22304 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 130708594–5298–02 ] 

RIN 0648–XC751 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Identification of 14 Distinct Population 

Segments of the Humpback Whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) and 

Proposed Revision of Species-Wide 

Listing 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month 

findings. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed a 

comprehensive status review of the 

humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and announce 

a proposal to revise the listing status of 

the species. We propose to divide the 

globally listed endangered species into 

14 distinct population segments (DPSs), 

remove the current species-level listing, 

and in its place list 2 DPSs as 

endangered and 2 DPSs as threatened. 

The remaining 10 DPSs are not 

proposed for listing based on their 

current statuses. This proposal also 

constitutes a negative 12-month finding 

on a petition to delineate and ‘‘delist’’ 

a DPS of humpback whales spanning 

the entire North Pacific and a positive 

12-month finding on a petition to 

delineate and ‘‘delist’’ a DPS in the 

Central North Pacific (Hawaii breeding 

population). 

At this time, we do not propose to 

designate critical habitat for the two 

listed DPSs that occur in U.S. waters 

(Western North Pacific, Central 

America) because it is not currently 

determinable. In order to complete the 

critical habitat designation process, we 

also solicit information on essential 

physical and biological features of the 

habitat of these two DPSs. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted to 

NMFS by July 20, 2015. For specific 

dates of the public hearings, see 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Requests 

for additional public hearings must be 

made in writing and received by June 5, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Four public hearings will be 

held, one each in Juneau, AK, Honolulu, 

HI, Plymouth, MA, and Virginia Beach, 

VA. For specific locations of these 

hearings, see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by NOAA–NMFS–2015–0035, by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. 

1. Go to www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D= NOAA-NMFS-2015- 

0035, 

2. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields 

3. Enter or attach your comments. 

—Or— 

Mail: Submit written comments to 

Marta Nammack, NMFS, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Room 13536, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

The proposed rule, Status Review 

report and other materials relating to 

this proposal can be found on the NMFS 

Web site at: http://nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marta Nammack, NMFS, (301) 427– 

8469. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

12, 2009, we announced the initiation of 

a status review of the humpback whale 

to determine whether an endangered 

listing for the entire species was still 

appropriate (74 FR 40568). We sought 

information from the public to inform 

our review, hired two post-doctoral 

students to compile the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

on the species (Fleming and Jackson, 

2011), including the past, present, and 

foreseeable future threats to this species, 

and appointed a Biological Review 

Team (BRT) to analyze that information, 

make conclusions on extinction risk, 

and prepare a status review report 

(Bettridge et al., 2015). 

On April 16, 2013, we received a 

petition from the Hawaii Fishermen’s 

Alliance for Conservation and Tradition, 

Inc., to classify the North Pacific 

humpback whale population as a DPS 

and ‘‘delist’’ the DPS under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). On 

February 26, 2014, the State of Alaska 

submitted a petition to delineate the 

Central North Pacific (Hawaii) stock of 

the humpback whale as a DPS and 

remove the DPS from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Species 

under the ESA. After reviewing the 

petitions, the literature cited in the 

petitions, and other literature and 

information available in our files, we 

found that both petitioned actions may 

be warranted and issued positive 90-day 

findings (78 FR 53391, August 29, 2013; 

79 FR 36281, June 26, 2014). We 

extended the deadline for receiving 

information by 30 days to help us 

respond to the petition to delist the 

Central North Pacific population (79 FR 

40054; July 11, 2014). We incorporated 

the consideration of both petitioned 

actions into the status review. 

Based on information presented in the 

status review report, an assessment of 

the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, and 

efforts being made to protect the 

species, we have determined: (1) 14 

populations of the humpback whale 

meet the DPS policy criteria and are 

therefore considered to be DPSs; (2) the 

Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa 

and Arabian Sea DPSs are in danger of 

extinction throughout their ranges; (3) 

the Western North Pacific and Central 

America DPSs are likely to become 

endangered throughout all of their 

ranges in the foreseeable future; and (4) 

the West Indies, Hawaii, Mexico, Brazil, 

Gabon/Southwest Africa, Southeast 

Africa/Madagascar, West Australia, East 

Australia, Oceania, and Southeastern 

Pacific DPSs are not in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of their ranges or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future. 

Accordingly, we issue a proposed rule 

to revise the species-wide listing of the 

humpback whale by replacing it with 2 

endangered species listings (Cape Verde 

Islands/Northwest Africa and Arabian 

Sea DPSs) and 2 threatened species 

listings (Western North Pacific and 

Central America DPSs). We solicit 

comments on these proposed actions. 

We also propose to extend the ESA 

section 9 prohibitions to the 2 

threatened DPSs. 

Outline 

ESA Statutory Provisions, Regulations, and 

Policy Considerations 

Distinct Population Segment Policy 

‘‘Foreseeable Future’’ 

‘‘Significant Portion of its Range’’ 

Background 

Behavior 

Feeding 

Reproduction 

Natural Mortality 

Status Review Report 

Humpback Whale Subspecies 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22305 

Reproductive Seasonality 

Behavior 

Color patterns 

Genetics 

Subspecies Discussion and Conclusions 

Distinct Population Segment Analysis, By 

Subspecies 

North Atlantic 

Overview 

Discreteness 

Significance 

North Pacific 

Overview 

Discreteness 

Significance 

Southern Hemisphere 

Overview: 

Discreteness 

Significance 

Extinction Risk Assessment 

Abundance and Trends for Each DPS 

West Indies DPS 

Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa DPS 

Western North Pacific DPS 

Hawaii DPS 

Mexico DPS 

Central America DPS 

Brazil DPS 

Gabon/Southwest Africa DPS 

Southeast Africa/Madagascar DPS 

West Australia DPS 

East Australia DPS 

Oceania DPS 

Southeastern Pacific DPS 

Arabian Sea DPS 

Summary of Abundance and Trends 

Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting 

the 14 Humpback Whale DPSs 

Section 4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All 

DPSs 

A. The present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes: 

C. Disease or Predation 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting its Continued Existence 

West Indies DPS 

A. The present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

C. Disease or Predation 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting its Continued Existence 

Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa DPS 

A. The present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

C. Disease or Predation 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting its Continued Existence 

Western North Pacific DPS 

A. The present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

C. Disease or Predation 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting its Continued Existence 

Hawaii DPS 

A. The present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

C. Disease or Predation 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting its Continued Existence 

Mexico DPS 

A. The present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

C. Disease or Predation 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting its Continued Existence 

Central America DPS 

A. The present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

C. Disease or Predation 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting its Continued Existence 

Brazil DPS 

A. The present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

C. Disease or Predation 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting its Continued Existence 

Gabon/Southwest Africa DPS 

A. The present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

C. Disease or Predation 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting its Continued Existence 

Southeast Africa/Madagascar DPS 

A. The present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

C. Disease or Predation 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting its Continued Existence 

West Australia DPS 

A. The present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

C. Disease or Predation 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting its Continued Existence 

East Australia DPS 

A. The present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

C. Disease or Predation 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting its Continued Existence 

Oceania DPS 

A. The present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

C. Disease or Predation 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting its Continued Existence 

Southeastern Pacific DPS 

A. The present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

C. Disease or Predation 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting its Continued Existence 

Arabian Sea DPS 

A. The present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

C. Disease or Predation 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting its Continued Existence 

Ongoing Conservation Efforts 

Rationale for Revising the Current Global 

Listing and Replacing It with Listings of 

DPSs 

Conclusions on the Status of Each DPS under 

the ESA 

Endangered DPSs 

Threatened DPSs 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22306 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DPSs Not Warranted for Listing under the 

ESA 

Post-delisting Monitoring Plan 

Description of Proposed Regulatory Changes 

Prohibitions and Protective Measures 

Identification of Those Activities That Would 

Constitute a Violation of Section 9 of the 

ESA 

Effects of this Rulemaking 

Peer Review 

Critical Habitat 

Public Comments Solicited 

Public Hearings 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

E.O. 13132, Federalism 

E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments 

ESA Statutory Provisions, Regulations, 

and Policy Considerations 

Pursuant to the ESA, any interested 

person may petition to list or delist a 

species, subspecies, or DPS of a 

vertebrate species that interbreeds when 

mature (5 U.S.C. 553(e), 16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(3)(A)). ESA-implementing 

regulations issued by NMFS and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

also establish procedures for receiving 

and considering petitions to revise the 

lists of endangered and threatened 

species and for conducting periodic 

reviews of listed species (50 CFR 

424.01). 

Once we receive a petition to delist a 

species, the ESA requires the Secretary 

of Commerce (Secretary) to make a 

finding on whether the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). In the context of 

a petition to delist a species, the ESAimplementing regulations provide that 

‘‘substantial information’’ is that 

amount of information that would lead 

a reasonable person to believe that 

delisting may be warranted (50 CFR 

424.14(b)(1)). In determining whether 

substantial information exists, we take 

into account several factors, in light of 

any information noted in the petition or 

otherwise readily available in our files. 

To the maximum extent practicable, this 

finding is to be made within 90 days of 

the receipt of the petition (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(3)(A)) and published promptly 

in the Federal Register. Section 

4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA requires that, when 

a petition to revise the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants is found to present 

substantial scientific and commercial 

information, we make a finding that the 

petitioned action is (a) not warranted, 

(b) warranted, or (c) warranted but 

precluded from immediate proposal by 

other pending proposals of higher 

priority. This finding (the ‘‘12-month 

finding’’) is to be made within 1 year of 

the date the petition was received, and 

the finding is to be published promptly 

in the Federal Register. The Secretary 

has delegated the authority for these 

actions to the NOAA Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries. 

Section 3 of the ESA defines an 

endangered species as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ and a threatened species as 

one ‘‘which is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Thus, 

we interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to 

be one that is presently in danger of 

extinction. A ‘‘threatened species,’’ on 

the other hand, is not presently in 

danger of extinction, but is likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future (that 

is, at a later time). In other words, the 

primary statutory difference between a 

threatened and endangered species is 

the timing of when a species may be in 

danger of extinction, either presently 

(endangered) or in the foreseeable future 

(threatened). In determining whether to 

reclassify or delist a species, subspecies, 

or DPS, the ESA and implementing 

regulations require that we consider the 

following ESA section 4(a)(1) factors in 

relation to the definitions of 

‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened 

species’’ (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1) and 

1533(c)(2); 50 CFR 424.11(d)): The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; overutilization of the 

species for commercial, recreational, 

scientific, or educational purposes; 

disease or predation; the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; and 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting a species’ continued existence. 

These are the same factors that we must 

consider when making an initial 

determination whether to list a species, 

subspecies, or DPS as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA. 

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires 

us to make listing determinations based 

solely on the best scientific and 

commercial data available after 

conducting a review of the status of the 

species and after taking into account 

efforts being made by any State or 

foreign nation or political subdivision 

thereof to protect the species. In 

evaluating the efficacy of protective 

efforts not yet implemented or not yet 

proven to be effective, we rely on the 

Policy on Evaluation of Conservation 

Efforts When Making Listing Decisions 

(‘‘PECE’’; 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003) 

issued jointly by NMFS and the FWS 

(together, the Services). The ESA 

regulations require that a species listed 

as endangered or threatened be removed 

from the list if the best scientific or 

commercial data available indicate that 

the species is no longer endangered or 

threatened because it has recovered (50 

CFR 424.11(d)). 

Distinct Population Segment Policy 

To be considered for listing under the 

ESA, a group of organisms must 

constitute a ‘‘species,’’ which the ESA 

defines to include ‘‘. . . any subspecies 

of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature’’ (16 

U.S.C. 1532 (16)). Thus, an ESA listing 

(or delisting) determination can address 

a species, subspecies, or a DPS of a 

vertebrate species. 

On February 7, 1996, the Services 

adopted a policy describing what 

constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic species 

(61 FR 4722). The joint DPS policy 

identified two elements that must be 

considered when identifying a DPS: (1) 

The discreteness of the population 

segment in relation to the remainder of 

the species (or subspecies) to which it 

belongs; and (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the remainder of 

the species (or subspecies) to which it 

belongs. A population segment of a 

vertebrate species may be considered 

discrete if it satisfies either one of the 

following conditions: 

(1) It is markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors. 

Quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation. 

(2) It is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. 

If a population segment is considered 

discrete under one or more of the above 

conditions, its biological and ecological 

significance is then considered in light 

of Congressional guidance (see Senate 

Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session) 

that the authority to list DPSs be used 

‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging the 

conservation of genetic diversity. This 

consideration may include, but is not 

limited to, the following: 

(1) Persistence of the discrete 

population segment in an ecological 

setting unusual or unique for the taxon; 

(2) Evidence that loss of the discrete 

population segment would result in a 

significant gap in the range of a taxon; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22307 

(3) Evidence that the discrete 

population segment represents the only 

surviving natural occurrence of a taxon 

that may be more abundant elsewhere as 

an introduced population outside its 

historic range; or 

(4) Evidence that the discrete 

population segment differs markedly 

from other populations of the species in 

its genetic characteristics. 

‘‘Foreseeable Future’’ 

To determine whether listing of a 

species is warranted, a status review 

must conclude that the species is ‘‘in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ The ESA uses the term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ to refer to the time 

over which identified threats are likely 

to impact the biological status of the 

species. The duration of the 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ in any 

circumstance is inherently fact-specific 

and depends on the particular kinds of 

threats, the life-history characteristics, 

and the specific habitat requirements for 

the species under consideration. The 

existence of a threat to a species and the 

species’ response to that threat are not, 

in general, equally predictable or 

foreseeable. Hence, in some cases, the 

ability to foresee a threat to a species is 

greater than the ability to foresee the 

species’ exact response, or the 

timeframe of such a response, to that 

threat. For purposes of making these 12- 

month findings, the relevant 

consideration is whether the species’ 

population response (i.e., abundance, 

productivity, spatial distribution, 

diversity) is foreseeable, not merely 

whether the emergence of a threat is 

foreseeable. The foreseeable future 

extends only as far as we are able to 

reliably predict the species’ population 

response to a particular threat. We 

consider the extent to which we can 

foresee the species’ response to each 

threat. 

‘‘Significant Portion of its Range’’ 

NMFS and FWS recently published a 

final policy to clarify the interpretation 

of the phrase ‘‘significant portion of the 

range’’ in the ESA definitions of 

‘‘threatened species’’ and ‘‘endangered 

species’’ (79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014) 

(Final Policy). The Final Policy reads: 

Consequences of a species being 

endangered or threatened throughout a 

significant portion of its range: The phrase 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ in the Act’s 

definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and 

‘‘threatened species’’ provides an 

independent basis for listing. Thus, there are 

two situations (or factual bases) under which 

a species would qualify for listing: A species 

may be endangered or threatened throughout 

all of its range or a species may be 

endangered or threatened throughout only a 

significant portion of its range. 

If a species is found to be endangered or 

threatened throughout only a significant 

portion of its range, the entire species is 

listed as endangered or threatened, 

respectively, and the Act’s protections apply 

to all individuals of the species wherever 

found. 

Significant: A portion of the range of a 

species is ‘‘significant’’ if the species is not 

currently endangered or threatened 

throughout its range, but the portion’s 

contribution to the viability of the species is 

so important that, without the members in 

that portion, the species would be in danger 

of extinction, or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future, throughout all of its range. 

Range: The range of a species is considered 

to be the general geographical area within 

which that species can be found at the time 

FWS or NMFS makes any particular status 

determination. This range includes those 

areas used throughout all or part of the 

species’ life cycle, even if they are not used 

regularly (e.g., seasonal habitats). Lost 

historical range is relevant to the analysis of 

the status of the species, but it cannot 

constitute a significant portion of a species’ 

range. 

Reconciling SPR with DPS authority: If the 

species is endangered or threatened 

throughout a significant portion of its range, 

and the population in that significant portion 

is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather 

than the entire taxonomic species or 

subspecies. 

The Final Policy explains that it is 

necessary to fully evaluate a portion for 

potential listing under the ‘‘significant 

portion of its range’’ authority only if 

substantial information indicates that 

the members of the species in a 

particular area are likely both to meet 

the test for biological significance and to 

be currently endangered or threatened 

in that area. Making this preliminary 

determination triggers a need for further 

review, but does not prejudge whether 

the portion actually meets these 

standards such that the species should 

be listed: 

To identify only those portions that 

warrant further consideration, we will 

determine whether there is substantial 

information indicating that (1) the portions 

may be significant and (2) the species may be 

in danger of extinction in those portions or 

likely to become so within the foreseeable 

future. We emphasize that answering these 

questions in the affirmative is not a 

determination that the species is endangered 

or threatened throughout a significant 

portion of its range—rather, it is a step in 

determining whether a more detailed 

analysis of the issue is required. 

79 FR 37586. 

Thus, the preliminary determination 

that a portion may be both significant 

and endangered or threatened merely 

requires NMFS to engage in a more 

detailed analysis to determine whether 

the standards are actually met. Id. at 

37587. Unless both are met, listing is 

not warranted. The Final Policy 

explains that, depending on the 

particular facts of each situation, NMFS 

may find it is more efficient to address 

the significance issue first, but in other 

cases it will make more sense to 

examine the status of the species in the 

potentially significant portions first. 

Whichever question is asked first, an 

affirmative answer is required to 

proceed to the second question. Id. (‘‘[I]f 

we determine that a portion of the range 

is not ‘‘significant,’’ we will not need to 

determine whether the species is 

endangered or threatened there; if we 

determine that the species is not 

endangered or threatened in a portion of 

its range, we will not need to determine 

if that portion was ‘‘significant.’’). Thus, 

if the answer to the first question is 

negative—whether in regard to the 

significance question or the status 

question—then the analysis concludes 

and listing is not warranted. 

Background 

The humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) was listed as endangered 

in 1970 under the Endangered Species 

Conservation Act of 1969, the precursor 

to the ESA. When the ESA was enacted 

in 1973, the humpback whale was 

transferred to the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 

retaining endangered status, and, 

because of its endangered ESA status, 

was considered ‘‘depleted’’ under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA). NMFS issued a recovery plan 

for the humpback whale in 1991, and its 

long-term numerical goal was to 

increase humpback whale populations 

to at least 60 percent of the number 

existing before commercial exploitation 

or of current environmental carrying 

capacity. The recovery team recognized 

that those levels could not then be 

determined, so in the meantime, the 

interim goal of the recovery plan was to 

double the population size of extant 

populations within the next 20 years 

(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/

recovery/whale_humpback.pdf). In fact, 

the historical size of humpback whale 

populations continues to be uncertain 

(Ruegg et al., 2013, and references 

therein; Bettridge et al., 2015). 

The taxonomy, life history, and 

ecology of the humpback whale are 

thoroughly reviewed in Fleming and 

Jackson (2011) and summarized in the 

BRT’s status review report (Bettridge et 

al., 2015; available at http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/

statusreviews.htm). The humpback 

whale is a large baleen whale of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22308 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

family Balaenopteridae. It is found 

around the world in all oceans. The 

humpback whale has long pectoral 

flippers, distinct ventral fluke 

patterning, dark dorsal coloration, a 

highly varied acoustic call (termed 

‘song’), and a diverse repertoire of 

surface behaviors. 

Its body coloration is primarily dark 

grey, but individuals have a variable 

amount of white on their pectoral fins, 

flukes, and belly. This variation is so 

distinctive that the pigmentation pattern 

on the undersides of their flukes is used 

to identify individual whales. Coloring 

of the ventral surface varies from white 

to marbled to fully black. Dorsal 

surfaces of humpback whale pectoral 

flippers are typically white in the North 

Atlantic and black in the North Pacific 

(Perrin et al., 2002), and the flippers are 

about one-third of the total body length. 

Similar to all baleen whales, body 

lengths differ between the sexes, with 

adult females being approximately 1– 

1.5m longer than males. The humpback 

whale reaches a maximum of 16–17 m, 

although lengths of 14–15 m are more 

typical. Adult body weights in excess of 

40 tons make them one of the largest 

mammals on earth (Ohsumi, 1966). 

With one exception, humpback 

whales are highly migratory, spending 

spring, summer, and fall feeding in 

temperate or high-latitude areas of the 

North Atlantic, North Pacific, and 

Southern Ocean and migrating to the 

tropics in winter to breed and calve. The 

Arabian Sea humpback whale 

population does not migrate 

extensively, remaining in tropical 

waters year-round (Baldwin, 2000; 

Minton et al., 2010b). 

There are 14 known breeding grounds 

for humpback whales, and there may be 

other breeding grounds of unknown 

location. Whales using the unknown 

breeding grounds may be associated to 

some degree with whales from the 

known breeding grounds. 

Whales from all known breeding 

grounds except the Arabian Sea migrate 

to summer feeding areas. Humpback 

whales have high site fidelity to both 

the winter breeding grounds and 

summer feeding grounds. Whales from a 

single breeding ground may migrate to 

different feeding grounds. In addition, 

feeding grounds may host whales from 

different breeding grounds. Because 

humpback whales can be individually 

identified through unique fluke 

patterns, researchers are able to match 

photos of whales on breeding grounds 

and feeding grounds, thereby tracing 

their migrations. 

Although the patterns of migration 

and distribution are clear for many 

breeding groups, researchers have 

identified whales on some feeding 

grounds that have never been sighted in 

any of the known breeding grounds. 

Depending on the strength of the 

evidence, scientists may infer that an 

additional breeding population exists 

but that its breeding grounds are 

unknown. We explore this subject 

further in the ‘‘Distinct Population 

Segment Analysis, By Subspecies’’ 

section below. 

Behavior 

Humpback whales travel great 

distances during migration, the farthest 

migration of any mammal. The longest 

recorded migration between a breeding 

area and a feeding area was 5,160 miles 

(8,300 km). This trek from Costa Rica to 

Antarctica was completed by seven 

individuals, including a calf 

(Rasmussen et al., 2007). One of the 

more closely studied routes has shown 

whales making the 3,000-mile (4,830 

km) trip between Alaska and Hawaii in 

as little as 36 days (Allen and Angliss, 

2010). 

During summer and fall, humpback 

whales spend much of their time 

feeding and building fat stores for 

winter. In their low-latitude wintering 

grounds, humpback whales congregate 

and are believed to engage in mating 

and other social activities. Humpback 

whales are generally polygynous, with 

males exhibiting competitive behavior 

on wintering grounds (Tyack, 1981; 

Baker and Herman, 1984; Clapham, 

1996). A complex behavioral repertoire 

exhibited in these areas can include 

aggressive and antagonistic behavior, 

such as chasing, vocal and bubble 

displays, horizontal tail thrashing, and 

rear body thrashing. Males within these 

groups also make physical contact, 

striking or surfacing on top of one 

another. 

Also on wintering grounds, males sing 

complex songs that can last up to 20 

minutes and may be heard up to 20 

miles (30 km) away (Clapham and 

Mattila, 1990; Cato, 1991). A male may 

sing for hours, repeating the song 

numerous times. All males in a 

population sing the same song, but that 

song continually evolves over time 

(Darling and Sousa-Lima, 2005). 

Humpback whale singing has been 

studied for decades, but its function 

remains in dispute. 

Humpback whales are a favorite of 

whale watchers, as the species 

frequently performs aerial displays, 

including breaching, lobtailing, and 

flipper slapping, the purposes of which 

are not well understood. Diving 

behavior varies by season, with average 

lengths of dives ranging from <5 

minutes in summer to 10–15 minutes 

(and sometimes more than 30 minutes) 

in winter months (Clapham and Mead, 

1999). Typically, humpback whale 

groups are small (e.g., <10 individuals, 

but can vary depending on social 

context and season), and associations 

between individuals do not last long, 

with the exception of the mother/calf 

pairs (Clapham and Mead, 1999). 

Feeding 

Humpback whales have a diverse diet 

that varies slightly across feeding areas. 

The species is known to feed on both 

small schooling fish and on euphausiids 

(krill). Known prey organisms include 

species representing Clupea (herring), 

Scomber (mackerel), Ammodytes (sand 

lance), Sardinops (sardine), Engraulis 

(anchovy), Mallotus (capelin), and krills 

such as Euphausia, Thysanoessa, and 

Meganyctiphanes (Baker, 1985; Geraci et 

al., 1989; Clapham et al., 1997). 

Humpback whales also exhibit flexible 

feeding strategies, sometimes foraging 

alone and sometimes cooperatively 

(Clapham, 1993). During the winter, 

humpback whales subsist on stored fat 

and likely feed little or not at all. 

In the Northern Hemisphere, feeding 

behavior is varied and frequently 

features novel capture methods 

involving the creation of bubble 

structures to trap and corral fish; bubble 

nets, clouds, and curtains can be 

observed when humpback whales are 

feeding on schooling fish (Hain et al., 

1982). Lobtailing and repeated 

underwater ‘looping’ movements 

(referred to as kick feeding) have also 

been observed during surface feeding 

events, and it may be that certain 

feeding behaviors are spread through 

the population by cultural transmission 

(Weinrich et al., 1992; Friedlaender et 

al., 2006). On Stellwagen Bank, in the 

Gulf of Maine, repeated side rolls have 

been recorded when whales were near 

the bottom, which likely serves to startle 

prey out of the substrate for better 

foraging (Friedlaender et al., 2009). In 

many locations, feeding in the water 

column can vary with time of day, with 

whales bottom feeding at night and 

surface feeding near dawn (Friedlaender 

et al., 2009). 

Humpback whales are ‘gulp’ or ‘lunge’ 

feeders, capturing large mouthfuls of 

prey during feeding rather than 

continuously filtering food, as may be 

observed in some other large baleen 

whales (Ingebrigtsen, 1929). In the 

Southern Hemisphere, only one style of 

foraging (‘lunge’ feeding) has been 

reported. When lunge feeding, whales 

advance on prey with their mouths wide 

open, then close their mouths around 

the prey and trap them by forcing 

engulfed water out past the baleen 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22309 

plates. Southern Hemisphere humpback 

whales forage in the Antarctic 

circumpolar current, feeding almost 

exclusively on Antarctic krill 

(Euphausia superba) (Matthews, 1937; 

Mackintosh, 1965; Kawamura, 1994). 

Stomach content analysis from 

hunted whales taken in sub-tropical 

waters and on migratory routes 

indicated that stomachs were nearly 

always empty (Chittleborough, 1965a). 

Infrequent sightings of feeding activity 

and stomach content data suggest that 

some individuals may feed 

opportunistically during the southward 

migration toward Antarctic waters 

(Matthews, 1932; Dawbin, 1956; 

Kawamura, 1980). 

In the Southern Ocean, Antarctic krill 

tend to be most highly concentrated 

around marginal sea ice zones, where 

they feed on sea ice algae. As a result, 

Southern Hemisphere humpback whale 

distribution is linked to regions of 

marginal sea ice (Friedlaender et al., 

2006) and zones of high euphausiid 

density (Murase et al., 2002), with 

foraging mainly concentrated in the 

upper 100m of the water column 

(Dolphin, 1987; Friedlaender et al., 

2006). There is evidence of a positive 

relationship between prey density and 

humpback whale abundance 

(Friedlaender et al., 2006). 

Reproduction 

The mating system of humpback 

whales is generally thought to be maledominance polygyny, also described as 

a ‘floating lek’ (Clapham, 1996). In this 

system, multiple males compete for 

individual females and exhibit 

competitive behavior. Humpback whale 

song is a long, complex vocalization 

(Payne and McVay, 1971) produced by 

males on the winter breeding grounds, 

and also less commonly during 

migration (Clapham and Mattila, 1990; 

Cato, 1991) and on feeding grounds 

(Clark and Clapham, 2004b). The exact 

function has not been determined, but 

behavioral studies suggest that song is 

used to advertise for females, and/or to 

establish dominance among males 

(Tyack, 1981; Darling and Be ́rube ́, 2001; 

Darling et al., 2006). It is widely 

believed that, while occasional mating 

may occur on feeding grounds or on 

migration, the great majority of mating 

and conceptions take place in winter 

breeding areas (Clapham, 1996; Clark 

and Clapham, 2004a). Breeding in the 

Northern and Southern Hemisphere 

populations is out of phase by 

approximately 6 months, corresponding 

to their respective winter periods. 

Sexual maturity of humpback whales 

in the Northern Hemisphere occurs at 

approximately 5–11 years of age, and 

appears to vary both within and among 

populations (Clapham, 1992; Gabriele et 

al., 2007b; Robbins, 2007). Average age 

of sexual maturity in the Southern 

Hemisphere is estimated to be 9–11 

years. In the Northern Hemisphere, 

calving intervals are between 1 and 5 

years, though 2–3 years appears to be 

most common (Wiley and Clapham, 

1993; Steiger and Calambokidis, 2000). 

Estimated mean calving rates are 

between 0.38 and 0.50 calves per mature 

female per year (Clapham and Mayo, 

1990; Straley et al., 1994; Steiger and 

Calambokidis, 2000) and reproduction 

is annually variable (Robbins, 2007). In 

the Southern Hemisphere, most 

information on humpback whale 

population characteristics and life 

history was obtained during the whaling 

period. Post-partum ovulation is 

reasonably common (Chittleborough, 

1965a) and inter-birth intervals of a 

single year have occasionally been 

recorded. This may be a consequence of 

early calf mortality; the associated 

survival rates for annually born calves 

are unknown in the Southern 

Hemisphere. 

Humpback whale gestation is 11–12 

months and calves are born in tropical 

waters (Matthews, 1937). Lactation lasts 

from 10.5–11 months (Chittleborough, 

1965a), weaning begins to occur at about 

age 6 months, and calves attain maternal 

independence around the end of their 

first year (Clapham and Mayo, 1990). 

Humpback whales exhibit maternally 

directed fidelity to specific feeding 

regions (Martin et al., 1984; Baker et al., 

1990). 

The average generation time for 

humpback whales (the average age of all 

reproductively active females at 

carrying capacity) is estimated at 21.5 

years (Taylor et al., 2007). Empirically 

estimated annual rates of population 

increase range from a low of 0 to 4 

percent to a maximum of 12.5 percent 

for different times and areas throughout 

the range (Baker et al., 1992; Barlow and 

Clapham, 1997; Steiger and 

Calambokidis, 2000; Clapham et al., 

2003a); however, Zerbini et al. (2010) 

concluded that any rate above 11.8 

percent per year is biologically 

implausible for this species. 

Natural Mortality 

Annual adult mortality rates have 

been estimated to be 0.040 (standard 

error (SE) = 0.008) (Barlow and 

Clapham, 1997) in the Gulf of Maine 

and 0.037 (95 percent confidence 

interval (CI) 0.022–0.056) (Mizroch et 

al., 2004) in the Hawaiian Islands 

populations. In the Southern 

Hemisphere, estimates of annual adult 

survival rates have been made using 

photo-identification studies in Hervey 

Bay, east Australia (1987–2006), and 

range between 0.87 and 1.00 (Chaloupka 

et al., 1999). 

Robbins (2007) estimated calf (0–1 

year old) survival for humpback whales 

in the Gulf of Maine at 0.664 (95 percent 

CI: 0.517–0.784), which is low 

compared to other areas. Barlow and 

Clapham (1997) estimated a theoretical 

calf mortality rate of 0.125 on the Gulf 

of Maine feeding ground. Using 

associations of calves with identified 

mothers on North Pacific breeding and 

feeding grounds, Gabriele (2001) 

estimated mortality of juveniles at 6 

months of age to be 0.182 (95 percent CI: 

0.023–0.518). Survival of calves (6–12 

months) and juveniles (1–5 years) has 

not been described in detail for the 

Southern Hemisphere. Killer whales are 

likely the most common natural 

predators of humpback whales. 

Status Review Report 

The BRT’s status review report 

compiled the best available scientific 

and commercial information on: (1) 

Population structure of humpback 

whales within the North Pacific, North 

Atlantic, and Southern Oceans, used to 

determine whether any populations 

within these ocean basins meet the DPS 

policy criteria; (2) the abundance and 

trend information for each DPS; (3) 

those ESA section 4(a)(1) factors 

currently affecting the status of these 

DPSs; (4) ongoing conservation efforts 

affecting the status of these DPSs; and 

(5) the extinction risk of each DPS. See 

the status review report for further 

information on the biology and ecology 

of the humpback whale (Bettridge et al., 

2015). 

Humpback Whale Subspecies 

The BRT reviewed the best scientific 

and commercial data available on the 

humpback whale’s taxonomy and 

concluded that there are likely three 

unrecognized subspecies of humpback 

whale: North Pacific, North Atlantic, 

and Southern Hemisphere. In reaching 

this conclusion, the BRT considered 

available life history, morphological, 

and genetic information. 

Humpback whales routinely make 

extensive migrations between breeding 

and feeding areas within an ocean basin. 

Despite this potential for long distance 

dispersal, there is considerable evidence 

that dispersal or interbreeding of 

individuals from different major ocean 

basins is extremely rare and that whales 

from the major ocean basins are 

differentiated by a number of 

characteristics. 

Reproductive Seasonality: Humpback 

whales breed and calve in July– 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22310 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1A mtDNA haplotype is a group of genes, or 

alleles, that is maternally inherited; genetic 

differentiation is generally based on allele 

frequency differences between populations, which 

are measured by FST or related statistics; FST is a 

measure of the genetic distance between 

populations, or difference in the allele frequency 

between two populations. 

November in the Southern Hemisphere 

and in January–May in the Northern 

Hemisphere (including the Arabian 

Sea). It is not known if reproductive 

seasonality in baleen whales is 

determined genetically or whether it 

results from a learned behavior 

(migration to a particular feeding 

destination) combined with a 

physiological response to day length. 

Behavior: The most obvious 

behavioral difference is that migrations 

to and from high latitudes are in 

opposite times of the calendar year for 

Southern Hemisphere and most 

Northern Hemisphere populations, 

following the difference in reproductive 

seasonality. A Northern Hemisphere 

exception to this migration pattern is 

found in the Arabian Sea where a nonmigratory population is found. 

Although these behavioral differences 

could be learned, they could also be 

innate, genetically determined traits. 

Seasonality in singing and other mating 

behaviors also follows the differences in 

reproductive seasonality. 

Color patterns: Humpback whales in 

the Southern Hemisphere tend to have 

much more white pigmentation on their 

bodies which is especially noticeable 

laterally (Matthews, 1937; 

Chittleborough, 1965b). This has been 

noted in eastern and western Australia, 

the Coral Sea, and Oceania, but might 

not be characteristic of all Southern 

Hemisphere populations. Rosenbaum et 

al. (1995) ranked ventral fluke 

coloration patterns from one (nearly all 

white) to five (nearly all black) and 

compared whales from several breeding 

areas. He found that over 80 percent of 

humpback whales in eastern and 

western Australia were in Category 1, 

and that less than 10 percent of whales 

in three breeding areas in the North 

Pacific were ranked in that category. 

Only 36 percent of Southern 

Hemisphere whales in Colombia were 

classified in Category 1, but Colombian 

whales were still, on average, whiter 

than North Pacific whales. A higher 

frequency of flippers with white dorsal 

pigmentations is found in the North 

Atlantic compared to the North Pacific 

(Clapham, 2009). 

Genetics: Baker and MedranoGonzalez (2002) reviewed the 

worldwide distribution of mtDNA 

haplotypes.1 They found three major 

clades (groups consisting of an ancestor 

and all its descendants) with significant 

differences among major ocean basins, 

though there were no completely fixed 

differences among these areas. The 

North Pacific included only the AE and 

CD clades, the North Atlantic included 

only the CD and IJ clades, and the 

Southern Oceans included all three. In 

a more recent comparison, Jackson et al. 

(2014) found no shared haplotypes 

between the North Pacific and North 

Atlantic. Based on patterns of mtDNA 

variation, Rosenbaum et al. (2009b) 

estimated an average migration rate of 

less than one per generation between 

the Arabian Sea and neighboring 

populations in the southern Indian 

Ocean, and Jackson et al. (2014) also 

estimated generally <1 migrant per 

generation among the North Pacific, 

North Atlantic and Southern 

Hemisphere populations. Ruegg et al. 

(2013) also found a high degree of 

genetic differentiation between samples 

from the North Atlantic and the 

Southern Hemisphere. 

Subspecies Discussion and Conclusions 

The BRT considered the possibility 

that humpback whales from different 

ocean basins might reasonably be 

considered to belong to different 

subspecies. Sub-specific taxonomy is 

relevant to the identification of DPSs 

because, under the 1996 DPS policy, the 

discreteness and significance of a 

potential DPS is evaluated with 

reference to the taxon (species or 

subspecies) to which it belongs. In some 

cases previous BRTs have determined 

that sub-specific taxonomy has a large 

influence on DPS structure (e.g., 

southern resident killer whales—Krahn 

et al., 2004a)), while in other cases subspecific taxonomy has not been relevant 

(e.g., steelhead trout DPS—Busby et al., 

1996). 

Rice (1998) reviewed previous 

subspecies designations for humpback 

whales. Tomilin (1946) named a 

Southern Hemisphere subspecies (M. n. 

lalandii) based on body length, but this 

length difference was not substantiated 

in subsequent studies. The populations 

around Australia and New Zealand were 

described as another subspecies (M. n. 

novazelandiae) based on color patterns 

and length (Ivashin, 1958). Rice (1998) 

noted that the statistical ability to 

classify these proposed subspecies is 

‘‘not quite as high as is customarily 

required for division into subspecies’’ 

and that genetic analyses using 

restriction-fragment length 

polymorphisms is not congruent with 

the proposed regional division. Rice 

(1998) therefore recommended that 

Megaptera novaeangliae be considered 

monotypic. As was summarized above, 

however, since 1998, additional 

information has accumulated on the 

genetic distinctiveness of different 

geographic populations of humpback 

whales, and some new subspecies have 

been proposed (Jackson et al., 2014). 

One criterion for separation of 

subspecies is the ability to differentiate 

75 percent of individuals found in 

different geographic regions (Reeves et 

al., 2004). Based on this criterion, 

differences in the calendar timing of 

mating and reproduction could be used 

to distinguish close to 100 percent of 

Northern Hemisphere from Southern 

Hemisphere individuals, but it is not 

known if this is genetically determined. 

Based on mtDNA haplotypes that have 

been identified to date, haplotype could 

be used to distinguish 100 percent of 

North Pacific from North Atlantic 

individuals, but some haplotypes from 

both ocean basins are shared with the 

Southern Ocean. Ventral fluke color 

patterns can be used to correctly 

differentiate >80 percent of whales in 

eastern and western Australia from the 

whales in the North Pacific (Rosenbaum 

et al., 1995). 

The BRT also considered the advice of 

the Committee on Taxonomy of the 

Society for Marine Mammalogy (SMM). 

The BRT asked the Committee: ‘‘Are 

humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) that feed in the North 

Atlantic, North Pacific, Southern 

Oceans and Arabian Sea likely to belong 

to different sub-species?’’ The SMM was 

asked only for its scientific opinion on 

the likelihood of the existence of 

humpback whale subspecies and was 

not asked to comment on the relevance 

of their opinion to the identification of 

DPSs for humpback whales. The SMM 

chairman summarized responses from 

members of the SMM: 

The balance of opinion in the SMM 

Committee on Taxonomy is that given the 

evidence on genetics, morphology, 

distribution and behavior, if a taxonomic 

revision of the humpback whale were 

undertaken, it is likely that the North 

Atlantic, North Pacific and Southern 

Hemisphere populations would be accorded 

subspecific status. Whether the Arabian Sea 

population would merit recognition as a 

subspecies separate from the Southern 

Hemisphere whales, with which it is most 

closely related genetically, is less certain. 

However, it is clearly geographically isolated 

and genetically differentiated. 

Using its structured decision making 

process (whereby each BRT member 

distributed 100 likelihood points among 

different scenarios), the BRT considered 

the likelihood of a single global species 

with no subspecies scenario, a threesubspecies scenario (North Atlantic, 

North Pacific, and Southern 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22311 

Hemisphere), and a four-subspecies 

scenario (North Atlantic, North Pacific, 

Southern Hemisphere, and Arabian 

Sea). The BRT’s allocation of likelihood 

points indicates that in the opinion of 

the BRT, the most likely scenario is the 

3-subspecies scenario. 

In October 2014, after the BRT report 

was completed, the SMM updated its 

species and subspecies list to recognize 

the North Atlantic, North Pacific, and 

Southern Hemisphere humpback whale 

populations as subspecies: Megaptera 

novaeangliae kuzira (North Pacific), M. 

n. novaeangliae (North Atlantic) and M. 

n. australis (Southern Hemisphere) 

(http://www.marinemammalscience.

org/index.php?option=com_content&

view=article&id=758&Itemid=340). This 

update was based on mtDNA and DNA 

relationships and distribution, as 

described in Jackson et al. (2014). We 

therefore consider whether the various 

humpback whale population segments 

identified by the BRT satisfy the DPS 

criteria of discreteness and significance 

relative to the subspecies to which they 

each belong: North Atlantic, North 

Pacific, and Southern Hemisphere 

subspecies. 

Distinct Population Segment Analysis, 

By Subspecies 

North Atlantic 

Overview 

In the Northern Hemisphere, 

humpback whales summer in the 

biologically productive, northern 

latitudes and travel south to warmer 

waters in winter to mate and calve. 

Migratory routes and migratory behavior 

are likely to be maternally directed 

(Martin et al., 1984; Baker et al., 1990). 

Feeding areas are often near or over the 

continental shelf and are associated 

with cooler temperatures and 

oceanographic or topographic features 

that serve to aggregate prey (Moore et 

al., 2002; Zerbini et al., 2006a). 

Primary humpback whale feeding 

areas in the North Atlantic Ocean range 

from 42° to 78°N and include waters 

around Iceland, Norway, and the 

Barents Sea in the central and eastern 

North Atlantic Ocean, and western 

Greenland, Newfoundland, Labrador, 

the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Gulf of 

Maine in the western North Atlantic 

Ocean. Known breeding areas occur in 

the West Indies and, to a much lesser 

extent, around the Cape Verde Islands 

(Katona and Beard, 1990; Clapham, 

1993; Palsb<ll et al., 1997). A relatively 

small proportion of whales in the North 

Atlantic Ocean feed in U.S. waters. The 

predominant breeding and calving area 

lies in the territorial sea of the 

Dominican Republic, although whales 

are also found scattered throughout the 

rest of the Antilles and coastal waters of 

Venezuela. The Silver/Navidad/

Mouchoir Bank complex hosts the 

largest single breeding aggregation of 

humpback whales in the West Indies. 

Recently, a few humpback whales 

have also been found in the 

Mediterranean Sea but little is known 

about humpback whale use of this 

region and there is no evidence of a 

large humpback whale presence there, 

either currently or in historical times 

(Frantzis et al., 2004). There are also 

sporadic sightings of humpback whales 

in a wide range of places, including 

waters offshore from the mid-Atlantic 

and Southeast United States, in the Gulf 

of Mexico, and in the waters around 

Ireland. Bermuda is a known mid-ocean 

stopover point for humpback whales on 

their northbound migration (Stone et al., 

1987). 

Discreteness 

Genetic studies have identified 25 

humpback whale haplotypes in the 

western North Atlantic, 12 haplotypes 

in eastern North Atlantic samples, and 

19 haplotypes in whales that feed 

during the summer in the Gulf of Maine 

(Palsb<ll et al., 1995; Larsen, 1996a; 

Rosenbaum et al., 2002). Humpback 

whales in the North Atlantic Ocean 

appear to have higher haplotype 

diversity than humpback whales in the 

North Pacific Ocean (Baker and 

Medrano-Gonza ́lez, 2002). Haplotype 

diversity is lowest in populations 

around Norway and Iceland and higher 

around the northwestern feeding areas 

off Greenland, Gulf of St. Lawrence and 

Gulf of Maine (Baker and MedranoGonza ́lez, 2002). Observed nucleotide 

diversity is also higher in the North 

Atlantic than in the North Pacific (Baker 

and Medrano-Gonza ́lez, 2002). 

Whales that breed in the West Indies 

and Cape Verde Islands co-mingle in 

North Atlantic feeding areas. Palsboll et 

al. (1995) and Valsecchi et al. (1997) 

found significant (FST= ∼0.04) levels of 

mtDNA and nuclear genetic variation 

among North Atlantic feeding areas, 

suggesting there are genetically distinct 

breeding areas (there are no published 

genetic studies directly comparing 

whales in the West Indies breeding 

areas with whales in the Cape Verde 

Islands breeding areas). Photo-ID and 

genetic matching data suggest no 

evidence for substructure within the 

West Indies breeding population 

(reviewed by Fleming and Jackson 

(2011)), so this differentiation likely is 

due to genetic divergence between the 

West Indies and another North Atlantic 

breeding population, likely associated 

with the Cape Verde Islands or possibly 

other areas in the Northeastern Atlantic. 

Most of the humpback whales on the 

western North Atlantic feeding grounds 

(Gulf of Maine, Gulf of St. Lawrence, 

West Greenland, and eastern Canada) 

come from the well-studied West Indies 

breeding ground (approximately 90 

percent) (Clapham et al., 1993; Mattila 

et al., 2001). Some of the whales from 

the Iceland and Norway feeding grounds 

also come from the West Indies breeding 

grounds, but genetic evidence suggests 

that most whales from the Iceland and 

Norway feeding grounds migrate from 

some other breeding ground. The 

location of possible breeding grounds of 

these whales is not well understood, but 

Clapham et al. (1993) suggest it may be 

in the eastern tropical Atlantic Ocean. 

Sighting histories of the Cape Verde 

Islands whales link them to feeding 

grounds in the waters off Iceland or 

Norway (Katona and Beard, 1990; Jann 

et al., 2003), and the Cape Verde Islands 

is the only candidate breeding ground 

from historical whaling records. 

However, current studies show only a 

small number of whales in the Cape 

Verde Islands—far fewer than the nonWest Indies whales known to exist in 

the northeastern Atlantic. The Cape 

Verde Islands may therefore be part of 

a larger breeding area, or there may be 

a third separate breeding area that is as 

yet undiscovered (Charif et al., 2001; 

Reeves et al., 2002). The possibility of 

a third breeding area unassociated with 

the Cape Verde Islands is supported by 

nuclear DNA, as there is a significant 

degree of heterogeneity in nuclear DNA 

among populations in the western, 

central (Iceland) and eastern (Norway) 

North Atlantic feeding grounds (Larsen, 

1996b). 

The BRT concluded there are two 

populations of humpback whales in the 

North Atlantic Ocean meeting the 

discreteness criteria under the DPS 

policy—one with breeding grounds in 

the West Indies and another with 

breeding grounds near Cape Verde 

Islands and a possible associated 

breeding area, likely off Northwest 

Africa. In particular, whales from the 

West Indies and the Cape Verde Islands 

breeding grounds are discrete based on: 

(1) No photographic matches between 

individuals using the West Indies and 

Cape Verde Islands areas 

(acknowledging that there is a large 

sample size for the West Indies breeding 

grounds and a small sample size for the 

Cape Verde Islands breeding grounds); 

(2) occupation of both breeding grounds 

at the same time; (3) evidence from 19th 

century whaling data of a historically 

larger population at the Cape Verde 

Islands than exists today; and (4) genetic 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22312 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

heterogeneity in the feeding grounds 

indicating that the West Indies is not the 

only breeding ground. Because the Cape 

Verde Islands cannot account for the 

abundance of whales estimated from the 

eastern North Atlantic feeding grounds 

that are not documented using the West 

Indies, there must be an additional 

breeding area, likely near Northwest 

Africa, and possibly associated with the 

Cape Verde Islands. 

Significance 

The West Indies breeding ground 

includes the Atlantic margin of the 

Antilles from Cuba to northern 

Venezuela, with the Silver/Navidad/

Mouchoir Bank complex comprising a 

major breeding ground. Whales from 

this breeding ground have a feeding 

range that primarily includes the Gulf of 

Maine, eastern Canada, and western 

Greenland. While many West Indies 

whales also use feeding grounds in the 

central North Atlantic (Iceland) and 

eastern North Atlantic (Norway), many 

whales from these feeding areas appear 

to winter in another location. 

The BRT concluded this discrete 

group of whales is significant to the 

North Atlantic subspecies due to the 

significant gap in the breeding range 

that would occur if it were extirpated. 

Loss of the West Indies population 

would result in the loss of humpback 

whales from all of the western North 

Atlantic breeding grounds (Caribbean/

West Indies) and feeding grounds 

(United States, Canada, Greenland). 

The Cape Verde Islands/Northwest 

Africa breeding grounds include waters 

surrounding the Cape Verde Islands as 

well as an undetermined breeding area 

in the eastern tropical Atlantic, which 

may be more geographically diffuse than 

the West Indies breeding ground. The 

population of whales breeding in Cape 

Verde Islands plus this unknown area 

likely represents the remnants of a 

historically larger population breeding 

around Cape Verde Islands and 

Northwest Africa (Reeves et al., 2002). 

There is no known overlap in breeding 

range with North Atlantic humpback 

whales that breed in the West Indies. As 

noted above, the BRT determined the 

population was discrete from the West 

Indies population based upon genetic 

evidence that suggests a second 

breeding ground occupied by whales 

that feed primarily off Norway and 

Iceland. It also determined that this 

population was significant to the North 

Atlantic subspecies because of the gap 

that would exist in the breeding range 

if it were extirpated. 

We agree with the BRT and we 

therefore identify two DPSs of the North 

Atlantic humpback whale subspecies: 

(1) West Indies DPS; and (2) Cape Verde 

Islands/Northwest Africa DPS. 

North Pacific 

Overview 

Humpback whales in the North 

Pacific migrate seasonally from northern 

latitude feeding areas in summer to lowlatitude breeding areas in winter. 

Feeding areas are dispersed across the 

Pacific Rim from California, United 

States, to Hokkaido, Japan. Within these 

regions, humpback whales have been 

observed to spend the majority of their 

time feeding in coastal waters. Breeding 

areas in the North Pacific are more 

geographically separated than the 

feeding areas and include: (1) Regions 

offshore of mainland Central America; 

(2) mainland, Baja Peninsula and the 

Revillagigedos Islands, Mexico; (3) 

Hawaii; and (4) Asia including 

Ogasawara and Okinawa Islands and the 

Philippines. About half of the 

humpback whales in the North Pacific 

Ocean breed and calve in the U.S. 

waters off Hawaii; more than half of 

North Pacific Ocean humpback whales 

feed in U.S. waters. 

Humpback whales in the North 

Pacific rarely move between these 

breeding regions. Strong fidelity to both 

feeding and breeding sites has been 

observed, but movements between 

feeding and breeding areas are complex 

and varied (Calambokidis et al., 2008). 

An overall pattern of migration has 

recently emerged. Asia and Mexico/

Central America are the dominant 

breeding areas for humpback whales 

that migrate to feeding areas in lower 

latitudes and more coastal areas on each 

side of the Pacific Ocean, such as 

California and Russia. The Revillagigedo 

Archipelago and Hawaiian Islands are 

the primary winter migratory 

destinations for humpback whales that 

feed in the more central and higher 

latitude areas (Calambokidis et al., 

2008). However, there are exceptions to 

this pattern, and it seems that complex 

population structure and strong site 

fidelity coexist with lesser known, but 

potentially high, levels of plasticity in 

the movements of humpback whales 

(Salden et al., 1999). 

Discreteness 

Baker et al. (2013) recently analyzed 

genetic variation in a large (n = 2,193) 

sample of whales from 8 breeding and 

10 feeding regions within the North 

Pacific. The 8 possible breeding regions 

included the Philippines, Okinawa, 

Ogasawara, Hawaii, Revillagigedo, Baja 

California, the Mexican mainland coast, 

and Central America. In addition, 

results from Calambokidis et al. (2008) 

indicate the existence of at least one 

additional breeding area whose location 

has not been identified. Overall, the 

level of genetic divergence among 

breeding areas at the mtDNA control 

region was substantial (FST = 0.093). 

Pairwise estimates of divergence among 

breeding areas ranged from none (FST = 

∼0.000; Philippines vs Okinawa) to very 

high (FST > 0.2 for Hawaii versus 

Okinawa and Philippines, and Hawaii 

versus Central America). In addition to 

little divergence between Okinawa and 

the Philippines, the three Mexican areas 

(mainland coast, Baja California, and 

Revillagigedos Islands) were not 

significantly differentiated. In contrast 

to the mtDNA variation, the breeding 

areas were less strongly (but still 

significantly) differentiated at 10 

nuclear microsatellite loci (FST = 0.006), 

suggesting the possibility of some male 

mediated gene flow among breeding 

areas. After application of an adjustment 

for diversity (Hedrick, 2005; Baker et al., 

2013), the effect size increased to F’ST = 

0.0128 and F’ST = 0.0214 for feeding and 

breeding grounds, respectively. Of these 

nine areas, two are likely migratory 

routes to other locations and might 

therefore not be primary breeding 

grounds: the waters off Baja California 

and the Ogasawara Islands. 

Similarly, some humpback whales 

migrating to the Okinawa Islands pass 

by the Ogasawara Islands, and the 

Ogasawara Islands are also thought 

likely to be along the migration route to 

the unidentified breeding area that was 

described in Calambokidis et al. (2008). 

Because of the existence of an 

unidentified breeding area, the 

population structure of the western 

North Pacific populations proved more 

challenging. Humpback whales in 

Okinawa were not significantly different 

in either mtDNA or nDNA from whales 

in the Philippines (Baker et al., 2013). 

Mitochondrial DNA and nDNA markers 

from the pooled populations from 

Okinawa and the Philippines 

populations differ significantly from 

those of humpback whales in the 

Ogasawara Islands and all other 

populations (Baker et al., 2013). 

However, given the likelihood that 

Ogasawara whales are only passing 

through en route to two or more 

migratory destinations, the BRT 

members concluded that there are likely 

two discrete populations consisting of 

an Okinawa/Philippines population and 

an unknown breeding group, both using 

the Ogasawara area as a migratory 

corridor. Given the uncertainty about 

the location of the other breeding 

ground, and the use of a common 

migratory corridor by the known group 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22313 

2The p-value is the probability of obtaining a test 

statistic result at least as extreme as the one that 

was actually observed, assuming that the null 

hypothesis is true; a small p-value (typically ≤ 0.05) 

indicates strong evidence against the null 

hypothesis; a null hypothesis is a general statement 

or default position that there is no relationship 

between two measured phenomena. 

and the unknown group, we have 

decided to include the unknown 

breeding group in the Okinawa/

Philippines population. We refer to this 

combined discrete population as the 

Western North Pacific population. 

The Hawaii population of humpback 

whales is separated by the greatest 

geographic distance from neighboring 

populations and was significantly 

different from other populations in both 

frequencies of mtDNA haplotypes and 

nDNA (microsatellite) alleles (Baker et 

al., 2013). The BRT therefore concluded 

that whales wintering in Hawaii 

constitute a discrete population. 

In Mexico, available genetic and 

demographic studies indicate that 

humpback whales migrating to 

mainland Mexico and to the 

Revillagigedos Islands pass by the tip of 

Baja California. The BRT therefore 

concluded that humpback whales off 

Baja California should not be considered 

a discrete population. Further, the 

mainland population in Mexico does 

not differ significantly from the 

Revillagigedos population in its mtDNA 

haplotype frequencies (Baker et al., 

2013). Photo-identification studies also 

indicate considerable movement of 

individuals between mainland and 

offshore island breeding areas in Mexico 

(Calambokidis et al., 2008). The BRT 

therefore concluded that mainland 

Mexico and the Revillagigedos 

populations are a single Mexico 

population discrete from all other 

populations. 

In the eastern North Pacific, 

humpback whales in Central America 

have a unique mtDNA signature, as 

reflected in the frequencies of 

haplotypes (Baker et al., 2008a; Baker et 

al., 2008b). This frequency composition 

is significantly different from that in 

whales from all other breeding grounds 

in the North Pacific. The BRT 

concluded that humpback whales in 

Central America are a discrete 

population. 

Thus while the BRT concluded there 

are five breeding populations of 

humpback whales in the North Pacific 

that meet the criteria for being discrete 

under the DPS Policy guidelines, we 

propose to identify four: (1) Western 

North Pacific (includes Okinawa/

Philippines and the unidentified 

breeding area in the western North 

Pacific); (2) Hawaii (3) Mexico (includes 

mainland Mexico and the 

Revillagigedos Islands); and (4) Central 

America. 

Significance 

In evaluating whether any discrete 

population differed in its ecological 

characteristics from others, the BRT 

weighted ecological differences among 

feeding areas more heavily than among 

breeding areas, since it concluded that 

the ecological characteristics of 

humpback whales in their breeding 

ranges were largely similar among 

populations. In contrast, the BRT 

concluded whales largely foraging in 

different large marine ecosystems 

inhabit different ecological settings and 

that this is relevant in evaluating the 

significance of these populations. The 

BRT stated that, within the North 

Pacific, the Okinawa/Philippines, 

Hawaii, Mexico, and Central America 

populations tend to feed in different 

marine ecosystems, although there is 

some overlap. The Western North 

Pacific population, which feeds in the 

Western Bering Sea (the Okinawa/

Philippines population) and the 

Aleutian Islands (the unidentified 

breeding population), feeds in an 

ecosystem entirely different from the 

others in the North Pacific. The BRT 

also noted that the Central America 

population’s breeding habitat is 

ecologically unique for the species as it 

is the only area where documented 

geographic overlap of populations that 

feed in different hemispheres occurs, 

potentially creating a conduit for genetic 

exchange between the two hemispheres. 

While a minority of members believed 

that this was an example of temporal 

and geographic overlap rather than a 

unique ecological setting, we conclude 

that the Central America population is 

significant to the ocean-basin based 

North Pacific subspecies because of its 

ecologically unique breeding habitat. 

We agree with the BRT that the Western 

North Pacific and Central America 

populations occupy unique ecological 

settings (unique breeding and feeding 

grounds for the Western North Pacific, 

unique breeding habitat for the Central 

America population), and therefore, 

they both are significant to the North 

Pacific subspecies. 

The BRT noted that in the North 

Pacific Ocean, loss of the Okinawa/

Philippines population would likely 

result in a significant gap in the North 

Pacific feeding range as these 

individuals are the only breeding 

population to migrate primarily to 

Russia, and loss of this population 

would therefore result in a loss of 

feeding range along the Russian coast. 

We concur with this conclusion, but 

because we have combined the 

unknown breeding group that feeds in 

the Aleutian Islands with the Okinawa/ 

Philippines population, we need to 

assess whether this combined Western 

North Pacific population is significant 

to the ocean-basin based North Pacific 

subspecies. We conclude that the loss of 

the Western North Pacific population 

would result in a significant gap in the 

range of the North Pacific subspecies 

because if loss of the Okinawa/

Philippines population would result in 

a significant gap, then the loss of a 

larger combined population would, too. 

The loss of humpback whales from the 

Hawaii breeding population would 

result in loss of humpbacks from the 

Hawaiian Islands, and this would 

represent a significant gap in the range 

of the North Pacific subspecies. We 

conclude that the Western North Pacific 

and the Hawaii populations both meet 

the significance criterion of the DPS 

Policy because loss of these populations 

would result in a significant gap in the 

range of the North Pacific subspecies. 

While the loss of the Mexico or Central 

America populations would not result 

in a significant gap in the range of their 

feeding grounds because their feeding 

grounds overlap, it would result in a 

significant gap in their breeding 

grounds, and therefore, we consider the 

Mexico and Central America 

populations also to be significant to the 

North Pacific subspecies. 

The BRT discussed whether there was 

evidence for marked genetic divergence 

among any of the discrete populations. 

Although there was not clear agreement 

on the definition of ‘‘marked,’’ the BRT 

concluded that strong patterns of 

genetic differentiation in mtDNA 

sequence among most of the North 

Pacific breeding populations indicated 

marked genetic divergence, consistent 

with the conclusions in Baker et al. 

(2013). The overall level of 

differentiation among breeding 

populations within the North Pacific 

(FST = 0.09) was similar to the level of 

divergence among ocean basins and is 

consistent with a relatively high degree 

of divergence of these populations. 

Further, in reviewing Baker et al. (2013), 

all populations that we have identified 

as discrete in the North Pacific are 

strongly differentiated from each other 

at the p-value 2 of 0.01 level or better, 

except for the Central America/

Philippines pair, which are 

differentiated from each other at p-value 

of 0.05. Therefore, we agree with the 

BRT and conclude that all four of the 

discrete populations we have identified 

in the North Pacific (Western North 

Pacific, Hawaii, Mexico, and Central 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22314 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

America) are significant to the North 

Pacific subspecies because of marked 

genetic differentiation. 

Although the petitioned North Pacific 

population could also satisfy the 

discreteness and significance criteria of 

the DPS Policy, there are other plausible 

and scientifically supported approaches 

to dividing the species into DPSs. We 

conclude that our modification of the 

BRT’s approach for humpback whales in 

the North Pacific (i.e., combining the 

unknown breeding group with the 

Okinawa/Philippines population) is 

more appropriate to further the 

purposes of the ESA because it 

represents a more risk-averse approach 

with respect to the unknown breeding 

group. As discussed above, 

identification of the Western North 

Pacific, Hawaii, Mexico, and Central 

America populations as DPSs is 

supported by the best available 

scientific and commercial information. 

We are exercising the discretion 

afforded to us as an expert agency 

charged with administering the ESA in 

the face of conflicting proposals (i.e., 

petitions to delist North Pacific and 

Central North Pacific populations) to 

recognize these four populations as 

DPSs. Therefore, we will evaluate the 

status of each of these four DPSs in the 

North Pacific rather than recognizing a 

single North Pacific DPS and evaluating 

its combined status (i.e., the approach 

offered by the Hawaii Fishermen’s 

Alliance). The petition to delineate the 

North Pacific population as a DPS and 

‘‘delist’’ it is therefore denied (i.e., the 

petitioned action is not warranted). The 

petitioned Central North Pacific 

population is the same as the Hawaii 

DPS we have identified; therefore, we 

will evaluate the status of the Hawaii 

DPS to determine whether it is 

warranted for listing. 

The following populations of the 

North Pacific humpback whale 

subspecies meet the discreteness and 

significance criteria for being a DPS 

under the DPS Policy: (1) Western North 

Pacific; (2) Hawaii; (3) Mexico; and (4) 

Central America. 

Southern Hemisphere 

Overview 

There are at least eleven breeding 

grounds identified in the Southern 

Hemisphere at temperate latitudes: 

Brazil, Gabon and central West Africa, 

Mozambique, the Comoros Archipelago, 

Madagascar, West Australia, East 

Australia, New Caledonia, Tonga, 

French Polynesia, and the southeastern 

Pacific, (Stevick et al., 2006; Zerbini et 

al., 2006b; Engel and Martin, 2009; IWC, 

2011). The Arabian Sea breeding ground 

is also at a temperate latitude and, while 

it is in the Northern Hemisphere, we 

discuss it here because we determined 

earlier that it was part of the Southern 

Hemisphere subspecies of the 

humpback whale. 

The primary mating/calving ground of 

humpback whales in the western South 

Atlantic Ocean is the coast of Brazil. 

This population migrates to feeding 

grounds located east of the Scotia Sea 

near South Georgia and the South 

Sandwich Archipelagos (Stevick et al., 

2006; Zerbini et al., 2006b; Engel et al., 

2008; Engel and Martin, 2009; Zerbini et 

al., 2011). The winter breeding 

distribution of humpback whales in the 

southwestern Atlantic (June to 

December) is concentrated around the 

Abrolhos Bank region in Brazil (15–18° 

S.) and 500 km north, along the north 

coast of Bahia State and Espirito Santo 

State (Rossi-Santos et al., 2008) and near 

Salvador and Recife. 

A humpback whale winter breeding 

and calving ground is located off central 

western Africa between ∼6° S. and ∼6° 

N. in the eastern Atlantic. Periods of 

peak abundance are found between July 

and September, with some whales still 

present as late as December and January 

in Angola, Gabon and Sa ̃o Tome ́ (Weir, 

2007). The Gabon/Southwest Africa 

region appears to serve a variety of 

purposes with some individual whales 

remaining in the area through the year 

while some use the area for feeding and 

others for mating (Bettridge et al., 2015). 

At least three winter breeding 

aggregations of humpback whales have 

been suggested in the southwestern 

Indian Ocean from historical whaling 

records and contemporary surveys 

(Wray and Martin, 1983; Best et al., 

1998). One is associated with the 

mainland coastal waters of southeastern 

Africa, extending from Mozambique 

(24° S., Findlay et al., 1994) to as far 

north as Tanzania and southern Kenya 

(Wamukoya et al., 1996; Berggren et al., 

2001; O’Connor et al., 2009). The 

second is found in the coastal waters of 

the northern Mozambique Channel 

Islands (Comoros Archipelago) and the 

southern Seychelles (Bettridge et al., 

2015). The third is associated with the 

coastal waters of Madagascar (15–25° 

S.), best described in Antongil Bay on 

the east coast (Rosenbaum et al., 1997). 

At least three migratory pathways to 

Antarctic summer feeding grounds in 

this region have been proposed using a 

compilation of data from surveys, 

whaling and acoustic records and 

sightings (Best et al., 1998). Humpback 

whale wintering grounds and coastal 

migratory routes in the eastern Indian 

Ocean are located between 15–35° S. 

along the west coast of Australia, with 

major calving grounds occurring in the 

Kimberley Region (15–18° S.) and 

resting areas on the southern migration 

at Exmouth Gulf (21° S.) and at Shark 

Bay (25° S.) (Bannister and Hedley, 

2001; Jenner et al., 2001). 

Humpback whales along the east coast 

of Australia are thought to breed 

primarily in waters inside the Great 

Barrier Reef (16–21° S.) (Chittleborough, 

1965; Simmons and Marsh, 1986) and 

are seen as far north as Murray Island 

at ∼10° S. (Simmons and Marsh, 1986). 

Discovery marks and satellite telemetry 

suggest east Australian whales feed in a 

broad swath of the Antarctic between 

100° E. and 175° W., or that they 

frequent at least two feeding regions, 

one due south of eastern Australia 

stretching to the east beneath New 

Zealand, and one south of west 

Australia at ∼100° E. and accessed via 

migration through Bass Strait. 

The longitudinal distribution 

boundaries of humpback whales 

wintering in Oceania lie between ∼160° 

E. (west of New Caledonia) and ∼120° 

W. (east of French Polynesia) and 

latitudinally between 0° and 30° S. 

(Reeves et al., 1999), a range that 

includes American Samoa (United 

States), the Cook Islands, Fiji, French 

Polynesia (France), Republic of Kiribati, 

Nauru, New Caledonia (France), Norfolk 

Island, New Zealand, Niue, the 

Independent State of Samoa, Solomon 

Islands, Tokelau, Kingdom of Tonga, 

Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna 

(France). 

The wintertime breeding distribution 

of humpback whales in the southeastern 

Pacific (May to November) includes the 

coastal waters between Panama and 

northern Peru, with the main wintering 

areas concentrated in Colombia 

(Gorgona Island, Ma ́laga Bay and 

Tribuga ́ Gulf), Panama, and Ecuador. 

Low densities of whales are also found 

around the Gala ́pagos Islands (Fe ́lix et 

al., 2006b), and coastal sightings have 

been made as far north as Costa Rica 

(Coco Island and Golfo Dulce, 8° N.) 

(Acevedo and Smultea, 1995; MayCollado et al., 2005). In the summer 

months, these whales migrate to feeding 

grounds located in waters off southern 

Chile, the Magellan Strait, and the 

Antarctic Peninsula (May-Collado et al., 

2005; Fe ́lix et al., 2006b; Acevedo et al., 

2008). 

Sightings and survey data suggest that 

humpback whales in the Arabian Sea 

are primarily concentrated in the 

shallow near-shore areas off the coast of 

Oman, particularly in the Gulf of 

Masirah and Kuria Muria Islands 

regions (Minton, 2004); sightings and 

strandings suggest a population range 

that encompasses the northern Gulf of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22315 

Aden, the Balochistan coast of Pakistan, 

and western India and Sri Lanka, with 

occasional sightings on the Sistan and 

Baluchistan coasts of Iran, and also Iraq 

(Al Robaae, 1974; Braulik et al., 2010). 

Photo-identification re-sightings suggest 

humpback whales move seasonally 

between the Dhofar region (Kuria Muria 

Islands) in winter and the Gulf of 

Masirah to the north in summer, with 

similar re-sighting rates between and 

within regions (Minton et al., 2010b). 

Despite extensive comparisons of 

photo-identification catalogues and 

genotyped individuals between Oman 

and the other Indian Ocean catalogues 

and genetic datasets, no matches have 

been detected between regions (Pomilla 

et al., 2006; Minton et al., 2010a). 

Humpback whales from this region 

carry fewer and smaller barnacles than 

Southern Hemisphere whales, and do 

not exhibit the white oval scars 

indicative of cookie cutter shark (Isistius 

brasiliensis) bites, a feature commonly 

seen on some Southern Hemisphere 

humpback whales (Mikhalev, 1997). 

Connections between the Arabian Sea 

population with the other Northern 

Hemisphere populations are highly 

unlikely as there is no accessible 

northward passage from the Arabian 

Sea. Furthermore, there are no 

mitochondrial DNA haplotypes or song 

patterns shared with North Pacific 

humpback whales (Whitehead, 1985; 

Rosenbaum et al., 2009); thus, on 

current evidence, and in the absence of 

comparisons with far western North 

Pacific humpbacks, it appears that 

whales from these populations have no 

recent biological connectivity. Analysis 

of fetal lengths in pregnant females 

killed by Soviet whalers clearly indicate 

that this population exhibits a Northern 

Hemisphere reproductive cycle, with 

births occurring in the boreal winter 

(Mikhalev, 1997). 

Discreteness 

Olavarrı ́a et al. (2007) analyzed 

patterns of mtDNA control region 

variation obtained from 1,112 samples 

from 6 breeding grounds in the South 

Pacific: New Caledonia, Tonga, Cook 

Islands, eastern Polynesia, Colombia, 

and Western Australia. Of these areas, 

the samples from Colombia were most 

differentiated (FST = 0.06—0.08 in 

pairwise comparison to other areas). 

Pairwise divergence among the other 

areas was lower (FST = 0.01—0.05). All 

pairwise comparisons were statistically 

>0, however, and indicated a lack of free 

exchange among these breeding areas. 

Levels of haplotype diversity were 

generally very high (0.90—0.97). 

Rosenbaum et al. (2009) conducted a 

similar study of breeding areas in the 

Southern Atlantic and Western Indian 

Oceans, including the coastal areas of 

Brazil, Southwestern Africa, and 

Southeastern Africa. Levels of 

differentiation among these are 

statistically significant but relatively 

low, with FST ranging from 0.003 

(among two Southwestern African 

locations) to 0.017 (between Brazil and 

Southeastern Africa). Although there 

was some detectable differentiation 

among samples from Southwestern and 

Southeastern African coastal locations 

(B1/B2 and C1/C2/C3 International 

Whaling Commission (IWC) stocks, 

respectively), the levels of divergence 

within these areas were very low (FST = 

0.003–0.009 within the ‘‘B’’ stock and 

0.002–0.005 within the ‘‘C’’ stock). The 

estimated number of migrants per 

generation was 26 between Brazil and 

Southwestern Africa, and 33 between 

Southwestern and Southeastern Africa. 

A report on an IWC workshop 

devoted to Southern Hemisphere stock 

structure issues (IWC, 2011) recognizes 

at least seven ‘‘breeding stocks’’ 

associated with low-latitude, winter 

breeding grounds and, in some cases, 

migratory corridors. These seven 

breeding stocks are referred to 

alphabetically, from A to G, to 

distinguish them from the six 

management areas on feeding grounds 

of the Antarctic, referred to as Areas I– 

VI. The current breeding stock 

designations are southwestern Atlantic 

(A), southeastern Atlantic (B), 

southwestern Indian Ocean (C), 

southeastern Indian Ocean (D), 

southwestern Pacific (E), Oceania (E and 

F) and southeastern Pacific (G). These 

designations have been subdivided to 

reflect improved understanding of 

substructure within some of these 

regions: Gabon (B1) and Southwest 

Africa (B2) in the southeastern Atlantic; 

Mozambique (C1), the Comoros 

Archipelago (C2), Madagascar (C3) and 

the Mascarene Islands (C4) in the 

southwestern Indian Ocean, east 

Australia (E1), New Caledonia (E2), 

Tonga (E3), the Cook Islands (F1) and 

French Polynesia (F2) in the 

southwestern Pacific and Oceania. The 

IWC has also chosen to include in this 

assessment, a year-round population of 

humpback whales found in the Arabian 

Sea, north of the equator in the northern 

Indian Ocean (formerly referred to as 

breeding stock X). 

The BRT noted that the magnitude of 

mitochondrial DNA differentiation (as 

measured by FST) was generally lower 

among Southern Hemisphere breeding 

areas than it is in the Northern 

Hemisphere, indicating greater 

demographic connectivity among these 

areas. Even so, significant 

differentiation was present among major 

breeding areas, and the estimated 

number of migrants/generation among 

areas was small compared to the 

estimated sizes of the populations. 

The BRT members concluded that the 

seven breeding stocks of humpback 

whales currently formally recognized by 

the IWC in the Southern Hemisphere 

meet the criteria for being discrete 

populations under the DPS Policy 

guidelines, except that they agreed that 

the dividing line between IWC stocks E 

and F was between eastern Australia 

and Oceania (defined here to include 

New Caledonia, Tonga, Samoa, 

American Samoa, and French 

Polynesia), as there are large differences 

in the rates of recovery between these 

two regions, indicating they are 

demographically independent. Breeding 

populations in New Caledonia and east 

Australia are separate, but some overlap 

between the populations occurs: some 

whales bound for New Caledonia use 

the same migratory pathways as some 

whales headed past east Australia. 

There was consensus among the BRT to 

divide the Southern Hemisphere into 

seven discrete populations: Brazil, 

Gabon/Southwest Africa, Southeast 

Africa/Madagascar, West Australia, East 

Australia, Oceania (including New 

Caledonia, Tonga, Cook Islands, Samoa, 

American Samoa and French Polynesia), 

and Southeastern Pacific (Colombia and 

Ecuador). We agree with the BRT’s 

conclusions, based on the significant 

mitochondrial DNA differentiation 

among major breeding populations. 

With regard to the Arabian Sea 

population, nuclear and mitochondrial 

DNA diversity of humpback whales 

from Oman (up to 47 individuals 

sampled) is the lowest among all 

breeding grounds (Pomilla et al., 2006; 

Olavarrı ́a et al., 2007; Rosenbaum et al., 

2009). Mitochondrial DNA analysis 

revealed only eight distinct haplotypes, 

half of which are exclusive to Oman 

(not detected on other breeding grounds, 

Pomilla et al., 2006). Haplotype 

diversity at the mtDNA control region is 

markedly lower than in other 

populations (0.69 vs 0.90–0.98 for 

Southern Hemisphere populations and 

0.84 for North Pacific populations) 

(Olavarrı ́a et al., 2007; Rosenbaum et al., 

2009; Baker et al., 2013). 

Genetic data (nuclear microsatellites 

and mitochondrial control region) and 

fluke pigmentation markings indicate 

that the Arabian Sea breeding 

population is significantly differentiated 

from Southern Indian Ocean breeding 

grounds (Rosenbaum et al., 2009). 

Nuclear genetic analysis suggests that 

this population is the most strongly and 

significantly differentiated in all 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22316 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

comparisons among other Indian Ocean 

and South Atlantic breeding 

populations (pair-wise FST range 

between Oman and Southern Indian 

Ocean breeding populations = 0.38– 

0.48) (Pomilla et al., 2006). Levels of 

mitochondrial DNA differentiation 

between Oman and other Indian Ocean 

breeding grounds are around ten times 

higher than among the other breeding 

grounds (pair-wise FST range between 

Oman and other Indian Ocean breeding 

populations 0.11–0.15) (Rosenbaum et 

al., 2009). 

The BRT concluded, and we agree, 

that the Arabian Sea population is 

discrete from all other populations 

because of its low haplotype diversity 

compared to Southern Hemisphere and 

North Pacific populations, its 

differentiation in mtDNA and nDNA 

markers, and fluke pigmentation 

differences between whales in the 

Arabian Sea and in the Southern Indian 

Ocean. 

Significance 

The BRT noted that, within the 

Southern Hemisphere, most breeding 

populations feed in the same Antarctic 

marine ecosystem. One exception is the 

Brazil population, which feeds north of 

60° S. in the South Georgia and South 

Sandwich Islands area (IWC, 2011). In 

addition to feeding in the Antarctic 

system, the Gabon/Southwest Africa 

population may also feed along the west 

coast of South Africa in the Benguela 

Current, but this is uncertain (IWC, 

2011). Like the Central America 

population, the Southeastern Pacific 

breeding population may also be 

ecologically unique as it is the only 

population in the Southern Hemisphere 

to occupy an area also used by a 

Northern Hemisphere population. We 

conclude that the Brazil, Gabon/

Southwest Africa, and Southeastern 

Pacific populations occupy unique 

ecological settings and are therefore 

significant to the Southern Hemisphere 

subspecies of the humpback whale. 

For the Southern Hemisphere, 

determination of feeding range is more 

difficult since Antarctic feeding areas 

are less well studied and fewer 

connections between breeding and 

feeding populations have been made. 

However, some populations such as 

Brazil, Southwest Africa, Southeast 

Africa, and the Southeastern Pacific are 

believed to have fairly discrete and nonoverlapping feeding areas, suggesting 

that if any of these feeding areas were 

lost it would, in combination with the 

lost breeding area, result in a significant 

gap in the range. We conclude, 

therefore, that the Brazil, Gabon/

Southwest Africa, Southeast Africa/

Madagascar, and Southeastern Pacific 

populations are significant to the 

Southern Hemisphere subspecies of the 

humpback whale because their loss 

would result in significant gaps in the 

range of the Southern Hemisphere 

subspecies. Further, we believe that the 

loss of the West Australia, East 

Australia, and Oceania populations 

would also result in significant gaps in 

the ranges of the Southern Hemisphere 

subspecies because their nonoverlapping breeding ranges are quite 

extensive. 

In the Southern Hemisphere, the 

Southeastern Pacific population is the 

only breeding population that contains 

a genetic signal from Northern 

Hemisphere populations, giving it a 

unique genetic signature within the 

Southern Hemisphere (Baker et al., 

1993; Baker and Medrano-Gonza ́lez, 

2002). It is also the most divergent of 

any of the Southern Hemisphere 

populations (Olavarrı ́a et al., 2007). In 

addition, individuals in this region are 

morphologically distinct as they have 

darker pectoral fin coloration than other 

individuals in the Southern Hemisphere 

(Chittleborough, 1965), although the 

genetic basis for this trait is not known. 

Nonetheless, a majority of the BRT 

concluded that the Southeastern Pacific 

population was sufficiently 

differentiated so as to differ ‘markedly’ 

in its genetic characteristics from other 

Southern Hemisphere populations. In 

contrast, all other Southern Hemisphere 

populations were characterized by 

generally low levels of differentiation 

among them, consistent with 

demographically discrete populations 

but not necessarily with marked genetic 

divergence associated with long-term 

isolation (Olavarrı ́a et al., 2007; 

Rosenbaum et al., 2009). We conclude 

that the Southeastern Pacific population 

of the humpback whale is significant to 

the Southern Hemisphere population of 

the humpback whale because it differs 

markedly in its genetic characteristics 

from other Southern Hemisphere 

populations. We conclude that each of 

the seven discrete Southern Hemisphere 

populations (Brazil, Gabon/Southwest 

Africa, Southeast Africa/Madagascar, 

West Australia, East Australia, Oceania, 

and Southeastern Pacific) satisfies at 

least one significance factor of the DPS 

Policy, and, therefore, we consider them 

to be DPSs. 

The Arabian Sea population persists 

year-round in a monsoon driven tropical 

ecosystem with highly contrasting 

seasonal wind and resulting upwelling 

patterns. The BRT therefore concluded 

that this population persists in a unique 

ecological setting. The Arabian Sea 

population segment does not migrate 

extensively, but instead feeds and 

breeds in the same geographic location. 

No other humpback whale populations 

occupy this area and hence, a loss of the 

Arabian Sea population would result in 

a significant gap in the range of the 

Southern Hemisphere subspecies. The 

BRT also concluded that the Arabian 

Sea population differs markedly in its 

genetic characteristics from other 

populations in the Indian Ocean and 

worldwide. The degree of genetic 

differentiation at multiple genetic 

markers between this population and 

other populations is similar to or greater 

than the degree of divergence among the 

North Pacific, North Atlantic, and 

Southern Hemisphere areas. The BRT 

unanimously concluded that the 

Arabian Sea population would be 

considered a DPS under any global 

taxonomic scenario, due to its marked 

genetic divergence from all other 

populations and unique ecological 

setting. We agree that the Arabian Sea 

population occupies a unique ecological 

setting, its loss would result in a 

significant gap in the range of the 

Southern Hemisphere subspecies, and it 

differs markedly in its genetic 

characteristics from other populations. 

Therefore, it meets the significance 

criterion of the DPS policy, and we 

identify the Arabian Sea population as 

a DPS. 

Extinction Risk Assessment 

The BRT discussed the relationship 

between population size and trend and 

extinction risk, citing relevant literature 

on small population size, environmental 

and demographic stochasticity, genetic 

effects, catastrophes, and extinction risk 

(e.g., Franklin, 1980; Soule ́, 1980; Gilpin 

and Soule ́, 1986; Allendorf et al., 1987; 

Goodman, 1987; Mace and Lande, 1991; 

Frankham, 1995; Lande, 1998; Lynch 

and Blanchard, 1998; Lynch and Lande, 

1998; Frankham, 1999; Brook et al., 

2006; Mace et al., 2008) and concluding 

that population size criteria similar to 

those described in Mace et al. (2008) 

(International Union for Conservation of 

Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) 

Red List criteria) could be considered 

carefully but not used as the sole 

criterion for evaluating extinction risk. 

The criteria the BRT considered are that 

a DPS with a total population size 

>2,000 was not likely to be at risk due 

to low abundance alone, a DPS with a 

population size <2,000 would be at 

increasing risk from factors associated 

with low abundance (and the lower the 

population size, the greater the risk), a 

DPS with a population size <500 would 

be at high risk due to low abundance, 

and a DPS with a population size <100 

would be at extremely high risk due to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22317 

low abundance. But again, this was not 

the sole criterion considered by the 

BRT, as the BRT also considered how 

any of the factors (or threats) listed 

under ESA section 4(a)(1) contribute to 

the extinction risk of each DPS now and 

in the foreseeable future. Demographic 

factors that cause a species to be at 

heightened risk of extinction, alone or 

in combination with other threats under 

section 4(a)(1), are considered under 

ESA Factor E—other natural or 

manmade factors affecting the 

continued existence of the species. 

Ultimately, the BRT considered both the 

abundance and trend information and 

the threats to each DPS before making 

its conclusions on overall extinction 

risk for each DPS. 

The BRT considered abundance and 

trend information and categorized each 

DPS’ abundance as described above and 

indicated whether the population trend 

was increasing strongly, increasing 

moderately, stable/little trend, or 

declining. The BRT included an 

‘‘unknown’’ category where data were 

not sufficient to detect a trend. To 

express uncertainty in abundance or 

trend information for any DPS, the BRT 

categorized abundance and trend in 

more than one category. As noted above, 

while NMFS’ 1991 Humpback Whale 

Recovery Plan recommended that 

populations grow to at least 60 percent 

of their historical (pre-hunting) 

abundance to be considered recovered, 

it did not identify specific numerical 

targets due to uncertainty surrounding 

historical abundance levels. So, the plan 

suggested an interim goal of doubling 

the population sizes within 20 years, 

which corresponds to an annual growth 

rate of about 3.5 percent. Because 

historical size of humpback whale 

populations continues to be uncertain 

(Bettridge et al., 2015) two decades after 

the recovery plan was finalized, and 

humpback whale survey periods have 

not spanned 20 years since issuance of 

the 1991 recovery plan, data are not 

available to evaluate the status of 

humpback whale populations against 

these goals. Therefore, the BRT focused 

its biological risk analysis primarily on 

recent abundance trends and whether 

absolute abundance was sufficient for 

biological viability in light of 

consideration of the factors under 

Section 4(a)(1). This is a valid approach 

that we often use to evaluate the risk of 

extinction to populations. 

The BRT also ranked the severity of 

16 current or imminent threats to the 

humpback whale DPSs (1 = low or none, 

threat is likely to have no or minor 

impact on population size or the growth 

rate; 2 = medium, threat is likely to 

moderately reduce the population size 

or the growth rate of the population; 3 

= high, threat is likely to seriously 

reduce the population size or the growth 

rate of the population, 4 = very high, 

threat is likely to eliminate the DPS, 

unknown = severity of threat is 

unknown) and also indicated whether 

the trend of any threat was increasing. 

Finally, the BRT members assessed 

the risk of extinction for each DPS by 

distributing 100 likelihood points 

among 3 categories of extinction risk: (1) 

High Risk = a species or DPS has 

productivity, spatial structure, genetic 

diversity, and/or a level of abundance 

that place(s) its persistence in question. 

The demographics of a species/DPS at 

such a high level of risk may be highly 

uncertain and strongly influenced by 

stochastic and/or small population 

effects. Similarly, a species/DPS may be 

at high risk of extinction if it faces clear 

and present threats (e.g., imminent 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat; or disease 

epidemic) that are likely to create an 

imminent risk of extinction; (2) 

Moderate Risk = a species or DPS is at 

moderate risk of extinction if it exhibits 

characteristics indicating that it is likely 

to be at a high risk of extinction in the 

future. A species/DPS may be at 

moderate risk of extinction due to 

projected threats and/or declining 

trends in abundance, productivity, 

spatial structure, or diversity; and (3) 

Not at Risk = a species or DPS is not at 

risk of extinction. 

The BRT decided to evaluate risk of 

extinction over a time frame of 

approximately 60 years, which 

corresponds to about three humpback 

whale generations. The BRT concluded 

it could be reasonably confident in 

evaluating extinction risk over this time 

period (the foreseeable future) because 

current trends in both the biological 

status of the species and the threats it 

faces are reasonably foreseeable over 

this period of time. In making our listing 

determinations, we have applied this 

same time horizon. In the next sections, 

we summarize the information 

presented in the BRT’s status review 

report; see Bettridge et al. (2015) for 

more details. 

Abundance and Trends for Each DPS 

West Indies DPS 

As discussed above, this DPS consists 

of the humpback whales whose 

breeding range includes the West Indies 

and whose feeding range primarily 

includes the Gulf of Maine, eastern 

Canada, and western Greenland. While 

many West Indies whales also use 

feeding grounds in the central (Iceland) 

and eastern (Norway) North Atlantic, 

many whales from these feeding areas 

appear to winter in another location. 

The breeding range of this DPS within 

the West Indies is the entire Antillean 

arc, from Cuba to the Gulf of Paria, 

Venezuela. 

Several abundance estimates for the 

West Indies DPS have been made from 

photo-identification studies and biopsy 

samples and genetic identification using 

a Chapman 2-sample estimator, some 

comparing feeding ground samples to 

West Indies breeding ground samples, 

others comparing breeding ground 

samples to breeding ground samples 

(Palsb<ll et al., 1997; Smith et al., 1999; 

Clapham, 2003; Clapham et al., 2003a; 

Stevick et al., 2003; Barlow et al., 2011; 

Waring et al., 2012). Those estimates 

using breeding-to-breeding ground 

comparisons tend to be negatively 

biased (Barlow et al., 2011). The most 

accurate estimate made using photoidentification studies for the Years of 

the North Atlantic Humpback (YONAH) 

data (1992 and 1993 data) was 10,752 

(CV = 6.8 percent) (Stevick et al., 2003). 

A Chapman 2-sample estimator was also 

applied to the genetic identification 

data, again using the feeding grounds 

(Gulf of Maine, Canada, and Greenland) 

as the mark, and the West Indies 

breeding ground as the recapture. This 

resulted in an estimate of 10,400 (95 

percent CI 8,000–13,600; Smith et al., 

1999). Note that this is nearly identical 

to the photo-based estimate using an 

identical estimator (10,752 photo vs. 

10,400 genetic). 

Additional sampling was conducted 

in the West Indies in 2004 and 2005 in 

order to obtain an updated abundance 

estimate for the West Indies population 

(More of North Atlantic Humpbacks 

(MONAH) project; (Clapham, 2003; 

Waring et al., 2012), and the BRT 

reviewed a preliminary analysis of these 

data. A Chapman 2-sample estimator 

was applied to the MONAH genetic 

identification data, using the feeding 

grounds (Gulf of Maine only) as the 

mark, and the West Indies breeding 

ground as the recapture, resulting in an 

estimate of 12,312 (95 percent CI 8,688– 

15,954) (NMFS unpublished data). This 

estimate is nearly directly comparable to 

the genetic estimate of 10,400 for 1992– 

93 (Smith et al., 1999), with the 

exception that the earlier YONAH 

estimate used marked animals from 

Canada and West Greenland in addition 

to the Gulf of Maine. If it can be 

assumed that whales from Canada and 

Greenland have the same capture 

probability in the West Indies as do 

whales from the Gulf of Maine, this 

should not introduce any bias. The 

MONAH estimate of 12,312 is consistent 

with the increasing trend for the West 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22318 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Indies shown in Stevick et al. (2003), 

though it suggests the increasing trend 

in the population has slowed down. 

Stevick et al. (2003) estimated the 

average rate of increase for the West 

Indies breeding population at 3.1 

percent per year (SE = 0.5 percent) for 

the period 1979–1993, but because of 

concerns that the same data may have 

been used twice and potentially lead to 

an over-estimate of the precision of the 

trend estimate, they re-calculated the 

trend analysis using only one set of 

abundance estimates for each time 

period. The revised trend for this time 

period was still 3.1 percent (SE=1.2 

percent). When the MONAH estimate of 

12,312 was added to the analysis, the 

increase from 1979–80 to 2004–05 was 

estimated to be 2.0 percent (SE=0.6 

percent) per year, lower than for the 

earlier time period, but the increase was 

still significantly different from 0.0 (p = 

0.008). The Silver Bank population, 

which serves as a proxy for the West 

Indies DPS, may be increasing or may be 

leveling off, but there are not enough 

data yet to support a strong conclusion. 

In contrast, estimates from feeding 

areas in the North Atlantic indicate 

strongly increasing trends in Iceland 

(1979–88 and 1987–2007), Greenland 

(1984–2007), and the Gulf of Maine 

(1979–1991). There is some indication 

that the increase rate in the Gulf of 

Maine has slowed in more recent years 

(6.5 percent from 1979 to 1991 (Barlow 

and Clapham (1997)), 0–4 percent from 

1992–2000 (Clapham et al. (2003a))). It 

is not clear why the trends appear so 

different between the feeding and 

breeding grounds. A possible 

explanation would be that the Silver 

Bank breeding ground has reached 

carrying capacity, and that an increasing 

number and percentage of whales are 

using other parts of the West Indies as 

breeding areas. If local abundance has 

indeed increased in some areas other 

than Silver Bank, it would suggest that 

the West Indies population is larger 

than estimated by the MONAH study, 

and that the increase rate of the overall 

population may be higher than the 2 

percent we estimate. 

Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa 

DPS 

The population abundance and 

population trend for the Cape Verde 

Islands/NW Africa DPS are unknown. 

The Cape Verde Islands photoidentification catalog contains only 88 

individuals from a 20-year period 

(1990–2009) (Wenzel et al., 2010). Of 

those 88 individuals, 20 (22.7 percent) 

were seen more than once, 15 were seen 

in 2 years, 4 were seen in 3 years, and 

1 was seen in 4 years. The relative high 

re-sighting rate suggests a small 

population size with high fidelity to this 

breeding area, although the DPS may 

also contain other, as yet unknown, 

breeding areas (Wenzel et al., 2010). 

Western North Pacific DPS 

The abundance of humpback whales 

in the Western North Pacific is 

estimated to be around 1,000, based on 

the photo-identification, capturerecapture analyses from the years 2004– 

2006 by the ‘‘Structure of Populations, 

Levels of Abundance and Status of 

Humpback Whales in the North Pacific’’ 

(SPLASH) program (Calambokidis et al., 

2008) from two primary sampling 

regions, Okinawa and Ogasawara. The 

growth rate of the Western North Pacific 

DPS is estimated to be 6.9 percent 

(Calambokidis et al., 2008) between 

1991–93 and 2004–06, although this 

could be biased upwards by the 

comparison of earlier estimates based on 

photo-identification records from 

Ogasawara and Okinawa with current 

estimates based on the more extensive 

records collected in Ogasawara, 

Okinawa, and the Philippines during 

the SPLASH program. However, the 

overall number of whales identified in 

the Philippines was small relative to 

both Okinawa and Ogasawara, so any 

bias may not be large. Overall recovery 

seems to be slower than in the Central 

and Eastern North Pacific. Humpback 

whales in the Western North Pacific 

remain rare in some parts of their former 

range, such as the coastal waters of 

Korea, and have shown no signs of a 

recovery in those locations (Gregr, 2000; 

Gregr et al., 2000). 

Hawaii DPS 

Calambokidis et al. (2008) estimated 

the size of the humpback whale 

populations frequenting the Hawaii 

breeding area at 10,000 individuals, and 

assuming that proportions from the 

Barlow et al. (2011) estimate of 21,808 

individuals in breeding areas in the 

North Pacific are likely to be similar to 

those estimated by Calambokidis et al. 

(2008), the population size frequenting 

the Hawaii breeding area would have 

increased to about 12,000 individuals. 

The most recent growth rate for this DPS 

was estimated between 5.5 percent and 

6.0 percent (Calambokidis et al., 2008). 

Mexico DPS 

A preliminary estimate of abundance 

of the Mexico DPS is 6,000–7,000 from 

the SPLASH project (Calambokidis et 

al., 2008), or higher (Barlow et al., 

2011). There are no estimates of 

precision associated with that estimate, 

so there is considerable uncertainty 

about the actual population size. 

However, the BRT was confident that 

the population is likely to be much 

greater than 2,000 in total size. 

Estimates of population growth trends 

do not exist for the Mexico DPS by 

itself. Given evidence of population 

growth throughout most of the primary 

feeding areas of the Mexico DPS 

(California/Oregon (Calambokidis et al., 

2008), Gulf of Alaska from the 

Shumagins to Kodiak (Zerbini et al., 

2006a)), it was considered unlikely this 

DPS was declining, but the BRT noted 

that a reliable, quantitative estimate of 

the population growth rate for this DPS 

is not currently available. 

Central America DPS 

Individual humpback whales in the 

Central America DPS migrate from 

breeding grounds off Costa Rica, 

Panama, Guatemala, El Salvador, 

Honduras, and Nicaragua to feeding 

grounds off California, Oregon, and 

Washington. A preliminary estimate of 

abundance of the Central America 

population is ∼500 from the SPLASH 

project (Calambokidis et al., 2008), or 

∼600 based on the reanalysis by Barlow 

et al. (2011). There are no estimates of 

precision associated with these 

estimates, so there is considerable 

uncertainty about the actual population 

size. Therefore, the actual population 

size could be somewhat larger or 

smaller than 500–600, but the BRT 

considered it very unlikely to be as large 

as 2,000 or more. The size of this DPS 

is relatively low compared to most other 

North Pacific breeding populations 

(Calambokidis et al., 2008). The trend of 

the Central America DPS was 

considered unknown. 

Brazil DPS 

The most recent abundance estimate 

for the Brazil DPS comes from aerial 

surveys conducted off the coast of Brazil 

in 2002–2005 (Andriolo et al., 2010). 

These surveys covered the continental 

shelf between 6° S. and 24°30′ S. and 

provided a best estimate of 6,400 whales 

(95 percent CI = 5,000–8,000) in 2005. 

This estimate corresponds to nearly 24 

percent of this DPS’ pre-exploitation 

abundance (Zerbini et al., 2006d). 

Nearly 80 percent of the whales are 

found in the Abrolhos Bank, the eastern 

tip of the Brazilian continental shelf 

located between 16° S. and 18° S. 

(Andriolo et al., 2010). The best 

estimate of population growth rate is 7.4 

percent per year (95 percent CI = 0.5– 

14.7 percent) for the period 1995–1998 

(Ward et al., 2011). 

Gabon/Southwest Africa DPS 

The lower and upper bounds of the 

abundance estimate for Iguela, Gabon, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22319 

are 6,560 (CV=0.15) for 2001–2004 and 

8,064 (CV=0.12) for 2001–2005. These 

were generated using mark-recapture 

genetic data, and numerous other 

(generally similar) estimates are 

available depending on model 

assumptions (Collins et al., 2008). There 

are no trends available for this DPS, and 

it is not entirely clear how the estimates 

relate to potential subdivision within 

the DPS (Collins et al., 2008). Using a 

Bayesian estimation methodology, 

Johnston and Butterworth (2008) 

estimate the Gabon population to be in 

the range of 65–90 percent of its preexploitation size. 

Southeast Africa/Madagascar DPS 

The most recent abundance estimates 

for the Madagascar population were 

from surveys of Antongil Bay, 2000– 

2006 (Cerchio et al., 2009). Estimates 

using data from 2004–2006 and 

involving ‘‘closed’’ models of photoidentification of individuals and 

genotype data were 7,406 (CV = 0.37, CI: 

2106–12706) and 6,951 (CV = 0.33, CI: 

2509–11394), respectively. Additional 

estimates were made using various data 

sets (e.g., photo-identification and 

genotype) and models, estimating 4,936 

(CV = 0.44, CI: 2137–11692) and 8,169 

individuals (CV = 0.44, CI 3476–19497, 

Cerchio et al., 2009). The markrecapture data were derived from 

surveys over several years and thus may 

represent the abundance of whales 

breeding off Madagascar, in addition to 

possibly whales breeding in Mayotte 

and the Comoros (Ersts et al., 2006), and 

to a smaller degree from the East African 

Mainland (Razafindrakoto et al., 2008). 

Earlier estimates exist, including one 

of 2,532 (CV = 0.27) individuals (Best et 

al., 1996) based on surveys of the 

continental shelf region across the south 

and southeast coasts of Madagascar in 

1994. However, these surveys likely did 

not cover the full distribution of 

humpback whales in the area. Data from 

a 1991 survey yielded an estimate of 

1,954 whales (CV = 0.38) (Findlay et al., 

1994). A subsequent line transect survey 

in 2003 included a larger region of the 

coast (Findlay et al., 2011). From these, 

two estimates were generated in 2003: 

6,664 whales (CV = 0.16); and 5,965 (CV 

= 0.17) when data were stratified by 

coastal regions. 

Two trends in relative abundance 

have been calculated from land-based 

observations of the migratory stream 

passing Cape Vidal, east South Africa in 

July 1998–2002, and July 1990–2000. 

The first was an estimate of 12.3 percent 

per year (Findlay and Best, 2006) 

(however, this estimate is likely outside 

biological plausibility for this species 

(Bannister and Hedley, 2001; Noad et 

al., 2008; Zerbini et al., 2010)); and the 

second is 9.0 percent (an estimate that 

is within the range calculated for other 

Southern Hemisphere breeding grounds 

(e.g., Ward et al., 2006; Noad et al., 

2008; Hedley et al., 2009)). Both rates 

are considered with caution because the 

surveys were short in duration. It is not 

certain that these estimates represent 

the growth rate of the entire DPS. Given 

this uncertainty, and the uncertainty 

from the short duration of the surveys, 

it is likely the DPS is increasing, but it 

is not possible to provide a quantitative 

estimate of the rate of increase for the 

entire DPS. 

West Australia DPS 

Abundance of northbound humpback 

whales in the southeastern Indian 

Ocean in 2008 was estimated at 21,750 

(95 percent CI = 17,550–43,000) based 

upon line transect survey data (Hedley 

et al., 2009). The current abundance 

appears likely close to the historical 

abundance for the DPS, although there 

is some uncertainty of the historical 

abundance because of difficulties in 

allocating catch to specific breeding 

populations (IWC, 2007a). The current 

abundance is large relative to any of the 

general guidelines for viable abundance 

levels (see earlier discussion). The rate 

of population growth is estimated to be 

∼10 percent annually since 1982, which 

is at or near the estimated physiological 

limit of the species (Bannister, 1994; 

Bannister and Hedley, 2001) and well 

above the interim recovery goal. 

East Australia DPS 

Abundance of the East Australia DPS 

was estimated to be 6,300–7,800 (95 

percent CI: 4,040–10,739) in 2005 based 

on photo-ID data (Paton and Clapham, 

2006; Paton et al., 2008; Paton et al., 

2009). The annual rate of increase is 

estimated to be 10.9 percent for 

humpback whales in the southwestern 

Pacific Ocean (Noad et al., 2008). This 

estimate of population increase is very 

close to the biologically plausible upper 

limit of reproduction for humpbacks 

(Zerbini et al., 2010). The surveys 

presented by Noad et al. (2005; 2008) 

have remained consistent over time, 

with a strong correlation (r > 0.99) 

between counts and years. 

Oceania DPS 

The Oceania humpback whale DPS is 

of moderate size (3,827 whales in New 

Caledonia, Tonga, French Polynesia and 

Cook Islands combined; CV=0.12) 

(South Pacific Whale Research 

Consortium et al., 2006); however, no 

trend information is available for this 

DPS. The DPS is quite subdivided, and 

the population estimate applies to an 

aggregate (although it is known that subpopulations differ in growth rates and 

other demographic parameters). There 

are some areas of historical range extent 

that have not rebounded and other areas 

without historical whaling information 

(Fleming and Jackson, 2011). There is 

uncertainty regarding which geographic 

portion of the Antarctic this DPS uses 

for feeding. The complex population 

structure of humpback whales within 

the Oceania region creates higher 

uncertainty regarding demographic 

parameters and threat levels than for 

any other DPS. 

Southeastern Pacific DPS 

Individuals of the Southeastern 

Pacific population migrate from 

breeding grounds between Costa Rica 

and northern Peru to feeding grounds in 

the Magellan Straits and along the 

Western Antarctic Peninsula. Though 

no quantitative growth rate information 

is available for this DPS, abundance 

estimates over a 13-year period suggest 

that the DPS size is increasing, and 

abundance was estimated to be 6,504 

(95 percent CI: 4270–9907) individuals 

in 2005–2006 (Fe ́lix et al., 2006a; Fe ́lix 

et al., 2011). Total abundance is likely 

to be larger because only a portion of the 

DPS was enumerated. 

Arabian Sea DPS 

Mark-recapture studies using tail 

fluke photographs collected in Oman 

from 2000–2004 yielded a population 

estimate of 82 individuals (95 percent 

CI: 60–111). However, sample sizes 

were small, and there are various 

sources of possible negative bias, 

including insufficient spatial and 

temporal coverage of the population’s 

suspected range (Minton et al., 2010b). 

Reproductive rates in this DPS are not 

well understood. Cow-calf pairs were 

very rarely observed in surveys off the 

coast of Oman, composing only 7 

percent of encounters in Dhofar, and not 

encountered at all since 2001. Soviet 

whaling catches off Oman, Pakistan and 

northwestern India also included low 

numbers of lactating females (3.5 

percent of mature females) relative to 

pregnant females (46 percent of mature 

females) (Mikhalev, 1997). 

No trend data are available for this 

DPS. A low proportion of immature 

whales (12.4 percent of all females) was 

also found, even though catches were 

indiscriminate with respect to sex and 

condition (Mikhalev, 1997), suggesting 

that either calf mortality in this DPS is 

high, immature animals occupy areas 

that have not been surveyed, or that the 

whales have reproductive ‘boom and 

bust’ cycles which respond to high 

annual variation in productivity. The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22320 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

BRT noted that the entire region has not 

been surveyed; however, in areas where 

the whales are likely to be, not many 

whales have been observed. The BRT 

noted that this is a very small 

population but felt that there was some 

uncertainty in abundance estimates. 

Summary of Abundance and Trends 

The BRT summarized abundance and 

trend information for all humpback 

whale DPSs (Tables 7 and 8 in Bettridge 

et al., 2015). 

In the North Atlantic Ocean, the 

abundance of the West Indies DPS is 

much greater than 2,000 individuals and 

is increasing moderately. However, little 

is known about the total size of the Cape 

Verde Islands/Northwest Africa DPS, 

and its trend is unknown. 

In the Pacific Ocean, the abundance of 

the Okinawa/Philippines DPS (as 

identified by the BRT) is thought to be 

about 1,000 individuals with unknown 

trend. Little is known about the 

abundance of humpback whales from 

the unknown breeding ground 

(identified as the Second West Pacific 

DPS by the BRT), but it is likely to 

number at least 100 or more, with 

unknown trend. Combining this 

information, we conclude that there are 

at least 1,100 individuals in the Western 

North Pacific DPS, and the trend is 

unknown. The abundances of the 

Hawaii and Mexico DPSs are known to 

be much greater than 2,000 individuals 

and are thought to be increasing 

moderately. The abundance of the 

Central America DPS is thought to be 

about 500 individuals with unknown 

trend. 

In the Southern Hemisphere, all seven 

DPSs are thought to be greater than 

2,000 individuals in population size. 

The Brazil DPS is increasing either 

rapidly or moderately. The trend in the 

Gabon/Southwest Africa DPS is 

unknown, while the Southeast Africa/

Madagascar DPS is thought to be 

increasing. The West Australia and East 

Australia DPSs are both large and 

increasing rapidly. The Southeastern 

Pacific DPS is thought to be increasing. 

And the trend of the Oceania DPS is 

unknown. 

The estimated abundance of the 

Arabian Sea DPS is less than 100, but its 

entire range was not surveyed, so it 

could be somewhat larger. Its trend is 

unknown. 

Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors 

Affecting the 14 Humpback Whale DPSs 

Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

part 424 set forth procedures for adding 

species to the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Species. 

Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, the 

Services must determine if a species is 

threatened or endangered because of 

any of the following five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

In this rulemaking, information 

regarding the status of each of the 14 

humpback whale DPSs is considered in 

relation to these factors. The 

information presented here is a 

summary of the information in the 

Status Review Report (Bettridge et al., 

2015). The reader is directed to the 

Threats Analysis subsection under each 

DPS in the Status Review Report for a 

more detailed discussion of the factors 

and how they affect each DPS. 

Section 4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All 

DPSs 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of its Habitat or Range 

The BRT discussed habitat-related 

threats to humpback whale populations, 

including coastal development, 

contaminants, energy exploration and 

development, and harmful algal blooms 

(HABs). Substantial coastal 

development is occurring in many 

regions, and may include construction 

that can cause increased turbidity of 

coastal waters, higher volume of ship 

traffic, and physical disruption of the 

marine environment. Noise associated 

with construction (e.g., pile driving, 

blasting, or explosives) and dredging 

has the potential to affect whales by 

generating sound levels believed to 

disturb marine mammals under certain 

conditions. The majority of the sound 

energy associated with both pile driving 

and dredging is in the low frequency 

range (<1,000 Hz) (Illingworth and 

Rodkin Inc., 2001; Reyff, 2003; 

Illingworth and Rodkin Inc., 2007). 

Because humpback whales would only 

be affected when close to shore, the BRT 

believed that these effects on the whales 

would generally be low. However, if 

coastal development occurred in 

seasonal areas or migration routes where 

whales concentrate, individuals in the 

area could be more seriously affected. 

Scheduling in-water construction 

activities to avoid those times when 

whales may be present would likely 

minimize the disturbance. The BRT was 

unaware of any circumstance of coastal 

development resulting in humpback 

whale serious injury or mortality and 

therefore determined that in general 

coastal development likely poses a low 

level threat to humpback whales. 

For purposes of the status review, the 

BRT agreed to consider as contaminants 

heavy metals, persistent organic 

pollutants, effluent, airborne 

contaminants, plastics, and other 

marine debris and pollution, with the 

exception of oil spills, which is 

evaluated under ‘‘energy exploration 

and development.’’ Numerous regions 

were highlighted as having known or 

hypothesized high contaminant levels 

from run-off, large human populations, 

and low levels of regulatory control. 

Halogenated organic pollutants 

(including dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)), 

hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) and 

chlordane (CH) insecticides, 

polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) 

coolants and lubricants, and 

polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE— 

flame retardants) can persist in the 

environment for long periods. Air-borne 

pollutants are particularly concentrated 

in areas of industrialization, and in 

some high latitude regions (Aguilar et 

al., 2002). While the use of many 

pollutants is now either banned or 

strictly regulated in some countries (e.g., 

DDTs and PCBs), their use is still 

unregulated in many parts of world, and 

they can be transported long distances 

via oceanographic processes and 

atmospheric dispersal (Aguilar et al., 

2002). 

Humpback whales can accumulate 

lipophilic compounds (e.g., halogenated 

hydrocarbons) and pesticides (e.g., DDT) 

in their blubber, as a result of feeding on 

contaminated prey (bioaccumulation) or 

inhalation in areas of high contaminant 

concentrations (e.g., regions of 

atmospheric deposition) (Barrie et al., 

1992; Wania and Mackay, 1993). Some 

contaminants (e.g., DDT) are passed on 

maternally to young during gestation 

and lactation (e.g., fin whales, Aguilar 

and Borrell, 1994). Elfes et al. (2010) 

described the range and degree of 

organic contaminants accumulated in 

the blubber of humpback whales 

sampled on Northern Hemisphere 

feeding grounds. Concentrations were 

high in some areas (Southern California 

and Northern Gulf of Maine), possibly 

reflecting proximity to industrialized 

areas in the former case, and prey 

choice in the latter (Elfes et al., 2010). 

There were also higher levels of PCBs, 

PBDEs, and CH insecticides in the North 

Atlantic Ocean (Gulf of Maine and Bay 

of Fundy) than in the North Pacific 

(California, Southeast Alaska, Aleutian 

Islands). The highest levels of DDT were 

found in whales feeding off Southern 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22321 

California, a highly urbanized region of 

the coast with substantial discharges 

(Elfes et al., 2010). This same study 

found a linear increase in PCB, DDT, 

and chlordane concentration with age of 

the whales sampled. Generally, 

concentrations of these contaminants in 

humpback whales were low relative to 

levels found in odontocetes (O’Shea and 

Brownell, 1994). Little information on 

levels of contamination is available from 

humpback whales on Southern 

Hemisphere feeding grounds. 

The health effects of different doses of 

contaminants are currently unknown for 

humpback whales (Krahn et al., 2004c). 

There is evidence of detrimental health 

effects from these compounds in other 

mammals, including disease 

susceptibility, neurotoxicity, and 

reproductive and immune system 

impairment (Reijnders, 1986; DeSwart et 

al., 1996; Eriksson et al., 1998). 

Contaminant levels have been proposed 

as a causative factor in lower 

reproductive rates found among 

humpback whales off Southern 

California (Steiger and Calambokidis, 

2000), but at present the threshold level 

for negative effects, and transfer rates to 

calves, are unknown for humpback 

whales. Metcalfe et al. (2004) found in 

biopsy-sampled humpback whale 

young-of-the-year in the Gulf of St. 

Lawrence PCB levels similar to that of 

their mothers and other adult females, 

indicating that bioaccumulation can be 

rapid, and that transplacental and 

lactational partitioning did little to 

reduce contaminant loads. 

Although there has been substantial 

research on the identification and 

quantification of such contaminants on 

individual whales, no detectable effect 

from contaminants has been identified 

in baleen whales. There may be chronic, 

sub-lethal impacts that are currently 

unknown. The difficulty in identifying 

contaminants as a causative agent in 

humpback whale mortality and/or 

decreased fecundity led the BRT to 

conclude the severity of this threat was 

low in all regions, except where lack of 

data indicated a finding of unknown. 

The BRT defined identified threats 

from energy exploration and 

development to include oil spills from 

pipelines, rigs, or ships, increased 

shipping, and construction surrounding 

energy development (oil, gas, or 

alternative energy). This category does 

not include noise from energy 

development, which is considered 

under ‘‘anthropogenic noise.’’ Little is 

known about the effects of oil or 

petroleum on cetaceans and especially 

on mysticetes (baleen whales, 

characterized by having baleen plates 

for filtering food from water, rather than 

teeth like in the toothed whales 

(odontocetes)). Oil spills that occur 

while whales are present could result in 

skin contact with the oil, baleen fouling, 

ingestion of oil, respiratory distress from 

hydrocarbon vapors, contaminated food 

sources, and displacement from feeding 

areas (Geraci et al., 1989). Actual 

impacts would depend on the extent 

and duration of contact, and the 

characteristics of the oil. Most likely, 

the effects of oil would be irritation to 

the respiratory membranes and 

absorption of hydrocarbons into the 

bloodstream (Geraci et al., 1989). 

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs) are components of crude oil 

which are not easily degraded and are 

insoluble in water, making them quite 

detrimental in the marine environment 

(Pomilla et al., 2004). PAHs have been 

associated with proliferative lesions and 

alteration to the immune and 

reproductive systems (Martineau et al., 

2002). Long-term ingestion of 

pollutants, including oil residues, could 

affect reproduction, but data are lacking 

to determine how oil may fit into this 

scheme for humpback whales. 

Although the risk posed by 

operational oil rigs is likely low, failures 

and catastrophic events that may result 

from the presence of rigs pose high 

risks. Since the BRT had already 

determined that threat assessments 

would focus on present threats, the 

mere presence of oil rigs was not 

interpreted to warrant a threat level 

above low. However, the level of impact 

that such a catastrophic event may have 

on a population was considered in the 

evaluations. 

Some algal blooms are harmful to 

marine organisms and have been linked 

to pollution from untreated industrial 

and domestic wastewater. Toxins 

produced by different algae can be 

concentrated as they move up the food 

chain, particularly during algal blooms. 

Naturally occurring toxin poisoning can 

be the cause of whale mortalities and is 

particularly implicated when unusual 

mortality events (UME) occur. Despite 

these UMEs, the BRT determined that 

HABs represent a minor threat to most 

humpback whale populations. HABs 

may be increasing in Alaska, but the 

BRT was unaware of records of 

humpback whale mortality resulting 

from HABs in this region. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific or Educational 

Purposes 

The BRT described whaling 

(commercial, scientific, subsistence 

hunting, and other ‘‘hunts’’), whalewatching, and scientific research 

activities and evaluated whether they 

were impacting humpback whales. 

Direct hunting, although rare today, was 

the main cause of initial depletion of 

humpback whales and other large 

whales. The BRT believed that the 

likelihood that commercial whaling will 

resume in the foreseeable future is 

currently low (see discussion under 

Inadequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms 

below). With regard to scientific 

whaling, Japan has already announced 

its plan to remove humpback whales 

from its scientific proposals in the 

future (Government of Japan, 2014). 

In summary, the current impact of all 

whaling activities on global humpback 

whale populations is very low, with 

only a handful of humpback whales 

taken annually in two known aboriginal 

harvests. The BRT discussed the 

possibility of expanded commercial 

whaling of humpback whales in the 

Southern Ocean but determined that 

new whaling action in the foreseeable 

future was unlikely. Therefore, the BRT 

attributed a low level risk of whaling for 

all but one DPS (see Western North 

Pacific DPS section). 

Whale-watch tourism is a global 

industry with major economic value for 

many coastal communities (O’Connor et 

al., 2009). The industry has been 

expanding rapidly since the 1980s 

(estimated 3.7 percent global increase in 

whale watchers per year between 1998– 

2008, O’Connor et al., 2009; Kessler and 

Harcourt, 2012). Whale-watching 

operations have been documented in 

119 countries worldwide as of 2008, 

including on many humpback whale 

feeding grounds, breeding grounds, and 

migratory corridors (O’Connor et al., 

2009). Efforts to manage whale-watching 

operations have included limiting the 

number of whale-watching vessels, 

limiting the time vessels spend near 

whales, specifying the manner of 

operating around whales, and 

establishing limits to the period of 

exposure of the whales. In some areas, 

whale-watching industries operate 

under regulations while others operate 

under guidelines or are still 

unregulated, and this industry is still 

growing rapidly in many areas (over 10 

percent per year in Oceania, Asia, South 

America, Central America and the 

Caribbean) (Carlson, 2009; O’Connor et 

al., 2009). 

Weinrich et al. (2008) observed that 

the most common reported response of 

humpback whales to whale-watching 

boats was increased swimming speed 

during exposure; there was little 

evidence of significant effects on interbreath intervals and blow rates. Passive 

acoustic monitoring and localization of 

humpback whale songs in the presence 

of whale-watching boats on Brazilian 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22322 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

breeding grounds also found that whales 

moved away from the boat in the 

majority of cases (68.4 percent of the 

time when boats were less than 2.5 

miles (4.0 km) distant, Sousa-Lima and 

Clark, 2009). 

Only one study has attempted to 

assess the population-level effects of 

whale-watching on humpback whales, 

as the relevant parameters are very 

difficult to measure. Weinrich and 

Corbelli (2009) reported that calving rate 

and calf survival to age 2 in humpback 

whales on Stellwagen Bank (part of the 

Gulf of Maine feeding ground) did not 

seem to be negatively affected by whalewatching. The authors noted, however, 

that in areas of heavy ship traffic, 

isolating the impacts of whale-watching 

on biological parameters is difficult and 

may not be conclusive (Weinrich and 

Corbelli, 2009) and is difficult to 

determine at either the individual or 

population level. 

The BRT discussed the available 

evidence regarding the impact of whalewatching on humpback whale 

populations. All available evidence 

supports the conclusion that the impact 

of these activities on humpback whale 

populations is negligible, and the BRT 

determined this threat is low for all 

DPSs. 

Humpback whales have been the 

subject of field research studies for 

decades. The primary objective of many 

of these studies has generally been to 

gather data for behavioral and ecological 

studies. In the United States, permits 

authorize investigators to make close 

approaches to endangered whales for 

photographic identification, biopsy 

sample collection, behavioral 

observations, passive acoustic 

recording, aerial photogrammetry, 

satellite tagging, and underwater 

observations. Research on humpback 

whales is likely to continue and 

increase in the future, especially for the 

collection of genetic information, 

photographic studies, and acoustic 

studies. Research activities could result 

in disturbance to humpback whales, but 

they are closely monitored and 

evaluated in the United States in an 

attempt to minimize any necessary 

impacts of research. Regulation of 

research activities in other nations 

varies from effectively no regulation to 

regulations comparable to those in the 

United States. The BRT discussed the 

available evidence regarding the impact 

of scientific research on humpback 

whale populations. All available 

evidence supports the conclusion that 

the impact of these activities is 

negligible, and the BRT determined this 

threat is low for all DPSs. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Information on disease or parasites is 

unavailable for many humpback whale 

populations. Direct monitoring of 

species biochemistry and pathology, 

used to determine the state of health in 

humans and domestic animals, is very 

limited for humpback whales, and there 

is little published on humpback whale 

disease as a result. Humpback whales 

carry a crustacean ectoparasite (the 

cyamid Cyamus boopis). While the 

whale is the main source of nutrition for 

this parasite (Schell et al., 2000), there 

is little evidence that the parasite 

contributes to whale mortality. 

Humpback whales can also carry the 

giant nematode Crassicauda boopis 

(Bayliss, 1920), which is known to cause 

a serious inflammatory response 

(leading to vascular occlusion and 

kidney failure) in a few balaenopterid 

species (Lambertsen, 1992). 

Individual humpback whales in 

Hawaiian waters have a high occurrence 

of skin lesions, but it is unclear whether 

this is due to a parasite or disease. It is 

estimated that approximately 60 percent 

of adults in Hawaii and Oceania have 

these skin lesions. Whether the lesions 

are entirely benign is unknown. The 

BRT concluded that where some 

information is available, disease and 

parasites do not pose a substantial threat 

to humpback whale populations. 

The most common predator of 

humpback whales is the killer whale 

(Orcinus orca, Jefferson et al., 1991), 

though predation by large sharks may 

also occur. Attacks by false killer whales 

(Pseudorca crassidens) have also been 

reported or inferred on rare occasions. 

Attacks by killer whales on humpback 

whale calves has been inferred by the 

presence of distinctive parallel ‘rake’ 

marks from killer whale teeth across the 

flukes (Shevchenko, 1975). While killer 

whale attacks of humpback whales are 

rarely observed in the field (Ford and 

Reeves, 2008), the proportion of photoidentified whales bearing rake scars is 

between zero and 40 percent, with the 

greater proportion of whales showing 

mild scarring (1–3 rake marks) (Wade et 

al., 2007; Steiger et al., 2008). This 

suggests that attacks by killer whales on 

humpback whales vary in frequency 

across regions. It also suggests that 

either most killer whale attacks result in 

mild scarring, or those resulting in 

severe scarring (4 or more rakes, parts of 

fluke missing) are more often fatal. Most 

observations of humpback whales under 

attack from killer whales reported 

vigorous defensive behavior and tight 

grouping when more than one 

humpback whale was present (Ford and 

Reeves, 2008). 

Photo-identification data indicate that 

rake marks are usually acquired in the 

first year of life, although attacks on 

adults also occur (Wade et al., 2007; 

Steiger et al., 2008). Killer whale 

predation may influence survival during 

the first year of life (Wade et al., 2007). 

There has been some debate as to 

whether killer whale predation 

(especially on calves) is a motivating 

factor for the migratory behavior of 

humpback whales (Corkeron and 

Connor, 1999; Clapham, 2001). How 

significantly motivating this factor is 

also depends on the importance of 

humpback whales in the diet of killer 

whales, another debated topic that 

remains inconclusive (Springer et al., 

2003; Wade et al., 2007; Kuker and 

Barrett-Lennard, 2010). No analyses of 

killer whale stomach contents have 

revealed remains of humpback whales 

(Shevchenko, 1975), suggesting that if 

humpback whales are taken at all, they 

comprise at most a small part of the 

diet. However, these analyses took place 

during the height of the whaling period, 

when humpback whales were at a low 

density and may therefore have been 

less available for predation. 

There is also evidence of shark 

predation on calves and entangled 

whales (Mazzuca et al., 1998). Shark 

bite marks on stranded whales may 

often represent post-mortem feeding 

rather than predation, i.e., scavenging 

on carcasses (Long and Jones, 1996). 

The threat of predation was ranked as 

low or unknown for all DPSs because 

the level of mortality is unknown, but 

it is likely not prohibiting population 

growth. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Numerous international and regional 

regulatory mechanisms are in place to 

protect humpback whales directly or 

indirectly. 

The International Whaling 

Commission (IWC) was set up under the 

International Convention for the 

Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), signed in 

1946. The IWC established an 

international moratorium on 

commercial whaling for all large whale 

species in 1982, effective in 1986; this 

affected all member (signatory) nations 

(paragraph 10e, IWC, 2009a). The IWC 

has set the catch limits for commercial 

whaling at zero since 1985. Since that 

time, the IWC’s Scientific Committee 

has developed a stock assessment and 

catch limit methodology called the 

‘‘revised management procedure,’’ with 

the goal of providing information on 

catch limits consistent with maintaining 

sustainable populations. As of 2014, the 

IWC has maintained the zero catch 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22323 

limit, and this policy has engendered 

considerable debate within the 

organization. The IWC’s regulations 

provide a process by which countries 

may object to specific provisions, and 

Norway and Iceland currently allow 

commercial whaling based on these 

objections. 

Iceland and Norway currently hunt a 

number of whale species commercially 

under objection to the IWC moratorium, 

although humpback whales have not 

been hunted by either nation in recent 

years. The present international 

moratorium on commercial whaling will 

remain in place unless a 75 percent 

majority of IWC signatory members 

votes to lift the moratorium. If this were 

to happen, then, under current IWC 

management procedures, humpback 

whale stocks considered to have 

recovered to over 54 percent of their 

pre-whaling levels (based on a detailed 

‘‘comprehensive assessment’’ of their 

population status) could be subject to 

commercial whaling, with a quota that 

in theory would be determined by the 

Revised Management Procedure. This 

procedure implements a quasi-Bayesian 

Catch Limit Algorithm to calculate 

allowable catches for each stock (Cooke, 

1992). The effects of these catches on 

population abundance would be 

simulated via a series of Implementation 

Simulation Trials prior to agreement of 

quotas for commercial hunting. Since 

whaling is carried out under objection 

by Iceland and Norway, they are not 

subject to this management scheme for 

allocating quotas for any species. 

The United States first incorporated 

the IWC’s regime into domestic law in 

the 1971 Pelly Amendment to the 

Fisherman’s Protective Act of 1967. This 

amendment provides that when the 

Secretary of Commerce determines that 

the nationals of a foreign country are 

diminishing the effectiveness of an 

international fishery conservation 

program (including the IWC’s program), 

the Secretary shall certify this fact to the 

President. The President then has the 

discretion to ban importation of fishing 

products from the offending country. 

The United States has threatened 

sanctions under the Pelly Amendment 

on a number of occasions, but to date, 

it has not imposed economic sanctions 

on marine products. In November 1974, 

pressure from the United States 

contributed to Japan and the Soviet 

Union complying with the 1974–1975 

quotas. Norway was certified in 1987 

and several times thereafter. Japan has 

been certified three times, the last being 

in 2000, and Iceland has been certified 

several times, including in 2011 for 

whaling activities. 

These measures were further 

strengthened by the 1979 PackwoodMagnuson Amendment to the Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act of 

1976. It provides that, when the 

Secretary of Commerce certifies that a 

country is diminishing the effectiveness 

of the work of the IWC, the Secretary of 

State must reduce that country’s fishing 

allocation in U.S. waters by at least 50 

percent. Certification under the 

Packwood-Magnuson Amendment also 

serves as certification under the Pelly 

Amendment. The threatened 

application in 1980 of the PackwoodMagnuson and Pelly Amendments led 

South Korea to agree to follow IWC 

guidelines restricting the use of cold 

(i.e., non-explosive) harpoons. Faced 

with similar pressure, the Republic of 

China (Taiwan) placed a complete ban 

on whaling in 1981. Without United 

States support, it is possible that the 

1986 moratorium would have been 

substantially limited, as nations such as 

Iceland, Japan, Norway, and the Soviet 

Union would have opted out and 

continued commercial whaling. 

Since implementation of the 

international moratorium on whaling, 

some nations have continued to hunt 

whales under Article VIII of the ICRW, 

which allows the killing of whales for 

scientific research purposes. Three 

nations originally conducted scientific 

whaling: Iceland, Norway, and Japan. 

Presently only Japan pursues scientific 

whaling, under the programs JARPAII 

and JARPNII (‘Japanese Whale Research 

Program under Special Permit in the 

Antarctic’ and ‘North Pacific,’ 

respectively). Scientific whaling is 

presently unregulated, and no catch 

limits are enforced for this activity 

(Clapham et al., 2003b). In 2012, the 

Government of Japan issued Special 

Permits authorizing the implementation 

of a catch limit of Antarctic minke, fin, 

and humpback whales for scientific 

purposes in the Southern Ocean; a 

research catch limit of up to 50 

humpback whales was included in the 

Special Permits. To date, however, no 

humpback whales have been taken for 

scientific research by any country. On 

March 31, 2014, after the 2013/14 

Japanese whale hunt season in the 

Antarctic, the International Court of 

Justice ruled that past Japanese whaling 

programs were illegal, and Japan 

immediately terminated its JARPAII 

programs. In September 2014, Japan 

agreed to a new requirement to submit 

new research proposals to the IWC 6 

months before the next annual IWC 

Scientific Committee meeting (in May 

2015) so that the IWC could assess 

whether lethal samples are necessary for 

a specific research program and whether 

the number of whales sampled is 

scientifically justified. Because of the 

timing, Japan will not hunt whales in 

the Southern Ocean during the 2014/15 

season, and this will be the first time in 

30 years that Japan has not hunted for 

whales in the Antarctic. Japan’s 

proposed research plan for new 

scientific whale research programs in 

the Antarctic Ocean (NEWREP–A, 

http://iwc.int/sc-documents) was 

released on November 19, 2014, and it 

includes only a small number of minke 

whales. 

The IWC also develops catch limits 

for aboriginal whaling, including take of 

humpback whales in coastal areas of 

Greenland and the West Indies. The 

ICRW allows for signatory nations to 

harvest whales for scientific purposes 

through their own national permit 

process, although humpback whales 

have not been reported to have been 

taken under this process. The current 

commercial whaling moratorium is 

providing significant protection to 

humpback whales. 

The Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES) is aimed at 

protecting species at risk from 

unregulated international trade. CITES 

regulates international trade in animals 

and plants by listing species in one of 

its three appendices. The level of 

monitoring and control to which an 

animal or plant species is subject 

depends on the appendix in which the 

species is listed. Appendix I includes 

species threatened with extinction 

which are or may be affected by trade; 

trade of Appendix I species is only 

allowed in exceptional circumstances. 

Appendix II includes species not 

necessarily threatened with extinction 

presently, but for which trade must be 

regulated in order to avoid utilization 

incompatible with their survival. 

Appendix III includes species that are 

subject to regulation in at least one 

country, and for which that country has 

asked other CITES Party countries for 

assistance in controlling and monitoring 

international trade in that species. 

Humpback whales are currently listed 

in Appendix I under CITES. With the 

IWC commercial whaling moratorium in 

place since 1985, commercial trade has 

not been a problem for humpback 

whales. However, if the moratorium 

should ever be lifted in the future, the 

humpback whale’s CITES Appendix I 

listing would restrict trade so that it 

would not contribute to the extinction 

risk of the species. Given this support 

and the long history of CITES work and 

resolutions to support the IWC whaling 

moratorium, we do not expect the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22324 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

CITES status of the humpback whale to 

change if ESA protections are removed 

from the species or any DPSs of the 

species. For example, CITES Resolution 

Conf. 11.4 (Rev. CoP12) welcomed the 

Resolution passed by the IWC at its 

Special Meeting in December 1978 

requesting that the Conference of the 

Parties to the Convention, at its second 

meeting, take all possible measures to 

support the IWC ban on commercial 

whaling for certain species and stocks of 

whales. 

The International Maritime 

Organization (IMO), a United Nations 

agency and the recognized international 

authority on shipping and safety at sea, 

participates in reducing the shipping 

industry’s impacts to the sea from 

pollution (oil, garbage, noxious 

substances). Regulations to address 

pollution from maritime vessels include 

MARPOL (International Convention for 

the Protection of Pollution from Ships), 

MARPOL Annexes, International 

Conventions on Oil Pollution 

Preparedness Response and Cooperation, and Prevention of Marine 

Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and 

Other Matter. The IMO’s Marine 

Environment Protection Committee 

designates regions as ‘‘Particularly 

Sensitive Sea Areas’’ (PSSA) and ‘‘Areas 

to be Avoided’’ for various ecological, 

economic, or scientific reasons. PSSA 

regions include The Great Barrier Reef 

(Australia), the Gala ́pagos Islands 

(Ecuador), and the Papahanaumokuakea 

Marine National Monument (North 

Pacific). 

The IMO was approached for the first 

time regarding conservation of an 

endangered whale species in 1998—a 

protective measure for North Atlantic 

right whales (Silber et al., 2012). Since 

then, the IMO has been approached over 

a dozen times with nations’ proposals to 

establish or amend routing measures in 

various locations to reduce the threat of 

vessel collisions with endangered 

whales, including humpback whales 

(Silber et al., 2012). For example, the 

IMO has endorsed Areas To Be Avoided 

in U.S. and Canadian waters to reduce 

the threat of ship strikes of right whales 

(Fleming and Jackson, 2011, pp. 28–29), 

measures that also benefit humpback 

whales. IMO-endorsed modifications to 

Traffic Separation Schemes (TSS) have 

been established in areas off Boston, San 

Francisco, and near Santa Barbara (the 

latter two primarily for humpback 

whales); and a new TSS, along with 

vessel speed advisories, has been 

proposed for the Pacific side of the 

Panama Canal to protect large whale 

species from vessel collisions. 

Humpback whales are protected by 

the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.). The 

West Indies, Western North Pacific, 

Hawaii, Mexico, and Central America 

DPSs of the humpback whale can be 

found in U.S. waters and are protected 

under the MMPA when in U.S. waters 

as well as from takings by U.S. vessels 

or persons on the high seas. The MMPA 

includes a general moratorium on the 

taking and importing of marine 

mammals, which is subject to a number 

of exceptions. Some of these exceptions 

include take for scientific purposes, 

public display, subsistence use by 

Alaska Natives, and unintentional 

incidental take coincident with 

conducting lawful activities. 

U.S. citizens who engage in a 

specified activity other than commercial 

fishing (which is specifically and 

separately addressed under the MMPA) 

within a specified geographical region 

may petition the Secretaries to authorize 

the incidental, but not intentional, 

taking of small numbers of marine 

mammals within that region for a period 

of not more than 5 consecutive years (16 

U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)). The Secretary 

‘‘shall allow’’ the incidental taking if the 

Secretary finds that ‘‘the total of such 

taking during each five-year (or less) 

period concerned will have a negligible 

impact on such species or stock and will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of such species or 

stock for taking for subsistence uses.’’ If 

the Secretary makes the required 

findings, the Secretary also prescribes 

regulations that specify: (1) Permissible 

methods of taking, (2) means of effecting 

the least practicable adverse impact on 

the species, their habitat, and their 

availability for subsistence uses, and (3) 

requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

Similar to promulgation of incidental 

take regulations, the MMPA also 

established an expedited process by 

which U.S. citizens can apply for an 

authorization to incidentally take small 

numbers of marine mammals where the 

take will be limited to harassment (16 

U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)). These 

authorizations are limited to 1 year, and, 

as with incidental take regulations, the 

Secretary must find that the total of 

such taking during the period will have 

a negligible impact on such species or 

stock and will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking for 

subsistence uses. NMFS refers to these 

authorizations as Incidental Harassment 

Authorizations. 

Under the MMPA, NMFS also 

evaluates and provides permits for the 

taking of large whale species for those 

engaged in scientific research focused 

on those species. NMFS has also issued 

rules under the authority of the MMPA 

and the ESA to promulgate regulations 

to address the threat of vessel collisions 

with large whale species, and these 

regulations would remain in place even 

if humpback whales are no longer listed 

under the ESA. 

The MMPA provides additional 

protections to ‘‘depleted’’ marine 

mammals. For example, NMFS may not 

provide a take waiver for depleted 

stocks (section 101(a)(3)(A)), authorize 

importation of individual animals taken 

from depleted marine mammal stocks 

except pursuant to a permit for 

scientific research or for enhancing the 

survival or recovery of a species or stock 

(section 102(b)(3)(B)), or issue research 

permits involving the lethal taking of a 

marine mammal from a species or stock 

that is depleted (unless the Secretary 

determines that the results of such 

research will directly benefit that 

species or stock, or that such research 

fulfills a critically important research 

need)(section 104(c)(3)(B)). In addition, 

if a stock is depleted, it is automatically 

considered ‘‘strategic,’’ which then has 

other management implications. For 

example, under Section 112(e) of the 

MMPA, if the Secretary determines that 

impacts on rookeries, mating grounds, 

or other areas of similar ecological 

significance to marine mammals may be 

causing the decline or impeding the 

recovery of a strategic stock, the 

Secretary may develop and implement 

conservation or management measures 

to alleviate those impacts. Also, under 

Section 118, the Secretary may develop 

and implement a take reduction plan 

designed to assist in the recovery or 

prevent the depletion of each strategic 

stock that interacts with a commercial 

fishery. 

The humpback whale is considered 

‘‘depleted’’ under the MMPA because of 

its endangered status under the ESA. 

See Effects of this Rulemaking below for 

a discussion of the potential 

consequences of removing ESA 

protections from the humpback whale. 

While MMPA ‘‘depleted’’ status 

provides additional protections to 

humpback whales, the MMPA provides 

substantial protections to humpback 

whales in U.S. waters and from takings 

by U.S. persons and vessels on the high 

seas, whether they are depleted or not. 

The ESA requires Federal agencies to 

conduct their activities in such a way as 

to conserve species listed as threatened 

or endangered. Section 7 of the ESA also 

requires Federal agencies, in 

consultation with the FWS and/or 

NMFS, to ensure that activities they 

authorize, fund or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any listed species (or 

species proposed for listing) or result in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22325 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of designated or proposed critical 

habitat of such species. We have 

conducted scores of Section 7 

consultations with the United States 

Coast Guard (USCG), the Army Corps of 

Engineers, the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, and other agencies to 

ensure actions by these agencies do not 

adversely affect listed large whale 

species, including humpback whales. 

The ESA forbids the import, export, or 

interstate or foreign sale of species listed 

as endangered without a special permit. 

It also makes ‘‘take’’ of species listed as 

endangered illegal—forbidding, among 

other things, the killing, harming, 

harassing, pursuing, or removing the 

species from the wild (16 U.S.C. 

1532(19)). Any or all of these 

protections may be provided to a 

species listed as threatened through 

regulations issued under ESA section 

4(d)(16 U.S.C. 1533(d)). Of course, ESA 

protections for a species apply only if a 

species is listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA. 

Whale strike mitigation measures 

currently in place for some vessels and 

regions include using dedicated 

observers (Weinrich and Pekarik, 2007), 

speed reduction in some important 

habitat areas (73 FR 60173; October 10, 

2008), and shifting of shipping lanes 

away from areas of whale concentration 

to accommodate humpback whales and 

other species. Passive acoustic 

monitoring in areas of high shipping 

traffic also has promise for notifying 

mariners of whales in the area, as this 

method is relatively inexpensive, 

although detection is limited to 

vocalizing whales and specific source 

locations can be hard to determine 

(Silber et al., 2009). 

TSSs are in place for San Francisco 

Bay and the Santa Barbara Channel to 

ensure safety of navigation. These TSSs 

were amended in June 1, 2013, to lessen 

the possibility of fatal vessel collisions 

with humpback whales and other listed 

large whale species. Modifications 

include narrowing and extending the 

Northern and Western approaches while 

the inbound lane of the Santa Barbara 

Channel TSS has been shifted 

shoreward to reduce the co-occurrence 

of ships and whales and reduce the 

likelihood of a vessel/whale collision. 

We expect these TSSs and modifications 

to help reduce the likelihood of vessel 

collisions with humpback whales. 

Congress enacted the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA) in 1972 when 

it realized that rapid growth was 

threatening the vital productive coastal 

areas of the country. Congress 

determined that the most effective 

management of coastal resources would 

be achieved if states were given a major 

role in developing and administering 

management programs. The Act sought 

to assure the states that their 

management programs would not be 

disregarded by Federal agencies whose 

activities would affect the coastal zone. 

For example, the stepped-up Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) development 

policies of the early 1970s led to the 

1976 amendments that assured greater 

state involvement in the planning stages 

of oil and gas development. 

The CZMA accomplishes its goal 

primarily by encouraging the states to 

develop voluntary coastal zone 

management programs. Once a state has 

an approved program, it becomes 

eligible for Federal funds and acquires 

the benefit of the ‘‘consistency 

provisions.’’ Sections 307(c) and 307(d) 

of the CZMA establish classes of Federal 

activities that must be consistent with 

state programs. These include Federal 

activities that directly affect the coastal 

zone, development projects, Federal 

licenses and permits, OCS exploration, 

development, and production plans, 

and Federal assistance to states and 

local governments. Every coastal state in 

the United States except for Alaska 

currently has an approved coastal zone 

management program. Consistency 

determinations under the CZMA help to 

ensure that OCS projects do not 

adversely impact humpback whales or 

humpback whale habitat. 

The U.S. Park Service has jurisdiction 

over marine waters (through the Fish 

and Wildlife Coordination Act) in 

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve 

(established 1980; modified 1985). The 

following regulations are in place to 

protect humpback whales occurring 

there in the summer: Restrictions on the 

number of vessels entering park waters; 

restrictions on vessel operating 

conditions in the known presence of 

humpback whales, mandatory vessel 

operating requirements in certain 

designated ‘‘whale waters,’’ mandatory 

vessel speed limits at certain times and 

locations; mandatory boater education 

for boaters entering the area, regulations 

restricting the harvest of humpback 

whale prey species and ship board 

observers to quantify ship strikes and 

interactions between cruise ships and 

whales. These regulations should 

contribute somewhat to reducing the 

extinction risk of the Hawaii and 

Mexico DPSs of the humpback whale 

because some of these individuals feed 

in the park. 

Under the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act, NOAA has broad 

discretion to enact guidelines and 

regulations to provide protection to a 

number of large whale species, 

including the humpback whale in key 

aggregation locations. Humpback 

whales routinely occur in Stellwagen 

Bank, Gulf of the Farrallones, Channel 

Islands, Monterey Bay, Cordell Bank, 

and Olympic Coast National Marine 

Sanctuaries. The Hawaiian Islands 

Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary (HIHWNMS) was established 

primarily to provide protections to a key 

North Pacific humpback whale 

breeding/nursery area, and therefore, it 

should contribute to reducing the 

extinction risk of the Hawaii DPS of the 

humpback whale. NOAA’s Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries recently 

proposed to expand the boundaries and 

scope of the HIHWNMS, amend the 

regulations for HIHWNMS, change the 

name of the sanctuary, and revise the 

sanctuary’s terms of designation and 

management plan (80 FR 16224; March 

26, 2015). The purpose of the proposed 

action is to transition the HIHWNMS 

from a single-species management 

approach to an ecosystem-based 

management approach. As part of these 

revisions, NOAA proposed to revise the 

existing HIHWNMS humpback whale 

approach regulation at 15 CFR 922.184 

to help minimize incidences of 

humpback whale harassment or injury, 

to reduce adverse behavioral responses, 

and to limit vessel strikes within the 

sanctuary (80 FR 16224; March 26, 

2015, at 16227). 

The Stellwagen Bank and Gulf of the 

Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries, 

in particular, have active humpback 

whale research programs and/or have 

established vessel speed advisories, 

whale approach guidelines, and other 

measures to reduce human threats to 

humpback and other large whale 

species. These two national marine 

sanctuaries should contribute to 

reducing the extinction risk of the West 

Indies, Mexico, and Central America 

DPSs, as they provide protections to 

humpback whales in these DPSs when 

they are in their feeding grounds. 

Numerous nations have defined 

marine protected areas and sanctuaries 

that provide some protection to 

humpback whales (Hoyt, 2011), and 

various nations have developed local 

regulations or guidelines governing 

whale watching activities (O’Connor et 

al., 2009). Hundreds of national laws 

also exist related directly or indirectly 

to the conservation of marine mammals 

(Bettridge et al., 2015, Appendix B). 

Where appropriate, some of these are 

discussed in more detail in the DPSspecific sections. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22326 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Competition with fisheries, 

aquaculture, anthropogenic sound, 

vessel strikes, fishing gear 

entanglement, and climate change are 

all factors that may negatively impact 

humpback whales. 

The BRT discussed the issue of 

competition with fisheries at length. In 

some areas, (e.g., Northern Gulf of 

Maine and Southeast Alaska) fishermen 

encircle feeding humpback whales and 

harvest fish from the bait balls upon 

which humpback whales feed (D. 

Matilla, unpublished observation). 

However, there is no evidence that this 

impacts the individuals or significantly 

depletes the food source. In a review of 

the evidence for interspecific 

competition in baleen whales, Clapham 

and Brownell (1996) found it to be 

extremely difficult to prove that interspecific competition comprises an 

important factor in the population 

dynamics of large whales. 

Aquaculture is not known to be a 

significant threat to humpback whales. 

Some entanglements have been 

recorded off Australia. Colombia has 

substantial aquaculture activity in 

inshore areas, but there is no 

information regarding the impact of this 

activity on humpback whales. The BRT 

determined that for most DPSs, 

aquaculture does not pose a significant 

threat to humpback whales and should 

be assigned a low threat level. Sufficient 

information was not available to 

determine the threat level to the 

Western North Pacific and Arabian Sea 

DPSs. 

Humans introduce sound 

intentionally and unintentionally into 

the marine environment for navigation, 

oil and gas exploration and acquisition, 

research, and military activities, to 

name a few examples. Noise exposure 

can result in a range of impacts, from 

those causing little or no impact to those 

being potentially severe, depending on 

the source, level, and various other 

factors. Response to noise varies by 

many factors, including the type and 

characteristics of the sound source, 

distance between the source and the 

receptor, characteristics of the animal 

(e.g., hearing sensitivity, behavioral 

context, age, sex, and previous 

experience with sound source) and time 

of day or season. Noise may be 

intermittent or continuous, steady (nonimpulsive) or impulsive, and may be 

generated by stationary or moving 

sources. As one of the potential stressors 

to marine mammal populations, noise 

may seriously disrupt communication, 

navigational ability, and social patterns. 

Humpback whales use sound to 

communicate, navigate, locate prey, and 

sense their environment. Both 

anthropogenic and natural sounds may 

cause interference with these functions. 

Anthropogenic sound has increased 

in all oceans over the last 50 years and 

is thought to have doubled each decade 

in some areas of the ocean over the last 

30 or so years (Croll et al., 2001; 

Weilgart, 2007; Hildebrand, 2009). High 

levels of ambient anthropogenic noise 

are known to elicit behavioral, acoustic, 

and physiological responses from large 

whales, though the specific nature of 

these responses remains largely 

unknown (Nowacek et al., 2007). Lowfrequency sound comprises a significant 

portion of this increase and stems from 

a variety of sources including that 

primarily from shipping, and an 

increasing amount from oil and gas 

exploration in some areas, as well as 

research and naval activities. 

Understanding the specific impacts of 

these sounds on mysticetes is difficult. 

However, it is clear that the geographic 

scope of potential impacts is vast as 

low-frequency sounds can travel great 

distances under water, but these sounds 

have the potential to reduce 

communication space (e.g., shipping 

was predicted to reduce communication 

space of singing humpback whales in 

the northeast by 8 percent; Clark et al., 

2009). 

Humpback whales do not appear to be 

often involved in strandings related to 

noise events. There is one record of two 

whales found dead with extensive 

damage to the temporal bones near the 

site of a 5,000 kg explosion which likely 

produced shock waves that were 

responsible for the injuries (Ketten et 

al., 1993; Weilgart, 2007). Other 

detrimental effects of anthropogenic 

noise include masking and possible 

temporary threshold shifts. Masking 

results from noise interfering with 

cetacean social communication, which 

may range greatly in intensity and 

frequency. Some adjustment in acoustic 

behavior is thought to occur in response 

to masking and humpback songs were 

found to lengthen during LFA sonar 

activities (Miller et al., 2000). This 

altered song length persisted 2 hours 

after the sonar activities stopped 

(Fristrup et al., 2003). Researchers have 

also observed diminished song 

vocalizations in humpback whales 

during remote sensing experiments 200 

km away from the whales’ location in 

the Stellwagen Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary (Risch et al., 2012). Hearing 

loss can also possibly be permanent if 

the sound is intense enough but there is 

great variability across individuals and 

other factors making it difficult to 

determine a standardized threshold. 

Excessive noise exposure may be 

damaging during early individual 

development, may cause stress hormone 

fluctuations, and/or may cause whales 

to leave an area or change their behavior 

within it (Weilgart, 2007). Some 

responses are subtle and may occur after 

the exposure. Humpback whales 

exposed to underwater explosions and 

drilling associated with construction 

activities did not appear to change their 

behavior in reaction to the surveys but 

did appear to have reduced orientation 

abilities. Higher rates of fatal 

entanglement in fishing gear were 

observed in the area when whales were 

exposed to excessive noise, although the 

cause for this elevated entanglement 

rate was unclear (Ketten et al., 1993; 

Todd, 1996). Some studies have found 

little reaction to noise and indicate 

potential tolerances to anthropogenic 

sound over short time and small spatial 

scales (Croll et al., 2001). 

There is likely an important 

distinction between immediate 

individual reactions to noise and longterm effects of noise exposure to 

populations. The cumulative and 

synergistic effects may be more harmful 

than studies to date have been able to 

assess. Though some researchers have 

argued that habituation to sound may 

occur, this can easily be confused with 

hearing loss or individual differences in 

tolerance levels (Bejder et al., 2006). 

Scientifically recommended mammal 

sound exposure levels have been 

determined and vary depending on the 

sound source strength and the species of 

marine mammal(s) present (Southall et 

al., 2007). NMFS has recently updated 

guidance for temporary threshold shifts 

and permanent threshold shifts (see: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/

guidelines.htm). 

The issue of anthropogenic noise has 

been an area of intensive research but 

population-level impacts on cetaceans 

have not been confirmed. There is little 

definite information regarding, for 

example, the interruption of breeding 

and other behaviors or a resulting 

reduction in population growth or 

mortality of individuals. Therefore, the 

BRT considered this to be a low threat 

for all DPSs. 

Collisions between vessels and 

whales, or ship strikes, often result in 

life-threatening trauma or death for the 

cetacean. Impact is often caused by 

forceful contact with the bow or 

propeller of the vessel. Ship strikes of 

humpback whales are typically 

identified by evidence of massive blunt 

trauma (fractures of heavy bones and/or 

hemorrhaging) in stranded whales, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22327 

propeller wounds (deep slashes or cuts) 

and fluke/fin amputations on stranded 

or live whales (e.g., Wiley and Asmutis, 

1995). 

Laist et al. (2001), Jensen and Silber 

(2003), Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007), 

and VanWaerebeek and Leaper (2008) 

compiled information available 

worldwide regarding documented 

collisions between ships and large 

whales (baleen whales and sperm 

whales). Humpback whales were the 

second-most commonly reported 

victims of vessel strikes (following fin 

whales). Of 292 recorded strikes 

contained in the Jensen and Silber 

(2003) database, 44 were of humpback 

whales. As of 2008, there were more 

than 143 recorded ship strikes involving 

humpback whales worldwide (Van 

Waerebeek and Leaper, 2008); however, 

the reported number is likely not a full 

representation of the actual number 

(particularly in the Southern 

Hemisphere) as many likely go 

undetected or unreported (Williams et 

al., 2011). Reporting of ship strikes is 

highly variable internationally, with 

reports required from vessels in the 

domestic waters of Australia, the United 

States, and New Zealand but not in 

other countries. Based on the 

observations of vessel strike injuries and 

mortalities, and whale strike mitigation 

measures described above under 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms, the BRT considers the 

threat of vessel collisions to be low to 

moderate, depending on region, and 

generally increasing. 

Humpback whales may break through, 

carry away, or become entangled in 

fishing gear. Whales carrying gear may 

die at a later time, become debilitated or 

seriously injured, or have normal 

functions impaired, but with no 

assurance of the incident having been 

recorded. Of the nations reporting to the 

IWC between 2003–2008, 64.7 percent 

(n=11) noted humpback whale by-catch 

in their waters (Mattila and Rowles, 

2010). Whales have been documented 

carrying gear by fishery observer 

programs, opportunistic reports, and 

stranding networks. Some countries 

(e.g., United States, Canada, Australia, 

South Africa) have well-developed 

reporting and response networks that 

facilitate the collection of information 

on entanglement frequency and impacts. 

However, such programs do not 

guarantee that entanglements are 

detected; fewer than 10 percent of 

humpback whale entanglements 

involving Gulf of Maine humpback 

whales are reported, despite a strong 

outreach and response network 

(Robbins and Mattila, 2004). 

Furthermore, opportunistic reports that 

are not screened by experts do not 

necessarily yield accurate information 

about events, including gear type, 

configuration, and original site of 

entanglement (Robbins et al., 2007b). 

The likelihood of receiving reports 

likely varies world-wide due to 

differences in observer awareness, 

reporting mechanisms, and possible 

negative implications for reporting 

fishermen (Mattila and Rowles, 2010). 

A study of gear removed from a subset 

of whales off the U.S. East Coast showed 

that 89 percent involved pots/traps or 

gillnet gear (Johnson et al., 2005). 

However, a wide range of gear types 

were represented and every part of the 

gear was found to be capable of 

entanglement (Johnson et al., 2005). The 

authors concluded that any line in the 

water column poses a potential risk of 

entanglement to humpback whales. 

Known gear types removed from, or 

documented on, entangled whales in 

Alaska between 1990 and 2013 

indicated 32 percent of entanglements 

were from pot gear, 30 percent from gill 

net, 24 percent from other net, and 14 

percent from a combination of longline, 

seine, mooring line and marine debris 

(Jensen et al. 2014). This is further 

supported by the wide range of 

entangling gear reported in the South 

Pacific (Neilson, 2006; Lyman, 2009), 

Newfoundland (Lien et al., 1992), and 

member nations of the IWC (Mattila and 

Rowles, 2010). 

More than half of the humpback 

whale entanglements examined off the 

U.S. East Coast involved entanglements 

around the tail (Johnson et al., 2005). 

The mouth and flippers are also known 

attachment sites, but their frequency is 

more difficult to assess. Scar-based 

studies have been developed to 

systematically study the frequency of 

non-lethal entanglement involving the 

tail (Robbins and Mattila, 2001; Robbins 

and Mattila, 2004). These techniques 

have been used in the Gulf of Maine 

(e.g., Robbins and Mattila, 2001; 

Robbins and Mattila, 2004; Robbins et 

al., 2009), Southeast Alaska (Neilson et 

al., 2009), and more broadly across the 

North Pacific Ocean (Robbins et al., 

2007a; Robbins, 2009). All populations 

studied in this manner to date have 

detected individuals with entanglementrelated injuries. Annual research in the 

Gulf of Maine since 1997 has shown 

that a high percentage of individuals 

exhibit entanglement injuries and that 

new injuries are acquired at an average 

annual rate of 12 percent (Robbins et al., 

2009). A 2-year study in Southeast 

Alaska confirmed frequencies of 

entanglement injuries that were 

comparable to the Gulf of Maine 

(Neilson et al., 2009). Research 

undertaken across the North Pacific as 

part of the SPLASH project further 

suggests that entanglement is pervasive, 

but that interaction rates may be highest 

among coastal populations (Robbins et 

al., 2007a; Robbins, 2009). 

Both eye-witness reports and scarbased studies suggest that independent 

juveniles are significantly more likely to 

become entangled than adults (Robbins, 

2009). Calves exhibit a lower frequency 

of entanglement, likely due to having 

less time in which to have encountered 

gear (Neilson et al., 2009). Sex 

differences in entanglement frequency 

have been observed in some locations 

and time intervals (Robbins and Mattila, 

2001; Neilson et al., 2009), but these 

effects have not persisted in longer 

studies (Robbins and Mattila, 2004). 

Entanglement may result in only 

minor injury, or potentially may 

significantly affect individual health, 

reproduction, or survival. In one study, 

females with entanglement injuries 

produced fewer calves than females 

with no evidence of entanglement; such 

impacts on reproduction are still under 

investigation (Robbins and Mattila, 

2001). Mark-recapture studies of the fate 

of entangled whales in the Gulf of 

Maine suggest that juveniles are less 

likely than adults to survive (Robbins et 

al., 2008). Observed entanglement 

deaths and serious injuries in that 

region are known to exceed what is 

considered sustainable for the 

population (Glass et al., 2009). Most 

deaths likely go unobserved and 

preliminary studies suggest that 

entanglement may be responsible for 3– 

4 percent of total mortality, especially 

among juveniles (Robbins et al., 2009). 

Much more is known about fishing 

gear entanglement in the Northern 

Hemisphere than in the Southern 

Hemisphere. The BRT noted the 

commercialization of bycatch off Japan, 

meaning an entangled whale is legally 

allowed to be killed and sold on the 

market (Lukoschek et al., 2009). 

Therefore, entanglement often leads to 

death for humpback whales in this 

region. While the number of reported 

bycaught animals is not large (3–5), the 

number of reports has been increasing 

and reports may not reflect the actual 

number caught. The BRT also noted that 

the Mexico population has one of the 

highest scar rates from nets and lines in 

the North Pacific, indicating a high 

entanglement rate. Based on this 

information, the BRT concluded that the 

severity of the threat of fishing gear 

entanglements varies depending on 

region, ranging from low to high. 

Climate change has received 

considerable attention in recent years, 

with growing concerns about global 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22328 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

warming and the recognition of natural 

climatic oscillations on varying time 

scales, such as long-term shifts like the 

Pacific Decadal Oscillation or short-term 

shifts, like El Nin ̃ o or La Nin ̃ a. Evidence 

suggests that the biological productivity 

in the North Pacific (Lowry et al., 1988; 

Quinn and Niebauer, 1995) and other 

oceans could be affected by changes in 

the environment. Recent work has 

found that copepod distribution has 

shown signs of shifting in the North 

Atlantic due to climate change (Hays et 

al., 2005). Increases in global 

temperatures are expected to have 

profound impacts on arctic and subarctic ecosystems, and these impacts are 

projected to accelerate during this 

century (ACIA, 2004; IPCC, 2007). 

The IWC has held two workshops on 

the topic of climate change and 

cetaceans (IWC, 1997; IWC, 2010a), and 

the reports of these meetings provide 

useful summaries on the current state of 

knowledge on this issue, and on the 

large uncertainties associated with any 

projections of impact. 

It is generally accepted that cetaceans 

are unlikely to suffer problems because 

of changes in water temperature per se 

(IWC, 1997). Rather, global warming is 

more likely to effect changes in habitats 

that in turn potentially affect the 

abundance and distribution of prey in 

these areas. Factors such as ocean 

currents and water temperature may 

render currently used habitat areas 

unsuitable and influence selection of 

migration, feeding, and breeding 

locations for humpback and other 

whales. Changes in climate and 

oceanographic processes may also lead 

to decreased productivity of, or lead to 

different patterns in, prey distribution 

and availability. Such changes could 

affect whales that are dependent on this 

prey. While these regional or ocean 

basin-scale changes may occur, the 

actual magnitude and resulting impacts 

are not known. 

All cetacean species have 

undoubtedly lived through considerable 

variation in climate (including multiple 

ice ages, and significant warming 

events) over the course of their 

evolutionary history. However, there is 

little knowledge regarding the ways in 

which cetaceans dealt with climate 

change in the past. Examination of 

bones related to Basque whaling in 

Canada indicate that the range of 

bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) 

in the North Atlantic shifted south 

during the so-called Little Ice Age in 

medieval times (McLeod et al., 2008). 

This almost certainly reflected a shift in 

the distribution of prey because of 

habitat and associated productivity 

changes, and it likely reflects the ability 

of large whales to adapt and extend 

their range when necessary. 

There are no data on similar historical 

shifts by humpback whales. 

Considerable plasticity in the winter 

distribution of the species is suggested 

by the fact that the use of Hawaii as a 

major breeding ground appears to be a 

relatively recent phenomenon which 

occurred sometime in the 20th century 

(Herman, 1979); the reason for such a 

shift is not known, but it is important 

to recognize that the humpback’s winter 

distribution is not tied to prey resources 

or biological productivity, a situation 

which presumably affords the species 

with flexibility in its colonization of 

breeding habitats. 

Climate change may 

disproportionately affect species with 

specialized or restricted habitat 

requirements. The best-known example 

of this involves dependence upon sea 

ice, which is thought to represent a 

major problem for polar bears (Ursus 

maritimus), given that the species 

primarily hunts pagophilic ringed seals 

(Phoca hispida) (Schliebe et al., 2006). 

This represents a relatively simple and 

clear-cut example of cause and effect in 

the climate change debate; 

unfortunately, the situation for 

humpback whales and other cetaceans 

is not nearly as simple, given the 

complexity of the ecosystems in which 

they live. Climate change may 

exacerbate situations in which 

populations are already small and/or 

significantly affected by other 

anthropogenic impacts (such as 

entanglement or ship strikes). Species 

which possess little ability to disperse 

or colonize new habitats will also be 

particularly vulnerable. 

None of these factors apply to 

humpback whales, with the possible 

exception of the Arabian Sea 

population, which is thought to be small 

and vulnerable to entanglement, 

shipping-related issues and possibly 

pollution. Furthermore, the uniquely 

restricted range of this non-migratory 

population is currently tied to seasonal 

monsoon-driven biological productivity 

in a relatively small region; the impact 

of climate change on this productivity is 

unknown, as is the ability of these 

humpback whales to shift their range as 

may be needed. 

As noted by IPCC (2007), species in 

general potentially respond in one of 

three ways to major changes in climate: 

Redistribution, adaptation, or 

extinction. Based upon what is known 

to date, redistribution is the most likely 

response for most humpback whales. 

Most large whales, including 

humpbacks, undertake extensive 

movements, both during a feeding 

season and on migration. These broad 

ranges (which routinely encompass 

much of an ocean basin), together with 

the animals’ ability to withstand 

prolonged periods of fasting through 

utilization of fat reserves in their 

blubber, potentially provide the whales 

with a means to adapt their ranges in 

response to major climate-related spatial 

shifts in biological productivity, notably 

by seeking out new habitats. This may 

in fact already be occurring in some 

places; humpback whales have recently 

been observed in the eastern Chukchi 

and Beaufort Seas (Clarke et al., 2013), 

north of their usual range; this could 

represent the beginnings of a response 

to habitat changes relating to 

diminishing sea ice in the Arctic, 

although it might also simply reflect a 

growing population expanding its range. 

Prior to extensive whaling, humpback 

whales appear to have been quite 

common in at least the western 

(Russian) Chukchi Sea (Zenkovich, 

1954; Tomilin, 1967), and are still 

observed there today (Clarke et al., 

2013). 

The BRT determined that the level of 

the threat of climate change facing the 

Southern Hemisphere populations was 

slightly better understood than that 

facing the Northern Hemisphere 

populations. Warming waters are 

thought to be correlated with a decrease 

in krill production in the Southern 

Ocean, and this threat is likely to 

increase. The future negative impact 

implied by a low threat assignment is 

dependent on a substantial decrease in 

krill populations, a subsequent negative 

impact on prey resource availability to 

humpback whales, and lack of suitable 

alternate prey such as fish. 

The Southern Ocean is regarded as a 

relatively simple ecosystem, but even 

here there are substantial problems in 

quantifying even the most basic 

parameters such as prey abundance. 

Changes in this ecosystem are also 

driven by cyclic variability on the scale 

of years to decades (Murphy et al., 

2007). Disentangling climate change 

effects from other forms of variability 

including periodic physical forcing, 

requires time series of data that are 

typically scarce or non-existent in the 

Southern Ocean (Quetin et al., 2007). 

The responses of the Southern Ocean 

ecosystem to climate change are likely 

to be complex. Sea ice decreases may 

actually enhance overall primary 

production but could reduce ice algae 

production which occurs at a critical 

time for krill larvae (Arrigo and Thomas, 

2004). On the other hand, the location 

of upwelling of nutrient-rich deep water 

may change and result in enhanced 

primary production in areas that are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22329 

otherwise unfavorable to krill (Prezelin 

et al., 2000). 

The problems in assessing the 

relatively ‘‘simple’’ Southern Ocean 

illustrate the huge problems involved in 

predicting future changes in dynamic 

ecosystems, on scales that range from 

eddies and fronts to entire ocean basins. 

Ecosystem models are crude at best. Full 

ecosystem models involve innumerable 

parameters, yet data to quantify these— 

let alone interactions among them— 

frequently do not exist. 

The second IWC climate change 

workshop (IWC, 2010c) noted that data 

sets for use in assessing impact and 

modeling the effects of climate change 

must have: extensive duration (20–30 

years or more of information); good 

temporal resolution to capture 

variability on inter-annual and longer 

scales; and sufficient spatial scale. 

Although long-term studies of 

humpback whales exist in various 

locations in both hemispheres, these are 

often compromised by issues such as 

sampling bias, data gaps, and 

inconsistency of methods; furthermore, 

parallel data of sufficient resolution on 

environmental variables are often 

unavailable. The caveat above regarding 

the difficulty of disentangling climate 

change effects from other variables 

applies equally to determining the 

reasons for any observed changes in 

demographic parameters of humpback 

whales. 

It is instructive to compare the 

conclusions of the two IWC climate 

change workshops, separated as they 

were by more than a decade. The report 

of the 1996 workshop (IWC, 1997) notes 

that: ‘‘. . . given the uncertainties in 

modeling climate change at a suitable 

scale and thus modeling effects on 

biological processes . . . at present it is 

not possible to model in a predictive 

manner the effects of climate change on 

cetacean populations.’’ Thirteen years 

later, the second workshop came to 

much the same conclusion (IWC, 

2010c), finding that: ‘‘. . . 

improvements in climate models, as 

well as models that relate 

environmental indices to whale 

demographics and distribution had [sic] 

occurred. However, all models remain 

subject to considerable uncertainty.’’ 

The BRT assigned climate change a 

low threat level to all Southern 

Hemisphere populations based on 

current impacts to the populations. The 

threat posed by climate change to 

Northern Hemisphere humpback whale 

populations is very uncertain, but the 

BRT thought it unlikely that climate 

change was a major extinction risk 

factor. Melting and receding ice sheets 

may open more feeding habitat for 

humpback whales in the Northern 

Hemisphere. However, humpback 

whales in the Northern Hemisphere do 

not feed primarily in Arctic waters 

(which are likely to be the most 

significantly altered by climate change), 

and the extent to which Arctic habitats 

may change to support aggregations of 

prey sought by humpback whales is 

unknown. 

Overall, it is clear that humpback 

whales worldwide have exhibited 

considerable resilience despite a 

whaling history that removed the great 

majority of animals from most 

populations. This resilience, together 

with the species’ flexibility in diet and 

apparent plasticity in its distribution, 

provides some optimism that humpback 

whales can adapt to significant 

environmental changes wrought by 

global warming. Although we cannot 

predict how climate change may affect 

humpback whales in the long term, at 

present most studied populations 

appear to be recovering well, and it 

seems very unlikely that any population 

will face extinction as a result of climate 

issues within the foreseeable future. At 

this time, the record does not support a 

conclusion that climate change is likely 

to influence extinction risk to 

humpback whales in the foreseeable 

future. 

West Indies DPS 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Human population growth and 

associated coastal development 

represent potential threats to this DPS in 

certain areas of the West Indies, as well 

as in regions of high human population 

density in the high-latitude feeding 

range. The major breeding habitats of 

Silver and Navidad Banks are 

sufficiently remote from land that direct 

human impact is for the most part 

unlikely. The largest concentration of 

humpback whales in a West Indies 

habitat that is adjacent to the coast 

occurs in Samana ́ Bay, Dominican 

Republic (Mattila et al., 1994). There, 

tourism has spurred an increase in 

coastal development, which has 

presumably introduced a rise in runoff 

and effluent discharge into the waters of 

the bay. To date, there is no evidence of 

observable impact on the humpback 

whales that visit the region, but no 

studies have been conducted; that the 

whales do not feed in these tropical 

waters likely decreases their risk from 

such point source pollution. 

As noted above, although whales are 

found elsewhere in the West Indies, 

densities outside Dominican Republic 

waters are relatively low. Much of the 

additional habitat is in the waters of 

small islands in the Leeward and 

Windward groups, where any coastal 

runoff is likely to be effectively 

dispersed by highly dynamic water 

movements driven by frequently strong 

trade winds. 

In some feeding grounds, coastal 

runoff, vessel traffic and other human 

activities represent a potential threat to 

humpback whales from this DPS. This 

is likely to be most pronounced off the 

Mid-Atlantic and northeastern United 

States, and least relevant in remote 

offshore areas such as Greenland, 

Labrador and the Barents Sea. A study 

of contaminants in humpback whales 

from the Gulf of Maine found elevated 

levels of polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers 

(PBDEs), and chlordanes (Elfes et al., 

2010), although the authors concluded 

that these likely did not represent a 

conservation concern. 

Extensive oil and gas development 

and extraction occur in the southern 

portion of the humpback whale’s West 

Indies range, in the Gulf of Paria off 

Venezuela, but nothing is known of the 

impacts of this on the whales (Swartz et 

al., 2003). Energy exploration and 

development in this area are expected to 

increase. 

The best documented UME for 

humpback whales attributable to disease 

occurred in 1987–1988 in the North 

Atlantic, when at least 14 mackerelfeeding humpback whales died of 

saxitoxin poisoning (a neurotoxin 

produced by some dinoglagellate and 

cyanobacteria species) in Cape Cod, 

Massachusetts (Geraci et al., 1989). The 

whales subsequently stranded or were 

recovered in the vicinity of Cape Cod 

Bay and Nantucket Sound, and it is 

highly likely that other unrecorded 

mortalities occurred during this event. 

Such events have been linked to 

increased coastal runoff. During the first 

6 months of 1990, seven dead juvenile 

(7.6 to 9.1 m long) humpback whales 

stranded between North Carolina and 

New Jersey. The significance of these 

strandings is unknown. 

Additional UMEs occurred in the Gulf 

of Maine in 2003 (12–15 dead 

humpback whales on Georges Bank), 

2005 (7 in New England), and 2006–7 

(minimum of 21 whales), with no cause 

yet determined but HABs potentially 

implicated (Gulland, 2006; Waring et 

al., 2009). In the Gulf of Maine in 2003, 

a few sampled individuals among 16 

humpback whale carcasses were found 

with saxitoxin and domoic acid 

(produced by certain species of diatoms, 

a different type of algae (Gulland, 

2006)). The BRT discussed the possible 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22330 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

levels of unobserved mortality that may 

be resulting from HABs and determined 

that, as the West Indies population had 

been affected by HABs in the past, it is 

likely experiencing a higher level of 

HAB-related mortality than is detected. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Subsistence hunting in the North 

Atlantic occurs in Greenland and the 

island of Bequia in St. Vincent and the 

Grenadines in the Lesser Antilles 

(Reeves, 2002). Greenland began 

hunting humpback whales before 1780 

(Reeves, 2002). As the take of bowhead 

whales decreased between the years 

1750 and 1850, humpback whales 

became a more frequent target (Reeves, 

2002). Beginning in 1986, the IWC has 

not granted any catch limit for 

humpback whales to Denmark on behalf 

of Greenland, though Greenland 

reported 14 infractions over the period 

1988–2006. In 2010, a catch limit was 

reinstated, and 27 humpbacks were 

killed between 2010 and 2012. In 1986, 

St. Vincent and the Grenadines, on 

behalf of the native community of 

Bequia, asked for a humpback catch 

limit from the IWC, based on its history 

of artisanal whaling in the community 

and the small number of whales taken 

(Reeves, 2002). Bequia currently retains 

an IWC ‘‘block’’ catch limit of up to 24 

whales over a 6-year period (2013–2018) 

(IWC, 2012); they took 4 whales in 2013. 

While this subsistence hunting kills 

some West Indies DPS humpback 

whales in their breeding and feeding 

grounds, it is not likely contributing 

significantly to extinction risk of this 

DPS. 

Humpback whales represent a major 

attraction for tourists in many parts of 

the world, and in the West Indies their 

presence supports a large seasonal 

whale-watching industry in Samana ́ Bay 

(Dominican Republic). Although 

humpback whales can become 

remarkably habituated to ecotourismbased vessel traffic, whale-watching 

excursions have the potential to disturb 

or even injure animals. On feeding 

grounds such as the Gulf of Maine, 

where a large whale-watching industry 

exists, the extreme reaction of habitat 

displacement has not been observed; 

this may partly be due to the existence 

of some guidelines for the operation of 

whale-watching tours, as well as the fact 

that the whales are tied to specific areas 

by a key resource (i.e., food). Since 

whales do not eat while in sub-tropical 

waters in winter, they are theoretically 

far less constrained in their choice of 

habitat; consequently, if the whales are 

faced with high enough pressures from 

noise or other disturbance, they might 

be able to leave one breeding area and 

move to another. 

It is not clear whether recent 

anecdotal reports linking a decline in 

humpback whale abundance in Samana ́

Bay with increased cruise ship traffic 

are valid, but the potential exists to 

drive whales out of a breeding ground. 

The large number of whale-watching 

vessels and increasing presence of 

cruise ships in Samana ́ Bay suggest that 

it is very important to assess the effect 

of this traffic on the behavior and 

habitat use of the whales there. 

Currently, disturbance from whale 

watching is probably not a major 

concern for Silver Bank. Although a 

small number of dive boats operate 

‘‘swim-with-whales’’ tours there, their 

activities are regulated by the 

Dominican Republic government, and 

are limited to a very small section of the 

available habitat. There is currently no 

commercial or recreational activity on 

Navidad Bank. With the exception of 

the Gulf of Maine, there is minimal 

utilization of humpback whales for 

whale-watching or ecotourism 

elsewhere in the North Atlantic. 

This DPS is exposed to some 

scientific research activities in waters 

off the United States, Canada, and West 

Indies, but at relatively low levels. 

Adverse population effects from 

research activities have not been 

identified, and overall impact is 

expected to be low and stable. 

It is unlikely that overutilization is 

contributing to the extinction risk of the 

West Indies DPS. 

C. Disease or Predation 

There are no recent studies of disease 

in this population, but also no 

indication that it is a major risk. 

A study of apparent killer whale 

attacks in North Atlantic humpback 

whales found scarring rates ranging 

from 8.1 percent in Norwegian waters to 

22.1 percent off western Greenland; 

scarring rates among whales observed in 

the West Indies ranged from 12.3 

percent to 15.3 percent (Wade et al., 

2007). It is clear that most killer whale 

attacks occur on first-year calves prior to 

arrival in high-latitudes (Wade et al., 

2007). However, this is not regarded as 

a serious threat to population growth. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

A moratorium on oil and gas 

exploration has been in place in the 

Mid-Atlantic region since the early 

1980s. In March 2010, President Barack 

Obama announced plans to open the 

Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic 

planning areas to oil and gas 

exploration. The Federal Government 

had scheduled a lease sale offshore of 

Virginia, to take place in 2011. These 

lease sale plans were cancelled in May 

2010 following the Deepwater Horizon 

oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In 

December 2010, the Secretary of the 

Interior announced a ban on drilling in 

Federal waters off the Atlantic coast 

through 2017. While this ban remains in 

place, the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management is in the process of issuing 

a final programmatic environmental 

impact statement on possible geologic 

and geophysical activities along the 

Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 

from Delaware to midway down 

Florida’s east coast. The PEIS considers 

the potential acoustic and other impacts 

of these activities on marine mammals. 

These activities will provide new data 

for the next 5-year OCS oil and gas 

program for the South and Mid-Atlantic 

OCS and for possible oil and gas leasing 

in the 2017–2022 period. 

In Nova Scotia, oil and gas 

exploration and development began in 

1967. Canadian government estimates 

show that Nova Scotia’s oil and gas 

resource potential is significant. In Nova 

Scotia, there are currently two 

producing offshore natural gas projects, 

the Sable Offshore Energy Project SOEP 

and Deep Panuke. In 1988, Canada 

implemented a moratorium on oil and 

gas development on Georges Bank, to 

the southwest of Nova Scotia. In 2010, 

Canada extended the moratorium, 

which was set to expire at the end of 

2012, until December 31, 2015. 

Silver Bank, Navidad Bank, and 

portions of Samana ́ Bay have been 

designated by the Dominican Republic 

as a humpback whale sanctuary (Hoyt, 

2013). 

Whalers from the St. Vincent and the 

Grenadines island of Bequia have a 

quota from the IWC; most recently, 

Bequia was given a ‘‘block’’ quota of up 

to 24 whales over a six-year period 

(2013–2018) (IWC, 2012). The Scientific 

Committee of the IWC has determined 

that the allowed quota would have no 

impact on the growth rate of this 

population (IWC, 2012). 

As noted above, whale-watching 

activities in the Silver Bank are 

regulated by the Dominican Republic 

government, and there is currently no 

commercial or recreational activity on 

Navidad Bank. 

Under the authority of the ESA and 

the MMPA, we have issued regulations 

such as the NMFS right whale ship 

strike regulations in the U.S. North 

Atlantic and other regional or local 

maritime speed zones, and these help 

reduce the threat of vessel collisions 

involving humpback whales. The ship 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22331 

collision reduction rule established 

regulations to limit vessel speeds to no 

more than 10 knots (18.5 km/hr), 

applicable to all vessels 65 feet (19.8m) 

or greater in length in certain locations 

and at certain times of the year along the 

east coast of the U.S. Atlantic seaboard 

(73 FR 60173; October 10, 2008). 

In 1999, NMFS and the U.S. Coast 

Guard established two Mandatory Ship 

Reporting systems aimed at reducing 

ship strikes of North Atlantic right 

whales. When ships greater than 300 

gross tons enter two key right whale 

habitats—one off the northeast United 

States and one off the southeast United 

States—they are required to report to a 

shore-based station. In return, ships 

receive a message about whales, their 

vulnerability to ship strikes, 

precautionary measures the ship can 

take to avoid hitting a whale, and 

locations of recent sightings. While 

these systems were designed to protect 

right whales specifically, they are 

expected to also reduce the risk of ship 

strikes to other large whales, including 

humpback whales (NMFS, 2008). 

On February 18, 2005, the U.S. Coast 

Guard (USCG) announced a Port Access 

Route Study (PARS) of Potential Vessel 

Routing Measures to Reduce Vessel 

Strikes of North Atlantic Right Whales 

(70 FR 8312). Potential vessel routing 

measures were analyzed and considered 

to adjust existing vessel routing 

measures in the northern region of the 

Atlantic Coast, which included Cape 

Cod Bay, the area off Race Point at the 

northern end of Cape Cod, and the Great 

South Channel. As a result of this 

information, we recommended 

realigning and amending the location 

and size of the western portion of the 

TSS in the approach to Boston, 

Massachusetts. The TSS was revised in 

2007, and the new configuration 

appeared on nautical charts soon 

thereafter. 

On November 19, 2007, the USCG 

announced a second PARS to Analyze 

Potential Vessel Routing Measures to 

Reduce Vessel Strikes of North Atlantic 

Right Whales while also Minimizing 

Adverse Effects on Vessel Operations 

(72 FR 64968). The study area included 

approaches to Boston, MA, specifically, 

a northern right whale critical habitat in 

the area east and south of Cape Cod, 

MA, and the Great South Channel, 

including Georges Bank out to the 

exclusive economic zone boundary. In 

the second PARS, the USCG 

recommended establishing a seasonal 

Area to be Avoided (ATBA) and 

amending the southeastern portion of 

the TSS to make it uniform throughout 

its length. On behalf of the United 

States, the USCG submitted a series of 

proposals to the IMO (see International 

Maritime Organization discussion 

above) to modify the TSS and to 

establish an ATBA, which were 

subsequently endorsed by the IMO 

(Silber et al., 2012) and as described in 

the IMO’s publication, ‘‘Ships’ Routing’’ 

2008. In 2009, the TSS was revised and 

the ATBA was established. This was 

followed by a notice in the Federal 

Register announcing these changes (75 

FR 77529; December 13, 2010) and 

NMFS added the changes to applicable 

nautical charts. While the measures are 

designed specifically for the North 

Atlantic right whale, they are expected 

to benefit humpback whales cooccurring in these areas. 

In 2007, a program of auto-detection 

buoys and real-time whale vocalization 

detection information was incorporated 

into the Boston TSS as mitigation for 

liquefied natural gas (LNG) ship strike 

risk, primarily as a result of an ESA 

Section 7 consultation with the 

Maritime Administration. This program, 

stipulated as a condition of the 

consultation, was designed to reduce 

the threat of vessel collisions with right 

whales and other listed large whale 

species, including humpback whales in 

and around the boundaries of 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary. When right whales are autodetected in the vicinity, LNG vessels are 

required to travel at speeds of 10 knots 

or less, a measure that almost certainly 

reduces the likelihood of vessel strikes 

of humpback whales occurring in the 

area as well. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

The largest potential threats to the 

West Indies DPS are entanglement in 

fishing gear and ship strikes; these occur 

primarily in the feeding grounds, with 

some documented in the mid-Atlantic 

U.S. migratory grounds. There are no 

reliable estimates of entanglement or 

ship-strike mortalities for most of the 

North Atlantic. During the period 2003– 

2007, the minimum annual rate of 

human-caused mortality and serious 

injury (from both entanglements and 

ship collisions) for the Gulf of Maine 

feeding population averaged 4.4 animals 

per year (Waring et al., 2009). Off 

Newfoundland, an average of 50 

humpback whale entanglements (range 

26–66) was reported annually between 

1979 and 1988 (Lien et al., 1988); 

another 84 were reported entangled in 

either Newfoundland or Labrador from 

2000–2006 (Waring et al., 2009). Not all 

entanglements result in mortality 

(Waring et al., 2009). However, all of 

these figures are likely to be 

underestimates, as not all entanglements 

are observed. A study of entanglementrelated scarring on the caudal peduncle 

of 134 individual humpback whales in 

the Gulf of Maine suggested that 

between 48 percent and 65 percent had 

experienced entanglements (Robbins 

and Mattila, 2001). 

Ship strike injuries were identified for 

8 percent (10 of 123) of dead stranded 

humpback whales between 1975–1996 

along the U.S. east coast, 25 percent 

(9 of 36) of which were along midAtlantic and southeast states (south of 

the Gulf of Maine) between Delaware 

Bay and Okracoke Island North Carolina 

(Wiley and Asmutis, 1995). Ship strikes 

made up 4 percent of observed 

humpback whale mortalities between 

2001–2005 (Nelson et al., 2007) and 7 

percent between 2005–2009 (Henry et 

al., 2011) along the U.S. east coast, and 

the Canadian Maritimes. Among 

strandings along the mid and southeast 

U.S. coastline during 1975–1996, 80 

percent (8 of 10) of struck whales were 

considered to be less than 3 years old 

based on their length (Laist et al., 2001). 

This suggests that young whales may be 

disproportionately affected. However, 

those waters are thought to be used 

preferentially by young animals 

(Swingle et al., 1993; Barco et al., 2002). 

It should be noted that ship strikes do 

not always produce external injuries 

and may therefore be underestimated 

among strandings that are not examined 

for internal injuries. 

Underwater noise can potentially 

affect whale behavior, although impacts 

are unclear. Concerns about effects of 

noise include behavioral disruption, 

interference with communication, 

displacement from habitats and, in 

extreme cases, physical damage to 

hearing (Nowacek et al., 2007). Singing 

humpback whales have been observed 

to lengthen their songs in response to 

low-frequency active sonar (Miller et al., 

2000) and reduce song duration from 

distant remote sensing (Risch et al., 

2012). Hatch et al. (2008) conducted a 

study analyzing commercial vessel 

traffic in the Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary and its effect on 

ambient noise. This study revealed 

significantly elevated and widespread 

ambient noise levels due to vessel 

traffic, but further research is needed to 

determine the direct impacts to marine 

mammals. 

Because of the low level of human 

activity on Silver and Navidad Banks, 

noise is currently not a concern in this 

area. Samana ́ Bay, however, already has 

much vessel activity and therefore has 

the potential for considerable impact on 

whales from noise. Noise sources 

include whale-watching vessels, which 

approach whales closely and thus 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22332 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

presumably create a loud acoustic 

environment in close proximity to the 

animals, and cruise ships, which may be 

more distant but whose size guarantees 

that, at certain frequencies, noise levels 

in the bay will be very high. There are 

also additional sources in the form of 

container ships or other commercial 

vessels that enter the bay periodically. 

Underwater noise levels are expected to 

increase. 

The BRT considered offshore 

aquaculture to be a low, but increasing, 

threat to this DPS and competition with 

fisheries a low threat to this DPS. 

Overall population level effects from 

global climate change for this DPS are 

not known; nonetheless, any potential 

impacts resulting from this threat will 

almost certainly increase. Currently, 

climate change does not appear to pose 

a significant threat to the growth of this 

DPS now or in the foreseeable future. 

HABs, vessel collisions, and fishing 

gear entanglements are likely to 

moderately reduce the population size 

and/or the growth rate of the West 

Indies DPS. All other threats, with the 

exception of climate change (unknown 

severity), are considered likely to have 

no or minor impact on population size 

or the growth rate of this DPS. 

Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa 

DPS 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Habitat conditions for this DPS are 

poorly known. Some members of the 

population use the waters around the 

Cape Verde Islands for breeding and 

calving, but where the remaining 

hypothesized fraction goes is unknown. 

In considering the Cape Verde Islands/ 

Northwest Africa DPS, it was noted that 

oil spills occur off West Africa, but 

these levels are thought to be lower than 

in some other regions and the impact of 

non-catastrophic spills on humpback 

whales when they are on the breeding 

grounds was not considered significant. 

The threat of energy exploration to the 

Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa 

population was considered low. 

There is little to no information on the 

impacts of HABs on this DPS. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Because the breeding range of this 

DPS is largely unknown, the importance 

of anthropogenic disturbance (from 

activities such as whale-watching, 

offshore aquaculture, fishing gear 

entanglements, and scientific research) 

to this DPS is largely unknown. At 

present, threats appear low relative to 

other populations, but again, much of 

the distribution of individuals from the 

Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa 

DPS is unknown. There is no current or 

planned commercial whaling in this 

area. 

C. Disease or Predation 

There is little to no information on the 

impacts of disease, predation, or 

parasites on this DPS. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

No regulatory mechanisms specific to 

the Cape Verde Islands/Northwest 

Africa DPS were identified. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

There is little to no information on the 

impacts of vessel collisions, climate 

change, or anthropogenic noise on the 

Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa 

DPS, although each is expected to 

increase. Competition with fisheries and 

offshore aquaculture were considered 

low threats to this DPS. 

The threats of HABs, disease, 

parasites, vessel collisions, fishing gear 

entanglements, and climate change to 

this DPS are unknown. All other threats 

to this DPS are considered likely to have 

no or minor impact on the population 

size and/or growth rate. 

Western North Pacific DPS 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Humpback whales in the Western 

North Pacific are at some risk of habitat 

loss or curtailment from a range of 

human activities. Confidence in 

information about, and documentation 

of, these activities is relatively good, 

except on the unknown breeding 

grounds included in this DPS. Given 

continued human population growth 

and economic development in most of 

the Asian region, these threats can be 

expected to increase. 

Coastal development, including 

shipping, and habitat degradation are 

potential threats along most of the coast 

of Japan, South Korea and China. 

Organochlorines and mercury are found 

in relatively high levels in most 

cetaceans along the Asian coast 

(Simmonds, 2002). Although the threat 

to the health of this DPS is unknown, 

the accumulation of these pollutants can 

be expected to increase over time. 

The BRT noted that the Sea of 

Okhotsk currently has a high level of 

energy exploration and development, 

and these activities are likely to expand 

with little regulation or oversight. The 

BRT determined that the threat posed by 

energy exploration to the Okinawa/

Philippines DPS it identified is 

medium, but noted that there was low 

certainty regarding this since specifics 

of feeding location (on or off the shelf) 

are unavailable. If feeding activity 

occurs on the shelf in the Sea of 

Okhotsk, energy exploration in this area 

could impact what is likely one of the 

most depleted subunits of humpback 

whales. The threat posed by energy 

exploration to the Second West Pacific 

DPS identified by the BRT was 

unknown. 

As above, naturally occurring 

biotoxins from dinoflagellates and other 

organisms are known to exist within the 

range of this DPS, although known 

humpback whale deaths attributable to 

biotoxin exposure do not exist in the 

Pacific. The occurrence of HABs is 

expected to increase with the growth of 

various types of human-related 

activities. The level of confidence in the 

predicted increase is moderate. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

There are no proposals for scientific, 

aboriginal/subsistence or commercial 

hunting of humpback whales in the 

North Pacific under consideration by 

the IWC at this time. Some degree of 

illegal, unreported or unregulated (IUU) 

exploitation, including ‘commercial 

bycatch whaling,’ has been documented 

in both Japan and South Korea through 

genetic identification of whale meat 

sold in commercial markets (Baker et 

al., 2000; Baker et al., 2006). Genetic 

monitoring of Japanese markets (1993– 

2009) identified humpback whale as the 

source of 17 whale meat products. 

These are believed to have been killed 

through direct or indirect fisheries 

entanglement (Steel et al., 2009). In 

Japan and Korea, it is legal to kill and 

sell any entangled whale as long as the 

take is reported; there is suspicion that 

this provides an incentive for 

intentional ‘‘entanglements,’’ though the 

level of such intentional takes is 

currently unknown (Lukoschek et al., 

2009). Some degree of IUU exploitation 

is also possible in other regions within 

the range of humpback whales in the 

Western North Pacific DPS, including 

Taiwan and the Philippines, given past 

histories of whaling. The full extent of 

IUU exploitation is unknown. Official 

reports of whales taken as bycatch 

entanglement and destined for 

commercial markets are considered to 

be incomplete (Lukoschek et al., 2009). 

Some poaching is reported to occur in 

Korean waters and is suspected off 

Japan (Baker et al., 2002; IWC 2005c), 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22333 

and for this reason the threat of whaling 

to the Western North Pacific DPS was 

determined to be medium. 

There is some whale-watching and 

non-lethal scientific research in 

Japanese waters, primarily in Ogasawara 

and Okinawa, but this is at low levels 

and not thought to pose a risk to this 

DPS. 

C. Disease or Predation 

The evidence of killer whale attacks 

on humpback whales in this DPS is low 

(6–8 percent) relative to other North 

Pacific humpback whales (Steiger et al., 

2008). Certainty in this information is 

considered moderate and the magnitude 

is expected to remain stable. There are 

no reports of disease in this DPS and 

levels of parasitism are unknown. 

Trends in the severity of disease and 

parasitism are also unknown. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

No regulatory mechanisms specific to 

the Western North Pacific DPS were 

identified. A continuing source of 

potential adverse impacts to humpback 

whales is interactions with vessels, 

including whale-watching and fishing 

vessels. NMFS issued a final rule (66 FR 

29502; May 31, 2001) effective in 2001 

in waters within 200 nautical miles (370 

km) of Alaska, making it unlawful for a 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to (a) approach within 100 

yards (91.4 m) of a humpback whale, (b) 

cause a vessel or other object to 

approach within 100 yards (91.4 m) of 

a humpback whale or (c) disrupt the 

normal behavior or prior activity of a 

whale. Exceptions to this rule include 

approaches permitted by NMFS; vessels 

which otherwise would be restricted in 

their ability to maneuver; commercial 

fishing vessels legally engaged in fishery 

activities; and state, local and Federal 

government vessels operating in official 

duty (50 CFR 224.103(b)). This rule 

provides some protection from vessel 

strikes to a portion of Western North 

Pacific DPS individuals while in their 

feeding grounds in the Aleutian Islands, 

though the size and location of the area 

present some challenge to enforcement. 

Its effectiveness could be improved 

through greater general public 

awareness of the 100-yard (91.4-m) 

regulation, particularly with regard to 

‘‘placing a vessel in path of oncoming 

humpback . . .’’ and ‘‘operate at slow 

safe speed when near a humpback 

whale.’’ 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Humpback whales in the Western 

North Pacific DPS are likely to be 

exposed to relatively high levels of 

underwater noise resulting from human 

activities that may include commercial 

and recreational vessel traffic, and 

military activities. Overall populationlevel effects of exposure to underwater 

noise are not well established, but 

exposure is likely chronic and at 

relatively high levels. As vessel traffic 

and other activities are expected to 

increase, the level of this threat is 

expected to increase. The level of 

confidence in this information is 

moderate. 

The likely range of the Western North 

Pacific DPS includes some of the 

world’s largest centers of human 

activities and shipping. Although 

reporting of ship strikes is requested in 

the Annual Progress reports to the IWC, 

reporting by Japan and Korea is likely to 

be poor. A reasonable assumption, 

although not established, is that 

shipping traffic will increase as global 

commerce increases; thus, a reasonable 

assumption is that the level of the threat 

will increase. The threat of ship strikes 

was therefore considered to be medium 

for the Okinawa/Philippines portion of 

this DPS and unknown for the Second 

West Pacific portion of this DPS. 

The BRT discussed the high level of 

fishing pressure in the region occupied 

by the Okinawa/Philippines population 

(a small humpback whale population). 

Although specific information on prey 

abundance and competition between 

whales and fisheries is not known in 

this area, overlap of whales and 

fisheries has been indicated by the 

bycatch of humpback whales in set-nets 

in the area. The BRT determined that 

competition with fisheries is a medium 

threat for this DPS, given the high level 

of fishing and small humpback whale 

population. 

The Fisheries Agency of Japan 

considers whales to be likely 

competitors with some fisheries, 

although direct evidence of these 

interactions is lacking for humpback 

whales in the region (other than net 

entanglement). Whales along the coast 

of Japan and Korea are at risk of 

entanglement related mortality in 

fisheries gear, although overall rates of 

net and rope scarring are similar to 

other regions of the North Pacific 

(Brownell et al., 2000). The threat of 

mortality from any such entanglement is 

high, given the incentive for commercial 

sale allowed under Japanese and Korean 

legislation (Lukoschek et al., 2009). The 

reported number of humpback whale 

entanglements/deaths has increased for 

Japan since 2001 as a result of improved 

reporting, although the actual number of 

entanglements may be underrepresented 

in both Japan and Korea (Baker et al., 

2006). The level of confidence in 

understanding the minimum magnitude 

of this threat is medium for the 

Okinawa/Philippines portion of this 

DPS and low for the Second West 

Pacific portion of this DPS, given the 

unknown wintering grounds and 

primary migratory corridors. 

Overall population level effects from 

global climate change are not known; 

nonetheless, any potential impacts 

resulting from this threat will almost 

certainly increase. The level of 

confidence in the magnitude of this 

threat is poor. 

In summary, energy development, 

whaling, competition with fisheries, and 

vessel collisions are considered likely to 

moderately reduce the population size 

or the growth rate of the Okinawa/

Philippines portion of the DPS, and 

fishing gear entanglements are 

considered likely to seriously reduce its 

population size or growth rate. Other 

threats are considered likely to have no 

or minor impact on population size and/ 

or the growth rate, or are unknown, for 

the Western North Pacific DPS. In 

general, there is great uncertainty about 

the threats facing the Second West 

Pacific portion of this DPS. 

Hawaii DPS 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Other than its Hawaiian Islands 

breeding area, the Hawaii DPS inhabits 

some of the least populated areas in the 

United States (Alaska) and Canadian 

(Northern British Columbia) coastal 

waters. Coastal development, which 

may include such things as port 

expansion or waterfront development, 

occurs in both the United States and 

Canada; runoff from coastal 

development in Hawaii and continued 

human population growth are potential 

threats. Confidence in information 

about, and documentation of, these 

activities and their impacts is moderate. 

Given continued human population 

growth in the region, the threat can be 

expected to increase. 

This DPS had the lowest levels of 

DDTs, PCBs, and PBPEs observed for 

North Pacific humpback whales 

sampled on all their known feeding 

grounds except Russia, between 2004 

and 2006; in particular, levels were 

lower than observed in humpback 

whales from the U.S. West Coast, as 

well as the North Atlantic’s Gulf of 

Maine (Elfes et al., 2010). The levels 

observed in all areas are considered 

moderate and not expected to have a 

significant effect on population growth 

(Elfes et al., 2010). Confidence in this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22334 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

information is moderate, but the trend is 

unknown. 

In March 2010, Interior Secretary 

Salazar and President Obama 

announced a landmark decision to 

cancel a lease sale scheduled for 2011 

(in the 5.6 million acre block in Bristol 

Bay, southeastern Bering Sea), and to 

reinstate protection for the region until 

2017. However, if exploration and 

drilling were authorized after 2017, it 

would represent a potential threat to 

this DPS in its feeding grounds. 

Naturally occurring biotoxins from 

dinoflagellates and other toxins exist 

within the range of this DPS. Although 

humpback whale mortality as a result of 

exposure has not been documented in 

this DPS, it has been reported from 

other feeding grounds, so it is 

considered a possibility. HAB 

occurrence is expected to increase with 

the growth of various types of humanrelated activities, and with increasing 

water temperatures. The level of 

confidence in exposure to HABs and in 

these assertions is moderate. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

There are no planned commercial 

whaling activities in this DPS’ range; 

however, modest aboriginal hunting has 

been proposed in British Columbia 

(Reeves, 2002). Certainty in this 

information is considered relatively 

high and the magnitude is expected to 

remain stable. 

This DPS is exposed to whalewatching activities in both its feeding 

and breeding grounds, but at medium 

(Hawaii and Alaska) to low levels 

(British Columbia). Adverse population 

effects from whale-watching have not 

been documented, and overall impact of 

whale-watching is expected to be low 

and stable. 

This DPS is exposed to some 

scientific research activities in both U.S. 

and Canadian waters, but at relatively 

low levels. Adverse population effects 

from research activities have not been 

identified, and overall impact is 

expected to be low and stable. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Evidence of killer whale attacks (15– 

20 percent) in the humpback whales 

found in Hawaiian waters is moderate 

(Steiger et al., 2008) and lower for 

Alaska and Canada. This is not regarded 

as a serious threat to population growth. 

Shark predation likely occurs as well, 

although evidence suggests the primary 

targets are the weak and unhealthy. 

Certainty in this information is 

considered relatively high and the 

magnitude is expected to remain stable. 

There are no known reports of 

unusual disease or mass mortality 

events for this DPS. Trends may 

increase slightly in response to other 

stressors, such as warming oceans and 

other stressors that may compromise 

immune systems. 

Levels of parasitism in this 

population are not well known, 

although approximately 2/3 of 

humpback whales in Hawaii show some 

evidence of permanent, raised skin 

lesions, which may be a reaction to an 

as yet unknown parasite (Mattila and 

Robbins, 2008). However, there is no 

evidence that these ‘‘bumps’’ impact 

health or reproduction, or cause 

mortality. Trends in the severity of this 

threat are unknown. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

There has been a moratorium on 

offshore oil drilling in the waters of 

Northern British Columbia since 1972, 

but there has also been a recent proposal 

to lift the ban, driven largely by local 

government (British Columbia Energy 

Plan, 2007). If so, this potential threat 

could increase in this portion of the 

habitat. 

A continuing source of potential 

adverse impacts to humpback whales is 

interactions with vessels, including 

whale-watching and fishing vessels. 

Under the authorities of section 11(f) of 

the ESA and section 112(a) of the 

MMPA, NMFS issued a final rule (66 FR 

29502; May 31, 2001) effective in 2001 

in waters within 200 nautical miles (370 

km) of Alaska, making it unlawful for a 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to (a) approach within 100 

yards (91.4 m) of a humpback whale, (b) 

cause a vessel or other object to 

approach within 100 yards (91.4 m) of 

a humpback whale or (c) disrupt the 

normal behavior or prior activity of a 

whale (50 CFR 224.103(b)). Exceptions 

to this rule include approaches 

permitted by NMFS; vessels which 

otherwise would be restricted in their 

ability to maneuver; commercial fishing 

vessels legally engaged in fishery 

activities; and state, local and Federal 

government vessels operating in official 

duty. This rule provides some 

protection from vessel strikes to Hawaii 

DPS individuals while in their feeding 

grounds, though its effectiveness could 

be improved by a greater enforcement 

presence and greater general public 

awareness of the 100-yard (91.4-m) 

regulation, particularly with regard to 

‘‘placing a vessel in path of oncoming 

humpback . . .’’ and ‘‘operate at slow 

safe speed when near a humpback 

whale.’’ 

Vessel approach regulations are also 

in place for humpback whales in 

Hawaiian waters (50 CFR 224.103(a)). 

These are similar to the Alaska 

regulations, with an additional 

prohibition against operating any 

aircraft within 1,000 feet (300 m) of any 

humpback whale. The regulations were 

adopted in 1987 under authority of the 

ESA and later amended to delete a 

provision that was inconsistent with the 

MMPA. See 52 FR 44,912 (November 

23, 1987); 60 FR 3,775 (January 19, 

1995) (deleting 223.31(b) as mandated 

by Section 17 of the MMPA 

Amendments of 1994, Public Law 103– 

238, because the MMPA provided that 

approach to 100 yards (91.4 m) is legal, 

whereas the regulatory provision had 

allowed approach only to within 300 

yards (274.3 m) in cow/calf areas). 

As noted above under Section 4(a)(1) 

Factors Applicable to All DPSs, the 

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale 

National Marine Sanctuary was 

established primarily to provide 

protections to a key North Pacific 

humpback whale breeding/nursery area, 

and therefore, it should contribute to 

reducing the extinction risk of the 

Hawaii DPS of the humpback whale. 

Among the regulations in effect in the 

sanctuary are approach regulations 

substantially similar to those at 50 CFR 

224.103(a) (See 15 CFR 922.184). 

Although substantially similar, the 

approach regulations effective in the 

sanctuary protect humpback whales in a 

narrower geographic range than do the 

current ESA approach regulations. 

Because these regulations apply only 

within the sanctuary, we seek public 

comment on whether the sanctuary 

protections would be sufficient for the 

protection of humpback whales from 

vessel interactions throughout the 

Hawaiian Islands, recognizing that the 

existing approach regulations at 50 CFR 

224.103(a), which were adopted under 

authority of the ESA only, would no 

longer be applicable and would need to 

be removed if this rule becomes final 

and the Hawaii DPS of humpback 

whales is not listed under the ESA (See 

ADDRESSES). Commenters should 

consider the impacts of the Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries’ recent 

proposal to expand the sanctuary 

boundaries and strengthen the approach 

provisions (80 FR 16224, 16227, 16238; 

March 26, 2015). 

In Canada, humpback whales are 

managed by the Department of Fisheries 

and Oceans (DFO) and legally protected 

through the Marine Mammal 

Regulations under the Fisheries Act, 

1985. These regulations make it an 

offense to disturb, kill, fish for, move, 

tag, or mark marine mammals (ss. 5, 7, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22335 

11) without a valid license. In 2003, the 

North Pacific humpback whale 

population status was assessed as 

‘‘threatened’’ by the Committee on the 

Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 

(COSEWIC), and in 2005 the population 

was listed as ‘‘threatened’’ under 

Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA), 

affording it legal protection (it is an 

offense to kill, harm, harass, capture or 

take a listed species (Section 32(1)). The 

population’s status was re-assessed as 

‘‘special concern’’ in 2011 by COSEWIC. 

Following public consultation regarding 

the reclassification of the species, the 

DFO has referred the assessment of 

‘‘special concern’’ back to COSEWIC for 

further consideration, and the SARA 

status of North Pacific humpback whale 

remains unchanged at the publication of 

the 2013 Recovery Strategy (Fisheries 

and Oceans Canada. 2013). Should the 

SARA status of humpback whales 

remain unchanged, an action plan to 

implement the 2013 recovery strategy 

will be completed within 5 years of its 

final posting on the Species at Risk 

Public Registry. Hawaii DPS whales 

should benefit from any protections 

afforded by SARA when they are in 

British Columbia feeding grounds. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

There is suspected interaction with 

the herring fishery in Southeast Alaska, 

but impacts to humpback whales are 

considered to be modest; the level of 

certainty in this information is moderate 

and currently under study, and impacts 

are considered stable because the 

herring fishery is regulated. Humpback 

whales may compete with fisheries in 

British Columbia as well, as they also 

have a herring fishery, as well as a 

‘‘krill’’ fishery. 

Currently, two modest offshore 

aquaculture sites are located in Hawaii, 

and their placement overlaps with 

humpback whale habitat. However, 

there have been no known fatal 

interactions, and indirect impacts from 

food, waste, or medicines being 

provided to the cultivated species are 

likely to be low, as humpback whales do 

not feed in Hawaii. The level of 

certainty in this information is high. 

However, if these and other operations 

expand to areas of high use by the 

whales, at a minimum they could 

physically exclude humpback whales 

from some of their preferred habitat. 

Deep-water, finfish aquaculture in 

Alaska is currently prohibited. 

However, some shellfish and herring 

‘‘pond’’ aquaculture and salmon 

hatchery pens exist close to shore. There 

are no known fatal encounters with this 

type of aquaculture in Alaska; however, 

there are documented cases of 

humpback whales becoming entangled 

in herring ‘‘pond’’ and other 

aquaculture gear in British Columbia 

(Baird, 2003). There have been 

proposals to allow finfish aquaculture in 

Alaska, which would increase the threat 

from this activity in this portion of the 

DPS’ range; however, Alaska State 

policy is 100 percent against this. The 

indirect impacts of aquaculture (e.g., on 

health and abundance of prey from 

disease or possibly habitat disruption 

from poor siting) are not well known, 

but the BRT did not consider these 

effects to be substantial and rated 

aquaculture as a low threat. We are 

unaware of humpback whale 

entanglement involving aquaculture in 

Hawaii or in Alaska. However, given 

decreasing catches of wild fish stocks, 

and resulting strong incentives to 

expand aquaculture in Hawaii, the 

threat to the Hawaii DPS posed by 

aquaculture is likely to increase. 

This DPS is likely exposed to 

moderate levels of underwater noise 

resulting from human activities, which 

may include, for example, commercial 

and recreational vessel traffic, pile 

driving from coastal construction, and 

activities in Naval test ranges. Overall 

population-level effects of exposure to 

underwater noise are not well 

established, but exposure is likely 

chronic. As vessel traffic and other 

activities are expected to increase, the 

level of this threat is expected to 

increase. The level of confidence in this 

information is moderate. 

The range of this DPS includes some 

centers of human activities in both 

Canadian and U.S. waters. Reports of 

vessel collisions in Hawaii have 

increased since 2003, when an extensive 

educational campaign and hotline 

number were initiated; however the 

percentage of these that result in fatality 

is unknown. Numerous collisions have 

also been reported from Alaska and 

British Columbia (where shipping traffic 

has increased 200 percent in 20 years) 

(Neilson et al., 2012). According to a 

summary of Alaska ship strike records, 

an average of 5 strikes a year was 

reported from 1978–2011 (Neilson et al., 

2012). However, effects in Alaska may 

be mitigated by the vessel approach 

regulations discussed above (66 FR 

29502; May 31, 2001; 50 CFR 224.103) 

and by NMFS outreach to the cruise 

ship industry to share information about 

whale siting locations. 

The level of certainty in this 

information is high. Humpback whale 

carcasses have been reported in many 

areas of Alaska, but given the isolated 

nature of some of these areas, necropsies 

are not always possible to determine 

cause of death. In addition, many 

carcasses likely go unreported, thus ship 

strike numbers should be considered 

minimum estimates. A reasonable 

assumption is that the level of the threat 

will increase in proportion with 

increases in global commerce. Although 

5–10 ship strikes are reported per year 

in Hawaii and the actual number of ship 

strikes is estimated to be potentially one 

order of magnitude greater than this 

(Lammers et al., 2003), the BRT still 

considered this threat level to be 

minimal, given the very large 

population size, fast rate of growth 

observed in this DPS, the vessel 

approach regulations in Alaska, and 

NMFS outreach to the cruise ship 

industry. 

Recent studies of characteristic 

wounds and scarring indicate that this 

DPS experiences a high rate of 

interaction with fishing gear (20–71 

percent), with the highest rates recorded 

in Southeast Alaska and Northern 

British Columbia (Neilson et al., 2009). 

However, these rates represent only 

survivors. Fatal entanglements of 

humpback whales in fishing gear have 

been reported in all areas, but, given the 

isolated nature of much of their range, 

observed fatalities are almost certainly 

under-reported and should be 

considered minimum estimates. Recent 

studies in another humpback whale 

feeding ground, which has similar levels 

of scarring, estimate that the actual 

annual mortality rate from entanglement 

may be as high as 3.7 percent (Angliss 

and Outlaw, 2008). There is a high level 

of certainty with regard to this 

information. The threat is considered to 

be medium. 

Overall population level effects from 

global climate change are not known; 

nonetheless, any potential impacts 

resulting from this threat will almost 

certainly increase. Climate change was 

not considered to be a major risk to this 

DPS currently, however. The level of 

confidence in the magnitude of this 

threat is low. 

In summary, fishing gear 

entanglement is considered to be a 

medium threat to the Hawaii DPS. All 

other threats are considered likely to 

have no or minor impact on population 

size and/or the growth rate or are 

unknown but assumed to be minor 

(based largely on the current abundance 

and population growth trend) for the 

Hawaii DPS. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22336 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Mexico DPS 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Breeding locations used by the 

Mexico DPS (and migratory routes to get 

to aggregation areas) are adjacent to 

large human population centers. The 

DPS may, therefore, be exposed to 

adverse effects from a number of human 

activities, including fishing activities 

(possible competition with fisheries), 

effluent and runoff from human 

population centers as coastal 

development increases, activities 

associated with oil and gas 

development, and a great deal of vessel 

traffic. 

Southern California humpback whales 

were found to have the highest levels of 

DDT, PCBs, and PBDEs of all North 

Pacific humpback whales sampled on 

their feeding grounds (Elfes et al., 2010). 

The DDT levels detected were greater 

than those found in the typically more 

contaminated Gulf of Maine humpback 

whales, possibly due to the historical 

dumping of DDT off Palos Verdes 

Peninsula (Elfes et al., 2010). It is not 

possible to state unequivocally if 

population level impacts occur as a 

result of these contaminant loads, but 

Elfes et al. (2010) suggested the levels 

found in humpback whales are unlikely 

to have a significant impact on their 

persistence as a population. 

There are currently numerous active 

oil and energy leases and offshore oil 

rigs off the U.S. west coast. Offshore 

LNG terminals have been proposed for 

California and Baja California. The 

feeding grounds for this DPS are 

therefore an active area with regard to 

energy exploration and development. 

However, there are no plans at present 

to open the West Coast to further 

drilling. Alternative energies, such as 

wind and wave energy, may be 

developed in the future in this region. 

Currently, the threat posed to this DPS 

by energy exploration and development 

is low, and is considered stable. 

Naturally occurring biotoxins from 

dinoflagellates and other organisms are 

known to exist within the range of this 

DPS, though there are no records of 

known humpback whale deaths 

attributable to biotoxin exposure in the 

Pacific. The occurrence of HABs is 

expected to increase with nutrient 

runoff associated with the growth of 

various types of human-related 

activities. The level of certainty in the 

impacts of exposure to HABs is 

moderate. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

No whaling currently occurs in this 

DPS’ range. 

The Mexico humpback whale DPS is 

exposed to some whale watching 

activities in both U.S. and Mexican 

waters, but at low levels. Adverse effects 

from whale watching have not been 

documented, and overall impact of 

whale watching is expected to be low 

and stable. 

This DPS is exposed to some 

scientific research activities in both U.S. 

and Mexican waters, but at relatively 

low levels. Adverse effects from 

research activities have not been 

identified, and overall impact is 

expected to be low and stable. 

C. Disease or Predation 

With regard to natural mortality of 

individuals in the Mexico DPS, 

humpback whales in the California 

feeding area had a higher incidence of 

rake marks attributed to killer whale 

attacks (20 percent) than in other 

feeding areas (Steiger et al., 2008). The 

BRT noted that 44 percent of all flukes 

photographed from the Mexico 

humpback whale DPS are scarred with 

killer whale tooth rakes. Most of the 

attacks are thought to occur on calves in 

breeding/calving areas, and levels 

observed in the California group likely 

result from a propensity for killer whale 

attacks in Mexican breeding areas 

(Steiger et al., 2008). Though a factor in 

the ensured longevity of this DPS, it 

does not appear to be preventing 

population recovery (Steiger et al., 

2008). The threat of predation was 

therefore ranked as low or unknown for 

all DPSs. 

There is little to no information on the 

impacts of disease or parasites on the 

Mexico DPS. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Under Mexican law, all marine 

mammals are listed as ‘‘species at risk’’ 

and are protected under the General 

Wildlife Law (2000). Amendments to 

the General Wildlife Law to address 

impacts to whales by humans include: 

Areas of refuge for aquatic species; 

critical habitat being extended to 

aquatic species (including cetaceans); 

prohibition of the import and export of 

marine mammals for commercial 

purposes (enacted in 2005); and 

protocol for stranded marine mammals 

(2011). Mexican Standard 131 on whale 

watching includes avoidance distances 

and speeds, limits on number of boats, 

and protection from noise (no echo 

sounders). Two protection programs for 

humpback whales (regional programs 

for protection) have been proposed for 

the regions of Los Cabos and Banderas 

Bay (Bahia de Banderas). 

NMFS issued a final rule (66 FR 

29502; May 31, 2001) effective in 2001 

in waters within 200 nautical miles (370 

km) of Alaska, making it unlawful for a 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to (a) approach within 100 

yards (91.4 m) of a humpback whale, (b) 

cause a vessel or other object to 

approach within 100 yards (91.4 m) of 

a humpback whale, or (c) disrupt the 

normal behavior or prior activity of a 

whale. Exceptions to this rule include 

approaches permitted by NMFS; vessels 

which otherwise would be restricted in 

their ability to maneuver; commercial 

fishing vessels legally engaged in fishery 

activities; state, local and Federal 

government vessels operating in official 

duty; and the rights of Alaska Natives. 

As is true for the Hawaii DPS, this rule 

provides some protection from vessel 

strikes to Mexico DPS individuals while 

in their feeding grounds. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

This DPS is likely exposed to 

relatively high levels of underwater 

noise resulting from human activities. 

These may include, for example, 

commercial and recreational vessel 

traffic, and activities in U.S. Navy test 

ranges. The overall population-level 

effects of exposure to underwater noise 

are not well-established, but exposure is 

likely chronic and at relatively high 

levels. As vessel traffic and other 

activities are expected to increase, the 

level of this threat is expected to 

increase. The level of confidence in this 

information is moderate. 

Of the 17 records of stranded whales 

in Washington, Oregon, and California 

in the NMFS stranding database, three 

involved fishery interactions, two were 

attributed to vessel strikes, and in five 

cases the cause of death could not be 

determined (Carretta et al., 2010). 

Specifically, between 2004 and 2008, 14 

humpback whales were reported 

seriously injured in commercial 

fisheries offshore of California and two 

were reported dead. The proportion of 

these that represent the Mexican 

breeding population is unknown. 

Fishing gear involved included gillnet, 

pot, and trap gear (Carretta et al., 2010). 

Between 2004 and 2008, there were two 

humpback whale mortalities resulting 

from ship strikes reported and eight 

ship strike attributed injuries for 

unidentified whales in the CaliforniaOregon-Washington stock as defined by 

NMFS, and some of these may have 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22337 

been humpback whales (Carretta et al., 

2010). The Mexico DPS is known to also 

use Alaska and British Columbia waters 

for feeding (Calambokidis et al., 2008). 

Numerous collisions have been reported 

from Alaska and British Columbia 

(where shipping traffic has increased 

200 percent in 20 years) (Neilson et al., 

2012). According to a summary of 

Alaska ship strike records, an average of 

5 strikes a year was reported from 1978– 

2011 (Neilson et al., 2012). However, 

effects in Alaska may be mitigated by 

the vessel approach regulations 

discussed above (66 FR 29502; May 31, 

2001) and by NMFS outreach to the 

cruise ship industry to share 

information about whale siting 

locations. 

Overall population level effects from 

global climate change are not known; 

nonetheless, any potential impacts 

resulting from this threat will almost 

certainly increase. The BRT concluded 

that currently climate change is not a 

risk to the DPS, but the level of 

confidence in the magnitude of this 

threat is poor. 

In summary, all threats are considered 

likely to have no or minor impact on 

population size and/or the growth rate 

or are unknown for the Mexico DPS, 

with the following exception: Fishing 

gear entanglements are considered 

likely to moderately reduce the 

population size or the growth rate of the 

Mexico DPS. 

Central America DPS 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Human population growth and 

associated coastal development, 

including port expansions and the 

presence of water desalinization plants, 

are some of the potential threats to the 

Central America DPS. The presumed 

migratory route for this DPS lies in the 

coastal waters off Mexico and includes 

numerous large and growing human 

population centers from Central 

America north along the Mexico and 

U.S. coasts. The California and Oregon 

feeding grounds are the most ‘‘urban’’ of 

all the North Pacific humpback whale 

feeding grounds, resulting in relatively 

constant anthropogenic exposure for the 

individuals of this DPS. However, the 

high degree of coastal development is 

not preventing the increase of 

humpback whales in this area, and it is 

considered to be a low level threat. 

Associated with this proximity to 

urban areas is a high level of exposure 

to man-made contaminants. Elevated 

levels of DDTs, PCBs, and PBPEs have 

been observed in ‘‘southern California’’ 

humpback whales; levels were higher 

than observed in humpback whales 

from the North Atlantic’s Gulf of Maine 

feeding ground (Elfes et al., 2010). 

These levels may be linked to historical 

dumping of DDTs off the Palos Verdes 

Peninsula, CA (Elfes et al., 2010). 

However, the levels observed are not 

expected to have a significant effect on 

population growth (Elfes et al., 2010). 

DDT and PCB levels are likely to 

decrease in feeding areas because use of 

these chemicals has been banned in the 

United States, but PBDEs may still be 

increasing. 

Energy exploration and development 

activities are present in this DPS’ habitat 

range. There are currently numerous 

active oil and energy leases and offshore 

oil rigs off the U.S. west coast. Offshore 

LNG terminals have been proposed for 

California and Baja California. The 

feeding grounds for this DPS are 

therefore an active area with regard to 

energy exploration and development. 

However, there are no plans at present 

to open the West Coast to further 

drilling. Alternative energies, such as 

wind and wave energy, may be 

developed in the future in this region. 

Currently, the threat posed to this 

population by energy exploration and 

development is low, and is considered 

stable. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Whale-watching tourism and 

scientific research occur, at relatively 

low levels, on both the feeding and 

breeding grounds of the Central America 

DPS as well as along the migratory 

route. Whale-watching is highly 

regulated in U.S. waters. Many Central 

American countries also have whalewatching guidelines and regulations in 

the breeding ground of this population. 

Whale-watching is therefore not 

considered a threat to this population. 

Scientific research activities such as 

observing, collecting biopsies, 

photographing, and recording 

underwater vocalizations of whales 

occurs throughout this DPS’ range, 

though no adverse effects from these 

events have been recorded. 

No whaling currently occurs in this 

DPS’ range. 

C. Disease or Predation 

There is little information on the 

impacts of disease, parasites or algal 

blooms on the Central America DPS. 

HABs of dinoflagellates and diatoms 

exist within the feeding range of this 

DPS, but there have been no records of 

humpback whale deaths as a result of 

exposure. The occurrence of HABs is 

expected to increase with the growth of 

various types of human-related 

activities but does not pose a threat to 

this population currently. 

Though the occurrence and impacts of 

predation on humpback whales is not 

well understood, some evidence of 

killer whale and shark attacks exists for 

this DPS. Evidence of killer whale 

attacks is relatively high in California 

waters, with 20 percent of humpback 

whales showing scars from previous 

attacks (Steiger et al., 2008). Scars from 

attacks are believed to have originated 

in the winter when whales are in 

Mexican and Central American waters. 

However, this is not regarded as a 

serious threat to population growth. 

Shark predation likely occurs as well, 

though it is not known to what degree; 

it does not appear to be adversely 

impacting this DPS. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

No regulatory mechanisms specific to 

the Central America DPS were 

identified. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

There is no evidence to suggest that 

competition with fisheries poses a threat 

to this DPS. Humpback whales in 

southern and central California feed on 

small schooling fish, including sardine, 

anchovy, and herring, all of which are 

commercially harvested species. In 

addition, they also feed on krill, which 

are not harvested off the U.S. west coast. 

Humpback whales are known to be 

foraging generalists. Although their 

piscivorous prey is subject to naturallyand anthropogenically-mediated 

fluctuations in abundance, there is no 

indication that fishery-related takes are 

substantially decreasing their food 

supply. 

This DPS is likely exposed to 

relatively high levels of underwater 

noise resulting from human activities, 

including commercial and recreational 

vessel traffic, and activities in U.S. Navy 

test ranges. Exposure is likely chronic 

and at relatively high levels. It is not 

known if exposure to underwater noise 

affects humpback whale populations, 

and this threat does not appear to be 

significantly impacting current 

population growth. 

Vessel collisions and entanglement in 

fishing gear pose the greatest threat to 

this DPS. Especially high levels of large 

vessel traffic are found in this DPS’ 

range off Panama, southern California, 

and San Francisco. Several records exist 

of ships striking humpback whales 

(Carretta et al., 2008; Douglas et al., 

2008), and it is likely that not all 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22338 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

incidents are reported. Two deaths of 

humpback whales were attributed to 

ship strikes along the U.S. West Coast in 

2004–2008 (Carretta et al., 2010). Ship 

strikes are probably underreported, and 

the level of associated mortality is also 

likely higher than the observed 

mortalities. Vessel collisions were 

determined to pose a medium risk (level 

2) to this DPS, especially given the 

small population size. Shipping traffic 

will probably increase as global 

commerce increases; thus, a reasonable 

assumption is that the level of ship 

strikes will also increase. 

Between 2004 and 2008, 18 

humpback whale entanglements in 

commercial fishing gear off California, 

Oregon, and Washington were reported 

(Carretta et al., 2010), although the 

actual number of entanglements may be 

underreported. Effective fisheries 

monitoring and stranding programs 

exist in California, but are lacking in 

Central America and much of Mexico. 

Levels of mortality from entanglement 

are unknown and do vary by region, but 

entanglement scarring rates indicate a 

significant interaction with fishing gear. 

Currently there is no aquaculture 

activity on the feeding grounds of this 

DPS, though migrating individuals may 

encounter some aquaculture operations 

in coastal waters off Mexico. Humpback 

whales in this DPS are not considered 

to be adversely affected by aquaculture. 

Overall population level effects from 

global climate change are not known; 

nonetheless, any potential impacts 

resulting from this threat will almost 

certainly increase. Humpback whales 

feeding off southern and central 

California have a flexible diet that 

includes both krill and small pelagic 

fishes. Acidification of the marine 

environment has been documented to 

impact the physiology and development 

of krill and other calcareous marine 

organisms, which may reduce their 

abundance and subsequent availability 

to humpback whales in the future 

(Kurihara, 2008). However, the diet 

flexibility of humpback whales in this 

region may give this DPS some 

resilience to a climate change effect on 

their prey base compared to Southern 

Hemisphere humpback whales that have 

a more narrow krill-based diet. 

Currently, climate change does not pose 

a significant threat to the growth of this 

DPS. 

In summary, vessel collisions and 

fishing gear entanglements are 

considered likely to moderately reduce 

the population size or the growth rate of 

the Central America DPS. All other 

threats are considered likely to have no 

or minor impact on population size and/ 

or the growth rate, or are unknown for 

the Central America DPS. 

Brazil DPS 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Human population growth and 

associated coastal development 

represent potential threats to coastal 

populations of humpback whales. These 

can take many forms, including 

chemical pollution, increase in ship 

traffic and underwater noise levels. The 

coast of Brazil has experienced various 

levels of human development within the 

range of humpback whales. These are of 

greater intensity along the northeastern 

coast of the country (between 5° and 12° 

S), where large human settlements are 

found (the three main cities—Salvador, 

Recife and Natal—have 1–3 million 

inhabitants and have observed 

population increases of 3 percent per 

year since the early 1970s) (Instituto 

Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatı ́stica, 

2010). Such population growth has 

resulted in a substantial rise in effluent 

discharge in coastal areas used by 

humpback whales during the breeding 

season. The stretch of the coast where 

the largest concentration of humpback 

whales is found (Abrolhos Bank, 16°– 

18° S) has not had the same level of 

human growth and is relatively pristine 

compared to areas farther to the north. 

There is no evidence that human 

population growth has had any major 

direct impact on western South Atlantic 

humpback whales. In fact, the Brazil 

DPS has shown strong signs of recovery 

in the same period in which human 

growth occurred adjacent to the 

breeding grounds. Shifts in habitat use 

and abundance may have occurred on a 

local basis, but no studies have been 

conducted to assess these changes. 

Effects of chemical pollution are largely 

minimized because these whales do not 

feed in the tropical wintering grounds. 

The feeding grounds of this DPS are 

located in relatively remote offshore 

areas in the Southern Ocean where 

human activities have been minimal. 

While potential impacts are unknown, 

they are probably small in these areas. 

The current threat of coastal 

development to this population was 

ranked as low, but is considered to be 

increasing. 

The construction of new ports along 

the coast of Brazil has been stimulated 

by the country’s recent economic 

growth as well as the rapid development 

of the oil and gas industry. Therefore, a 

resultant increase in ship traffic will 

likely increase the probability of ship 

strikes and possibly result in greater 

humpback whale mortality off Brazil. 

The threat posed by energy exploration 

and development was ranked low but 

increasing. 

The effects of contaminants on this 

population are unknown. The 

occurrence of HABs is expected to 

increase with increased run-off and 

nutrient input from human-related 

activities; however, HABs do not pose a 

threat to this population currently. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

A seasonal humpback whale-watching 

industry exists in some parts of the 

wintering grounds off Brazil. In the 

Abrolhos Bank, the area of greatest 

humpback whale concentration, whalewatching is usually associated with 

other tourist activities. The Bank 

contains large coral reef formations, and 

the associated biological diversity 

makes this region an important diving/ 

snorkelling center. Despite great 

potential, expansion of whale-watching 

in this region is difficult because of poor 

tourism infrastructure and because 

whales are far away from the coast 

relative to other areas (Cipolotti et al., 

2005). 

A more established whale-watching 

industry operates farther to the north, 

near Praia do Forte and Salvador. Most 

whale watching tours in Bahia State 

depart from Praia do Forte (Hoyt and 

Inı ́guez, 2008). In other parts of the 

humpback wintering grounds (e.g., 

Ilhe ́us, Itacare ́, Porto Seguro), whalewatching can occur in an opportunistic 

fashion. Often, fishermen are hired to 

take groups of tourists to see whales, but 

these are unregulated and occasional. 

Because of the relatively small scale, 

whale-watching activities possibly 

cause limited, if any, impact on the 

Brazil DPS of the humpback whale. This 

threat is considered low. 

There is currently no commercial 

whaling in this region. 

This humpback whale DPS is exposed 

to scientific research activities, but 

adverse effects from research activities 

have not been identified, and overall 

impact is expected to be low and stable. 

C. Disease or Predation 

There are studies of disease in the 

Brazil DPS of the humpback whale, but 

no indication that it presents a risk to 

the DPS. Stranded whales have shown 

different types of bone pathologies 

(Groch et al., 2005), but the incidence of 

these pathologies are not well known. 

A recent increase in humpback whale 

mortality has occurred along the coast of 

Brazil. The number of carcasses seen 

floating at sea or found ashore in 2010 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22339 

(96 individuals) was nearly 3 times the 

average for the period 2002–2009 (29.5 

individuals). Mortalities dropped in 

2011 (39), but they have increased in 

subsequent years (47 in 2012; 51 in 

2013; 55 to date in 2014, with not many 

more expected for the rest of 2014) 

(Milton Marcondes, Humpback Whale 

Institute Brazil, pers. comm., 2014). The 

causes for this increased mortality are 

not well understood and are under 

investigation (Humpback Whale 

Institute Brazil, unpublished data). 

However, while mortalities are high, 

they are not unusually high. Despite 

these mortalities, the DPS appears to 

continue to increase in abundance. 

Killer whales appear to be one of the 

main predators of humpback whales, 

especially of calves and immature 

individuals (Clapham, 2000). While 

predation can represent an important 

source of neonatal/juvenile mortality 

(Steiger et al., 2008), no studies have 

been conducted to assess its effects on 

this DPS. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Diving with whales is prohibited by 

Federal law in Brazil, but opportunistic 

whale-watching occurs during diving 

trips (Morete et al., 2003). Most whalewatching operations are concentrated 

within the Abrolhos National Park and 

therefore are highly controlled. The 

maximum number of boats allowed 

within the park is 15 (Hoyt, 2000). 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

The threats posed by offshore 

aquaculture and competition with 

fisheries were considered low for the 

Brazil DPS of humpback whales. 

Entanglements in various types of 

fishing nets have been increasing in the 

wintering areas (Zerbini and Kotas, 

1998), but there is no current estimate 

of mortality. Reports from fishermen 

indicate that a large proportion of 

entanglements are comprised of calves 

(Zerbini and Kotas, 1998). In the past 20 

years, the number of entanglement cases 

observed or reported has increased 

substantially as has the proportion of 

whales seen in wintering grounds, with 

evidence (e.g., scars) of entanglement in 

fishing gear (Siciliano, 1997; Groch et 

al., 2008)). Interactions of humpback 

whales with fisheries have been 

observed throughout the wintering 

ground, and they seem to be increasing 

as the population grows and re-occupies 

new or historical habitats. However, 

there is currently no assessment on the 

proportion of entanglements resulting in 

mortality and no estimates of fisheryrelated mortality for this DPS. The 

threat of entanglements was considered 

low but increasing. 

Ship collisions are a well-known 

cause of mortality in humpback whales 

(Laist et al., 2001), but their incidence 

among humpback whales in the Brazil 

DPS is not well known. Reports of 

collisions with whales have been 

provided by fishermen and recreational 

boaters. In addition, photographic/

physical evidence of ship strikes has 

been recorded throughout the wintering 

grounds off Brazil (e.g., Marcondes and 

Engel, 2009). These events have been 

increasing and seem to be correlated 

with population recovery, but their 

conservation implications require 

further studies (Bezamat et al., 2014). In 

areas of high whale density (e.g., the 

Abrolhos Bank), collisions between 

whales and fishing boats have resulted 

in permanent damage to the boats. The 

fate of whales involved in these 

accidents is not known (Andriolo, 

unpublished data). Ship strikes were 

considered a low, but increasing, threat 

to this DPS of humpback whales. 

The increase in coastal development 

and ship traffic, the construction of new 

ports and the expansion of offshore oil 

and gas extraction have resulted in a 

rise of underwater noise levels along the 

breeding range of humpback whales. 

Concerns about effects of noise include 

disruption of behavior, interference 

with communication, displacement 

from habitats and, in extreme cases, 

physical damage to hearing (Nowacek et 

al., 2007). Few studies have been 

carried out to assess whether and how 

an increase in noise levels has impacted 

the Brazil DPS. Research conducted in 

Abrolhos Bank (Sousa-Lima and Clark, 

2008; Sousa-Lima and Clark, 2009) 

showed that the number of singing 

whales diminished in the presence of 

low-frequency boat noise and that 

singing whales stopped calling and 

changed direction of movement if the 

sound source was within 7.5km on 

average. Anthropogenic noise was 

considered a low, but increasing, threat 

to the Brazil DPS of humpback whales. 

Climate change may impact the Brazil 

DPS of humpback whales in multiple 

ways. Sea level rise, ocean warming and 

ocean acidification may all negatively 

impact the reef system, which provides 

shallow, protected waters for breeding. 

Ocean acidification also has a 

documented impact on krill growth and 

development (Kurihara, 2008), and krill 

is the primary prey item for Southern 

Hemisphere humpback whales. Krill are 

tightly associated with sea ice (Brierley 

et al., 1999; Brierley et al., 2002), and 

decreasing sea ice may negatively 

impact krill abundance and/or 

distribution. Decreases in krill 

abundance have been observed around 

the Antarctic Peninsula (Atkinson et al., 

2004). Overall population level effects 

from global climate change and 

anthropogenic noise are not well known 

and the threat was ranked low, based on 

the premise that krill would need to be 

substantially reduced in order to put 

humpback whales at risk of extinction. 

As discussed above under Section 

4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All DPSs, 

the BRT did not think the linkage 

between climate change and future krill 

production was sufficiently well 

understood to rate it as moderate or high 

risk. Nonetheless, any potential impacts 

resulting from these threats will almost 

certainly increase, but not in the 

foreseeable future. 

In summary, all threats are considered 

likely to have no or minor impact on 

population size and/or the growth rate 

or are unknown for the Brazil DPS. 

Gabon/Southwest Africa DPS 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

For humpback whales using the 

waters of central western Africa, 

expanding offshore hydrocarbon 

extraction activity now poses an 

increasing threat (Findlay et al., 2006). 

The degree to which humpback whales 

are affected by offshore hydrocarbon 

extraction activity is not known, but it 

is believed that long-term exposure to 

low levels of pollutants and noise, as 

well as the drastic consequences of 

potential oil spills, could have 

conservation implications. 

The Gulf of Guinea region suffers 

from pollution and habitat degradation, 

both from major coastal cities (Lagos, 

Accra, Libreville, Porto-Nevo) that 

dispense raw sewage and untreated 

toxic waste into the marine environment 

(United Nations Environment 

Programme, 1999), and from 

unregulated foreign trawling and oil and 

gas developments (Chidi Ibe, 1996). The 

practice of mining construction 

materials from the near-shore coastal 

zone (e.g., sand and gravel) is also 

common in this region, which 

contributes to habitat degradation (Chidi 

Ibe, 1996). The threat of coastal 

development is considered low, but 

increasing. 

Certain naturally occurring biotoxins 

from dinoflagellates and other 

organisms may exist within the range of 

this DPS, although humpback whale 

deaths as a result of exposure have not 

been documented in this DPS. The 

occurrence of HABs is expected to 

increase with the growth of various 

types of human-related activities. The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22340 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

level of confidence in the predicted 

increase is moderate. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

No commercial whaling occurs in this 

DPS’ range. 

A small hunt, not regulated by the 

IWC, is also thought to exist in the Gulf 

of Guinea at the island of Pagalu 

(Aguilar, 1985; Reeves, 2002). No 

information exists on the fishery since 

1975, but as of 1970, whales were still 

being taken in the area. This hunt would 

affect the Gabon/Northwest Africa DPS 

in the breeding grounds, but we have no 

information to indicate that it 

contributes significantly to the 

extinction risk of the DPS. If there is an 

aboriginal hunt at Pagalu, it is estimated 

to be 3 or less individuals per year. 

Whale-watching in the Gulf of Guinea 

region is small in scale, with small 

humpback whale-watching industries 

documented in Benin, Gabon, Sa ̃o Tome ́

and Prı ́ncipe (O’Connor et al., 2009). 

Whale-watching in South Africa is 

mainly focused on right whales, with 

humpback whales watched 

opportunistically. Boat-based whalewatching has grown 14 percent in the 

last decade, and is concentrated in the 

western Cape region; South Africa now 

numbers among the top ten destinations 

for whale-watching worldwide 

(O’Connor et al., 2009). Whale-watching 

in Namibia is primarily focused on 

dolphins, and has seen 20 percent 

growth since 2008. The threat posed to 

this DPS by whale-watching is 

considered low. 

This humpback whale DPS is exposed 

to scientific research activities, but 

adverse effects from research activities 

have not been identified, and overall 

impact is expected to be low and stable. 

C. Disease or Predation 

There are no reports of disease in this 

DPS and levels of parasitism are 

unknown. Predation likely occurs, 

though it is not known to what degree 

but it does not appear to be adversely 

impacting this DPS. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

There are regulations in place for all 

whale-watching activity in South Africa 

(Carlson, 2007). 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

There is no known/reported 

competition with fisheries to the Gabon/ 

Southwest Africa DPS; this threat is 

therefore considered low and stable. 

The threat of offshore aquaculture is 

considered low. 

Certain potential and real effects on 

cetaceans and other fauna are expected 

to increase due to the growth of industry 

activities, including noise disturbance 

from seismic surveys (Richardson et al., 

1995). Changes in their behavioral 

patterns or displacement from 

migratory, mating, and especially 

important calving and nursing habitats 

could impact reproductive success and 

calf survival during critical stages of 

development. 

Rapid increases in shipping and port 

construction throughout the Gulf of 

Guinea (Van Waerebeek et al., 2007) are 

likely to increase the risks of ship 

strikes for humpback whales. Whales 

are reported as stranding in Benin, with 

wounds suspected as originating from 

ship strikes (Van Waerebeek et al., 

2007). There are no dedicated stranding 

networks in the region, and ship strikes 

with oil tankers and other vessels have 

not been documented. Collisions with 

vessels are not likely to be a major threat 

considering the size of the DPS. 

There are entanglement risks for 

humpback whales in these regions, 

including a growing commercial shrimp 

industry off Gabon (Walsh et al., 2000), 

and an expansion in unregulated fishing 

by foreign fleets in Gulf of Guinea 

waters (Collins, pers. comm.; Chidi Ibe, 

1996; Brashares et al., 2004). 

Entanglement in fishing gear occurs, but 

it is not likely to be a major threat 

considering the size of the DPS. 

Climate change may impact the 

Gabon/Southwest Africa DPS of 

humpback whales in multiple ways. Sea 

level rise, ocean warming and ocean 

acidification may all negatively impact 

the reef system, which provides 

shallow, protected waters for breeding. 

Ocean acidification also has a 

documented impact on krill growth and 

development (Kurihara, 2008), and krill 

is the primary prey item for Southern 

Hemisphere humpback whales. Krill are 

tightly associated with sea ice (Brierley 

et al., 1999; Brierley et al., 2002), and 

decreasing sea ice may negatively 

impact krill abundance and/or 

distribution. Decreases in krill 

abundance have been observed around 

the Antarctic Peninsula (Atkinson et al., 

2004). Overall population level effects 

from global climate change and 

anthropogenic noise are not known and 

the threat was ranked low, based on the 

premise that krill would need to be 

substantially reduced in order to put 

humpback whales at risk of extinction. 

As discussed above under Section 

4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All DPSs, 

the BRT did not think the linkage 

between climate change and future krill 

production was sufficiently well 

understood to rate it as moderate or high 

risk. Nonetheless, any potential impacts 

resulting from these threats will almost 

certainly increase. 

In summary, all threats are considered 

likely to have no or minor impact on 

population size and/or the growth rate 

or are unknown for the Gabon/

Southwest Africa DPS, with the 

exception of energy exploration posing 

a moderate threat throughout the west 

coast of Africa. 

Southeast Africa/Madagascar DPS 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Human populations are growing 

rapidly in coastal areas in Madagascar 

and East Africa, which may contribute, 

generally, to humpback whale habitat 

degradation and related negative 

influences. 

Until recently, oil and gas reserves in 

east Africa were largely unexplored. 

However, recently, a number of offshore 

seismic oil and gas surveys have been 

conducted in Mozambique, Tanzania, 

Madagascar and the Seychelles. As a 

result, drilling is now either underway 

or planned in all of these regions 

(Frynas, 2004; Findlay et al., 2006). As 

noted elsewhere, such activity brings 

threats of increased underwater noise 

from the exploration and development 

phases themselves, and increased vessel 

activity; the possibility of an oil spill; 

possible habitat degradation from such 

things as drill spoils and dredging; and 

vessel collisions. In Madagascar, 

offshore development has been 

concentrated on the northwest coast; in 

Mozambique it is concentrated in the 

Mozambique Basin, Zambezi delta 

region, while development in Tanzania 

has been most focused on coastal 

Zanzibar. Humpback whales occur 

seasonally in all of these regions. 

Levels of exposure of humpback 

whales in this region to various 

pollutants are not known, nor is the 

occurrence of HABs. Trends in the 

extent of this threat likewise are not 

known. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Whale-watching activities are growing 

rapidly in waters off Mozambique; yet, 

these are poorly regulated (O’Connor et 

al., 2009). Most of these activities are 

locally based and involve motorized 

boats, recreational fishing boats, and 

dive boats. Whale-watching in South 

Africa is mainly focused on right 

whales, although the industry at St 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22341 

Lucia in KwaZulu Natal province is 

focused on southwestern Indian Ocean 

humpback whales. Recent political 

instability in Madagascar has limited 

the growth rate of whale-watching 

activities in this region, although growth 

between 1998–2008 was still estimated 

at about 15 percent, with the main 

industry focused on humpback whales 

frequenting the Ile Ste Marie/Antongil 

Bay region, and over 14,000 tourists 

participating in whale watch tours by 

10–15 operators in 2008 (O’Connor et 

al., 2009). Whale watch tourism in 

Mayotte is small-scale, but has 

expanded rapidly, from no industry in 

1998 to 10,000 annual whale watchers 

in 2008 (O’Connor et al., 2009), with a 

focus on a range of cetacean species. In 

Mauritius large cetacean watching is a 

minimal component of the whale watch 

industry and is therefore unlikely to 

have much impact (O’Connor et al., 

2009). An industry for watching 

humpback whales in Mauritius 

commenced in 2008 (Fleming and 

Jackson, 2011). 

No commercial whaling occurs in this 

DPS’ range. This humpback whale DPS 

is exposed to scientific research 

activities, but at low levels. Adverse 

effects from research activities have not 

been identified, and overall impact is 

expected to be low and stable. 

C. Disease or Predation 

There is little to no information on the 

impacts of disease, parasites, or 

predation on this DPS. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Apparently, there are no local, 

national, or regional measures in place 

or contemplated to reduce the impact of 

habitat-related threats. 

There is a voluntary code of conduct 

for operators of whale-watching boats in 

waters off Mozambique, but at present 

this is poorly upheld and no formal 

regulations or enforcement are currently 

in place (O’Connor et al., 2009). The 

whale-watching industry off Madagascar 

has recently developed some guidelines 

for the protection of humpback whales, 

which were passed as legislation in 

2000 with local regulations for Ile Sainte 

Marie (Fleming and Jackson, 2011) and 

Antongil Bay (Journal Officiel de la 

Republique de Madagascar, 2000). In the 

Mascarene Islands, the expanding 

whale-watching industry in La Re ́union 

(3,000 tourists estimated in 2008) is 

currently unregulated. There are 

regulations in place for all whalewatching activity in South Africa 

(Carlson, 2007). 

Fishing activities are prohibited in 

localized marine protected areas in 

Mayotte, Moheli (in the Comoros 

Archipelago), Madagascar (northeast 

coast), Aldabra (under protection as a 

UNESCO World Heritage Site) and the 

coastal region between Southern 

Mozambique and South Africa, so 

entanglement in fishing gear should not 

be a problem in these areas. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Little is known/reported on 

interaction of humpback whales in this 

DPS with fisheries, nor are there any 

current or planned offshore aquaculture 

sites in the region. These threats are 

therefore considered low and stable. 

Information regarding fisheries and 

other activities is limited. Kiszka et al. 

(2009) and Razafindrakoto et al. (2008) 

provided summaries of humpback 

whale entanglement and strandings 

based on interviews with artisanal 

fishing communities. Substantial gillnet 

fisheries have been reported in the nearshore waters of the coasts of mainland 

Africa and Madagascar; and to a lesser 

extent in the Comoros Archipelago, 

Mayotte and Mascarene Islands, where 

such practices are hindered by coral 

reefs and a steep continental slope 

bathymetry (Kiszka et al., 2009). 

Stranding reports and observations from 

Tanzania and Mozambique have mostly 

implicated gillnets, with most 

Madagascan entanglements associated 

with long-line shark fishing 

(Razafindrakoto et al., 2008). In 

Mayotte, humpback whales have been 

observed with gillnet remains attached 

to them (Kiszka et al., 2009), although 

no fatalities have yet been documented. 

Industrial fishing operations, including 

longlines and drift longlines on fish 

aggregation devices, purse seine and 

midwater trawling, occur in waters off 

Mauritius. The extent of bycatch and 

entanglement in these waters is 

unknown (Kiszka et al., 2009). 

Strandings and bycatch data from 2001– 

2005 from South Africa indicated an 

estimated 15 humpback whales 

entangled in shark nets (large-mesh 

gillnets) in KwaZulu Natal province 

(only one death), while nine stranded 

whales were reported from the south 

and east coasts (IWC, 2002b; IWC, 2003; 

IWC, 2004b; IWC, 2005b; IWC, 2006b). 

The range of this DPS includes some 

growing centers of human activities. 

Although there are no known records of 

ship struck humpback whales in this 

region, the amount of vessel traffic 

suggests this is probably a low-level 

threat. However, a reasonable 

assumption is that the amount of vessel 

traffic, and the level of the threat, is 

likely to increase as commercial 

shipping, recreational boating, and 

whale-watching, oil and gas exploration 

and development, and fishing activities 

increase. 

This DPS is likely exposed to 

relatively high levels of underwater 

noise resulting from human activities, 

including, for example, commercial and 

recreational vessel traffic, and activities 

related to oil and gas exploration and 

development. Overall population-level 

effects of exposure to underwater noise 

are not well established, but exposure is 

likely chronic and at moderate levels. 

As vessel traffic and other activities are 

expected to increase, the level of this 

threat is expected to increase. The level 

of confidence in this information is 

moderate. 

Climate change may impact the 

Southeast Africa/Madagascar DPS of 

humpback whales in multiple ways. Sea 

level rise, ocean warming and ocean 

acidification may all negatively impact 

the reef system, which provides 

shallow, protected waters for breeding. 

Ocean acidification also has a 

documented impact on krill growth and 

development (Kurihara, 2008), and krill 

is the primary prey item for Southern 

Hemisphere humpback whales. Krill are 

tightly associated with sea ice (Brierley 

et al., 1999; Brierley et al., 2002), and 

decreasing sea ice may negatively 

impact krill abundance and/or 

distribution. Decreases in krill 

abundance have been observed around 

the Antarctic Peninsula (Atkinson et al., 

2004). Overall population level effects 

from global climate change and 

anthropogenic noise are not known and 

the threat was ranked low, based on the 

premise that krill would need to be 

substantially reduced in order to put 

humpback whales at risk of extinction. 

As discussed above under Section 

4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All DPSs, 

the BRT did not think the linkage 

between climate change and future krill 

production was sufficiently well 

understood to rate it as moderate or high 

risk. Nonetheless, any potential impacts 

resulting from these threats will almost 

certainly increase. 

In summary, all threats are considered 

likely to have no or minor impact on 

population size and/or the growth rate 

or are unknown for the Southeast 

Africa/Madagascar DPS, with the 

exception of fishing gear entanglements 

posing a moderate threat to the DPS. 

West Australia DPS 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The threat posed by energy 

development to the Western Australia 

population was considered medium 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22342 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

because of the substantial number of oil 

rigs and the amount of energy 

exploration activity in the region 

inhabited by the whales (indicator CO– 

26 in (Beeton et al., 2006)). 

Additionally, there are proposals for 

many more oil platforms to be built in 

the near future, which are highly likely 

to be executed (Department of Industry 

and Resources, 2008). 

Coastally populated areas are 

increasing rapidly, and while the threat 

associated with coastal development is 

currently considered low, it is expected 

to increase. Although contaminant 

levels in humpback whales in this 

region are unknown, the threat level 

was considered low given what is 

known of contaminant levels in other 

populations. 

There have been no records of 

humpback whale deaths as a result of 

exposure to HABs in this DPS, thus the 

threat is considered low. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

No whaling occurs in this DPS’ range. 

Whale-watching tourism and 

scientific research occur, at relatively 

low levels, throughout this DPS’ range. 

Therefore, these threats are considered 

low. 

C. Disease or Predation 

There are no recent studies of disease 

or parasitism in this DPS, but there are 

no indications that they represent a 

substantial threat to the DPS. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

No regulatory mechanisms specific to 

the West Australia DPS were identified. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Competition with fisheries is 

considered a low threat to humpback 

whales off the coast of Western 

Australia due to the lack of spatial and 

temporal overlap with fisheries and 

whales. The threat of offshore 

aquaculture is considered low, but 

aquaculture activities may be increasing 

in this region. In the Southern 

Hemisphere, humpback whales feed 

almost entirely on krill (Euphausia 

superba). There is a regulated 

commercial harvest of krill, but harvest 

levels are currently small and there is 

no evidence that this threatens the food 

supply of humpback whales (Everson 

and Goss, 1991; Nicol et al., 2008). 

Coastally populated areas are 

increasing rapidly, with associated 

development of ports bringing increased 

risks of ship strikes. All ship strikes in 

Commonwealth waters must be reported 

by law, and a summary of these has 

been provided to the IWC annually 

since 2006. Since this time there has 

only been one report concerning a 

possible humpback ship strike in 

Western Australian waters (IWC, 

2009b). The threat of ship strikes in 

Western Australia is considered low, 

but likely increasing. 

There are 25 records of humpback 

whale entanglement events between 

2003 and 2008 in this region, with 

western rock lobster fishing gear most 

frequently implicated (Doug Coughran, 

pers comm.; IWC, 2004a; IWC, 2005a; 

IWC, 2006a; IWC, 2007c; IWC, 2008). A 

rise in marine fishing debris has also 

been reported for the region 

(Environment Western Australia, 2007), 

which suggests that there may be an 

increasing risk of entanglement. 

Climate change may impact the West 

Australia DPS of humpback whales in 

multiple ways. Sea level rise, ocean 

warming and ocean acidification may 

all negatively impact the reef system, 

which provides shallow, protected 

waters for breeding. Ocean acidification 

also has a documented impact on krill 

growth and development (Kurihara, 

2008), the primary prey item for 

Southern Hemisphere humpback 

whales. Krill are tightly associated with 

sea ice (Brierley et al., 1999; Brierley et 

al., 2002), and decreasing sea ice may 

negatively impact krill abundance and/ 

or distribution. Decreases in krill 

abundance have been observed around 

the Antarctic Peninsula (Atkinson et al., 

2004). Overall population level effects 

from global climate change and 

anthropogenic noise are not known and 

the threat was ranked low, based on the 

premise that krill would need to be 

substantially reduced in order to put 

humpback whales at risk of extinction. 

As discussed above under Section 

4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All DPSs, 

the BRT did not think the linkage 

between climate change and future krill 

production was sufficiently well 

understood to rate it as moderate or high 

risk. Nonetheless, any potential impacts 

resulting from these threats will almost 

certainly increase. 

In summary, all threats are considered 

likely to have no or minor impact on 

population size and/or the growth rate 

or are unknown for the West Australia 

DPS, with the exception of energy 

exploration posing a moderate threat 

throughout Western Australia. 

East Australia DPS 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Whales migrating southward to the 

feeding grounds, as well as a portion of 

those migrating north, follow the east 

coast of Australia, and many or most are 

confined to a narrow corridor near the 

coast (Bryden, 1985; Noad et al., 2008) 

passing several large cities. Increasing 

coastal development is possible in these 

areas, but they represent a minor 

portion of the total migratory route. As 

with coastal development, sources of 

pollution for the east Australia DPS are 

concentrated in a few locations along 

the migratory route. The breeding area 

for this DPS is primarily within the 

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 

(Chittleborough, 1965; Simmons and 

Marsh, 1986), which has a 

comprehensive set of state and Federal 

protection laws. However, during 

tropical floods, farmland runoff may 

bring significant quantities of pollutants 

(pesticides, fertilizers) down several 

rivers that empty into the Great Barrier 

Reef area (Haynes and MichalekWagnera, 2000). To date there are no 

known documented impacts of 

contaminants on humpback whale 

survival and fecundity. Oil and gas 

production occurs in Bass Strait 

(Australian Government, 2006), a region 

used by some whales of this DPS as they 

migrate to feeding grounds. Overall, 

these threats were considered to pose a 

low risk to this DPS. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Anthropogenic disturbance of this 

DPS occurs primarily on the breeding 

ground. Whale-watching tourism in 

eastern Australia (Queensland) has seen 

an annual average growth rate of 8.5 

percent since 1998 (this includes boat 

and land-based operations and both 

whale- and dolphin-watching trips; 

O’Connor et al., 2009). In New South 

Wales, boat-based whale- and dolphinwatching has seen a 2.6 percent increase 

between 2003 and 2008. 

Scientific research activities on this 

DPS occur at the feeding grounds, 

breeding grounds and along the 

migratory route. Photo-identification 

studies, biopsy efforts and other field 

studies do exist. However, adverse 

effects from research activities have not 

been documented and threats are 

considered low. Finally, scientific 

whaling proposed by Japan in the 

Antarctica feeding grounds would occur 

in areas where the East Australia DPS is 

known to feed (Nishiwaki et al., 2007). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22343 

However, at this time no whaling in 

these feeding grounds is occurring. 

C. Disease or Predation 

There is little to no information on the 

impacts of disease, parasites or 

predation on this DPS. Evidence for 

killer whale interaction is documented, 

and 17 percent of photo-identified 

humpback whales in East Australia 

show scarring on their flukes, most of 

which is consistent with interactions 

with killer whales (Naessig and Lanyon, 

2004). There is no evidence to suggest 

that this level of predation is outside the 

norm for the DPS. Given the population 

size and current growth rate, disease, 

predation and parasitism seem unlikely 

to pose a significant threat to this DPS. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Oil and gas exploration and drilling 

are prohibited within the Great Barrier 

Reef Marine Park. 

Queensland has a substantial whalewatching management program 

(O’Connor et al., 2009), including 

restricting access to areas deemed 

essential for humpback conservation, 

and Australia has national whalewatching guidelines. With these 

regulations in place, the BRT considered 

the threat level from whale-watching to 

be low. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

There is no published information on 

negative impacts of offshore 

aquaculture, competition with fisheries, 

or HABs on this DPS. In the Southern 

Hemisphere, humpback whales feed 

almost entirely on krill (Euphausia 

superba). There is a regulated 

commercial harvest of krill, but harvest 

levels are currently small and there is 

no evidence that this threatens the food 

supply of humpback whales (Everson 

and Goss, 1991; Nicol et al., 2008). 

Vessel collisions and entanglement in 

fishing gear pose the greatest 

anthropogenic risks to the East Australia 

DPS. Thirteen ship-strike incidents and 

five deaths have been reported between 

2003 and 2008 (summarized in Fleming 

and Jackson, 2011) and an additional 

ship-strike was recorded in 2009 with 

the whale being seriously injured (IWC, 

2010a). Both fishing vessels and 

commercial vessels have been involved 

in these incidents. Given the probable 

increase in fishing, tourism and 

commercial shipping, the threat is likely 

to increase. Entanglements are regularly 

reported along the east coast of 

Australia and 57 entanglements have 

been documented between 2003–2008, 

with 13 confirmed deaths (Fleming and 

Jackson, 2011). In addition, six 

humpback whales were entangled in 

shark control nets and released in 2009 

(IWC, 2010b). These totals are likely 

underestimates as not all entanglements 

are reported and some are not identified 

to species. The majority were recorded 

in shark nets and occurred along the 

migratory route (Fleming and Jackson, 

2011). Although not insignificant, given 

the population size and estimated 

growth rate, the threat level posed by 

these factors is considered low. 

Anthropogenic noise is also a possible 

threat to this DPS. There are several 

commercial shipping routes through the 

Great Barrier Reef breeding ground and 

along the coastal migratory route that 

likely result in some underwater noise 

exposure. Migration through Bass Strait 

would also expose whales to energy 

exploration and production noise. There 

is no information concerning exposure 

of whales to underwater military 

activities. 

Climate change may impact the East 

Australia DPS of humpback whales in 

multiple ways. Sea level rise, ocean 

warming and ocean acidification may 

all negatively impact the reef system, 

which provides shallow, protected 

waters for breeding. Ocean acidification 

also has a documented impact on krill 

growth and development (Kurihara, 

2008), the primary prey item for 

Southern Hemisphere humpback 

whales. Krill are tightly associated with 

sea ice (Brierley et al., 1999; Brierley et 

al., 2002), and decreasing sea ice may 

negatively impact krill abundance and/ 

or distribution. Decreases in krill 

abundance have been observed around 

the Antarctic Peninsula (Atkinson et al., 

2004). Overall population level effects 

from global climate change and 

anthropogenic noise are not known and 

the threat was ranked low, based on the 

premise that krill would need to be 

substantially reduced in order to put 

humpback whales at risk of extinction. 

As discussed above under Section 

4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All DPSs, 

the BRT did not think the linkage 

between climate change and future krill 

production was sufficiently well 

understood to rate it as moderate or high 

risk. Nonetheless, any potential impacts 

resulting from these threats will almost 

certainly increase. 

In summary, all threats are considered 

likely to have no or minor impact on 

population size and/or the growth rate 

or are unknown for the East Australia 

DPS. 

Oceania DPS 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Surface run-off from nickel strip 

mines causes habitat degradation and 

pollution of lagoons in New Caledonia, 

which is one of the largest producers of 

nickel globally, yet the effect on the 

surrounding marine environment has 

been poorly monitored (e.g., de Forges 

et al., 1998; Labrosse et al., 2000; Metian 

et al., 2005). The threat to humpback 

whales in Oceania from coastal 

development and contaminants was 

considered low overall. 

The BRT considered the threats of 

energy exploration and development 

and offshore aquaculture to the Oceania 

population to be low but increasing, due 

to the expected growth of these 

activities over the next several decades. 

The level of threat posed by HABs to 

humpback whales in Oceania is 

unknown. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Some local whaling of humpback 

whales was carried out in French 

Polynesia (Rurutu), the Cook Islands 

and Tonga during the 20th century 

(Reeves, 2002), but this has ceased since 

1960 at Rurutu (Poole, 2002), and since 

1978 elsewhere (IWC, 1981). It does not 

appear that Tonga hunted whales before 

Europeans arrived in the region in the 

19th century (Reeves, 2002). Tonga was 

used as a provisioning station for 

whaling vessels from the Northern 

Hemisphere while they operated in the 

South Pacific. Tongans then began 

conducting shore-based whaling in the 

late 1880s or early 1900s, and increasing 

demand prompted new boats and 

whalers to enter the growing industry 

(Reeves, 2002). Catch rates (whales 

landed) were estimated at 10–20 

whales/year for the 1950s and 1960s 

and at least 3–8 whales/year for the 

mid-1970s (Reeves, 2002). In 1979, the 

Tonga Whaling Act was passed after a 

Royal Decree in 1978, prohibiting the 

catch of whales on what was originally 

designated as a temporary basis pending 

an assessment of the population by the 

IWC (Keller, 1982; Reeves, 2002; Kessler 

and Harcourt, 2012). However, no 

whaling has been carried out in Tonga 

since then. It is possible that this hunt 

was contributing significantly to the 

extinction risk of the Oceania DPS, but 

since no whaling has occurred there 

since 1979, it is no longer contributing 

to the DPS’ extinction risk. 

Humpback whales are under threat 

from unregulated scientific whaling in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22344 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the Antarctic waters directly to the 

south of Oceania. None have been taken 

to date, but an annual catch of 50 

humpback whales was proposed by 

Japan in the 2007/2008 season 

(Nishiwaki et al., 2007), as part of its 

JARPA II research program. This has 

been held in abeyance while Japan 

considers that progress is being made by 

the IWC in its meetings on the ‘‘Future 

of the IWC.’’ It is unlikely that the 

proposed take of humpback whales will 

be reinstated in the foreseeable future; 

in fact, Japan submitted its research 

proposal for the Antarctic on November 

19, 2014, and it did not include any 

humpback whales (Government of 

Japan, 2014). 

Whale-watching tourism exists in all 

four of the principal survey sites in 

Oceania, with strong growth in the last 

decade. There is no boat-based, 

dedicated whale watching industry in 

American Samoa at present. Humpback 

whales have been at particular risk from 

excessive boat exposure through whale 

watching in the Southern Lagoon of 

New Caledonia, where there are 

currently 24 working operators. Levels 

of exposure have been unusually high 

(peaking during weekend periods), with 

boats at a distance of less than 100m 

from calves 40 percent of the time and 

each whale exposed to an average of 3.4 

boats for 2 hours daily (Schaffar and 

Garrigue, 2008). In 2008, commercial 

tour operators voluntarily signed a code 

of conduct, and subsequent compliance 

with this code has significantly reduced 

the level of daily exposure to boats 

(South Pacific Whale Research 

Consortium, 2009). Whale watching and 

other recreational or research-related 

activities were deemed by the BRT to 

pose a low level of threat in this region. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Mattila and Robbins (2008) reported 

raised skin lesions along the dorsal 

flanks of humpback whales in American 

Samoa. The lesions differ 

morphologically from the ‘depressed’ 

lesions caused by cookie cutter sharks 

and appear to persist for long periods on 

the skin, rather than either erupting or 

healing. There are no reports of these 

lesions in whaling records, suggesting 

that this phenomenon is recent. The 

cause of these lesions is currently 

unknown (Mattila and Robbins, 2008), 

but they are not considered a threat to 

the population. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Whale sanctuaries (local waters where 

whaling is prohibited) have since been 

declared in the Exclusive Economic 

Zones of French Polynesia, Cook 

Islands, Tonga, Samoa, American 

Samoa, Niue, Vanuatu, New Caledonia 

and Fiji (Hoyt, 2005), while whales are 

protected in New Zealand waters under 

the New Zealand Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. 

Whale watching guidelines are in 

place in Tonga and New Caledonia, 

while boat-based whale watching in the 

Cook Islands, Samoa and Niue is 

minimal (O’Connor et al., 2009). 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

There is little information available 

from the South Pacific regarding 

entanglement with fishing gear; two 

humpback whales have been observed 

in Tonga entangled in rope in one 

instance and fishing net in another 

(Donoghue, pers. comm.). One 

humpback mother (with calf) was 

reported entangled in a longline in the 

Cook Islands in 2007 (South Pacific 

Whale Research Consortium, 2008). 

Entanglement scars have been seen on 

humpback whales in American Samoa, 

but there are not enough data to 

determine an entanglement rate. 

Available evidence suggests that 

entanglement is a potential concern in 

regions where whales and stationary or 

drifting gear in the water overlap 

(Mattila et al., 2010). The threat of 

entanglements was ranked low for the 

Oceania population. 

There is little information available 

from the South Pacific regarding ship 

strikes. This threat was ranked low but 

is expected to increase as vessel activity 

in the region increases. Similarly, this 

DPS is likely exposed to moderate levels 

of underwater noise resulting from 

human activities, which may include, 

for example, commercial and 

recreational vessel traffic. Overall 

population-level effects of exposure to 

underwater noise are not well 

established, but as vessel traffic and 

other activities are expected to increase, 

the level of this threat is expected to 

increase. 

In the Southern Hemisphere, 

humpback whales feed almost entirely 

on krill (Euphausia superba). There is a 

regulated commercial harvest of krill, 

but harvest levels are currently small 

and there is no evidence that this 

threatens the food supply of humpback 

whales (Everson and Goss, 1991; Nicol 

et al., 2008). The threat of competition 

with fisheries was considered low for 

the Oceania DPS. 

Climate change may impact the 

Oceania DPS of humpback whales in 

multiple ways. Sea level rise, ocean 

warming and ocean acidification may 

all negatively impact the reef system, 

which provides shallow, protected 

waters for breeding. Ocean acidification 

also has a documented impact on krill 

growth and development (Kurihara, 

2008), the primary prey item for 

Southern Hemisphere humpback 

whales. Krill are tightly associated with 

sea ice (Brierley et al., 1999; Brierley et 

al., 2002), and decreasing sea ice may 

negatively impact krill abundance and/ 

or distribution. Decreases in krill 

abundance have been observed around 

the Antarctic Peninsula (Atkinson et al., 

2004). Overall population level effects 

from global climate change and 

anthropogenic noise are not known and 

the threat was ranked low, based on the 

premise that krill would need to be 

substantially reduced in order to put 

humpback whales at risk of extinction. 

As discussed above under Section 

4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All DPSs, 

the BRT did not think the linkage 

between climate change and future krill 

production was sufficiently well 

understood to rate it as moderate or high 

risk. Nonetheless, any potential impacts 

resulting from these threats will almost 

certainly increase. 

In summary, all threats are considered 

likely to have no or minor impact on 

population size and/or the growth rate 

or are unknown for the Oceania DPS. 

Southeastern Pacific DPS 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Human population growth and 

associated coastal development, 

including port development, disruption 

and possible partitioning of the marine 

habitat and increased turbidity in 

coastal waters, are potential threats to 

the Southeastern Pacific DPS. The 

presumed migratory route for this 

population lies in the coastal waters off 

Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, 

Peru, and Argentina and includes some 

large human population centers in both 

Central and South America. Currently, 

the high degree of coastal development 

in this DPS’ habitat is not substantially 

affecting the DPS’ size or growth rate, 

and it is considered to be a low-level 

threat. 

Little has been published regarding 

contaminant levels in this region. 

However, while levels of DDTs, PCBs, 

and PBPEs are typically lower in 

Southern Hemisphere feeding areas than 

off the east or west coasts of the United 

States, little research has been done to 

confirm lower contaminant levels 

among Southern Hemisphere whales 

(Fleming and Jackson, 2011). DDT and 

PCB levels are likely to decrease in 

feeding areas because use of these 

chemicals has been banned in many 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22345 

countries, but PBPE use may still be 

increasing. Man-made contaminants are 

not considered to be a significant threat 

to this population. 

Energy exploration and development 

activities are present in this DPS’ habitat 

range. Oil and gas production is 

currently increasing in the Gulf of 

Guayaquil, Ecuador (Fe ́lix and Haase, 

2005). A large number of oil tankers 

transit through the Straits of Magellan 

yearly, a notoriously difficult route to 

navigate. At least one oil spill has 

resulted from a ship running aground 

there (Morris, 1988). Energy 

development is likely to expand if oil 

and gas reserves are discovered in other 

locations, but it does not pose a threat 

to this population now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

HABs of dinoflagellates and diatoms 

exist within the feeding range of this 

DPS, but there have been no records of 

humpback whale deaths as a result of 

exposure in this area. The occurrence of 

HABs is expected to increase with 

increased run-off and nutrient input 

from human-related activities; however, 

HABs do not pose a threat to this DPS 

now or in the foreseeable future. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Whale-watching tourism and 

scientific research occur, at relatively 

low levels, throughout this DPS’ range. 

Whale-watching tourism occurs along 

all of the South and Central American 

countries bordering the habitat of this 

DPS. Whale-watching industry growth 

has been significant and approximately 

half of these countries have whalewatching guidelines in place (Hoyt and 

Inı ́guez, 2008). Though some change in 

behavior of whales near tourism boats 

has been noted, whale-watching does 

not pose a threat to this DPS currently. 

Scientific research activities such as 

observation, biopsying, photographic 

studies and recording of underwater 

vocalizations of whales occur in both 

the breeding and feeding habitats and 

along this DPS’ migratory route, though 

no adverse effects from these events 

have been recorded. 

No whaling occurs in this DPS’ range. 

C. Disease or Predation 

There is little information available 

on the impacts of disease or parasitism 

on this DPS. 

Predation does not appear to be a 

current threat to this DPS. Killer whale 

attacks on humpback whales have been 

observed in this region, and scarring 

from killer whale and potentially false 

killer whale and shark attacks has been 

documented from photographic 

catalogues (Flo ́rez-Gonza ́lez et al., 1994; 

Scheidat et al., 2000; Fe ́lix and Haase, 

2001). The scarring rate is lower than in 

some other DPSs. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

No regulatory mechanisms specific to 

the Southeastern Pacific DPS were 

identified. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

In the Southern Hemisphere, 

humpback whales feed almost entirely 

on krill (Euphausia superba). There is a 

regulated and growing commercial krill 

fishery, but harvest levels are currently 

small and there is no evidence that this 

threatens the food supply of humpback 

whales (Everson and Goss, 1991; Nicol 

et al., 2008). 

Aquaculture activities are high in 

waters of Argentina and Chile, but the 

impact of these activities on this DPS of 

humpback whales has not been 

documented and is likely low if few 

whales use these inland areas. 

Entanglement was determined to pose a 

medium threat to this DPS based on 

stranding and entanglement 

observations and spatial and temporal 

overlap with aquaculture activities. 

This DPS is likely exposed to 

relatively high levels of underwater 

noise resulting from human activities, 

including commercial and recreational 

vessel traffic, and activities in naval test 

ranges, and these levels are expected to 

increase. Especially high levels of large 

vessel traffic are found off Panama (over 

12,000 ship transits annually) and in the 

Magellan Straits. Naval exercises occur 

around much of the South American 

coast annually. It is not known if 

underwater noise exposure affects 

humpback whale populations, but this 

does not currently appear to pose a 

significant threat to this DPS. 

No ships have reported striking 

humpback whales in this region, but 

incidents may be under-reported, and 

stranding reports indicate some 

contribution from vessel collisions 

(Capella Alzueta et al., 2001; Castro et 

al., 2008). Shipping traffic will probably 

increase as global commerce increases; 

thus, a reasonable assumption is that the 

level of vessel collisions will increase. 

Currently, ship strikes are considered a 

low level threat to this DPS. 

Entanglement in fishing gear poses 

the most significant risk to this DPS. 

The majority of entanglements involve 

gillnets and purse seines (Fe ́lix et al., 

1997; Capella Alzueta et al., 2001; Alava 

et al., 2005; Castro et al., 2008). The 

artisanal fishing fleet in Ecuador 

numbers over 15,000 vessels. Scarring 

rates indicate that close to one third of 

all observed animals have experienced 

some level of entanglement (Alava et al., 

2005). These scarring rates are similar to 

those observed off the northeast coast of 

the United States. Less research effort in 

the Southeast Pacific region compared 

to the northeast coast of the United 

States suggests that this reported 

scarification rate may even be an 

underestimate of the actual level of 

entanglement occurring in the Southeast 

Pacific. The number of dead and 

entangled whales off Colombia has 

increased over the last two decades 

(Capella Alzueta et al., 2001). Calves 

comprise over half of all observed 

entanglement events, a disproportionate 

value in light of the calf to adult ratio 

in the DPS (Engel et al., 2006; Neto et 

al., 2008). 

Humpback whales in the Southern 

Hemisphere feed almost entirely on krill 

(Euphausia superba) and acidification 

of the marine environment has been 

documented to impact the physiology 

and development of krill and other 

calcareous marine organisms, 

potentially reducing their abundance 

and subsequent availability to 

humpback whales in the future. The life 

cycle of Euphausia superba is tied to sea 

ice, making this prey species vulnerable 

to warming effects from climate change. 

Decreases in krill abundance have been 

observed around the Antarctic 

Peninsula (Atkinson et al., 2004). 

Overall population level effects from 

global climate change and 

anthropogenic noise are not known and 

the threat was ranked low, based on the 

premise that krill would need to be 

substantially reduced in order to put 

humpback whales at risk of extinction. 

As discussed above under Section 

4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All DPSs, 

the BRT did not think the linkage 

between climate change and future krill 

production was sufficiently well 

understood to rate it as moderate or high 

risk. Nonetheless, any potential impacts 

resulting from these threats will almost 

certainly increase. 

In summary, fishing gear 

entanglements are likely to moderately 

reduce the population size or the growth 

rate of the Southeastern Pacific DPS, 

and all other threats are considered 

likely to have no or minor impact on 

population size and/or the growth rate 

or are unknown for the Southeastern 

Pacific DPS. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22346 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Arabian Sea DPS 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of its Habitat or Range 

The BRT determined that the threat 

posed by energy exploration to the 

Arabian Sea DPS should be classified as 

high, given the small population size 

and the present levels of energy activity. 

A catastrophic event similar to that of 

the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the 

Gulf of Mexico could be devastating to 

this DPS, especially in light of the yearround presence of humpback whales in 

this area. 

The effect of pollutants on cetaceans 

is a concern in the region, as the 

Arabian Sea is a center of intense 

human activity with poor sea 

circulation, so pollutants can persist for 

long periods (Minton, 2004). Since the 

1970s, the coastal and marine 

infrastructure in Oman has developed at 

a rapid rate, with over 80 percent of the 

population now living within 13 miles 

from the coast, and expanding 

development of oil and gas resources 

and fishing fleets (Minton, 2004). The 

threats from coastal development and 

contaminants are ranked low but 

increasing. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

This humpback whale DPS is exposed 

to minimal scientific research and 

whale-watching activities. The adverse 

effects from these activities have not 

been identified, and overall impact is 

expected to be low and stable. 

No commercial whaling occurs in this 

DPS’ range, although 238 humpback 

whales were illegally killed in the 

Arabian Sea by the USSR in 1966 

(Mikhalev, 1997). 

C. Disease or Predation 

Liver damage was detected in 68.5 

percent of necropsied humpback whales 

in this area during Soviet whaling in 

1966, with degeneration of peripheral 

liver sections, cone-shaped growths up 

to 20 cm in diameter and blocked bile 

ducts (Mikhalev, 1997). While this 

pathology was consistent with infection 

by trematode parasites, none were 

identified during necropsy, and the 

causes of this liver damage remain 

unknown. 

Poisonous algal blooms and biotoxins 

have been implicated in some mass fish, 

turtle, and possibly cetacean, mortality 

events on the Oman coast, although no 

events have yet been known to include 

humpback whales. Coastal run-off from 

industrial activities is likely to be 

increasing rapidly, while regular oil 

spills in shipping lanes from tankers 

also contribute to pollution along the 

coast (e.g., Shriadah, 1999). Tattoo skin 

lesions were observed in 26 percent of 

photo-identified whales from Oman 

(Baldwin et al., 2010). While not 

thought to be a common cause of adult 

mortality, it has been suggested that 

tattoo skin disease may differentially 

kill neonates and calves that have not 

yet gained immunity (Van Bressem et 

al., 2009). The authors also suggested 

that this disease may be more prevalent 

in marine mammal populations that 

experience chronic stress and/or are 

exposed to pollutants that suppress the 

immune system. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

No regulatory mechanisms specific to 

the Arabian Sea DPS were identified. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

The primary prey of humpback 

whales in Oman (Sardinella sp.) is also 

consumed by tuna and other 

commercial pelagic fish targeted by 

gillnet fisheries, but the severity of the 

threat of competition with fisheries is 

unknown. 

The BRT did not have information 

about offshore aquaculture activities in 

the Arabian Sea. 

Humpback whales in the Arabian Sea 

are exposed to a high level of vessel 

traffic (Baldwin, 2000; Minton, 2004; 

Kaluza et al., 2010), so the threat of ship 

strikes was considered medium for this 

small DPS. 

This DPS is likely exposed to 

relatively high levels of underwater 

noise resulting from human activities, 

including, for example, commercial and 

recreational vessel traffic, and activities 

related to oil and gas exploration and 

development. Overall population-level 

effects of exposure to underwater noise 

are not well-established, but exposure is 

likely chronic and at moderate levels. 

As vessel traffic and other activities are 

expected to increase, the level of this 

threat is expected to increase. 

There is high fishing pressure in areas 

off Oman where humpback whales are 

sighted. Eight live humpback whale 

entanglement incidents were 

documented between 1990 and 2000, 

involving bottom set gillnets often with 

weights still attached and anchoring the 

whales to the ocean floor (Minton, 

2004). Minton et al. (2010b) examined 

peduncle photographs of humpback 

whales in the Arabian Sea and 

concluded that at least 33 percent had 

been entangled in fishing gear at some 

stage. The threat of fishing gear 

entanglements in the Arabian Sea is 

considered high and increasing. 

The threat posed by climate change to 

the Arabian Sea DPS of the humpback 

whale was determined to be slightly 

higher than to the other DPSs and was 

assigned medium threat level. This 

higher threat level is based on the more 

limited movement of this DPS that both 

breeds and feeds in the Arabian Sea. 

Changing climatic conditions may 

change the monsoon-driven upwelling 

that creates seasonal productivity in the 

region. While Northern Hemisphere 

individuals may be able to adapt to 

climatic changes by moving farther 

north, Arabian Sea individuals have less 

flexibility for expanding their range to 

cooler regions. 

Evidence that this DPS has undergone 

a recent genetic bottleneck and is 

currently at low abundance (Minton et 

al., 2010b) suggests that there may be an 

additional risk of impacts from 

increased inbreeding (which may 

reduce genetic fitness and increase 

susceptibility to disease). At low 

densities, populations are more likely to 

suffer from the ‘‘Allee’’ effect, where 

inbreeding and the heightened difficulty 

of finding mates reduces the population 

growth rate in proportion with reducing 

density. 

In summary, the Arabian Sea DPS 

faces unique threats, given that the 

whales do not migrate, but instead feed 

and breed in the same, relatively 

constrained geographic location. Energy 

exploration and fishing gear 

entanglements are considered likely to 

seriously reduce the population’s size 

and/or growth rate, and disease, vessel 

collisions, and climate change are likely 

to moderately reduce the population’s 

size or growth rate. 

Ongoing Conservation Efforts 

When considering the listing, 

reclassification, or delisting of a species, 

section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us 

to consider efforts by any State, foreign 

nation, or political subdivision of a 

State or foreign nation to protect the 

species. Such efforts would include 

measures by Native American tribes and 

organizations, local governments, and 

private organizations. Also, Federal, 

tribal, state, and foreign recovery actions 

(16 U.S.C. 1533(f)), and Federal 

consultation requirements (16 U.S.C. 

1536) constitute conservation measures. 

We must evaluate any conservation 

efforts that have not yet been 

implemented or have not yet been 

shown to be effective under the joint 

NMFS/FWS Policy on the Evaluation of 

Conservation Efforts (PECE) (68 FR 

15100; March 28, 2003). For these 

efforts, we must evaluate the certainty of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22347 

implementing the conservation efforts 

and the certainty that the conservation 

efforts will be effective on the basis of 

whether the effort or plan establishes 

specific conservation objectives, 

identifies the necessary steps to reduce 

threats or factors for decline, includes 

quantifiable performance measures for 

the monitoring of compliance and 

effectiveness, incorporates the 

principles of adaptive management, and 

is likely to improve the species’ viability 

at the time of the listing determination. 

The Convention on the Conservation 

of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 

(CMS) is an intergovernmental treaty 

which requires range states to protect 

migratory species including humpback 

whales where they occur, conserve or 

restore habitats, mitigate obstacles to 

migration, and control other 

endangering factors. The humpback 

whale is listed in Appendix I of the 

CMS (species in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

their range). Parties to CMS are required 

to prohibit take of Appendix I species. 

The CMS has developed binding 

Agreements and nonbinding 

Memoranda of Understanding (MOU). 

An MOU for the Conservation of 

Cetaceans and their Habitats in the 

Pacific Islands Regions became effective 

in 2006 and offers a level of protection 

to the Southern Hemisphere 

populations of humpback whales and 

their habitats in this region. The CMS 

Agreements on the Conservation of (a) 

Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North 

East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas 

(29.03.1994) and (b) Cetaceans of the 

Black Seas, Mediterranean and 

Contiguous Atlantic Area are not 

designed specifically for the humpback 

whale but may provide incidental 

protection to the species. 

The Bern Convention on the 

Conservation of European Wildlife and 

Habitats is a regional European treaty on 

conservation of wild flora and fauna and 

their natural habitats and calls for 

signatories to provide special protection 

for fauna species listed in Appendix II 

and III to the convention. The 

convention is a binding agreement for 

participating parties, and its aim is to 

ensure conservation by means of 

cooperation, including efforts to protect 

migratory species. The Parties promote 

national policies and education for the 

conservation of nature and the 

integration of conservation into 

environmental policies. The humpback 

whale is listed in Appendix II—fauna 

species to be strictly protected—which 

prohibits deliberate capture and killing, 

damage to or destruction of breeding 

sites, deliberate disturbance of animals 

during breeding and rearing, and the 

possession of and internal trade in these 

animals alive or dead (Council of 

Europe’s Bern Convention, 2013). 

The provisions of the Council of the 

European Union (EU) Directive 92/43 on 

the Conservation of Natural Habitats 

and of Wild Fauna and Flora (EU 

Habitats Directive) are intended to 

promote the conservation of biodiversity 

in EU member countries. EU members 

meet the habitat conservation 

requirements of the network known as 

Natura 2000. Humpback whales are 

listed in Annex IV of the convention, 

which identifies species determined to 

be in need of strict protection across the 

European region. Twenty-seven member 

states work with the same legislative 

framework to protect species. Actions 

originating from the EU Habitats 

Directive that may provide protection to 

humpback whales in the region include 

(a) coordinated development of a 

European Red List of species threatened 

at the European level (parallel with the 

IUCN listings); (b) guidance documents 

on the protection of species listed under 

the Directive, and on the development 

of a network of conservation areas in the 

offshore marine environment and (c) 

species assessment reports. While not 

regulatory in nature, these actions are 

designed to reduce threats and provide 

a conservation benefit to the Atlantic 

humpback whales. 

The Commission for the Conservation 

of Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

(CCAMLR) was established in 1982 with 

25 member countries. Its objective is the 

conservation of Antarctic marine life, 

particularly krill and the Antarctic 

marine ecosystems that depend on krill. 

The Commission manages fisheries for 

Antarctic krill and several finfish 

species with the goal of ensuring longterm sustainability and existing 

ecological relationships. 

Numerous additional international or 

regional treaties, conventions and 

agreements offer some degree of 

protection for humpback whales and 

their habitat (reviewed by Hoyt, 2011). 

In addition to IWC regulations 

discussed above under the Section 

4(a)(1) factors, the IWC co-ordinates and 

funds conservation work on many 

species of cetaceans. This includes work 

to reduce the frequency of ship strikes, 

to co-ordinate disentanglement events, 

and to establish Conservation 

Management Plans for key species and 

populations. Recently, the IWC has 

adopted a Strategic Plan for Whale 

Watching so as to facilitate the further 

development of this activity in a way 

which is responsible and consistent 

with international best practice (http:// 

iwc.int/history-and-purpose, accessed 

February 10, 2014). It is too early to 

evaluate the effectiveness of this plan 

under the PECE, but since the impact of 

whale-watching on all of the humpback 

whale DPSs is considered to be 

negligible, even if this plan proves to be 

extremely effective in reducing impacts 

of whale-watching on humpback 

whales, we would not likely conclude 

that this plan would make the difference 

between endangered and threatened 

status or between threatened and not 

warranted status for any of the 

humpback whale DPSs. 

At this time, we are not aware of any 

other formalized conservation efforts for 

humpback whales that have yet to be 

implemented, or which have recently 

been implemented but have yet to show 

their effectiveness in removing threats 

to the species. Therefore, we do not 

need to evaluate any other conservation 

efforts under the PECE. 

Rationale for Revising the Current 

Global Listing and Replacing It With 

Listings of DPSs 

As explained throughout this 

proposed rule, we have determined that, 

based on the best currently available 

scientific and commercial information 

including the BRT’s recommendations 

and consideration of the uncertainty 

involved in its recommendation to 

identify the Okinawa/Philippines and 

Second West Pacific populations as 

separate DPSs, the humpback whale 

should be recognized under the ESA as 

a set of 14 separate DPSs. Based on a 

comprehensive status review and our 

analysis of demographic factors and the 

Section 4(a)(1) factors, we have 

concluded that some of the DPSs qualify 

as endangered species, some qualify as 

threatened species, and some do not 

qualify for listing. Our proposed action 

here is prompted both by our own 

review, begun in 2009, and the two 

delisting petitions we received. 

Our proposed determinations are 

based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information pertaining 

to the species throughout its range and 

within each DPS. In this proposed rule, 

we are identifying 14 DPSs, making 

listing determinations for each of these 

DPSs, and proposing to revise the 

current listing to reflect the new 

determinations. We find that the 

purposes of the ESA would be furthered 

by managing this wide-ranging species 

as separate units under the DPS 

authority, in order to tailor protections 

of the ESA to those populations that 

warrant protection. Based on a review of 

the demographics of these DPSs and the 

five factors contained in ESA section 

4(a)(1), we find that the best available 

science no longer supports a finding 

that the species is an ‘‘endangered 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22348 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

species’’ throughout its range. We 

propose to revise the listing for the 

humpback whale by removing the 

current species-wide listing and in its 

place listing 2 DPSs as threatened and 

2 as endangered. Ten DPSs are not being 

proposed for listing because their 

current status does not warrant listing. 

Since these DPSs are not currently listed 

as separate entities, we are proposing to 

replace the existing listing of the species 

with separate listings for those DPSs 

that warrant classification as threatened 

or endangered, rather than ‘‘delisting’’ 

those DPSs that do not warrant such 

classification under our regulations (50 

CFR 424.11(d)). However, the effect of 

our proposed action, if finalized, will be 

that the protections of the ESA will no 

longer apply to these 10 DPSs. We note 

that we have previously reclassified a 

species into constituent populations and 

revised the listing to remove one 

population from the list or assign 

different statuses to the different 

populations (e.g., identifying western 

and eastern populations of the gray 

whale and removing the eastern one 

from the endangered species list (59 FR 

31094; June 16, 1994); identifying 

western and eastern DPSs of the Steller 

sea lion, which had been listed as 

threatened, and listing the western DPS 

as endangered (62 FR 24345; May 5, 

1997)). 

The ESA gives us authority to make 

these listing determinations and to 

revise the lists of endangered and 

threatened species to reflect these 

determinations. Section 4(a)(1) of the 

ESA authorizes us to determine by 

regulation whether ‘‘any species,’’ 

which is expressly defined to include 

species, subspecies, and DPSs, is 

endangered or threatened based on 

certain factors. Review of the status of 

a species may be commenced at any 

time, either on our own initiative 

through a status review or in connection 

with a 5-year review under Section 

4(c)(2), or in response to a petition. A 

DPS is not a scientifically recognized 

entity, but rather one that is created 

under the language of the ESA and 

effectuated through our 1996 DPS 

Policy. We have some discretion to 

determine whether a species should be 

reclassified into DPSs and what 

boundaries should be recognized for 

each DPS. At the conclusion of the 

listing review process, Section 4(c)(1) 

gives us authority to update the lists of 

endangered species and threatened 

species to conform to our most recent 

determinations. This can include 

revising the lists to remove a species 

from the lists or reclassifying the listed 

entity. 

Neither the ESA nor our regulations 

explicitly prescribe the process we 

should follow where the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the listing of a taxonomic 

species should be updated and revised 

into listings of constituent DPSs. To the 

extent it may be said that the statute is 

ambiguous as to precisely how the 

updated listings should replace the 

original listing in such circumstances, 

we provide our interpretation of the 

statutory scheme. The purposes of the 

statute are furthered in certain 

situations where the agency has 

determined that it is appropriate to 

revise a rangewide listing in order to 

ensure that the current lists of 

endangered and threatened species 

comport with the best available 

scientific and commercial information. 

For example, updating a listing may 

further the statute’s purpose of 

recognizing when the status of a listed 

species has improved to the point that 

fewer protections are needed under the 

ESA, allowing for appropriately tailored 

management for the populations that do 

not warrant listing and for those 

remaining populations that do. Where a 

species, subspecies, or DPS no longer 

needs protection of the ESA, removing 

those protections may free resources 

that can be devoted to the protection of 

other species. Conversely, 

disaggregating a listing into DPSs can 

also sometimes lead to greater 

protections if one or more constituent 

DPSs qualify for reclassification to 

endangered. 

There is no practicable alternative to 

simultaneously recognizing the newly 

identified DPSs and proposing to assign 

them the various statuses of threatened, 

endangered, or not warranted for listing 

to replace the original taxonomic 

species listing. It would be nonsensical 

and contrary to the statute’s purposes 

and the best available science 

requirement to attempt to first 

separately list all the constituent DPSs; 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information would not 

support listing all of the DPSs now in 

order to delist some of them 

subsequently. Nor would it make sense 

to attempt to first ‘‘delist’’ the specieslevel listing in order to then list some 

of the constituent DPSs. Where multiple 

DPSs qualify for listing as endangered or 

threatened, it would inherently thwart 

the statute’s purposes to remove 

protections of the ESA from all members 

of the species even temporarily. The 

approach we are proposing ensures a 

smooth transition from the current 

taxonomic species listing to the future 

listing of certain specified DPSs. 

After we consider public comment, if 

we publish a final rule that has the 

effect of removing specified DPSs from 

the endangered species list, we will 

continue to monitor the status of the 

entire range of the humpback whale. For 

any DPSs that are listed, monitoring is 

as a matter of course, pursuant to the 

obligation to periodically review the 

status of these species (ESA Section 

4(c)(2)). In addition, we will undertake 

monitoring of any DPSs that are not 

listed as a result of their improved 

status (ESA Section 4(g)). 

Conclusions on the Status of Each DPS 

Under the ESA 

Based on the BRT’s DPS conclusions 

(with the exception that we combined 

the Okinawa/Philippines and Second 

West Pacific populations identified by 

the BRT into the Western North Pacific 

DPS), the BRT’s assessment of the 

demographic and ESA section 4(a)(1) 

factors, and our evaluation of ongoing 

conservation efforts, we make the 

following listing determinations. 

Endangered DPSs 

We conclude that 2 humpback whale 

DPSs are in danger of extinction 

throughout their ranges: The Cape Verde 

Islands/Northwest Africa DPS and the 

Arabian Sea DPS. 

Little is known about the total size of 

the Cape Verde Islands/Northwest 

Africa DPS, and its trend is unknown. 

For the Cape Verde Islands/Northwest 

Africa DPS, the threats of HABs, 

disease, parasites, vessel collisions, 

fishing gear entanglements and climate 

change are unknown. All other threats 

to this DPS are considered likely to have 

no or minor impact on the population 

size and/or growth rate. The BRT 

distributed 32 percent of its likelihood 

points for this DPS to the ‘‘high risk of 

extinction’’ category, 43 percent to the 

‘‘moderate risk of extinction’’ category, 

and 25 percent to the ‘‘not at risk of 

extinction’’ category. We have no reason 

to believe that this DPS’ status has 

improved since humpback whales 

within the range of this DPS were listed 

as endangered. Because of the high 

likelihood that the abundance of this 

DPS is low and the considerable 

uncertainty regarding the risks of 

extinction of this DPS due to a general 

lack of data, we propose to retain the 

Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa 

DPS on the list of endangered species at 

50 CFR 224.101. 

The estimated abundance of the 

Arabian Sea DPS is less than 100, but its 

entire range was not surveyed, so it 

could be somewhat larger. Its trend is 

unknown. The Arabian Sea DPS faces 

unique threats, given that the whales do 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22349 

not migrate, but instead feed and breed 

in the same, relatively constrained 

geographic location. Energy exploration 

and fishing gear entanglements are 

considered likely to seriously reduce the 

population’s size and/or growth rate, 

and disease, vessel collisions and 

climate change are likely to moderately 

reduce the population’s size or growth 

rate. The BRT distributed 87 percent of 

its likelihood points for the Arabian Sea 

DPS in the ‘‘at high risk of extinction’’ 

category. We agree with the BRT that 

the Arabian Sea DPS is at a high risk of 

extinction, and therefore, we propose to 

retain the Arabian Sea DPS on the list 

of endangered species at 50 CFR 

224.101. 

Threatened DPSs 

We conclude that 2 other DPSs are 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

in the foreseeable future throughout 

their ranges: The Western North Pacific 

DPS and the Central America DPS. As 

noted above, in making this 

determination, we applied the same 60- 

year timeframe as the BRT assumed for 

the foreseeable future. 

The abundance of the Western North 

Pacific DPS is thought to be about 1,100 

individuals or more, with unknown 

trend. All threats are considered likely 

to have no or minor impact on 

population size and/or the growth rate 

or are unknown, with the following 

exceptions: Energy development, 

whaling, competition with fisheries, and 

vessel collisions are considered likely to 

moderately reduce the population size 

or the growth rate of the Okinawa/

Philippines portion of this DPS. Fishing 

gear entanglements are considered 

likely to seriously reduce the population 

size or the growth rate of the Okinawa/ 

Philippines portion of this DPS. In 

general, there is great uncertainty about 

the threats facing the Second West 

Pacific portion of this DPS. The BRT 

distributed 36 percent of its likelihood 

points for the Okinawa/Philippines 

portion of the DPS in the ‘‘high risk of 

extinction’’ category and 44 percent in 

the ‘‘moderate risk of extinction’’ 

category, with only 21 percent of the 

points in the ‘‘not at risk of extinction’’ 

category. The distribution of likelihood 

points among the risk categories 

indicates uncertainty. There was also 

considerable uncertainty regarding the 

risk of extinction of the Second West 

Pacific portion of this DPS, with 14 

percent of the points in the ‘‘high risk 

of extinction’’ category, 47 percent in 

the ‘‘moderate risk of extinction’’ 

category, and 39 percent in the ‘‘not at 

risk of extinction’’ category. The 

majority of likelihood points were in the 

‘‘moderate risk of extinction’’ category 

for both portions of the Western North 

Pacific DPS. Given the relatively low 

population size of the Western North 

Pacific DPS (estimated to be less than 

2,000), the moderate reduction of its 

population size or growth rate likely 

from energy development, whaling, 

competition with fisheries, and vessel 

collisions, the serious reduction of its 

population size or growth rate likely 

from fishing gear entanglements, the fact 

that the majority of the BRT’s likelihood 

points were in the ‘‘moderate risk of 

extinction’’ category for both portions of 

the DPS, and the considerable 

uncertainty associated with this, we 

propose to add the Western North 

Pacific DPS to the list of threatened 

species at 50 CFR 223.102. 

The abundance of the Central 

America DPS is thought to be about 500 

individuals with unknown trend. All 

threats are considered likely to have no 

or minor impact on population size and/ 

or the growth rate or are unknown, with 

the following exceptions: Vessel 

collisions and fishing gear 

entanglements are considered likely to 

moderately reduce the population size 

or the growth rate of the Central 

America DPS. The BRT distributed 28 

percent of its likelihood points for the 

Central America DPS in the ‘‘high risk 

of extinction’’ category, 56 percent in 

the ‘‘moderate risk of extinction’’ 

category, and 16 percent in the ‘‘not at 

risk of extinction’’ category, but the 

distribution of votes among the risk 

categories indicates uncertainty. Given 

the relatively low population size 

(estimated to be about 500), the 

moderate reduction of its population 

size or growth rate likely from vessel 

collisions and fishing gear 

entanglement, the fact that the majority 

of the BRT’s likelihood points were in 

the ‘‘moderate risk of extinction’’ 

category, and the high uncertainty 

associated with this, we propose to add 

the Central America DPS to the list of 

threatened species at 50 CFR 223.102. 

Pursuant to the second sentence of 

section 4(d) of the ESA, we propose to 

extend the prohibitions of Section 

9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) of the ESA 

(16 U.S.C. 1538) relating to endangered 

species to the Western North Pacific and 

Central America DPSs of the humpback 

whale. 

DPSs Not Warranted for Listing Under 

the ESA 

Finally, we conclude that 10 DPSs are 

neither in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

their ranges nor likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future: West Indies, 

Hawaii, Mexico, Brazil, Gabon/

Southwest Africa, Southeast Africa/

Madagascar, West Australia, East 

Australia, Oceania, and Southeastern 

Pacific DPSs. When the BRT first 

reached its conclusions regarding 

whether any portions of the ranges of 

these DPSs were significant, NMFS and 

the FWS had not yet finalized the 

SPOIR policy. The draft SPOIR policy 

that the BRT followed differed from the 

final SPOIR policy in that a portion of 

the range of a species was considered 

‘‘significant’’ if the portion’s 

contribution to the viability of the 

species was so important that, without 

that portion, the species would be in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range. The difference between the draft 

and final policies is the threshold at 

which we determine whether a portion 

is significant. Under the final SPOIR 

policy the hypothetical loss of the 

portion being considered would only 

need to result in the species being 

threatened throughout its range instead 

of endangered throughout its range to be 

considered significant. Before finalizing 

its report, the BRT was provided with a 

draft of the final SPOIR policy, which 

included this lower threshold of 

’’threatened’’ for determining whether a 

portion is significant. Based on the 

revised SPOIR policy, the BRT revisited 

its SPOIR determinations and 

concluded for all DPSs that were at low 

or no risk of extinction, ‘‘The 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ 

analyses under the final policy would 

not have resulted in different 

conclusions from the analyses 

conducted under the draft policy.’’ 

In the North Atlantic, the abundance 

of the West Indies DPS is much greater 

than 2,000 individuals and is increasing 

moderately. The threats of HABs, vessel 

collisions, and fishing gear 

entanglements are likely to moderately 

reduce the population size and/or the 

growth rate of the West Indies DPS. All 

other threats, with the exception of 

climate change (unknown severity), are 

considered likely to have no or minor 

impact on population size or the growth 

rate of this DPS. The BRT distributed 82 

percent of its likelihood points for the 

West Indies DPS to the ‘‘not at risk of 

extinction’’ category and 17 percent to 

the ‘‘moderate risk of extinction’’ 

category. Given the large population 

size (>2,000), moderately increasing 

trend, and the high percentage of 

likelihood points allocated to the ‘‘not at 

risk of extinction’’ category, we 

conclude that, despite the moderate 

threats of HABs, vessel collisions, and 

fishing gear entanglements and 

unknown severity of climate change as 

a threat, the West Indies DPS is not in 

danger of extinction throughout its 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22350 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

range or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future throughout its range. 

Next, per the SPOIR Policy, we need 

to determine whether the West Indies 

DPS is in danger of extinction or likely 

to become so in the foreseeable future in 

a significant portion of its range. The 

BRT noted that there are some regional 

differences in threats for the West Indies 

DPS, but it was unable to identify 

portions of the DPS that both faced 

particularly high threats and were so 

significant to the viability of the DPS as 

a whole that, if lost, would result in the 

remainder of the DPS being at high risk 

of extinction. We agree with the BRT’s 

conclusions and conclude that there are 

no portions of the DPS that face 

particularly high threats and are so 

significant to the viability of the DPS 

that, if lost, the DPS would be in danger 

of extinction or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future. Therefore, we 

conclude that the DPS is not in danger 

of extinction in a significant portion of 

its range, nor likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future. 

We conclude that the West Indies DPS 

is not endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, and, therefore, we do not 

propose to list the West Indies DPS as 

a threatened or endangered species. 

In the North Pacific, the abundances 

of the Hawaii and Mexico DPSs are 

much greater than 2,000 individuals and 

are thought to be increasing moderately. 

All threats are considered likely to have 

no or minor impact on population size 

and/or the growth rate of these two 

DPSs or are unknown, with the 

following exceptions: Fishing gear 

entanglements are considered likely to 

moderately reduce the population size 

or the growth rate of the Hawaii and 

Mexico DPSs. The BRT distributed 98 

percent and 92 percent of its likelihood 

points for the Hawaii and Mexico DPSs, 

respectively, to the ‘‘not at risk of 

extinction’’ category. Given the large 

population size (>2,000), moderately 

increasing trend, and high percentage of 

likelihood points allocated to the ‘‘not at 

risk of extinction’’ category for both the 

Hawaii and Mexico DPSs, we conclude 

that, despite the moderate threat of 

fishing gear entanglements, the Hawaii 

and Mexico DPSs are not in danger of 

extinction throughout their ranges or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future. 

Next, per the SPOIR Policy, we need 

to determine whether the Hawaii and 

Mexico DPSs are in danger of extinction 

or likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future in a significant portion of their 

ranges. The BRT noted that there are 

some regional differences in threats for 

the Hawaii DPS, but it was unable to 

identify portions of the DPS that both 

faced particularly high threats and were 

so significant to the viability of the DPS 

as a whole that, if lost, would result in 

the remainder of the DPS being at high 

risk of extinction. The BRT noted that 

there also are some regional differences 

in threats for the Mexico DPS, and some 

evidence for minor substructure within 

the DPS due to multiple breeding 

locations associated with somewhat 

distinctive feeding grounds. However, 

the BRT was unable to identify portions 

of the DPS that faced particularly high 

threats compared to other portions of 

the DPS or that appeared to be at high 

risk of extirpation. We agree, and we 

conclude that no portions of either DPS 

face particularly high threats and are so 

significant to the viability of the DPS 

that, if lost, the DPSs would be in 

danger of extinction, or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, 

we conclude that neither DPS is in 

danger of extinction in a significant 

portion of its range, or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future. 

We conclude that the Hawaii and 

Mexico DPSs are not endangered or 

threatened throughout all or a 

significant portion of their ranges, and 

we therefore do not propose to list the 

Hawaii and Mexico DPSs as a 

threatened or endangered species. 

In the Southern Hemisphere, all seven 

DPSs are thought to be greater than 

2,000 individuals in population size. 

The Brazil DPS is increasing either 

rapidly or moderately. The trend of the 

Gabon/Southwest Africa DPS is 

unknown. The trend of the Southeast 

Africa/Madagascar DPS is thought to 

either be increasing or stable. The trend 

of the Oceania DPS is unknown. The 

West Australia and East Australia DPSs 

are both large and increasing rapidly. 

The Southeastern Pacific DPS is thought 

to either be increasing or stable. In the 

Southern Hemisphere, all threats are 

considered likely to have no or minor 

impact on population size and/or the 

growth rate or are unknown, with the 

exception of energy exploration posing 

a moderate threat to the West Australia 

and Gabon/Southwest Africa DPSs, and 

fishing gear entanglements posing a 

moderate threat to the Southeastern 

Pacific, Southeast Africa/Madagascar, 

and Oceania DPSs. The BRT distributed 

at least 93 percent of their likelihood 

points to the ‘‘not at risk of extinction’’ 

category for six DPSs in the Southern 

Hemisphere (Brazil, Gabon/Southwest 

Africa, and Southeast Africa/

Madagascar, West Australia, East 

Australia, and Southeastern Pacific 

DPSs), thus indicating a high certainty 

in its voting. For the Oceania DPS, the 

BRT distributed 68 percent of its points 

to the ‘‘not at risk of extinction’’ 

category, indicating moderate certainty, 

and 29 percent of its points to the 

‘‘moderate risk of extinction’’ category, 

indicating some support. None of the 

factors that may negatively impact the 

status of the humpback whale appear to 

pose a threat to recovery, either alone or 

cumulatively, for these DPSs. Given the 

large population sizes (>2,000) for all 

seven DPSs, the fact that none of these 

DPSs is known to be decreasing in 

population size and some are 

increasing, the high percentage of (or, in 

the case of the Oceania DPS, the 

majority of) likelihood points allocated 

to the ‘‘not at risk of extinction’’ 

category, and the high certainty 

associated with six of these extinction 

risk estimates and moderate certainty 

associated with the extinction risk 

estimate for the Oceania DPS, we 

conclude that none of these seven DPSs 

are at risk of extinction throughout all 

of their ranges now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

Next, per the SPOIR Policy, we need 

to determine whether any of these DPSs 

are in danger of extinction or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future in 

a significant portion of their ranges. The 

BRT was unable to identify portions of 

the Brazil, Southeast Africa/Madagascar, 

West Australia, East Australia, and 

Southeastern Pacific DPSs that both 

faced particularly high threats and were 

so significant to the viability of the DPSs 

as a whole that, if lost, would result in 

the remainder of the DPSs being at high 

risk of extinction. We agree, and we also 

conclude that no portions of these DPSs 

face particularly high threats and are so 

significant to the viability of the DPSs 

that, if lost, any DPS would be in danger 

of extinction, or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future. Therefore, we 

conclude that the Brazil, Southeast 

Africa/Madagascar, West Australia, East 

Australia, and Southeastern Pacific 

DPSs are not threatened or endangered 

in a significant portion of their ranges. 

The BRT concluded that there was 

some evidence for population 

substructure within the Gabon/

Southwest Africa DPS, based on an 

extensive breeding range with some 

significant genetic differentiation among 

breeding locations (Rosenbaum et al., 

2009). However, the BRT was unable to 

identify any portions of the DPS that 

both faced particularly high threats and 

were so significant to the viability of the 

DPS as a whole that, if lost, would result 

in the remainder of the DPS being at 

high risk of extinction. We agree, and 

we also conclude that no portions of 

this DPS face particularly high threats 

and are so significant to the viability of 

the DPS that, if lost, the DPS would be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22351 

in danger of extinction, or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, we conclude that the Gabon/ 

Southwest Africa DPS is not threatened 

or endangered in a significant portion of 

its range. 

The BRT noted that the Oceania DPS 

has potentially somewhat greater 

substructure than most other humpback 

whale DPSs due to its extended 

breeding range, though a lack of strong 

genetic structure indicates there are 

likely to be considerable demographic 

connections among these areas. Some 

threats, such as whale watching in the 

Southern Lagoon of New Caledonia, 

appear to be localized. Nonetheless, the 

BRT was unable to identify any specific 

areas where threats were sufficiently 

severe to be likely to cause local 

extirpation. We agree, and we also 

conclude that no portion of this DPS 

faces particularly high threats and is so 

significant to the viability of the DPS 

that, if lost, the DPS would be in danger 

of extinction, or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future. Therefore, we 

conclude that the Oceania DPS is not 

threatened or endangered in a 

significant portion of its range. 

We conclude that none of the seven 

DPSs in the Southern Hemisphere are 

endangered or threatened throughout all 

or a significant portion of their ranges, 

and we therefore do not propose to list 

the Brazil, Gabon/Southwest Africa, 

Southeast Africa/Madagascar, West 

Australia, East Australia, Oceania, and 

Southeastern Pacific DPSs as 

endangered or threatened species. 

Monitoring Plan 

We will work with the states and 

countries within the range of the ten 

DPSs that we do not propose for listing 

(which has the effect of removing them 

from the endangered species list) to 

develop a plan for continuing to 

monitor the status of these DPSs. The 

objective of the monitoring plan will be 

to ensure that necessary recovery 

actions remain in place and to ensure 

the absence of substantial new threats to 

the DPSs’ continued existence. In part 

such monitoring efforts are already an 

integral component of ongoing research, 

existing stranding networks, and other 

management and enforcement programs 

implemented under the MMPA. These 

activities are conducted by NMFS in 

collaboration with other Federal and 

state agencies, the Western Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

the New England Fishery Management 

Council, university affiliates, and 

private research groups. As noted in 

Bettridge et al. (2015), many regulatory 

avenues already in existence provide for 

review of proposed projects to reduce or 

prevent adverse effects to humpback 

whales and for post-project monitoring 

to ensure protection to humpback 

whales, as well as penalties for violation 

of the prohibition on unauthorized take 

under the MMPA for all DPSs that occur 

in U.S. waters or by U.S. persons or 

vessels on the high seas. However, the 

addition and implementation of specific 

Monitoring Plans will provide an 

additional degree of attention and an 

early warning system to ensure that 

constructively removing these ten DPSs 

from the endangered species list will 

not result in the re-emergence of threats 

to the DPSs. 

Description of Proposed Regulatory 

Changes 

To implement this proposed action 

we propose to replace the humpback 

whale listing on the endangered species 

list at 50 CFR 224.101 with the Cape 

Verde Islands/Northwest Africa and 

Arabian Sea DPSs of the humpback 

whale and add the Western North 

Pacific and Central America DPSs of the 

humpback whale to the list of 

threatened species at 50 CFR 223.102. 

Prohibitions and Protective Measures 

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain 

activities that directly or indirectly 

affect endangered species. These 

prohibitions apply to all individuals, 

organizations and agencies subject to 

U.S. jurisdiction. Section 4(d) of the 

ESA directs the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) to implement regulations ‘‘to 

provide for the conservation of 

[threatened] species’’ that may include 

extending any or all of the prohibitions 

of section 9 to threatened species. 

Section 9(a)(1)(g) also prohibits 

violations of protective regulations for 

threatened species implemented under 

section 4(d). We are proposing to extend 

all of the prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) 

in protective regulations issued under 

the second sentence of section 4(d) for 

the Western North Pacific and Central 

America DPSs of the humpback whale. 

No special findings are required to 

support extending Section 9 

prohibitions for the protection of 

threatened species. See In re Polar Bear 

Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) 

Rule Litigation, 818 F.Supp.2d 214, 228 

(D.D.C. 2011); Sweet Home Chapter of 

Cmties. for a Great Oregon v. Babbitt, 1 

F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir.1993), modified on 

other grounds on reh’g, 17 F.3d 1463 

(D.C. Cir. 1994), rev’d on other grounds, 

515 U.S. 687 (1995). 

Sections 7(a)(2) and (4) of the ESA 

require Federal agencies to consult or 

confer with us to ensure that activities 

they authorize, fund, or conduct are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or a species 

proposed for listing, or to adversely 

modify critical habitat or proposed 

critical habitat. If a Federal action may 

affect a listed species or its critical 

habitat, the responsible Federal agency 

must enter into consultation with us. 

Examples of Federal actions that may 

affect the Cape Verde Islands/Northwest 

Africa, Western North Pacific, and 

Central America DPSs of the humpback 

whale include permits and 

authorizations for shipping, fisheries, 

oil and gas exploration, and toxic waste 

and other pollutant discharges, if they 

occur in U.S. waters or the high seas. 

Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the 

ESA provide us with authority to grant 

exceptions to the ESA’s section 9 ‘‘take’’ 

prohibitions. Section 10(a)(1)(A) 

scientific research and enhancement 

permits may be issued to entities 

(Federal and non-Federal) for scientific 

purposes or to enhance the propagation 

or survival of a listed species. The type 

of activities potentially requiring a 

section 10(a)(1)(A) research/

enhancement permit include scientific 

research that targets humpback whales, 

including the importation of non-U.S. 

samples for research conducted in the 

United States. Section 10(a)(1)(B) 

incidental take permits are required for 

non-Federal activities that may 

incidentally take a listed species in the 

course of an otherwise lawful activity. 

Identification of Those Activities That 

Would Constitute a Violation of Section 

9 of the ESA 

On July 1, 1994, NMFS and the FWS 

issued an Interagency Cooperative 

Policy for Endangered Species Act 

Section 9 Prohibitions (59 FR 34272). 

The intent of this policy is to increase 

public awareness of the effect of our 

ESA listing on proposed and ongoing 

activities within the species’ range. We 

will identify, to the extent known at the 

time of the final rule, specific activities 

that will be considered likely to result 

in violation of section 9, as well as 

activities that will not be considered 

likely to result in violation. Because the 

Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa 

and Arabian Sea DPSs occur outside of 

the jurisdiction of the United States, we 

are presently unaware of any activities 

that could result in violation of section 

9 of the ESA for these DPSs; 

nevertheless, the possibility for 

violations exists (for example, import 

into the United States). Activities that 

we believe could result in violation of 

section 9 prohibitions against ‘‘take’’ of 

the Western North Pacific and Central 

America DPSs of the humpback whale 

include: (1) Unauthorized harvest or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22352 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

lethal takes of humpback whales in the 

Western North Pacific and Central 

America DPSs by U.S. citizens; (2) inwater activities conducted by U.S. 

citizens that produce high levels of 

underwater noise, which may harass or 

injure humpback whales in the Western 

North Pacific and Central America 

DPSs; (3) U.S. fisheries that may result 

in entanglement of humpback whales in 

the Western North Pacific and Central 

America DPSs; (4) vessel strikes from 

U.S. ships operating in U.S. waters or on 

the high seas; and (5) discharging or 

dumping toxic chemicals or other 

pollutants by U.S. citizens into areas 

used by humpback whales from the 

Western North Pacific and Central 

America DPSs. 

We expect, based on the best available 

information, the following actions will 

not result in a violation of section 9: (1) 

Federally funded or approved projects 

for which ESA section 7 consultation 

has been completed and necessary 

mitigation developed, and that are 

conducted in accordance with any terms 

and conditions we provide in an 

incidental take statement accompanying 

a biological opinion; and (2) takes of 

humpback whales in the Western North 

Pacific and Central America DPSs that 

have been authorized by NMFS 

pursuant to section 10 of the ESA. These 

lists are not exhaustive. They are 

intended to provide some examples of 

the types of activities that we might or 

might not consider as constituting a take 

of humpback whales in the Western 

North Pacific and Central America 

DPSs. 

Effects of This Rulemaking 

Conservation measures provided for 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the ESA include 

recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); 

concurrent designation of critical 

habitat, if prudent and determinable (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); Federal agency 

requirements to consult with NMFS 

under section 7 of the ESA to ensure 

their actions do not jeopardize the 

species or result in adverse modification 

or destruction of critical habitat should 

it be designated (16 U.S.C. 1536); and 

prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538). 

Recognition of the species’ plight 

through listing promotes conservation 

actions by Federal and state agencies, 

foreign entities, private groups, and 

individuals. The main effects of the 

proposed listings are prohibitions on 

take, including export and import. If 

this proposed rule is finalized, the 

provisions discussed above will no 

longer apply to the DPSs that are in 

effect removed from the endangered 

species list. 

The MMPA provides substantial 

protections to all marine mammals, 

such as humpback whales, whether they 

are listed under the ESA or not. In 

addition, the MMPA provides 

heightened protections to marine 

mammals designated as ‘‘depleted’’ 

(e.g., no take waiver, additional 

restrictions on the issuance of permits 

for research, importation, and captive 

maintenance), including humpback 

whales. Section 3(1) of the MMPA 

defines ‘‘depleted’’ as ‘‘any case in 

which’’: (1) The Secretary ‘‘determines 

that a species or population stock is 

below its optimum sustainable 

population’’; (2) a state to which 

authority has been delegated makes the 

same determination; or (3) a species or 

stock ‘‘is listed as an endangered species 

or a threatened species under the 

[ESA]’’ (16 U.S.C. 1362(1)). Section 

115(a)(1) of the MMPA establishes that 

‘‘[i]n any action by the Secretary to 

determine if a species or stock should be 

designated as depleted, or should no 

longer be designated as depleted,’’ such 

determination must be made by rule, 

after public notice and an opportunity 

for comment (16 U.S.C. 1383b(a)(1)). It 

is NMFS’ position that a marine 

mammal species automatically gains 

‘‘depleted’’ status under the MMPA 

when it is listed under the ESA. In the 

absence of an ESA listing, NMFS 

follows the procedures described in 

section 115(a)(1) to designate a marine 

mammal species as depleted when the 

basis for its depleted status is that it is 

below its optimum sustainable 

population. This interpretation was 

recently confirmed by the United States 

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 

See In re Polar Bear Endangered Species 

Act Listing and Section 4(d) Rule 

Litigation, 720 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

Humpback whales are currently 

designated as ‘‘depleted’’ under the 

MMPA because of the species’ ESA 

listing. NMFS has not separately 

determined that the humpback whale 

species is depleted on the basis that it 

is below its optimum sustainable 

population. 

NMFS is currently evaluating what 

result sections 3(1) and 115(a)(1) of the 

MMPA require when a species that 

holds depleted status solely because of 

its ESA listing is found to no longer 

warrant ESA listing. Thus, we are 

currently reviewing whether any DPS of 

the humpback whale that is not listed 

under the ESA after a final rule is 

published would automatically lose 

depleted status under the MMPA, or 

whether the agency must undertake 

additional analysis and complete 

additional procedures before a change 

in depleted status may occur. We seek 

comments from the public regarding 

different options for construing the 

relevant provisions of these statutes in 

harmony and will consider all viable 

alternatives (see ADDRESSES). 

This rule also has implications for the 

approach regulations currently at 50 

CFR 224.103(a) and (b), discussed 

previously. With regard to the 

regulations in effect in Hawaii 

(224.103(a)), the delisting of the Hawaii 

DPS, if finalized, would remove the ESA 

basis for promulgation of that rule. 

However, the substantially similar 

protections in effect within the 

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale 

National Marine Sanctuary, at 15 CFR 

922.184, may provide sufficient 

protection for the species. We note that 

the Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries has recently proposed to, 

among other things, expand the 

sanctuary boundaries and strengthen the 

protections from approaching vessels 

(80 FR 16224, 16238; March 26, 2015). 

We plan to propose, through separate 

rulemaking, to remove the approach 

regulations at § 224.103(a) because those 

regulations are specific to endangered 

species. If additional protection is 

determined necessary, we may 

undertake separate rulemaking pursuant 

to the MMPA. We request public 

comment on this issue. 

With regard to the regulations in 

effect in Alaska (224.103(b)), the 

impacts of this proposed rule are 

different. When the Alaska provisions 

were adopted, we cited Section 112(a) of 

the MMPA in addition to Section 11(f) 

of the ESA as authority (16 U.S.C. 

1382(a); 16 U.S.C. 1540(f)). However, 

because the humpback whale was listed 

throughout its range as endangered, the 

rule was codified only in Part 224 of the 

ESA regulations (which applies to 

‘‘Endangered Marine and Anadromous 

Species’’). The reclassification of the 

Western North Pacific DPS to 

threatened, if finalized, would require 

relocating the provisions from Part 224 

to Part 223 (which applies to 

‘‘Threatened Marine and Anadromous 

Species’’). By separate rulemaking, we 

plan to propose to relocate these 

provisions to a new section, 223.214 in 

order to continue the protection of the 

threatened humpback whales in Alaska, 

because these provisions have been in 

effect for 14 years and are important in 

light of the potential impacts posed by 

the whalewatching industry, 

recreational boating community, and 

other maritime users. We would 

simultaneously delete current 50 CFR 

224.103(b). In the separate rulemaking, 

we also plan to propose to set out these 

provisions in Part 216 of Title 50 of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22353 

Code of Federal Regulations for the 

protection of all humpback whales that 

may occur or transit through the waters 

surrounding Alaska, to reflect that these 

provisions were adopted under the 

MMPA as well as the ESA and are an 

important source of protection for these 

marine mammals. We seek public 

comment on this issue as well. 

Peer Review 

In December 2004, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued 

a Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review establishing a minimum 

peer review standard. The intent of the 

peer review policies is to ensure that 

listings are based on the best scientific 

and commercial data available. The BRT 

enlisted the help of the Marine Mammal 

Commission (MMC) to coordinate 

scientific peer review of the June 2012 

draft of its status review report. The 

MMC received comments from five 

reviewers and these reviews were 

provided, without attribution, to the 

BRT. The BRT addressed all peer review 

comments in the final status review 

report (Bettridge et al., 2015) being 

released with the publication of this 12- 

month finding/proposed rule. We 

conclude that these experts’ reviews 

satisfy the requirements for ‘‘adequate 

[prior] peer review’’ contained in the 

Bulletin (sec. II.2.). 

Critical Habitat 

Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 

1532(5A)) defines critical habitat as ‘‘(i) 

the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed . . . on 

which are found those physical or 

biological features (I) essential to the 

conservation of the species and (II) 

which may require special management 

considerations or protection; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed . . . upon a determination by 

the Secretary that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species.’’ Section 3 of the ESA also 

defines the terms ‘‘conserve,’’ 

‘‘conserving,’’ and ‘‘conservation’’ to 

mean ‘‘to use and the use of all methods 

and procedures which are necessary to 

bring any endangered species or 

threatened species to the point at which 

the measures provided pursuant to this 

chapter are no longer necessary’’ 

(16 U.S.C. 1532(3)). 

Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) of the ESA 

requires that, to the maximum extent 

practicable and determinable, critical 

habitat be designated concurrently with 

the listing of a species. Designation of 

critical habitat must be based on the 

best scientific data available, and must 

take into consideration the economic, 

national security, and other relevant 

impacts of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). 

Once critical habitat is designated, 

section 7 of the ESA requires Federal 

agencies to ensure that they do not fund, 

authorize, or carry out any actions that 

are likely to destroy or adversely modify 

that habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). This 

requirement is in addition to the section 

7 requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure their actions do not jeopardize 

the continued existence of the species. 

In determining what areas qualify as 

critical habitat, 50 CFR 424.12(b) 

requires that NMFS ‘‘consider those 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of a given 

species including space for individual 

and population growth and for normal 

behavior; food, water, air, light, 

minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

and rearing of offspring; and habitats 

that are protected from disturbance or 

are representative of the historical 

geographical and ecological distribution 

of a species.’’ The regulations further 

direct NMFS to ‘‘focus on the principal 

biological or physical constituent 

elements . . . that are essential to the 

conservation of the species,’’ and 

specify that the ‘‘known primary 

constituent elements shall be listed with 

the critical habitat description.’’ The 

regulations identify primary constituent 

elements (PCEs) as including, but not 

limited to: ‘‘roost sites, nesting grounds, 

spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal 

wetland or dryland, water quality or 

quantity, host species or plant 

pollinator, geological formation, 

vegetation type, tide, and specific soil 

types.’’ 

The ESA directs the Secretary of 

Commerce to consider the economic 

impact, the national security impacts, 

and any other relevant impacts from 

designating critical habitat, and under 

section 4(b)(2), the Secretary may 

exclude any area from such designation 

if the benefits of exclusion outweigh 

those of inclusion, provided that the 

exclusion will not result in the 

extinction of the species. At this time, 

critical habitat for the humpback whales 

in the Western North Pacific and Central 

America DPSs is not determinable. We 

will propose critical habitat for the 

Western North Pacific and Central 

America DPSs of the humpback whale 

in a separate rulemaking if we 

determine that it is prudent to do so. To 

assist us with that rulemaking, we 

specifically request information to help 

us identify the essential features of this 

habitat, and to what extent those 

features may require special 

management considerations or 

protection, as well as the economic 

activities within the range of the 

Western North Pacific and Central 

America DPSs that could be impacted 

by critical habitat designation. 50 CFR 

424.12(h) specifies that critical habitat 

shall not be designated within foreign 

countries or in other areas outside U.S. 

jurisdiction. Therefore, we request 

information only on potential areas of 

critical habitat within the United States 

or waters within U.S. jurisdiction. 

Because the known distribution of the 

humpback whales in the Cape Verde 

Islands/Northwest Africa and Arabian 

Sea DPSs occurs in areas outside the 

jurisdiction of the United States, no 

critical habitat will be designated for 

these DPSs. 

Public Comments Solicited 

Relying on the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

exercised our best professional 

judgment in developing this proposal to 

divide the humpback whale into 14 

DPSs, retain the Cape Verde Islands/

Northwest Africa and Arabian Sea DPSs 

on the list of endangered species at 50 

CFR 224.101, add the Western North 

Pacific and Central America DPSs to the 

list of threatened species and extend all 

section 9 prohibitions to these DPSs, 

and remove the other 10 DPSs (West 

Indies, Hawaii, Mexico, Brazil, Gabon/

Southwest Africa, Southeast Africa/

Madagascar, West Australia, East 

Australia, Oceania, and Southeastern 

Pacific) from the endangered species list 

at 50 CFR 224.101. To ensure that the 

final action resulting from this proposal 

will be as accurate and effective as 

possible, we solicit comments and 

suggestions concerning this proposed 

rule from the public, other concerned 

governments and agencies, Indian tribal 

governments, Alaska Native tribal 

governments or organizations, the 

scientific community, industry, and any 

other interested parties. Comments are 

encouraged on this proposal as well as 

on the status review report (See DATES

and ADDRESSES). Comments are 

particularly sought concerning: 

(1) The identification of 3 subspecies 

of humpback whale comprised of 14 

DPSs; 

(2) The current population status of 

identified humpback whale DPSs; 

(3) Biological or other information 

regarding the threats to the identified 

humpback whale DPSs; 

(4) Information on the effectiveness of 

ongoing and planned humpback whale 

conservation efforts by countries, states, 

or local entities; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22354 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(5) Activities that could result in a 

violation of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA if 

such prohibitions are applied to the 

Western North Pacific and Central 

America DPSs; 

(6) Whether any DPS of the humpback 

whale that is not listed under the ESA 

in a final rule would automatically lose 

depleted status under the MMPA, or, if 

not, what analysis and process is 

required by the MMPA before a change 

in depleted status may occur. We seek 

comments regarding different options 

for construing the relevant provisions of 

these statutes in harmony; 

(7) Whether approach regulations 

should be promulgated under the 

MMPA for the protection of the Hawaii 

DPS of the humpback whale, since if 

this rule becomes final, that DPS will no 

longer be listed under the ESA, or 

whether current protections in effect in 

the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale 

National Marine Sanctuary (at 15 CFR 

922.184) are sufficient for the protection 

of the species from vessel interactions. 

Commenters should consider the impact 

of the recent proposal by NOAA’s Office 

of National Marine Sanctuaries to 

expand the sanctuary boundaries and 

strengthen the approach regulations (80 

FR 16224; March 26, 2015); 

(8) Whether approach regulations in 

effect for the protection of humpback 

whales in Alaska, currently set forth at 

50 CFR 224.103(b), should be relocated 

to Part 223 (which applies to threatened 

species) for the continuing protection of 

the Western North Pacific DPS, and 

whether these regulations should also 

be set out in 50 CFR 216 as MMPA 

regulations for the protection of all 

humpback whales occurring in that area 

in light of the fact that the MMPA was 

one of the original authorities cited in 

promulgating the regulation; 

(9) Information related to the 

designation of critical habitat, including 

identification of those physical or 

biological features which are essential to 

the conservation of the Western North 

Pacific and Central America DPSs of 

humpback whale and which may 

require special management 

consideration or protection; 

(10) Economic, national security, and 

other relevant impacts from the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Western North Pacific and Central 

America DPSs of humpback whale; and 

(11) Research and other activities that 

would be important to include in postdelisting monitoring plans for the West 

Indies, Hawaii, Mexico, Brazil, Gabon/

Southwest Africa, Southeast Africa/

Madagascar, West Australia, East 

Australia, Oceania, and Southeastern 

Pacific DPSs. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposal by 

any one of several methods (see 

ADDRESSES). We will review all public 

comments and any additional 

information regarding the status of the 

identified DPSs of the humpback whale 

and will complete a final determination 

within 1 year of publication of this 

proposed rule, as required under the 

ESA. Final promulgation of the 

regulation(s) will consider the 

comments and any additional 

information we receive, and such 

communications may lead to a final 

regulation that differs from this 

proposal. 

Public Hearings 

During each public hearing, a brief 

opening presentation on the proposed 

rule will be provided before accepting 

public testimony. Written comments 

may be submitted at the hearing or via 

the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES) until the scheduled close of 

the comment period on July 20, 2015. In 

the event that attendance at the public 

hearings is large, the time allotted for 

oral statements may be limited. Oral and 

written statements receive equal 

consideration. There are no limits on 

the length of written comments 

submitted to us. 

Public Hearing Schedule 

The dates and locations for the four 

hearings are as follows: 

1. Honolulu: May 6, 2015, from 6:00 p.m. 

to 8:00 p.m. at the Japanese Cultural Center, 

Manoa Ballroom, 2454 South Beretania 

Street, Honolulu, HI 96826, with an 

informational open house beginning at 5:30 

p.m. Parking is available at the Japanese 

Cultural Center for $5. 

2. Juneau: May 19, 2015, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. 

at the Centennial Hall, Hickel Room, 101 

Egan Drive, Juneau, AK. 

3. Plymouth: June 3, 2015, 6 p.m. to 8:30 

p.m., Plymouth Public Library, 132 South 

Street, Plymouth, MA. 

4. Virginia Beach: June 9, 2015, 5 p.m. to 

6:30 p.m., at the Hilton Virgina Beach 

Oceanfront, 3001 Atlantic Ave, Virginia 

Beach, VA. This will be in conjunction with 

the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council’s meeting being held during the 

same week. 

Special Accommodations 

These hearings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other accommodations 

should be directed to Marta Nammack 

(see ADDRESSES) as soon as possible, but 

no later than 7 business days prior to 

the hearing date. 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in 

section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 

information that may be considered 

when assessing species for listing. Based 

on this limitation of criteria for a listing 

decision and the opinion in Pacific 

Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 

829 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded 

that NEPA does not apply to ESA listing 

actions. (See NOAA Administrative 

Order 216–6.) We are currently 

reviewing whether any other aspect of 

this proposed rule will require NEPA 

analysis. 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 

Paperwork Reduction Act, and 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This rule is exempt from review 

under E.O. 12866. This proposed rule 

does not contain a collection of 

information requirement for the 

purposes of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. 

As noted in the Conference Report on 

the 1982 amendments to the ESA, 

economic impacts cannot be considered 

when assessing the status of a species. 

Therefore, the economic analyses 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act are not applicable to the listing 

process. 

E.O. 13132, Federalism 

E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take 

into account any federalism impacts of 

regulations under development. It 

includes specific directives for 

consultation in situations where a 

regulation will preempt state law or 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on state and local governments 

(unless required by statute). Neither of 

those circumstances is applicable to this 

proposed rule; therefore this action does 

not have federalism implications as that 

term is defined in E.O. 13132. 

E.O. 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

The longstanding and distinctive 

relationship between the Federal and 

tribal governments is defined by 

treaties, statutes, executive orders, 

judicial decisions, and co-management 

agreements, which differentiate tribal 

governments from the other entities that 

deal with, or are affected by, the Federal 

government. This relationship has given 

rise to a special Federal trust 

responsibility involving the legal 

responsibilities and obligations of the 

United States toward Indian Tribes and 

the application of fiduciary standards of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22355 

due care with respect to Indian lands, 

tribal trust resources, and the exercise of 

tribal rights. E.O. 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments—outlines the 

responsibilities of the Federal 

Government in matters affecting tribal 

interests. Section 161 of Public Law 

108–199 (188 Stat. 452), as amended by 

section 518 of Public Law 108–447 (118 

Stat. 3267), directs all Federal agencies 

to consult with Alaska Native tribes or 

organizations on the same basis as 

Indian tribes under E.O. 13175. 

We intend to coordinate with tribal 

governments and native corporations 

which may be affected by the proposed 

action. We will provide them with a 

copy of this proposed rule for review 

and comment, and offer the opportunity 

to consult on the proposed action. 

List of Subjects 

50 CFR Part 223 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Transportation. 

50 CFR Part 224 

Endangered and threatened species. 

Dated: April 15, 2015. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 224 are 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 223—THREATENED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 223 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B, 

§ 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 

1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 

§ 223.206(d)(9). 

■ 2. In § 223.102, in paragraph (e), the 

table is amended by adding entries for 

‘‘Whale, humpback (Central America 

DPS)’’ and ‘‘Whale, humpback (Western 

North Pacific DPS)’’ under MARINE 

MAMMALS in alphabetical order by 

Common Name to read as follows: 

§ 223.102 Enumeration of threatened 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing 

determination(s) 

Critical 

habitat ESA Rules 

Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity 

Marine Mammals 

*******

Whale, humpback 

(Central America 

DPS).

Megaptera 

novaeangliae.

Humpback whales that breed along the Pacific coast of Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and 

Nicaragua in the eastern North Pacific 

Ocean or feed almost exclusively offshore of California and Oregon in the 

eastern North Pacific Ocean, with some 

feeding off northern Washington/southern British Columbia.

[Insert Federal Register page where 

the document begins], April 21, 

2015.

NA 223.213 

Whale, humpback 

(Western North Pacific DPS).

Megaptera 

novaeangliae.

Humpback whales that breed or winter in 

the area of Okinawa and the Philippines 

in the Kuroshio Current (as well as unknown breeding grounds in the Western 

North Pacific Ocean), transitthe 

Ogasawara area, or feed in the North 

Pacific Ocean, primarily in the West Bering Sea and off the Russian coast and 

the Aleutian Islands.

[Insert Federal Register page where 

the document begins], April 21, 

2015.

NA 223.213 

223.214 

* * * * * * * 

1Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 

1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 2 Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, is limited to turtles while in the water. 

■ 3. Add § 223.213 to subpart B to read 

as follows: 

§ 223.213 Western North Pacific and 

Central America distinct population 

segments (DPSs) of the humpback whale. 

Prohibitions. The prohibitions of 

section 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) of 

the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) relating to 

endangered species shall apply to the 

Western North Pacific DPS and the 

Central America DPS of the humpback 

whale listed in § 223.102(e). 

PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 224 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq. 

■ 5. In § 224.101, in the table in 

paragraph (h), revise the entry for 

‘‘Whale, humpback’’ to read as follows: 

§ 224.101 Enumeration of endangered 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22356 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Species 1

Citation(s) for listing 

determination(s) 

Critical 

habitat ESA rules 

Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity 

Marine Mammals 

*******

Whale, humpback 

(Arabian Sea DPS).

Megaptera 

novaeangliae.

Humpback whales that breed or feed in the 

Arabian Sea.

[Insert Federal Register page where 

the document begins], April 21, 

2015.

NA NA 

Whale, humpback 

whale (Cape Verde 

Islands/Northwest 

Africa DPS).

Megaptera 

novaeangliae.

Humpback whales that breed in waters 

surrounding the Cape Verde Islands in 

the Eastern North Atlantic Ocean, as 

well as an undetermined breeding area 

in the eastern tropical Atlantic (possibly 

Canary Current) or feed along the Iceland Shelf and Sea and the Norwegian 

Sea.

[Insert Federal Register page where 

the document begins], April 21, 

2015.

NA NA 

* * * * * * * 

1Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 

1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 2 Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, is limited to turtles while in the water. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09010 Filed 4–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2