restrictions at 

§ 648.51(a)(1) and (f); scallop dredge 

restrictions at § 648.51(b)(2) and (b)(3); 

and minimum size and possession 

restrictions for onboard sampling and 

scallop transplanting in § 648 subparts B 

and D through O. 

Nordic, Inc., Eastern Fisheries, Quinn 

Fisheries, and Fulcher Trawling applied 

for an EFP on April 22, 2021, to work 

with the Coonamessett Farm 

Foundation (CFF) on a scallop 

transplanting study. This project would 

continue previous scallop transplanting 

work done by CFF and investigate the 

feasibility of using scallop transplanting 

to increase scallop growth by moving 

them from deep, scallop dense areas to 

shallower, less populated areas. 

The proposed EFP would allow 

Nordic, Inc. and CFF to transplant 

750,000 scallops in the Nantucket 

Lightship Access Area-South with 

trawls and a dredge. A subsample of the 

catch would be tagged (i.e., 10,000 

scallops), along with a subsample of 

previously transplanted scallops caught 

in the proposed research area. 

Transplanting work would begin when 

an EFP is issued, and monitoring of the 

harvest and transplant areas would 

occur during scallop Research Set-Aside 

(RSA) funded surveys conducted by 

CFF, the Virginia Institute of 

Technology, and the University of 

Massachusetts at Dartmouth School of 

Marine Science and Technology. 

CFF would provide scientific staff to 

oversee transplant operations, tag 

scallops, and collect data during field 

operations. Scallops would be harvested 

by a commercial scalloping vessel that 

already preformed transplanting 

operations. Four vessels would harvest 

scallops with a two-panel box net towed 

between 2.5 and 3.5 knots (4.6 and 6.5 

km per hour) for 10 minutes per tow. 

These vessels would steam to the 

transplant area with the trawl doors 

closed and the net remaining in the 

water. One vessel would harvest 

scallops by towing two, 4.57-meter wide 

New Bedford style dredges for 10 

minutes per tow. No catch will be 

landed for sale. 

Once catch is brought on board, it 

would be sorted by size, marked, and 

stored in cooled fish totes. A subsample 

of scallops would be tagged with disc 

tags. Tagging would occur between dusk 

and dawn to minimize mortality. 

Scallops would be released overboard at 

the transplanting area. 

If approved, the applicant may 

request minor modifications and 

extensions to the EFP throughout the 

year. EFP modifications and extensions 

may be granted without further notice if 

they are deemed essential to facilitate 

completion of the proposed research 

and have minimal impacts that do not 

change the scope or impact of the 

initially approved EFP request. Any 

fishing activity conducted outside the 

scope of the exempted fishing activity 

would be prohibited. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: July 20, 2021. 

Jennifer M. Wallace, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15725 Filed 7–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XA349] 

2020 Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessment Reports 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; response to comments. 

SUMMARY: As required by the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 

has considered public comments for 

revisions of the 2020 marine mammal 

stock assessment reports (SAR). This 

notice announces the availability of 80 

final 2020 SARs that were updated and 

finalized. NMFS also announces the 

availability of a revised final 2019 North 

Atlantic right whale SAR that includes 

a typographic correction. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of SARs 

are available on the internet as regional 

compilations and separated by 

individual species/stocks at the 

following addresses, respectively: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports-region https://www.fisheries.

noaa.gov/national/marine-mammalprotection/marine-mammal-stockassessment-reports-species-stock. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Zachary Schakner, Office of Science and 

Technology, 301–427–8106, 

Zachary.Schakner@noaa.gov; Marcia 

Muto, 206–526–4026, Marcia.Muto@

noaa.gov, regarding Alaska regional 

stock assessments; Elizabeth Josephson, 

508–495–2362, Elizabeth.Josephson@

noaa.gov, regarding Atlantic, Gulf of 

Mexico, and Caribbean regional stock 

assessments; or Jim Carretta, 858–546– 

7171, Jim.Carretta@noaa.gov, regarding 

Pacific regional stock assessments. 

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, including the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ). These reports 

must contain information regarding the 

distribution and abundance of the stock, 

population growth rates and trends, 

estimates of annual human-caused 

Mortality and Serious Injury (M/SI) 

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 three years for 

non-strategic stocks. The term ‘‘strategic 

stock’’ means a marine mammal stock: 

(A) For which the level of direct humancaused mortality exceeds the potential 

biological removal level or PBR (defined 

by the MMPA 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 

optimum sustainable population (OSP)); 

(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 (ESA) within the foreseeable future; 

or (C) which is listed as a threatened 

species or endangered species under the 

ESA. NMFS and the FWS are required 

to revise a SAR if the status of the stock 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
38992 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 

has changed or can be more accurately 

determined. 

Prior to public review, the updated 

SARs under NMFS’ jurisdiction are 

peer-reviewed within NMFS Fisheries 

Science Centers and by members of 

three regional independent Scientific 

Review Groups (SRG), established under 

the MMPA to independently advise 

NMFS on information and uncertainties 

related to the status of marine mammals. 

The period covered by the 2020 SARs 

is 2014–2018. NMFS reviewed all 

strategic stock SARs and others as 

appropriate and updated 80 SARs 

representing 84 stocks in the Alaska, 

Atlantic, and Pacific regions to 

incorporate new information. The 2020 

revisions to the SARs consist primarily 

of updated or revised estimates of 

human-caused M/SI new stock names, 

new methodology and updated 

abundance estimates. Four stocks 

changed status from ‘‘non-strategic’’ to 

‘‘strategic’’ (Eastern Bering Sea beluga 

whale, Gulf of Mexico spinner dolphin, 

Gulf of Mexico striped dolphin, and 

Gulf of Mexico Clymene dolphin). 

The revised draft 2020 SARs were 

made available for public review and 

comment for 90 days (85 FR 78307, 

December 4, 2020). NMFS received 

comments on the draft 2020 SARs 

through March 8, 2021 and has revised 

the reports as necessary. This notice 

announces the availability of 80 final 

2020 reports, which are available on 

NMFS’ website (see ADDRESSES). The 

Gulf of Maine humpback whale SAR 

was not finalized because of a technical 

error; the corrected report will be 

published in a subsequent SAR cycle. 

NMFS also announces the availability of 

the revised final 2019 NARW SAR that 

includes a typographic correction. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received letters containing 

comments on the draft 2020 SARs from 

the Marine Mammal Commission 

(Commission); Department of Fisheries 

and Oceans Canada (DFO); Makah 

Indian Tribe (Makah); Western Pacific 

Regional Fishery Management Council 

(WPRFMC); Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC); two fishing industry 

associations (Hawaii Longline 

Association (HLA) and Maine 

Lobstermen’s Association (MLA)); and a 

coalition comment letter from four nongovernmental organizations (Center for 

Biological Diversity, Whale and Dolphin 

Conservation, Conservation Council for 

Hawai’i, and Conservation Law 

Foundation, referred to hereafter as ‘‘the 

Coalition’’). Responses to substantive 

comments are below; responses to 

comments not related to the SARs are 

not included. Comments suggesting 

editorial or minor clarifying changes 

were incorporated in the reports, but 

they are not included in the summary of 

comments and responses. In some cases, 

NMFS’ responses state that comments 

would be considered or incorporated in 

future revisions of the SARs rather than 

being incorporated into the final 2020 

SARs. 

Comments on National Issues 

Comment 1: The Coalition notes that 

the MMPA requires that NMFS revise 

stock assessments for strategic stocks 

annually and comments that the public 

is not able to timely contribute to the 

SARs. For those stocks, which are 

especially important to conserve, the 

public is not able to timely contribute to 

the SARs. The publication of the draft 

SARs is same month as the Scientific 

Review Groups are reviewing the draft 

2021 marine mammal SARs and the 

coalition commented that undermines 

the public’s ability to participate in a 

meaningful manner. 

Response: The MMPA requires NMFS 

to review, not revise, SARs at least 

annually for strategic stocks and stocks 

for which significant new information is 

available. Following this review, NMFS 

revises SARs as necessary. We 

acknowledge and agree with this 

comment regarding the importance of 

following the SAR process timeline so 

the current year’s draft SARs do not 

overlap with the final SARs from the 

previous year. Unfortunately, the 

publication of the draft 2020 SARs was 

delayed until the end of the year, largely 

due to the impacts of the ongoing 

COVID–19 pandemic. The public 

comment period of 90 days, however, 

remained unchanged. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

continues to be concerned about NMFS’ 

performance in meeting several of the 

requirements of Section 117 of the 

MMPA. Without a minimum abundance 

estimate (Nmin) derived from recent 

data, PBR cannot be calculated and is 

considered ‘‘unknown.’’ Including the 

revised 2020 draft SARs, the 

Commission comments that an Nmin 

estimate is lacking for 81 of the 252, or 

32 percent of identified stocks. The lack 

of data for over one third of the stocks 

recognized by NMFS is a serious 

shortcoming in meeting statutory 

obligations. The Commission reiterates 

its recommendation that NMFS 

continue its efforts to prioritize and 

coordinate requests to secure the 

necessary survey resources across 

regions. 

Response: We acknowledge the 

Commission’s comment and will 

continue to prioritize our efforts for the 

collection of data to address outdated 

Nmin estimates, as resources allow. 

Comment 3: The Commission notes 

that in a few of the individual SARs 

(e.g., Eastern North Pacific gray whale, 

CA/WA/OR fin whale, and all of the 

Northeast stocks), M/SI data are lumped 

for the five-year analysis period. The 

Commission feels strongly that M/SI 

data should be presented individually 

for each year of the analysis period, and 

comments that the detection of shortterm trends or extreme events affecting 

M/SI are difficult to discern if five-year 

averages are the only data available. The 

Commission recommends that NMFS 

present estimates for each year of a fiveyear analysis period for all SARs with 

M/SI data. 

Response: For two of the stocks 

highlighted by the Commission (Eastern 

North Pacific gray whale and CA/WA/ 

OR fin whales), the number of observed 

bycatch events in the most-recent fiveyear period (one and zero respectively) 

are highlighted in the SAR bycatch table 

for the California swordfish drift gillnet 

fishery that is observed annually. For 

the sake of visual simplicity in the SAR 

(rather than parsing out five zeros or 

four zeros and a one), these data are 

pooled into a five-year time frame and 

individual annual totals may be found 

in supporting citations (bycatch and 

serious injury reports). In cases where 

there has been a large spike in bycatch, 

or major changes in fishery effort or 

observer coverage, these details are 

reflected in the SAR text. Where MS/I 

data are collected opportunistically 

from strandings or at-sea sightings, the 

five-year sum of observed totals is 

assessed against PBR and individual 

year data is published in annual serious 

injury reports. We agree that in some 

cases where observer coverage is 

sporadic or highly-variable within a 

five-year period, parsing out such 

annual data may be useful to highlight 

potential data gaps or changes in 

bycatch levels. However, these benefits 

are outweighed by the costs of parsing 

and presenting annual data that is prone 

to high levels of statistical noise. 

Comments on Alaska Issues 

Comment 4: Over the past decade, the 

Commission has repeatedly 

recommended that NMFS, in 

collaboration with its co-management 

partners, improve its monitoring and 

reporting of subsistence hunting in 

Alaska. While there have been 

improvements in the number of 

communities reporting take levels for 

some ice seals in the SARs in recent 

years, the majority of communities that 

hunt or may hunt ice seals are still 

unaccounted for. Therefore, the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 38993 

Commission continues to recommend 

that NMFS pursue additional 

mechanisms to gather reliable 

information on the numbers of marine 

mammals taken for subsistence and 

handicraft purposes, including by 

securing adequate funding for 

comprehensive surveys of subsistence 

use and Native hunting effort in 

collaboration with co-management 

partners and the State of Alaska. 

Further, the Commission encourages 

NMFS to continue to provide updated 

information in the SARs whenever it 

becomes available, even if it pertains 

only to a limited number of villages or 

a subset of years. The Commission has 

previously recommended that NMFS 

include all available data about harvest 

numbers, including struck and lost, in 

the SARs for beluga whales, and that 

NMFS work with the Alaska Beluga 

Whale Committee to improve the 

completeness of and consistency in 

reporting harvest data, with a focus on 

struck and lost information for these 

stocks. The Commission understands 

that, in response to a recommendation 

from the Alaska SRG, struck and lost 

numbers will be included in the final 

2020 SARs and the Commission looks 

forward to seeing those numbers. 

Response: NMFS agrees that it is 

important to collect reliable information 

on the numbers of marine mammals 

taken for subsistence and handicraft 

purposes. Funding for subsistence use 

surveys remains limited; thus, in most 

cases, the best available data are not 

comprehensive. Nevertheless, we 

continue to work with our Alaska 

Native co-management partners (and the 

State of Alaska in some cases) to 

conduct surveys of subsistence use as 

resources allow, including animals 

struck and lost, and we incorporate that 

information into the SARs as it becomes 

available. 

Comment 5: The Coalition 

emphasizes that, in the Humpback 

Whale, Central North Pacific Stock SAR, 

the section on habitat concerns should 

include Currie et al. (2021), which 

showed that in the presence of vessels, 

humpback whales increase swim speed 

and respiration rate and decrease dive 

times, which has been shown to be an 

energetically demanding avoidance 

strategy. In order to ensure recovery to 

OSP, the Coalition comments that the 

SARs must include non-lethal effects of 

human disturbance, as described in 

Currie et al. (2021) and believes that 

recording those interactions is a first 

step toward assessing and mitigating the 

severity of impact. The Coalition also 

requests that the Habitat Concerns 

section include the increasing overlap 

between whales and high 

concentrations of marine debris. 

Response: NMFS has added 

information on (1) the behavioral 

responses of humpback whales to vessel 

presence in Southeast Alaska and 

Hawaii (Schuler et al. 2019, Currie et al. 

2021), and (2) the overlap between 

humpback whales and high 

concentrations of marine debris (Currie 

et al. 2017) to the Habitat Concerns 

section of the final 2020 Central North 

Pacific humpback whale SAR. 

Comments on Atlantic Issues 

North Atlantic Right Whale, Western 

Atlantic Stock 

Comment 6: Department of Fisheries 

and Oceans Canada (DFO) notes that 

Entanglement Mortality #3893 (1/22/ 

2018) was discovered on a U.S. beach 

(1/22/2018) with no gear recovered but 

was assigned to Canada. DFO is not 

aware of any conclusive evidence to 

support this death being attributed to 

Canada. 

Response: NMFS thanks the reviewer 

for the detailed examination of 

individual cases. Gear was recovered 

from #3893 and identified as Canadian 

snow crab fishing gear. 

Comment 7: DFO comments on 

Entanglement Prorated Injury #3312, 

which was sighted in Canadian waters 

(7/13/2018) with no gear recovered and 

then assigned to Canada (CN). 

Entanglement Prorated Injury #3843 was 

sighted in Canadian waters (7/30/2018), 

also with no gear recovered, and it was 

unassigned as a first sighting in Canada 

(XC). DFO is not aware of any 

conclusive evidence to suggest that 

#3312 would reasonably be assigned to 

Canada. Moreover, a seemingly similar 

case of Entanglement Prorated Injury in 

U.S. waters (12/20/2018, #2310, 

Nantucket, MA), where there was also 

no gear recovered but was first sighted 

in the United States, is marked as 

unassigned (XU). 

Response: Entanglement Prorated 

Injury #3312 was sighted in Canada 

earlier in the day on 7/13/2018 gear free. 

NMFS determined the entanglement 

occurred within a 2-hour window that 

day, thus it was assigned to CN. The 

other two whales sighted as examples 

had pre-entanglement sighting histories 

>1 month; therefore, there was much 

more uncertainty about when and where 

the entanglement may have occurred. 

Comment 8: DFO comments on the 

summary in Table 3. Confirmed humancaused M/SI records of right whales: 

2014–2018a assigns a 1.55 average M/SI 

over 5 years due to entanglement to 

Canada. Looking at the incidents in the 

table marked EN (entanglement) CN 

(Canada) there are 6.75 incidents (4 

mortalities + 2 serious injuries + 0.75 

prorated injury), resulting in an average 

of 1.35 per year rather than 1.55. The 

discrepancy is carried over from the 

2019 draft SAR, when #3694 mortality 

was assigned to Canada. However, in 

response to DFO’s comment related to 

the mortality assignment of #3694 

(published 85 FR 149; August 3, 2020.), 

the entry for #3694 was changed from 

CN (assigned to Canada) to XC 

(Unassigned first sighted in Canada) in 

the final 2019 North Atlantic right 

whale Stock Assessment Report. DFO 

points out that the total counts have not 

been updated in the summary for the 

2020 draft SAR. 

Response: Right whale #3694 was 

changed from XU (unassigned, first 

sighted in US) to CN in the 2019 draft 

that went out for public comment based 

on identification of the gear as Canadian 

snow crab gear. In the conversion from 

draft to final, this was inadvertently 

changed to XC (unassigned, first sighted 

in Canada). A correction has been 

issued and we have made the changes 

to the final 2019 report which is now 

available. Summary statistics have also 

been corrected in the final 2020 report. 

Comment 9: DFO is not aware of any 

conclusive evidence used in assigning 

the following to Canada: Serious Injury 

#4057 (8/13/2016) and Serious Injury 

#4094 (07/19/2017). 

Response: The gear involved with 

Serious Injury #4057 (8/13/2016) was 

identified as Canadian crab pot by DFO. 

For Serious Injury #4094 (07/19/2017), 

the gear was identified as Canadian crab 

pot in Daoust et al. (2018). 

Comment 10: The Coalition 

recommends that the section ‘‘Stock 

Definition and Geographic Range’’ be 

changed to reflect the current habitat 

use of right whales. As written, it is 

confusing to discern between historic 

and more recent data. For example, the 

introduction states that foraging habitat 

is in New England and Canadian waters, 

which does not address the year-round 

use of waters south of Cape Cod as a 

foraging habitat as reflected in the 

NOAA Expert Working Group Report, or 

the detections in all seasons of right 

whales in the near shore waters of New 

Jersey during which right whales were 

documented skim feeding. The 

Coalition comments that the midAtlantic is increasingly used by the 

species as more than a migratory 

corridor, which should be reflected in 

the SAR. The current references to the 

mid-Atlantic in the draft SAR precede 

2010, the time when a significant shift 

in right whale habitat use was first 

noted. More recent sightings of right 

whales in the Gulf of Mexico and off the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
38994 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 

Canary Islands should also be included. 

The Coalition also notes that it is 

important to consider that population 

demographics may dictate habitat use, 

which could impact associated risks to 

those individuals. 

Response: Although NMFS considers 

the description of the right whale range 

and habitat use to be an accurate 

reflection of published findings to date, 

we acknowledge that new observations 

indicate additional changes in the 

species’ seasonal distribution. We also 

agree that demographics are an 

important consideration. Several studies 

have been recently completed; but, until 

published, our ability to utilize this 

information in the SAR is limited. In 

addition, we have no evidence to 

suggest that ‘‘changing habitat use’’ has 

settled into a new stable state. Still, we 

endeavor to consider all significant 

changes in habitat use. When it comes 

to management decisions based on 

habitat use, the agency uses the most 

current habitat use models available 

including those from the Marine 

Geospatial Ecology Lab at Duke 

University, which does reflect an 

increase in habitat use in the midAtlantic region. 

Comment 11: The Coalition comments 

that the ‘‘Population Size and PBR’’ 

section is outdated and does not reflect 

the most recent analysis indicating that 

the Nmin for 2019 is 347. Even 

considering 2018, the value in the SAR 

is higher than the best population 

estimate of 383 based on the Pace 

method (Pace et al. 2021). As such, PBR 

is below 0.8. 

Response: NMFS strives to update the 

SARs with as timely data as possible, to 

ensure the SARs are based upon the best 

available scientific information. As 

noted in previous years, as a result of 

the review, revision, and assessment of 

available data, the data used typically 

lag two years behind the year of the 

SAR. The agency recognizes the lags in 

SAR processing time, but this is 

necessary to achieve the appropriate 

peer review. To that extent, we are 

finalizing a NMFS technical 

memorandum to provide up-to-date 

population estimates. We expect to 

include these data and information in 

the 2021 SAR. 

Comment 12: The Coalition 

appreciates NMFS’ inclusion of cryptic 

mortality as calculated by Pace et al. 

(2021). The current reference in the 

document should be updated from 

submitted to reflect its publication. 

Response: Now that Pace et al. (2021) 

is published, we have updated the 

reference. 

Comment 13: The Coalition asks 

NMFS to update the ‘‘Fishery-Related 

Mortality and Serious Injury’’ section to 

include Hamilton et al. (2019), from 

which NMFS determined that ‘‘11.04 

percent of the right whale population is 

entangled annually in U.S. federal 

fishing gear.’’ The Coalition requests 

that NMFS include its findings that an 

average of 6.724 right whales are 

seriously injured or killed in U.S. 

fishing gear each year. 

Response: We have updated language 

in the final 2020 SAR referencing 

observations by Hamilton et al. (2019) 

that 30.25 percent of the population was 

entangled annually between 2010 and 

2017. We recognized in the text of the 

document that MS/I is likely much 

higher than observed. However, the 

estimates above are based on a NMFS 

2021 analysis that is still a draft and was 

not reviewed by the Atlantic SRG at the 

time of writing. Approaches to these 

issues were discussed with 

recommendations made by the Atlantic 

SRG in 2021 that will be considered in 

the 2021 SAR. 

Comment 14: The Coalition asks 

NMFS to include the findings in the 

recently published North Atlantic Right 

Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Vessel 

Speed Rule Assessment, which 

concluded that voluntary measures did 

not have a meaningful impact on 

reducing vessel collisions, small vessel 

collisions can seriously injure right 

whales, and that the current SMAs 

should be modified. 

Response: We appreciate this 

comment; the implications of the Vessel 

Speed Rule Assessment are being 

considered for the 2021 SAR. 

Comment 15: The Coalition requests 

that the 2018 prorated injuries for the 

following whales be changed to a value 

of 1 against PBR to reflect NMFS’ 

determination that these individuals 

meet the criteria of Seriously Injured, as 

reflected on the Agency’s Unusual 

Mortality Page: #3312 (entanglement), 

#3843 (entanglement), and #2310 

(entanglement). 

Response: NMFS’ Unusual Mortality 

Event (UME) web page is currently 

tallying prorated injuries and serious 

injuries together; but, for the SARs, 

NMFS follows the assessment 

guidelines here: https://media.fisheries.

noaa.gov/dam-migration/02-238-01.pdf. 

Comment 16: NRDC requests that 

NMFS revise the draft North Atlantic 

right whale SAR to reflect the most upto-date estimate of population size. The 

best population estimate for the end of 

2019 is now just 356 individuals, 

representing a more ‘‘precipitous drop 

[in the population size] than previous 

years.’’ Moreover, the best population 

estimate for the end of 2018 has been 

revised down from 409 individuals to 

380 individuals. NRDC comments that 

the new 2019 and revised 2018 

estimates indicate a significant decrease 

in survivorship during the last three 

years as a result of the ongoing unusual 

mortality event. NRDC emphasizes that 

NMFS should update the draft SAR 

according to the best available scientific 

information on North Atlantic right 

whale population size. 

Response: See our response to 

comment 11. 

Comment 17: NRDC requests that 

NMFS revise the PBR level downward 

for the NARW. The updated population 

size estimate has implications for the 

calculation of the PBR level for the 

North Atlantic right whale. NMFS’ draft 

SAR states that PBR for the species is 

currently 0.8; however, the agency has 

acknowledged in other fora that the 

most recent population estimate has 

further reduced PBR to 0.7. NMFS must 

revise the PBR level in the draft SAR 

downwards to reflect the best available 

scientific information. 

Response: We appreciate this 

comment; please see our response to 

comment 11. 

Comment 18: NRDC comments that 

NMFS must accurately account for 

cryptic mortalities in its calculation of 

‘‘total’’ estimated human-caused 

mortality and serious injury. The 

number of observed mortalities is a 

significant underestimate of actual 

deaths. A scientific study published this 

year by Richard Pace and colleagues 

(Pace et al. 2021) concludes only 29 

percent (2 standard errors = 2.8 percent) 

of right whale carcasses were detected 

from 2010 to 2017. The same study 

found that entanglements accounted for 

the ‘‘vast majority’’ of detected serious 

injuries (87 percent), but only about half 

of detected deaths (49 percent) from 

1990 to 2017. Thus, ‘‘cryptic deaths due 

to entanglements significantly 

outnumbers cryptic deaths from vessel 

collisions or other causes.’’ NMFS must 

update the estimates of ‘‘total’’ mortality 

included in the draft SAR based on the 

findings of the new Pace et al. (2021) 

model. 

Response: NMFS appreciates this 

request. While Pace et al. (2021) make 

reference to the regime period of 2010– 

2017, the SARs—which work on 5-year 

rolling averages—make use of the time 

period 2013–2017. As such, the 

numbers in the SAR are not in 

disagreement with the estimates in Pace 

et al. 2021. Recognizing the significance 

of the population decline, we intend to 

publish a NMFS Technical 

Memorandum (Pace, in press) to 

provide an update on these estimates, as 

resources allow. We expect to reference 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 38995 

this NMFS Technical Memorandum in a 

future SAR. 

Comment 19: NRDC notes that NMFS 

must include the best available 

scientific information on sublethal 

impacts of entanglement. Entanglement 

remains the leading cause of North 

Atlantic right whale mortality and a 

major factor in reproductive loss. NRDC 

notes the pervasive sub-lethal effects of 

entanglement, including impaired 

reproductive potential and negative 

health effects, currently undermine any 

opportunity for the species to recover 

and may eventually lead to individual 

mortalities. NRDC emphasizes that 

NMFS must include, and should more 

thoroughly consider, the best available 

scientific information on sub-lethal 

effects of entanglement and the 

implications for the survival of the 

North Atlantic right whale in the draft 

SAR. 

Response: This is a valid point, and 

sub-lethal effects of entanglement was 

acknowledged in the ‘‘Current and 

Maximum Net Productivity Rates’’ 

section. NMFS had not yet cited the 

work by Christiansen et al. (2020), so we 

added that reference in the final 2020 

SAR. 

Comment 20: The Commission is 

hopeful that its recommendations and 

those of other experts will compel 

NMFS to take decisive and effective 

steps toward enabling right whales to 

recover. In that effort, it is imperative 

that NMFS apply the best available data 

and science to its estimation of 

population size and the M/SI rate. The 

best available population estimates are 

provided by the population model 

developed by Pace et al. (2017), and 

NMFS is making use of those estimates. 

NMFS has always done an excellent job 

of estimating the number of known M/ 

SI due to entanglement in fishing gear 

and due to vessel strikes. However, a 

secondary finding of the Pace et al. 

(2017) population model was that only 

60 percent of the total mortality 

estimated by the model was accounted 

for by the known M/SI. It was long 

suspected that some mortalities were 

going undetected, and the Pace et al. 

(2017) model suggested that the 

undetected proportion was 40 percent. 

Therefore, the Commission recommends 

that NMFS immediately take steps to 

include the best available science by 

incorporating the Pace et al. (2021) 

estimates of undetected mortalities in its 

estimates of total human-caused 

mortality and serious injuries of right 

whales in the final 2020 SAR. 

Response: Please see NMFS response 

to comment 18. 

Comment 21: MLA comments that the 

draft SAR must include more 

information regarding NARW 

entanglements in fishing gear. The draft 

SAR contains none of the statutorily 

required information on commercial 

fisheries that interact with the stock (16 

U.S.C. 1386(a)(4)). As a result, the 

public has no information about the 

fisheries that interact with the NARW 

and the levels, types, and seasonal and 

geographic patterns of entanglement 

that occur within and among those 

fisheries. This information must be 

included in the final SAR. 

The draft SAR presents only M/SI 

entanglement data—non-serious injury 

entanglements are omitted. This highly 

important information is relevant to 

assess the effectiveness of the Atlantic 

Large Whale Take Reduction Plan 

(TRP). For example, the TRP requires 

certain measures that are intended to 

reduce the severity of fishery 

interactions, rendering them nonserious injuries. MLA emphasizes that a 

comparison of M/SI and non-serious 

injury data over time, by area, and by 

fishery, is relevant to evaluating the 

effectiveness of measures intended to 

reduce the severity of fishery 

interactions. This information must be 

included in the final SAR. 

Response: Because there are multiple 

species interactions with multiple 

fisheries, the fisheries are summarized 

in Appendix 3—Fishery Descriptions. 

They are also available online https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/listfisheries-summary-tables with focus on 

Table II category I and II fisheries. The 

SAR reports to the extent possible what 

information is available for describing 

commercial fisheries that interact with 

the stock, in accordance with Section 

117 of the MMPA (i.e., M/SI levels by 

fishery, seasonal/area differences in M/ 

SI, and M/SI rates calculated using 

standardized fishing effort). However, 

because only a small fraction of 

entanglements have gear recovered and 

a smaller fraction of that is traceable to 

the fishery, the agency has not been able 

to estimate the annual MS/I to the 

resolution of fishery/region. Given new 

recommendations from the Atlantic SRG 

meeting in 2021, and additional analysis 

resulting from Pace et al. (2021), NMFS 

is working to improve our reporting of 

this issue in future SARs. For now, this 

topic is addressed to the extent that data 

can support it in the SAR’s Table 3. The 

issue of non-serious injuries is 

discussed in the third paragraph of the 

section titled ‘‘Fishery-Related Mortality 

and Serious Injury.’’ The draft SAR cites 

Knowlton et al. (2016) and more 

recently Hamilton et al. (2019), which 

have consistently tracked 26 percent to 

now 30 percent of the population 

receiving non-serious injuries annually, 

which is an increasing trend. Despite 

roughly 100 injuries per year in recent 

years, injuries are almost never observed 

at the time they occur, but the wounds 

persist for periods of weeks to months/ 

years, during which time animals may 

travel thousands of miles. Additional 

language to address this concern has 

been added to the first paragraph of the 

‘‘Fishery-Related Mortality and Serious 

Injury’’ section of the SAR. 

Comment 22: MLA requests that the 

SAR include data on the severity of 

entanglements. The New England 

Aquarium (2020) reports that from 2010 

to 2017, the annual average serious 

entanglement rate ranged from 1.4 

percent to 3.8 percent, and that from 

2014–2018 the majority of NARW 

entanglements were minor (62 percent), 

with less than half either moderate or 

severe (19 percent and 19 percent, 

respectively). None of this important 

information is reported in the draft SAR, 

but it should be. 

Response: Table 3 of the NARW SAR 

provides considerable detail on each 

entanglement case that merited a 

prorated serious injury or greater. The 

New England Aquarium applies 

different criteria than defined in NMFS’ 

Serious Injury Policy (NMFS 2014). 

While there is often agreement between 

institutions, inconsistencies occur based 

on different criteria. The ‘‘rates’’ quoted 

above are based upon observed events. 

However, Pace et al. (2021) stated, ‘‘We 

used an abundance estimation model to 

derive estimates of cryptic mortality for 

NARW and found that observed 

carcasses accounted for only 36 percent 

of all estimated deaths during 1990– 

2017. We found strong evidence that 

total mortality varied over time, and that 

observed carcass counts were poor 

predictors of estimated annual numbers 

of whales dying.’’ As such, focusing on 

the rates above would amount to ‘cherry 

picking’ and misleading conclusions 

that under-represent the true scale of the 

entanglement problem, given that Pace 

et al. (2021) indicate only 36 percent of 

mortalities have been observed since 

1990, and given the bias that most 

serious injuries are entanglements (vs. 

ship strikes) that are never seen again. 

This indicates hundreds of 

entanglement mortalities have gone 

undetected even in just the past decade. 

Comment 23: MLA points out that the 

Guidelines for Assessing Marine 

Mammal Stocks (GAMMS) instruct 

authors to include in the SAR ‘‘[a] 

summary of mortality and serious injury 

incidental to U.S. commercial fisheries 

. . . presented in a table, providing the 

name of the fishery and, for each 

appropriate year, observed mortality 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
38996 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 

and serious injury, estimated 

extrapolated mortality and serious 

injury and associated CV, and percent 

observer coverage in that year, with the 

last column providing the average 

annual mortality and serious injury 

estimate for that fishery.’’ Although the 

draft SAR presents a table of 

entanglements showing ‘‘country’’ and 

‘‘gear type,’’ this falls well short of the 

detailed and well-organized table 

recommended by GAMMS (and 

included in numerous other SARs). 

MLA notes that such a table should be 

included in the SAR. This information 

is important for assessing individual 

fisheries, which has even more 

significance given that NMFS’ revised 

‘‘negligible impact determination’’ 

policy includes a process for assessing 

individual fisheries. 

Response: Table 3 provides all known 

information on injuries. The requested 

table is not provided because the data 

are not available to populate it. 

Appendix 3 describes the U.S. fisheries 

and their observer coverage level (or the 

complete lack thereof, in the case of the 

lobster fishery). Additional language to 

address this concern has been added to 

the first paragraph of the ‘‘FisheryRelated Mortality and Serious Injury’’ 

section of the SAR. 

Comment 24: With respect to the 

lobster fishery, MLA requests that the 

SAR include data showing that there 

has been a 90 percent decline in 

instances where lobster gear was 

removed from entangled NARW since 

2010. There were four known cases of 

lobster gear removed from NARW from 

1997 to 2000, six from 2000–2010, and 

one from 2010 to 2019. MLA notes that 

the only confirmed M/SI resulting from 

entanglement in lobster gear occurred in 

2002 and none of this is reported in the 

draft SAR. 

Response: The right whale SAR 

provides summaries of all available data 

relating to right whale serious injury 

and mortalities during 2014–2018, 

including all identified fisheries. NMFS 

has included in the narrative the 

primary points and statistics. Because 

right whale injuries are rarely 

witnessed, we have relied on 

opportunistic reports to build our 

understanding of impacts to the 

population and provide a minimum 

number of deaths. However, 11 

opportunistic records since 1997, as 

cited by the commenter, are insufficient 

to assess trends in entanglement rates, 

especially without context on fishing 

effort during the same time period. 

Specifically, gear was only retrieved 

from 13 percent of the right whale 

entanglement incidents from 2010 to 

2018 (22/167). Of those, most (73 

percent) are identifiable to a fishery. 

However, the work by Pace et al. (2021) 

shows there is no evidence of observed 

rates/causes of mortality corresponding 

to cryptic mortality rates. As such, the 

reporting of ‘‘trends’’ for observed cases 

is misleading. 

Comment 25: MLA comments that the 

draft SAR omits data and information 

collected by NMFS showing that more 

entanglements occur with Canadian 

fishing gear. The draft SAR is virtually 

silent on the outsized role of Canadian 

fisheries in a significant spike in M/SI 

incidents since 2017, even though 

relevant data, scientific observations, 

and expert analyses are available to 

NMFS. This should be included in the 

final SAR in order to provide a full and 

accurate picture of the known and/or 

probable origin of entanglements 

outside U.S. waters. 

Response: The final SAR assigns 

fishing gear to fishery type, e.g., pot/trap 

and country of origin, when sufficient 

data are available. Given the low 

frequency at which such data are 

available, and the lack of a statistical 

relationship between observed and 

actual mortalities (Pace et al. 2021), no 

annual serious injury and mortality 

statistics are derived on a ‘by fishery’ 

basis. All confirmed Canadian 

mortalities were identified in Table 3. 

Differences in survey effort between 

Canada and the United States need to be 

considered when attempting to compare 

incidents of M/SI. The apparent 

increase in M/SI incidents in Canadian 

fisheries since 2017 is influenced in part 

by the increased detection of mortalities 

that happened within the confines of a 

relatively closed body of water that had 

several aircraft surveying it beginning in 

2017, and as many as 5 aerial survey 

platforms conducting regular surveys 

since then. Increased Canadian 

monitoring efforts were in response to 

this being an area of significant 

mortality. However, the coastal waters 

of New England represent a similar 

length of area, with a similar number of 

vertical lines. The lack of fishery 

observers, much more limited aerial 

survey capacity over an open section of 

coast with currents that can carry 

carcasses offshore, and gear that is 

heavy enough to anchor whales below 

the surface contributes to making 

coastal New England waters an area 

where the odds of detecting mortality 

are quite low. However, spatial models 

suggest a high risk of mortality in this 

area. As above, we note that many of 

these comments recommend placing 

strong correlation value on limited 

observations, which is ill advised based 

upon the findings of Pace et al. (2021). 

Comment 26: MLA comments that 

although the draft SAR acknowledges 

that ‘‘[a]n Unusual Mortality Event was 

established for North Atlantic right 

whales in June 2017 due to elevated 

st[r]andings along the Northwest 

Atlantic Ocean coast, especially in the 

Gulf of St. Lawrence region of Canada,’’ 

it omits discussion of significant 

relevant information showing that a 

large number of NARW have altered 

their migratory patterns because their 

preferred prey has responded to altered 

oceanographic conditions by moving 

into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where 

NARW are at very high risk of 

entanglement in snow crab gear that is 

heavier and more lethal than gear fished 

in U.S. waters. This relates directly to 

the severity of injury resulting from 

entanglement, as noted in previous 

MLA comments. This information 

provides important insights into the 

source of entanglement risk and severity 

of entanglement for North Atlantic right 

whales, and MLA requests NMFS 

include the best available scientific 

information. 

Response: NMFS has addressed this 

comment in the ‘‘Stock Definition/ 

Geographic Range,’’ ‘‘Current 

Population Trend,’’ and ‘‘Habitat 

Issues’’ sections. 

Comment 27: MLA suggests that the 

draft SAR should be revised to 

incorporate the best available scientific 

information regarding the increasing 

proportion of M/SI from Canada as a 

result of altered North Atlantic right 

whale migratory patterns to the Gulf of 

St. Lawrence. These data are critical to 

understanding the increase in M/SI. 

Specifically, MLA requests the 

inclusion of data concerning the country 

of origin of NARW entanglements 

during the relevant time period, taking 

into account scientific observations of 

entangling gear, depicting 

differentiating attributes of that gear 

(such as rope diameter and strength) 

which make it so lethal, and describing 

the differences between the 

conservation programs and relative 

effectiveness of measures to protect 

NARW in each country. 

Response: NMFS has applied the best 

available science to the narrative of right 

whale distribution and entanglement 

rates, but the scientific understanding of 

right whale movement in the western 

North Atlantic is limited. Also, the 

timeline of mortality data for this SAR 

is through 2018. As future data become 

available and statistically meaningful 

trends emerge, they will be discussed in 

future SARs as resources allow. 

Although roughly a third of the 

population currently visits the Gulf of 

St. Lawrence, their residency in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 38997 

surveyed areas appears to be highly 

variable, and we have little idea where 

the other two-thirds of the population is 

residing. We do not know the 

relationship between detected 

entanglement and mortality and what 

the levels are for the population as a 

whole. We know that mortality rates are 

significantly higher than the number of 

observed cases, but currently do not 

have sufficient evidence to support 

apportioning undetected mortality to 

one country or another. 

Comment 28: MLA states that the 

draft SAR omits best available scientific 

information about NARW behavior that 

affects its risk of harm from fishing gear. 

MLA suggests that NMFS has not taken 

account of significant variances in North 

Atlantic right whale behavior across its 

migratory range. MLA requests that 

NMFS provide greater detail on these 

known foraging areas, including the 

number and proportion of North 

Atlantic right whales sighted in these 

areas in recent years, to ensure adequate 

protections are in place. 

To address seasonal or area 

differences in incidents of M/SI, MLA 

requests the final SAR incorporate 

information such as that described 

above detailing geographic shifts in 

NARW and differing behavior in these 

habitats in response to oscillating 

oceanographic conditions across their 

migratory range, which places North 

Atlantic right whales at varying levels of 

risk from gear entanglement. 

Response: NMFS agrees that risk is 

elevated where high right whale density 

overlaps with fishing gear. Higher gear 

densities also elevate risk, and heavier 

gear likely increases injury severity. The 

SAR presents our current understanding 

of right whale distribution and 

population assessment for the public 

and management decisions. It also 

describes our level of understanding of 

entanglement risk. Although more than 

80 percent of right whales bear evidence 

of entanglement, there are few events 

where the location or depth that the 

whale encountered the gear is known. 

All reported entanglement events from 

2014 to 2018 are presented in Table 3. 

Comment 29: MLA notes that the draft 

SAR must reincorporate deleted text 

and include supplemental information 

to provide a full appreciation of the 

status of the North Atlantic right whale 

population. On page 42, the draft SAR 

strikes text indicating that ‘‘the 

existence of important habitat areas is 

not presently well described,’’ but 

nonetheless states that ‘‘long-range 

matches indicate an extended range for 

at least some individuals’’ and ‘‘the 

location of much of the population is 

unknown during the winter.’’ In the 

absence of new data, the MLA 

recommends that the deleted text 

remain in the document to help the 

reader understand that much of North 

Atlantic right whale habitat remains 

poorly understood. 

Response: The new text represents 

NMFS’ evolving understanding of right 

whale habitat. We continue to close 

knowledge gaps. Some blanket 

statements retained from previous 

versions of the SAR are no longer 

accurate. We endeavor to provide the 

most pertinent information for the 

reader. 

Comment 30: MLA comments that on 

page 42, NMFS has removed language 

stating that the majority of right whale 

sightings occur within 90 kilometers 

(km) of the shoreline of the southeastern 

United States. However, at page 43, the 

draft SAR states that ‘‘telemetry data 

have shown rather lengthy excursions, 

including into deep water off the 

continental shelf (Mate et al. 1997; 

Baumgartner and Mate 2005).’’ Has 

NMFS received new data that warrants 

noting North Atlantic right whale 

excursions into deeper water but not 

that North Atlantic right whales are 

known to occur within 90 km of the 

shoreline? The MLA recommends that 

both are important to include in the 

final SAR, and NMFS should provide 

additional details on the number of 

North Atlantic right whales known to 

use these habitats. 

Response: The SAR includes both text 

and a figure that describes the 

distribution of sightings. The statement 

that the majority of sightings occur 

within 90 km of the shoreline was 

misleading because it does not account 

for effort; most right whale sightings 

occur close to shore because that is 

where most people are present to see 

and report the sightings. The excursions 

into deep water are not otherwise well 

represented. Telemetry data provide 

another dimension to NMFS’ 

understanding and are important to 

note. 

Comment 31: MLA noted that, on 

page 43, the draft SAR states that ‘‘New 

England waters are important feeding 

habitats for right whales, where they 

feed primarily on copepods (largely of 

the genera Calanus and 

Pseudocalanus).’’ MLA believes the best 

available information allows NMFS to 

be more specific in this statement. 

Given the pending regulatory focus on 

offshore Maine, MLA believes it would 

be appropriate to distinguish where 

these feeding grounds occur. 

Response: The narrative in the SAR is 

meant to provide only a general 

description of right whale distribution. 

NMFS is providing other products with 

detailed information on right whale 

densities throughout the right whales’ 

range for management and Atlantic 

Large Whale Take Reduction Team 

consideration. 

Comment 32: On page 44, the draft 

SAR states: ‘‘In 2016, the Northeastern 

U.S. Foraging Area Critical Habitat was 

expanded to include nearly all U.S. 

waters of the Gulf of Maine (81 FR 4837, 

26 February 2016).’’ MLA requests that 

NMFS clarify that critical habitat is 

designated because it contains at least 

one physical or biological feature to 

support foraging, and not necessarily 

because NARW have been observed to 

forage in all designated areas throughout 

the entire Gulf of Maine. Some readers 

may not understand the regulatory 

criteria for designating critical habitat, 

which are not dependent upon whale 

presence. 

Response: NMFS agrees with this 

distinction, and language has been 

added to this point in the final 2020 

NARW SAR. 

Comment 33: MLA noted, on page 44, 

the draft SAR states: ‘‘An important 

shift in habitat use patterns in 2010 was 

highlighted. . . The number of 

individuals using Cape Cod Bay in 

spring increased, (Mayo et al. 2018). In 

addition, right whales apparently 

abandoned the central Gulf of Maine in 

winter (see Cole et al. 2013), but have 

since been seen in large numbers in a 

region south of Martha’s Vineyard and 

Nantucket Islands. . . . Aerial surveys 

of the Gulf of St. Lawrence during the 

summers of 2015, 2017, and 2018, 

documented at least 34, 105, and 131 

unique individuals using the region, 

respectively (NMFS unpublished data).’’ 

MLA believes NMFS should provide as 

much detail as possible to help the 

public understand the spatial 

distribution of North Atlantic right 

whales. MLA requests the inclusion of 

the number of North Atlantic right 

whales and proportion of the population 

sighted in Cape Cod Bay (as noted in 

previous MLA comments), clarify what 

is meant by central Gulf of Maine 

(which MLA interprets to be the portion 

of the Gulf of Maine located off the 

Maine coast), and include the 

proportion of North Atlantic right 

whales represented by Gulf of St. 

Lawrence sightings. 

Response: Clarification has been 

added to text regarding the central Gulf 

of Maine location. Describing the 

proportion of individuals sighted in 

various habitats may provide a false 

impression of our level of knowledge of 

right whale use of these areas. 

Photographic capture of individuals and 

maximum likelihood models of these 

data indicate considerable immigration 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
38998 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 

and emigration of individuals. A tally of 

individuals seen in a habitat does not 

accurately convey the spatial 

distribution of right whales, or potential 

risk. There is a significant difference in 

risk levels if 10 whales occupy an area 

for a day versus 10 whales occupying an 

area for 100 days. NMFS’ level of 

understanding is evolving and is 

currently better in some areas than 

others. The text is an accurate reflection 

of our current understanding when 

considering the combined effects of 

sightings, survey effort, and potential 

residency of right whales. 

Comment 34: MLA commented that, 

on pages 44–45, the draft SAR strikes 

the language: ‘‘an additional 

interpretation of paternity analyses is 

that the population size may be larger 

than was previously thought. Fathers for 

only 45 percent of known calves have 

been genetically determined; yet, 

genetic profiles were available for 69 

percent of all photo-identified males 

(Frasier 2005). The conclusion was that 

the majority of these calves must have 

different fathers that cannot be 

accounted for by the unsampled males, 

therefore the population of males must 

be larger (Frasier 2005).’’ MLA 

comments it is unclear why this text 

citing data from Frasier (2005) is struck 

from the SAR and why Fitzgerald (2018) 

now represents the best available 

information? 

Response: NMFS has determined that 

Fitzgerald (2018) best represents the 

current understanding of pedigreeinformed abundance estimation; 

however, Frasier (2005) has not been 

conclusively refuted. We have restored 

Frasier (2005), and added Frasier et al. 

(2007), to the text and references. 

Comment 35: MLA points out that on 

page 56, the draft SAR states: ‘‘Whales 

often free themselves of gear following 

an entanglement event, and as such 

scarring may be a better indicator of 

fisheries interaction than entanglement 

records.’’ As noted previously, this 

statement falls short of providing a 

useful and complete understanding of 

scarring data for the relevant time 

period. As described above, the New 

England Aquarium (2020) states that the 

majority of entanglements between 2014 

and 2018 are minor (62 percent). 

Response: This is a valid point, and 

NMFS will include more detailed 

results from entanglement scar-coding 

research in a future draft NARW SAR, 

as resources allow. 

Comment 36: MLA noted, on page 56, 

the SAR cites three studies concluding 

that North Atlantic right whales 

mitigation measures implemented prior 

to 2009 have not worked, and that the 

effectiveness of measures implemented 

since 2009 have not yet been evaluated. 

NMFS has reported on multiple 

occasions in conversations with the 

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction 

Team that the 2009 groundline rule has 

been effective, citing data that no 

groundlines have been identified as the 

primary entangling gear on right whales 

since its implementation, yet the SAR 

states that the effectiveness of these 

measures has yet to be evaluated. In 

addition, as noted above, the SAR 

should report data showing that there 

has been a 90 percent decline in 

instances of lobster gear removed from 

entangled North Atlantic right whales 

since 2010. There were four known 

cases of lobster gear removed from 

North Atlantic right whales from 1997 

to 2000, six from 2000 to 2010, and one 

from 2010 to 2019. The only confirmed 

M/SI resulting from entanglement in 

lobster gear occurred in 2002. 

Response: In this instance, the SAR is 

reporting on the population level effect 

of the groundline rule, that is, if the 

2009 rule has significantly reduced 

entanglement rates. The absence of 

groundline as primary entangling gear is 

a positive result, but a comprehensive 

evaluation of effectiveness of the rule 

requires a long time series for a 

statistically robust analysis. 

Opportunistic records cannot provide 

any rate change information, such as 

injury rate relative to fishing levels, 

because the variables affecting detection 

are largely unknown. 

Comment 37: MLA comments that the 

draft SAR contains errors in Table 3. 

First, the entanglement that occurred on 

9/23/2016 (ID 3694) has been confirmed 

to have involved Canadian trap/pot gear 

since the draft SAR was published. The 

country code in Table 3 for this entry 

and the M/SI for entanglement by 

country of origin should be updated 

accordingly. Second, there is a minor 

clerical error that should be corrected 

for consistency. The entanglement that 

occurred on 7/30/2018 (ID 3843) is 

miscoded as ‘‘-’’. The correct coding for 

this entry is ‘‘GU’’. 

Response: The gear retrieved from 

#3694 was identified as Canadian snow 

crab in April 2018. It was previously 

reported as XU with unknown gear but 

has been updated to CN pot/trap in the 

final 2020 SAR. The coding for 7/30/ 

2018 (ID 3843) has been updated to 

‘‘GU’’ in the final 2020 SAR. 

Comment 38: MLA requests that the 

draft SAR disclose the current limits of 

the Pace model. MLA comments that the 

draft SAR (p. 46) could be construed by 

the public to mean that Pace et al. 

(2017) fully accounts for changes in 

capture probability. However, the Pace 

model is relatively new and highly 

sensitive to additional years of data, in 

part because subsequent re-sightings 

influence the probability of recapture 

and estimate of mortality. 

Response: The Pace model does 

account for changes in capture 

probability (see Figure 3 in the final 

2020 SAR), and builds on the full 

sighting history of all individual right 

whales to provide population estimates 

that are robust to changes in whale 

distribution and survey effort. This 

approach, coupled with high levels of 

effort to photographically capture 

individuals each year, provides 

relatively precise estimates and the 

ability to detect small changes in the 

population from year to year. 

Comment 39: MLA comments that the 

draft SAR should make clear that while 

Pace et al. (2017) assumes no natural 

mortality, natural mortality has been 

documented by Taylor et al. (2013) and 

Curtis et al. (2014). The fact that there 

is a significant amount of neonate 

mortality (see draft SAR, p. 55) is 

critical for the public to understand. By 

ignoring neonate mortality, as done by 

the Pace model, MLA believes the 

below-expected number of individuals 

recruited into the population could be 

construed as a reflection of the NARW 

calving rate when, in fact, natural 

mortality is occurring. The appropriate 

regulatory and management responses 

to an anomalously low calving rate are 

different from elevated neonate 

mortality from natural predators. MLA 

requests the SAR cite relevant literature 

on natural mortality and put it in the 

context of studies such as Pace et al. 

(2017). 

Response: First, the Pace et al. (2017) 

model does not assume any particular 

cause of death (natural or humancaused); it simply allows one to estimate 

total mortality using sighting histories 

as described in the draft SAR. Second, 

we agree that there are likely neonate 

mortalities that go undetected, some of 

which may due to natural causes. 

However, since these undetected 

neonates would not have a sighting 

history, including these instances would 

only add to the total mortality derived 

from the Pace et al. (2021) method and 

would not change the findings of Sharp 

et al. (2019) that all non-calf mortality 

for which cause of death could be 

determined was human-caused. To date, 

only one neonate mortality was 

determined to be from white shark 

predation. Pre-mortem shark attack was 

determined to be a contributing cause of 

death of two other calves that were 

entangled in fishing gear (Taylor et al. 

2013). In general, calving rate in this 

population is determined by extensive 

survey effort along the coast of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 38999 

Southeastern United States, with very 

few individuals found to ‘‘enter the 

population’’ without having been 

detected as calves in recent years. 

Comment 40: MLA points out that the 

SAR concludes 100 percent of the 

estimated mortality of 18.6 animals per 

year is assumed to be human-caused 

and comments that this may be 

somewhat positively biased (i.e., a slight 

overestimate) given that some calf 

mortality is likely not human-caused. 

Although the draft SAR acknowledges 

this is likely a ‘‘slight overestimate,’’ its 

conclusion that all mortality is humancaused is not supported by Sharp et al. 

(2019). The draft SAR ignores the 

underlying data that of 124 whales 

examined, 42 percent were confirmed to 

be anthropogenic (26 due to vessel 

strikes, 26 due to entanglement), and 58 

percent were due to natural or unknown 

cause (18 neonates died of natural 

causes, while 54 died of unknown 

causes). With natural causes 

constituting a total of 14.5 percent of all 

examined individuals and 25 percent of 

those incidents where cause was 

confirmed, it is not a ‘‘slight 

overestimate’’ and the best available 

scientific information does not support 

attributing all mortalities of unknown 

cause to human activity. MLA reiterates 

that the SAR must be revised to 

accurately reflect the best available 

science. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

assertion that Sharp et al. (2019) does 

not support the assignment of all 

estimated mortality to human causes. 

Only 6 deaths of the 124 (2 percent) 

documented between 1970 and 2018 

were attributed to natural causes, and 

all 6 were calves. For one calf, shark 

predation was implicated; the other 

natural deaths were determined to have 

been stillbirth, dystocia, or 

malnutrition. Conversely, 100 percent of 

all examined, non-calf carcasses for 

which cause of death could be 

established were determined to have 

died from either entanglement or vessel 

collision. Cause of death could not be 

verified for the remaining carcasses due 

to either decomposition or logistical 

constraints, such as distance from shore 

or poor field conditions. While it is 

possible that some of these unexamined 

deaths were due to natural causes, 

existing evidence indicates right whales 

rarely die of natural causes. Also see 

response to comment 39. 

Comment 41: MLA states that the 

report by Kenney (2018) is 

fundamentally flawed and should not be 

cited in the SAR. The draft SAR cites 

Kenney (2018) to support the statement 

that ‘‘[p]rojection models suggest that 

the [maximum net productivity rate] 

could be 4 percent per year if female 

survival was the highest recorded over 

the time series from Pace et al. (2017).’’ 

Response: The Kenney (2018) 

reference is a relevant, peer-reviewed 

study that helps provide context for the 

impacts of fishery-related mortality on 

the right whale population. The study 

does account for other mortality, 

removing only confirmed fishery-related 

deaths. Several scenarios are provided 

with varying levels of hypothetical 

entanglement mortality rates 

corresponding to degrees of compliance 

with MMPA regulations. While the 

paper presents a very simple 

representation of complex processes, the 

model parameters are reasonable and 

the results are valid. 

Gray Seal Western North Atlantic 

Comment 42: The Commission 

requests improved reporting of serious 

injury data for gray seals. Humancaused serious injury data are reported 

by source within the SARs, including 

both observations and extrapolations, if 

possible. Summaries of observations of 

human-caused injuries may include 

some uncertainty of the specific source, 

but the Commission believes these 

should still be included in the total M/ 

SI summaries reported in the Status of 

the Stock section relative to PBR level. 

The Commission is concerned that 

numerous observations of potentially 

serious injuries of gray seals are not 

being accounted for in the SAR. Based 

on unmanned aerial surveys of gray 

seals hauled out on shore, Martins et al. 

(2019) reported the minimum total 

number of entangled gray seals could 

range from 192 to 857 (or 0.83 percent 

to 3.7 percent of the population in U.S. 

Atlantic waters). It appears that these 

seriously injured animals are not being 

counted in either the commercial 

fisheries observer M/SI data or the 

stranding data. Zero serious injuries 

were reported for 2014–2018 in the 

commercial fisheries observer data (for 

both gillnet and trawl fisheries in which 

mortality is known to occur), and only 

mortalities are being reported in the 

human-interaction stranding table. 

Further, because no serious injuries are 

reported in fisheries observer data, these 

injured animals are not accounted for in 

the extrapolated M/SI estimates either. 

The Commission recommends that 

NMFS ensure that these observations of 

injured seals are being accurately 

quantified and included in the SAR, 

consistent with the agency’s 2012 

guidelines on injury determinations 

(including consultation with staff from 

other Science Centers). The Commission 

also believes NMFS should continue to 

collaborate with the Northwest Atlantic 

Seal Research Consortium, Northeast 

Fisheries Observer Program, and 

regional stranding responders on efforts 

to better photo-document and identify 

injured and dead seals. 

Response: NMFS is actively 

collaborating on this issue both 

internally and externally with the 

Northwest Atlantic Seal Research 

Consortium. NMFS plans to address 

how to better document the number of 

animals living with fisheries 

entanglements in order to account for 

them in the SAR, via a standardized 

system for data collection and entry into 

the National Stranding Database. The 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center, in 

partnership with other organizations, 

has also submitted a proposal to utilize 

artificial intelligence to identify specific 

individuals with entanglements from 

photographs, which is necessary to 

avoid double reporting of animals that 

may live with serious entanglements for 

several years. 

Humpback Whale, Gulf of Maine 

Comment 43: The Coalition 

appreciates the inclusion of cryptic 

mortality in this analysis, which 

appropriately elevates the stock to 

strategic as a result. The Coalition 

reiterates their comments from last year 

that the distribution map, while based 

on NOAA survey data, does not 

accurately depict the distribution of 

humpback whales, particularly in the 

near shore mid-Atlantic areas. 

Response: There is a technical error 

with the Gulf of Maine humpback whale 

SAR and, as a result, this report has not 

been finalized. An updated draft report 

will be published in a subsequent SAR 

cycle. 

Bryde’s Whale, Gulf of Mexico Stock 

Comment 44: The Coalition 

appreciates the extensive updates to the 

Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale SAR and 

reminds NMFS that, as an ESA-listed 

species, the SAR for these whales 

should be updated every year. The 

Coalition also reiterates their 

introductory comments on the general 

timing of review and comment for the 

2020 SARs and the substantial delay in 

including new information, as it is now 

known that these whales have been 

designated as a new species: Rice’s 

whales. The Coalition requests that this 

new designation be recognized and the 

2021 SAR updated accordingly. 

Response: Section 117 of the MMPA 

requires NMFS to review annually, and 

update as necessary with any new 

information, SARs for strategic stocks, 

which would include stocks of ESAlisted species. NMFS will review the 

Bryde’s whale SAR annually to ensure 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
39000 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 

that applicable updates are 

incorporated. 

The 2021 SARs were drafted in fall of 

2020, prior to the publication of the new 

species recommendation, and the Gulf 

of Mexico Bryde’s whale SAR is not 

being updated in the 2021 cycle. In 

order to change the name of the species 

listed under the ESA, NMFS must 

update the common and scientific name 

of this species in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR; see 50 CFR 224.101) 

by publishing a technical correction in 

the Federal Register (FR), a process that 

is currently underway. After the CFR 

has been updated, we will make the 

name change in the SAR. Prior to 

initiating this technical correction, 

NMFS awaited notification from the 

Taxonomy Committee of the Society for 

Marine Mammalogy that they had 

reviewed the new publication 

recommending recognition of the 

Bryde’s whales in the Gulf of Mexico as 

a different species, and that they agreed 

with the findings and would place the 

new species on the accepted list of 

taxonomic names. NMFS received that 

notification on March 4, 2021. 

Importantly, the name of the species 

does not affect the protections it 

receives under the ESA or the MMPA. 

Comments on Pacific Issues 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 

Comment 45: The Coalition states that 

the Harting et al. (2020) analysis 

provides important information to guide 

recovery planning by comparing the 

impact of multiple threats, and should 

be cited. Their analysis demonstrates 

that anthropogenic causes of death of 

Hawaiian monk seals have a larger 

impact than either natural or disease 

causes of death. The Coalition also 

requests that the recent decision by 

NMFS that the two monk seals found 

dead off Kauai in late 2020 likely 

drowned in lay nets be included in the 

SAR. 

Response: Since these human-caused 

mortalities are outside the time period 

for the final 2020 SAR (2014–2018), 

Harting et al. (2020) will be cited in the 

draft 2021 SAR. Human-caused deaths 

that occurred in 2020 will be reported 

in the 2022 SAR. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

Comment 46: The Coalition suggests 

there are several studies about 

bottlenose dolphin population 

abundance and health that should be 

included in the SARs. First, Van Cise et 

al. (in press) observed a decline in 

abundance in three out of four stocks 

and lower-than-expected survival rates 

in all stocks. For these small 

populations that experience 

concentrated anthropogenic 

disturbances, the authors recommended 

closely monitoring trends in abundance. 

Second, Stack et al. (2019) encouraged 

the use of bent dorsal fin observations 

as an indicator of population health for 

odontocetes. In the case of 164 

bottlenose dolphins sighted during the 

study, none included a bent dorsal fin. 

The study noted that one bottlenose 

dolphin with a bent dorsal fin in Hawaii 

was reported in Alves et al. (2018). The 

Coalition encourages the SARs for these 

species to include an account of 

sightings of bent dorsal fins. Third, in a 

study of coastal waters and marine 

debris, bottlenose dolphins had the 

largest area of interaction risk out of all 

odontocete species (Currie et al. 2017). 

The SARs should include this study as 

a high-concern threat to bottlenose 

dolphin habitat. 

Response: NMFS is aware of the new 

abundance estimates for bottlenose 

dolphins of the Hawaiian Islands Stock 

Complex presented in Van Cise et al. (in 

press). These estimates will be included 

in the 2022 draft SARs along with 

appropriate caveats about the potential 

influence of sampling variability and 

bias on the estimates and associated 

trends. We appreciate the work done by 

Stack et al. (2019), although we 

interpreted their conclusions as calling 

for a consideration of the impacts of 

bent dorsal fins on population health 

given the potential for long-term effects 

on individuals, as opposed to suggesting 

that bent dorsal fins should be used as 

an indicator of population health. As 

the authors note, bent dorsal fins are 

also extremely rare, which makes them 

less reliable as a measure of population 

health compared to an attribute such as 

body or skin condition that could be 

readily measured across individuals. 

That said, bent dorsal fins can be 

indicators of impacts such as fishery 

interactions. When bent dorsal fin 

observations are made and linked to 

human-caused injuries, these could be 

cited in the SARs of relevant species, as 

is currently done with other information 

that provides evidence of potential 

threats. In that respect, we agree that the 

threat posed by marine debris described 

in Currie et al. (2017) should be 

considered for inclusion in the SARs of 

relevant species. 

Killer Whale, Southern Resident Stock 

Comment 47: The Coalition reiterates 

previous comments that the change in 

return timing and overall use of core 

summer habitat complicates the 

established census schedule that the 

SAR relies on. The Coalition requests 

that NMFS use the most recent 

population estimate for Southern 

Resident killer whales (SRKW) and 

urges NMFS to include the most recent 

full count from the Center for Whale 

Research in the SAR, regardless of the 

date that count was reached. The 

Coalition asks that NMFS clearly state 

the decline observed following the 

‘‘peak census count of 99 animals in 

1995,’’ with average decrease per year, 

and specifically for the time period 

included in this SAR. Recent Population 

Viability Assessments completed in 

both the U.S. and Canada should be 

used to describe the current population 

trend as well as future outlook. 

Response: NMFS has helped support 

the Center for Whale Research’s annual 

Southern Resident killer whales census 

since 2004. The census technically ends 

on 1 July of each year (that date 

continues to be used in order to 

maintain comparability to prior years). 

We note that that Center for Whale 

Research does not provide their 1 July 

results until 1 October of that year, 

hence they have the benefit of two 

additional months, in particular 

September (for which SRKW still have 

a relatively high occurrence rate in 

inland waters), to confirm if animals are 

missing or assess the survivability of 

calves. In recent years NMFS has been 

providing additional support to the 

Center for Whale Research for surveys 

outside inland waters to allow them to 

complete the census by 1 July. As well, 

in recent years DFO has been working 

at the west entrance to the Strait of Juan 

de Fuca from mid-July to mid-August 

and has provided the Center for Whale 

Research with photo-identifications 

from their fairly frequent encounters. 

However, given that mortalities are 

relatively rare events (e.g., 4 mortalities 

in 2019, or approximately one every 3 

months), a delay of a month or two in 

the Center for Whale Research’s ability 

to complete the census only fractionally 

raises the likelihood that a mortality 

that occurred after 1 July would be 

inappropriately ‘‘assigned’’ to the prior 

year census. 

Section 117(2) of the MMPA specifies 

that SARs shall include information on 

the current population trend. The 

Population Viability Assessments for 

SRKW are only projections of the 

population size, and reporting this 

information herein has no statutory 

requirement associated with the SAR 

and is not included. Language on the 

population’s annual rate of decline 

following the peak census count in 1995 

is included in the SAR, along with the 

current census value. In addition, Figure 

2 displays the population census since 

1974, including how the population has 

increased and decreased in size 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 39001 

following the peak census in 1995. 

Originally, the caption of Figure 2 

provided the citation to Center for 

Whale Research 2019. However, given 

the Coalition’s comment, we have 

corrected this citation to be Center for 

Whale Research 2020, which provides 

annual census values since 1974 from 

which specific annual changes in 

population abundance can be easily 

calculated if desired. 

Comment 48: The Coalition notes that 

growth rates and productivity in 

different Resident killer whale 

populations may be affected by 

variability in diet, environmental 

conditions, and habitat range. The 

Coalition points out that Alaskan 

Resident killer whales consume 

Chinook salmon, similar to Northern 

Resident killer whales (NRKW) and 

SRKW but appear to have a more 

diverse diet and benefit from larger and 

healthier salmon runs. The maximum 

net productivity rate for NRKW has 

been updated and is now estimated to 

be 2.9 percent. The Coalition 

recommends using the same rate for 

SRKW, which yields a PBR of 0.11 (1 

animal every 9 years) for a population 

level of 73 whales, as included in this 

SAR. 

Response: NMFS raised this issue 

with the Pacific SRG in 2020. The 

Pacific SRG recommended the 

continued use of Rmax = 0.035 until a 

better estimate is available for review. 

We agree with this assessment and will 

continue to use this Rmax, reviewing it 

when new information is available. 

Humpback Whale, California/Oregon/ 

Washington Stock 

Comment 49: The Coalition urges 

NMFS to revise the CA/OR/WA stock to 

reflect that the Central America distinct 

population segment (DPS) is a 

demographically independent 

population (DIP) separate from the 

Mexico DPS and to provide abundance 

estimates for both. 

The Coalition requests the inclusion 

of the record of two dead humpback 

whales caught in Pacific whiting 

midwater trawl nets in separate 

incidents in July 2020. Seen only on 

electronic monitoring (EM), the whales 

could neither be identified to DPS nor 

necropsied to determine cause of death. 

The Coalition notes that as EM programs 

continue to expand, and more vessels 

opt to use EM instead of observers, it 

will be increasingly difficult to track 

marine mammal interactions as cameras 

are not currently designed to monitor 

marine mammal interactions. This will 

in turn decrease the amount of data on 

marine mammal interactions with 

commercial fisheries and increase 

uncertainty in M/SI estimates in several 

marine mammal stock assessments. The 

Coalition recommends NMFS improve 

the quantity and quality of information 

collected on marine mammal 

interactions. 

Response: NMFS appreciates this 

recommendation regarding designating 

humpback whale stocks. In late 2019, 

NMFS finalized a new Policy Directive: 

Reviewing and Designating Stocks and 

Issuing Stock Assessment Reports under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(NMFS 2019). This directive established 

that DIP delineation and stock 

designation are separate processes. DIP 

delineation is the process of interpreting 

the scientific lines of evidence 

supporting whether groups of animals 

are demographically independent, 

including determining the geographic 

range of the groups. DIP delineation 

occurs outside the SAR process, and is 

described in Martien et al. (2019). Stock 

designation is the process of officially 

classifying a stock as a management unit 

that will then be described and assessed 

in SARs and considers whether 

individual DIPs can be effectively 

managed as stocks. In light of the 2016 

ESA humpback whale DPS listings, the 

MMPA humpback whale stock 

designations are currently being reevaluated according to the process laid 

out in NMFS (2019). NMFS is reviewing 

the best available science on humpback 

whale population structure in the 

Pacific and evaluating the lines of 

evidence to, where possible, delineate 

humpback whale DIPs as guided by 

Martien et al. (2019). This review and 

evaluation is currently underway and 

following its completion, we will follow 

the process to revise stock designations 

following NMFS (2019) as resources 

allow. 

Both the humpback whale incidents 

referred to in the comment were outside 

the time frame of this SAR. Regarding 

EM technologies, NMFS believes these 

can provide valuable supplementary 

data in addition to traditional fisheries 

observers for collecting data on fishing 

effort and catch (landings and discards), 

including bycatch of protected species. 

While we have made significant strides 

in assessing the technology and 

potential applications of EM, there are 

continuing policy and data-related 

challenges that come with new 

technologies. These include how to 

process and store the enormous amount 

of electronic data, enforcement of 

compliance issues, privacy concerns of 

fishery participants, costs, and image 

processing. As research and 

development efforts continue, we are 

actively working to include protected 

species in those efforts. In time, we 

expect to see EM technologies available 

for wider applications, including select 

fisheries for monitoring bycatch of 

protected species. 

False Killer Whale, Hawaiian Island 

Stock Complex 

Comment 50: HLA appreciates that 

NMFS has updated the False Killer 

whale SAR to incorporate the results of 

the line transect survey that occurred in 

2017, as well as NMFS’ associated 

modeling work. For future surveys, HLA 

requests that the results be processed 

and reported in the SAR more promptly. 

HLA comments that it is not consistent 

with the MMPA, or otherwise 

acceptable, to update a SAR with key 

information four years after the data has 

been gathered. HLA believes the results 

presented in the draft SAR, which 

reflect the best available scientific 

information, demonstrate that the deepset fishery’s M/SI rate for the Hawaii 

Pelagic False Killer whale Stock (Pelagic 

Stock) is far below the stock’s PBR. 

Specifically, the deep-set fishery’s M/SI 

rate in the U.S. EEZ (6.5) is less than 

half of the PBR for the Pelagic Stock in 

the EEZ (16), and the fishery’s overall 

Pelagic Stock M/SI rate (35.3 

[combining inside and outside the EEZ]) 

is less than 15 percent of NMFS 

estimated PBR for the central Pacific 

(259). These results confirm the 

positions HLA has taken since the False 

Killer whale Take Reduction Team 

formed in 2009—i.e., that NMFS has 

consistently underestimated the 

abundance of the Pelagic Stock and that 

the deep-set fishery’s M/SI rate does not 

exceed, and has never exceeded, the 

PBR for that stock. HLA comments that 

it presented a detailed statistical 

analysis performed by Dr. Ray Hilborn 

showing that NMFS had substantially 

underestimated the population size of 

the Pelagic Stock in the Hawaii EEZ. At 

that time, NMFS estimated the EEZ 

stock size to be 484 whales. Dr. 

Hilborn’s analysis concluded that a 

more accurate abundance estimate was 

2,066 whales in the EEZ. After HLA 

presented those results, HLA believes 

NMFS wrongly criticized and discarded 

Dr. Hilborn’s analysis. 

HLA comments that NMFS current 

estimate for the Pelagic Stock in the EEZ 

is 2,086 whales (only 20 more than Dr. 

Hilborn estimated in 2009). HLA 

comments that the best available 

science, as reported in the draft SAR, 

shows that the population size of the 

Pelagic Stock in the EEZ has 

consistently been approximately 2,100 

animals going back to 2002. 

Specifically, the draft SAR, based on 

Bradford et al. (2020), estimates that the 

stock numbered 2,144 animals in 2010 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
39002 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 

and 2,122 animals in 2002. This 

demonstrates that the Pelagic Stock has 

never been ‘‘strategic’’ because the deepset fishery’s M/SI rate has never 

exceeded a PBR based on those 

abundances. This also shows that there 

was no basis, as HLA argued in 2009, to 

include the Pelagic Stock within the 

scope of the False Killer whale Take 

Reduction Team. Finally, HLA believes 

the best available science also shows 

that the Pelagic Stock is either 

increasing or, at worst, remaining stable. 

If NMFS’ pre-2010 estimate of 484 

whales for the Pelagic Stock in the EEZ 

is to be believed, then the stock has 

increased in size dramatically over the 

ensuing years. Alternatively, based on 

the current best available science 

(Bradford et al. 2020), the stock has 

remained stable at a high abundance (of 

approximately 2,100 whales) within the 

Hawaii EEZ since at least 2002. Either 

way, HLA believes there is no evidence 

that the Hawaii-based longline fisheries 

are having any noticeable impact on the 

stock. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

timely publication of results that inform 

SARs is important. Surveys were 

completed at the end of 2017, and the 

collected data were quality-checked and 

verified into 2018. New data protocols 

designed to improve abundance 

estimates for this species had to be 

integrated with existing line-transect 

methodology and updated analysis 

approaches to obtain the most robust 

estimates of abundance. After 

undergoing peer review, the final results 

were published in 2020, with the time 

between data collection and publication 

consistent with other studies using new 

approaches to generate estimates of 

abundance. 

False killer whale assessments are 

complex. We have learned a lot about 

false killer whale social structure and 

behavior over the past 10–15 years that 

has significantly changed the way we 

collect and analyze survey data for this 

species. While we have much greater 

confidence in our 2002, 2010, and 2017 

estimates now than we did when the 

2002 or 2010 estimates were originally 

formulated, the older estimates were the 

best available estimates at the time they 

were published and used in the SARs. 

We no longer refer to those estimates in 

the SAR because they are no longer the 

best available. To refer to them now as 

rationale for arguing the stock has 

increased is inappropriate. The MMPA 

calls for using the best available 

scientific data available at the time that 

the assessments are to be completed. 

PBR is designed to deal with great 

uncertainty and is inherently 

precautionary. Although it is 

coincidental that the Hilborn 2009 

analysis produced an abundance 

estimate that is close to our current 

estimate, our assessment of that analysis 

has not changed. There were 

documented problems with the Hilborn 

analysis, and it used what are now 

severely outdated data and parameter 

estimates, such that it is inappropriate 

to compare the outdated Hilborn 2009 

estimate with our current estimate 

representing years of targeted 

improvements in data collection, 

analytical approach, g(0) estimation, etc. 

With regard to comparing the current 

PBR to fishery mortality, we are clear 

within the SAR and in all other 

communications about our pelagic stock 

abundance estimates that the full central 

Pacific estimate provided in Bradford et 

al. (2020) and in the SAR represents 

more than one stock of false killer 

whales. The Palmyra stock, Hawaii 

pelagic stock, and any Eastern Pacific 

stocks are all also partially included 

here. Since we do not presently have 

high-seas boundaries for any of these 

stocks, we are not able to partition the 

full central Pacific estimate to the 

Hawaii pelagic stock, and, therefore, 

cannot meaningfully compare the full 

Hawaii pelagic stock abundance and 

PBR with fishing mortality. 

Comment 51: HLA comments that the 

draft 2020 SAR assigns a recovery factor 

of 0.5 to the Hawaii pelagic stock, which 

is the value typically assigned to 

depleted or threatened stocks or stocks 

of unknown status with a mortality 

estimate CV of 0.3 or less. However, the 

Hawaii pelagic stock is not depleted or 

threatened, nor is its status unknown. 

This status should be accurately 

reflected with a recovery factor that is 

greater than 0.5 (i.e., closer to 1.0 than 

to 0.5). 

Response: A recovery factor of 0.5 is 

appropriate for the Hawaii pelagic stock. 

There are no estimates of population 

trend for this stock, and the model used 

to produce the new 2002, 2010, and 

2017 could not accommodate a trend 

term given the sparse dataset. Stable or 

increasing levels of bycatch and 

depredation may be driven by a number 

of factors, including increasing overlap 

in the occurrence of false killer whales 

and fishing activity, learning by whales 

to approach fishing boats, increasing 

false killer whale population, or changes 

in the fishery that allow for higher rates 

of depredation or observed bycatch. 

Comment 52: HLA comments there 

have been no Hawaii-based deep-set 

longline fishery interactions with the 

Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) insular 

false killer whale stock and comments 

that the draft SAR incorrectly attributes 

M/SI to the deep-set fishery in 2017 and 

in 2018. HLA requests that, if NMFS 

nevertheless proceeds to attribute M/SI 

to the deep-set fishery (which HLA 

strongly disagrees with), then HLA 

requests the draft SAR should at a 

minimum state that there are no 

confirmed deep-set fishery interactions 

with the MHI insular stock, and that no 

deep-set fishery interactions with the 

MHI insular stock have occurred in the 

very limited area where longline effort 

might overlap with the assumed range 

for the stock. 

Response: NMFS has addressed this 

concern in previous responses to 

comments on the SARs. NMFS’ 

Observer Program does not observe 

every deep-set trip. With ∼20 percent 

coverage, some statistical extrapolation/ 

approximation of what is observed is 

required. False killer whale takes are 

relatively rare. The rarity of observed 

takes, together with the sampling design 

mean that the lack of observation does 

not equate to the lack of actual 

interactions. We agree that we can more 

explicitly state that no confirmed MHI 

insular false killer whales have been 

observed as taken in this fishery, though 

this needs to be balanced by the fact that 

very few of the observed takes are 

identified to stock due to the lack of 

tissue samples or adequate photographs. 

NMFS is not attributing interactions that 

occur outside of the MHI insular stock 

area to the MHI insular stock. We are 

prorating the estimated portion of the 

take to account for fishing effort that 

occurs within the MHI insular stock 

range and based on the relative density 

of the false killer whale stocks in this 

area. In reality, if an MHI insular false 

killer whale were taken by the fishery, 

we would very likely be 

underestimating the impact on this 

stock given our current proration 

method. 

Comment 53: HLA notes that the draft 

SAR estimates the MHI insular stock 

abundance to be 167 animals, based 

upon Bradford et al. (2018), which 

found that the population size of the 

MHI insular stock in certain study areas 

has consistently ranged between 144 

and 187 animals over a 16-year period. 

HLA comments that the draft SAR’s 

reported abundance estimate of 167 

animals underestimates the MHI insular 

stock’s abundance, perhaps to a very 

significant degree. HLA comments that 

it is unscientific and contrary to the 

MMPA for NMFS to report the 

estimated abundance for only a portion 

of the MHI insular stock. HLA notes that 

the MMPA requires the SAR to 

‘‘describe the geographic range of the 

affected stock’’ and to provide minimum 

population estimates for ‘‘such stock’’ 

(not a ‘‘portion of such stock’’). HLA 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 39003 

states in its comments that NMFS has 

made no attempt to estimate the 

abundance of the MHI insular stock 

across its range or to apply ‘‘appropriate 

correction factors’’ to do so. HLA notes 

that the draft SAR is therefore legally 

deficient and must be corrected. 

If NMFS nonetheless retains the MHI 

insular stock abundance estimate of 167 

animals, then HLA believes that number 

should be considered the ‘‘minimum 

population estimate.’’ HLA notes that as 

Bradford et al. (2018) acknowledges, the 

estimate of 167 animals is an 

underestimate, so there is no need to 

apply an additional reduction factor to 

this number for purposes of reporting 

the ‘‘minimum population estimate’’ 

because NMFS already has a 

scientifically published ‘‘reasonable 

assurance that the stock size is equal to 

or greater than’’ 167 animals. HLA 

comments that to report an even lower 

‘‘minimum population estimate’’ is 

arbitrary and contrary to the MMPA. 

Finally, HLA believes should NMFS 

retain the MHI insular stock population 

estimate of 167 animals with no 

additional information about the actual 

population size, it must, consistent with 

its obligation to report the best available 

scientific information, disclose what 

specific portion of the MHI insular 

stock’s range was surveyed in the 

Bradford et al. (2018) study. HLA 

believes if NMFS is going to report an 

abundance estimate for only a portion of 

an MMPA stock’s range, then at the very 

minimum it must disclose to the public 

what portion of the range is at issue. 

Response: The second excerpt from 

Bradford et al. (2018) was incomplete. 

The remainder of the quoted paragraph 

is: ‘‘However, movement analyses of 2 

of the 3 social clusters have shown that 

individuals satellite-tagged by CRC 

[Cascadia Research Collective] on the 

leeward sides of the MHI regularly use 

both leeward and windward waters 

throughout the chain (Baird et al. 2010, 

2012), which suggests there are unlikely 

to be individuals in the population that 

never use the predominantly leeward 

sampling areas [that were clearly 

identified relative to the stock range in 

Figure 1 of the paper]. Therefore, it is 

likely that all individuals in the 

population have been exposed to 

sampling efforts at some point during 

the study period, although not 

necessarily in each year.’’ In general, 

this paper appropriately acknowledges 

that unavoidable sampling biases led to 

some degree of underestimation in the 

annual abundance estimates, but that all 

supporting evidence indicates the 

population is small. Thus, there is no 

basis to suggest that this 

underestimation is substantial. NMFS 

has, and will continue to work towards 

understanding and addressing the 

availability issues discussed at length in 

Bradford et al. (2018), though we do not 

believe the underestimation is equal in 

all years or that it is substantial in any 

year. We will continue to use the point 

estimates and CV provided there to 

compute an Nmin. 

Comment 54: WPRFMC comments 

that in the draft 2020 SAR, NMFS uses 

only the most recent abundance 

estimate to calculate the PBR. WPRFMC 

recommends that using a tiered 

approach for calculating PBR based on 

data availability would allow for the use 

of all available abundance estimates to 

estimate the minimum population 

estimate (Nmin) and recovery factor, 

and reduce the uncertainty in the PBR 

estimates. WPRFMC therefore requests 

that NMFS include all available 

abundance estimates for the pelagic 

false killer whale stock using the 

approach developed by Brandon et al. 

(2017). 

Response: NMFS appreciates the 

request for more expediency in 

generating false killer whale abundance 

estimates and reporting them in the 

SARs. We understand the importance of 

these estimates and their bearing on 

management, which underscores our 

commitment to ensure our results are as 

robust and reliable as possible. Please 

see our response to comment 50. 

Regarding the tiered PBR approach, 

the MMPA calls for using the best 

available scientific data available at the 

time that the assessments are to be 

completed. The NMFS Guidelines for 

Assessing Marine Mammal Stock 

(GAMMS 2016), provide guidance on 

the calculation of Nmin to the 20th 

percentile of a log-normal distribution. 

This approach is designed to deal with 

great uncertainty and is inherently 

precautionary. 

North Pacific Gray Whales 

Comment 55: The Makah Tribe notes 

that the draft SAR compounds 

contextual ambiguity by using the name 

Western Breeding Stock (WBS) to 

identify the ‘‘third unnamed stock’’ in 

the description of the International 

Whaling Commission (IWC) Scientific 

Committee’s stock structure hypothesis 

4a. They recommend that NMFS either 

name the third implied stock based on 

its feeding and wintering grounds, e.g., 

Sakhalin Eastern Breeding Stock which 

will distinguish it from the WBS and 

Eastern Breeding Stock (EBS), or use the 

same phrase as the IWC Scientific 

Committee: ‘‘WFG (Western Feeding 

Group) whales that interbreed largely 

with each other while migrating to the 

Mexican wintering ground’’ (IWC 

2020b). 

Response: NMFS has aligned the 

stock hypothesis language used in the 

IWC stock structure document (IWC 

2020b) with that appearing in both the 

Eastern North Pacific (ENP) and 

Western North Pacific (WNP) gray 

whale SARs. This should eliminate the 

previously confounding reference to the 

WBS for the implied third breeding 

stock. The unnamed third breeding 

stock referenced by the IWC is now 

referred to as ‘‘WFG (Western Feeding 

Group) whales that interbreed largely 

with each other while migrating to the 

Mexico wintering ground.’’ 

Comment 56: The Makah Tribe 

comments that the new abundance 

estimate for the Pacific Coast Feeding 

Group (PCFG) was completed in late 

2019 and should be included in the 

2020 SAR in the section on Population 

Size, Potential Biological Removal, and 

other appropriate sections to reflect 

current information (Calambokidis et al. 

2019). The SAR should also include the 

recently published abundance estimate 

for the ENP stock based on the 2019–20 

survey (Stewart and Weller 2021). Also, 

the Makah Tribe recommends removing 

the description of the stranded whales 

as emaciated in the description of the 

Unusual Mortality Event (UME) in the 

Population Size section. 

Response: NMFS appreciates 

reference to new documents that 

became available during the public 

comment period for the draft 2020 

SARs. New abundance estimates for 

ENP and PCFG whales will be included 

the next time the ENP SAR is revised. 

This will allow for thorough peer review 

by the SRG and adequate public 

comment. Language has been changed 

in the final 2020 SAR to better reflect 

the variable body conditions of stranded 

whales during the UME. Figures that 

pertain to the UME have been removed 

from the SAR and the reader is now 

pointed to the UME website, which 

includes periodic updates to the UME 

status. 

Comment 57: The Makah Tribe 

recommends the first sentence of the 

Subsistence/Native Harvest Information 

section be modified to remove the 

geographic limitation to the Bering Sea. 

Furthermore, the Makah Tribe requests 

that the sentence should recognize that 

gray whales were once hunted in 

Canada (Monks et al. 2001). 

Additionally, in the new text describing 

NMFS’ proposed waiver, the Makah 

Tribe recommends two changes. First, 

in the reference to three annual strikes, 

the SAR should explain that this is the 

maximum number of strikes allowed 

under the proposed regulations, e.g., 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
39004 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 

‘‘based on the maximum allowed 3 

strikes annually.’’ Second, the 

description of the post-hearing comment 

period should reflect that it ended in 

March 2020, e.g., ‘‘NMFS requested 

public comment.’’ Also, the description 

of the IWC’s approval of a gray whale 

catch limit should be revised to reflect 

current terminology, e.g, replacing 

‘‘quota’’ with ‘‘catch limit,’’ and should 

reflect changes to the catch limit made 

in 2018. 

Response: NMFS has included new 

language in the final 2020 SAR to 

incorporate these suggestions. 

Comment 58: The draft SAR refers to 

unpublished reports that have since 

been published in peer-reviewed 

journals. The Makah Tribe recommends 

that the following replacement citations 

for unpublished reports be used where 

applicable: Lang et al. (2011b) should be 

updated to Lang et al. (2014) and Mate 

et al. (2010) should be updated to 

Lagerquist et al. (2019). 

Response: These references have been 

updated in the final 2020 SAR. 

Comment 59: Please see the Makah 

Tribe’s recommended changes to IWC 

stock structure hypotheses in the draft 

SAR for the ENP stock, as the draft WNP 

SAR incorporates identical text. 

Response: See response to comment 

57. 

Comment 60: The tribe comments that 

the draft SAR updates text regarding the 

estimated probabilities of a Makah hunt 

taking a WNP gray whale to reflect the 

conclusions of Moore and Weller (2018). 

However, in making the update, the 

draft SAR fails to carry forward an 

explanation of the probabilities that is 

helpful to laypeople reading the SAR 

and makes clear that the estimated 

probability of such a take is very low. 

The Makah Tribe recommends that an 

updated version of that explanatory 

sentence (‘‘This corresponds to an 

expectation of greater than 1 WNP 

whale strike in one of every 83 to 167 

years’’), which is stricken in the raft 

SAR, be included in the revision. NMFS 

also needs to correct the 95 percent 

Bayesian Credible Interval (CRI) for the 

probability for a 10-year hunt to ‘‘(95 

percent CRI 0.030–0.093).’’ Because the 

same text is used in the draft ENP SAR, 

the changes above should be made in 

revising that SAR as well. 

Response: NMFS has added language 

to reflect statements from the proposed 

rule (84 FR 13604; April 5, 2019) that 

provides details on the WNP risk 

assessment by Moore and Weller (2018). 

Comment 61: The Status of Stock 

section of the draft SAR begins with the 

assertion that ‘‘[t]he WNP stock is listed 

as ‘Endangered’ under the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) 

and is therefore also considered 

‘strategic’ and ‘depleted’ under the 

MMPA.’’ As with previous SARs for the 

WNP stock, no explanation of the listing 

status is provided, but the draft SAR 

does note an ongoing 5-year Status 

Review initiated by NMFS in 2018. The 

Tribe believes NMFS never addresses 

the crux of the issue, i.e., the agency’s 

description of the WNP stock in the 

1994 ESA delisting decision as 

geographically and reproductively 

isolated from the ENP stock is 

fundamentally inconsistent with the 

draft SAR’s classification of whales 

migrating from Sakhalin to Mexico as 

part of the same WNP stock and, 

therefore, ‘‘Endangered.’’ 

In the draft SAR, intermittent 

observations of gray whales in Asian 

waters are cited as evidence of 

continued migration to an Asian 

breeding ground. Further, Cooke et al. 

(2019) found that up to 20 percent of 

WNP whales migrate to breeding 

grounds in Asian waters, providing 

support for their conclusion that ‘‘it is 

likely that a western breeding 

population that migrates through Asian 

waters still exists.’’ At the same time, 

the IWC Scientific Committee has 

developed stock structure hypotheses 

where in the most plausible hypotheses 

the WBS, which in Makah’s view 

corresponds to the WNP stock described 

in the ENP stock’s delisting documents, 

has either been extirpated (3a and 4a) or 

is extant but exists solely in Asian 

waters (5a). The same hypotheses 

postulate that whales that feed at 

Sakhalin and migrate to North America 

are either the WFG, which interbreeds 

with other whales of the EBS (3a and 5a) 

or breeds largely with other WFG 

whales while migrating to Mexico (4a). 

NMFS has never provided a rational 

explanation for its treatment of WFG 

whales, i.e., those Sakhalin whales that 

migrate to North America, as equivalent 

to the WBS, which as described by the 

IWC matches the agency’s 1994 

description of the geographically 

isolated, ‘‘Endangered’’ WNP stock. 

Indeed, the agency’s incorrect use of 

‘‘WBS’’ for the unnamed, implied third 

breeding stock, as discussed above, 

appears related to this lack of clarity in 

the draft SAR. Absent an explanation in 

the SAR, NMFS’ assertion that the WNP 

stock described in the draft SAR is 

‘‘Endangered’’ is untenable and the 

Status of Stock should be changed to 

‘‘unknown’’ until NMFS makes a formal 

determination of the status of WFG 

whales. 

The Tribe has commented at length 

on this issue in previous draft SARs 

(2014 and 2018) and believes NMFS’ 

response does not explain how, if at all, 

the agency’s view of stock structure 

corresponds to the stock structure 

hypotheses of the Scientific Committee. 

Response: We acknowledge that the 

stock structure of North Pacific gray 

whales is an area of active investigation, 

internationally and domestically, as 

evidenced by the IWC’s Scientific 

Committee currently recognizing three 

‘high plausibility’ stock structure 

hypotheses for WNP gray whales (IWC 

2020). Consistent with our responses to 

related comments from the Makah on 

the 2018 SAR, we have relied on the 

best available information to update the 

‘‘Stock Definition and Geographic 

Range’’ information in the final SAR. 

Also, NMFS has convened a Status 

Review Team to evaluate this 

information and the ESA status of WNP 

gray whales (83 FR 4032; January 29, 

2018), including the delineation of any 

distinct population segment (DPS). 

Results from this evaluation will be 

incorporated as appropriate in future 

updates of the North Pacific gray whale 

SARs. 

References 

Currie, J. J., S. H. Stack, J. A. McCordic, and 

G. D. Kaufman. 2017. Quantifying the 

risk that marine debris poses to 

cetaceans in coastal waters of the 4- 

island region of Maui. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin 121:69–77. DOI: dx.doi.org/ 

10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.05.031. 

Currie, J. J., J. A. McCordic, G. L. Olson, A. 

F. Machernis, and S. H. Stack. 2021. The 

impact of vessels on humpback whale 

behavior: the benefit of added whale 

watching guidelines. Frontiers in Marine 

Science. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.3389/ 

fmars.2021.601433. 

Daoust, P.Y., E.L. Couture, T. Wimmer, and 

L. Bourque. 2018. Incident report: North 

Atlantic right whale mortality event in 

the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 2017. Ottawa 

(CA): Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada. 

Moore, J.E., and D.W. Weller 2018. Updated 

estimates of the probability of striking a 

western North Pacific gray whale during 

the proposed Makah hunt. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS– 

SWFSC–605. 8 p. https://doi.org/ 

10.25923/je72-t228. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 

2012. National Marine Fisheries Service 

Policy Directive 02–238. Process for 

distinguishing serious from non-serious 

injury of marine mammals. 4 p. 

Available online: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/pds/documents/ 

02/02-238.pdf. 

NOAA Federal Register Vol. 83, No. 19. 

January 29, 2018. Endangered and 

Threatened Species; Initiation of 5-Year 

Reviews for the Endangered Fin Whale, 

Endangered Gray Whale Western North 

Pacific Distinct Population Segment, and 

Endangered Sei Whale. 

Pace III, R. M., R. Williams, S. D. Kraus, A. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 39005 

R. Knowlton, and H. M. Pettis. 2021. 

Cryptic mortality of North Atlantic right 

whales. Conservation Science and 

Practice. 3:e346. 

Pace III, R. M. 2021. Revisions and further 

evaluations of the right whale abundance 

model: improvements for hypothesis 

testing. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS–NE–269. 

Schuler, A. R., S. Piwetz, J. Di Clemente, D. 

Steckler, F. Mueter, and H. C. Pearson. 

2019. Humpback whale movements and 

behavior in response to whale-watching 

vessels in Juneau, AK. Frontiers in 

Marine Science 6: Article 710. DOI: 

dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00710. 

Dated: July 19, 2021. 

Evan Howell, 

Director, Office of Science and Technology, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15701 Filed 7–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM 

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR 

SEVERELY DISABLED 

Procurement List; Proposed Additions 

and Deletions 

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled. 

ACTION: Proposed deletions from the 

procurement list. 

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing 

to delete product(s) and service(s) from 

the Procurement List that were 

furnished by nonprofit agencies 

employing persons who are blind or 

have other severe disabilities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before: August 22, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase 

From People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 

715, Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information or to submit 

comments contact: Michael R. 

Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785–6404, 

or email CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice is published pursuant to 41 

U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its 

purpose is to provide interested persons 

an opportunity to submit comments on 

the proposed actions. 

Deletions 

The following product(s) and 

service(s) are proposed for deletion from 

the Procurement List: 

Product(s) 

NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 

7510–01–600–7582—Monthly Wall 

Calendar, Dated 2021, Jan–Dec, 

81⁄2′′ x 11′′ 

7510–01–600–7630—Wall Calendar, Dated 

2021, Wire Bound w/Hanger, 12′′ x 17′′ 

7510–01–600–7575—Wall Calendar, Dated 

2021, Wire Bound w/hanger, 15.5′′ x 22′′ 

7510–01–682–8098—Wall Calendar, 

Recycled, Dated 2021, Vertical, 3 

Months, 121⁄4′′ x 26′′ 

7530–01–600–7617—Weekly Planner 

Book, Dated 2021, 5′′ x 8′′, Black 

7530–01–600–7590—Daily Desk Planner, 

Dated 2021, Wire bound, Non-refillable, 

Black Cover 

7530–01–600–7597—Monthly Desk 

Planner, Dated 2021, Wire Bound, Nonrefillable, Black Cover 

7530–01–600–7601—Weekly Desk Planner, 

Dated 2021, Wire Bound, Non-refillable, 

Black Cover 

7510–01–682–8110—Professional Planner, 

Dated 2021, Recycled, Weekly, Black, 

81⁄2′′ x 11′′ 

7510–01–682–8091—Monthly Planner, 

Recycled, Dated 2021, 14-month, 67⁄8′′ x 

83⁄4′′ 

Designated Source of Supply: Chicago 

Lighthouse Industries, Chicago, IL 

Contracting Activity: GSA/FAS ADMIN 

SVCS ACQUISITION BR(2, NEW YORK, 

NY 

NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510–01–600– 

8027—Dated 2021 12-Month 2-Sided 

Laminated Wall Planner, 24′′ x 37′′ 

Designated Source of Supply: Chicago 

Lighthouse Industries, Chicago, IL 

Contracting Activity: GSA/FAS FURNITURE 

SYSTEMS MGT DIV, PHILADELPHIA, 

PA 

NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7520–01–622– 

7156—Portable Desktop Clipboard with 

Calculator, 10′′ W x 23⁄5′′ D x 16′′ H, 

Army Green 

Designated Source of Supply: LC Industries, 

Inc., Durham, NC 

Contracting Activity: GSA/FAS ADMIN 

SVCS ACQUISITION BR(2, NEW YORK, 

NY 

NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 

7520–01–587–9633—Pen, Ballpoint, 

Retractable, 3 Pack, Black, Medium Point 

7520–01–587–9650—Pen, Ballpoint, 

Retractable, Hybrid Ink, 6 Pack, 

Assorted, Medium Point 

Designated Source of Supply: Industries for 

the Blind and Visually Impaired, Inc., 

West Allis, WI 

Contracting Activity: GSA/FAS ADMIN 

SVCS ACQUISITION BR(2, NEW YORK, 

NY 

NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510–01–579– 

9322—Binder, Removable Slant-D Rings, 

100% Recyclable, Turned Edge, Dark 

Green, 3′′ Capacity, Letter 

Designated Source of Supply: South Texas 

Lighthouse for the Blind, Corpus Christi, 

TX 

Contracting Activity: STRATEGIC 

ACQUISITION CENTER, 

FREDERICKSBURG, VA 

NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510–01–579– 

9322—Binder, Removable Slant-D Rings, 

100% Recyclable, Turned Edge, Dark 

Green, 3′′ Capacity, Letter 

Designated Source of Supply: South Texas 

Lighthouse for the Blind, Corpus Christi, 

TX 

Contracting Activity: GSA/FAS ADMIN 

SVCS ACQUISITION BR(2, NEW YORK, 

NY 

NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7930–00–NIB– 

0720—Dust Remover, Compressed Gas, 

10 oz. 

Mandatory Source of Supply: The Lighthouse 

for the Blind, St. Louis, MO 

Contracting Activity: GSA/FSS GREATER 

SOUTHWEST ACQUISITI, FORT 

WORTH, TX 

NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 

7520–01–484–5259—Pen, Ball Point, 

Retractable, Ergonomic, MD Executive 

Grip, Burgundy Barrel, Black Ink, 

Medium Point 

7520–01–484–5255—Pen, Ball Point, 

Retractable, Ergonomic, MD Ergo Grip, 

Burgundy Barrel, Black Ink, Medium 

Point 

Designated Source of Supply: Industries for 

the Blind and Visually Impaired, Inc., 

West Allis, WI 

Contracting Activity: GSA/FAS ADMIN 

SVCS ACQUISITION BR(2, NEW YORK, 

NY 

NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 

8465–01–519–6132—Load Lifter 

Attachment Strap, MOLLE Components, 

Desert Camouflage 

8465–01–524–7241—Load Lifter 

Attachment Strap, MOLLE Components, 

Universal Camouflage 

8465–01–580–1666—Load Lifter 

Attachment Strap, MOLLE Components, 

OEFCP 

Contracting Activity: DLA TROOP SUPPORT, 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 

NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8465–01–580– 

1666—Load Lifter Attachment Strap, 

MOLLE Components, OEFCP 

Contracting Activity: W6QK ACC-APG 

NATICK, NATICK, MA 

NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8455–01–113– 

0061—Qualification Badge, Basic Expert, 

U. S. Army 

Mandatory Source of Supply: Fontana 

Resources at Work, Fontana, CA 

Contracting Activity: DLA TROOP SUPPORT, 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 

NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6640–00–165– 

5778—Kit, Urine Specimen Bottles With 

Mailers 

Designated Source of Supply: Alphapointe, 

Kansas City, MO 

Contracting Activity: DLA TROOP SUPPORT, 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 

Service(s) 

Service Type: Sourcing, Warehousing, 

Assembly and Kitting 

Mandatory for: Army National Guard 

Recruiting and Retention Command, 

Nashville, TN, Houston Barracks, 

Nashville, TN 

Designated Source of Supply: Industries for 

the Blind and Visually Impaired, Inc., 

West Allis, WI 

Contracting Activity: DEPT OF THE ARMY, 

W7N1 USPFO ACTIVITY TN ARNG 

Service Type: Furniture Design and 

Configuration Services 

Mandatory for: Maine National Guard, 

Augusta, ME, 194 Winthrop Street, 

Augusta, ME 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES