Final 2021 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, 47385-47397 [2022-16543]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47385-47397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16543]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XC187]


Final 2021 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 2021 marine mammal 
stock assessment reports (SARs). This notice announces the availability 
of 50 final 2021 SARs that were updated and finalized.

ADDRESSES: The 2021 Final SARs are available in electronic form via 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region.
    Copies of the Alaska Regional SARs may be requested from Nancy 
Young, Alaska Fisheries Science Center; copies of the Atlantic, Gulf of 
Mexico, and Caribbean Regional SARs may be requested from Sean Hayes, 
Northeast Fisheries Science Center; and copies of the Pacific Regional 
SARs may be requested from Jim Carretta, Southwest Fisheries Science 
Center (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zachary Schakner, Office of Science 
and Technology, 301-427-8106, [email protected]; Nancy Young, 
206-526-4297, [email protected], regarding Alaska regional stock 
assessments; Sean Hayes, 508-495-2362, [email protected], regarding 
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean regional stock assessments; or 
Jim Carretta, 858-546-7171, [email protected], 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 SARs 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 SARs were 
completed in 1995.
    The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually 
for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information 
is available, and at least once every 3 years for non-strategic stocks. 
The term ``strategic stock'' means a marine mammal stock: (A) for which 
the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential 
biological removal level or potential biological removal rate 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); (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 or is designated as depleted under the MMPA. NMFS 
and FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has 
changed or can be more accurately determined.
    In order to ensure that marine mammal SARs constitute the best 
scientific information available, the updated SARs under NMFS's 
jurisdiction are peer-reviewed within NOAA Fisheries Science Centers 
and by members of three regional independent Scientific Review Groups 
(SRGs), established under the MMPA to independently advise NMFS and 
FWS. Because of the time it takes to review, revise, and assess 
available data, the period covered by the 2021 Final SARs is 2015 
through 2019. While this results in a time lag, the extensive peer 
review process ensures the best scientific information is available in 
the SARs.

[[Page 47386]]

    NMFS reviewed the status of all marine mammal strategic stocks and 
considered whether significant new information was available for all 
other stocks under NMFS' jurisdiction. As a result of this review, NMFS 
revised a total of 50 SARs in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions 
to incorporate new information. The 2021 revisions to the SARs consist 
primarily of updated or revised human-caused M/SI estimates and updated 
abundance estimates. No stocks changed in status from ``non-strategic'' 
to ``strategic.'' Three stocks (all Northern Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound, 
and Estuary Common Bottlenose Dolphin stocks--Galveston Bay, East Bay, 
Trinity Bay stock; Mississippi River Delta stock; and Sabine Lake 
stock) changed in status from ``strategic'' to ``non-strategic.''
    NMFS received comments on the draft 2021 SARs from the Marine 
Mammal Commission (Commission); the Department of Fisheries and Oceans 
Canada (DFO); the Makah Indian Tribe (Makah); the Washington Department 
of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW); the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 
(ODFW); three fishing industry associations (Hawaii Longline 
Association (HLA), Maine Lobstermen's Association (MLA), and United 
Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG)), and a coalition comment letter 
from two non-governmental organizations (Center for Biological 
Diversity and Whale and Dolphin Conservation, hereafter referred to as 
``CBD and WDC''). 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 2021 SARs.

Comments on National Issues

Requirements of Section 117

    [Comment 1]: The Commission continues to be concerned about NMFS' 
performance in meeting several of the requirements of section 117 of 
the MMPA. Including the SARs revised in 2021, an Nmin estimate is 
lacking for 77 of the 252, or 31 percent, of identified stocks. The 
primary hindrance to full assessment of all stocks continues to be an 
ongoing lack of resources, including lack of access to vessel and 
aerial platforms from which population surveys are conducted. The 
Commission encourages NMFS' continued engagement and collaboration with 
other federal agencies that require basic information on marine mammal 
stocks, and the Commission reiterates its recommendation that these 
marine assessment programs continue to include appropriate personnel, 
logistical capability, and vessel time to allow for photo-
identification, biopsy sampling, satellite tagging, acoustic monitoring 
and other efforts to increase the value of the core line-transect 
survey data collected.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges 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 2]: The Commission comments that regarding trend analyses, 
guidance is needed on how population trend analyses should be 
performed, and how key uncertainties should be addressed. To address 
the reporting inconsistencies and lack of analyses, the Commission 
recommends that NMFS convene a workshop to develop guidelines for data 
requirements and best practices for population trend analyses pursuant 
to section 117 of the MMPA. The Commission recommends that invited 
participants include scientists from the NMFS Science Centers, SRG 
members, and non-NMFS statisticians who might provide guidance and 
different perspectives.
    Response: NMFS agrees that long-term time series trend analyses are 
useful, while also acknowledging that it is difficult to achieve the 
appropriate precision and accuracy needed to detect trends (Authier et 
al. 2020). NMFS will work to improve consistency across regions and 
provide best practices for trend analyses in the SARs. We plan to 
address this topic in a future GAMMS revision. In the short term, we 
appreciate the Commission's offer to help with a workshop and will 
consider the possibility of convening one, as resources allow.
    [Comment 3]: NMFS' process for distinguishing serious from non-
serious injury requires reporting information on human-caused events 
that result in injury to the animal. This includes detailed 
documentation of strikes of marine mammals by vessels. These data are 
listed in technical memoranda, which typically include summaries of 
human-caused mortalities and injuries. Data is stored within different 
NMFS programs, offices, and databases, such that there is no single 
source to query for all vessel strike data. This impedes the 
compilation of accurate data summaries and makes cross-regional 
comparisons of data challenging. Given that these data are being 
summarized separately by each region for reporting under the NMFS 
injury determination process, the Commission recommends that NMFS 
develop a system for centralizing all data on vessel strikes of marine 
mammals into a single, queryable source. This resource would have 
regional, national, and global value in understanding and mitigating 
risk of vessel strikes.
    Response: NMFS agrees with the value of a centralized database for 
vessel strikes. We are working to create this and will keep the 
Commission updated on our progress.
    [Comment 4]: The Commission is concerned about the references made 
to publications that are ``in review'' to support information in 12 of 
the draft SARs, particularly when addressing annual human-caused 
serious injury and mortality. Labeling a report as ``in review'' 
suggests that the underlying analysis has been completed and submitted 
for publication, but analyses could change prior to publication. 
Therefore, the Commission recommends that NMFS carefully consider 
whether it should base draft revisions to the SARs being considered for 
public comment on analyses that are still ``in review.'' At a minimum, 
NMFS should make every attempt to make the underlying reports/
publications available to the public during the comment period.
    Response: Because SARs are considered to be influential scientific 
assessments, all scientific information used in support of the SARs 
should meet the peer review requirements described in the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin on peer review and NOAA 
Information Quality Act guidelines to ensure the information is not 
only high quality but is available for management decisions in a timely 
fashion. The best scientific information available for any given time 
period covered in a SAR may not necessarily have been published or 
subjected to professional peer review prior to inclusion in a draft 
SAR, as this process can take months or years to complete. In other 
cases, data such as annual human-caused serious injury and mortality 
pertinent to assessments of stocks are routinely collected and 
analyzed, and while not always suitable for journal publication, we 
publish them as technical memoranda, annual reports, or memos to the 
record. These data, and methods are annually reviewed by the SRG, and 
NMFS considers this review to constitute peer review and to meet the 
requirements of the OMB Peer Review Bulletin and NOAA IQA guidelines.

[[Page 47387]]

Comments on Alaska Issues

Alaska Native Subsistence Takes

    [Comment 5]: The Commission has repeatedly recommended that NMFS, 
in collaboration with its co-management partners, improve its 
monitoring and reporting of subsistence hunting in Alaska. The 
Commission notes that take levels are lacking for the majority of 
communities that hunt or may hunt ice seals and harbor seals and 
continues to recommend that NMFS find ways to gather reliable 
information on the numbers of marine mammals taken for subsistence and 
handicraft purposes through partnerships with existing and emerging 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 few 
villages or a subset of years.
    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. 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. In particular, we have encouraged the Alaska Department of 
Fish & Game to explore the feasibility of obtaining harvest information 
and biological samples of subsistence-harvested seals in communities 
where such data collection has not recently occurred. The Alaska 
Department of Fish & Game is pursuing this.

Eastern Bering Sea (EBS) Beluga Whales

    [Comment 6]: The Commission understands that the final 2020 SAR for 
the Eastern Bering Sea (EBS) stock of beluga whales was withdrawn to 
allow for Tribal consultation. That SAR was not included in the draft 
reports for 2021. We await further word from NMFS on whether that SAR 
will be included in the final 2021 SARs for Alaska.
    Response: The EBS beluga whale SAR was not revised in 2021. After 
ongoing consultations with NMFS co-management partner, the Alaska 
Beluga Whale Committee (ABWC), NMFS has withdrawn the final 2020 EBS 
beluga whale SAR and anticipates releasing a revised draft SAR for the 
2022 or 2023 SAR cycle. This has been noted on the NMFS SAR web page 
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-species-stock#cetaceans--small-whales). Additionally, NMFS temporarily withdrew the final 2020 
Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Bristol Bay beluga whale SARs to review 
potential implications of the ABWC recommendations on the Eastern 
Bering Sea beluga whale SAR but republished them with an explanatory 
note indicating that any changes resulting from such a review will be 
reflected in a future SAR. As is our practice, we will include the most 
recently revised version of each Alaska SAR in the compiled final 
Alaska SARs. The most recent EBS beluga whale SAR is the final 2017 
SAR.
    NMFS is providing this information for awareness only and is not 
seeking public comment on the NMFS-ABWC co-management agreement nor the 
final 2020 EBS beluga whale SAR.

Southeast Alaska Harbor Porpoise

    [Comment 7]: USAG is concerned that the areas of highest densities 
of harbor porpoises have not been surveyed and suggests that a more 
thorough survey would involve track lines that followed the edges of 
the straits, in shallower water, and include larger bays and inlets. 
Since the stock boundaries for SEAK extend from west of Yakutat to 
Dixon Entrance, USAG wonders why the outside waters were not surveyed 
in 2019. This would indicate that the population estimate could be 
biased low. USAG comments that population survey would be best for the 
region if it included the coastal waters that were not included in 
2019.
    Response: In the 2019 survey, NMFS developed a protocol to sample 
the study area more thoroughly than ever before and to account for 
biases not previously considered in previous analyses. This protocol 
focused on: Sampling the habitats in the main channels of SEAK where 
harbor porpoise has been historically documented, including shallower 
(close to shore) and deeper (middle of the channel) waters. Because 
sampling in these areas was proportional to the area of each habitat, 
estimates of density within these habitats are expected to be unbiased.
    Approximately 40% of the area of inlets and small bays were sampled 
in response to previous criticism that NMFS' SEAK surveys did not cover 
these habitats. The results showed that only a small fraction 
(approximately 5-10%) of the population occurs in these areas in the 
summer.
    Applying a correction factor to account for animals missed (``g(0) 
correction'') developed with data from previous surveys in SEAK inland 
waters.
    The fact that the 2019 survey had nearly 200 sightings of harbor 
porpoise suggests that the design implemented during the cruise did 
sample the species habitat within inland waters.
    The SAR acknowledges that the estimate of abundance from inland 
waters is an underestimate for the whole stock because the outer coast 
between Cape Suckling and Dixon Entrance has not been sampled. The 
survey was limited to inside waters due to logistical and funding 
constraints. Sampling the outer coast is needed to develop a stock-wide 
estimate. Additional sampling for stock structure (e.g., environmental 
DNA (eDNA)) is also needed to assess the relationship of animals in the 
outer coast with those within inland waters.
    [Comment 8]: USAG points out that the SARs include evidence of sub-
populations of harbor porpoises. This is based on eDNA samples, with a 
notable difference between northern and southern parts of the region. 
Since the SEAK stock includes a large area, eDNA should be procured 
from all areas to further define sub-populations. There should also be 
eDNA collected in the Gulf of Alaska stock for comparison with the 
unique stocks in SEAK that may have been identified. USAG would 
question whether the samples were collected in a fashion that could 
have eliminated the possibility of familial relationships.
    Response: The evidence supporting population differentiation among 
regions throughout coastal Alaska waters and within the currently 
recognized SEAK stock is based on genetic data generated from both eDNA 
samples and tissue samples collected from fisheries bycatch and 
beachcast strandings. Nuclear genetic data suggest a degree of genetic 
relatedness among harbor porpoises sampled within a region that is 
greater than we would expect by chance, suggesting genetic structure 
and likely natal philopatry. Mitochondrial genetic data, generated from 
both tissue and eDNA samples, indicate significant genetic differences 
between Gulf of Alaska and SEAK, as well as within SEAK. The majority 
of the samples represent nearshore coastal waters; however, some 
coastal regions are poorly represented, or unrepresented (e.g., between 
Copper River and Yakutat).
    Environmental DNA samples were collected as surface seawater in the

[[Page 47388]]

fluke prints of submerging harbor porpoises from small boats in SEAK 
inshore waters. At this time, determining familial relationships is not 
feasible with eDNA samples. As a result, a conservative approach was 
adopted, counting each ``discovered'' unique genetic sequence from each 
eDNA sample only once. This strategy avoids over-representing 
mitochondrial haplotypes based on sequencing read depth but may 
underestimate genetic differentiation metrics if multiple related 
porpoises comprising the same mitochondrial haplotype co-occur, as 
multiple related porpoises represented by genetic material in a single 
eDNA sample will only be counted as a singleton. The Gulf of Alaska 
stock is well represented by tissue samples throughout nearshore waters 
(e.g., Cook Inlet and Copper River); however, coastal regions between 
SEAK and the Gulf of Alaska are unsampled and collecting samples from 
these regions will be very valuable for identifying key regions 
delimiting harbor porpoise stocks within SEAK and beyond.
    [Comment 9]: USAG comments that the SAR notes that entanglement in 
fishing gear is the only known human cause of mortality, but there are 
other industrial fisheries being prosecuted in the region. To make the 
assumption that only one gear type interacts with a species that exists 
in the same habitat seems arbitrary. Charter boats, sport fishing, 
yachters, cruise ships, both large and small, and other water related 
outdoor excursions, have all increased substantially, and the USAG 
notes that ship strikes are a cause of mortality.
    Response: NMFS agrees that harbor porpoise are difficult to see in 
the wild. We take the characteristics of the species into consideration 
when we design and execute our surveys. For example, we search for 
porpoise using binoculars, which allows for early detection. We only 
search in good visibility and oceanographic conditions. Before 
analysis, we inspect the data to assess whether there is evidence that 
animals are reacting to the boat. We only analyze data collected in 
relatively good observation conditions (e.g., Beaufort sea state 3 or 
less). The elusive nature of harbor porpoises often results in animals 
or groups of animals being missed by observers. We therefore estimate 
the proportion of porpoise missed and add that to the estimates of 
density and abundance to minimize or eliminate any negative bias in the 
estimates.
    The estimates of population size indicate abundance is stable in 
the northern portion of SEAK inland waters (e.g., around Cross Sound, 
Icy Strait, and Glacier Bay), but there is evidence of declines in the 
southern range of the species more towards the south, around Wrangell 
and Zarembo Island.
    Other types of fisheries can result in M/SI; but, as noted in the 
comment, they have not been documented in SEAK. In other parts of the 
world, harbor porpoises are known to be extremely vulnerable to 
gillnets, and there is no reason to believe the situation is different 
in SEAK. This is one of the reasons the concern with this type of 
gillnet fishery is greater.
    [Comment 10]: USAG emphasizes that the SEAK gillnet fishery has 
been fishing the same statistical waters since statehood, and those 
areas are a relatively small portion of the region. Portions of the 
areas SEAK gillnetters are permitted to fish are often closed to 
gillnetting for salmon management concerns, and other portions of those 
areas are not fished due to lack of productivity. Since 1975, with the 
inception of Limited Entry, USAG effort has been static. Given the 
lifespan of a harbor porpoise, USAG feels that it is safe to assume 
that any impact the gillnet fleet has had on the stock has likely 
happened. USAG notes there are no population estimates pre-statehood, 
so it would be impossible to determine just what impact commercial 
fishing has had on these animals since its inception.
    Response: It is still unclear whether the population is stable in 
part of the range (near Wrangell and Zarembo Island). NMFS agrees that 
there is uncertainty with respect to the potential impact of fisheries 
to harbor porpoise and believes that additional data are needed to 
address this question.
    [Comment 11]: In 2012 and 2013, the SEAK gillnet salmon fishery was 
observed in districts 6, 7, and 8. In 2012, there were 0 observed 
interactions with harbor porpoise. There were 2006.5 boat days for that 
particular season. In 2013, there were four observed interactions with 
harbor porpoises, two released alive, and two released, judged by the 
observer as significantly injured, likely resulting in a mortality. 
There were 2,708.6 boat days in 2013. This makes 2013 an anomaly in 
that USAG had several multi-day openings and more boats than normal 
fishing in the districts observed. USAG thinks this inflates the 
mortality associated with the gillnet fishery artificially.
    Response: NMFS takes fishing effort into account when calculating a 
bycatch rate and estimating M/SI. This minimizes bias in the estimates 
given potential differences in effort across years (e.g., between 2012 
and 2013, as suggested in the comment). NMFS agrees that rare events, 
when observed, inflate the mortality estimate. However, the capture of 
four porpoise in a single year (2013) suggests that bycatch events, 
while rare, may be occurring at a frequency large enough to impact the 
population, particularly in areas where harbor porpoise occur in 
relatively large numbers such as around the Alaska Department of Fish & 
Game fishing districts 6, 7, and 8 in SEAK.

Comments on Atlantic Issues

    [Comment 12]: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) 
believes the reference number provided for electronic submission of 
comments on the draft SARs (NOAA-NMFS-2021-0130) is incorrect as it 
leads to the wrong docket.
    Response: Thank you. Because of a technical error, we extended the 
public comment period two weeks and published a correction notice in 
the FR with the correct link for the appropriate docket.

Gray Seal

    [Comment 13]: The Commission remains concerned that numerous known 
serious injuries of gray seals are not being accounted for in estimates 
of total M/SI. The 2021 draft SAR reports a PBR level of 1,458. Total 
reported annual M/SI in U.S. waters is 1,179 (1,169 of which were 
deaths caused by U.S. commercial fisheries). The Commission recommends 
that NMFS use the best available science when calculating the total 
estimated annual M/SI to account for these entanglements. Further, the 
Commission encourages NMFS to work diligently to address this welfare 
issue and greatly reduce gray seal injuries and deaths in U.S. 
fisheries.
    Response: NMFS recognizes that estimates of gray seal bycatch 
mainly reflect mortalities because observers rarely document live 
animals. Therefore, data derived from observer coverage do not reflect 
the numerous animals that are seen living with entanglements and that 
may eventually die as a result. Currently, there is not a system in 
place to document seals that are living with entanglements in the NMFS 
National Stranding database (live entangled cetaceans are recorded, but 
not pinnipeds). This policy decision was made primarily due to the 
inability to distinguish between individuals, resulting in uncertainty 
over whether an observed entangled animal was a unique case, or one 
seal observed multiple times over many years. NMFS is working to 
address this issue, including developing a customized database for 
tracking entanglements rather than the

[[Page 47389]]

National Stranding database. We are also preliminarily planning to 
conduct entanglement surveys, as resources allow. The goal is to 
quantify the number of entangled animals at various haul-outs in a 
given day so that, at a minimum, we may add these to the bycatch 
estimates.

North Atlantic Right Whale

    [Comment 14]: DFO comments that right whale #3893 was assigned as a 
Canadian mortality and was observed in U.S. waters on January 22, 2018, 
before being found dead on January 28, 2018. Prior to this, it was seen 
gear free in Canadian waters on July 29, 2017. No pictures or 
information about the gear analysis have been provided to assist in the 
Canadian analysis. DFO emphasizes this whale should be XU.
    Right whale #3694 was ``unidentified'' prior to the 2020 SAR. Upon 
inquiry to NOAA, DFO received the following response: ``Gear from #3694 
was identified as Canadian snow crab by the NMFS Greater Atlantic 
Regional Fisheries Office, and this result was announced through an 
email to the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team in April 2018.'' 
No information on this was provided to Canadian officials for review.
    Response: The U.S. gear team reports that the recovered gear from 
right whale #3893 and #3694 are inconsistent with legal U.S. gear and 
are consistent with offshore Canadian trap/pot gear. Without new 
incident documentation or bilateral analysis, under longstanding NMFS 
protocols, NMFS would not change the current attribution. NMFS believes 
bilateral gear investigation of gear retrieved from entangled large 
whales in U.S. and Canadian waters would be invaluable to improve our 
understanding of at least that subset of entanglements that are 
observed and documented. NMFS will continue to pursue collaborative 
bilateral efforts on gear analysis and other fronts, toward improving 
science and management to help the U.S. and Canada develop additional 
solutions to reduce the impacts of our fisheries on endangered right 
whales.
    [Comment 15]: For Right whale #4094, the gear was identified as 
Canadian crab pot in Daoust et al. Upon review of this report, no 
information was included to support this finding. Additionally, the DFO 
Marine Mammal Response archives have the following, ``A live entangled 
North Atlantic right whale (NARW) was reported on July 19th, 2017 by 
NOAA Fisheries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. No response was performed 
as no action was permitted. No subsequent sightings were completed 
after this date.'' It is unclear how a determination was made if no 
response was performed. DFO believes this whale should be XC and NR.
    DFO would like to suggest that the ``points'' for the serious 
injury associated with right whale #4057 be equally split (.5/.5) 
between Canada and the U.S. On August 13, 2016, #4057 was disentangled 
by the Campobello Whale Rescue Team. In their report they noted that 
the entanglement responded to impacted and exasperated old wounds from 
2014. On February 16, 2014, #4057 was found near Florida dragging over 
100 yards (91.44 meters) of heavy \9/16\'' diameter fishing rope. 
Responders from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 
disentangled the whale the following day.
    The gear for Right whale #3125 is attributed to Canada. DFO 
requests that the U.S. provide information on how the conclusive origin 
of the gear was determined in this case. If no review of the gear has 
been conducted, DFO concludes this whale should be XC.
    Right whale #1226 is currently assigned ``CN.'' DFO comments that 
this whale should be XC. The whale was sighted anchored alive in 
Canadian waters, and the carcass was later found without gear present.
    Response: NMFS notes that #4094's gear attribution was based on 
identification of gear in the Daoust et al. report, which was co-
authored by DFO staff. We would consider changing it to XC if the 
published incident report that identified the gear as Canadian snow 
crab is revised.
    #4057--The two events are evaluated separately in keeping with 
longstanding NMFS protocols. The 2014 incident was deemed not serious, 
assigned a 0 against PBR, and does not impact the current SARs because 
the time frame for the data is 2015-2019. The 2016 incident was deemed 
serious based on severe health decline despite disentanglement. U.S. 
gear experts report that Parks Canada confirmed the recovered gear to 
be Canadian snow crab.
    #3125--The U.S. gear team reports that the recovered gear from this 
event is inconsistent with legal U.S. gear and is consistent with 
Canadian snow crab gear. Without new incident documentation or 
bilateral analysis, under longstanding NMFS protocols, we would not 
change the current attribution.
    #1226--This whale was seen without gear in the Gulf of St Lawrence 
(GoSL) from June 9-July 21, 2019. The entanglement was observed in GoSL 
on August 6, 2019, when the whale was anchored alive. In keeping with 
longstanding NMFS protocols, anchoring in place is considered evidence 
of incident location so this incident was assigned as a Canadian 
injury. Though no gear was present on the carcass on September 16, 
2019, the documented fatal injuries on the carcass line up with the 
entanglement configuration documented on August 6, 2019. Injury was 
attributed to the August 6, 2019 entanglement.
    [Comment 16]: MLA states that the Draft SAR fails to disclose key 
limits of the Pace model. The Pace model remains sensitive to new data, 
and its output is highly variable. Further, the period from 2011-2015, 
during which time NARW shifted their geographic distribution to areas 
lacking survey effort, may be producing an underestimate of the 
population.
    MLA notes that the Draft SAR underweight the existence of natural 
predation as demonstrated by Taylor (2013), Curtis (2014), and Sharp 
(2019). MLA comments the SAR must cite relevant literature on natural 
mortality and discuss how the treatment of this significant factor 
affects population models. This estimate of total annual human-caused 
mortality 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 human-caused is 
not supported by Taylor (2013), Curtis (2014), and Sharp (2019). With 
natural causes constituting a total of 14.5 percent of all examined 
individuals and 25 percent of those incidents where cause was 
confirmed, this is more than a ``slight overestimate,'' and the best 
available scientific information does not support attributing all calf 
and adult mortalities of unknown cause to human activity. MLA comments 
that the assumption that natural mortality is limited to newborn calves 
is without empirical justification and results in an overestimation of 
anthropogenic mortality.
    Finally, Pace (2021) incorrectly assumes an equal sex ratio and 
probability of mortality. Neither of these assumptions are supported by 
the best available data. Hamilton (2020) reports that through 2017, 94 
percent of males have been entangled at least once compared to 87 
percent of females. Males are known to make up a larger portion of the 
population and statistically more likely to encounter and become 
entangled in a vertical line. This, too, must be corrected or, at a 
minimum, disclosed to the public.
    Response: The Pace et al. 2017 and slightly updated Pace 2021 Mark-

[[Page 47390]]

Recapture-Resight MRR model has been reviewed and re-reviewed by both 
journal peer review process for publication as well as more than 6 
years of Atlantic SRG meetings with rotating membership, meaning an 
additional 20 experts have reviewed the model and its contents are 
publicly available to review as the documents are cited within the SAR.
    The MRR model published by Pace et al. 2017 uses standard well-
verified methods of using sighting histories of individuals to estimate 
interval (in this case annual) capture probabilities which are allowed 
to vary at each interval. Indeed the estimated capture probabilities 
since 2011 of NARWs have shown considerable variation compared with the 
previous decade. The statistical methodology employed simultaneously 
estimates survival and capture rates to estimate the number of whales 
still alive thereby accommodating variable annual capture rates. Beyond 
that the MRR model used, unlike some of its predecessors, allows for 
individual animals to have unique catchability parameters thus reducing 
biases in capture rate found in simpler MRR models. Although there is 
no accommodation for permanent emigration, so far there has been no 
evidence that even modest numbers of NARW have permanently left all of 
the areas surveyed. Hence, the conservation conclusion is that the 
estimated survival rates presented in the SAR and reflected in the 
abundance estimates represent actual survival rates of the stock and 
not merely apparent survival rates.
    On the issue of natural mortality, NMFS and the SAR acknowledge 
that some natural mortality of calves exists. However, there are no 
observations of adult mortality from natural causes. NMFS reviewed 
relevant data, existing models and the literature with the Atlantic SRG 
on Sept 2, 2021 and requested guidance. The Atlantic SRG recommended 
NMFS continue to assign 100 percent of the mortalities of non-calf NARW 
to anthropogenic origins (Atlantic SRG letter to NMFS September 16, 
2021).
    [Comment 17]: The Draft 2021 SAR includes new text speculating that 
the probability of carcass recovery is higher for vessel strike events 
than entanglement events. MLA comments that there is presently no 
evidence to support such a finding, and the literature cited in the 
Draft SAR are not the results of empirical studies to inform this 
issue. MLA thinks it is equally, if not more likely, that the observed 
data with respect to carcass status as discussed in Pace (2021) are 
correct--that entanglements and vessel strikes kill whales in roughly 
equal proportions. MLA requests that NMFS remove this entire section 
until empirical data are available to inform the probability of carcass 
recovery for different modes of death.
    Response: NMFS agrees that there is no empirical study showing that 
the bodies of whales dying from vessel strikes are more likely to be 
detected than the bodies of whales dying from entanglement. However, it 
is the intention of this stock assessment report to provide information 
on our current understanding of the right whale population, including 
trends in strandings data, and we will therefore continue to include 
this empirical information relevant to the probability of carcass 
recovery. We believe that including hypotheses that may explain the 
disparity between the proportion of detected entanglement and vessel 
strike serious injuries compared to the proportions by cause diagnosed 
for dead whales is relevant and informative. The Moore et al. (2020) 
hypothesis is founded in the physics of buoyancy on marine mammal 
bodies under different conditions. However, we agree that there is not 
currently sufficient basis to conclude that the proportion of observed 
serious injuries that were the result of entanglement reflect the 
correct apportionment of total mortalities. We also agree that there 
may be factors that increase the likelihood of detection of 
entanglement serious injuries. We do not believe there is currently 
sufficient basis to assert that right whales struck by vessels are more 
likely to sink.
    NMFS proposed many alternative scenarios to the Atlantic SRG (ASRG) 
on how best to apportion cryptic mortality (NMFS intersessional 
September 21, 2021). The ASRG recommended that the ratio between 
entangled and vessel struck NARW, calculated from documented 
observations of Serious Injuries and Mortalities over the last five 
years, be used to apportion cause. NMFS scientists will continue to 
work on improving our methods for apportioning these sources of 
mortality, and the ASRG will continue to consider better alternatives 
as they are developed.
    [Comment 18]: MLA is concerned that the Draft SAR only reports 
total observed M/SI data without apportioning those observations 
between the U.S. and Canada. The Draft SAR does not present the annual 
mortality and serious injury estimates by each ``fishery.'' MLA 
believes it is arbitrary for NMFS to ignore these data demonstrating 
that many more M/SI are occurring in Canadian fisheries than U.S. 
fisheries. MLA reiterates that NMFS should not rely on limited data to 
conclude that all cryptic mortality results from anthropogenic sources 
and that vessel strike carcass recovery is more likely than for 
entanglements.
    Response: NMFS seeks to provide the maximum precision and 
resolution in apportioning all M/SI to cause--whether fishery, vessel 
or other. However, there continues to be a distinct lack of information 
available to the agency to assign entanglement to fisheries based upon 
recovered gear. We believe expansion of gear marking and reporting 
requirements will assist us in this area moving forward. In addition, 
because right whales are able to travel thousands of miles in short 
periods of time, even when trailing gear, it is very difficult to 
attribute entanglement based upon the region of initial sighting.
    NMFS has invested considerable effort developing better methods for 
apportioning M/SI to appropriate sources in light of increased 
mortality overall, including increasing observations in Canada. We are 
also working to improve our ability to quantify unseen mortality with 
consideration of if and how to apportion natural versus anthropogenic 
mortality. As part of this effort, the agency convened a special 
session of the Atlantic SRG in September 2021 for scientific and 
technical input. The Atlantic SRG supported its prior position that 100 
percent of the mortalities of noncalf NARW should be considered to be 
of anthropogenic origin. The Atlantic SRG also considered the various 
approaches provided by NMFS for apportioning SIM between U.S. and 
Canada but did not have enough information to provide a robust 
scientific alternative. They suggested alternatively, a fully fleshed 
out co-occurrence model for both U.S. and Canadian waters could be 
used, but this is also not presently available. Given this data 
limitation, it would be arbitrary for NMFS to assign proportions 
without better data to support conclusions.
    [Comment 19]: MLA notes that the NARW Draft SAR contains none of 
the statutorily required-information from Section 117 of the MMPA 
regarding entanglements in fishing gear. 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. MLA notes that the Draft 
SAR presents only M/SI entanglement data--non-serious injury 
entanglements are omitted. MLA requests that the SAR also include data 
on the severity of entanglements. MLA

[[Page 47391]]

requests a more detailed table included in the SAR, since this 
information is important for assessing individual fisheries.
    The Draft SAR cites three studies concluding that NARW mitigation 
measures implemented prior to 2009 have not worked and that the 
effectiveness of measures implemented since 2009 have not yet been 
evaluated. MLA comments that the SAR should report data showing that 
there has been a 90 percent decline in instances of lobster gear 
removed from entangled NARW since 2010 based on observed data. There 
were four known cases of lobster gear removed from NARW 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. MLA requests that NMFS present information about the fact that 
the scarring data suggests most entanglements are minor.
    Response: The fisheries are summarized in Appendix 3--Fishery 
Descriptions. NMFS cites our annual M/SI report for reported injuries 
during the time frame encompassed by the SAR. However, because only a 
small fraction of entanglements have gear recovered and a smaller 
fraction of those are traceable to the fishery, the agency has not been 
able to estimate the annual M/SI to the resolution of fishery/region. 
Given recommendations from the Atlantic SRG and additional analysis 
resulting from Pace et al. (2021), the agency is working to improve our 
understanding of this issue to the resolution requested above in future 
SARs. For now, this topic is addressed to the extent that data can 
support in table three of the SAR.
    The issue of non-serious injuries is discussed in the third 
paragraph of the section titled ``Fishery-Related Mortality and Serious 
Injury.'' The draft cites Knowlton et al. (2012), which reported 26 
percent of the population being entangled each year and now includes 
Hamilton et al. (2019), which reports 30 percent of the population 
receiving non-serious injuries annually. This is an increasing trend. 
Despite roughly 100 injuries per year in recent years, they are almost 
never observed, but the wounds persist for periods of weeks to months/
years during which time animals may travel thousands of miles. 
Therefore, the agency takes a conservative approach to not apportion 
injury by fishery or area where data are not available. 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.
    Regarding the ``decline'' in lobster gear removed from NARW, the 
SAR does not address this because it is not a metric supported by a 
rigorous sampling design with high probability of detection. Rather, it 
is anecdotal in nature with detection rates subject to numerous biases 
described above. The comment raises the similar ``observed decline'' in 
entanglements observed to be connected with groundline. However, 
despite some reason for optimism with both these observations, they are 
anecdotal in nature, and also in juxtaposition with the dramatic 
increase in mortality that has subsequently occurred. The SAR 
acknowledges these are from multiple sources across multiple regions. 
Because of this, the SAR focuses on the more appropriate metrics of 
total M/SI and cryptic mortality. In response that most injuries are 
``minor''--it should be noted that NMFS uses similar but slightly 
different criteria for the assignment of injury severity than New 
England Aquarium. The SAR does report the number of injuries which meet 
the criteria for ``serious'' under the NMFS criteria, and there has 
been an increase in serious injuries including entanglement for the 
past decade. The SAR addresses these ``non-serious'' injuries in the 
previous section, acknowledging that collectively they ``should be 
considered to fully understand anthropogenic impacts to the population, 
especially in cases where females' fecundity may be affected.''
    [Comment 20]: MLA believes the SAR should include additional 
available scientific information about NARW behavior that affects its 
risk of harm from fishing gear. Recent scientific literature confirms 
that NARW have shifted their habitat usage away from the Maine lobster 
fishery. These findings were most recently summarized and reported in 
Meyer-Gutbrod (2021), which MLA expresses must be referenced and 
discussed in the Draft SAR.
    Response: NMFS appreciates this comment and agrees with the 
distribution changes and observations characterized above. The Meyer-
Gutbrod reference and some additional language have been added to the 
habitat section. However, NMFS believes there is a flawed assumption 
that right whales are only subject to mortality when they are densely 
aggregated in foraging areas, and those areas are the only regions that 
should be managed for right whale conservation. In reality, portions of 
the NARW population are only aggregated in a few small regions during 
some parts of the year, and we are recognizing that our management 
measures need to be spatially resilient to reflect the documented 
acoustic presence of right whales across their entire range through 
much of the year, including the Gulf of Maine. Furthermore, given the 
high degree of surveillance in the areas of high aggregation and the 
comparative lack of surveillance in many other regions (aside from 
acoustics, which only detect vocalizing whales, and cannot detect 
mortality/injury), the agency is increasingly concerned that much of 
the unseen mortality is likely to be happening in areas where there is 
a high degree of risk from either fishing or vessel activity for 
solitary whales transiting through those regions. We have added 
additional language to reflect this in the habitat section.
    [Comment 21]: MLA is concerned that the 2021 draft SAR omits 
important details describing NARW stock definition and geographic 
range. MLA believes the multiple references to right whale feeding 
grounds located in New England waters must specify that these important 
areas are located in southern New England. MLA thinks the Draft SAR 
incompletely cites the available data on mortality in Canadian waters 
and calving. MLA recommends the Draft SAR add a reference to Hamilton 
(2022), which provides important ``insight into right whale calf 
survival, growth rates, and association patterns.'' MLA comments that 
the section summarizing M/SI from vessel strikes has the heading 
``Other Mortality'' and also reiterates that the text and reference to 
Frazier (2005) be removed.
    Response: The description of NARW feeding grounds reflects our 
current understanding and best available scientific information. 
Acoustic and visual monitoring in the central Gulf of Maine indicates 
right whales are present in areas besides southern New England.
    All mortalities are accounted for in Table 3. The spike of right 
whale mortalities in 2017 noted in the text is including all carcasses 
found that year in both U.S. and Canadian waters. The 2019 calf 
detection is included in the SAR text. The years 2020-2021 fall outside 
the reporting period for the 2021 SARs and are therefore not included 
in this report. The 2022 Hamilton paper was not available during the 
2021 stock assessment report timeframe, but the findings will be 
incorporated into the 2022 report.
    The ``Other Mortality'' heading has been a standard heading for 
stock assessment reports for all species. This suggestion will be 
forwarded to the editorial board for consideration. As the section 
opens with the sentence, ``Vessel strikes are a major cause of 
mortality and injury to right whale'' and

[[Page 47392]]

discusses no other sources of mortality, NMFS has been diligent in 
informing the public of this threat to right whales.
    NMFS appreciates the MLA catching this transcription error. 
Although NMFS believes that Fitzgerald (2018) best represents the 
current understanding of pedigree-informed abundance estimation, as 
noted in previous responses, Frasier (2005) has not been conclusively 
refuted. NMFS has restored Frasier (2005), and added Frasier et al. 
(2007), to the text and references of the final 2021 SAR.
    NMFS believes the description of right whale distribution and 
movement in the SAR is as comprehensive and accurate as the data and 
available analyses currently allow.
    [Comment 22]: MLA reiterates that Kenney (2018) should not be cited 
in the SAR. Specifically, the methods used in this study fail to 
account for basic biological processes--namely, natural death. Further, 
calves have natural mortality rates that are ignored during scenarios 
when they are included in this model. Additionally, Kenney (2018) 
assumes a constant calving rate of one calf per 5 years (0.2/yr), which 
is a vast oversimplification of the life history process of NARW, and 
the Kenney (2018) value of the calving rate is far higher than the 
``best'' current estimate of 0.04 in the Draft SAR. For these reasons, 
Kenney (2018) should not be cited in the SAR. If NMFS is going to 
continue to include citations of this study, then it must address these 
scientific points.
    Response: The Kenney (2018) reference is a relevant, peer-reviewed 
study that helps provide context to the impacts of fishery-related 
mortality on the right whale population. The study does account for 
other mortality, removing only confirmed fishery-related deaths and 
serious injuries (likely to lead to death). Several scenarios are 
provided with varying levels of hypothetically-reduced entanglement 
mortality rates corresponding to degrees of compliance to MMPA 
regulations. While the paper presents a simple representation of 
complex processes, the model parameters are reasonable and the results 
are informative for the reader to appreciate the cumulative impact of 
entanglement on the population. Any element of natural mortality or 
other processes affecting the population other than documented 
entanglement mortality are accounted for by using the time series of 
abundance estimates as a baseline.
    Inclusion of the unrealized calves in the paper is an 
acknowledgment of basic population biology, and the outsized effect of 
removing productive females on a population's trajectory cannot be 
ignored. Kenny (2018) treats this effect conservatively. Proven female 
calving intervals have varied between 3 and 10 years, but are primarily 
in the 3- to 7-year range, so the choice of a 5-year calving interval 
is well founded. The paper's total of 26 calves lost due to the deaths 
of 15 females over 27 years equals an unrealised population increase of 
much less than 0.01/yr (1 divided by the average annual population 
size), and this undoubtedly underrepresents the actual value given that 
only known females documented as mortalities or serious injuries were 
used in the analysis.
    [Comment 23]: CBD and WDC take issue with the statement which 
currently reads ``In addition, right whales apparently abandoned the 
central Gulf of Maine in winter (see Cole et al. 2013) . . . .'' CBD 
and WDC do not believe it is accurate to indicate that right whales 
have abandoned the central Gulf of Maine during winter months. In fact, 
acoustic detections in the central Gulf of Maine have been documented 
during the winter for the past several years. In addition, CBD and WDC 
recommend the section regarding high resolution genetic profiling as it 
relates to parentage and relatedness be updated using Hamilton et al. 
2022.
    Response: NMFS agrees that new, widespread acoustic monitoring has 
changed our assessment of right whale presence and will adjust the text 
to reflect this fact. We will evaluate Hamilton et al. 2022 in the 
subsequent SAR cycle since its publication occurred during the 
finalization of the 2021 SARs.
    [Comment 24]: CBD and WDC ask NMFS to include the findings in the 
recently published NARW (Eubalaena glacialis) Vessel Speed Rule 
Assessment which concluded that voluntary measures did not have a 
meaningful impact, small vessel collisions can seriously injure right 
whales, and the current SMAs should be modified.
    Response: In general, NMFS limits the content of the SARs to the 
statutory requirements of section 117. The SAR is not intended to 
evaluate or discuss the merits of specific management activities. The 
SAR acknowledges that vessel strikes remain a serious issue for right 
whales; and, for transparency, the vessel size class involved in lethal 
strike events is always noted, if known. In addition, the NARW 
(Eubalaena glacialis) Vessel Speed Rule Assessment is posted on the 
NMFS website and easily accessible to the public.

Bryde's Whale, Gulf of Mexico Stock (Rice's Whale)

    [Comment 25]: While CBD and WDC appreciate the extensive updates to 
the 2020 Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale SAR, this species was not updated 
in the recent 2021 draft. CBD and WDC remind NMFS that, as an ESA-
listed species, the SAR for these whales should be updated every year. 
CBD and WDC also reiterate introductory comments on the general timing 
of review and public comment for the SARs and the substantial delay in 
including new information, as it is now known that these whales have 
been designated a new species: Rice's whales. CBD and WDC request that 
this new designation be recognized and the 2021 SAR updated 
accordingly.
    Response: The statutory requirement does not require the SAR to be 
updated every year, but to be reviewed annually. In regard to the 
updated designation, on August 23, 2021, NMFS published a direct final 
rule to update the taxonomic classification, description, and common 
name of species included in the list of endangered species maintained 
at 50 CFR 224.101 to reflect the updated science (86 FR 47022). The 
direct final rule changed the common name of the listed entity from 
Bryde's whale (Gulf of Mexico subspecies) to Rice's whale, the 
scientific name from B. edeni (unnamed subspecies) to B. ricei, and the 
description of the listed entity from Bryde's whales that breed and 
feed in the Gulf of Mexico to the entire species. The direct final rule 
and these changes became effective on October 22, 2021. This change 
became effective too late for an update to the draft 2021 SARs, but the 
draft 2022 SAR has been updated accordingly to reflect the revised 
taxonomy.

Comments on Pacific Issues

Hawaiian Monk Seal

    [Comment 26]: CBD and WDC oppose NMFS categorizing fisheries 
interactions with Hawaiian monk seals as non-serious when the national 
guidelines would recommend the ``serious injury'' category. This is a 
problem especially because NMFS does not adequately consider the 
cumulative and chronic impacts of entanglements on Hawaiian monk seals. 
The draft SARs rely on Mercer 2021, which gives details on the two 
cases. Reclassifying these injuries from fishing gear as non-serious 
fails to account for the cumulative impacts of chronic entanglements. 
Entanglements make marine mammals more vulnerable to other sources of 
mortality, including disease. It is premature to deviate from the 
serious injury guidelines to

[[Page 47393]]

reclassify incidents as non-serious before NMFS adequately assesses 
cumulative and chronic entanglement impacts for Hawaiian monk seals.
    Response: NMFS appreciates this comment and notes that 
determinations follow the NMFS' policy and procedural directive for 
distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries.

Hawaii False Killer Whale

    [Comment 27]: HLA appreciates NMFS' acknowledgment that ``timely 
publication of results that inform SARs is important'' and hopes that 
similar delays will not occur in the future. HLA reiterates that the 
Draft 2021 SAR shows that the deep-set fishery's M/SI rate for the 
Hawaii Pelagic False Killer Whale (FKW) Stock (Pelagic Stock) is well 
below the stock's PBR. HLA believes the Pelagic Stock has never been 
``strategic'' because the deep-set fishery's M/SI rate has never 
exceeded a PBR based on those abundances. HLA comments there is no 
legal basis to include the Pelagic Stock within the scope of the Take 
Reduction team (TRT).
    In addition, NMFS did state in response to comments on the Draft 
2020 SAR that NMFS cannot determine trend information for the Pelagic 
Stock based upon the three comprehensive surveys it has performed in 
the EEZ over a 15-year timeframe, along with multiple modeling 
exercises (performed over periods of years). HLA emphasizes that there 
are no data available supporting the notion that the stock has declined 
over time.
    Response: NMFS uses the best available science at the time it is 
available to inform each SAR and support management actions. Subsequent 
years of data collection and analysis effort and refinement produce 
newer estimates of pelagic false killer whale abundance. These current 
estimates now represent the best available science. However, at the 
time the False Killer Whale Take Reduction Team (FKWTRT) was 
established in 2010, the pelagic stock of false killer whales was 
strategic and met the trigger for convening a take reduction team per 
MMPA section 118(f).
    NMFS maintains that a temporal trend in the estimates of pelagic 
stock abundance cannot be determined because of the confounding effect 
of random variation in the encounter rate. As explained in Bradford et 
al. (2020), the model-based approach minimizes the effect of annual 
sampling variability but assumes that there are no underlying temporal 
trends in abundance aside from those predicted by habitat changes. 
While model-based methods can be used to estimate population trends, 
more data are needed to do so for pelagic false killer whales. Since a 
trend cannot be estimated, there is no basis to definitively state that 
the population is not declining. Anecdotal accounts cannot be used to 
infer population status. Metrics that can be quantitatively derived 
(e.g., depredation rates) would need to control for other factors 
(e.g., cultural transmission rates) for which there are currently no 
data.
    [Comment 28]: HLA disagrees with NMFS' assignment of a recovery 
factor of 0.5 to the Pelagic Stock, which is the value typically 
assigned to depleted or threatened stocks, or stocks of unknown status, 
with a mortality estimate Coefficient of Variation of 0.3 or less. HLA 
comments that the Pelagic Stock is not depleted or threatened, its 
status is not unknown, and it has never qualified as a ``strategic 
stock.'' Accordingly, all of the available data contradict any 
hypothesis that the Pelagic Stock is decreasing or otherwise not at its 
optimum sustainable population. HLA believes NMFS' assignment of a 
recovery factor of 0.5 to the stock is therefore arbitrary and not 
consistent with the best available scientific information.
    Response: The status of the pelagic false killer whale population 
relative to its optimum sustainable population size is unknown, and a 
temporal trend cannot be estimated as explained in the previous 
response. The Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks indicate 
that stocks of unknown status should use a recovery factor of 0.5 based 
on results of previous simulation studies (Wade 1998) designed to 
evaluate the ability of the PBR management scheme to achieve the 
conservation goals of the MMPA in the face of uncertainty. The 
guidelines further state that for stocks of unknown status, recovery 
factors of 1.0 should be reserved for cases where there is assurance 
that the minimum population estimate (Nmin), the maximum net 
productivity rate (Rmax), and the estimates of mortality and 
serious injury are unbiased and where the stock structure is 
unequivocal, which is not the case for pelagic false killer whales. 
NMFS notes that more recent simulation work supports these guidelines 
(Punt et al. 2020) and that the recovery factor is not linked to a 
specific abundance level or a stock designation of ``strategic'' or 
``depleted.''
    [Comment 29]: HLA comments that the population estimate for the 
Main Hawaiian Islands insular FKW stock inappropriately reflects the 
abundance of animals in only a portion of the Insular Stock's range. 
The 2021 Draft SAR estimates the Main Hawaiian Islands insular FKW 
stock (``Insular Stock'') abundance to be 167 animals, based upon 
Bradford et al. (2018), which found that the population size of the 
Insular Stock in certain study areas has consistently ranged between 
144 and 187 animals over a 16-year period. Bradford et al. (2018) 
concludes that (1) the study on which the Insular Stock abundance 
estimate is based did not sample the entire range of the stock and (2) 
the population estimate underestimates the abundance to an unknown 
degree.
    The MMPA requires the SAR to ``describe the geographic range of the 
affected stock'' and to provide minimum population estimate for ``such 
stock'' (not a ``portion of such stock''). 6 U.S.C. 1386(a). NMFS has 
made no attempt to estimate the abundance of the Insular Stock across 
its range or to apply ``appropriate correction factors'' to do so.
    Response: Mark-recapture estimation does not require the full range 
of a population to be sampled. Thus, Bradford et al. (2018) indicated 
that the partial sample of main Hawaiian Island insular false killer 
whales would not be problematic if all distinctive individuals in the 
population used the sampled area at some point. This assumption could 
not be evaluated, so Bradford et al. (2018) indicated that the true 
abundance of distinctive individuals in each year may be 
underestimated. The text from Bradford et al. (2018) that was omitted 
from the second paragraph (i.e., ``. . . it is likely that all 
individuals in the population have been exposed to sampling efforts at 
some point during the study period . . .'') is not speculation, but 
rather inference from movement analyses of satellite-tagged false 
killer whales (Baird et al. 2010, 2012). The number of satellite tag 
deployments on main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales has 
almost doubled since the Baird et al. (2012) study, and movement tracks 
from these individuals and fitted utilization distributions continue to 
reflect a lack of spatially-restricted use, such that individuals could 
be subject to sampling at some point during the sampling period. These 
utilization distributions are currently being used in an updated 
analysis of main Hawaiian Island insular false killer whale abundance 
that accounts for animal availability and the spatial bias in sampling.
    [Comment 30]: HLA disagrees with NMFS' decision to apportion a 
small amount of ``take'' by the deep-set fishery to the Insular Stock 
despite the fact that there has never been a recorded interaction 
between the deep-set fishery and the (the ``Insular Stock'') and the

[[Page 47394]]

fact that the fishery operates almost exclusively outside the Insular 
Stock's range. HLA continues to disagree with this approach for the 
reasons it has previously stated and incorporates those previous 
comments by reference.
    HLA also reiterates its position that this type of overly 
conservative decision, which has no support in the best available 
science, undermines the integrity of the TRT process and decreases the 
fishing industry's motivation for participation in that process. 
Finally, in its responses to comments on the Draft 2020 SAR, NMFS 
agreed that it ``can more explicitly state that no confirmed MHI 
insular false killer whales have been observed as taken in [the deep-
set] fishery.'' 86 FR 38991 (July 23, 2021). HLA requests that NMFS do 
so in the final SAR.
    Response: NMFS reiterates its response to this same comment from 
the 2020 Draft 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. 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.
    Further, although NMFS noted that we can more explicitly state that 
no confirmed MHI insular false killer whales have been observed as 
taken in this fishery, the overlap between the 2020 SAR comment period 
and the preparation of the 2021 draft SAR precluded this change. We 
will add this note, with previously noted caveat that very few of the 
observed takes are identified to stock due to the lack of tissue 
samples or adequate photographs.

Southern Resident Killer Whale (SRKW)

    [Comment 31]: CBD and WDC reiterate that NMFS update its protocol 
of using a July deadline for its annual census. We once again ask NMFS 
to update the protocol to reflect this shift in timing and to capture 
the most complete population count possible in a year by setting a 
December date and remind NMFS again that a July deadline reflects a 
number more than a year and a half out of date currently, and six 
months out of date for the SAR.
    There are two updated regulatory measures that should be included 
in this SAR: the final rule for the revision of critical habitat should 
be noted in place of the reference to the proposed rule, and Washington 
State has issued new vessel guidelines requiring a distance of 300 
yards (274 meters) from the sides and 400 yards (365.76 meters) in 
front or behind a group of SRKWs, and a vessel speed of 7 knots within 
a \1/2\ mile (0.8 km) of the whales.
    New research on the SRKW population should be included in this SAR. 
Additional data from Hanson et al. (2018) is available on passive 
acoustic monitoring in coastal waters. Updated analysis on coastal prey 
sampling has been completed and is no longer ``in press''--Hanson et 
al. (2021). New studies on body condition (Fearnbach et al. 2018) and 
adult sizes (Groskreutz et al. 2019) provide additional information on 
the impacts of prey depletion on the health of SRKWs. NMFS and the 
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife have also completed a report 
on Priority Chinook Stocks that should be noted.
    Response: With regard to the timing and reporting of census 
numbers, NMFS has previously addressed this same public comment (86 FR 
38991, July 23, 2021). The Hanson et al. (in press) reference has been 
updated to Hanson et al. (2021). We will update the revision of 
critical habitat as well as the updated information on body condition 
and prey in the subsequent SAR cycle.

Humpback Whale, CA/OR/WA

    [Comment 32]: WDFW, Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen's 
Association (WDCFA), and the Makah Tribe note the characterization of 
the distinct population segment (DPS) composition of humpback whales 
occurring in the stock is inconsistent with other NOAA reports. 
Regarding the text in the Draft 2021 SAR that describes the proportion 
of DPSs designated under the ESA for humpback whales by breeding 
grounds that utilize feeding grounds off the coast of Washington and 
southern British Columbia: The Draft 2021 SAR states, as previous SARs 
have stated, ``The northern Washington and southern British Columbia 
feeding group includes primarily threatened Mexico DPS whales, with 
smaller numbers from the unlisted Hawaii DPS and endangered Central 
America DPS.'' It is not clear where this characterization was 
originally derived from, as no reference is provided. This 
characterization of most of the whales in Washington coming from the 
threatened Mexico DPS is inconsistent with estimates provided by NOAA 
scientists to the International Whaling Commission. Furthermore, this 
statement is in conflict with a memo released by NMFS in July 2021, 
which states that the proposed approach for evaluating impacts to 
listed DPSs in ESA section 7 consultations (and in all relevant ESA 
analyses) would consider DPS proportions for humpback whales foraging 
off of northern Washington and southern BC derived from Wade (2021). 
The numbers included in the memo do not align with the characterization 
in the Draft 2021 SAR. The text in the report should be updated to 
reflect Wade as the best available science on the migratory destination 
of North Pacific humpback whales.
    Response: NMFS will replace the following language ``The northern 
Washington and southern British Columbia feeding group includes 
primarily threatened Mexico DPS whales, with smaller numbers from the 
unlisted Hawaii DPS and endangered Central America DPS'' with findings 
from Wade (2021): ``Based on a Pacific-wide photo-ID effort in 2004-
2006, Wade (2021) reported that of 180 unique whale identifications 
from the Southern British Columbia--Washington stratum (``SBC/WA''), 28 
were matched to Mexico wintering areas, 19 to Hawai[revaps]i, and 3 to 
Central America. Wade (2021) also estimated movement probabilities from 
the SBC/WA stratum to each wintering area. The highest movement 
probabilities were between SBC/WA and Hawai[revaps]i (0.688), followed 
by SBC/WA and Mexico (0.254), and SBC/WA and Central America (0.059).''
    [Comment 33]: WDFW and the Makah Tribe comment that the draft 2021 
SAR relies heavily on Calambokidis and Barlow (2020) to provide the 
minimum population (stock) abundance estimate (i.e., 4,776 animals) and 
will be used for practical/regulatory purposes (e.g., assessing the 
impacts of anthropogenic activities). Our primary concern with respect 
to the use of Calambokidis and Barlow (2020) for providing an 
authoritative minimum abundance estimate for the stock comes from the 
fact that it does not consider sightings data collected off the coast 
of Washington. This is especially concerning because the genetic makeup 
of the feeding aggregation (in terms of DPSs or Demographically 
Independent Populations--DIPs) off of WA and SBC is significantly 
different from that of the CA/OR feeding aggregation. A minimum 
abundance estimate for the entire CA/OR/WA stock should include an

[[Page 47395]]

estimate of animals found off the coast of Washington (animals that 
belong to the WA/SBC feeding group).
    WDFW respectfully requests a comparative analysis of the 
assumptions and precision of each of these estimates, as this would 
increase transparency and improve the public's understanding of this 
important process for determining the best available science. WDFW also 
requests NMFS find some way to derive Nmin that more 
precisely accounts for humpback whales found off the coast of 
Washington.
    Response: NMFS cites and compares two abundance estimates (Becker 
et al. 2020, Calambokidis and Barlow 2020) in the draft humpback whale 
SAR. The Becker et al. (2020) estimate is based on line-transect survey 
efforts that included Washington state waters (Becker et al. 2020), and 
for which the estimate is approximately 200 whales lower than the 
Calambokidis and Barlow (2020) estimate. While the lower estimate of 
Becker et al. (2020) could be used to represent CA + OR + WA abundance 
in this SAR, the mark-recapture estimate of Calambokidis and Barlow 
(2020) is used, for reasons given in the SAR.
    [Comment 34]: WDFW staff, in coordination with Oregon and 
California Departments of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW and CDFW) staff, 
reviewed the Draft 2021 SAR alongside the 2021 M&SI Report (Carretta et 
al. 2021) and the most up-to-date version of the West Coast Region 
entanglement database currently available to state agencies. Multiple 
inconsistencies were identified, and WDFW concurs with the comments 
provided by ODFW regarding these inconsistencies.
    Response: NMFS reviewed the draft SAR and M/SI report and revised 
the values consistent between the SAR narrative and M/SI report totals. 
Totals that appear in the M/SI report may not agree with West Coast 
Region entanglement reports, as the latter is released months in 
advance of the preparation of the annual M/SI report. During that 
period, additional details or evidence regarding entanglements may come 
to light that result in addition or deletion of cases.
    [Comment 35]: CBD and WDC request that NMFS revise the CA/OR/WA 
humpback stock so as not to aggregate two demographically independent 
populations that do not interbreed when mature. The current draft 2021 
SAR does not reference these papers or provide hypothetical stocks if 
each were separate stocks. The draft SAR misleadingly includes 
information from Calambokidis and Barlow (2020) about an apparent 
increase in abundance from 2014 to 2018. Including appropriate caveats 
to the apparent increase in the CA/OR/WA stock is important because 
they explain that the increase may not apply to the DIPs. The draft 
SARs do not include scientific information regarding the accuracy of 
determining to which DIP or DPS a whale belongs based on photographic 
identification. There is genetic evidence that animals that are 
photographically identified as wintering in mainland Mexico-feeding off 
California/Oregon are not representative of that herd. It is not clear 
that photo identification will accurately assess the ESA-listed Central 
America DPS and Mexico DPS. CBD and WDC request adequate funding to 
meet the MMPA mandates for completing stock assessment reports.
    Response: The draft 2021 SARs were prepared before the referenced 
Technical Memoranda were published. New information on multiple 
demographically independent humpback populations and their status in 
U.S. west coast waters will be addressed in the 2022 draft SARs.
    [Comment 36]: CBD and WDC recognize that one important function of 
the SARs is enumerating serious injury and mortality for each stock, 
and this is especially critical for ESA-listed humpback whales 
vulnerable to vessel collisions off California. The draft SAR includes 
Rockwood et al. (2017) but not more recent research available. A 2019 
follow-up to Rockwood et al. (2017) concluded that even the 2017 study 
estimates were an underestimate, particularly in relation to humpback 
whale mortality during winter months. Table 1 of the Rockwood et al. 
(2021) paper allows the results from the 2017 paper to be comparable to 
the results of the paper. This information on ship strike mortality and 
injury should be updated in the humpback whale SAR.
    Response: Rockwood et al. (2021) did not estimate vessel strike 
deaths for the entire U.S. EEZ as they did in the 2017 publication, 
though they compare estimates for Southern California between the two 
studies. The increase in estimates for Southern California between the 
two studies does not translate to an increase over the whole study 
area, thus it is unclear how the new estimates for Southern California 
(including new winter estimates) may be incorporated into the SAR, when 
estimates from the remainder of the U.S. EEZ are lacking. It is also 
unclear how winter/spring estimates of humpback whale vessel strike 
deaths can be higher than summer/autumn estimates for the same region, 
when humpback whales are more abundant in this region in summer and 
autumn. NMFS will consult with the authors on how the new results may 
directly apply to future SARs.
    [Comment 37]: CBD and WDC recommend that the SAR should also note 
the impacts from marine heat waves and changing ocean conditions under 
Habitat Concerns. Warmer ocean temperatures influence primary prey 
choice by humpback whales and creates shifts in distribution and 
habitat use, which may increase risk of human interaction.
    Response: NMFS has added language to the Habitat Concerns section 
with regard to marine heat waves. ``The impacts of marine heatwaves on 
the foraging activities of humpback whales, including changes in the 
abundance and distribution of prey and whale foraging locations, may 
increase risk of human interactions (Santora et al. 2020).''
    [Comment 38]: WDCFA and the Makah Tribe are concerned that the 
abundance of SBC/WA populations is not included in the west coast 
abundance estimates. The excluded population of the SBC/WA population 
is in the order of 1,593 distinct animals and is not factored into the 
total of what the 2021 SAR characterizes as coast wide abundance 
estimated at 4,973, which produces an Nmin of 4,776. While a 
portion of the SBC/WA population is international in range a 
significant portion of that population occurs off of WA and should be 
accounted for in the west coast (CA/OR/WA) population. A more accurate 
abundance estimate would benefit from and be more reflective of 
population abundance from a proportional inclusion of SBC/WA 
populations.
    Response: NMFS notes that whales summering in NBC/WA waters are not 
considered a separate ``stock'' under the MMPA, as stated by the 
commenter. With respect to the estimate of 4,973 (CV=0.048) whales for 
CA + OR + WA waters by Calambokidis and Barlow (2020), they state: 
``While this estimate was calculated using identifications from 
California and Oregon, it likely incorporates the smaller number of 
Washington animals since there is some level of interchange with that 
area and adding our estimate for Washington-Southern British Columbia 
would likely be biased high both for that reason as well as because it 
would inappropriately (for purpose of calculating an Nmin 
for US waters) include whales outside US waters.'' The only other 
independent estimate of abundance for CA + OR + WA waters combined is 
4,784 (CV=0.31) (Becker et al. 2020), and it is lower than the mark-
recapture estimate of Calambokidis and Barlow (2020). The Becker et al. 
(2020) estimate could be used in the SAR, but

[[Page 47396]]

the mark-recapture estimate is considered the best estimate for 
management purposes for reasons given in the SAR.
    [Comment 39]: The data for consideration in this SARs report on 
Pacific coast Humpback activity was gathered in 2018. WDCFA is 
concerned about how long it takes to get data processed and analyzed so 
that stakeholders and fisheries managers can make timely and well-
informed decisions on practices that may impact the well being of 
stakeholders who make a living from the sea and the well being of the 
marine species that share ocean space with us.
    Response: Data on the abundance of humpback whales were collected 
during a line-transect and mark-recapture survey in the past several 
years. It takes 1-2 years to analyze and publish these data for use in 
SARs. Guidelines for preparing marine mammal stock assessments note 
that abundance estimates are considered valid for use in SARs for an 8-
year period after being collected.
    [Comment 40]: The Makah Tribe has two concerns with the use of 8 
percent for the maximum net productivity rate. First, the 8 percent is 
determined based on the observed rate of increase of humpback whales on 
the U.S. west coast and is not the maximum net productivity rate 
required by the formula for PBR. In the absence of a model with 
anthropogenic mortality included, the best available science indicates 
that an 11.8 percent growth rate should be used as the maximum 
theoretical or estimated net productivity rate in calculating PBR for 
the CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales. The Makah Tribe also note that 
Calambokidis and Barlow calculated an observed growth rate of 8.2 
percent per year from the 1980s to the current best estimate of CA/OR 
humpback whales. Thus, even if NOAA decides to use an observed growth 
rate for purposes of the SAR, the rate should be increased to 8.2 
percent.
    Response: Guidelines for preparing marine mammal stock assessments 
note that default rates of Rmax should be used in the absence of stock-
specific measured rates. The guidelines also note that ``to be 
consistent with a risk-averse approach, these default values should be 
near the lower range of measured or theoretical values.'' The Rmax of 
11.8 percent noted in the comment is taken from the upper 99th quantile 
of the results reported by Zerbini et al. (2010) which does not reflect 
the lower range of the theoretical values reported. It also does not 
represent a stock-specific estimate of increase. The impacts of 
anthropogenic removals on estimates of Rmax has not been estimated for 
humpback whales; thus, observed rates of increase have been used in the 
SARs. The commenter is correct that Calambokidis and Barlow (2020) note 
that an 8.2 percent growth rate is implied for U.S. west coast humpback 
whales, based on rates of increase shown since the late 1980s. NMFS has 
updated the Rmax estimate to 8.2 percent in the final 2021 SAR.
    [Comment 41]: The Makah Tribe notes that the assumption that the 
stock spends 50 percent of its time outside of US waters is too low. 
Modeled ship strikes should not be counted against the potential 
biological removal. The Makah Tribe suggests that it is best to compare 
the PBR to observed rates of ship strikes because the actual reports 
can be validated, whereas the modeled rates may not be accurate.
    Response: NMFS will review the available data with regard to how 
much time this stock spends outside of U.S. west coast waters, as 
resources allow. The 50 percent proration factor has been used in the 
SAR for many years but can be improved. The vessel strike estimates of 
Rockwood et al. are considered as any other published estimates of 
anthropogenic removals might be in a SAR, including bycatch estimates. 
The commenter does not make a defensible case for why estimates of 
vessel strike deaths should be excluded from the SAR.

Blue Whale, Eastern North Pacific

    [Comment 42]: CBD and WDC comment that the changes NMFS proposes to 
the section on ``Current Population Trend'' do not seem to reflect the 
concern among the Pacific SRG regarding the large declining trend in 
the species distribution model (SDM) abundance estimates. Also, CBD and 
WDC are concerned that the draft SAR does not adequately explain the 
choice to adopt the mark-recapture estimate (1,898, CV=0.085) rather 
than the SDM estimate (670, CV=0.43). The results of the SDM show a 
declining trend and a worrisome low estimate of abundance for blue 
whales, which could easily be explained by an actual decline in the 
blue whale population. The lack of consideration of the blue whale SDM 
estimate stands in contrast to the adoption of the SDM results for fin 
whale abundances estimates. If the agency's explanation is that it 
favors mark-recapture estimates over line-transect or SDM for 
transboundary stocks, this should be more fully developed in the draft 
SARs.
    Response: NMFS has been consistent in favoring mark-recapture 
abundance estimates over line-transect estimates (or SDM estimates 
derived from line-transect surveys) in SARs when (1) the precision of 
the mark-recapture estimate is superior and data were collected over a 
sufficient time period; (2) the line-transect survey effort is 
spatially-reduced compared with previous surveys, as was the case in 
2018 (Becker et al. 2020); or (3) the line-transect estimate is 
outdated. When available, the mark-recapture estimates have been used 
in the blue whale SAR since 2009. In the case of fin whales, the SDM 
estimate of Becker et al. (2020) is used because it represents the only 
recent estimate, compared with the older line-transect trend estimates 
from Moore and Barlow (2011) and Nadeem et al. (2016), and there are no 
mark-recapture estimates for fin whales in this region. For blue 
whales, use of the Calambokidis and Barlow (2020) mark-recapture 
estimate is explained in the draft SAR as being due to its superior 
precision over the SDM estimate and the fact that the SDM estimate is 
spatially and seasonally constrained: ``The mark-recapture estimate 
(1,898) is considered the best estimate of abundance for 2018 due to 
its higher precision and because estimates based on line-transect data 
reflect only animal densities within the study area at the time surveys 
are conducted.'' Given that spatially-constrained line-transect 
abundance estimates have declined while mark-recapture estimates have 
increased, it is not irrational to assume that some portion of the blue 
whale population is outside of the U.S. EEZ during summer/autumn 
surveys or that their distribution has shifted north over time, as the 
SAR outlines with multiple published references. One of these 
references (Monnahan et al. 2015) notes that this blue whale population 
may have been near carrying capacity in 2013. Given the uncertainty 
from all of these sources, the SAR conservatively states that ``the 
current population trend is unknown.''
    [Comment 43]: ODFW notes that Table 1 in the blue whale Draft SAR 
shows 2 serious injuries attributed to CA Dungeness crab gear (2 M&SI 
total). The M&SI Report shows 3 entanglements involving CA Dungeness 
crab gear that resulted in 2.75 serious injuries (2.75 M&SI total). 
This also results in a different total M&SI from human-related 
interactions in the Draft SAR (10.75 M&SI total) and the M&SI Report 
(11.5 M&SI total).
    Response: Totals have been corrected in the final SAR.

References

Authier M, Galatius A, Gilles A, Spitz J.

[[Page 47397]]

2020. Of power and despair in cetacean conservation: estimation and 
detection of trend in abundance with noisy and short time-series. 
PeerJ. 2020;8:e9436. doi:10.7717/peerj.9436.
Baird RW, Hanson MB, Schorr GS, Webster DL, McSweeney DJ, Gorgone 
AM, Mahaffy SD, Holzer DM, Oleson EM, Andrews RD. 2012. Range and 
primary habitats of Hawaiian insular false killer whales: informing 
determination of critical habitat. Endangered Species Research. 
18(1):47-61.
Baird RW, Schorr GS, Webster DL, McSweeney DJ, Hanson MB, Andrews 
RD. 2010. Movements and habitat use of satellite-tagged false killer 
whales around the main Hawaiian Islands. Endangered Species 
Research. 10:107-121.
Bradford AL, Baird RW, Mahaffy SD, Gorgone AM, McSweeney DJ, Cullins 
T, Webster DL, Zerbini AN. 2018. Abundance estimates for management 
of endangered false killer whales in the main Hawaiian Islands. 
Endangered Species Research. 36:297-313.
Pace III, R.M. 2021. Revisions and Further Evaluations of the Right 
Whale Abundance Model: Improvements for Hypothesis Testing. NOAA 
Tech Memo 269.
Pace III, R.M., R. Williams, S.D. Kraus, A.R. Knowlton, and H.M. 
Pettis. 2021. Cryptic mortality of North Atlantic right whales. 
Conservation Science and Practice. 3:e346.
Pace, R.M., C.P.J., and K.S.D. 2017. State-space mark-recapture 
estimates reveal a recent decline in abundance of North Atlantic 
right whales. Ecol and Evol 7:8730-8741.

    Dated: July 28, 2022.
Evan Howell,
Director, Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-16543 Filed 8-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P