Vol. 80 Tuesday, No. 76 April 21, 2015

Part III

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 Endangered and Threatened Species; Identification of 14 Distinct Population Segments of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) and Proposed Revision of Species-Wide Listing; Proposed Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22304 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE hearings, see SUPPLEMENTARY February 26, 2014, the State of Alaska INFORMATION. submitted a petition to delineate the National Oceanic and Atmospheric You may submit comments, identified Central North Pacific (Hawaii) stock of Administration by NOAA–NMFS–2015–0035, by any of the humpback whale as a DPS and the following methods: remove the DPS from the List of 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 Electronic Submission: Submit all Endangered and Threatened Species electronic public comments via the [Docket No. 130708594–5298–02 ] under the ESA. After reviewing the Federal eRulemaking Portal. petitions, the literature cited in the RIN 0648–XC751 1. Go to www.regulations.gov/ petitions, and other literature and #!docketDetail;D= NOAA-NMFS-2015- information available in our files, we Endangered and Threatened Species; 0035, found that both petitioned actions may Identification of 14 Distinct Population 2. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, be warranted and issued positive 90-day Segments of the Humpback Whale complete the required fields findings (78 FR 53391, August 29, 2013; (Megaptera novaeangliae) and 3. Enter or attach your comments. 79 FR 36281, June 26, 2014). We Proposed Revision of Species-Wide —Or— extended the deadline for receiving Listing Mail: Submit written comments to information by 30 days to help us AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Marta Nammack, NMFS, 1315 East-West respond to the petition to delist the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Highway, Room 13536, Silver Spring, Central North Pacific population (79 FR Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), MD 20910. 40054; July 11, 2014). We incorporated Commerce. Instructions: Comments sent by any the consideration of both petitioned other method, to any other address or actions into the status review. ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month Based on information presented in the findings. individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be status review report, an assessment of SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed a considered by NMFS. All comments the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, and comprehensive status review of the received are a part of the public record efforts being made to protect the humpback whale (Megaptera and will generally be posted for public species, we have determined: (1) 14 novaeangliae) under the Endangered viewing on www.regulations.gov populations of the humpback whale Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) without change. All personal identifying meet the DPS policy criteria and are (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and announce information (e.g., name, address, etc.), therefore considered to be DPSs; (2) the a proposal to revise the listing status of confidential business information, or Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa the species. We propose to divide the otherwise sensitive information and Arabian Sea DPSs are in danger of globally listed endangered species into submitted voluntarily by the sender will extinction throughout their ranges; (3) 14 distinct population segments (DPSs), be publicly accessible. NMFS will the Western North Pacific and Central remove the current species-level listing, accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ America DPSs are likely to become and in its place list 2 DPSs as A’’ in the required fields if you wish to endangered throughout all of their endangered and 2 DPSs as threatened. remain anonymous). ranges in the foreseeable future; and (4) The remaining 10 DPSs are not The proposed rule, Status Review the West Indies, Hawaii, Mexico, Brazil, proposed for listing based on their report and other materials relating to Gabon/Southwest Africa, Southeast current statuses. This proposal also this proposal can be found on the NMFS Africa/Madagascar, West Australia, East constitutes a negative 12-month finding Web site at: http://nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/. Australia, Oceania, and Southeastern on a petition to delineate and ‘‘delist’’ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pacific DPSs are not in danger of a DPS of humpback whales spanning Marta Nammack, NMFS, (301) 427– extinction throughout all or a significant the entire North Pacific and a positive 8469. portion of their ranges or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. 12-month finding on a petition to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August delineate and ‘‘delist’’ a DPS in the Accordingly, we issue a proposed rule 12, 2009, we announced the initiation of to revise the species-wide listing of the Central North Pacific (Hawaii breeding a status review of the humpback whale population). humpback whale by replacing it with 2 to determine whether an endangered endangered species listings (Cape Verde At this time, we do not propose to listing for the entire species was still designate critical habitat for the two Islands/Northwest Africa and Arabian appropriate (74 FR 40568). We sought Sea DPSs) and 2 threatened species listed DPSs that occur in U.S. waters information from the public to inform (Western North Pacific, Central listings (Western North Pacific and our review, hired two post-doctoral Central America DPSs). We solicit America) because it is not currently students to compile the best available determinable. In order to complete the comments on these proposed actions. scientific and commercial information We also propose to extend the ESA critical habitat designation process, we on the species (Fleming and Jackson, also solicit information on essential section 9 prohibitions to the 2 2011), including the past, present, and threatened DPSs. physical and biological features of the foreseeable future threats to this species, habitat of these two DPSs. and appointed a Biological Review Outline DATES: Comments must be submitted to Team (BRT) to analyze that information, ESA Statutory Provisions, Regulations, and NMFS by July 20, 2015. For specific make conclusions on extinction risk, Policy Considerations dates of the public hearings, see and prepare a status review report Distinct Population Segment Policy SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Requests (Bettridge et al., 2015). ‘‘Foreseeable Future’’ for additional public hearings must be On April 16, 2013, we received a ‘‘Significant Portion of its Range’’ made in writing and received by June 5, petition from the Hawaii Fishermen’s Background 2015. Alliance for Conservation and Tradition, Behavior Feeding ADDRESSES: Four public hearings will be Inc., to classify the North Pacific Reproduction held, one each in Juneau, AK, Honolulu, humpback whale population as a DPS Natural Mortality HI, Plymouth, MA, and Virginia Beach, and ‘‘delist’’ the DPS under the Status Review Report VA. For specific locations of these Endangered Species Act (ESA). On Humpback Whale Subspecies

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22305

Reproductive Seasonality A. The present or Threatened Destruction, B. Overutilization for Commercial, Behavior Modification, or Curtailment of its Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Color patterns Habitat or Range Purposes Genetics B. Overutilization for Commercial, C. Disease or Predation Subspecies Discussion and Conclusions Recreational, Scientific, or Educational D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Distinct Population Segment Analysis, By Purposes Mechanisms Subspecies C. Disease or Predation E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors North Atlantic D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Affecting its Continued Existence Overview Mechanisms West Australia DPS Discreteness E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors A. The present or Threatened Destruction, Significance Affecting its Continued Existence Modification, or Curtailment of its North Pacific Hawaii DPS Habitat or Range Overview A. The present or Threatened Destruction, B. Overutilization for Commercial, Discreteness Modification, or Curtailment of its Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Significance Habitat or Range Purposes Southern Hemisphere B. Overutilization for Commercial, C. Disease or Predation Overview: Recreational, Scientific, or Educational D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Discreteness Purposes Mechanisms Significance C. Disease or Predation E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence Extinction Risk Assessment D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory East Australia DPS Abundance and Trends for Each DPS Mechanisms West Indies DPS A. The present or Threatened Destruction, E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa DPS Modification, or Curtailment of its Affecting its Continued Existence Western North Pacific DPS Habitat or Range Mexico DPS Hawaii DPS B. Overutilization for Commercial, A. The present or Threatened Destruction, Mexico DPS Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Modification, or Curtailment of its Central America DPS Purposes Habitat or Range Brazil DPS C. Disease or Predation B. Overutilization for Commercial, Gabon/Southwest Africa DPS D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Southeast Africa/Madagascar DPS Mechanisms Purposes West Australia DPS E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors C. Disease or Predation East Australia DPS Affecting its Continued Existence D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Oceania DPS Oceania DPS Southeastern Pacific DPS Mechanisms A. The present or Threatened Destruction, Arabian Sea DPS E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Modification, or Curtailment of its Summary of Abundance and Trends Affecting its Continued Existence Habitat or Range Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors Affecting Central America DPS B. Overutilization for Commercial, the 14 Humpback Whale DPSs A. The present or Threatened Destruction, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Section 4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All Modification, or Curtailment of its Purposes DPSs Habitat or Range C. Disease or Predation A. The present or Threatened Destruction, B. Overutilization for Commercial, D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Modification, or Curtailment of its Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Mechanisms Habitat or Range Purposes E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors B. Overutilization for Commercial, C. Disease or Predation Affecting its Continued Existence Recreational, Scientific, or Educational D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Southeastern Pacific DPS Purposes: Mechanisms A. The present or Threatened Destruction, C. Disease or Predation E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Modification, or Curtailment of its D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Affecting its Continued Existence Habitat or Range Mechanisms Brazil DPS B. Overutilization for Commercial, E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors A. The present or Threatened Destruction, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Affecting its Continued Existence Modification, or Curtailment of its Purposes West Indies DPS Habitat or Range C. Disease or Predation A. The present or Threatened Destruction, B. Overutilization for Commercial, D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Modification, or Curtailment of its Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Mechanisms Habitat or Range Purposes E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors B. Overutilization for Commercial, C. Disease or Predation Affecting its Continued Existence Recreational, Scientific, or Educational D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Arabian Sea DPS Purposes Mechanisms A. The present or Threatened Destruction, C. Disease or Predation E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Modification, or Curtailment of its D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Affecting its Continued Existence Habitat or Range Mechanisms Gabon/Southwest Africa DPS B. Overutilization for Commercial, E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors A. The present or Threatened Destruction, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Affecting its Continued Existence Modification, or Curtailment of its Purposes Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa DPS Habitat or Range C. Disease or Predation A. The present or Threatened Destruction, B. Overutilization for Commercial, D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Modification, or Curtailment of its Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Mechanisms Habitat or Range Purposes E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors B. Overutilization for Commercial, C. Disease or Predation Affecting its Continued Existence Recreational, Scientific, or Educational D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Ongoing Conservation Efforts Purposes Mechanisms Rationale for Revising the Current Global C. Disease or Predation E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Listing and Replacing It with Listings of D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Affecting its Continued Existence DPSs Mechanisms Southeast Africa/Madagascar DPS Conclusions on the Status of Each DPS under E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors A. The present or Threatened Destruction, the ESA Affecting its Continued Existence Modification, or Curtailment of its Endangered DPSs Western North Pacific DPS Habitat or Range Threatened DPSs

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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 other pending proposals of higher (together, the Services). The ESA ESA priority. This finding (the ‘‘12-month regulations require that a species listed Post-delisting Monitoring Plan finding’’) is to be made within 1 year of as endangered or threatened be removed Description of Proposed Regulatory Changes the date the petition was received, and from the list if the best scientific or Prohibitions and Protective Measures Identification of Those Activities That Would the finding is to be published promptly commercial data available indicate that Constitute a Violation of Section 9 of the in the Federal Register. The Secretary the species is no longer endangered or ESA has delegated the authority for these threatened because it has recovered (50 Effects of this Rulemaking actions to the NOAA Assistant CFR 424.11(d)). Peer Review Administrator for Fisheries. Critical Habitat Section 3 of the ESA defines an Distinct Population Segment Policy Public Comments Solicited endangered species as ‘‘any species To be considered for listing under the Public Hearings which is in danger of extinction ESA, a group of organisms must Classification constitute a ‘‘species,’’ which the ESA National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) throughout all or a significant portion of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory its range’’ and a threatened species as defines to include ‘‘. . . any subspecies Flexibility Act, and Paperwork one ‘‘which is likely to become an of fish or wildlife or plants, and any Reduction Act endangered species within the distinct population segment of any E.O. 13132, Federalism foreseeable future throughout all or a species of vertebrate fish or wildlife E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination significant portion of its range.’’ Thus, which interbreeds when mature’’ (16 with Indian Tribal Governments we interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to U.S.C. 1532 (16)). Thus, an ESA listing ESA Statutory Provisions, Regulations, be one that is presently in danger of (or delisting) determination can address and Policy Considerations extinction. A ‘‘threatened species,’’ on a species, subspecies, or a DPS of a the other hand, is not presently in vertebrate species. Pursuant to the ESA, any interested danger of extinction, but is likely to On February 7, 1996, the Services person may petition to list or delist a become so in the foreseeable future (that adopted a policy describing what species, subspecies, or DPS of a is, at a later time). In other words, the constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic species vertebrate species that interbreeds when primary statutory difference between a (61 FR 4722). The joint DPS policy mature (5 U.S.C. 553(e), 16 U.S.C. threatened and endangered species is identified two elements that must be 1533(b)(3)(A)). ESA-implementing the timing of when a species may be in considered when identifying a DPS: (1) regulations issued by NMFS and the danger of extinction, either presently The discreteness of the population U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (endangered) or in the foreseeable future segment in relation to the remainder of also establish procedures for receiving (threatened). In determining whether to the species (or subspecies) to which it and considering petitions to revise the reclassify or delist a species, subspecies, belongs; and (2) the significance of the lists of endangered and threatened or DPS, the ESA and implementing population segment to the remainder of species and for conducting periodic regulations require that we consider the the species (or subspecies) to which it reviews of listed species (50 CFR following ESA section 4(a)(1) factors in belongs. A population segment of a 424.01). relation to the definitions of vertebrate species may be considered Once we receive a petition to delist a ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened discrete if it satisfies either one of the species, the ESA requires the Secretary species’’ (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1) and following conditions: of Commerce (Secretary) to make a 1533(c)(2); 50 CFR 424.11(d)): The (1) It is markedly separated from other finding on whether the petition presents present or threatened destruction, populations of the same taxon as a substantial scientific or commercial modification, or curtailment of its consequence of physical, physiological, information indicating that the habitat or range; overutilization of the ecological, or behavioral factors. petitioned action may be warranted (16 species for commercial, recreational, Quantitative measures of genetic or U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). In the context of scientific, or educational purposes; morphological discontinuity may a petition to delist a species, the ESA- disease or predation; the inadequacy of provide evidence of this separation. implementing regulations provide that existing regulatory mechanisms; and (2) It is delimited by international ‘‘substantial information’’ is that other natural or manmade factors governmental boundaries within which amount of information that would lead affecting a species’ continued existence. differences in control of exploitation, a reasonable person to believe that These are the same factors that we must management of habitat, conservation delisting may be warranted (50 CFR consider when making an initial status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 424.14(b)(1)). In determining whether determination whether to list a species, that are significant in light of section substantial information exists, we take subspecies, or DPS as threatened or 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. into account several factors, in light of endangered under the ESA. If a population segment is considered any information noted in the petition or Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires discrete under one or more of the above otherwise readily available in our files. us to make listing determinations based conditions, its biological and ecological To the maximum extent practicable, this solely on the best scientific and significance is then considered in light finding is to be made within 90 days of commercial data available after of Congressional guidance (see Senate the receipt of the petition (16 U.S.C. conducting a review of the status of the Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session) 1533(b)(3)(A)) and published promptly species and after taking into account that the authority to list DPSs be used in the Federal Register. Section efforts being made by any State or ‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging the 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA requires that, when foreign nation or political subdivision conservation of genetic diversity. This a petition to revise the List of thereof to protect the species. In consideration may include, but is not Endangered and Threatened Wildlife evaluating the efficacy of protective limited to, the following: and Plants is found to present efforts not yet implemented or not yet (1) Persistence of the discrete substantial scientific and commercial proven to be effective, we rely on the population segment in an ecological information, we make a finding that the Policy on Evaluation of Conservation setting unusual or unique for the taxon; petitioned action is (a) not warranted, Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but (‘‘PECE’’; 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003) population segment would result in a precluded from immediate proposal by issued jointly by NMFS and the FWS significant gap in the range of a taxon;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22307

(3) Evidence that the discrete may be endangered or threatened throughout detailed analysis to determine whether population segment represents the only all of its range or a species may be the standards are actually met. Id. at surviving natural occurrence of a taxon endangered or threatened throughout only a 37587. Unless both are met, listing is significant portion of its range. not warranted. The Final Policy that may be more abundant elsewhere as If a species is found to be endangered or an introduced population outside its threatened throughout only a significant explains that, depending on the historic range; or portion of its range, the entire species is particular facts of each situation, NMFS (4) Evidence that the discrete listed as endangered or threatened, may find it is more efficient to address population segment differs markedly respectively, and the Act’s protections apply the significance issue first, but in other from other populations of the species in to all individuals of the species wherever cases it will make more sense to its genetic characteristics. found. examine the status of the species in the Significant: A portion of the range of a potentially significant portions first. ‘‘Foreseeable Future’’ species is ‘‘significant’’ if the species is not Whichever question is asked first, an currently endangered or threatened To determine whether listing of a throughout its range, but the portion’s affirmative answer is required to species is warranted, a status review contribution to the viability of the species is proceed to the second question. Id. (‘‘[I]f must conclude that the species is ‘‘in so important that, without the members in we determine that a portion of the range danger of extinction or likely to become that portion, the species would be in danger is not ‘‘significant,’’ we will not need to so within the foreseeable future of extinction, or likely to become so in the determine whether the species is throughout all or a significant portion of foreseeable future, throughout all of its range. endangered or threatened there; if we its range.’’ The ESA uses the term Range: The range of a species is considered determine that the species is not ‘‘foreseeable future’’ to refer to the time to be the general geographical area within endangered or threatened in a portion of over which identified threats are likely which that species can be found at the time its range, we will not need to determine FWS or NMFS makes any particular status to impact the biological status of the determination. This range includes those if that portion was ‘‘significant.’’). Thus, species. The duration of the areas used throughout all or part of the if the answer to the first question is ‘‘foreseeable future’’ in any species’ life cycle, even if they are not used negative—whether in regard to the circumstance is inherently fact-specific regularly (e.g., seasonal habitats). Lost significance question or the status and depends on the particular kinds of historical range is relevant to the analysis of question—then the analysis concludes threats, the life-history characteristics, the status of the species, but it cannot and listing is not warranted. constitute a significant portion of a species’ and the specific habitat requirements for Background the species under consideration. The range. Reconciling SPR with DPS authority: If the existence of a threat to a species and the The humpback whale (Megaptera species is endangered or threatened novaeangliae) was listed as endangered species’ response to that threat are not, throughout a significant portion of its range, in general, equally predictable or and the population in that significant portion in 1970 under the Endangered Species foreseeable. Hence, in some cases, the is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather Conservation Act of 1969, the precursor ability to foresee a threat to a species is than the entire taxonomic species or to the ESA. When the ESA was enacted greater than the ability to foresee the subspecies. in 1973, the humpback whale was transferred to the List of Endangered species’ exact response, or the The Final Policy explains that it is and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, timeframe of such a response, to that necessary to fully evaluate a portion for retaining endangered status, and, threat. For purposes of making these 12- potential listing under the ‘‘significant because of its endangered ESA status, month findings, the relevant portion of its range’’ authority only if was considered ‘‘depleted’’ under the consideration is whether the species’ substantial information indicates that Marine Mammal Protection Act population response (i.e., abundance, the members of the species in a (MMPA). NMFS issued a recovery plan productivity, spatial distribution, particular area are likely both to meet for the humpback whale in 1991, and its diversity) is foreseeable, not merely the test for biological significance and to long-term numerical goal was to whether the emergence of a threat is be currently endangered or threatened increase humpback whale populations foreseeable. The foreseeable future in that area. Making this preliminary extends only as far as we are able to to at least 60 percent of the number determination triggers a need for further existing before commercial exploitation reliably predict the species’ population review, but does not prejudge whether or of current environmental carrying response to a particular threat. We the portion actually meets these capacity. The recovery team recognized consider the extent to which we can standards such that the species should that those levels could not then be foresee the species’ response to each be listed: determined, so in the meantime, the threat. To identify only those portions that interim goal of the recovery plan was to ‘‘Significant Portion of its Range’’ warrant further consideration, we will double the population size of extant determine whether there is substantial NMFS and FWS recently published a populations within the next 20 years information indicating that (1) the portions (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/ final policy to clarify the interpretation may be significant and (2) the species may be _ of the phrase ‘‘significant portion of the in danger of extinction in those portions or recovery/whale humpback.pdf). In fact, range’’ in the ESA definitions of likely to become so within the foreseeable the historical size of humpback whale ‘‘threatened species’’ and ‘‘endangered future. We emphasize that answering these populations continues to be uncertain species’’ (79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014) questions in the affirmative is not a (Ruegg et al., 2013, and references (Final Policy). The Final Policy reads: determination that the species is endangered therein; Bettridge et al., 2015). or threatened throughout a significant The taxonomy, life history, and Consequences of a species being portion of its range—rather, it is a step in ecology of the humpback whale are endangered or threatened throughout a determining whether a more detailed thoroughly reviewed in Fleming and significant portion of its range: The phrase analysis of the issue is required. Jackson (2011) and summarized in the ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ in the Act’s 79 FR 37586. definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and BRT’s status review report (Bettridge et ‘‘threatened species’’ provides an Thus, the preliminary determination al., 2015; available at http:// independent basis for listing. Thus, there are that a portion may be both significant www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ two situations (or factual bases) under which and endangered or threatened merely statusreviews.htm). The humpback a species would qualify for listing: A species requires NMFS to engage in a more whale is a large baleen whale of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22308 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

family Balaenopteridae. It is found identified whales on some feeding (and sometimes more than 30 minutes) around the world in all oceans. The grounds that have never been sighted in in winter months (Clapham and Mead, humpback whale has long pectoral any of the known breeding grounds. 1999). Typically, humpback whale flippers, distinct ventral fluke Depending on the strength of the groups are small (e.g., <10 individuals, patterning, dark dorsal coloration, a evidence, scientists may infer that an but can vary depending on social highly varied acoustic call (termed additional breeding population exists context and season), and associations ‘song’), and a diverse repertoire of but that its breeding grounds are between individuals do not last long, surface behaviors. unknown. We explore this subject with the exception of the mother/calf Its body coloration is primarily dark further in the ‘‘Distinct Population pairs (Clapham and Mead, 1999). grey, but individuals have a variable Segment Analysis, By Subspecies’’ Feeding amount of white on their pectoral fins, section below. flukes, and belly. This variation is so Humpback whales have a diverse diet distinctive that the pigmentation pattern Behavior that varies slightly across feeding areas. on the undersides of their flukes is used Humpback whales travel great The species is known to feed on both to identify individual whales. Coloring distances during migration, the farthest small schooling fish and on euphausiids of the ventral surface varies from white migration of any mammal. The longest (krill). Known prey organisms include to marbled to fully black. Dorsal recorded migration between a breeding species representing Clupea (herring), surfaces of humpback whale pectoral area and a feeding area was 5,160 miles Scomber (mackerel), Ammodytes (sand flippers are typically white in the North (8,300 km). This trek from Costa Rica to lance), Sardinops (sardine), Engraulis Atlantic and black in the North Pacific Antarctica was completed by seven (anchovy), Mallotus (capelin), and krills (Perrin et al., 2002), and the flippers are individuals, including a calf such as Euphausia, Thysanoessa, and about one-third of the total body length. (Rasmussen et al., 2007). One of the Meganyctiphanes (Baker, 1985; Geraci et Similar to all baleen whales, body more closely studied routes has shown al., 1989; Clapham et al., 1997). lengths differ between the sexes, with whales making the 3,000-mile (4,830 Humpback whales also exhibit flexible adult females being approximately 1– km) trip between Alaska and Hawaii in feeding strategies, sometimes foraging 1.5m longer than males. The humpback as little as 36 days (Allen and Angliss, alone and sometimes cooperatively whale reaches a maximum of 16–17 m, 2010). (Clapham, 1993). During the winter, although lengths of 14–15 m are more During summer and fall, humpback humpback whales subsist on stored fat typical. Adult body weights in excess of whales spend much of their time and likely feed little or not at all. 40 tons make them one of the largest feeding and building fat stores for In the Northern Hemisphere, feeding mammals on earth (Ohsumi, 1966). winter. In their low-latitude wintering behavior is varied and frequently With one exception, humpback grounds, humpback whales congregate features novel capture methods whales are highly migratory, spending and are believed to engage in mating involving the creation of bubble spring, summer, and fall feeding in and other social activities. Humpback structures to trap and corral fish; bubble temperate or high-latitude areas of the whales are generally polygynous, with nets, clouds, and curtains can be North Atlantic, North Pacific, and males exhibiting competitive behavior observed when humpback whales are Southern Ocean and migrating to the on wintering grounds (Tyack, 1981; feeding on schooling fish (Hain et al., tropics in winter to breed and calve. The Baker and Herman, 1984; Clapham, 1982). Lobtailing and repeated Arabian Sea humpback whale 1996). A complex behavioral repertoire underwater ‘looping’ movements population does not migrate exhibited in these areas can include (referred to as kick feeding) have also extensively, remaining in tropical aggressive and antagonistic behavior, been observed during surface feeding waters year-round (Baldwin, 2000; such as chasing, vocal and bubble events, and it may be that certain Minton et al., 2010b). displays, horizontal tail thrashing, and feeding behaviors are spread through There are 14 known breeding grounds rear body thrashing. Males within these the population by cultural transmission for humpback whales, and there may be groups also make physical contact, (Weinrich et al., 1992; Friedlaender et other breeding grounds of unknown striking or surfacing on top of one al., 2006). On Stellwagen Bank, in the location. Whales using the unknown another. Gulf of Maine, repeated side rolls have breeding grounds may be associated to Also on wintering grounds, males sing been recorded when whales were near some degree with whales from the complex songs that can last up to 20 the bottom, which likely serves to startle known breeding grounds. minutes and may be heard up to 20 prey out of the substrate for better Whales from all known breeding miles (30 km) away (Clapham and foraging (Friedlaender et al., 2009). In grounds except the Arabian Sea migrate Mattila, 1990; Cato, 1991). A male may many locations, feeding in the water to summer feeding areas. Humpback sing for hours, repeating the song column can vary with time of day, with whales have high site fidelity to both numerous times. All males in a whales bottom feeding at night and the winter breeding grounds and population sing the same song, but that surface feeding near dawn (Friedlaender summer feeding grounds. Whales from a song continually evolves over time et al., 2009). single breeding ground may migrate to (Darling and Sousa-Lima, 2005). Humpback whales are ‘gulp’ or ‘lunge’ different feeding grounds. In addition, Humpback whale singing has been feeders, capturing large mouthfuls of feeding grounds may host whales from studied for decades, but its function prey during feeding rather than different breeding grounds. Because remains in dispute. continuously filtering food, as may be humpback whales can be individually Humpback whales are a favorite of observed in some other large baleen identified through unique fluke whale watchers, as the species whales (Ingebrigtsen, 1929). In the patterns, researchers are able to match frequently performs aerial displays, Southern Hemisphere, only one style of photos of whales on breeding grounds including breaching, lobtailing, and foraging (‘lunge’ feeding) has been and feeding grounds, thereby tracing flipper slapping, the purposes of which reported. When lunge feeding, whales their migrations. are not well understood. Diving advance on prey with their mouths wide Although the patterns of migration behavior varies by season, with average open, then close their mouths around and distribution are clear for many lengths of dives ranging from <5 the prey and trap them by forcing breeding groups, researchers have minutes in summer to 10–15 minutes engulfed water out past the baleen

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22309

plates. Southern Hemisphere humpback appears to vary both within and among photo-identification studies in Hervey whales forage in the Antarctic populations (Clapham, 1992; Gabriele et Bay, east Australia (1987–2006), and circumpolar current, feeding almost al., 2007b; Robbins, 2007). Average age range between 0.87 and 1.00 (Chaloupka exclusively on Antarctic krill of sexual maturity in the Southern et al., 1999). (Euphausia superba) (Matthews, 1937; Hemisphere is estimated to be 9–11 Robbins (2007) estimated calf (0–1 Mackintosh, 1965; Kawamura, 1994). years. In the Northern Hemisphere, year old) survival for humpback whales Stomach content analysis from calving intervals are between 1 and 5 in the Gulf of Maine at 0.664 (95 percent hunted whales taken in sub-tropical years, though 2–3 years appears to be CI: 0.517–0.784), which is low waters and on migratory routes most common (Wiley and Clapham, compared to other areas. Barlow and indicated that stomachs were nearly 1993; Steiger and Calambokidis, 2000). Clapham (1997) estimated a theoretical always empty (Chittleborough, 1965a). Estimated mean calving rates are calf mortality rate of 0.125 on the Gulf Infrequent sightings of feeding activity between 0.38 and 0.50 calves per mature of Maine feeding ground. Using and stomach content data suggest that female per year (Clapham and Mayo, associations of calves with identified some individuals may feed 1990; Straley et al., 1994; Steiger and mothers on North Pacific breeding and opportunistically during the southward Calambokidis, 2000) and reproduction feeding grounds, Gabriele (2001) migration toward Antarctic waters is annually variable (Robbins, 2007). In estimated mortality of juveniles at 6 (Matthews, 1932; Dawbin, 1956; the Southern Hemisphere, most months of age to be 0.182 (95 percent CI: Kawamura, 1980). information on humpback whale 0.023–0.518). Survival of calves (6–12 In the Southern Ocean, Antarctic krill population characteristics and life months) and juveniles (1–5 years) has tend to be most highly concentrated history was obtained during the whaling not been described in detail for the around marginal sea ice zones, where period. Post-partum ovulation is Southern Hemisphere. Killer whales are they feed on sea ice algae. As a result, reasonably common (Chittleborough, likely the most common natural Southern Hemisphere humpback whale 1965a) and inter-birth intervals of a predators of humpback whales. distribution is linked to regions of single year have occasionally been Status Review Report marginal sea ice (Friedlaender et al., recorded. This may be a consequence of 2006) and zones of high euphausiid early calf mortality; the associated The BRT’s status review report density (Murase et al., 2002), with survival rates for annually born calves compiled the best available scientific foraging mainly concentrated in the are unknown in the Southern and commercial information on: (1) upper 100m of the water column Hemisphere. Population structure of humpback (Dolphin, 1987; Friedlaender et al., Humpback whale gestation is 11–12 whales within the North Pacific, North 2006). There is evidence of a positive months and calves are born in tropical Atlantic, and Southern Oceans, used to relationship between prey density and waters (Matthews, 1937). Lactation lasts determine whether any populations humpback whale abundance from 10.5–11 months (Chittleborough, within these ocean basins meet the DPS (Friedlaender et al., 2006). 1965a), weaning begins to occur at about policy criteria; (2) the abundance and trend information for each DPS; (3) Reproduction age 6 months, and calves attain maternal independence around the end of their those ESA section 4(a)(1) factors The mating system of humpback first year (Clapham and Mayo, 1990). currently affecting the status of these whales is generally thought to be male- Humpback whales exhibit maternally DPSs; (4) ongoing conservation efforts dominance polygyny, also described as directed fidelity to specific feeding affecting the status of these DPSs; and a ‘floating lek’ (Clapham, 1996). In this regions (Martin et al., 1984; Baker et al., (5) the extinction risk of each DPS. See system, multiple males compete for 1990). the status review report for further individual females and exhibit The average generation time for information on the biology and ecology competitive behavior. Humpback whale humpback whales (the average age of all of the humpback whale (Bettridge et al., song is a long, complex vocalization reproductively active females at 2015). (Payne and McVay, 1971) produced by carrying capacity) is estimated at 21.5 males on the winter breeding grounds, years (Taylor et al., 2007). Empirically Humpback Whale Subspecies and also less commonly during estimated annual rates of population The BRT reviewed the best scientific migration (Clapham and Mattila, 1990; increase range from a low of 0 to 4 and commercial data available on the Cato, 1991) and on feeding grounds percent to a maximum of 12.5 percent humpback whale’s taxonomy and (Clark and Clapham, 2004b). The exact for different times and areas throughout concluded that there are likely three function has not been determined, but the range (Baker et al., 1992; Barlow and unrecognized subspecies of humpback behavioral studies suggest that song is Clapham, 1997; Steiger and whale: North Pacific, North Atlantic, used to advertise for females, and/or to Calambokidis, 2000; Clapham et al., and Southern Hemisphere. In reaching establish dominance among males 2003a); however, Zerbini et al. (2010) this conclusion, the BRT considered (Tyack, 1981; Darling and Be´rube´, 2001; concluded that any rate above 11.8 available life history, morphological, Darling et al., 2006). It is widely percent per year is biologically and genetic information. believed that, while occasional mating implausible for this species. Humpback whales routinely make may occur on feeding grounds or on extensive migrations between breeding migration, the great majority of mating Natural Mortality and feeding areas within an ocean basin. and conceptions take place in winter Annual adult mortality rates have Despite this potential for long distance breeding areas (Clapham, 1996; Clark been estimated to be 0.040 (standard dispersal, there is considerable evidence and Clapham, 2004a). Breeding in the error (SE) = 0.008) (Barlow and that dispersal or interbreeding of Northern and Southern Hemisphere Clapham, 1997) in the Gulf of Maine individuals from different major ocean populations is out of phase by and 0.037 (95 percent confidence basins is extremely rare and that whales approximately 6 months, corresponding interval (CI) 0.022–0.056) (Mizroch et from the major ocean basins are to their respective winter periods. al., 2004) in the Hawaiian Islands differentiated by a number of Sexual maturity of humpback whales populations. In the Southern characteristics. in the Northern Hemisphere occurs at Hemisphere, estimates of annual adult Reproductive Seasonality: Humpback approximately 5–11 years of age, and survival rates have been made using whales breed and calve in July–

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22310 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

November in the Southern Hemisphere and all its descendants) with significant however, since 1998, additional and in January–May in the Northern differences among major ocean basins, information has accumulated on the Hemisphere (including the Arabian though there were no completely fixed genetic distinctiveness of different Sea). It is not known if reproductive differences among these areas. The geographic populations of humpback seasonality in baleen whales is North Pacific included only the AE and whales, and some new subspecies have determined genetically or whether it CD clades, the North Atlantic included been proposed (Jackson et al., 2014). results from a learned behavior only the CD and IJ clades, and the One criterion for separation of (migration to a particular feeding Southern Oceans included all three. In subspecies is the ability to differentiate destination) combined with a a more recent comparison, Jackson et al. 75 percent of individuals found in physiological response to day length. (2014) found no shared haplotypes different geographic regions (Reeves et Behavior: The most obvious between the North Pacific and North al., 2004). Based on this criterion, behavioral difference is that migrations Atlantic. Based on patterns of mtDNA differences in the calendar timing of to and from high latitudes are in variation, Rosenbaum et al. (2009b) mating and reproduction could be used opposite times of the calendar year for estimated an average migration rate of to distinguish close to 100 percent of Southern Hemisphere and most less than one per generation between Northern Hemisphere from Southern Northern Hemisphere populations, the Arabian Sea and neighboring Hemisphere individuals, but it is not following the difference in reproductive populations in the southern Indian known if this is genetically determined. seasonality. A Northern Hemisphere Ocean, and Jackson et al. (2014) also Based on mtDNA haplotypes that have exception to this migration pattern is estimated generally <1 migrant per been identified to date, haplotype could found in the Arabian Sea where a non- generation among the North Pacific, be used to distinguish 100 percent of migratory population is found. North Atlantic and Southern North Pacific from North Atlantic Although these behavioral differences Hemisphere populations. Ruegg et al. individuals, but some haplotypes from could be learned, they could also be (2013) also found a high degree of both ocean basins are shared with the innate, genetically determined traits. genetic differentiation between samples Southern Ocean. Ventral fluke color Seasonality in singing and other mating from the North Atlantic and the patterns can be used to correctly behaviors also follows the differences in Southern Hemisphere. differentiate >80 percent of whales in reproductive seasonality. Subspecies Discussion and Conclusions eastern and western Australia from the Color patterns: Humpback whales in whales in the North Pacific (Rosenbaum the Southern Hemisphere tend to have The BRT considered the possibility et al., 1995). much more white pigmentation on their that humpback whales from different The BRT also considered the advice of bodies which is especially noticeable ocean basins might reasonably be the Committee on Taxonomy of the laterally (Matthews, 1937; considered to belong to different Society for Marine Mammalogy (SMM). Chittleborough, 1965b). This has been subspecies. Sub-specific taxonomy is The BRT asked the Committee: ‘‘Are noted in eastern and western Australia, relevant to the identification of DPSs humpback whales (Megaptera the Coral Sea, and Oceania, but might because, under the 1996 DPS policy, the novaeangliae) that feed in the North not be characteristic of all Southern discreteness and significance of a Atlantic, North Pacific, Southern potential DPS is evaluated with Hemisphere populations. Rosenbaum et Oceans and Arabian Sea likely to belong reference to the taxon (species or al. (1995) ranked ventral fluke to different sub-species?’’ The SMM was subspecies) to which it belongs. In some coloration patterns from one (nearly all asked only for its scientific opinion on cases previous BRTs have determined white) to five (nearly all black) and the likelihood of the existence of that sub-specific taxonomy has a large compared whales from several breeding humpback whale subspecies and was influence on DPS structure (e.g., areas. He found that over 80 percent of not asked to comment on the relevance southern resident killer whales—Krahn humpback whales in eastern and of their opinion to the identification of et al., 2004a)), while in other cases sub- western Australia were in Category 1, DPSs for humpback whales. The SMM specific taxonomy has not been relevant and that less than 10 percent of whales chairman summarized responses from (e.g., steelhead trout DPS—Busby et al., in three breeding areas in the North members of the SMM: Pacific were ranked in that category. 1996). Rice (1998) reviewed previous The balance of opinion in the SMM Only 36 percent of Southern Committee on Taxonomy is that given the Hemisphere whales in Colombia were subspecies designations for humpback whales. Tomilin (1946) named a evidence on genetics, morphology, classified in Category 1, but Colombian Southern Hemisphere subspecies (M. n. distribution and behavior, if a taxonomic whales were still, on average, whiter lalandii) based on body length, but this revision of the humpback whale were than North Pacific whales. A higher undertaken, it is likely that the North length difference was not substantiated frequency of flippers with white dorsal Atlantic, North Pacific and Southern in subsequent studies. The populations pigmentations is found in the North Hemisphere populations would be accorded around Australia and New Zealand were Atlantic compared to the North Pacific subspecific status. Whether the Arabian Sea described as another subspecies (M. n. (Clapham, 2009). population would merit recognition as a Genetics: Baker and Medrano- novazelandiae) based on color patterns subspecies separate from the Southern and length (Ivashin, 1958). Rice (1998) Hemisphere whales, with which it is most Gonzalez (2002) reviewed the closely related genetically, is less certain. worldwide distribution of mtDNA noted that the statistical ability to classify these proposed subspecies is However, it is clearly geographically isolated haplotypes.1 They found three major ‘‘not quite as high as is customarily and genetically differentiated. clades (groups consisting of an ancestor required for division into subspecies’’ Using its structured decision making 1 A mtDNA haplotype is a group of genes, or and that genetic analyses using process (whereby each BRT member alleles, that is maternally inherited; genetic restriction-fragment length distributed 100 likelihood points among differentiation is generally based on allele polymorphisms is not congruent with different scenarios), the BRT considered frequency differences between populations, which the proposed regional division. Rice the likelihood of a single global species are measured by FST or related statistics; FST is a measure of the genetic distance between (1998) therefore recommended that with no subspecies scenario, a three- populations, or difference in the allele frequency Megaptera novaeangliae be considered subspecies scenario (North Atlantic, between two populations. monotypic. As was summarized above, North Pacific, and Southern

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22311

Hemisphere), and a four-subspecies are also found scattered throughout the with the Cape Verde Islands or possibly scenario (North Atlantic, North Pacific, rest of the Antilles and coastal waters of other areas in the Northeastern Atlantic. Southern Hemisphere, and Arabian Venezuela. The Silver/Navidad/ Most of the humpback whales on the Sea). The BRT’s allocation of likelihood Mouchoir Bank complex hosts the western North Atlantic feeding grounds points indicates that in the opinion of largest single breeding aggregation of (Gulf of Maine, Gulf of St. Lawrence, the BRT, the most likely scenario is the humpback whales in the West Indies. West Greenland, and eastern Canada) 3-subspecies scenario. Recently, a few humpback whales come from the well-studied West Indies In October 2014, after the BRT report have also been found in the breeding ground (approximately 90 was completed, the SMM updated its Mediterranean Sea but little is known percent) (Clapham et al., 1993; Mattila species and subspecies list to recognize about humpback whale use of this et al., 2001). Some of the whales from the North Atlantic, North Pacific, and region and there is no evidence of a the Iceland and Norway feeding grounds Southern Hemisphere humpback whale large humpback whale presence there, also come from the West Indies breeding populations as subspecies: Megaptera either currently or in historical times grounds, but genetic evidence suggests novaeangliae kuzira (North Pacific), M. (Frantzis et al., 2004). There are also that most whales from the Iceland and n. novaeangliae (North Atlantic) and M. sporadic sightings of humpback whales Norway feeding grounds migrate from n. australis (Southern Hemisphere) in a wide range of places, including some other breeding ground. The (http://www.marinemammalscience. location of possible breeding grounds of _ waters offshore from the mid-Atlantic org/index.php?option=com content& and Southeast United States, in the Gulf these whales is not well understood, but view=article&id=758&Itemid=340). This of Mexico, and in the waters around Clapham et al. (1993) suggest it may be update was based on mtDNA and DNA Ireland. Bermuda is a known mid-ocean in the eastern tropical Atlantic Ocean. relationships and distribution, as stopover point for humpback whales on Sighting histories of the Cape Verde described in Jackson et al. (2014). We their northbound migration (Stone et al., Islands whales link them to feeding therefore consider whether the various 1987). grounds in the waters off Iceland or humpback whale population segments Norway (Katona and Beard, 1990; Jann identified by the BRT satisfy the DPS Discreteness et al., 2003), and the Cape Verde Islands criteria of discreteness and significance Genetic studies have identified 25 is the only candidate breeding ground relative to the subspecies to which they humpback whale haplotypes in the from historical whaling records. each belong: North Atlantic, North western North Atlantic, 12 haplotypes However, current studies show only a Pacific, and Southern Hemisphere in eastern North Atlantic samples, and small number of whales in the Cape subspecies. Verde Islands—far fewer than the non- 19 haplotypes in whales that feed West Indies whales known to exist in Distinct Population Segment Analysis, during the summer in the Gulf of Maine the northeastern Atlantic. The Cape By Subspecies (Palsb

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22312 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

heterogeneity in the feeding grounds (1) West Indies DPS; and (2) Cape Verde indicate the existence of at least one indicating that the West Indies is not the Islands/Northwest Africa DPS. additional breeding area whose location only breeding ground. Because the Cape has not been identified. Overall, the North Pacific Verde Islands cannot account for the level of genetic divergence among abundance of whales estimated from the Overview breeding areas at the mtDNA control eastern North Atlantic feeding grounds Humpback whales in the North region was substantial (FST = 0.093). that are not documented using the West Pacific migrate seasonally from northern Pairwise estimates of divergence among Indies, there must be an additional breeding areas ranged from none (FST = latitude feeding areas in summer to low- ∼ breeding area, likely near Northwest latitude breeding areas in winter. 0.000; Philippines vs Okinawa) to very Africa, and possibly associated with the Feeding areas are dispersed across the high (FST > 0.2 for Hawaii versus Cape Verde Islands. Pacific Rim from California, United Okinawa and Philippines, and Hawaii Significance States, to Hokkaido, Japan. Within these versus Central America). In addition to regions, humpback whales have been little divergence between Okinawa and The West Indies breeding ground the Philippines, the three Mexican areas includes the Atlantic margin of the observed to spend the majority of their time feeding in coastal waters. Breeding (mainland coast, Baja California, and Antilles from Cuba to northern Revillagigedos Islands) were not Venezuela, with the Silver/Navidad/ areas in the North Pacific are more geographically separated than the significantly differentiated. In contrast Mouchoir Bank complex comprising a to the mtDNA variation, the breeding major breeding ground. Whales from feeding areas and include: (1) Regions offshore of mainland Central America; areas were less strongly (but still this breeding ground have a feeding significantly) differentiated at 10 range that primarily includes the Gulf of (2) mainland, Baja Peninsula and the Revillagigedos Islands, Mexico; (3) nuclear microsatellite loci (FST = 0.006), Maine, eastern Canada, and western suggesting the possibility of some male Greenland. While many West Indies Hawaii; and (4) Asia including Ogasawara and Okinawa Islands and the mediated gene flow among breeding whales also use feeding grounds in the areas. After application of an adjustment central North Atlantic (Iceland) and Philippines. About half of the humpback whales in the North Pacific for diversity (Hedrick, 2005; Baker et al., eastern North Atlantic (Norway), many 2013), the effect size increased to F’ = whales from these feeding areas appear Ocean breed and calve in the U.S. ST waters off Hawaii; more than half of 0.0128 and F’ST = 0.0214 for feeding and to winter in another location. breeding grounds, respectively. Of these The BRT concluded this discrete North Pacific Ocean humpback whales nine areas, two are likely migratory group of whales is significant to the feed in U.S. waters. routes to other locations and might North Atlantic subspecies due to the Humpback whales in the North therefore not be primary breeding significant gap in the breeding range Pacific rarely move between these that would occur if it were extirpated. breeding regions. Strong fidelity to both grounds: the waters off Baja California Loss of the West Indies population feeding and breeding sites has been and the Ogasawara Islands. would result in the loss of humpback observed, but movements between Similarly, some humpback whales whales from all of the western North feeding and breeding areas are complex migrating to the Okinawa Islands pass Atlantic breeding grounds (Caribbean/ and varied (Calambokidis et al., 2008). by the Ogasawara Islands, and the West Indies) and feeding grounds An overall pattern of migration has Ogasawara Islands are also thought (United States, Canada, Greenland). recently emerged. Asia and Mexico/ likely to be along the migration route to The Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Central America are the dominant the unidentified breeding area that was Africa breeding grounds include waters breeding areas for humpback whales described in Calambokidis et al. (2008). surrounding the Cape Verde Islands as that migrate to feeding areas in lower Because of the existence of an well as an undetermined breeding area latitudes and more coastal areas on each unidentified breeding area, the in the eastern tropical Atlantic, which side of the Pacific Ocean, such as population structure of the western may be more geographically diffuse than California and Russia. The Revillagigedo North Pacific populations proved more the West Indies breeding ground. The Archipelago and Hawaiian Islands are challenging. Humpback whales in population of whales breeding in Cape the primary winter migratory Okinawa were not significantly different Verde Islands plus this unknown area destinations for humpback whales that in either mtDNA or nDNA from whales likely represents the remnants of a feed in the more central and higher in the Philippines (Baker et al., 2013). historically larger population breeding latitude areas (Calambokidis et al., Mitochondrial DNA and nDNA markers around Cape Verde Islands and 2008). However, there are exceptions to from the pooled populations from Northwest Africa (Reeves et al., 2002). this pattern, and it seems that complex Okinawa and the Philippines There is no known overlap in breeding population structure and strong site populations differ significantly from range with North Atlantic humpback fidelity coexist with lesser known, but those of humpback whales in the whales that breed in the West Indies. As potentially high, levels of plasticity in Ogasawara Islands and all other noted above, the BRT determined the the movements of humpback whales populations (Baker et al., 2013). population was discrete from the West (Salden et al., 1999). However, given the likelihood that Indies population based upon genetic Ogasawara whales are only passing Discreteness evidence that suggests a second through en route to two or more breeding ground occupied by whales Baker et al. (2013) recently analyzed migratory destinations, the BRT that feed primarily off Norway and genetic variation in a large (n = 2,193) members concluded that there are likely Iceland. It also determined that this sample of whales from 8 breeding and two discrete populations consisting of population was significant to the North 10 feeding regions within the North an Okinawa/Philippines population and Atlantic subspecies because of the gap Pacific. The 8 possible breeding regions an unknown breeding group, both using that would exist in the breeding range included the Philippines, Okinawa, the Ogasawara area as a migratory if it were extirpated. Ogasawara, Hawaii, Revillagigedo, Baja corridor. Given the uncertainty about We agree with the BRT and we California, the Mexican mainland coast, the location of the other breeding therefore identify two DPSs of the North and Central America. In addition, ground, and the use of a common Atlantic humpback whale subspecies: results from Calambokidis et al. (2008) migratory corridor by the known group

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22313

and the unknown group, we have weighted ecological differences among subspecies. We conclude that the loss of decided to include the unknown feeding areas more heavily than among the Western North Pacific population breeding group in the Okinawa/ breeding areas, since it concluded that would result in a significant gap in the Philippines population. We refer to this the ecological characteristics of range of the North Pacific subspecies combined discrete population as the humpback whales in their breeding because if loss of the Okinawa/ Western North Pacific population. ranges were largely similar among Philippines population would result in The Hawaii population of humpback populations. In contrast, the BRT a significant gap, then the loss of a whales is separated by the greatest concluded whales largely foraging in larger combined population would, too. geographic distance from neighboring different large marine ecosystems The loss of humpback whales from the populations and was significantly inhabit different ecological settings and Hawaii breeding population would different from other populations in both that this is relevant in evaluating the result in loss of humpbacks from the frequencies of mtDNA haplotypes and significance of these populations. The Hawaiian Islands, and this would nDNA (microsatellite) alleles (Baker et BRT stated that, within the North represent a significant gap in the range al., 2013). The BRT therefore concluded Pacific, the Okinawa/Philippines, of the North Pacific subspecies. We that whales wintering in Hawaii Hawaii, Mexico, and Central America conclude that the Western North Pacific constitute a discrete population. populations tend to feed in different and the Hawaii populations both meet In Mexico, available genetic and marine ecosystems, although there is the significance criterion of the DPS demographic studies indicate that some overlap. The Western North Policy because loss of these populations humpback whales migrating to Pacific population, which feeds in the would result in a significant gap in the mainland Mexico and to the Western Bering Sea (the Okinawa/ range of the North Pacific subspecies. Revillagigedos Islands pass by the tip of Philippines population) and the While the loss of the Mexico or Central Baja California. The BRT therefore Aleutian Islands (the unidentified America populations would not result concluded that humpback whales off breeding population), feeds in an in a significant gap in the range of their Baja California should not be considered ecosystem entirely different from the feeding grounds because their feeding a discrete population. Further, the others in the North Pacific. The BRT grounds overlap, it would result in a mainland population in Mexico does also noted that the Central America significant gap in their breeding not differ significantly from the population’s breeding habitat is grounds, and therefore, we consider the Revillagigedos population in its mtDNA ecologically unique for the species as it Mexico and Central America haplotype frequencies (Baker et al., is the only area where documented populations also to be significant to the 2013). Photo-identification studies also geographic overlap of populations that North Pacific subspecies. indicate considerable movement of feed in different hemispheres occurs, The BRT discussed whether there was individuals between mainland and potentially creating a conduit for genetic evidence for marked genetic divergence offshore island breeding areas in Mexico exchange between the two hemispheres. among any of the discrete populations. (Calambokidis et al., 2008). The BRT While a minority of members believed Although there was not clear agreement therefore concluded that mainland that this was an example of temporal on the definition of ‘‘marked,’’ the BRT Mexico and the Revillagigedos and geographic overlap rather than a concluded that strong patterns of populations are a single Mexico unique ecological setting, we conclude genetic differentiation in mtDNA population discrete from all other that the Central America population is sequence among most of the North populations. significant to the ocean-basin based Pacific breeding populations indicated In the eastern North Pacific, North Pacific subspecies because of its marked genetic divergence, consistent humpback whales in Central America ecologically unique breeding habitat. with the conclusions in Baker et al. have a unique mtDNA signature, as We agree with the BRT that the Western (2013). The overall level of reflected in the frequencies of North Pacific and Central America differentiation among breeding haplotypes (Baker et al., 2008a; Baker et populations occupy unique ecological populations within the North Pacific al., 2008b). This frequency composition settings (unique breeding and feeding (FST = 0.09) was similar to the level of is significantly different from that in grounds for the Western North Pacific, divergence among ocean basins and is whales from all other breeding grounds unique breeding habitat for the Central consistent with a relatively high degree in the North Pacific. The BRT America population), and therefore, of divergence of these populations. concluded that humpback whales in they both are significant to the North Further, in reviewing Baker et al. (2013), Central America are a discrete Pacific subspecies. all populations that we have identified population. as discrete in the North Pacific are The BRT noted that in the North Thus while the BRT concluded there strongly differentiated from each other Pacific Ocean, loss of the Okinawa/ are five breeding populations of at the p-value 2 of 0.01 level or better, Philippines population would likely humpback whales in the North Pacific except for the Central America/ result in a significant gap in the North that meet the criteria for being discrete Philippines pair, which are Pacific feeding range as these under the DPS Policy guidelines, we differentiated from each other at p-value individuals are the only breeding propose to identify four: (1) Western of 0.05. Therefore, we agree with the population to migrate primarily to North Pacific (includes Okinawa/ BRT and conclude that all four of the Russia, and loss of this population Philippines and the unidentified discrete populations we have identified would therefore result in a loss of breeding area in the western North in the North Pacific (Western North feeding range along the Russian coast. Pacific); (2) Hawaii (3) Mexico (includes Pacific, Hawaii, Mexico, and Central mainland Mexico and the We concur with this conclusion, but because we have combined the Revillagigedos Islands); and (4) Central 2 The p-value is the probability of obtaining a test America. unknown breeding group that feeds in statistic result at least as extreme as the one that the Aleutian Islands with the Okinawa/ was actually observed, assuming that the null Significance Philippines population, we need to hypothesis is true; a small p-value (typically ≤ 0.05) assess whether this combined Western indicates strong evidence against the null In evaluating whether any discrete hypothesis; a null hypothesis is a general statement population differed in its ecological North Pacific population is significant or default position that there is no relationship characteristics from others, the BRT to the ocean-basin based North Pacific between two measured phenomena.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22314 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

America) are significant to the North is also at a temperate latitude and, while major calving grounds occurring in the Pacific subspecies because of marked it is in the Northern Hemisphere, we Kimberley Region (15–18° S.) and genetic differentiation. discuss it here because we determined resting areas on the southern migration Although the petitioned North Pacific earlier that it was part of the Southern at Exmouth Gulf (21° S.) and at Shark population could also satisfy the Hemisphere subspecies of the Bay (25° S.) (Bannister and Hedley, discreteness and significance criteria of humpback whale. 2001; Jenner et al., 2001). the DPS Policy, there are other plausible The primary mating/calving ground of Humpback whales along the east coast and scientifically supported approaches humpback whales in the western South of Australia are thought to breed to dividing the species into DPSs. We Atlantic Ocean is the coast of Brazil. primarily in waters inside the Great conclude that our modification of the This population migrates to feeding Barrier Reef (16–21° S.) (Chittleborough, BRT’s approach for humpback whales in grounds located east of the Scotia Sea 1965; Simmons and Marsh, 1986) and the North Pacific (i.e., combining the near South Georgia and the South are seen as far north as Murray Island unknown breeding group with the Sandwich Archipelagos (Stevick et al., at ∼10° S. (Simmons and Marsh, 1986). Okinawa/Philippines population) is 2006; Zerbini et al., 2006b; Engel et al., Discovery marks and satellite telemetry more appropriate to further the 2008; Engel and Martin, 2009; Zerbini et suggest east Australian whales feed in a purposes of the ESA because it al., 2011). The winter breeding broad swath of the Antarctic between represents a more risk-averse approach distribution of humpback whales in the 100° E. and 175° W., or that they with respect to the unknown breeding southwestern Atlantic (June to frequent at least two feeding regions, group. As discussed above, December) is concentrated around the one due south of eastern Australia identification of the Western North Abrolhos Bank region in Brazil (15–18° stretching to the east beneath New Pacific, Hawaii, Mexico, and Central S.) and 500 km north, along the north Zealand, and one south of west America populations as DPSs is coast of Bahia State and Espirito Santo Australia at ∼100° E. and accessed via supported by the best available State (Rossi-Santos et al., 2008) and near migration through Bass Strait. scientific and commercial information. Salvador and Recife. The longitudinal distribution We are exercising the discretion A humpback whale winter breeding boundaries of humpback whales and calving ground is located off central wintering in Oceania lie between ∼160° afforded to us as an expert agency ∼ ° ∼ ° ∼ ° charged with administering the ESA in western Africa between 6 S. and 6 E. (west of New Caledonia) and 120 N. in the eastern Atlantic. Periods of W. (east of French Polynesia) and the face of conflicting proposals (i.e., ° ° petitions to delist North Pacific and peak abundance are found between July latitudinally between 0 and 30 S. Central North Pacific populations) to and September, with some whales still (Reeves et al., 1999), a range that recognize these four populations as present as late as December and January includes American Samoa (United DPSs. Therefore, we will evaluate the in Angola, Gabon and Sa˜o Tome´ (Weir, States), the Cook Islands, Fiji, French status of each of these four DPSs in the 2007). The Gabon/Southwest Africa Polynesia (France), Republic of Kiribati, North Pacific rather than recognizing a region appears to serve a variety of Nauru, New Caledonia (France), Norfolk single North Pacific DPS and evaluating purposes with some individual whales Island, New Zealand, Niue, the its combined status (i.e., the approach remaining in the area through the year Independent State of Samoa, Solomon offered by the Hawaii Fishermen’s while some use the area for feeding and Islands, Tokelau, Kingdom of Tonga, Alliance). The petition to delineate the others for mating (Bettridge et al., 2015). Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna At least three winter breeding (France). North Pacific population as a DPS and aggregations of humpback whales have The wintertime breeding distribution ‘‘delist’’ it is therefore denied (i.e., the been suggested in the southwestern of humpback whales in the southeastern petitioned action is not warranted). The Indian Ocean from historical whaling Pacific (May to November) includes the petitioned Central North Pacific records and contemporary surveys coastal waters between Panama and population is the same as the Hawaii (Wray and Martin, 1983; Best et al., northern Peru, with the main wintering DPS we have identified; therefore, we 1998). One is associated with the areas concentrated in Colombia will evaluate the status of the Hawaii mainland coastal waters of southeastern (Gorgona Island, Ma´laga Bay and DPS to determine whether it is Africa, extending from Mozambique Tribuga´ Gulf), Panama, and Ecuador. warranted for listing. (24° S., Findlay et al., 1994) to as far Low densities of whales are also found The following populations of the north as Tanzania and southern Kenya around the Gala´pagos Islands (Fe´lix et North Pacific humpback whale (Wamukoya et al., 1996; Berggren et al., al., 2006b), and coastal sightings have subspecies meet the discreteness and 2001; O’Connor et al., 2009). The been made as far north as Costa Rica significance criteria for being a DPS second is found in the coastal waters of (Coco Island and Golfo Dulce, 8° N.) under the DPS Policy: (1) Western North the northern Mozambique Channel (Acevedo and Smultea, 1995; May- Pacific; (2) Hawaii; (3) Mexico; and (4) Islands (Comoros Archipelago) and the Collado et al., 2005). In the summer Central America. southern Seychelles (Bettridge et al., months, these whales migrate to feeding Southern Hemisphere 2015). The third is associated with the grounds located in waters off southern coastal waters of Madagascar (15–25° Chile, the Magellan Strait, and the Overview S.), best described in Antongil Bay on Antarctic Peninsula (May-Collado et al., There are at least eleven breeding the east coast (Rosenbaum et al., 1997). 2005; Fe´lix et al., 2006b; Acevedo et al., grounds identified in the Southern At least three migratory pathways to 2008). Hemisphere at temperate latitudes: Antarctic summer feeding grounds in Sightings and survey data suggest that Brazil, Gabon and central West Africa, this region have been proposed using a humpback whales in the Arabian Sea Mozambique, the Comoros Archipelago, compilation of data from surveys, are primarily concentrated in the Madagascar, West Australia, East whaling and acoustic records and shallow near-shore areas off the coast of Australia, New Caledonia, Tonga, sightings (Best et al., 1998). Humpback Oman, particularly in the Gulf of French Polynesia, and the southeastern whale wintering grounds and coastal Masirah and Kuria Muria Islands Pacific, (Stevick et al., 2006; Zerbini et migratory routes in the eastern Indian regions (Minton, 2004); sightings and al., 2006b; Engel and Martin, 2009; IWC, Ocean are located between 15–35° S. strandings suggest a population range 2011). The Arabian Sea breeding ground along the west coast of Australia, with that encompasses the northern Gulf of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22315

Aden, the Balochistan coast of Pakistan, Southern Atlantic and Western Indian differentiation was present among major and western India and Sri Lanka, with Oceans, including the coastal areas of breeding areas, and the estimated occasional sightings on the Sistan and Brazil, Southwestern Africa, and number of migrants/generation among Baluchistan coasts of Iran, and also Iraq Southeastern Africa. Levels of areas was small compared to the (Al Robaae, 1974; Braulik et al., 2010). differentiation among these are estimated sizes of the populations. Photo-identification re-sightings suggest statistically significant but relatively The BRT members concluded that the humpback whales move seasonally low, with FST ranging from 0.003 seven breeding stocks of humpback between the Dhofar region (Kuria Muria (among two Southwestern African whales currently formally recognized by Islands) in winter and the Gulf of locations) to 0.017 (between Brazil and the IWC in the Southern Hemisphere Masirah to the north in summer, with Southeastern Africa). Although there meet the criteria for being discrete similar re-sighting rates between and was some detectable differentiation populations under the DPS Policy within regions (Minton et al., 2010b). among samples from Southwestern and guidelines, except that they agreed that Despite extensive comparisons of Southeastern African coastal locations the dividing line between IWC stocks E photo-identification catalogues and (B1/B2 and C1/C2/C3 International and F was between eastern Australia genotyped individuals between Oman Whaling Commission (IWC) stocks, and Oceania (defined here to include and the other Indian Ocean catalogues respectively), the levels of divergence New Caledonia, Tonga, Samoa, and genetic datasets, no matches have within these areas were very low (FST = American Samoa, and French been detected between regions (Pomilla 0.003–0.009 within the ‘‘B’’ stock and Polynesia), as there are large differences et al., 2006; Minton et al., 2010a). 0.002–0.005 within the ‘‘C’’ stock). The in the rates of recovery between these Humpback whales from this region estimated number of migrants per two regions, indicating they are carry fewer and smaller barnacles than generation was 26 between Brazil and demographically independent. Breeding Southern Hemisphere whales, and do Southwestern Africa, and 33 between populations in New Caledonia and east not exhibit the white oval scars Southwestern and Southeastern Africa. Australia are separate, but some overlap indicative of cookie cutter shark (Isistius A report on an IWC workshop between the populations occurs: some brasiliensis) bites, a feature commonly devoted to Southern Hemisphere stock whales bound for New Caledonia use seen on some Southern Hemisphere structure issues (IWC, 2011) recognizes the same migratory pathways as some humpback whales (Mikhalev, 1997). at least seven ‘‘breeding stocks’’ whales headed past east Australia. Connections between the Arabian Sea associated with low-latitude, winter There was consensus among the BRT to population with the other Northern breeding grounds and, in some cases, divide the Southern Hemisphere into Hemisphere populations are highly migratory corridors. These seven seven discrete populations: Brazil, unlikely as there is no accessible breeding stocks are referred to Gabon/Southwest Africa, Southeast northward passage from the Arabian alphabetically, from A to G, to Africa/Madagascar, West Australia, East Sea. Furthermore, there are no distinguish them from the six Australia, Oceania (including New mitochondrial DNA haplotypes or song management areas on feeding grounds Caledonia, Tonga, Cook Islands, Samoa, patterns shared with North Pacific of the Antarctic, referred to as Areas I– American Samoa and French Polynesia), humpback whales (Whitehead, 1985; VI. The current breeding stock and Southeastern Pacific (Colombia and Rosenbaum et al., 2009); thus, on designations are southwestern Atlantic Ecuador). We agree with the BRT’s current evidence, and in the absence of (A), southeastern Atlantic (B), conclusions, based on the significant comparisons with far western North southwestern Indian Ocean (C), mitochondrial DNA differentiation Pacific humpbacks, it appears that southeastern Indian Ocean (D), among major breeding populations. whales from these populations have no southwestern Pacific (E), Oceania (E and With regard to the Arabian Sea recent biological connectivity. Analysis F) and southeastern Pacific (G). These population, nuclear and mitochondrial of fetal lengths in pregnant females designations have been subdivided to DNA diversity of humpback whales killed by Soviet whalers clearly indicate reflect improved understanding of from Oman (up to 47 individuals that this population exhibits a Northern substructure within some of these sampled) is the lowest among all Hemisphere reproductive cycle, with regions: Gabon (B1) and Southwest breeding grounds (Pomilla et al., 2006; births occurring in the boreal winter Africa (B2) in the southeastern Atlantic; Olavarrı´a et al., 2007; Rosenbaum et al., (Mikhalev, 1997). Mozambique (C1), the Comoros 2009). Mitochondrial DNA analysis revealed only eight distinct haplotypes, Discreteness Archipelago (C2), Madagascar (C3) and the Mascarene Islands (C4) in the half of which are exclusive to Oman Olavarrı´a et al. (2007) analyzed southwestern Indian Ocean, east (not detected on other breeding grounds, patterns of mtDNA control region Australia (E1), New Caledonia (E2), Pomilla et al., 2006). Haplotype variation obtained from 1,112 samples Tonga (E3), the Cook Islands (F1) and diversity at the mtDNA control region is from 6 breeding grounds in the South French Polynesia (F2) in the markedly lower than in other Pacific: New Caledonia, Tonga, Cook southwestern Pacific and Oceania. The populations (0.69 vs 0.90–0.98 for Islands, eastern Polynesia, Colombia, IWC has also chosen to include in this Southern Hemisphere populations and and Western Australia. Of these areas, assessment, a year-round population of 0.84 for North Pacific populations) the samples from Colombia were most humpback whales found in the Arabian (Olavarrı´a et al., 2007; Rosenbaum et al., differentiated (FST = 0.06—0.08 in Sea, north of the equator in the northern 2009; Baker et al., 2013). pairwise comparison to other areas). Indian Ocean (formerly referred to as Genetic data (nuclear microsatellites Pairwise divergence among the other breeding stock X). and mitochondrial control region) and areas was lower (FST = 0.01—0.05). All The BRT noted that the magnitude of fluke pigmentation markings indicate pairwise comparisons were statistically mitochondrial DNA differentiation (as that the Arabian Sea breeding >0, however, and indicated a lack of free measured by FST) was generally lower population is significantly differentiated exchange among these breeding areas. among Southern Hemisphere breeding from Southern Indian Ocean breeding Levels of haplotype diversity were areas than it is in the Northern grounds (Rosenbaum et al., 2009). generally very high (0.90—0.97). Hemisphere, indicating greater Nuclear genetic analysis suggests that Rosenbaum et al. (2009) conducted a demographic connectivity among these this population is the most strongly and similar study of breeding areas in the areas. Even so, significant significantly differentiated in all

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22316 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

comparisons among other Indian Ocean Madagascar, and Southeastern Pacific extensively, but instead feeds and and South Atlantic breeding populations are significant to the breeds in the same geographic location. populations (pair-wise FST range Southern Hemisphere subspecies of the No other humpback whale populations between Oman and Southern Indian humpback whale because their loss occupy this area and hence, a loss of the Ocean breeding populations = 0.38– would result in significant gaps in the Arabian Sea population would result in 0.48) (Pomilla et al., 2006). Levels of range of the Southern Hemisphere a significant gap in the range of the mitochondrial DNA differentiation subspecies. Further, we believe that the Southern Hemisphere subspecies. The between Oman and other Indian Ocean loss of the West Australia, East BRT also concluded that the Arabian breeding grounds are around ten times Australia, and Oceania populations Sea population differs markedly in its higher than among the other breeding would also result in significant gaps in genetic characteristics from other grounds (pair-wise FST range between the ranges of the Southern Hemisphere populations in the Indian Ocean and Oman and other Indian Ocean breeding subspecies because their non- worldwide. The degree of genetic populations 0.11–0.15) (Rosenbaum et overlapping breeding ranges are quite differentiation at multiple genetic al., 2009). extensive. markers between this population and The BRT concluded, and we agree, In the Southern Hemisphere, the other populations is similar to or greater that the Arabian Sea population is Southeastern Pacific population is the than the degree of divergence among the discrete from all other populations only breeding population that contains North Pacific, North Atlantic, and because of its low haplotype diversity a genetic signal from Northern Southern Hemisphere areas. The BRT compared to Southern Hemisphere and Hemisphere populations, giving it a unanimously concluded that the North Pacific populations, its unique genetic signature within the Arabian Sea population would be differentiation in mtDNA and nDNA Southern Hemisphere (Baker et al., considered a DPS under any global markers, and fluke pigmentation 1993; Baker and Medrano-Gonza´lez, taxonomic scenario, due to its marked differences between whales in the 2002). It is also the most divergent of genetic divergence from all other Arabian Sea and in the Southern Indian any of the Southern Hemisphere populations and unique ecological Ocean. populations (Olavarrı´a et al., 2007). In setting. We agree that the Arabian Sea addition, individuals in this region are Significance population occupies a unique ecological morphologically distinct as they have setting, its loss would result in a The BRT noted that, within the darker pectoral fin coloration than other significant gap in the range of the Southern Hemisphere, most breeding individuals in the Southern Hemisphere Southern Hemisphere subspecies, and it populations feed in the same Antarctic (Chittleborough, 1965), although the differs markedly in its genetic marine ecosystem. One exception is the genetic basis for this trait is not known. characteristics from other populations. Brazil population, which feeds north of Nonetheless, a majority of the BRT Therefore, it meets the significance ° 60 S. in the South Georgia and South concluded that the Southeastern Pacific criterion of the DPS policy, and we Sandwich Islands area (IWC, 2011). In population was sufficiently identify the Arabian Sea population as addition to feeding in the Antarctic differentiated so as to differ ‘markedly’ a DPS. system, the Gabon/Southwest Africa in its genetic characteristics from other population may also feed along the west Southern Hemisphere populations. In Extinction Risk Assessment coast of South Africa in the Benguela contrast, all other Southern Hemisphere The BRT discussed the relationship Current, but this is uncertain (IWC, populations were characterized by between population size and trend and 2011). Like the Central America generally low levels of differentiation extinction risk, citing relevant literature population, the Southeastern Pacific among them, consistent with on small population size, environmental breeding population may also be demographically discrete populations and demographic stochasticity, genetic ecologically unique as it is the only but not necessarily with marked genetic effects, catastrophes, and extinction risk population in the Southern Hemisphere divergence associated with long-term (e.g., Franklin, 1980; Soule´, 1980; Gilpin to occupy an area also used by a isolation (Olavarrı´a et al., 2007; and Soule´, 1986; Allendorf et al., 1987; Northern Hemisphere population. We Rosenbaum et al., 2009). We conclude Goodman, 1987; Mace and Lande, 1991; conclude that the Brazil, Gabon/ that the Southeastern Pacific population Frankham, 1995; Lande, 1998; Lynch Southwest Africa, and Southeastern of the humpback whale is significant to and Blanchard, 1998; Lynch and Lande, Pacific populations occupy unique the Southern Hemisphere population of 1998; Frankham, 1999; Brook et al., ecological settings and are therefore the humpback whale because it differs 2006; Mace et al., 2008) and concluding significant to the Southern Hemisphere markedly in its genetic characteristics that population size criteria similar to subspecies of the humpback whale. from other Southern Hemisphere those described in Mace et al. (2008) For the Southern Hemisphere, populations. We conclude that each of (International Union for Conservation of determination of feeding range is more the seven discrete Southern Hemisphere Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) difficult since Antarctic feeding areas populations (Brazil, Gabon/Southwest Red List criteria) could be considered are less well studied and fewer Africa, Southeast Africa/Madagascar, carefully but not used as the sole connections between breeding and West Australia, East Australia, Oceania, criterion for evaluating extinction risk. feeding populations have been made. and Southeastern Pacific) satisfies at The criteria the BRT considered are that However, some populations such as least one significance factor of the DPS a DPS with a total population size Brazil, Southwest Africa, Southeast Policy, and, therefore, we consider them >2,000 was not likely to be at risk due Africa, and the Southeastern Pacific are to be DPSs. to low abundance alone, a DPS with a believed to have fairly discrete and non- The Arabian Sea population persists population size <2,000 would be at overlapping feeding areas, suggesting year-round in a monsoon driven tropical increasing risk from factors associated that if any of these feeding areas were ecosystem with highly contrasting with low abundance (and the lower the lost it would, in combination with the seasonal wind and resulting upwelling population size, the greater the risk), a lost breeding area, result in a significant patterns. The BRT therefore concluded DPS with a population size <500 would gap in the range. We conclude, that this population persists in a unique be at high risk due to low abundance, therefore, that the Brazil, Gabon/ ecological setting. The Arabian Sea and a DPS with a population size <100 Southwest Africa, Southeast Africa/ population segment does not migrate would be at extremely high risk due to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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 or the growth rate of the population; 3 many whales from these feeding areas the sole criterion considered by the = high, threat is likely to seriously appear to winter in another location. BRT, as the BRT also considered how reduce the population size or the growth The breeding range of this DPS within any of the factors (or threats) listed rate of the population, 4 = very high, the West Indies is the entire Antillean under ESA section 4(a)(1) contribute to threat is likely to eliminate the DPS, arc, from Cuba to the Gulf of Paria, the extinction risk of each DPS now and unknown = severity of threat is Venezuela. in the foreseeable future. Demographic unknown) and also indicated whether Several abundance estimates for the factors that cause a species to be at the trend of any threat was increasing. West Indies DPS have been made from heightened risk of extinction, alone or Finally, the BRT members assessed photo-identification studies and biopsy in combination with other threats under the risk of extinction for each DPS by samples and genetic identification using section 4(a)(1), are considered under distributing 100 likelihood points a Chapman 2-sample estimator, some ESA Factor E—other natural or among 3 categories of extinction risk: (1) comparing feeding ground samples to manmade factors affecting the High Risk = a species or DPS has West Indies breeding ground samples, continued existence of the species. productivity, spatial structure, genetic others comparing breeding ground Ultimately, the BRT considered both the diversity, and/or a level of abundance samples to breeding ground samples abundance and trend information and that place(s) its persistence in question. (Palsbanimals from that we often use to evaluate the risk of As discussed above, this DPS consists Canada and West Greenland in addition extinction to populations. of the humpback whales whose to the Gulf of Maine. If it can be The BRT also ranked the severity of breeding range includes the West Indies assumed that whales from Canada and 16 current or imminent threats to the and whose feeding range primarily Greenland have the same capture humpback whale DPSs (1 = low or none, includes the Gulf of Maine, eastern probability in the West Indies as do threat is likely to have no or minor Canada, and western Greenland. While whales from the Gulf of Maine, this impact on population size or the growth many West Indies whales also use should not introduce any bias. The rate; 2 = medium, threat is likely to feeding grounds in the central (Iceland) MONAH estimate of 12,312 is consistent moderately reduce the population size and eastern (Norway) North Atlantic, with the increasing trend for the West

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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), re-sighting rate suggests a small However, the BRT was confident that though it suggests the increasing trend population size with high fidelity to this the population is likely to be much in the population has slowed down. breeding area, although the DPS may greater than 2,000 in total size. Stevick et al. (2003) estimated the also contain other, as yet unknown, Estimates of population growth trends average rate of increase for the West breeding areas (Wenzel et al., 2010). do not exist for the Mexico DPS by Indies breeding population at 3.1 itself. Given evidence of population Western North Pacific DPS percent per year (SE = 0.5 percent) for growth throughout most of the primary the period 1979–1993, but because of The abundance of humpback whales feeding areas of the Mexico DPS concerns that the same data may have in the Western North Pacific is (California/Oregon (Calambokidis et al., been used twice and potentially lead to estimated to be around 1,000, based on 2008), Gulf of Alaska from the an over-estimate of the precision of the the photo-identification, capture- Shumagins to Kodiak (Zerbini et al., trend estimate, they re-calculated the recapture analyses from the years 2004– 2006a)), it was considered unlikely this trend analysis using only one set of 2006 by the ‘‘Structure of Populations, DPS was declining, but the BRT noted abundance estimates for each time Levels of Abundance and Status of that a reliable, quantitative estimate of period. The revised trend for this time Humpback Whales in the North Pacific’’ the population growth rate for this DPS period was still 3.1 percent (SE=1.2 (SPLASH) program (Calambokidis et al., is not currently available. percent). When the MONAH estimate of 2008) from two primary sampling 12,312 was added to the analysis, the regions, Okinawa and Ogasawara. The Central America DPS increase from 1979–80 to 2004–05 was growth rate of the Western North Pacific Individual humpback whales in the estimated to be 2.0 percent (SE=0.6 DPS is estimated to be 6.9 percent Central America DPS migrate from percent) per year, lower than for the (Calambokidis et al., 2008) between breeding grounds off Costa Rica, earlier time period, but the increase was 1991–93 and 2004–06, although this Panama, Guatemala, El Salvador, still significantly different from 0.0 (p = could be biased upwards by the Honduras, and Nicaragua to feeding 0.008). The Silver Bank population, comparison of earlier estimates based on grounds off California, Oregon, and which serves as a proxy for the West photo-identification records from Washington. A preliminary estimate of Indies DPS, may be increasing or may be Ogasawara and Okinawa with current abundance of the Central America leveling off, but there are not enough estimates based on the more extensive population is ∼500 from the SPLASH data yet to support a strong conclusion. records collected in Ogasawara, project (Calambokidis et al., 2008), or In contrast, estimates from feeding Okinawa, and the Philippines during ∼600 based on the reanalysis by Barlow areas in the North Atlantic indicate the SPLASH program. However, the et al. (2011). There are no estimates of strongly increasing trends in Iceland overall number of whales identified in precision associated with these (1979–88 and 1987–2007), Greenland the Philippines was small relative to estimates, so there is considerable (1984–2007), and the Gulf of Maine both Okinawa and Ogasawara, so any uncertainty about the actual population (1979–1991). There is some indication bias may not be large. Overall recovery size. Therefore, the actual population that the increase rate in the Gulf of seems to be slower than in the Central size could be somewhat larger or Maine has slowed in more recent years and Eastern North Pacific. Humpback smaller than 500–600, but the BRT (6.5 percent from 1979 to 1991 (Barlow whales in the Western North Pacific considered it very unlikely to be as large and Clapham (1997)), 0–4 percent from remain rare in some parts of their former as 2,000 or more. The size of this DPS 1992–2000 (Clapham et al. (2003a))). It range, such as the coastal waters of is relatively low compared to most other is not clear why the trends appear so Korea, and have shown no signs of a North Pacific breeding populations different between the feeding and recovery in those locations (Gregr, 2000; (Calambokidis et al., 2008). The trend of breeding grounds. A possible Gregr et al., 2000). the Central America DPS was explanation would be that the Silver considered unknown. Bank breeding ground has reached Hawaii DPS carrying capacity, and that an increasing Calambokidis et al. (2008) estimated Brazil DPS number and percentage of whales are the size of the humpback whale The most recent abundance estimate using other parts of the West Indies as populations frequenting the Hawaii for the Brazil DPS comes from aerial breeding areas. If local abundance has breeding area at 10,000 individuals, and surveys conducted off the coast of Brazil indeed increased in some areas other assuming that proportions from the in 2002–2005 (Andriolo et al., 2010). than Silver Bank, it would suggest that Barlow et al. (2011) estimate of 21,808 These surveys covered the continental the West Indies population is larger individuals in breeding areas in the shelf between 6° S. and 24°30′ S. and than estimated by the MONAH study, North Pacific are likely to be similar to provided a best estimate of 6,400 whales and that the increase rate of the overall those estimated by Calambokidis et al. (95 percent CI = 5,000–8,000) in 2005. population may be higher than the 2 (2008), the population size frequenting This estimate corresponds to nearly 24 percent we estimate. the Hawaii breeding area would have percent of this DPS’ pre-exploitation increased to about 12,000 individuals. abundance (Zerbini et al., 2006d). Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa The most recent growth rate for this DPS Nearly 80 percent of the whales are DPS was estimated between 5.5 percent and found in the Abrolhos Bank, the eastern The population abundance and 6.0 percent (Calambokidis et al., 2008). tip of the Brazilian continental shelf population trend for the Cape Verde located between 16° S. and 18° S. Mexico DPS Islands/NW Africa DPS are unknown. (Andriolo et al., 2010). The best The Cape Verde Islands photo- A preliminary estimate of abundance estimate of population growth rate is 7.4 identification catalog contains only 88 of the Mexico DPS is 6,000–7,000 from percent per year (95 percent CI = 0.5– individuals from a 20-year period the SPLASH project (Calambokidis et 14.7 percent) for the period 1995–1998 (1990–2009) (Wenzel et al., 2010). Of al., 2008), or higher (Barlow et al., (Ward et al., 2011). those 88 individuals, 20 (22.7 percent) 2011). There are no estimates of were seen more than once, 15 were seen precision associated with that estimate, Gabon/Southwest Africa DPS in 2 years, 4 were seen in 3 years, and so there is considerable uncertainty The lower and upper bounds of the 1 was seen in 4 years. The relative high about the actual population size. abundance estimate for Iguela, Gabon,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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 al., 2008; Zerbini et al., 2010)); and the aggregate (although it is known that sub- 8,064 (CV=0.12) for 2001–2005. These second is 9.0 percent (an estimate that populations differ in growth rates and were generated using mark-recapture is within the range calculated for other other demographic parameters). There genetic data, and numerous other Southern Hemisphere breeding grounds are some areas of historical range extent (generally similar) estimates are (e.g., Ward et al., 2006; Noad et al., that have not rebounded and other areas available depending on model 2008; Hedley et al., 2009)). Both rates without historical whaling information assumptions (Collins et al., 2008). There are considered with caution because the (Fleming and Jackson, 2011). There is are no trends available for this DPS, and surveys were short in duration. It is not uncertainty regarding which geographic it is not entirely clear how the estimates certain that these estimates represent portion of the Antarctic this DPS uses relate to potential subdivision within the growth rate of the entire DPS. Given for feeding. The complex population the DPS (Collins et al., 2008). Using a this uncertainty, and the uncertainty structure of humpback whales within Bayesian estimation methodology, from the short duration of the surveys, the Oceania region creates higher Johnston and Butterworth (2008) it is likely the DPS is increasing, but it uncertainty regarding demographic estimate the Gabon population to be in is not possible to provide a quantitative parameters and threat levels than for the range of 65–90 percent of its pre- estimate of the rate of increase for the any other DPS. exploitation size. entire DPS. Southeastern Pacific DPS Southeast Africa/Madagascar DPS West Australia DPS Individuals of the Southeastern The most recent abundance estimates Abundance of northbound humpback Pacific population migrate from for the Madagascar population were whales in the southeastern Indian breeding grounds between Costa Rica from surveys of Antongil Bay, 2000– Ocean in 2008 was estimated at 21,750 and northern Peru to feeding grounds in 2006 (Cerchio et al., 2009). Estimates (95 percent CI = 17,550–43,000) based the Magellan Straits and along the using data from 2004–2006 and upon line transect survey data (Hedley Western Antarctic Peninsula. Though involving ‘‘closed’’ models of photo- et al., 2009). The current abundance no quantitative growth rate information identification of individuals and appears likely close to the historical is available for this DPS, abundance genotype data were 7,406 (CV = 0.37, CI: abundance for the DPS, although there estimates over a 13-year period suggest 2106–12706) and 6,951 (CV = 0.33, CI: is some uncertainty of the historical that the DPS size is increasing, and 2509–11394), respectively. Additional abundance because of difficulties in abundance was estimated to be 6,504 estimates were made using various data allocating catch to specific breeding (95 percent CI: 4270–9907) individuals sets (e.g., photo-identification and populations (IWC, 2007a). The current in 2005–2006 (Fe´lix et al., 2006a; Fe´lix genotype) and models, estimating 4,936 abundance is large relative to any of the et al., 2011). Total abundance is likely (CV = 0.44, CI: 2137–11692) and 8,169 general guidelines for viable abundance to be larger because only a portion of the individuals (CV = 0.44, CI 3476–19497, levels (see earlier discussion). The rate DPS was enumerated. Cerchio et al., 2009). The mark- of population growth is estimated to be Arabian Sea DPS recapture data were derived from ∼10 percent annually since 1982, which surveys over several years and thus may is at or near the estimated physiological Mark-recapture studies using tail represent the abundance of whales limit of the species (Bannister, 1994; fluke photographs collected in Oman breeding off Madagascar, in addition to Bannister and Hedley, 2001) and well from 2000–2004 yielded a population possibly whales breeding in Mayotte above the interim recovery goal. estimate of 82 individuals (95 percent and the Comoros (Ersts et al., 2006), and CI: 60–111). However, sample sizes to a smaller degree from the East African East Australia DPS were small, and there are various Mainland (Razafindrakoto et al., 2008). Abundance of the East Australia DPS sources of possible negative bias, Earlier estimates exist, including one was estimated to be 6,300–7,800 (95 including insufficient spatial and of 2,532 (CV = 0.27) individuals (Best et percent CI: 4,040–10,739) in 2005 based temporal coverage of the population’s al., 1996) based on surveys of the on photo-ID data (Paton and Clapham, suspected range (Minton et al., 2010b). continental shelf region across the south 2006; Paton et al., 2008; Paton et al., Reproductive rates in this DPS are not and southeast coasts of Madagascar in 2009). The annual rate of increase is well understood. Cow-calf pairs were 1994. However, these surveys likely did estimated to be 10.9 percent for very rarely observed in surveys off the not cover the full distribution of humpback whales in the southwestern coast of Oman, composing only 7 humpback whales in the area. Data from Pacific Ocean (Noad et al., 2008). This percent of encounters in Dhofar, and not a 1991 survey yielded an estimate of estimate of population increase is very encountered at all since 2001. Soviet 1,954 whales (CV = 0.38) (Findlay et al., close to the biologically plausible upper whaling catches off Oman, Pakistan and 1994). A subsequent line transect survey limit of reproduction for humpbacks northwestern India also included low in 2003 included a larger region of the (Zerbini et al., 2010). The surveys numbers of lactating females (3.5 coast (Findlay et al., 2011). From these, presented by Noad et al. (2005; 2008) percent of mature females) relative to two estimates were generated in 2003: have remained consistent over time, pregnant females (46 percent of mature 6,664 whales (CV = 0.16); and 5,965 (CV with a strong correlation (r > 0.99) females) (Mikhalev, 1997). = 0.17) when data were stratified by between counts and years. No trend data are available for this coastal regions. DPS. A low proportion of immature Two trends in relative abundance Oceania DPS whales (12.4 percent of all females) was have been calculated from land-based The Oceania humpback whale DPS is also found, even though catches were observations of the migratory stream of moderate size (3,827 whales in New indiscriminate with respect to sex and passing Cape Vidal, east South Africa in Caledonia, Tonga, French Polynesia and condition (Mikhalev, 1997), suggesting July 1998–2002, and July 1990–2000. Cook Islands combined; CV=0.12) that either calf mortality in this DPS is The first was an estimate of 12.3 percent (South Pacific Whale Research high, immature animals occupy areas per year (Findlay and Best, 2006) Consortium et al., 2006); however, no that have not been surveyed, or that the (however, this estimate is likely outside trend information is available for this whales have reproductive ‘boom and biological plausibility for this species DPS. The DPS is quite subdivided, and bust’ cycles which respond to high (Bannister and Hedley, 2001; Noad et the population estimate applies to an annual variation in productivity. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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 Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, the whale serious injury or mortality and been surveyed; however, in areas where Services must determine if a species is therefore determined that in general the whales are likely to be, not many threatened or endangered because of coastal development likely poses a low whales have been observed. The BRT any of the following five factors: (A) The level threat to humpback whales. noted that this is a very small present or threatened destruction, For purposes of the status review, the population but felt that there was some modification, or curtailment of its BRT agreed to consider as contaminants uncertainty in abundance estimates. habitat or range; (B) overutilization for heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants, effluent, airborne Summary of Abundance and Trends commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or contaminants, plastics, and other The BRT summarized abundance and predation; (D) the inadequacy of marine debris and pollution, with the trend information for all humpback existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) exception of oil spills, which is whale DPSs (Tables 7 and 8 in Bettridge other natural or manmade factors evaluated under ‘‘energy exploration et al., 2015). affecting its continued existence. and development.’’ Numerous regions In the North Atlantic Ocean, the In this rulemaking, information were highlighted as having known or abundance of the West Indies DPS is regarding the status of each of the 14 hypothesized high contaminant levels much greater than 2,000 individuals and humpback whale DPSs is considered in from run-off, large human populations, is increasing moderately. However, little relation to these factors. The and low levels of regulatory control. is known about the total size of the Cape information presented here is a Halogenated organic pollutants Verde Islands/Northwest Africa DPS, summary of the information in the (including dichloro-diphenyl- and its trend is unknown. Status Review Report (Bettridge et al., trichloroethane (DDT)), In the Pacific Ocean, the abundance of 2015). The reader is directed to the hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) and the Okinawa/Philippines DPS (as Threats Analysis subsection under each chlordane (CH) insecticides, identified by the BRT) is thought to be DPS in the Status Review Report for a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) about 1,000 individuals with unknown more detailed discussion of the factors coolants and lubricants, and trend. Little is known about the and how they affect each DPS. polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE— abundance of humpback whales from flame retardants) can persist in the the unknown breeding ground Section 4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All environment for long periods. Air-borne (identified as the Second West Pacific DPSs pollutants are particularly concentrated DPS by the BRT), but it is likely to A. The Present or Threatened in areas of industrialization, and in number at least 100 or more, with Destruction, Modification, or some high latitude regions (Aguilar et unknown trend. Combining this Curtailment of its Habitat or Range al., 2002). While the use of many information, we conclude that there are pollutants is now either banned or at least 1,100 individuals in the Western The BRT discussed habitat-related strictly regulated in some countries (e.g., North Pacific DPS, and the trend is threats to humpback whale populations, DDTs and PCBs), their use is still unknown. The abundances of the including coastal development, unregulated in many parts of world, and Hawaii and Mexico DPSs are known to contaminants, energy exploration and they can be transported long distances be much greater than 2,000 individuals development, and harmful algal blooms via oceanographic processes and and are thought to be increasing (HABs). Substantial coastal atmospheric dispersal (Aguilar et al., moderately. The abundance of the development is occurring in many 2002). Central America DPS is thought to be regions, and may include construction Humpback whales can accumulate about 500 individuals with unknown that can cause increased turbidity of lipophilic compounds (e.g., halogenated trend. coastal waters, higher volume of ship hydrocarbons) and pesticides (e.g., DDT) In the Southern Hemisphere, all seven traffic, and physical disruption of the in their blubber, as a result of feeding on DPSs are thought to be greater than marine environment. Noise associated contaminated prey (bioaccumulation) or 2,000 individuals in population size. with construction (e.g., pile driving, inhalation in areas of high contaminant The Brazil DPS is increasing either blasting, or explosives) and dredging concentrations (e.g., regions of rapidly or moderately. The trend in the has the potential to affect whales by atmospheric deposition) (Barrie et al., Gabon/Southwest Africa DPS is generating sound levels believed to 1992; Wania and Mackay, 1993). Some unknown, while the Southeast Africa/ disturb marine mammals under certain contaminants (e.g., DDT) are passed on Madagascar DPS is thought to be conditions. The majority of the sound maternally to young during gestation increasing. The West Australia and East energy associated with both pile driving and lactation (e.g., fin whales, Aguilar Australia DPSs are both large and and dredging is in the low frequency and Borrell, 1994). Elfes et al. (2010) increasing rapidly. The Southeastern range (<1,000 Hz) (Illingworth and described the range and degree of Pacific DPS is thought to be increasing. Rodkin Inc., 2001; Reyff, 2003; organic contaminants accumulated in And the trend of the Oceania DPS is Illingworth and Rodkin Inc., 2007). the blubber of humpback whales unknown. Because humpback whales would only sampled on Northern Hemisphere The estimated abundance of the be affected when close to shore, the BRT feeding grounds. Concentrations were Arabian Sea DPS is less than 100, but its believed that these effects on the whales high in some areas (Southern California entire range was not surveyed, so it would generally be low. However, if and Northern Gulf of Maine), possibly could be somewhat larger. Its trend is coastal development occurred in reflecting proximity to industrialized unknown. seasonal areas or migration routes where areas in the former case, and prey whales concentrate, individuals in the choice in the latter (Elfes et al., 2010). Summary of Section 4(a)(1) Factors area could be more seriously affected. There were also higher levels of PCBs, Affecting the 14 Humpback Whale DPSs Scheduling in-water construction PBDEs, and CH insecticides in the North Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) activities to avoid those times when Atlantic Ocean (Gulf of Maine and Bay and implementing regulations at 50 CFR whales may be present would likely of Fundy) than in the North Pacific part 424 set forth procedures for adding minimize the disturbance. The BRT was (California, Southeast Alaska, Aleutian species to the Federal List of unaware of any circumstance of coastal Islands). The highest levels of DDT were Endangered and Threatened Species. development resulting in humpback found in whales feeding off Southern

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22321

California, a highly urbanized region of teeth like in the toothed whales were impacting humpback whales. the coast with substantial discharges (odontocetes)). Oil spills that occur Direct hunting, although rare today, was (Elfes et al., 2010). This same study while whales are present could result in the main cause of initial depletion of found a linear increase in PCB, DDT, skin contact with the oil, baleen fouling, humpback whales and other large and chlordane concentration with age of ingestion of oil, respiratory distress from whales. The BRT believed that the the whales sampled. Generally, hydrocarbon vapors, contaminated food likelihood that commercial whaling will concentrations of these contaminants in sources, and displacement from feeding resume in the foreseeable future is humpback whales were low relative to areas (Geraci et al., 1989). Actual currently low (see discussion under levels found in odontocetes (O’Shea and impacts would depend on the extent Inadequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms Brownell, 1994). Little information on and duration of contact, and the below). With regard to scientific levels of contamination is available from characteristics of the oil. Most likely, whaling, Japan has already announced humpback whales on Southern the effects of oil would be irritation to its plan to remove humpback whales Hemisphere feeding grounds. the respiratory membranes and from its scientific proposals in the The health effects of different doses of absorption of hydrocarbons into the future (Government of Japan, 2014). contaminants are currently unknown for bloodstream (Geraci et al., 1989). In summary, the current impact of all humpback whales (Krahn et al., 2004c). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons whaling activities on global humpback There is evidence of detrimental health (PAHs) are components of crude oil whale populations is very low, with effects from these compounds in other which are not easily degraded and are only a handful of humpback whales mammals, including disease insoluble in water, making them quite taken annually in two known aboriginal susceptibility, neurotoxicity, and detrimental in the marine environment harvests. The BRT discussed the reproductive and immune system (Pomilla et al., 2004). PAHs have been possibility of expanded commercial impairment (Reijnders, 1986; DeSwart et associated with proliferative lesions and whaling of humpback whales in the al., 1996; Eriksson et al., 1998). alteration to the immune and Southern Ocean but determined that Contaminant levels have been proposed reproductive systems (Martineau et al., new whaling action in the foreseeable as a causative factor in lower 2002). Long-term ingestion of future was unlikely. Therefore, the BRT reproductive rates found among pollutants, including oil residues, could attributed a low level risk of whaling for humpback whales off Southern affect reproduction, but data are lacking all but one DPS (see Western North California (Steiger and Calambokidis, to determine how oil may fit into this Pacific DPS section). 2000), but at present the threshold level scheme for humpback whales. Whale-watch tourism is a global for negative effects, and transfer rates to Although the risk posed by industry with major economic value for calves, are unknown for humpback operational oil rigs is likely low, failures many coastal communities (O’Connor et whales. Metcalfe et al. (2004) found in and catastrophic events that may result al., 2009). The industry has been biopsy-sampled humpback whale from the presence of rigs pose high expanding rapidly since the 1980s young-of-the-year in the Gulf of St. risks. Since the BRT had already (estimated 3.7 percent global increase in Lawrence PCB levels similar to that of determined that threat assessments whale watchers per year between 1998– their mothers and other adult females, would focus on present threats, the 2008, O’Connor et al., 2009; Kessler and indicating that bioaccumulation can be mere presence of oil rigs was not Harcourt, 2012). Whale-watching rapid, and that transplacental and interpreted to warrant a threat level operations have been documented in lactational partitioning did little to above low. However, the level of impact 119 countries worldwide as of 2008, reduce contaminant loads. that such a catastrophic event may have including on many humpback whale Although there has been substantial on a population was considered in the feeding grounds, breeding grounds, and research on the identification and evaluations. migratory corridors (O’Connor et al., quantification of such contaminants on Some algal blooms are harmful to 2009). Efforts to manage whale-watching individual whales, no detectable effect marine organisms and have been linked operations have included limiting the from contaminants has been identified to pollution from untreated industrial number of whale-watching vessels, in baleen whales. There may be chronic, and domestic wastewater. Toxins limiting the time vessels spend near sub-lethal impacts that are currently produced by different algae can be whales, specifying the manner of unknown. The difficulty in identifying concentrated as they move up the food operating around whales, and contaminants as a causative agent in chain, particularly during algal blooms. establishing limits to the period of humpback whale mortality and/or Naturally occurring toxin poisoning can exposure of the whales. In some areas, decreased fecundity led the BRT to be the cause of whale mortalities and is whale-watching industries operate conclude the severity of this threat was particularly implicated when unusual under regulations while others operate low in all regions, except where lack of mortality events (UME) occur. Despite under guidelines or are still data indicated a finding of unknown. these UMEs, the BRT determined that unregulated, and this industry is still The BRT defined identified threats HABs represent a minor threat to most growing rapidly in many areas (over 10 from energy exploration and humpback whale populations. HABs percent per year in Oceania, Asia, South development to include oil spills from may be increasing in Alaska, but the America, Central America and the pipelines, rigs, or ships, increased BRT was unaware of records of Caribbean) (Carlson, 2009; O’Connor et shipping, and construction surrounding humpback whale mortality resulting al., 2009). energy development (oil, gas, or from HABs in this region. Weinrich et al. (2008) observed that alternative energy). This category does the most common reported response of not include noise from energy B. Overutilization for Commercial, humpback whales to whale-watching development, which is considered Recreational, Scientific or Educational boats was increased swimming speed under ‘‘anthropogenic noise.’’ Little is Purposes during exposure; there was little known about the effects of oil or The BRT described whaling evidence of significant effects on inter- petroleum on cetaceans and especially (commercial, scientific, subsistence breath intervals and blow rates. Passive on mysticetes (baleen whales, hunting, and other ‘‘hunts’’), whale- acoustic monitoring and localization of characterized by having baleen plates watching, and scientific research humpback whale songs in the presence for filtering food from water, rather than activities and evaluated whether they of whale-watching boats on Brazilian

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22322 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

breeding grounds also found that whales C. Disease or Predation Photo-identification data indicate that moved away from the boat in the Information on disease or parasites is rake marks are usually acquired in the majority of cases (68.4 percent of the unavailable for many humpback whale first year of life, although attacks on time when boats were less than 2.5 populations. Direct monitoring of adults also occur (Wade et al., 2007; miles (4.0 km) distant, Sousa-Lima and species biochemistry and pathology, Steiger et al., 2008). Killer whale Clark, 2009). used to determine the state of health in predation may influence survival during Only one study has attempted to humans and domestic animals, is very the first year of life (Wade et al., 2007). assess the population-level effects of limited for humpback whales, and there There has been some debate as to whale-watching on humpback whales, is little published on humpback whale whether killer whale predation as the relevant parameters are very disease as a result. Humpback whales (especially on calves) is a motivating difficult to measure. Weinrich and carry a crustacean ectoparasite (the factor for the migratory behavior of Corbelli (2009) reported that calving rate cyamid Cyamus boopis). While the humpback whales (Corkeron and Connor, 1999; Clapham, 2001). How and calf survival to age 2 in humpback whale is the main source of nutrition for significantly motivating this factor is whales on Stellwagen Bank (part of the this parasite (Schell et al., 2000), there also depends on the importance of Gulf of Maine feeding ground) did not is little evidence that the parasite humpback whales in the diet of killer seem to be negatively affected by whale- contributes to whale mortality. whales, another debated topic that watching. The authors noted, however, Humpback whales can also carry the remains inconclusive (Springer et al., that in areas of heavy ship traffic, giant nematode Crassicauda boopis 2003; Wade et al., 2007; Kuker and isolating the impacts of whale-watching (Bayliss, 1920), which is known to cause Barrett-Lennard, 2010). No analyses of on biological parameters is difficult and a serious inflammatory response killer whale stomach contents have may not be conclusive (Weinrich and (leading to vascular occlusion and revealed remains of humpback whales Corbelli, 2009) and is difficult to kidney failure) in a few balaenopterid determine at either the individual or (Shevchenko, 1975), suggesting that if species (Lambertsen, 1992). humpback whales are taken at all, they population level. Individual humpback whales in comprise at most a small part of the The BRT discussed the available Hawaiian waters have a high occurrence diet. However, these analyses took place evidence regarding the impact of whale- of skin lesions, but it is unclear whether during the height of the whaling period, watching on humpback whale this is due to a parasite or disease. It is when humpback whales were at a low populations. All available evidence estimated that approximately 60 percent density and may therefore have been supports the conclusion that the impact of adults in Hawaii and Oceania have of these activities on humpback whale less available for predation. these skin lesions. Whether the lesions There is also evidence of shark populations is negligible, and the BRT are entirely benign is unknown. The predation on calves and entangled determined this threat is low for all BRT concluded that where some whales (Mazzuca et al., 1998). Shark DPSs. information is available, disease and bite marks on stranded whales may Humpback whales have been the parasites do not pose a substantial threat often represent post-mortem feeding subject of field research studies for to humpback whale populations. rather than predation, i.e., scavenging decades. The primary objective of many The most common predator of on carcasses (Long and Jones, 1996). of these studies has generally been to humpback whales is the killer whale The threat of predation was ranked as gather data for behavioral and ecological (Orcinus orca, Jefferson et al., 1991), low or unknown for all DPSs because studies. In the United States, permits though predation by large sharks may the level of mortality is unknown, but authorize investigators to make close also occur. Attacks by false killer whales it is likely not prohibiting population approaches to endangered whales for (Pseudorca crassidens) have also been growth. photographic identification, biopsy reported or inferred on rare occasions. sample collection, behavioral Attacks by killer whales on humpback D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory observations, passive acoustic whale calves has been inferred by the Mechanisms recording, aerial photogrammetry, presence of distinctive parallel ‘rake’ Numerous international and regional satellite tagging, and underwater marks from killer whale teeth across the regulatory mechanisms are in place to observations. Research on humpback flukes (Shevchenko, 1975). While killer protect humpback whales directly or whales is likely to continue and whale attacks of humpback whales are indirectly. increase in the future, especially for the rarely observed in the field (Ford and The International Whaling collection of genetic information, Reeves, 2008), the proportion of photo- Commission (IWC) was set up under the photographic studies, and acoustic identified whales bearing rake scars is International Convention for the studies. Research activities could result between zero and 40 percent, with the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), signed in in disturbance to humpback whales, but greater proportion of whales showing 1946. The IWC established an they are closely monitored and mild scarring (1–3 rake marks) (Wade et international moratorium on evaluated in the United States in an al., 2007; Steiger et al., 2008). This commercial whaling for all large whale attempt to minimize any necessary suggests that attacks by killer whales on species in 1982, effective in 1986; this impacts of research. Regulation of humpback whales vary in frequency affected all member (signatory) nations research activities in other nations across regions. It also suggests that (paragraph 10e, IWC, 2009a). The IWC varies from effectively no regulation to either most killer whale attacks result in has set the catch limits for commercial regulations comparable to those in the mild scarring, or those resulting in whaling at zero since 1985. Since that United States. The BRT discussed the severe scarring (4 or more rakes, parts of time, the IWC’s Scientific Committee available evidence regarding the impact fluke missing) are more often fatal. Most has developed a stock assessment and of scientific research on humpback observations of humpback whales under catch limit methodology called the whale populations. All available attack from killer whales reported ‘‘revised management procedure,’’ with evidence supports the conclusion that vigorous defensive behavior and tight the goal of providing information on the impact of these activities is grouping when more than one catch limits consistent with maintaining negligible, and the BRT determined this humpback whale was present (Ford and sustainable populations. As of 2014, the threat is low for all DPSs. Reeves, 2008). IWC has maintained the zero catch

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22323

limit, and this policy has engendered These measures were further a specific research program and whether considerable debate within the strengthened by the 1979 Packwood- the number of whales sampled is organization. The IWC’s regulations Magnuson Amendment to the Fishery scientifically justified. Because of the provide a process by which countries Conservation and Management Act of timing, Japan will not hunt whales in may object to specific provisions, and 1976. It provides that, when the the Southern Ocean during the 2014/15 Norway and Iceland currently allow Secretary of Commerce certifies that a season, and this will be the first time in commercial whaling based on these country is diminishing the effectiveness 30 years that Japan has not hunted for objections. of the work of the IWC, the Secretary of whales in the Antarctic. Japan’s Iceland and Norway currently hunt a State must reduce that country’s fishing proposed research plan for new number of whale species commercially allocation in U.S. waters by at least 50 scientific whale research programs in under objection to the IWC moratorium, percent. Certification under the the Antarctic Ocean (NEWREP–A, although humpback whales have not Packwood-Magnuson Amendment also http://iwc.int/sc-documents) was been hunted by either nation in recent serves as certification under the Pelly released on November 19, 2014, and it years. The present international Amendment. The threatened includes only a small number of minke moratorium on commercial whaling will application in 1980 of the Packwood- whales. remain in place unless a 75 percent Magnuson and Pelly Amendments led The IWC also develops catch limits majority of IWC signatory members South Korea to agree to follow IWC for aboriginal whaling, including take of votes to lift the moratorium. If this were guidelines restricting the use of cold humpback whales in coastal areas of to happen, then, under current IWC (i.e., non-explosive) harpoons. Faced Greenland and the West Indies. The management procedures, humpback with similar pressure, the Republic of ICRW allows for signatory nations to whale stocks considered to have China (Taiwan) placed a complete ban harvest whales for scientific purposes recovered to over 54 percent of their on whaling in 1981. Without United through their own national permit pre-whaling levels (based on a detailed States support, it is possible that the process, although humpback whales ‘‘comprehensive assessment’’ of their 1986 moratorium would have been have not been reported to have been population status) could be subject to substantially limited, as nations such as taken under this process. The current commercial whaling, with a quota that Iceland, Japan, Norway, and the Soviet commercial whaling moratorium is in theory would be determined by the Union would have opted out and providing significant protection to humpback whales. Revised Management Procedure. This continued commercial whaling. The Convention on International procedure implements a quasi-Bayesian Since implementation of the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Catch Limit Algorithm to calculate international moratorium on whaling, Fauna and Flora (CITES) is aimed at allowable catches for each stock (Cooke, some nations have continued to hunt protecting species at risk from 1992). The effects of these catches on whales under Article VIII of the ICRW, unregulated international trade. CITES population abundance would be which allows the killing of whales for regulates international trade in animals simulated via a series of Implementation scientific research purposes. Three and plants by listing species in one of Simulation Trials prior to agreement of nations originally conducted scientific its three appendices. The level of quotas for commercial hunting. Since whaling: Iceland, Norway, and Japan. monitoring and control to which an whaling is carried out under objection Presently only Japan pursues scientific animal or plant species is subject by Iceland and Norway, they are not whaling, under the programs JARPAII depends on the appendix in which the subject to this management scheme for and JARPNII (‘Japanese Whale Research species is listed. Appendix I includes allocating quotas for any species. Program under Special Permit in the species threatened with extinction The United States first incorporated Antarctic’ and ‘North Pacific,’ which are or may be affected by trade; the IWC’s regime into domestic law in respectively). Scientific whaling is trade of Appendix I species is only the 1971 Pelly Amendment to the presently unregulated, and no catch allowed in exceptional circumstances. Fisherman’s Protective Act of 1967. This limits are enforced for this activity Appendix II includes species not amendment provides that when the (Clapham et al., 2003b). In 2012, the necessarily threatened with extinction Secretary of Commerce determines that Government of Japan issued Special presently, but for which trade must be the nationals of a foreign country are Permits authorizing the implementation regulated in order to avoid utilization diminishing the effectiveness of an of a catch limit of Antarctic minke, fin, incompatible with their survival. international fishery conservation and humpback whales for scientific Appendix III includes species that are program (including the IWC’s program), purposes in the Southern Ocean; a subject to regulation in at least one the Secretary shall certify this fact to the research catch limit of up to 50 country, and for which that country has President. The President then has the humpback whales was included in the asked other CITES Party countries for discretion to ban importation of fishing Special Permits. To date, however, no assistance in controlling and monitoring products from the offending country. humpback whales have been taken for international trade in that species. The United States has threatened scientific research by any country. On Humpback whales are currently listed sanctions under the Pelly Amendment March 31, 2014, after the 2013/14 in Appendix I under CITES. With the on a number of occasions, but to date, Japanese whale hunt season in the IWC commercial whaling moratorium in it has not imposed economic sanctions Antarctic, the International Court of place since 1985, commercial trade has on marine products. In November 1974, Justice ruled that past Japanese whaling not been a problem for humpback pressure from the United States programs were illegal, and Japan whales. However, if the moratorium contributed to Japan and the Soviet immediately terminated its JARPAII should ever be lifted in the future, the Union complying with the 1974–1975 programs. In September 2014, Japan humpback whale’s CITES Appendix I quotas. Norway was certified in 1987 agreed to a new requirement to submit listing would restrict trade so that it and several times thereafter. Japan has new research proposals to the IWC 6 would not contribute to the extinction been certified three times, the last being months before the next annual IWC risk of the species. Given this support in 2000, and Iceland has been certified Scientific Committee meeting (in May and the long history of CITES work and several times, including in 2011 for 2015) so that the IWC could assess resolutions to support the IWC whaling whaling activities. whether lethal samples are necessary for moratorium, we do not expect the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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 West Indies, Western North Pacific, and the ESA to promulgate regulations change if ESA protections are removed Hawaii, Mexico, and Central America to address the threat of vessel collisions from the species or any DPSs of the DPSs of the humpback whale can be with large whale species, and these species. For example, CITES Resolution found in U.S. waters and are protected regulations would remain in place even Conf. 11.4 (Rev. CoP12) welcomed the under the MMPA when in U.S. waters if humpback whales are no longer listed Resolution passed by the IWC at its as well as from takings by U.S. vessels under the ESA. Special Meeting in December 1978 or persons on the high seas. The MMPA The MMPA provides additional requesting that the Conference of the includes a general moratorium on the protections to ‘‘depleted’’ marine Parties to the Convention, at its second taking and importing of marine mammals. For example, NMFS may not meeting, take all possible measures to mammals, which is subject to a number provide a take waiver for depleted support the IWC ban on commercial of exceptions. Some of these exceptions stocks (section 101(a)(3)(A)), authorize whaling for certain species and stocks of include take for scientific purposes, importation of individual animals taken whales. public display, subsistence use by from depleted marine mammal stocks The International Maritime Alaska Natives, and unintentional except pursuant to a permit for Organization (IMO), a United Nations incidental take coincident with scientific research or for enhancing the agency and the recognized international conducting lawful activities. survival or recovery of a species or stock authority on shipping and safety at sea, U.S. citizens who engage in a (section 102(b)(3)(B)), or issue research participates in reducing the shipping specified activity other than commercial permits involving the lethal taking of a industry’s impacts to the sea from fishing (which is specifically and marine mammal from a species or stock pollution (oil, garbage, noxious separately addressed under the MMPA) that is depleted (unless the Secretary substances). Regulations to address within a specified geographical region determines that the results of such pollution from maritime vessels include may petition the Secretaries to authorize research will directly benefit that MARPOL (International Convention for the incidental, but not intentional, species or stock, or that such research the Protection of Pollution from Ships), taking of small numbers of marine fulfills a critically important research MARPOL Annexes, International mammals within that region for a period need)(section 104(c)(3)(B)). In addition, Conventions on Oil Pollution of not more than 5 consecutive years (16 if a stock is depleted, it is automatically Preparedness Response and Co- U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)). The Secretary considered ‘‘strategic,’’ which then has operation, and Prevention of Marine ‘‘shall allow’’ the incidental taking if the other management implications. For Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Secretary finds that ‘‘the total of such example, under Section 112(e) of the Other Matter. The IMO’s Marine taking during each five-year (or less) MMPA, if the Secretary determines that Environment Protection Committee period concerned will have a negligible impacts on rookeries, mating grounds, designates regions as ‘‘Particularly impact on such species or stock and will or other areas of similar ecological Sensitive Sea Areas’’ (PSSA) and ‘‘Areas not have an unmitigable adverse impact significance to marine mammals may be to be Avoided’’ for various ecological, on the availability of such species or causing the decline or impeding the economic, or scientific reasons. PSSA stock for taking for subsistence uses.’’ If recovery of a strategic stock, the regions include The Great Barrier Reef the Secretary makes the required Secretary may develop and implement (Australia), the Gala´pagos Islands findings, the Secretary also prescribes conservation or management measures (Ecuador), and the Papahanaumokuakea regulations that specify: (1) Permissible to alleviate those impacts. Also, under Marine National Monument (North methods of taking, (2) means of effecting Section 118, the Secretary may develop Pacific). the least practicable adverse impact on and implement a take reduction plan The IMO was approached for the first the species, their habitat, and their designed to assist in the recovery or time regarding conservation of an availability for subsistence uses, and (3) prevent the depletion of each strategic endangered whale species in 1998—a requirements for monitoring and stock that interacts with a commercial protective measure for North Atlantic reporting. fishery. right whales (Silber et al., 2012). Since Similar to promulgation of incidental The humpback whale is considered then, the IMO has been approached over take regulations, the MMPA also ‘‘depleted’’ under the MMPA because of a dozen times with nations’ proposals to established an expedited process by its endangered status under the ESA. establish or amend routing measures in which U.S. citizens can apply for an See Effects of this Rulemaking below for various locations to reduce the threat of authorization to incidentally take small a discussion of the potential vessel collisions with endangered numbers of marine mammals where the consequences of removing ESA whales, including humpback whales take will be limited to harassment (16 protections from the humpback whale. (Silber et al., 2012). For example, the U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)). These While MMPA ‘‘depleted’’ status IMO has endorsed Areas To Be Avoided authorizations are limited to 1 year, and, provides additional protections to in U.S. and Canadian waters to reduce as with incidental take regulations, the humpback whales, the MMPA provides the threat of ship strikes of right whales Secretary must find that the total of substantial protections to humpback (Fleming and Jackson, 2011, pp. 28–29), such taking during the period will have whales in U.S. waters and from takings measures that also benefit humpback a negligible impact on such species or by U.S. persons and vessels on the high whales. IMO-endorsed modifications to stock and will not have an unmitigable seas, whether they are depleted or not. Traffic Separation Schemes (TSS) have adverse impact on the availability of The ESA requires Federal agencies to been established in areas off Boston, San such species or stock for taking for conduct their activities in such a way as Francisco, and near Santa Barbara (the subsistence uses. NMFS refers to these to conserve species listed as threatened latter two primarily for humpback authorizations as Incidental Harassment or endangered. Section 7 of the ESA also whales); and a new TSS, along with Authorizations. requires Federal agencies, in vessel speed advisories, has been Under the MMPA, NMFS also consultation with the FWS and/or proposed for the Pacific side of the evaluates and provides permits for the NMFS, to ensure that activities they Panama Canal to protect large whale taking of large whale species for those authorize, fund or carry out are not species from vessel collisions. engaged in scientific research focused likely to jeopardize the continued Humpback whales are protected by on those species. NMFS has also issued existence of any listed species (or the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.). The rules under the authority of the MMPA species proposed for listing) or result in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22325

the destruction or adverse modification be achieved if states were given a major including the humpback whale in key of designated or proposed critical role in developing and administering aggregation locations. Humpback habitat of such species. We have management programs. The Act sought whales routinely occur in Stellwagen conducted scores of Section 7 to assure the states that their Bank, Gulf of the Farrallones, Channel consultations with the United States management programs would not be Islands, Monterey Bay, Cordell Bank, Coast Guard (USCG), the Army Corps of disregarded by Federal agencies whose and Olympic Coast National Marine Engineers, the Bureau of Ocean Energy activities would affect the coastal zone. Sanctuaries. The Hawaiian Islands Management, and other agencies to For example, the stepped-up Outer Humpback Whale National Marine ensure actions by these agencies do not Continental Shelf (OCS) development Sanctuary (HIHWNMS) was established adversely affect listed large whale policies of the early 1970s led to the primarily to provide protections to a key species, including humpback whales. 1976 amendments that assured greater North Pacific humpback whale The ESA forbids the import, export, or state involvement in the planning stages interstate or foreign sale of species listed of oil and gas development. breeding/nursery area, and therefore, it as endangered without a special permit. The CZMA accomplishes its goal should contribute to reducing the It also makes ‘‘take’’ of species listed as primarily by encouraging the states to extinction risk of the Hawaii DPS of the endangered illegal—forbidding, among develop voluntary coastal zone humpback whale. NOAA’s Office of other things, the killing, harming, management programs. Once a state has National Marine Sanctuaries recently harassing, pursuing, or removing the an approved program, it becomes proposed to expand the boundaries and species from the wild (16 U.S.C. eligible for Federal funds and acquires scope of the HIHWNMS, amend the 1532(19)). Any or all of these the benefit of the ‘‘consistency regulations for HIHWNMS, change the protections may be provided to a provisions.’’ Sections 307(c) and 307(d) name of the sanctuary, and revise the species listed as threatened through of the CZMA establish classes of Federal sanctuary’s terms of designation and regulations issued under ESA section activities that must be consistent with management plan (80 FR 16224; March 4(d)(16 U.S.C. 1533(d)). Of course, ESA state programs. These include Federal 26, 2015). The purpose of the proposed protections for a species apply only if a activities that directly affect the coastal action is to transition the HIHWNMS species is listed as threatened or zone, development projects, Federal from a single-species management endangered under the ESA. licenses and permits, OCS exploration, approach to an ecosystem-based Whale strike mitigation measures development, and production plans, management approach. As part of these currently in place for some vessels and and Federal assistance to states and revisions, NOAA proposed to revise the regions include using dedicated local governments. Every coastal state in existing HIHWNMS humpback whale observers (Weinrich and Pekarik, 2007), the United States except for Alaska approach regulation at 15 CFR 922.184 speed reduction in some important currently has an approved coastal zone habitat areas (73 FR 60173; October 10, management program. Consistency to help minimize incidences of 2008), and shifting of shipping lanes determinations under the CZMA help to humpback whale harassment or injury, away from areas of whale concentration ensure that OCS projects do not to reduce adverse behavioral responses, to accommodate humpback whales and adversely impact humpback whales or and to limit vessel strikes within the other species. Passive acoustic humpback whale habitat. sanctuary (80 FR 16224; March 26, monitoring in areas of high shipping The U.S. Park Service has jurisdiction 2015, at 16227). traffic also has promise for notifying over marine waters (through the Fish The Stellwagen Bank and Gulf of the mariners of whales in the area, as this and Wildlife Coordination Act) in Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries, method is relatively inexpensive, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve in particular, have active humpback although detection is limited to (established 1980; modified 1985). The whale research programs and/or have following regulations are in place to vocalizing whales and specific source established vessel speed advisories, protect humpback whales occurring locations can be hard to determine whale approach guidelines, and other (Silber et al., 2009). there in the summer: Restrictions on the TSSs are in place for San Francisco number of vessels entering park waters; measures to reduce human threats to Bay and the Santa Barbara Channel to restrictions on vessel operating humpback and other large whale ensure safety of navigation. These TSSs conditions in the known presence of species. These two national marine were amended in June 1, 2013, to lessen humpback whales, mandatory vessel sanctuaries should contribute to the possibility of fatal vessel collisions operating requirements in certain reducing the extinction risk of the West with humpback whales and other listed designated ‘‘whale waters,’’ mandatory Indies, Mexico, and Central America large whale species. Modifications vessel speed limits at certain times and DPSs, as they provide protections to include narrowing and extending the locations; mandatory boater education humpback whales in these DPSs when Northern and Western approaches while for boaters entering the area, regulations they are in their feeding grounds. the inbound lane of the Santa Barbara restricting the harvest of humpback Numerous nations have defined Channel TSS has been shifted whale prey species and ship board marine protected areas and sanctuaries shoreward to reduce the co-occurrence observers to quantify ship strikes and that provide some protection to interactions between cruise ships and of ships and whales and reduce the humpback whales (Hoyt, 2011), and likelihood of a vessel/whale collision. whales. These regulations should various nations have developed local We expect these TSSs and modifications contribute somewhat to reducing the regulations or guidelines governing to help reduce the likelihood of vessel extinction risk of the Hawaii and collisions with humpback whales. Mexico DPSs of the humpback whale whale watching activities (O’Connor et Congress enacted the Coastal Zone because some of these individuals feed al., 2009). Hundreds of national laws Management Act (CZMA) in 1972 when in the park. also exist related directly or indirectly it realized that rapid growth was Under the National Marine to the conservation of marine mammals threatening the vital productive coastal Sanctuaries Act, NOAA has broad (Bettridge et al., 2015, Appendix B). areas of the country. Congress discretion to enact guidelines and Where appropriate, some of these are determined that the most effective regulations to provide protection to a discussed in more detail in the DPS- management of coastal resources would number of large whale species, specific sections.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22326 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Humpback whales use sound to other factors making it difficult to Affecting Its Continued Existence communicate, navigate, locate prey, and determine a standardized threshold. Excessive noise exposure may be Competition with fisheries, sense their environment. Both damaging during early individual aquaculture, anthropogenic sound, anthropogenic and natural sounds may development, may cause stress hormone vessel strikes, fishing gear cause interference with these functions. fluctuations, and/or may cause whales entanglement, and climate change are Anthropogenic sound has increased to leave an area or change their behavior all factors that may negatively impact in all oceans over the last 50 years and within it (Weilgart, 2007). Some humpback whales. is thought to have doubled each decade responses are subtle and may occur after The BRT discussed the issue of in some areas of the ocean over the last the exposure. Humpback whales competition with fisheries at length. In 30 or so years (Croll et al., 2001; exposed to underwater explosions and some areas, (e.g., Northern Gulf of Weilgart, 2007; Hildebrand, 2009). High drilling associated with construction Maine and Southeast Alaska) fishermen levels of ambient anthropogenic noise activities did not appear to change their encircle feeding humpback whales and are known to elicit behavioral, acoustic, behavior in reaction to the surveys but harvest fish from the bait balls upon and physiological responses from large did appear to have reduced orientation which humpback whales feed (D. whales, though the specific nature of abilities. Higher rates of fatal Matilla, unpublished observation). these responses remains largely entanglement in fishing gear were However, there is no evidence that this unknown (Nowacek et al., 2007). Low- frequency sound comprises a significant observed in the area when whales were impacts the individuals or significantly exposed to excessive noise, although the depletes the food source. In a review of portion of this increase and stems from a variety of sources including that cause for this elevated entanglement the evidence for interspecific rate was unclear (Ketten et al., 1993; competition in baleen whales, Clapham primarily from shipping, and an increasing amount from oil and gas Todd, 1996). Some studies have found and Brownell (1996) found it to be little reaction to noise and indicate extremely difficult to prove that inter- exploration in some areas, as well as research and naval activities. potential tolerances to anthropogenic specific competition comprises an sound over short time and small spatial important factor in the population Understanding the specific impacts of these sounds on mysticetes is difficult. scales (Croll et al., 2001). dynamics of large whales. There is likely an important However, it is clear that the geographic Aquaculture is not known to be a distinction between immediate scope of potential impacts is vast as significant threat to humpback whales. individual reactions to noise and long- low-frequency sounds can travel great Some entanglements have been term effects of noise exposure to distances under water, but these sounds recorded off Australia. Colombia has populations. The cumulative and substantial aquaculture activity in have the potential to reduce synergistic effects may be more harmful inshore areas, but there is no communication space (e.g., shipping than studies to date have been able to information regarding the impact of this was predicted to reduce communication assess. Though some researchers have activity on humpback whales. The BRT space of singing humpback whales in argued that habituation to sound may determined that for most DPSs, the northeast by 8 percent; Clark et al., occur, this can easily be confused with aquaculture does not pose a significant 2009). hearing loss or individual differences in threat to humpback whales and should Humpback whales do not appear to be tolerance levels (Bejder et al., 2006). be assigned a low threat level. Sufficient often involved in strandings related to Scientifically recommended mammal information was not available to noise events. There is one record of two sound exposure levels have been determine the threat level to the whales found dead with extensive determined and vary depending on the Western North Pacific and Arabian Sea damage to the temporal bones near the sound source strength and the species of DPSs. site of a 5,000 kg explosion which likely marine mammal(s) present (Southall et Humans introduce sound produced shock waves that were al., 2007). NMFS has recently updated intentionally and unintentionally into responsible for the injuries (Ketten et guidance for temporary threshold shifts the marine environment for navigation, al., 1993; Weilgart, 2007). Other and permanent threshold shifts (see: oil and gas exploration and acquisition, detrimental effects of anthropogenic http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/ research, and military activities, to noise include masking and possible guidelines.htm). name a few examples. Noise exposure temporary threshold shifts. Masking The issue of anthropogenic noise has can result in a range of impacts, from results from noise interfering with been an area of intensive research but those causing little or no impact to those cetacean social communication, which population-level impacts on cetaceans being potentially severe, depending on may range greatly in intensity and have not been confirmed. There is little the source, level, and various other frequency. Some adjustment in acoustic definite information regarding, for factors. Response to noise varies by behavior is thought to occur in response example, the interruption of breeding many factors, including the type and to masking and humpback songs were and other behaviors or a resulting characteristics of the sound source, found to lengthen during LFA sonar reduction in population growth or distance between the source and the activities (Miller et al., 2000). This mortality of individuals. Therefore, the receptor, characteristics of the animal altered song length persisted 2 hours BRT considered this to be a low threat (e.g., hearing sensitivity, behavioral after the sonar activities stopped for all DPSs. context, age, sex, and previous (Fristrup et al., 2003). Researchers have Collisions between vessels and experience with sound source) and time also observed diminished song whales, or ship strikes, often result in of day or season. Noise may be vocalizations in humpback whales life-threatening trauma or death for the intermittent or continuous, steady (non- during remote sensing experiments 200 cetacean. Impact is often caused by impulsive) or impulsive, and may be km away from the whales’ location in forceful contact with the bow or generated by stationary or moving the Stellwagen Banks National Marine propeller of the vessel. Ship strikes of sources. As one of the potential stressors Sanctuary (Risch et al., 2012). Hearing humpback whales are typically to marine mammal populations, noise loss can also possibly be permanent if identified by evidence of massive blunt may seriously disrupt communication, the sound is intense enough but there is trauma (fractures of heavy bones and/or navigational ability, and social patterns. great variability across individuals and hemorrhaging) in stranded whales,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22327

propeller wounds (deep slashes or cuts) are not screened by experts do not undertaken across the North Pacific as and fluke/fin amputations on stranded necessarily yield accurate information part of the SPLASH project further or live whales (e.g., Wiley and Asmutis, about events, including gear type, suggests that entanglement is pervasive, 1995). configuration, and original site of but that interaction rates may be highest Laist et al. (2001), Jensen and Silber entanglement (Robbins et al., 2007b). among coastal populations (Robbins et (2003), Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007), The likelihood of receiving reports al., 2007a; Robbins, 2009). and VanWaerebeek and Leaper (2008) likely varies world-wide due to Both eye-witness reports and scar- compiled information available differences in observer awareness, based studies suggest that independent worldwide regarding documented reporting mechanisms, and possible juveniles are significantly more likely to collisions between ships and large negative implications for reporting become entangled than adults (Robbins, whales (baleen whales and sperm fishermen (Mattila and Rowles, 2010). 2009). Calves exhibit a lower frequency whales). Humpback whales were the A study of gear removed from a subset of entanglement, likely due to having second-most commonly reported of whales off the U.S. East Coast showed less time in which to have encountered victims of vessel strikes (following fin that 89 percent involved pots/traps or gear (Neilson et al., 2009). Sex whales). Of 292 recorded strikes gillnet gear (Johnson et al., 2005). differences in entanglement frequency contained in the Jensen and Silber However, a wide range of gear types have been observed in some locations (2003) database, 44 were of humpback were represented and every part of the and time intervals (Robbins and Mattila, whales. As of 2008, there were more gear was found to be capable of 2001; Neilson et al., 2009), but these than 143 recorded ship strikes involving entanglement (Johnson et al., 2005). The effects have not persisted in longer humpback whales worldwide (Van authors concluded that any line in the studies (Robbins and Mattila, 2004). Waerebeek and Leaper, 2008); however, water column poses a potential risk of Entanglement may result in only the reported number is likely not a full entanglement to humpback whales. minor injury, or potentially may representation of the actual number Known gear types removed from, or significantly affect individual health, (particularly in the Southern documented on, entangled whales in reproduction, or survival. In one study, Hemisphere) as many likely go Alaska between 1990 and 2013 females with entanglement injuries undetected or unreported (Williams et indicated 32 percent of entanglements produced fewer calves than females al., 2011). Reporting of ship strikes is were from pot gear, 30 percent from gill with no evidence of entanglement; such highly variable internationally, with net, 24 percent from other net, and 14 impacts on reproduction are still under reports required from vessels in the percent from a combination of longline, investigation (Robbins and Mattila, domestic waters of Australia, the United seine, mooring line and marine debris 2001). Mark-recapture studies of the fate States, and New Zealand but not in (Jensen et al. 2014). This is further of entangled whales in the Gulf of other countries. Based on the supported by the wide range of Maine suggest that juveniles are less observations of vessel strike injuries and entangling gear reported in the South likely than adults to survive (Robbins et mortalities, and whale strike mitigation Pacific (Neilson, 2006; Lyman, 2009), al., 2008). Observed entanglement measures described above under Newfoundland (Lien et al., 1992), and deaths and serious injuries in that Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory member nations of the IWC (Mattila and region are known to exceed what is Mechanisms, the BRT considers the Rowles, 2010). considered sustainable for the threat of vessel collisions to be low to More than half of the humpback population (Glass et al., 2009). Most moderate, depending on region, and whale entanglements examined off the deaths likely go unobserved and generally increasing. U.S. East Coast involved entanglements preliminary studies suggest that Humpback whales may break through, around the tail (Johnson et al., 2005). entanglement may be responsible for 3– carry away, or become entangled in The mouth and flippers are also known 4 percent of total mortality, especially fishing gear. Whales carrying gear may attachment sites, but their frequency is among juveniles (Robbins et al., 2009). die at a later time, become debilitated or more difficult to assess. Scar-based Much more is known about fishing seriously injured, or have normal studies have been developed to gear entanglement in the Northern functions impaired, but with no systematically study the frequency of Hemisphere than in the Southern assurance of the incident having been non-lethal entanglement involving the Hemisphere. The BRT noted the recorded. Of the nations reporting to the tail (Robbins and Mattila, 2001; Robbins commercialization of bycatch off Japan, IWC between 2003–2008, 64.7 percent and Mattila, 2004). These techniques meaning an entangled whale is legally (n=11) noted humpback whale by-catch have been used in the Gulf of Maine allowed to be killed and sold on the in their waters (Mattila and Rowles, (e.g., Robbins and Mattila, 2001; market (Lukoschek et al., 2009). 2010). Whales have been documented Robbins and Mattila, 2004; Robbins et Therefore, entanglement often leads to carrying gear by fishery observer al., 2009), Southeast Alaska (Neilson et death for humpback whales in this programs, opportunistic reports, and al., 2009), and more broadly across the region. While the number of reported stranding networks. Some countries North Pacific Ocean (Robbins et al., bycaught animals is not large (3–5), the (e.g., United States, Canada, Australia, 2007a; Robbins, 2009). All populations number of reports has been increasing South Africa) have well-developed studied in this manner to date have and reports may not reflect the actual reporting and response networks that detected individuals with entanglement- number caught. The BRT also noted that facilitate the collection of information related injuries. Annual research in the the Mexico population has one of the on entanglement frequency and impacts. Gulf of Maine since 1997 has shown highest scar rates from nets and lines in However, such programs do not that a high percentage of individuals the North Pacific, indicating a high guarantee that entanglements are exhibit entanglement injuries and that entanglement rate. Based on this detected; fewer than 10 percent of new injuries are acquired at an average information, the BRT concluded that the humpback whale entanglements annual rate of 12 percent (Robbins et al., severity of the threat of fishing gear involving Gulf of Maine humpback 2009). A 2-year study in Southeast entanglements varies depending on whales are reported, despite a strong Alaska confirmed frequencies of region, ranging from low to high. outreach and response network entanglement injuries that were Climate change has received (Robbins and Mattila, 2004). comparable to the Gulf of Maine considerable attention in recent years, Furthermore, opportunistic reports that (Neilson et al., 2009). Research with growing concerns about global

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22328 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

warming and the recognition of natural of large whales to adapt and extend season and on migration. These broad climatic oscillations on varying time their range when necessary. ranges (which routinely encompass scales, such as long-term shifts like the There are no data on similar historical much of an ocean basin), together with Pacific Decadal Oscillation or short-term shifts by humpback whales. the animals’ ability to withstand shifts, like El Nin˜ o or La Nin˜ a. Evidence Considerable plasticity in the winter prolonged periods of fasting through suggests that the biological productivity distribution of the species is suggested utilization of fat reserves in their in the North Pacific (Lowry et al., 1988; by the fact that the use of Hawaii as a blubber, potentially provide the whales Quinn and Niebauer, 1995) and other major breeding ground appears to be a with a means to adapt their ranges in oceans could be affected by changes in relatively recent phenomenon which response to major climate-related spatial the environment. Recent work has occurred sometime in the 20th century shifts in biological productivity, notably found that copepod distribution has (Herman, 1979); the reason for such a by seeking out new habitats. This may shown signs of shifting in the North shift is not known, but it is important in fact already be occurring in some Atlantic due to climate change (Hays et to recognize that the humpback’s winter places; humpback whales have recently al., 2005). Increases in global distribution is not tied to prey resources been observed in the eastern Chukchi temperatures are expected to have or biological productivity, a situation and Beaufort Seas (Clarke et al., 2013), profound impacts on arctic and sub- which presumably affords the species north of their usual range; this could arctic ecosystems, and these impacts are with flexibility in its colonization of represent the beginnings of a response projected to accelerate during this breeding habitats. to habitat changes relating to century (ACIA, 2004; IPCC, 2007). Climate change may diminishing sea ice in the Arctic, The IWC has held two workshops on disproportionately affect species with although it might also simply reflect a the topic of climate change and specialized or restricted habitat growing population expanding its range. cetaceans (IWC, 1997; IWC, 2010a), and requirements. The best-known example Prior to extensive whaling, humpback the reports of these meetings provide of this involves dependence upon sea whales appear to have been quite useful summaries on the current state of ice, which is thought to represent a common in at least the western knowledge on this issue, and on the major problem for polar bears (Ursus (Russian) Chukchi Sea (Zenkovich, large uncertainties associated with any maritimus), given that the species 1954; Tomilin, 1967), and are still projections of impact. primarily hunts pagophilic ringed seals observed there today (Clarke et al., It is generally accepted that cetaceans (Phoca hispida) (Schliebe et al., 2006). 2013). are unlikely to suffer problems because This represents a relatively simple and The BRT determined that the level of of changes in water temperature per se clear-cut example of cause and effect in the threat of climate change facing the (IWC, 1997). Rather, global warming is the climate change debate; Southern Hemisphere populations was more likely to effect changes in habitats unfortunately, the situation for slightly better understood than that that in turn potentially affect the humpback whales and other cetaceans facing the Northern Hemisphere abundance and distribution of prey in is not nearly as simple, given the populations. Warming waters are these areas. Factors such as ocean complexity of the ecosystems in which thought to be correlated with a decrease currents and water temperature may they live. Climate change may in krill production in the Southern render currently used habitat areas exacerbate situations in which Ocean, and this threat is likely to unsuitable and influence selection of populations are already small and/or increase. The future negative impact migration, feeding, and breeding significantly affected by other implied by a low threat assignment is locations for humpback and other anthropogenic impacts (such as dependent on a substantial decrease in whales. Changes in climate and entanglement or ship strikes). Species krill populations, a subsequent negative oceanographic processes may also lead which possess little ability to disperse impact on prey resource availability to to decreased productivity of, or lead to or colonize new habitats will also be humpback whales, and lack of suitable different patterns in, prey distribution particularly vulnerable. alternate prey such as fish. and availability. Such changes could None of these factors apply to The Southern Ocean is regarded as a affect whales that are dependent on this humpback whales, with the possible relatively simple ecosystem, but even prey. While these regional or ocean exception of the Arabian Sea here there are substantial problems in basin-scale changes may occur, the population, which is thought to be small quantifying even the most basic actual magnitude and resulting impacts and vulnerable to entanglement, parameters such as prey abundance. are not known. shipping-related issues and possibly Changes in this ecosystem are also All cetacean species have pollution. Furthermore, the uniquely driven by cyclic variability on the scale undoubtedly lived through considerable restricted range of this non-migratory of years to decades (Murphy et al., variation in climate (including multiple population is currently tied to seasonal 2007). Disentangling climate change ice ages, and significant warming monsoon-driven biological productivity effects from other forms of variability events) over the course of their in a relatively small region; the impact including periodic physical forcing, evolutionary history. However, there is of climate change on this productivity is requires time series of data that are little knowledge regarding the ways in unknown, as is the ability of these typically scarce or non-existent in the which cetaceans dealt with climate humpback whales to shift their range as Southern Ocean (Quetin et al., 2007). change in the past. Examination of may be needed. The responses of the Southern Ocean bones related to Basque whaling in As noted by IPCC (2007), species in ecosystem to climate change are likely Canada indicate that the range of general potentially respond in one of to be complex. Sea ice decreases may bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) three ways to major changes in climate: actually enhance overall primary in the North Atlantic shifted south Redistribution, adaptation, or production but could reduce ice algae during the so-called Little Ice Age in extinction. Based upon what is known production which occurs at a critical medieval times (McLeod et al., 2008). to date, redistribution is the most likely time for krill larvae (Arrigo and Thomas, This almost certainly reflected a shift in response for most humpback whales. 2004). On the other hand, the location the distribution of prey because of Most large whales, including of upwelling of nutrient-rich deep water habitat and associated productivity humpbacks, undertake extensive may change and result in enhanced changes, and it likely reflects the ability movements, both during a feeding primary production in areas that are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22329

otherwise unfavorable to krill (Prezelin humpback whales in the Northern waters are relatively low. Much of the et al., 2000). Hemisphere. However, humpback additional habitat is in the waters of The problems in assessing the whales in the Northern Hemisphere do small islands in the Leeward and relatively ‘‘simple’’ Southern Ocean not feed primarily in Arctic waters Windward groups, where any coastal illustrate the huge problems involved in (which are likely to be the most runoff is likely to be effectively predicting future changes in dynamic significantly altered by climate change), dispersed by highly dynamic water ecosystems, on scales that range from and the extent to which Arctic habitats movements driven by frequently strong eddies and fronts to entire ocean basins. may change to support aggregations of trade winds. Ecosystem models are crude at best. Full prey sought by humpback whales is In some feeding grounds, coastal ecosystem models involve innumerable unknown. runoff, vessel traffic and other human parameters, yet data to quantify these— Overall, it is clear that humpback activities represent a potential threat to let alone interactions among them— whales worldwide have exhibited humpback whales from this DPS. This frequently do not exist. considerable resilience despite a is likely to be most pronounced off the The second IWC climate change whaling history that removed the great Mid-Atlantic and northeastern United workshop (IWC, 2010c) noted that data majority of animals from most States, and least relevant in remote sets for use in assessing impact and populations. This resilience, together offshore areas such as Greenland, modeling the effects of climate change with the species’ flexibility in diet and Labrador and the Barents Sea. A study must have: extensive duration (20–30 apparent plasticity in its distribution, of contaminants in humpback whales years or more of information); good provides some optimism that humpback from the Gulf of Maine found elevated temporal resolution to capture whales can adapt to significant levels of polychlorinated biphenyls variability on inter-annual and longer environmental changes wrought by (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers scales; and sufficient spatial scale. global warming. Although we cannot (PBDEs), and chlordanes (Elfes et al., Although long-term studies of predict how climate change may affect 2010), although the authors concluded humpback whales exist in various humpback whales in the long term, at that these likely did not represent a locations in both hemispheres, these are present most studied populations conservation concern. often compromised by issues such as appear to be recovering well, and it Extensive oil and gas development sampling bias, data gaps, and seems very unlikely that any population and extraction occur in the southern inconsistency of methods; furthermore, will face extinction as a result of climate portion of the humpback whale’s West parallel data of sufficient resolution on issues within the foreseeable future. At Indies range, in the Gulf of Paria off environmental variables are often this time, the record does not support a Venezuela, but nothing is known of the unavailable. The caveat above regarding conclusion that climate change is likely impacts of this on the whales (Swartz et the difficulty of disentangling climate to influence extinction risk to al., 2003). Energy exploration and change effects from other variables humpback whales in the foreseeable development in this area are expected to applies equally to determining the future. increase. reasons for any observed changes in The best documented UME for demographic parameters of humpback West Indies DPS humpback whales attributable to disease occurred in 1987–1988 in the North whales. A. The Present or Threatened It is instructive to compare the Atlantic, when at least 14 mackerel- Destruction, Modification, or conclusions of the two IWC climate feeding humpback whales died of Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range change workshops, separated as they saxitoxin poisoning (a neurotoxin were by more than a decade. The report Human population growth and produced by some dinoglagellate and of the 1996 workshop (IWC, 1997) notes associated coastal development cyanobacteria species) in Cape Cod, that: ‘‘. . . given the uncertainties in represent potential threats to this DPS in Massachusetts (Geraci et al., 1989). The modeling climate change at a suitable certain areas of the West Indies, as well whales subsequently stranded or were scale and thus modeling effects on as in regions of high human population recovered in the vicinity of Cape Cod biological processes . . . at present it is density in the high-latitude feeding Bay and Nantucket Sound, and it is not possible to model in a predictive range. The major breeding habitats of highly likely that other unrecorded manner the effects of climate change on Silver and Navidad Banks are mortalities occurred during this event. cetacean populations.’’ Thirteen years sufficiently remote from land that direct Such events have been linked to later, the second workshop came to human impact is for the most part increased coastal runoff. During the first much the same conclusion (IWC, unlikely. The largest concentration of 6 months of 1990, seven dead juvenile 2010c), finding that: ‘‘. . . humpback whales in a West Indies (7.6 to 9.1 m long) humpback whales improvements in climate models, as habitat that is adjacent to the coast stranded between North Carolina and well as models that relate occurs in Samana´ Bay, Dominican New Jersey. The significance of these environmental indices to whale Republic (Mattila et al., 1994). There, strandings is unknown. demographics and distribution had [sic] tourism has spurred an increase in Additional UMEs occurred in the Gulf occurred. However, all models remain coastal development, which has of Maine in 2003 (12–15 dead subject to considerable uncertainty.’’ presumably introduced a rise in runoff humpback whales on Georges Bank), The BRT assigned climate change a and effluent discharge into the waters of 2005 (7 in New England), and 2006–7 low threat level to all Southern the bay. To date, there is no evidence of (minimum of 21 whales), with no cause Hemisphere populations based on observable impact on the humpback yet determined but HABs potentially current impacts to the populations. The whales that visit the region, but no implicated (Gulland, 2006; Waring et threat posed by climate change to studies have been conducted; that the al., 2009). In the Gulf of Maine in 2003, Northern Hemisphere humpback whale whales do not feed in these tropical a few sampled individuals among 16 populations is very uncertain, but the waters likely decreases their risk from humpback whale carcasses were found BRT thought it unlikely that climate such point source pollution. with saxitoxin and domoic acid change was a major extinction risk As noted above, although whales are (produced by certain species of diatoms, factor. Melting and receding ice sheets found elsewhere in the West Indies, a different type of algae (Gulland, may open more feeding habitat for densities outside Dominican Republic 2006)). The BRT discussed the possible

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22330 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

levels of unobserved mortality that may noise or other disturbance, they might exploration. The Federal Government be resulting from HABs and determined be able to leave one breeding area and had scheduled a lease sale offshore of that, as the West Indies population had move to another. Virginia, to take place in 2011. These been affected by HABs in the past, it is It is not clear whether recent lease sale plans were cancelled in May likely experiencing a higher level of anecdotal reports linking a decline in 2010 following the Deepwater Horizon HAB-related mortality than is detected. humpback whale abundance in Samana´ oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In Bay with increased cruise ship traffic December 2010, the Secretary of the B. Overutilization for Commercial, are valid, but the potential exists to Interior announced a ban on drilling in Recreational, Scientific, or Educational drive whales out of a breeding ground. Federal waters off the Atlantic coast Purposes The large number of whale-watching through 2017. While this ban remains in Subsistence hunting in the North vessels and increasing presence of place, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Atlantic occurs in Greenland and the cruise ships in Samana´ Bay suggest that Management is in the process of issuing island of Bequia in St. Vincent and the it is very important to assess the effect a final programmatic environmental Grenadines in the Lesser Antilles of this traffic on the behavior and impact statement on possible geologic (Reeves, 2002). Greenland began habitat use of the whales there. and geophysical activities along the hunting humpback whales before 1780 Currently, disturbance from whale Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) (Reeves, 2002). As the take of bowhead watching is probably not a major from Delaware to midway down whales decreased between the years concern for Silver Bank. Although a Florida’s east coast. The PEIS considers 1750 and 1850, humpback whales small number of dive boats operate the potential acoustic and other impacts became a more frequent target (Reeves, ‘‘swim-with-whales’’ tours there, their of these activities on marine mammals. 2002). Beginning in 1986, the IWC has activities are regulated by the These activities will provide new data not granted any catch limit for Dominican Republic government, and for the next 5-year OCS oil and gas humpback whales to Denmark on behalf are limited to a very small section of the program for the South and Mid-Atlantic of Greenland, though Greenland available habitat. There is currently no OCS and for possible oil and gas leasing reported 14 infractions over the period commercial or recreational activity on in the 2017–2022 period. 1988–2006. In 2010, a catch limit was Navidad Bank. With the exception of In Nova Scotia, oil and gas reinstated, and 27 humpbacks were the Gulf of Maine, there is minimal exploration and development began in killed between 2010 and 2012. In 1986, utilization of humpback whales for 1967. Canadian government estimates St. Vincent and the Grenadines, on whale-watching or ecotourism show that Nova Scotia’s oil and gas behalf of the native community of elsewhere in the North Atlantic. resource potential is significant. In Nova Bequia, asked for a humpback catch This DPS is exposed to some Scotia, there are currently two limit from the IWC, based on its history scientific research activities in waters producing offshore natural gas projects, of artisanal whaling in the community off the United States, Canada, and West the Sable Offshore Energy Project SOEP and the small number of whales taken Indies, but at relatively low levels. and Deep Panuke. In 1988, Canada (Reeves, 2002). Bequia currently retains Adverse population effects from implemented a moratorium on oil and an IWC ‘‘block’’ catch limit of up to 24 research activities have not been gas development on Georges Bank, to whales over a 6-year period (2013–2018) identified, and overall impact is the southwest of Nova Scotia. In 2010, (IWC, 2012); they took 4 whales in 2013. expected to be low and stable. Canada extended the moratorium, While this subsistence hunting kills It is unlikely that overutilization is which was set to expire at the end of some West Indies DPS humpback contributing to the extinction risk of the 2012, until December 31, 2015. whales in their breeding and feeding West Indies DPS. Silver Bank, Navidad Bank, and grounds, it is not likely contributing portions of Samana´ Bay have been significantly to extinction risk of this C. Disease or Predation designated by the Dominican Republic DPS. There are no recent studies of disease as a humpback whale sanctuary (Hoyt, Humpback whales represent a major in this population, but also no 2013). attraction for tourists in many parts of indication that it is a major risk. Whalers from the St. Vincent and the the world, and in the West Indies their A study of apparent killer whale Grenadines island of Bequia have a presence supports a large seasonal attacks in North Atlantic humpback quota from the IWC; most recently, whale-watching industry in Samana´ Bay whales found scarring rates ranging Bequia was given a ‘‘block’’ quota of up (Dominican Republic). Although from 8.1 percent in Norwegian waters to to 24 whales over a six-year period humpback whales can become 22.1 percent off western Greenland; (2013–2018) (IWC, 2012). The Scientific remarkably habituated to ecotourism- scarring rates among whales observed in Committee of the IWC has determined based vessel traffic, whale-watching the West Indies ranged from 12.3 that the allowed quota would have no excursions have the potential to disturb percent to 15.3 percent (Wade et al., impact on the growth rate of this or even injure animals. On feeding 2007). It is clear that most killer whale population (IWC, 2012). grounds such as the Gulf of Maine, attacks occur on first-year calves prior to As noted above, whale-watching where a large whale-watching industry arrival in high-latitudes (Wade et al., activities in the Silver Bank are exists, the extreme reaction of habitat 2007). However, this is not regarded as regulated by the Dominican Republic displacement has not been observed; a serious threat to population growth. government, and there is currently no this may partly be due to the existence commercial or recreational activity on of some guidelines for the operation of D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Navidad Bank. whale-watching tours, as well as the fact Mechanisms Under the authority of the ESA and that the whales are tied to specific areas A moratorium on oil and gas the MMPA, we have issued regulations by a key resource (i.e., food). Since exploration has been in place in the such as the NMFS right whale ship whales do not eat while in sub-tropical Mid-Atlantic region since the early strike regulations in the U.S. North waters in winter, they are theoretically 1980s. In March 2010, President Barack Atlantic and other regional or local far less constrained in their choice of Obama announced plans to open the maritime speed zones, and these help habitat; consequently, if the whales are Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic reduce the threat of vessel collisions faced with high enough pressures from planning areas to oil and gas involving humpback whales. The ship

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22331

collision reduction rule established proposals to the IMO (see International are observed. A study of entanglement- regulations to limit vessel speeds to no Maritime Organization discussion related scarring on the caudal peduncle more than 10 knots (18.5 km/hr), above) to modify the TSS and to of 134 individual humpback whales in applicable to all vessels 65 feet (19.8m) establish an ATBA, which were the Gulf of Maine suggested that or greater in length in certain locations subsequently endorsed by the IMO between 48 percent and 65 percent had and at certain times of the year along the (Silber et al., 2012) and as described in experienced entanglements (Robbins east coast of the U.S. Atlantic seaboard the IMO’s publication, ‘‘Ships’ Routing’’ and Mattila, 2001). (73 FR 60173; October 10, 2008). 2008. In 2009, the TSS was revised and Ship strike injuries were identified for In 1999, NMFS and the U.S. Coast the ATBA was established. This was 8 percent (10 of 123) of dead stranded Guard established two Mandatory Ship followed by a notice in the Federal humpback whales between 1975–1996 Reporting systems aimed at reducing Register announcing these changes (75 along the U.S. east coast, 25 percent ship strikes of North Atlantic right FR 77529; December 13, 2010) and (9 of 36) of which were along mid- whales. When ships greater than 300 NMFS added the changes to applicable Atlantic and southeast states (south of gross tons enter two key right whale nautical charts. While the measures are the Gulf of Maine) between Delaware habitats—one off the northeast United designed specifically for the North Bay and Okracoke Island North Carolina States and one off the southeast United Atlantic right whale, they are expected (Wiley and Asmutis, 1995). Ship strikes States—they are required to report to a to benefit humpback whales co- made up 4 percent of observed shore-based station. In return, ships occurring in these areas. humpback whale mortalities between receive a message about whales, their In 2007, a program of auto-detection 2001–2005 (Nelson et al., 2007) and 7 vulnerability to ship strikes, buoys and real-time whale vocalization percent between 2005–2009 (Henry et precautionary measures the ship can detection information was incorporated al., 2011) along the U.S. east coast, and take to avoid hitting a whale, and into the Boston TSS as mitigation for the Canadian Maritimes. Among locations of recent sightings. While liquefied natural gas (LNG) ship strike strandings along the mid and southeast these systems were designed to protect risk, primarily as a result of an ESA U.S. coastline during 1975–1996, 80 right whales specifically, they are Section 7 consultation with the percent (8 of 10) of struck whales were expected to also reduce the risk of ship Maritime Administration. This program, considered to be less than 3 years old strikes to other large whales, including stipulated as a condition of the based on their length (Laist et al., 2001). humpback whales (NMFS, 2008). consultation, was designed to reduce This suggests that young whales may be On February 18, 2005, the U.S. Coast the threat of vessel collisions with right disproportionately affected. However, Guard (USCG) announced a Port Access whales and other listed large whale those waters are thought to be used Route Study (PARS) of Potential Vessel species, including humpback whales in preferentially by young animals Routing Measures to Reduce Vessel and around the boundaries of (Swingle et al., 1993; Barco et al., 2002). Strikes of North Atlantic Right Whales Stellwagen Bank National Marine It should be noted that ship strikes do (70 FR 8312). Potential vessel routing Sanctuary. When right whales are auto- not always produce external injuries measures were analyzed and considered detected in the vicinity, LNG vessels are and may therefore be underestimated to adjust existing vessel routing required to travel at speeds of 10 knots among strandings that are not examined measures in the northern region of the or less, a measure that almost certainly for internal injuries. Atlantic Coast, which included Cape reduces the likelihood of vessel strikes Underwater noise can potentially Cod Bay, the area off Race Point at the of humpback whales occurring in the affect whale behavior, although impacts northern end of Cape Cod, and the Great area as well. are unclear. Concerns about effects of South Channel. As a result of this noise include behavioral disruption, information, we recommended E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors interference with communication, realigning and amending the location Affecting Its Continued Existence displacement from habitats and, in and size of the western portion of the The largest potential threats to the extreme cases, physical damage to TSS in the approach to Boston, West Indies DPS are entanglement in hearing (Nowacek et al., 2007). Singing Massachusetts. The TSS was revised in fishing gear and ship strikes; these occur humpback whales have been observed 2007, and the new configuration primarily in the feeding grounds, with to lengthen their songs in response to appeared on nautical charts soon some documented in the mid-Atlantic low-frequency active sonar (Miller et al., thereafter. U.S. migratory grounds. There are no 2000) and reduce song duration from On November 19, 2007, the USCG reliable estimates of entanglement or distant remote sensing (Risch et al., announced a second PARS to Analyze ship-strike mortalities for most of the 2012). Hatch et al. (2008) conducted a Potential Vessel Routing Measures to North Atlantic. During the period 2003– study analyzing commercial vessel Reduce Vessel Strikes of North Atlantic 2007, the minimum annual rate of traffic in the Stellwagen Bank National Right Whales while also Minimizing human-caused mortality and serious Marine Sanctuary and its effect on Adverse Effects on Vessel Operations injury (from both entanglements and ambient noise. This study revealed (72 FR 64968). The study area included ship collisions) for the Gulf of Maine significantly elevated and widespread approaches to Boston, MA, specifically, feeding population averaged 4.4 animals ambient noise levels due to vessel a northern right whale critical habitat in per year (Waring et al., 2009). Off traffic, but further research is needed to the area east and south of Cape Cod, Newfoundland, an average of 50 determine the direct impacts to marine MA, and the Great South Channel, humpback whale entanglements (range mammals. including Georges Bank out to the 26–66) was reported annually between Because of the low level of human exclusive economic zone boundary. In 1979 and 1988 (Lien et al., 1988); activity on Silver and Navidad Banks, the second PARS, the USCG another 84 were reported entangled in noise is currently not a concern in this recommended establishing a seasonal either Newfoundland or Labrador from area. Samana´ Bay, however, already has Area to be Avoided (ATBA) and 2000–2006 (Waring et al., 2009). Not all much vessel activity and therefore has amending the southeastern portion of entanglements result in mortality the potential for considerable impact on the TSS to make it uniform throughout (Waring et al., 2009). However, all of whales from noise. Noise sources its length. On behalf of the United these figures are likely to be include whale-watching vessels, which States, the USCG submitted a series of underestimates, as not all entanglements approach whales closely and thus

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22332 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

presumably create a loud acoustic present, threats appear low relative to BRT determined that the threat posed by environment in close proximity to the other populations, but again, much of energy exploration to the Okinawa/ animals, and cruise ships, which may be the distribution of individuals from the Philippines DPS it identified is more distant but whose size guarantees Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa medium, but noted that there was low that, at certain frequencies, noise levels DPS is unknown. There is no current or certainty regarding this since specifics in the bay will be very high. There are planned commercial whaling in this of feeding location (on or off the shelf) also additional sources in the form of area. are unavailable. If feeding activity occurs on the shelf in the Sea of container ships or other commercial C. Disease or Predation vessels that enter the bay periodically. Okhotsk, energy exploration in this area Underwater noise levels are expected to There is little to no information on the could impact what is likely one of the increase. impacts of disease, predation, or most depleted subunits of humpback The BRT considered offshore parasites on this DPS. whales. The threat posed by energy aquaculture to be a low, but increasing, D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory exploration to the Second West Pacific threat to this DPS and competition with Mechanisms DPS identified by the BRT was fisheries a low threat to this DPS. unknown. No regulatory mechanisms specific to Overall population level effects from As above, naturally occurring the Cape Verde Islands/Northwest global climate change for this DPS are biotoxins from dinoflagellates and other Africa DPS were identified. not known; nonetheless, any potential organisms are known to exist within the impacts resulting from this threat will E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors range of this DPS, although known almost certainly increase. Currently, Affecting Its Continued Existence humpback whale deaths attributable to climate change does not appear to pose biotoxin exposure do not exist in the There is little to no information on the Pacific. The occurrence of HABs is a significant threat to the growth of this impacts of vessel collisions, climate DPS now or in the foreseeable future. expected to increase with the growth of change, or anthropogenic noise on the various types of human-related HABs, vessel collisions, and fishing Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa gear entanglements are likely to activities. The level of confidence in the DPS, although each is expected to predicted increase is moderate. moderately reduce the population size increase. Competition with fisheries and and/or the growth rate of the West offshore aquaculture were considered B. Overutilization for Commercial, Indies DPS. All other threats, with the low threats to this DPS. Recreational, Scientific, or Educational exception of climate change (unknown The threats of HABs, disease, Purposes severity), are considered likely to have parasites, vessel collisions, fishing gear There are no proposals for scientific, no or minor impact on population size entanglements, and climate change to aboriginal/subsistence or commercial or the growth rate of this DPS. this DPS are unknown. All other threats hunting of humpback whales in the Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa to this DPS are considered likely to have North Pacific under consideration by DPS no or minor impact on the population the IWC at this time. Some degree of size and/or growth rate. illegal, unreported or unregulated (IUU) A. The Present or Threatened Western North Pacific DPS exploitation, including ‘commercial Destruction, Modification, or bycatch whaling,’ has been documented Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range A. The Present or Threatened in both Japan and South Korea through Habitat conditions for this DPS are Destruction, Modification, or genetic identification of whale meat poorly known. Some members of the Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range sold in commercial markets (Baker et population use the waters around the Humpback whales in the Western al., 2000; Baker et al., 2006). Genetic Cape Verde Islands for breeding and North Pacific are at some risk of habitat monitoring of Japanese markets (1993– calving, but where the remaining loss or curtailment from a range of 2009) identified humpback whale as the hypothesized fraction goes is unknown. human activities. Confidence in source of 17 whale meat products. In considering the Cape Verde Islands/ information about, and documentation These are believed to have been killed Northwest Africa DPS, it was noted that of, these activities is relatively good, through direct or indirect fisheries oil spills occur off West Africa, but except on the unknown breeding entanglement (Steel et al., 2009). In these levels are thought to be lower than grounds included in this DPS. Given Japan and Korea, it is legal to kill and in some other regions and the impact of continued human population growth sell any entangled whale as long as the non-catastrophic spills on humpback and economic development in most of take is reported; there is suspicion that whales when they are on the breeding the Asian region, these threats can be this provides an incentive for grounds was not considered significant. expected to increase. intentional ‘‘entanglements,’’ though the The threat of energy exploration to the Coastal development, including level of such intentional takes is Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa shipping, and habitat degradation are currently unknown (Lukoschek et al., population was considered low. potential threats along most of the coast 2009). Some degree of IUU exploitation There is little to no information on the of Japan, South Korea and China. is also possible in other regions within impacts of HABs on this DPS. Organochlorines and mercury are found the range of humpback whales in the in relatively high levels in most Western North Pacific DPS, including B. Overutilization for Commercial, cetaceans along the Asian coast Taiwan and the Philippines, given past Recreational, Scientific, or Educational (Simmonds, 2002). Although the threat histories of whaling. The full extent of Purposes to the health of this DPS is unknown, IUU exploitation is unknown. Official Because the breeding range of this the accumulation of these pollutants can reports of whales taken as bycatch DPS is largely unknown, the importance be expected to increase over time. entanglement and destined for of anthropogenic disturbance (from The BRT noted that the Sea of commercial markets are considered to activities such as whale-watching, Okhotsk currently has a high level of be incomplete (Lukoschek et al., 2009). offshore aquaculture, fishing gear energy exploration and development, Some poaching is reported to occur in entanglements, and scientific research) and these activities are likely to expand Korean waters and is suspected off to this DPS is largely unknown. At with little regulation or oversight. The Japan (Baker et al., 2002; IWC 2005c),

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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 exposed to relatively high levels of 2006). The level of confidence in to the Western North Pacific DPS was underwater noise resulting from human understanding the minimum magnitude determined to be medium. activities that may include commercial of this threat is medium for the There is some whale-watching and and recreational vessel traffic, and Okinawa/Philippines portion of this non-lethal scientific research in military activities. Overall population- DPS and low for the Second West Japanese waters, primarily in Ogasawara level effects of exposure to underwater Pacific portion of this DPS, given the and Okinawa, but this is at low levels noise are not well established, but unknown wintering grounds and and not thought to pose a risk to this exposure is likely chronic and at primary migratory corridors. DPS. relatively high levels. As vessel traffic Overall population level effects from C. Disease or Predation and other activities are expected to global climate change are not known; increase, the level of this threat is nonetheless, any potential impacts The evidence of killer whale attacks expected to increase. The level of resulting from this threat will almost on humpback whales in this DPS is low confidence in this information is certainly increase. The level of (6–8 percent) relative to other North moderate. confidence in the magnitude of this Pacific humpback whales (Steiger et al., The likely range of the Western North threat is poor. 2008). Certainty in this information is Pacific DPS includes some of the In summary, energy development, considered moderate and the magnitude world’s largest centers of human whaling, competition with fisheries, and is expected to remain stable. There are activities and shipping. Although vessel collisions are considered likely to no reports of disease in this DPS and reporting of ship strikes is requested in moderately reduce the population size levels of parasitism are unknown. the Annual Progress reports to the IWC, or the growth rate of the Okinawa/ Trends in the severity of disease and reporting by Japan and Korea is likely to Philippines portion of the DPS, and parasitism are also unknown. be poor. A reasonable assumption, fishing gear entanglements are D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory although not established, is that considered likely to seriously reduce its Mechanisms shipping traffic will increase as global population size or growth rate. Other commerce increases; thus, a reasonable threats are considered likely to have no No regulatory mechanisms specific to assumption is that the level of the threat or minor impact on population size and/ the Western North Pacific DPS were will increase. The threat of ship strikes or the growth rate, or are unknown, for identified. A continuing source of was therefore considered to be medium the Western North Pacific DPS. In potential adverse impacts to humpback for the Okinawa/Philippines portion of general, there is great uncertainty about whales is interactions with vessels, this DPS and unknown for the Second the threats facing the Second West including whale-watching and fishing West Pacific portion of this DPS. Pacific portion of this DPS. vessels. NMFS issued a final rule (66 FR The BRT discussed the high level of 29502; May 31, 2001) effective in 2001 fishing pressure in the region occupied Hawaii DPS in waters within 200 nautical miles (370 by the Okinawa/Philippines population A. The Present or Threatened km) of Alaska, making it unlawful for a (a small humpback whale population). Destruction, Modification, or person subject to the jurisdiction of the Although specific information on prey Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range United States to (a) approach within 100 abundance and competition between yards (91.4 m) of a humpback whale, (b) whales and fisheries is not known in Other than its Hawaiian Islands cause a vessel or other object to this area, overlap of whales and breeding area, the Hawaii DPS inhabits approach within 100 yards (91.4 m) of fisheries has been indicated by the some of the least populated areas in the a humpback whale or (c) disrupt the bycatch of humpback whales in set-nets United States (Alaska) and Canadian normal behavior or prior activity of a in the area. The BRT determined that (Northern British Columbia) coastal whale. Exceptions to this rule include competition with fisheries is a medium waters. Coastal development, which approaches permitted by NMFS; vessels threat for this DPS, given the high level may include such things as port which otherwise would be restricted in of fishing and small humpback whale expansion or waterfront development, their ability to maneuver; commercial population. occurs in both the United States and fishing vessels legally engaged in fishery The Fisheries Agency of Japan Canada; runoff from coastal activities; and state, local and Federal considers whales to be likely development in Hawaii and continued government vessels operating in official competitors with some fisheries, human population growth are potential duty (50 CFR 224.103(b)). This rule although direct evidence of these threats. Confidence in information provides some protection from vessel interactions is lacking for humpback about, and documentation of, these strikes to a portion of Western North whales in the region (other than net activities and their impacts is moderate. Pacific DPS individuals while in their entanglement). Whales along the coast Given continued human population feeding grounds in the Aleutian Islands, of Japan and Korea are at risk of growth in the region, the threat can be though the size and location of the area entanglement related mortality in expected to increase. present some challenge to enforcement. fisheries gear, although overall rates of This DPS had the lowest levels of Its effectiveness could be improved net and rope scarring are similar to DDTs, PCBs, and PBPEs observed for through greater general public other regions of the North Pacific North Pacific humpback whales awareness of the 100-yard (91.4-m) (Brownell et al., 2000). The threat of sampled on all their known feeding regulation, particularly with regard to mortality from any such entanglement is grounds except Russia, between 2004 ‘‘placing a vessel in path of oncoming high, given the incentive for commercial and 2006; in particular, levels were humpback . . .’’ and ‘‘operate at slow sale allowed under Japanese and Korean lower than observed in humpback safe speed when near a humpback legislation (Lukoschek et al., 2009). The whales from the U.S. West Coast, as whale.’’ reported number of humpback whale well as the North Atlantic’s Gulf of entanglements/deaths has increased for Maine (Elfes et al., 2010). The levels E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Japan since 2001 as a result of improved observed in all areas are considered Affecting Its Continued Existence reporting, although the actual number of moderate and not expected to have a Humpback whales in the Western entanglements may be underrepresented significant effect on population growth North Pacific DPS are likely to be in both Japan and Korea (Baker et al., (Elfes et al., 2010). Confidence in this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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 There are no known reports of Vessel approach regulations are also unknown. unusual disease or mass mortality in place for humpback whales in In March 2010, Interior Secretary events for this DPS. Trends may Hawaiian waters (50 CFR 224.103(a)). Salazar and President Obama increase slightly in response to other These are similar to the Alaska announced a landmark decision to stressors, such as warming oceans and regulations, with an additional cancel a lease sale scheduled for 2011 other stressors that may compromise prohibition against operating any (in the 5.6 million acre block in Bristol immune systems. aircraft within 1,000 feet (300 m) of any Bay, southeastern Bering Sea), and to Levels of parasitism in this humpback whale. The regulations were reinstate protection for the region until population are not well known, adopted in 1987 under authority of the 2017. However, if exploration and although approximately 2/3 of ESA and later amended to delete a drilling were authorized after 2017, it humpback whales in Hawaii show some provision that was inconsistent with the would represent a potential threat to evidence of permanent, raised skin MMPA. See 52 FR 44,912 (November this DPS in its feeding grounds. lesions, which may be a reaction to an 23, 1987); 60 FR 3,775 (January 19, Naturally occurring biotoxins from as yet unknown parasite (Mattila and 1995) (deleting 223.31(b) as mandated dinoflagellates and other toxins exist Robbins, 2008). However, there is no by Section 17 of the MMPA within the range of this DPS. Although evidence that these ‘‘bumps’’ impact Amendments of 1994, Public Law 103– humpback whale mortality as a result of health or reproduction, or cause 238, because the MMPA provided that exposure has not been documented in mortality. Trends in the severity of this approach to 100 yards (91.4 m) is legal, this DPS, it has been reported from threat are unknown. whereas the regulatory provision had other feeding grounds, so it is allowed approach only to within 300 considered a possibility. HAB D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory yards (274.3 m) in cow/calf areas). occurrence is expected to increase with Mechanisms As noted above under Section 4(a)(1) the growth of various types of human- There has been a moratorium on Factors Applicable to All DPSs, the related activities, and with increasing offshore oil drilling in the waters of Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale water temperatures. The level of Northern British Columbia since 1972, National Marine Sanctuary was confidence in exposure to HABs and in but there has also been a recent proposal established primarily to provide these assertions is moderate. to lift the ban, driven largely by local protections to a key North Pacific government (British Columbia Energy humpback whale breeding/nursery area, B. Overutilization for Commercial, and therefore, it should contribute to Plan, 2007). If so, this potential threat Recreational, Scientific, or Educational reducing the extinction risk of the could increase in this portion of the Purposes Hawaii DPS of the humpback whale. habitat. There are no planned commercial Among the regulations in effect in the whaling activities in this DPS’ range; A continuing source of potential sanctuary are approach regulations however, modest aboriginal hunting has adverse impacts to humpback whales is substantially similar to those at 50 CFR been proposed in British Columbia interactions with vessels, including 224.103(a) (See 15 CFR 922.184). (Reeves, 2002). Certainty in this whale-watching and fishing vessels. Although substantially similar, the information is considered relatively Under the authorities of section 11(f) of approach regulations effective in the high and the magnitude is expected to the ESA and section 112(a) of the sanctuary protect humpback whales in a remain stable. MMPA, NMFS issued a final rule (66 FR narrower geographic range than do the This DPS is exposed to whale- 29502; May 31, 2001) effective in 2001 current ESA approach regulations. watching activities in both its feeding in waters within 200 nautical miles (370 Because these regulations apply only and breeding grounds, but at medium km) of Alaska, making it unlawful for a within the sanctuary, we seek public (Hawaii and Alaska) to low levels person subject to the jurisdiction of the comment on whether the sanctuary (British Columbia). Adverse population United States to (a) approach within 100 protections would be sufficient for the effects from whale-watching have not yards (91.4 m) of a humpback whale, (b) protection of humpback whales from been documented, and overall impact of cause a vessel or other object to vessel interactions throughout the whale-watching is expected to be low approach within 100 yards (91.4 m) of Hawaiian Islands, recognizing that the and stable. a humpback whale or (c) disrupt the existing approach regulations at 50 CFR This DPS is exposed to some normal behavior or prior activity of a 224.103(a), which were adopted under scientific research activities in both U.S. whale (50 CFR 224.103(b)). Exceptions authority of the ESA only, would no and Canadian waters, but at relatively to this rule include approaches longer be applicable and would need to low levels. Adverse population effects permitted by NMFS; vessels which be removed if this rule becomes final from research activities have not been otherwise would be restricted in their and the Hawaii DPS of humpback identified, and overall impact is ability to maneuver; commercial fishing whales is not listed under the ESA (See expected to be low and stable. vessels legally engaged in fishery ADDRESSES). Commenters should activities; and state, local and Federal consider the impacts of the Office of C. Disease or Predation government vessels operating in official National Marine Sanctuaries’ recent Evidence of killer whale attacks (15– duty. This rule provides some proposal to expand the sanctuary 20 percent) in the humpback whales protection from vessel strikes to Hawaii boundaries and strengthen the approach found in Hawaiian waters is moderate DPS individuals while in their feeding provisions (80 FR 16224, 16227, 16238; (Steiger et al., 2008) and lower for grounds, though its effectiveness could March 26, 2015). Alaska and Canada. This is not regarded be improved by a greater enforcement In Canada, humpback whales are as a serious threat to population growth. presence and greater general public managed by the Department of Fisheries Shark predation likely occurs as well, awareness of the 100-yard (91.4-m) and Oceans (DFO) and legally protected although evidence suggests the primary regulation, particularly with regard to through the Marine Mammal targets are the weak and unhealthy. ‘‘placing a vessel in path of oncoming Regulations under the Fisheries Act, Certainty in this information is humpback . . .’’ and ‘‘operate at slow 1985. These regulations make it an considered relatively high and the safe speed when near a humpback offense to disturb, kill, fish for, move, magnitude is expected to remain stable. whale.’’ tag, or mark marine mammals (ss. 5, 7,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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 there are documented cases of cause of death. In addition, many North Pacific humpback whale humpback whales becoming entangled carcasses likely go unreported, thus ship population status was assessed as in herring ‘‘pond’’ and other strike numbers should be considered ‘‘threatened’’ by the Committee on the aquaculture gear in British Columbia minimum estimates. A reasonable Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (Baird, 2003). There have been assumption is that the level of the threat (COSEWIC), and in 2005 the population proposals to allow finfish aquaculture in will increase in proportion with was listed as ‘‘threatened’’ under Alaska, which would increase the threat increases in global commerce. Although Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA), from this activity in this portion of the 5–10 ship strikes are reported per year affording it legal protection (it is an DPS’ range; however, Alaska State in Hawaii and the actual number of ship offense to kill, harm, harass, capture or policy is 100 percent against this. The strikes is estimated to be potentially one take a listed species (Section 32(1)). The indirect impacts of aquaculture (e.g., on order of magnitude greater than this population’s status was re-assessed as health and abundance of prey from ‘‘special concern’’ in 2011 by COSEWIC. disease or possibly habitat disruption (Lammers et al., 2003), the BRT still Following public consultation regarding from poor siting) are not well known, considered this threat level to be the reclassification of the species, the but the BRT did not consider these minimal, given the very large DFO has referred the assessment of effects to be substantial and rated population size, fast rate of growth ‘‘special concern’’ back to COSEWIC for aquaculture as a low threat. We are observed in this DPS, the vessel further consideration, and the SARA unaware of humpback whale approach regulations in Alaska, and status of North Pacific humpback whale entanglement involving aquaculture in NMFS outreach to the cruise ship remains unchanged at the publication of Hawaii or in Alaska. However, given industry. the 2013 Recovery Strategy (Fisheries decreasing catches of wild fish stocks, Recent studies of characteristic and Oceans Canada. 2013). Should the and resulting strong incentives to wounds and scarring indicate that this SARA status of humpback whales expand aquaculture in Hawaii, the DPS experiences a high rate of remain unchanged, an action plan to threat to the Hawaii DPS posed by interaction with fishing gear (20–71 implement the 2013 recovery strategy aquaculture is likely to increase. percent), with the highest rates recorded will be completed within 5 years of its This DPS is likely exposed to in Southeast Alaska and Northern final posting on the Species at Risk moderate levels of underwater noise Public Registry. Hawaii DPS whales resulting from human activities, which British Columbia (Neilson et al., 2009). should benefit from any protections may include, for example, commercial However, these rates represent only afforded by SARA when they are in and recreational vessel traffic, pile survivors. Fatal entanglements of British Columbia feeding grounds. driving from coastal construction, and humpback whales in fishing gear have activities in Naval test ranges. Overall been reported in all areas, but, given the E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors population-level effects of exposure to isolated nature of much of their range, Affecting Its Continued Existence underwater noise are not well observed fatalities are almost certainly There is suspected interaction with established, but exposure is likely under-reported and should be the herring fishery in Southeast Alaska, chronic. As vessel traffic and other considered minimum estimates. Recent but impacts to humpback whales are activities are expected to increase, the studies in another humpback whale considered to be modest; the level of level of this threat is expected to feeding ground, which has similar levels certainty in this information is moderate increase. The level of confidence in this of scarring, estimate that the actual and currently under study, and impacts information is moderate. annual mortality rate from entanglement are considered stable because the The range of this DPS includes some may be as high as 3.7 percent (Angliss herring fishery is regulated. Humpback centers of human activities in both and Outlaw, 2008). There is a high level whales may compete with fisheries in Canadian and U.S. waters. Reports of of certainty with regard to this British Columbia as well, as they also vessel collisions in Hawaii have information. The threat is considered to have a herring fishery, as well as a increased since 2003, when an extensive ‘‘krill’’ fishery. educational campaign and hotline be medium. Currently, two modest offshore number were initiated; however the Overall population level effects from aquaculture sites are located in Hawaii, percentage of these that result in fatality global climate change are not known; and their placement overlaps with is unknown. Numerous collisions have nonetheless, any potential impacts humpback whale habitat. However, also been reported from Alaska and resulting from this threat will almost there have been no known fatal British Columbia (where shipping traffic certainly increase. Climate change was interactions, and indirect impacts from has increased 200 percent in 20 years) not considered to be a major risk to this food, waste, or medicines being (Neilson et al., 2012). According to a DPS currently, however. The level of provided to the cultivated species are summary of Alaska ship strike records, confidence in the magnitude of this likely to be low, as humpback whales do an average of 5 strikes a year was threat is low. not feed in Hawaii. The level of reported from 1978–2011 (Neilson et al., certainty in this information is high. 2012). However, effects in Alaska may In summary, fishing gear However, if these and other operations be mitigated by the vessel approach entanglement is considered to be a expand to areas of high use by the regulations discussed above (66 FR medium threat to the Hawaii DPS. All whales, at a minimum they could 29502; May 31, 2001; 50 CFR 224.103) other threats are considered likely to physically exclude humpback whales and by NMFS outreach to the cruise have no or minor impact on population from some of their preferred habitat. ship industry to share information about size and/or the growth rate or are Deep-water, finfish aquaculture in whale siting locations. unknown but assumed to be minor Alaska is currently prohibited. The level of certainty in this (based largely on the current abundance However, some shellfish and herring information is high. Humpback whale and population growth trend) for the ‘‘pond’’ aquaculture and salmon carcasses have been reported in many Hawaii DPS. hatchery pens exist close to shore. There areas of Alaska, but given the isolated are no known fatal encounters with this nature of some of these areas, necropsies type of aquaculture in Alaska; however, are not always possible to determine

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22336 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Mexico DPS B. Overutilization for Commercial, sounders). Two protection programs for Recreational, Scientific, or Educational humpback whales (regional programs A. The Present or Threatened Purposes for protection) have been proposed for Destruction, Modification, or the regions of Los Cabos and Banderas Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range No whaling currently occurs in this DPS’ range. Bay (Bahia de Banderas). NMFS issued a final rule (66 FR Breeding locations used by the The Mexico humpback whale DPS is 29502; May 31, 2001) effective in 2001 Mexico DPS (and migratory routes to get exposed to some whale watching in waters within 200 nautical miles (370 to aggregation areas) are adjacent to activities in both U.S. and Mexican km) of Alaska, making it unlawful for a large human population centers. The waters, but at low levels. Adverse effects person subject to the jurisdiction of the DPS may, therefore, be exposed to from whale watching have not been United States to (a) approach within 100 adverse effects from a number of human documented, and overall impact of yards (91.4 m) of a humpback whale, (b) activities, including fishing activities whale watching is expected to be low cause a vessel or other object to (possible competition with fisheries), and stable. approach within 100 yards (91.4 m) of effluent and runoff from human This DPS is exposed to some a humpback whale, or (c) disrupt the population centers as coastal scientific research activities in both U.S. normal behavior or prior activity of a development increases, activities and Mexican waters, but at relatively whale. Exceptions to this rule include associated with oil and gas low levels. Adverse effects from approaches permitted by NMFS; vessels development, and a great deal of vessel research activities have not been which otherwise would be restricted in traffic. identified, and overall impact is their ability to maneuver; commercial expected to be low and stable. Southern California humpback whales fishing vessels legally engaged in fishery were found to have the highest levels of C. Disease or Predation activities; state, local and Federal DDT, PCBs, and PBDEs of all North government vessels operating in official With regard to natural mortality of duty; and the rights of Alaska Natives. Pacific humpback whales sampled on individuals in the Mexico DPS, their feeding grounds (Elfes et al., 2010). As is true for the Hawaii DPS, this rule humpback whales in the California provides some protection from vessel The DDT levels detected were greater feeding area had a higher incidence of than those found in the typically more strikes to Mexico DPS individuals while rake marks attributed to killer whale in their feeding grounds. contaminated Gulf of Maine humpback attacks (20 percent) than in other whales, possibly due to the historical feeding areas (Steiger et al., 2008). The E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors dumping of DDT off Palos Verdes BRT noted that 44 percent of all flukes Affecting Its Continued Existence Peninsula (Elfes et al., 2010). It is not photographed from the Mexico This DPS is likely exposed to possible to state unequivocally if humpback whale DPS are scarred with relatively high levels of underwater population level impacts occur as a killer whale tooth rakes. Most of the noise resulting from human activities. result of these contaminant loads, but attacks are thought to occur on calves in These may include, for example, Elfes et al. (2010) suggested the levels breeding/calving areas, and levels commercial and recreational vessel found in humpback whales are unlikely observed in the California group likely traffic, and activities in U.S. Navy test to have a significant impact on their result from a propensity for killer whale ranges. The overall population-level persistence as a population. attacks in Mexican breeding areas effects of exposure to underwater noise There are currently numerous active (Steiger et al., 2008). Though a factor in are not well-established, but exposure is oil and energy leases and offshore oil the ensured longevity of this DPS, it likely chronic and at relatively high rigs off the U.S. west coast. Offshore does not appear to be preventing levels. As vessel traffic and other LNG terminals have been proposed for population recovery (Steiger et al., activities are expected to increase, the California and Baja California. The 2008). The threat of predation was level of this threat is expected to feeding grounds for this DPS are therefore ranked as low or unknown for increase. The level of confidence in this therefore an active area with regard to all DPSs. information is moderate. Of the 17 records of stranded whales energy exploration and development. There is little to no information on the in Washington, Oregon, and California However, there are no plans at present impacts of disease or parasites on the in the NMFS stranding database, three to open the West Coast to further Mexico DPS. involved fishery interactions, two were drilling. Alternative energies, such as D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory attributed to vessel strikes, and in five wind and wave energy, may be Mechanisms cases the cause of death could not be developed in the future in this region. Under Mexican law, all marine determined (Carretta et al., 2010). Currently, the threat posed to this DPS mammals are listed as ‘‘species at risk’’ Specifically, between 2004 and 2008, 14 by energy exploration and development and are protected under the General humpback whales were reported is low, and is considered stable. Wildlife Law (2000). Amendments to seriously injured in commercial Naturally occurring biotoxins from the General Wildlife Law to address fisheries offshore of California and two dinoflagellates and other organisms are impacts to whales by humans include: were reported dead. The proportion of known to exist within the range of this Areas of refuge for aquatic species; these that represent the Mexican DPS, though there are no records of critical habitat being extended to breeding population is unknown. known humpback whale deaths aquatic species (including cetaceans); Fishing gear involved included gillnet, attributable to biotoxin exposure in the prohibition of the import and export of pot, and trap gear (Carretta et al., 2010). Pacific. The occurrence of HABs is marine mammals for commercial Between 2004 and 2008, there were two expected to increase with nutrient purposes (enacted in 2005); and humpback whale mortalities resulting runoff associated with the growth of protocol for stranded marine mammals from ship strikes reported and eight various types of human-related (2011). Mexican Standard 131 on whale ship strike attributed injuries for activities. The level of certainty in the watching includes avoidance distances unidentified whales in the California- impacts of exposure to HABs is and speeds, limits on number of boats, Oregon-Washington stock as defined by moderate. and protection from noise (no echo NMFS, and some of these may have

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22337

been humpback whales (Carretta et al., humpback whales; levels were higher expected to increase with the growth of 2010). The Mexico DPS is known to also than observed in humpback whales various types of human-related use Alaska and British Columbia waters from the North Atlantic’s Gulf of Maine activities but does not pose a threat to for feeding (Calambokidis et al., 2008). feeding ground (Elfes et al., 2010). this population currently. Numerous collisions have been reported These levels may be linked to historical Though the occurrence and impacts of from Alaska and British Columbia dumping of DDTs off the Palos Verdes predation on humpback whales is not (where shipping traffic has increased Peninsula, CA (Elfes et al., 2010). well understood, some evidence of 200 percent in 20 years) (Neilson et al., However, the levels observed are not killer whale and shark attacks exists for 2012). According to a summary of expected to have a significant effect on this DPS. Evidence of killer whale Alaska ship strike records, an average of population growth (Elfes et al., 2010). attacks is relatively high in California 5 strikes a year was reported from 1978– DDT and PCB levels are likely to waters, with 20 percent of humpback 2011 (Neilson et al., 2012). However, decrease in feeding areas because use of whales showing scars from previous effects in Alaska may be mitigated by these chemicals has been banned in the attacks (Steiger et al., 2008). Scars from the vessel approach regulations United States, but PBDEs may still be attacks are believed to have originated discussed above (66 FR 29502; May 31, increasing. in the winter when whales are in 2001) and by NMFS outreach to the Energy exploration and development Mexican and Central American waters. cruise ship industry to share activities are present in this DPS’ habitat However, this is not regarded as a information about whale siting range. There are currently numerous serious threat to population growth. locations. active oil and energy leases and offshore Shark predation likely occurs as well, Overall population level effects from oil rigs off the U.S. west coast. Offshore though it is not known to what degree; global climate change are not known; LNG terminals have been proposed for it does not appear to be adversely nonetheless, any potential impacts California and Baja California. The impacting this DPS. feeding grounds for this DPS are resulting from this threat will almost D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory therefore an active area with regard to certainly increase. The BRT concluded Mechanisms that currently climate change is not a energy exploration and development. risk to the DPS, but the level of However, there are no plans at present No regulatory mechanisms specific to confidence in the magnitude of this to open the West Coast to further the Central America DPS were threat is poor. drilling. Alternative energies, such as identified. In summary, all threats are considered wind and wave energy, may be E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors likely to have no or minor impact on developed in the future in this region. Affecting Its Continued Existence population size and/or the growth rate Currently, the threat posed to this There is no evidence to suggest that or are unknown for the Mexico DPS, population by energy exploration and competition with fisheries poses a threat with the following exception: Fishing development is low, and is considered to this DPS. Humpback whales in gear entanglements are considered stable. southern and central California feed on likely to moderately reduce the B. Overutilization for Commercial, small schooling fish, including sardine, population size or the growth rate of the Recreational, Scientific, or Educational anchovy, and herring, all of which are Mexico DPS. Purposes commercially harvested species. In Central America DPS Whale-watching tourism and addition, they also feed on krill, which are not harvested off the U.S. west coast. A. The Present or Threatened scientific research occur, at relatively Humpback whales are known to be Destruction, Modification, or low levels, on both the feeding and foraging generalists. Although their Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range breeding grounds of the Central America DPS as well as along the migratory piscivorous prey is subject to naturally- Human population growth and route. Whale-watching is highly and anthropogenically-mediated associated coastal development, regulated in U.S. waters. Many Central fluctuations in abundance, there is no including port expansions and the American countries also have whale- indication that fishery-related takes are presence of water desalinization plants, watching guidelines and regulations in substantially decreasing their food are some of the potential threats to the the breeding ground of this population. supply. Central America DPS. The presumed Whale-watching is therefore not This DPS is likely exposed to migratory route for this DPS lies in the considered a threat to this population. relatively high levels of underwater coastal waters off Mexico and includes Scientific research activities such as noise resulting from human activities, numerous large and growing human observing, collecting biopsies, including commercial and recreational population centers from Central photographing, and recording vessel traffic, and activities in U.S. Navy America north along the Mexico and underwater vocalizations of whales test ranges. Exposure is likely chronic U.S. coasts. The California and Oregon occurs throughout this DPS’ range, and at relatively high levels. It is not feeding grounds are the most ‘‘urban’’ of though no adverse effects from these known if exposure to underwater noise all the North Pacific humpback whale events have been recorded. affects humpback whale populations, feeding grounds, resulting in relatively No whaling currently occurs in this and this threat does not appear to be constant anthropogenic exposure for the DPS’ range. significantly impacting current individuals of this DPS. However, the population growth. high degree of coastal development is C. Disease or Predation Vessel collisions and entanglement in not preventing the increase of There is little information on the fishing gear pose the greatest threat to humpback whales in this area, and it is impacts of disease, parasites or algal this DPS. Especially high levels of large considered to be a low level threat. blooms on the Central America DPS. vessel traffic are found in this DPS’ Associated with this proximity to HABs of dinoflagellates and diatoms range off Panama, southern California, urban areas is a high level of exposure exist within the feeding range of this and San Francisco. Several records exist to man-made contaminants. Elevated DPS, but there have been no records of of ships striking humpback whales levels of DDTs, PCBs, and PBPEs have humpback whale deaths as a result of (Carretta et al., 2008; Douglas et al., been observed in ‘‘southern California’’ exposure. The occurrence of HABs is 2008), and it is likely that not all

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22338 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

incidents are reported. Two deaths of or the growth rate, or are unknown for humpback whale mortality off Brazil. humpback whales were attributed to the Central America DPS. The threat posed by energy exploration ship strikes along the U.S. West Coast in and development was ranked low but Brazil DPS 2004–2008 (Carretta et al., 2010). Ship increasing. strikes are probably underreported, and A. The Present or Threatened The effects of contaminants on this the level of associated mortality is also Destruction, Modification, or population are unknown. The likely higher than the observed Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range occurrence of HABs is expected to mortalities. Vessel collisions were Human population growth and increase with increased run-off and determined to pose a medium risk (level associated coastal development nutrient input from human-related 2) to this DPS, especially given the represent potential threats to coastal activities; however, HABs do not pose a small population size. Shipping traffic populations of humpback whales. These threat to this population currently. will probably increase as global can take many forms, including B. Overutilization for Commercial, commerce increases; thus, a reasonable chemical pollution, increase in ship Recreational, Scientific, or Educational assumption is that the level of ship traffic and underwater noise levels. The Purposes strikes will also increase. coast of Brazil has experienced various Between 2004 and 2008, 18 A seasonal humpback whale-watching levels of human development within the industry exists in some parts of the humpback whale entanglements in range of humpback whales. These are of commercial fishing gear off California, wintering grounds off Brazil. In the greater intensity along the northeastern Abrolhos Bank, the area of greatest Oregon, and Washington were reported coast of the country (between 5° and 12° (Carretta et al., 2010), although the humpback whale concentration, whale- S), where large human settlements are watching is usually associated with actual number of entanglements may be found (the three main cities—Salvador, underreported. Effective fisheries other tourist activities. The Bank Recife and Natal—have 1–3 million contains large coral reef formations, and monitoring and stranding programs inhabitants and have observed exist in California, but are lacking in the associated biological diversity population increases of 3 percent per makes this region an important diving/ Central America and much of Mexico. year since the early 1970s) (Instituto Levels of mortality from entanglement snorkelling center. Despite great Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatı´stica, potential, expansion of whale-watching are unknown and do vary by region, but 2010). Such population growth has entanglement scarring rates indicate a in this region is difficult because of poor resulted in a substantial rise in effluent tourism infrastructure and because significant interaction with fishing gear. discharge in coastal areas used by Currently there is no aquaculture whales are far away from the coast humpback whales during the breeding relative to other areas (Cipolotti et al., activity on the feeding grounds of this season. The stretch of the coast where DPS, though migrating individuals may 2005). the largest concentration of humpback A more established whale-watching encounter some aquaculture operations ° whales is found (Abrolhos Bank, 16 – industry operates farther to the north, in coastal waters off Mexico. Humpback ° 18 S) has not had the same level of near Praia do Forte and Salvador. Most whales in this DPS are not considered human growth and is relatively pristine whale watching tours in Bahia State to be adversely affected by aquaculture. compared to areas farther to the north. depart from Praia do Forte (Hoyt and Overall population level effects from There is no evidence that human Inı´guez, 2008). In other parts of the global climate change are not known; population growth has had any major humpback wintering grounds (e.g., nonetheless, any potential impacts direct impact on western South Atlantic Ilhe´us, Itacare´, Porto Seguro), whale- resulting from this threat will almost humpback whales. In fact, the Brazil watching can occur in an opportunistic certainly increase. Humpback whales DPS has shown strong signs of recovery fashion. Often, fishermen are hired to feeding off southern and central in the same period in which human take groups of tourists to see whales, but California have a flexible diet that growth occurred adjacent to the these are unregulated and occasional. includes both krill and small pelagic breeding grounds. Shifts in habitat use Because of the relatively small scale, fishes. Acidification of the marine and abundance may have occurred on a whale-watching activities possibly environment has been documented to local basis, but no studies have been cause limited, if any, impact on the impact the physiology and development conducted to assess these changes. Brazil DPS of the humpback whale. This of krill and other calcareous marine Effects of chemical pollution are largely threat is considered low. organisms, which may reduce their minimized because these whales do not There is currently no commercial abundance and subsequent availability feed in the tropical wintering grounds. whaling in this region. to humpback whales in the future The feeding grounds of this DPS are This humpback whale DPS is exposed (Kurihara, 2008). However, the diet located in relatively remote offshore to scientific research activities, but flexibility of humpback whales in this areas in the Southern Ocean where adverse effects from research activities region may give this DPS some human activities have been minimal. have not been identified, and overall resilience to a climate change effect on While potential impacts are unknown, impact is expected to be low and stable. their prey base compared to Southern they are probably small in these areas. Hemisphere humpback whales that have The current threat of coastal C. Disease or Predation a more narrow krill-based diet. development to this population was There are studies of disease in the Currently, climate change does not pose ranked as low, but is considered to be Brazil DPS of the humpback whale, but a significant threat to the growth of this increasing. no indication that it presents a risk to DPS. The construction of new ports along the DPS. Stranded whales have shown In summary, vessel collisions and the coast of Brazil has been stimulated different types of bone pathologies fishing gear entanglements are by the country’s recent economic (Groch et al., 2005), but the incidence of considered likely to moderately reduce growth as well as the rapid development these pathologies are not well known. the population size or the growth rate of of the oil and gas industry. Therefore, a A recent increase in humpback whale the Central America DPS. All other resultant increase in ship traffic will mortality has occurred along the coast of threats are considered likely to have no likely increase the probability of ship Brazil. The number of carcasses seen or minor impact on population size and/ strikes and possibly result in greater floating at sea or found ashore in 2010

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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 threat of entanglements was considered abundance have been observed around average for the period 2002–2009 (29.5 low but increasing. the Antarctic Peninsula (Atkinson et al., individuals). Mortalities dropped in Ship collisions are a well-known 2004). Overall population level effects 2011 (39), but they have increased in cause of mortality in humpback whales from global climate change and subsequent years (47 in 2012; 51 in (Laist et al., 2001), but their incidence anthropogenic noise are not well known 2013; 55 to date in 2014, with not many among humpback whales in the Brazil and the threat was ranked low, based on more expected for the rest of 2014) DPS is not well known. Reports of the premise that krill would need to be (Milton Marcondes, Humpback Whale collisions with whales have been substantially reduced in order to put Institute Brazil, pers. comm., 2014). The provided by fishermen and recreational humpback whales at risk of extinction. causes for this increased mortality are boaters. In addition, photographic/ As discussed above under Section not well understood and are under physical evidence of ship strikes has 4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All DPSs, investigation (Humpback Whale been recorded throughout the wintering the BRT did not think the linkage Institute Brazil, unpublished data). grounds off Brazil (e.g., Marcondes and between climate change and future krill However, while mortalities are high, Engel, 2009). These events have been production was sufficiently well they are not unusually high. Despite increasing and seem to be correlated understood to rate it as moderate or high these mortalities, the DPS appears to with population recovery, but their risk. Nonetheless, any potential impacts continue to increase in abundance. conservation implications require resulting from these threats will almost Killer whales appear to be one of the further studies (Bezamat et al., 2014). In certainly increase, but not in the main predators of humpback whales, areas of high whale density (e.g., the foreseeable future. especially of calves and immature Abrolhos Bank), collisions between In summary, all threats are considered individuals (Clapham, 2000). While whales and fishing boats have resulted likely to have no or minor impact on predation can represent an important in permanent damage to the boats. The population size and/or the growth rate source of neonatal/juvenile mortality fate of whales involved in these or are unknown for the Brazil DPS. (Steiger et al., 2008), no studies have accidents is not known (Andriolo, been conducted to assess its effects on unpublished data). Ship strikes were Gabon/Southwest Africa DPS this DPS. considered a low, but increasing, threat A. The Present or Threatened to this DPS of humpback whales. D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Destruction, Modification, or The increase in coastal development Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Mechanisms and ship traffic, the construction of new Diving with whales is prohibited by ports and the expansion of offshore oil For humpback whales using the Federal law in Brazil, but opportunistic and gas extraction have resulted in a waters of central western Africa, whale-watching occurs during diving rise of underwater noise levels along the expanding offshore hydrocarbon trips (Morete et al., 2003). Most whale- breeding range of humpback whales. extraction activity now poses an watching operations are concentrated Concerns about effects of noise include increasing threat (Findlay et al., 2006). within the Abrolhos National Park and disruption of behavior, interference The degree to which humpback whales therefore are highly controlled. The with communication, displacement are affected by offshore hydrocarbon maximum number of boats allowed from habitats and, in extreme cases, extraction activity is not known, but it within the park is 15 (Hoyt, 2000). physical damage to hearing (Nowacek et is believed that long-term exposure to al., 2007). Few studies have been low levels of pollutants and noise, as E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors carried out to assess whether and how well as the drastic consequences of Affecting Its Continued Existence an increase in noise levels has impacted potential oil spills, could have The threats posed by offshore the Brazil DPS. Research conducted in conservation implications. aquaculture and competition with Abrolhos Bank (Sousa-Lima and Clark, The Gulf of Guinea region suffers fisheries were considered low for the 2008; Sousa-Lima and Clark, 2009) from pollution and habitat degradation, Brazil DPS of humpback whales. showed that the number of singing both from major coastal cities (Lagos, Entanglements in various types of whales diminished in the presence of Accra, Libreville, Porto-Nevo) that fishing nets have been increasing in the low-frequency boat noise and that dispense raw sewage and untreated wintering areas (Zerbini and Kotas, singing whales stopped calling and toxic waste into the marine environment 1998), but there is no current estimate changed direction of movement if the (United Nations Environment of mortality. Reports from fishermen sound source was within 7.5km on Programme, 1999), and from indicate that a large proportion of average. Anthropogenic noise was unregulated foreign trawling and oil and entanglements are comprised of calves considered a low, but increasing, threat gas developments (Chidi Ibe, 1996). The (Zerbini and Kotas, 1998). In the past 20 to the Brazil DPS of humpback whales. practice of mining construction years, the number of entanglement cases Climate change may impact the Brazil materials from the near-shore coastal observed or reported has increased DPS of humpback whales in multiple zone (e.g., sand and gravel) is also substantially as has the proportion of ways. Sea level rise, ocean warming and common in this region, which whales seen in wintering grounds, with ocean acidification may all negatively contributes to habitat degradation (Chidi evidence (e.g., scars) of entanglement in impact the reef system, which provides Ibe, 1996). The threat of coastal fishing gear (Siciliano, 1997; Groch et shallow, protected waters for breeding. development is considered low, but al., 2008)). Interactions of humpback Ocean acidification also has a increasing. whales with fisheries have been documented impact on krill growth and Certain naturally occurring biotoxins observed throughout the wintering development (Kurihara, 2008), and krill from dinoflagellates and other ground, and they seem to be increasing is the primary prey item for Southern organisms may exist within the range of as the population grows and re-occupies Hemisphere humpback whales. Krill are this DPS, although humpback whale new or historical habitats. However, tightly associated with sea ice (Brierley deaths as a result of exposure have not there is currently no assessment on the et al., 1999; Brierley et al., 2002), and been documented in this DPS. The proportion of entanglements resulting in decreasing sea ice may negatively occurrence of HABs is expected to mortality and no estimates of fishery- impact krill abundance and/or increase with the growth of various related mortality for this DPS. The distribution. Decreases in krill types of human-related activities. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22340 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

level of confidence in the predicted The threat of offshore aquaculture is production was sufficiently well increase is moderate. considered low. understood to rate it as moderate or high Certain potential and real effects on risk. Nonetheless, any potential impacts B. Overutilization for Commercial, cetaceans and other fauna are expected resulting from these threats will almost Recreational, Scientific, or Educational to increase due to the growth of industry certainly increase. Purposes activities, including noise disturbance In summary, all threats are considered No commercial whaling occurs in this from seismic surveys (Richardson et al., likely to have no or minor impact on DPS’ range. 1995). Changes in their behavioral population size and/or the growth rate A small hunt, not regulated by the patterns or displacement from or are unknown for the Gabon/ IWC, is also thought to exist in the Gulf migratory, mating, and especially Southwest Africa DPS, with the of Guinea at the island of Pagalu important calving and nursing habitats exception of energy exploration posing (Aguilar, 1985; Reeves, 2002). No could impact reproductive success and a moderate threat throughout the west information exists on the fishery since calf survival during critical stages of coast of Africa. development. 1975, but as of 1970, whales were still Southeast Africa/Madagascar DPS being taken in the area. This hunt would Rapid increases in shipping and port affect the Gabon/Northwest Africa DPS construction throughout the Gulf of A. The Present or Threatened in the breeding grounds, but we have no Guinea (Van Waerebeek et al., 2007) are Destruction, Modification, or information to indicate that it likely to increase the risks of ship Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range strikes for humpback whales. Whales contributes significantly to the Human populations are growing extinction risk of the DPS. If there is an are reported as stranding in Benin, with wounds suspected as originating from rapidly in coastal areas in Madagascar aboriginal hunt at Pagalu, it is estimated and East Africa, which may contribute, to be 3 or less individuals per year. ship strikes (Van Waerebeek et al., 2007). There are no dedicated stranding generally, to humpback whale habitat Whale-watching in the Gulf of Guinea networks in the region, and ship strikes degradation and related negative region is small in scale, with small with oil tankers and other vessels have influences. humpback whale-watching industries not been documented. Collisions with Until recently, oil and gas reserves in ˜ ´ documented in Benin, Gabon, Sao Tome vessels are not likely to be a major threat east Africa were largely unexplored. ´ and Prıncipe (O’Connor et al., 2009). considering the size of the DPS. However, recently, a number of offshore Whale-watching in South Africa is There are entanglement risks for seismic oil and gas surveys have been mainly focused on right whales, with humpback whales in these regions, conducted in Mozambique, Tanzania, humpback whales watched including a growing commercial shrimp Madagascar and the Seychelles. As a opportunistically. Boat-based whale- industry off Gabon (Walsh et al., 2000), result, drilling is now either underway watching has grown 14 percent in the and an expansion in unregulated fishing or planned in all of these regions last decade, and is concentrated in the by foreign fleets in Gulf of Guinea (Frynas, 2004; Findlay et al., 2006). As western Cape region; South Africa now waters (Collins, pers. comm.; Chidi Ibe, noted elsewhere, such activity brings numbers among the top ten destinations 1996; Brashares et al., 2004). threats of increased underwater noise for whale-watching worldwide Entanglement in fishing gear occurs, but from the exploration and development (O’Connor et al., 2009). Whale-watching it is not likely to be a major threat phases themselves, and increased vessel in Namibia is primarily focused on considering the size of the DPS. activity; the possibility of an oil spill; dolphins, and has seen 20 percent Climate change may impact the possible habitat degradation from such growth since 2008. The threat posed to Gabon/Southwest Africa DPS of things as drill spoils and dredging; and this DPS by whale-watching is humpback whales in multiple ways. Sea vessel collisions. In Madagascar, considered low. level rise, ocean warming and ocean offshore development has been This humpback whale DPS is exposed acidification may all negatively impact concentrated on the northwest coast; in to scientific research activities, but the reef system, which provides Mozambique it is concentrated in the adverse effects from research activities shallow, protected waters for breeding. Mozambique Basin, Zambezi delta have not been identified, and overall Ocean acidification also has a region, while development in Tanzania impact is expected to be low and stable. documented impact on krill growth and has been most focused on coastal development (Kurihara, 2008), and krill C. Disease or Predation Zanzibar. Humpback whales occur is the primary prey item for Southern seasonally in all of these regions. There are no reports of disease in this Hemisphere humpback whales. Krill are Levels of exposure of humpback DPS and levels of parasitism are tightly associated with sea ice (Brierley whales in this region to various unknown. Predation likely occurs, et al., 1999; Brierley et al., 2002), and pollutants are not known, nor is the though it is not known to what degree decreasing sea ice may negatively occurrence of HABs. Trends in the but it does not appear to be adversely impact krill abundance and/or extent of this threat likewise are not impacting this DPS. distribution. Decreases in krill known. abundance have been observed around D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory the Antarctic Peninsula (Atkinson et al., B. Overutilization for Commercial, Mechanisms 2004). Overall population level effects Recreational, Scientific, or Educational There are regulations in place for all from global climate change and Purposes whale-watching activity in South Africa anthropogenic noise are not known and Whale-watching activities are growing (Carlson, 2007). the threat was ranked low, based on the rapidly in waters off Mozambique; yet, premise that krill would need to be these are poorly regulated (O’Connor et E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors substantially reduced in order to put al., 2009). Most of these activities are Affecting Its Continued Existence humpback whales at risk of extinction. locally based and involve motorized There is no known/reported As discussed above under Section boats, recreational fishing boats, and competition with fisheries to the Gabon/ 4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All DPSs, dive boats. Whale-watching in South Southwest Africa DPS; this threat is the BRT did not think the linkage Africa is mainly focused on right therefore considered low and stable. between climate change and future krill whales, although the industry at St

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22341

Lucia in KwaZulu Natal province is Mayotte, Moheli (in the Comoros whale-watching, oil and gas exploration focused on southwestern Indian Ocean Archipelago), Madagascar (northeast and development, and fishing activities humpback whales. Recent political coast), Aldabra (under protection as a increase. instability in Madagascar has limited UNESCO World Heritage Site) and the This DPS is likely exposed to the growth rate of whale-watching coastal region between Southern relatively high levels of underwater activities in this region, although growth Mozambique and South Africa, so noise resulting from human activities, between 1998–2008 was still estimated entanglement in fishing gear should not including, for example, commercial and at about 15 percent, with the main be a problem in these areas. recreational vessel traffic, and activities industry focused on humpback whales related to oil and gas exploration and E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors frequenting the Ile Ste Marie/Antongil development. Overall population-level Affecting Its Continued Existence Bay region, and over 14,000 tourists effects of exposure to underwater noise participating in whale watch tours by Little is known/reported on are not well established, but exposure is 10–15 operators in 2008 (O’Connor et interaction of humpback whales in this likely chronic and at moderate levels. al., 2009). Whale watch tourism in DPS with fisheries, nor are there any As vessel traffic and other activities are Mayotte is small-scale, but has current or planned offshore aquaculture expected to increase, the level of this expanded rapidly, from no industry in sites in the region. These threats are threat is expected to increase. The level 1998 to 10,000 annual whale watchers therefore considered low and stable. of confidence in this information is in 2008 (O’Connor et al., 2009), with a Information regarding fisheries and moderate. focus on a range of cetacean species. In other activities is limited. Kiszka et al. Climate change may impact the Mauritius large cetacean watching is a (2009) and Razafindrakoto et al. (2008) Southeast Africa/Madagascar DPS of minimal component of the whale watch provided summaries of humpback humpback whales in multiple ways. Sea industry and is therefore unlikely to whale entanglement and strandings level rise, ocean warming and ocean have much impact (O’Connor et al., based on interviews with artisanal acidification may all negatively impact 2009). An industry for watching fishing communities. Substantial gillnet the reef system, which provides humpback whales in Mauritius fisheries have been reported in the near- shallow, protected waters for breeding. commenced in 2008 (Fleming and shore waters of the coasts of mainland Ocean acidification also has a Jackson, 2011). Africa and Madagascar; and to a lesser documented impact on krill growth and No commercial whaling occurs in this extent in the Comoros Archipelago, development (Kurihara, 2008), and krill DPS’ range. This humpback whale DPS Mayotte and Mascarene Islands, where is the primary prey item for Southern is exposed to scientific research such practices are hindered by coral Hemisphere humpback whales. Krill are activities, but at low levels. Adverse reefs and a steep continental slope tightly associated with sea ice (Brierley effects from research activities have not bathymetry (Kiszka et al., 2009). et al., 1999; Brierley et al., 2002), and Stranding reports and observations from been identified, and overall impact is decreasing sea ice may negatively Tanzania and Mozambique have mostly expected to be low and stable. impact krill abundance and/or implicated gillnets, with most distribution. Decreases in krill C. Disease or Predation Madagascan entanglements associated abundance have been observed around with long-line shark fishing There is little to no information on the the Antarctic Peninsula (Atkinson et al., (Razafindrakoto et al., 2008). In impacts of disease, parasites, or 2004). Overall population level effects Mayotte, humpback whales have been predation on this DPS. from global climate change and observed with gillnet remains attached anthropogenic noise are not known and D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory to them (Kiszka et al., 2009), although the threat was ranked low, based on the Mechanisms no fatalities have yet been documented. premise that krill would need to be Apparently, there are no local, Industrial fishing operations, including substantially reduced in order to put national, or regional measures in place longlines and drift longlines on fish humpback whales at risk of extinction. or contemplated to reduce the impact of aggregation devices, purse seine and As discussed above under Section habitat-related threats. midwater trawling, occur in waters off There is a voluntary code of conduct Mauritius. The extent of bycatch and 4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All DPSs, for operators of whale-watching boats in entanglement in these waters is the BRT did not think the linkage waters off Mozambique, but at present unknown (Kiszka et al., 2009). between climate change and future krill this is poorly upheld and no formal Strandings and bycatch data from 2001– production was sufficiently well regulations or enforcement are currently 2005 from South Africa indicated an understood to rate it as moderate or high in place (O’Connor et al., 2009). The estimated 15 humpback whales risk. Nonetheless, any potential impacts whale-watching industry off Madagascar entangled in shark nets (large-mesh resulting from these threats will almost has recently developed some guidelines gillnets) in KwaZulu Natal province certainly increase. for the protection of humpback whales, (only one death), while nine stranded In summary, all threats are considered which were passed as legislation in whales were reported from the south likely to have no or minor impact on 2000 with local regulations for Ile Sainte and east coasts (IWC, 2002b; IWC, 2003; population size and/or the growth rate Marie (Fleming and Jackson, 2011) and IWC, 2004b; IWC, 2005b; IWC, 2006b). or are unknown for the Southeast Antongil Bay (Journal Officiel de la The range of this DPS includes some Africa/Madagascar DPS, with the Republique de Madagascar, 2000). In the growing centers of human activities. exception of fishing gear entanglements Mascarene Islands, the expanding Although there are no known records of posing a moderate threat to the DPS. whale-watching industry in La Re´union ship struck humpback whales in this West Australia DPS (3,000 tourists estimated in 2008) is region, the amount of vessel traffic currently unregulated. There are suggests this is probably a low-level A. The Present or Threatened regulations in place for all whale- threat. However, a reasonable Destruction, Modification, or watching activity in South Africa assumption is that the amount of vessel Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range (Carlson, 2007). traffic, and the level of the threat, is The threat posed by energy Fishing activities are prohibited in likely to increase as commercial development to the Western Australia localized marine protected areas in shipping, recreational boating, and population was considered medium

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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 Commonwealth waters must be reported East Australia DPS rigs and the amount of energy by law, and a summary of these has A. The Present or Threatened exploration activity in the region been provided to the IWC annually Destruction, Modification, or inhabited by the whales (indicator CO– since 2006. Since this time there has Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 26 in (Beeton et al., 2006)). only been one report concerning a Additionally, there are proposals for possible humpback ship strike in Whales migrating southward to the many more oil platforms to be built in Western Australian waters (IWC, feeding grounds, as well as a portion of those migrating north, follow the east the near future, which are highly likely 2009b). The threat of ship strikes in to be executed (Department of Industry coast of Australia, and many or most are Western Australia is considered low, confined to a narrow corridor near the and Resources, 2008). but likely increasing. Coastally populated areas are coast (Bryden, 1985; Noad et al., 2008) increasing rapidly, and while the threat There are 25 records of humpback passing several large cities. Increasing associated with coastal development is whale entanglement events between coastal development is possible in these currently considered low, it is expected 2003 and 2008 in this region, with areas, but they represent a minor to increase. Although contaminant western rock lobster fishing gear most portion of the total migratory route. As levels in humpback whales in this frequently implicated (Doug Coughran, with coastal development, sources of region are unknown, the threat level pers comm.; IWC, 2004a; IWC, 2005a; pollution for the east Australia DPS are was considered low given what is IWC, 2006a; IWC, 2007c; IWC, 2008). A concentrated in a few locations along known of contaminant levels in other rise in marine fishing debris has also the migratory route. The breeding area populations. been reported for the region for this DPS is primarily within the There have been no records of (Environment Western Australia, 2007), Great Barrier Reef Marine Park humpback whale deaths as a result of which suggests that there may be an (Chittleborough, 1965; Simmons and Marsh, 1986), which has a exposure to HABs in this DPS, thus the increasing risk of entanglement. threat is considered low. comprehensive set of state and Federal Climate change may impact the West protection laws. However, during B. Overutilization for Commercial, Australia DPS of humpback whales in tropical floods, farmland runoff may Recreational, Scientific, or Educational multiple ways. Sea level rise, ocean bring significant quantities of pollutants Purposes warming and ocean acidification may (pesticides, fertilizers) down several No whaling occurs in this DPS’ range. all negatively impact the reef system, rivers that empty into the Great Barrier Whale-watching tourism and which provides shallow, protected Reef area (Haynes and Michalek- scientific research occur, at relatively waters for breeding. Ocean acidification Wagnera, 2000). To date there are no low levels, throughout this DPS’ range. also has a documented impact on krill known documented impacts of Therefore, these threats are considered growth and development (Kurihara, contaminants on humpback whale low. 2008), the primary prey item for survival and fecundity. Oil and gas production occurs in Bass Strait C. Disease or Predation Southern Hemisphere humpback whales. Krill are tightly associated with (Australian Government, 2006), a region There are no recent studies of disease sea ice (Brierley et al., 1999; Brierley et used by some whales of this DPS as they migrate to feeding grounds. Overall, or parasitism in this DPS, but there are al., 2002), and decreasing sea ice may no indications that they represent a these threats were considered to pose a negatively impact krill abundance and/ substantial threat to the DPS. low risk to this DPS. or distribution. Decreases in krill D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory abundance have been observed around B. Overutilization for Commercial, Mechanisms the Antarctic Peninsula (Atkinson et al., Recreational, Scientific, or Educational No regulatory mechanisms specific to 2004). Overall population level effects Purposes the West Australia DPS were identified. from global climate change and Anthropogenic disturbance of this anthropogenic noise are not known and DPS occurs primarily on the breeding E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors the threat was ranked low, based on the ground. Whale-watching tourism in Affecting Its Continued Existence premise that krill would need to be eastern Australia (Queensland) has seen Competition with fisheries is substantially reduced in order to put an annual average growth rate of 8.5 considered a low threat to humpback humpback whales at risk of extinction. percent since 1998 (this includes boat whales off the coast of Western As discussed above under Section and land-based operations and both Australia due to the lack of spatial and 4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All DPSs, whale- and dolphin-watching trips; temporal overlap with fisheries and the BRT did not think the linkage O’Connor et al., 2009). In New South whales. The threat of offshore between climate change and future krill Wales, boat-based whale- and dolphin- aquaculture is considered low, but production was sufficiently well watching has seen a 2.6 percent increase aquaculture activities may be increasing understood to rate it as moderate or high between 2003 and 2008. in this region. In the Southern Scientific research activities on this risk. Nonetheless, any potential impacts Hemisphere, humpback whales feed DPS occur at the feeding grounds, resulting from these threats will almost almost entirely on krill (Euphausia breeding grounds and along the certainly increase. superba). There is a regulated migratory route. Photo-identification commercial harvest of krill, but harvest In summary, all threats are considered studies, biopsy efforts and other field levels are currently small and there is likely to have no or minor impact on studies do exist. However, adverse no evidence that this threatens the food population size and/or the growth rate effects from research activities have not supply of humpback whales (Everson or are unknown for the West Australia been documented and threats are and Goss, 1991; Nicol et al., 2008). DPS, with the exception of energy considered low. Finally, scientific Coastally populated areas are exploration posing a moderate threat whaling proposed by Japan in the increasing rapidly, with associated throughout Western Australia. Antarctica feeding grounds would occur development of ports bringing increased in areas where the East Australia DPS is risks of ship strikes. All ship strikes in known to feed (Nishiwaki et al., 2007).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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 Jackson, 2011). In addition, six Oceania DPS these feeding grounds is occurring. humpback whales were entangled in A. The Present or Threatened C. Disease or Predation shark control nets and released in 2009 Destruction, Modification, or (IWC, 2010b). These totals are likely Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range There is little to no information on the underestimates as not all entanglements impacts of disease, parasites or are reported and some are not identified Surface run-off from nickel strip predation on this DPS. Evidence for to species. The majority were recorded mines causes habitat degradation and killer whale interaction is documented, pollution of lagoons in New Caledonia, in shark nets and occurred along the and 17 percent of photo-identified which is one of the largest producers of humpback whales in East Australia migratory route (Fleming and Jackson, nickel globally, yet the effect on the show scarring on their flukes, most of 2011). Although not insignificant, given surrounding marine environment has which is consistent with interactions the population size and estimated been poorly monitored (e.g., de Forges with killer whales (Naessig and Lanyon, growth rate, the threat level posed by et al., 1998; Labrosse et al., 2000; Metian 2004). There is no evidence to suggest these factors is considered low. et al., 2005). The threat to humpback that this level of predation is outside the Anthropogenic noise is also a possible whales in Oceania from coastal norm for the DPS. Given the population threat to this DPS. There are several development and contaminants was size and current growth rate, disease, commercial shipping routes through the considered low overall. predation and parasitism seem unlikely Great Barrier Reef breeding ground and The BRT considered the threats of to pose a significant threat to this DPS. along the coastal migratory route that energy exploration and development likely result in some underwater noise and offshore aquaculture to the Oceania D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory exposure. Migration through Bass Strait population to be low but increasing, due Mechanisms would also expose whales to energy to the expected growth of these Oil and gas exploration and drilling exploration and production noise. There activities over the next several decades. are prohibited within the Great Barrier is no information concerning exposure The level of threat posed by HABs to Reef Marine Park. of whales to underwater military humpback whales in Oceania is Queensland has a substantial whale- unknown. activities. watching management program B. Overutilization for Commercial, (O’Connor et al., 2009), including Climate change may impact the East Recreational, Scientific, or Educational restricting access to areas deemed Australia DPS of humpback whales in Purposes essential for humpback conservation, multiple ways. Sea level rise, ocean and Australia has national whale- warming and ocean acidification may Some local whaling of humpback watching guidelines. With these all negatively impact the reef system, whales was carried out in French regulations in place, the BRT considered which provides shallow, protected Polynesia (Rurutu), the Cook Islands the threat level from whale-watching to waters for breeding. Ocean acidification and Tonga during the 20th century be low. also has a documented impact on krill (Reeves, 2002), but this has ceased since growth and development (Kurihara, 1960 at Rurutu (Poole, 2002), and since E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 1978 elsewhere (IWC, 1981). It does not Affecting Its Continued Existence 2008), the primary prey item for Southern Hemisphere humpback appear that Tonga hunted whales before There is no published information on whales. Krill are tightly associated with Europeans arrived in the region in the negative impacts of offshore 19th century (Reeves, 2002). Tonga was sea ice (Brierley et al., 1999; Brierley et aquaculture, competition with fisheries, used as a provisioning station for al., 2002), and decreasing sea ice may or HABs on this DPS. In the Southern whaling vessels from the Northern Hemisphere, humpback whales feed negatively impact krill abundance and/ Hemisphere while they operated in the almost entirely on krill (Euphausia or distribution. Decreases in krill South Pacific. Tongans then began superba). There is a regulated abundance have been observed around conducting shore-based whaling in the commercial harvest of krill, but harvest the Antarctic Peninsula (Atkinson et al., late 1880s or early 1900s, and increasing levels are currently small and there is 2004). Overall population level effects demand prompted new boats and no evidence that this threatens the food from global climate change and whalers to enter the growing industry supply of humpback whales (Everson anthropogenic noise are not known and (Reeves, 2002). Catch rates (whales and Goss, 1991; Nicol et al., 2008). the threat was ranked low, based on the landed) were estimated at 10–20 Vessel collisions and entanglement in premise that krill would need to be whales/year for the 1950s and 1960s fishing gear pose the greatest substantially reduced in order to put and at least 3–8 whales/year for the anthropogenic risks to the East Australia humpback whales at risk of extinction. mid-1970s (Reeves, 2002). In 1979, the DPS. Thirteen ship-strike incidents and As discussed above under Section Tonga Whaling Act was passed after a five deaths have been reported between 4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All DPSs, Royal Decree in 1978, prohibiting the 2003 and 2008 (summarized in Fleming the BRT did not think the linkage catch of whales on what was originally and Jackson, 2011) and an additional between climate change and future krill designated as a temporary basis pending ship-strike was recorded in 2009 with production was sufficiently well an assessment of the population by the the whale being seriously injured (IWC, understood to rate it as moderate or high IWC (Keller, 1982; Reeves, 2002; Kessler 2010a). Both fishing vessels and risk. Nonetheless, any potential impacts and Harcourt, 2012). However, no commercial vessels have been involved resulting from these threats will almost whaling has been carried out in Tonga in these incidents. Given the probable certainly increase. since then. It is possible that this hunt increase in fishing, tourism and was contributing significantly to the commercial shipping, the threat is likely In summary, all threats are considered extinction risk of the Oceania DPS, but to increase. Entanglements are regularly likely to have no or minor impact on since no whaling has occurred there reported along the east coast of population size and/or the growth rate since 1979, it is no longer contributing Australia and 57 entanglements have or are unknown for the East Australia to the DPS’ extinction risk. been documented between 2003–2008, DPS. Humpback whales are under threat with 13 confirmed deaths (Fleming and from unregulated scientific whaling in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22344 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

the Antarctic waters directly to the Islands, Tonga, Samoa, American waters for breeding. Ocean acidification south of Oceania. None have been taken Samoa, Niue, Vanuatu, New Caledonia also has a documented impact on krill to date, but an annual catch of 50 and Fiji (Hoyt, 2005), while whales are growth and development (Kurihara, humpback whales was proposed by protected in New Zealand waters under 2008), the primary prey item for Japan in the 2007/2008 season the New Zealand Marine Mammal Southern Hemisphere humpback (Nishiwaki et al., 2007), as part of its Protection Act. whales. Krill are tightly associated with JARPA II research program. This has Whale watching guidelines are in sea ice (Brierley et al., 1999; Brierley et been held in abeyance while Japan place in Tonga and New Caledonia, al., 2002), and decreasing sea ice may considers that progress is being made by while boat-based whale watching in the negatively impact krill abundance and/ the IWC in its meetings on the ‘‘Future Cook Islands, Samoa and Niue is or distribution. Decreases in krill of the IWC.’’ It is unlikely that the minimal (O’Connor et al., 2009). abundance have been observed around proposed take of humpback whales will E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors the Antarctic Peninsula (Atkinson et al., be reinstated in the foreseeable future; Affecting Its Continued Existence 2004). Overall population level effects in fact, Japan submitted its research from global climate change and proposal for the Antarctic on November There is little information available anthropogenic noise are not known and 19, 2014, and it did not include any from the South Pacific regarding the threat was ranked low, based on the humpback whales (Government of entanglement with fishing gear; two premise that krill would need to be Japan, 2014). humpback whales have been observed substantially reduced in order to put Whale-watching tourism exists in all in Tonga entangled in rope in one humpback whales at risk of extinction. four of the principal survey sites in instance and fishing net in another As discussed above under Section Oceania, with strong growth in the last (Donoghue, pers. comm.). One 4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All DPSs, decade. There is no boat-based, humpback mother (with calf) was the BRT did not think the linkage reported entangled in a longline in the dedicated whale watching industry in between climate change and future krill Cook Islands in 2007 (South Pacific American Samoa at present. Humpback production was sufficiently well Whale Research Consortium, 2008). whales have been at particular risk from understood to rate it as moderate or high Entanglement scars have been seen on excessive boat exposure through whale risk. Nonetheless, any potential impacts humpback whales in American Samoa, watching in the Southern Lagoon of resulting from these threats will almost but there are not enough data to New Caledonia, where there are certainly increase. currently 24 working operators. Levels determine an entanglement rate. In summary, all threats are considered Available evidence suggests that of exposure have been unusually high likely to have no or minor impact on entanglement is a potential concern in (peaking during weekend periods), with population size and/or the growth rate regions where whales and stationary or boats at a distance of less than 100m or are unknown for the Oceania DPS. from calves 40 percent of the time and drifting gear in the water overlap each whale exposed to an average of 3.4 (Mattila et al., 2010). The threat of Southeastern Pacific DPS entanglements was ranked low for the boats for 2 hours daily (Schaffar and A. The Present or Threatened Garrigue, 2008). In 2008, commercial Oceania population. There is little information available Destruction, Modification, or tour operators voluntarily signed a code Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range of conduct, and subsequent compliance from the South Pacific regarding ship with this code has significantly reduced strikes. This threat was ranked low but Human population growth and the level of daily exposure to boats is expected to increase as vessel activity associated coastal development, (South Pacific Whale Research in the region increases. Similarly, this including port development, disruption Consortium, 2009). Whale watching and DPS is likely exposed to moderate levels and possible partitioning of the marine other recreational or research-related of underwater noise resulting from habitat and increased turbidity in activities were deemed by the BRT to human activities, which may include, coastal waters, are potential threats to pose a low level of threat in this region. for example, commercial and the Southeastern Pacific DPS. The recreational vessel traffic. Overall presumed migratory route for this C. Disease or Predation population-level effects of exposure to population lies in the coastal waters off Mattila and Robbins (2008) reported underwater noise are not well Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, raised skin lesions along the dorsal established, but as vessel traffic and Peru, and Argentina and includes some flanks of humpback whales in American other activities are expected to increase, large human population centers in both Samoa. The lesions differ the level of this threat is expected to Central and South America. Currently, morphologically from the ‘depressed’ increase. the high degree of coastal development lesions caused by cookie cutter sharks In the Southern Hemisphere, in this DPS’ habitat is not substantially and appear to persist for long periods on humpback whales feed almost entirely affecting the DPS’ size or growth rate, the skin, rather than either erupting or on krill (Euphausia superba). There is a and it is considered to be a low-level healing. There are no reports of these regulated commercial harvest of krill, threat. lesions in whaling records, suggesting but harvest levels are currently small Little has been published regarding that this phenomenon is recent. The and there is no evidence that this contaminant levels in this region. cause of these lesions is currently threatens the food supply of humpback However, while levels of DDTs, PCBs, unknown (Mattila and Robbins, 2008), whales (Everson and Goss, 1991; Nicol and PBPEs are typically lower in but they are not considered a threat to et al., 2008). The threat of competition Southern Hemisphere feeding areas than the population. with fisheries was considered low for off the east or west coasts of the United the Oceania DPS. States, little research has been done to D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Climate change may impact the confirm lower contaminant levels Mechanisms Oceania DPS of humpback whales in among Southern Hemisphere whales Whale sanctuaries (local waters where multiple ways. Sea level rise, ocean (Fleming and Jackson, 2011). DDT and whaling is prohibited) have since been warming and ocean acidification may PCB levels are likely to decrease in declared in the Exclusive Economic all negatively impact the reef system, feeding areas because use of these Zones of French Polynesia, Cook which provides shallow, protected chemicals has been banned in many

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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 catalogues (Flo´rez-Gonza´lez et al., 1994; rates indicate that close to one third of increasing. Man-made contaminants are Scheidat et al., 2000; Fe´lix and Haase, all observed animals have experienced not considered to be a significant threat 2001). The scarring rate is lower than in some level of entanglement (Alava et al., to this population. some other DPSs. 2005). These scarring rates are similar to Energy exploration and development those observed off the northeast coast of activities are present in this DPS’ habitat D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms the United States. Less research effort in range. Oil and gas production is the Southeast Pacific region compared No regulatory mechanisms specific to currently increasing in the Gulf of to the northeast coast of the United Guayaquil, Ecuador (Fe´lix and Haase, the Southeastern Pacific DPS were States suggests that this reported 2005). A large number of oil tankers identified. scarification rate may even be an transit through the Straits of Magellan E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors underestimate of the actual level of yearly, a notoriously difficult route to Affecting Its Continued Existence navigate. At least one oil spill has entanglement occurring in the Southeast resulted from a ship running aground In the Southern Hemisphere, Pacific. The number of dead and there (Morris, 1988). Energy humpback whales feed almost entirely entangled whales off Colombia has development is likely to expand if oil on krill (Euphausia superba). There is a increased over the last two decades and gas reserves are discovered in other regulated and growing commercial krill (Capella Alzueta et al., 2001). Calves locations, but it does not pose a threat fishery, but harvest levels are currently comprise over half of all observed to this population now or in the small and there is no evidence that this entanglement events, a disproportionate foreseeable future. threatens the food supply of humpback value in light of the calf to adult ratio HABs of dinoflagellates and diatoms whales (Everson and Goss, 1991; Nicol in the DPS (Engel et al., 2006; Neto et exist within the feeding range of this et al., 2008). al., 2008). Aquaculture activities are high in DPS, but there have been no records of Humpback whales in the Southern humpback whale deaths as a result of waters of Argentina and Chile, but the impact of these activities on this DPS of Hemisphere feed almost entirely on krill exposure in this area. The occurrence of (Euphausia superba) and acidification HABs is expected to increase with humpback whales has not been of the marine environment has been increased run-off and nutrient input documented and is likely low if few documented to impact the physiology from human-related activities; however, whales use these inland areas. and development of krill and other HABs do not pose a threat to this DPS Entanglement was determined to pose a now or in the foreseeable future. medium threat to this DPS based on calcareous marine organisms, stranding and entanglement potentially reducing their abundance B. Overutilization for Commercial, observations and spatial and temporal and subsequent availability to Recreational, Scientific, or Educational overlap with aquaculture activities. humpback whales in the future. The life Purposes This DPS is likely exposed to cycle of Euphausia superba is tied to sea Whale-watching tourism and relatively high levels of underwater ice, making this prey species vulnerable scientific research occur, at relatively noise resulting from human activities, to warming effects from climate change. low levels, throughout this DPS’ range. including commercial and recreational Decreases in krill abundance have been Whale-watching tourism occurs along vessel traffic, and activities in naval test observed around the Antarctic all of the South and Central American ranges, and these levels are expected to Peninsula (Atkinson et al., 2004). countries bordering the habitat of this increase. Especially high levels of large Overall population level effects from DPS. Whale-watching industry growth vessel traffic are found off Panama (over global climate change and 12,000 ship transits annually) and in the has been significant and approximately anthropogenic noise are not known and Magellan Straits. Naval exercises occur half of these countries have whale- the threat was ranked low, based on the around much of the South American watching guidelines in place (Hoyt and premise that krill would need to be Inı´guez, 2008). Though some change in coast annually. It is not known if underwater noise exposure affects substantially reduced in order to put behavior of whales near tourism boats humpback whales at risk of extinction. has been noted, whale-watching does humpback whale populations, but this As discussed above under Section not pose a threat to this DPS currently. does not currently appear to pose a 4(a)(1) Factors Applicable to All DPSs, Scientific research activities such as significant threat to this DPS. observation, biopsying, photographic No ships have reported striking the BRT did not think the linkage studies and recording of underwater humpback whales in this region, but between climate change and future krill vocalizations of whales occur in both incidents may be under-reported, and production was sufficiently well the breeding and feeding habitats and stranding reports indicate some understood to rate it as moderate or high along this DPS’ migratory route, though contribution from vessel collisions risk. Nonetheless, any potential impacts no adverse effects from these events (Capella Alzueta et al., 2001; Castro et resulting from these threats will almost have been recorded. al., 2008). Shipping traffic will probably certainly increase. No whaling occurs in this DPS’ range. increase as global commerce increases; In summary, fishing gear thus, a reasonable assumption is that the entanglements are likely to moderately C. Disease or Predation level of vessel collisions will increase. reduce the population size or the growth There is little information available Currently, ship strikes are considered a rate of the Southeastern Pacific DPS, on the impacts of disease or parasitism low level threat to this DPS. on this DPS. Entanglement in fishing gear poses and all other threats are considered Predation does not appear to be a the most significant risk to this DPS. likely to have no or minor impact on current threat to this DPS. Killer whale The majority of entanglements involve population size and/or the growth rate attacks on humpback whales have been gillnets and purse seines (Fe´lix et al., or are unknown for the Southeastern observed in this region, and scarring 1997; Capella Alzueta et al., 2001; Alava Pacific DPS. from killer whale and potentially false et al., 2005; Castro et al., 2008). The killer whale and shark attacks has been artisanal fishing fleet in Ecuador documented from photographic numbers over 15,000 vessels. Scarring

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22346 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Arabian Sea DPS spills in shipping lanes from tankers entanglements in the Arabian Sea is also contribute to pollution along the considered high and increasing. A. The Present or Threatened coast (e.g., Shriadah, 1999). Tattoo skin The threat posed by climate change to Destruction, Modification, or lesions were observed in 26 percent of the Arabian Sea DPS of the humpback Curtailment of its Habitat or Range photo-identified whales from Oman whale was determined to be slightly The BRT determined that the threat (Baldwin et al., 2010). While not higher than to the other DPSs and was posed by energy exploration to the thought to be a common cause of adult assigned medium threat level. This Arabian Sea DPS should be classified as mortality, it has been suggested that higher threat level is based on the more high, given the small population size tattoo skin disease may differentially limited movement of this DPS that both and the present levels of energy activity. kill neonates and calves that have not breeds and feeds in the Arabian Sea. A catastrophic event similar to that of yet gained immunity (Van Bressem et Changing climatic conditions may the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the al., 2009). The authors also suggested change the monsoon-driven upwelling Gulf of Mexico could be devastating to that this disease may be more prevalent that creates seasonal productivity in the this DPS, especially in light of the year- in marine mammal populations that region. While Northern Hemisphere round presence of humpback whales in experience chronic stress and/or are individuals may be able to adapt to this area. exposed to pollutants that suppress the climatic changes by moving farther The effect of pollutants on cetaceans immune system. north, Arabian Sea individuals have less is a concern in the region, as the flexibility for expanding their range to Arabian Sea is a center of intense D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory cooler regions. human activity with poor sea Mechanisms Evidence that this DPS has undergone circulation, so pollutants can persist for No regulatory mechanisms specific to a recent genetic bottleneck and is long periods (Minton, 2004). Since the the Arabian Sea DPS were identified. currently at low abundance (Minton et 1970s, the coastal and marine al., 2010b) suggests that there may be an infrastructure in Oman has developed at E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors additional risk of impacts from a rapid rate, with over 80 percent of the Affecting Its Continued Existence increased inbreeding (which may population now living within 13 miles The primary prey of humpback reduce genetic fitness and increase from the coast, and expanding whales in Oman (Sardinella sp.) is also susceptibility to disease). At low development of oil and gas resources consumed by tuna and other densities, populations are more likely to and fishing fleets (Minton, 2004). The commercial pelagic fish targeted by suffer from the ‘‘Allee’’ effect, where threats from coastal development and gillnet fisheries, but the severity of the inbreeding and the heightened difficulty contaminants are ranked low but threat of competition with fisheries is of finding mates reduces the population increasing. unknown. growth rate in proportion with reducing density. B. Overutilization for Commercial, The BRT did not have information In summary, the Arabian Sea DPS Recreational, Scientific, or Educational about offshore aquaculture activities in faces unique threats, given that the Purposes the Arabian Sea. whales do not migrate, but instead feed Humpback whales in the Arabian Sea This humpback whale DPS is exposed and breed in the same, relatively are exposed to a high level of vessel to minimal scientific research and constrained geographic location. Energy traffic (Baldwin, 2000; Minton, 2004; whale-watching activities. The adverse exploration and fishing gear Kaluza et al., 2010), so the threat of ship effects from these activities have not entanglements are considered likely to strikes was considered medium for this been identified, and overall impact is seriously reduce the population’s size small DPS. expected to be low and stable. and/or growth rate, and disease, vessel No commercial whaling occurs in this This DPS is likely exposed to collisions, and climate change are likely DPS’ range, although 238 humpback relatively high levels of underwater to moderately reduce the population’s whales were illegally killed in the noise resulting from human activities, size or growth rate. including, for example, commercial and Arabian Sea by the USSR in 1966 Ongoing Conservation Efforts (Mikhalev, 1997). recreational vessel traffic, and activities related to oil and gas exploration and When considering the listing, C. Disease or Predation development. Overall population-level reclassification, or delisting of a species, Liver damage was detected in 68.5 effects of exposure to underwater noise section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us percent of necropsied humpback whales are not well-established, but exposure is to consider efforts by any State, foreign in this area during Soviet whaling in likely chronic and at moderate levels. nation, or political subdivision of a 1966, with degeneration of peripheral As vessel traffic and other activities are State or foreign nation to protect the liver sections, cone-shaped growths up expected to increase, the level of this species. Such efforts would include to 20 cm in diameter and blocked bile threat is expected to increase. measures by Native American tribes and ducts (Mikhalev, 1997). While this There is high fishing pressure in areas organizations, local governments, and pathology was consistent with infection off Oman where humpback whales are private organizations. Also, Federal, by trematode parasites, none were sighted. Eight live humpback whale tribal, state, and foreign recovery actions identified during necropsy, and the entanglement incidents were (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)), and Federal causes of this liver damage remain documented between 1990 and 2000, consultation requirements (16 U.S.C. unknown. involving bottom set gillnets often with 1536) constitute conservation measures. Poisonous algal blooms and biotoxins weights still attached and anchoring the We must evaluate any conservation have been implicated in some mass fish, whales to the ocean floor (Minton, efforts that have not yet been turtle, and possibly cetacean, mortality 2004). Minton et al. (2010b) examined implemented or have not yet been events on the Oman coast, although no peduncle photographs of humpback shown to be effective under the joint events have yet been known to include whales in the Arabian Sea and NMFS/FWS Policy on the Evaluation of humpback whales. Coastal run-off from concluded that at least 33 percent had Conservation Efforts (PECE) (68 FR industrial activities is likely to be been entangled in fishing gear at some 15100; March 28, 2003). For these increasing rapidly, while regular oil stage. The threat of fishing gear efforts, we must evaluate the certainty of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22347

implementing the conservation efforts possession of and internal trade in these evaluate the effectiveness of this plan and the certainty that the conservation animals alive or dead (Council of under the PECE, but since the impact of efforts will be effective on the basis of Europe’s Bern Convention, 2013). whale-watching on all of the humpback whether the effort or plan establishes The provisions of the Council of the whale DPSs is considered to be specific conservation objectives, European Union (EU) Directive 92/43 on negligible, even if this plan proves to be identifies the necessary steps to reduce the Conservation of Natural Habitats extremely effective in reducing impacts threats or factors for decline, includes and of Wild Fauna and Flora (EU of whale-watching on humpback quantifiable performance measures for Habitats Directive) are intended to whales, we would not likely conclude the monitoring of compliance and promote the conservation of biodiversity that this plan would make the difference effectiveness, incorporates the in EU member countries. EU members between endangered and threatened principles of adaptive management, and meet the habitat conservation status or between threatened and not is likely to improve the species’ viability requirements of the network known as warranted status for any of the at the time of the listing determination. Natura 2000. Humpback whales are humpback whale DPSs. The Convention on the Conservation listed in Annex IV of the convention, At this time, we are not aware of any of Migratory Species of Wild Animals which identifies species determined to other formalized conservation efforts for (CMS) is an intergovernmental treaty be in need of strict protection across the humpback whales that have yet to be which requires range states to protect European region. Twenty-seven member implemented, or which have recently migratory species including humpback states work with the same legislative been implemented but have yet to show whales where they occur, conserve or framework to protect species. Actions their effectiveness in removing threats restore habitats, mitigate obstacles to originating from the EU Habitats to the species. Therefore, we do not migration, and control other Directive that may provide protection to need to evaluate any other conservation endangering factors. The humpback humpback whales in the region include efforts under the PECE. whale is listed in Appendix I of the (a) coordinated development of a Rationale for Revising the Current CMS (species in danger of extinction European Red List of species threatened Global Listing and Replacing It With throughout all or a significant portion of at the European level (parallel with the Listings of DPSs their range). Parties to CMS are required IUCN listings); (b) guidance documents to prohibit take of Appendix I species. on the protection of species listed under As explained throughout this The CMS has developed binding the Directive, and on the development proposed rule, we have determined that, Agreements and nonbinding of a network of conservation areas in the based on the best currently available Memoranda of Understanding (MOU). offshore marine environment and (c) scientific and commercial information An MOU for the Conservation of species assessment reports. While not including the BRT’s recommendations Cetaceans and their Habitats in the regulatory in nature, these actions are and consideration of the uncertainty Pacific Islands Regions became effective designed to reduce threats and provide involved in its recommendation to in 2006 and offers a level of protection a conservation benefit to the Atlantic identify the Okinawa/Philippines and to the Southern Hemisphere humpback whales. Second West Pacific populations as populations of humpback whales and The Commission for the Conservation separate DPSs, the humpback whale their habitats in this region. The CMS of Antarctic Marine Living Resources should be recognized under the ESA as Agreements on the Conservation of (a) (CCAMLR) was established in 1982 with a set of 14 separate DPSs. Based on a Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North 25 member countries. Its objective is the comprehensive status review and our East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas conservation of Antarctic marine life, analysis of demographic factors and the (29.03.1994) and (b) Cetaceans of the particularly krill and the Antarctic Section 4(a)(1) factors, we have Black Seas, Mediterranean and marine ecosystems that depend on krill. concluded that some of the DPSs qualify Contiguous Atlantic Area are not The Commission manages fisheries for as endangered species, some qualify as designed specifically for the humpback Antarctic krill and several finfish threatened species, and some do not whale but may provide incidental species with the goal of ensuring long- qualify for listing. Our proposed action protection to the species. term sustainability and existing here is prompted both by our own The Bern Convention on the ecological relationships. review, begun in 2009, and the two Conservation of European Wildlife and Numerous additional international or delisting petitions we received. Habitats is a regional European treaty on regional treaties, conventions and Our proposed determinations are conservation of wild flora and fauna and agreements offer some degree of based on the best available scientific their natural habitats and calls for protection for humpback whales and and commercial information pertaining signatories to provide special protection their habitat (reviewed by Hoyt, 2011). to the species throughout its range and for fauna species listed in Appendix II In addition to IWC regulations within each DPS. In this proposed rule, and III to the convention. The discussed above under the Section we are identifying 14 DPSs, making convention is a binding agreement for 4(a)(1) factors, the IWC co-ordinates and listing determinations for each of these participating parties, and its aim is to funds conservation work on many DPSs, and proposing to revise the ensure conservation by means of species of cetaceans. This includes work current listing to reflect the new cooperation, including efforts to protect to reduce the frequency of ship strikes, determinations. We find that the migratory species. The Parties promote to co-ordinate disentanglement events, purposes of the ESA would be furthered national policies and education for the and to establish Conservation by managing this wide-ranging species conservation of nature and the Management Plans for key species and as separate units under the DPS integration of conservation into populations. Recently, the IWC has authority, in order to tailor protections environmental policies. The humpback adopted a Strategic Plan for Whale of the ESA to those populations that whale is listed in Appendix II—fauna Watching so as to facilitate the further warrant protection. Based on a review of species to be strictly protected—which development of this activity in a way the demographics of these DPSs and the prohibits deliberate capture and killing, which is responsible and consistent five factors contained in ESA section damage to or destruction of breeding with international best practice (http:// 4(a)(1), we find that the best available sites, deliberate disturbance of animals iwc.int/history-and-purpose, accessed science no longer supports a finding during breeding and rearing, and the February 10, 2014). It is too early to that the species is an ‘‘endangered

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22348 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

species’’ throughout its range. We Neither the ESA nor our regulations After we consider public comment, if propose to revise the listing for the explicitly prescribe the process we we publish a final rule that has the humpback whale by removing the should follow where the best available effect of removing specified DPSs from current species-wide listing and in its scientific and commercial information the endangered species list, we will place listing 2 DPSs as threatened and indicates that the listing of a taxonomic continue to monitor the status of the 2 as endangered. Ten DPSs are not being species should be updated and revised entire range of the humpback whale. For proposed for listing because their into listings of constituent DPSs. To the any DPSs that are listed, monitoring is current status does not warrant listing. extent it may be said that the statute is as a matter of course, pursuant to the Since these DPSs are not currently listed ambiguous as to precisely how the obligation to periodically review the as separate entities, we are proposing to updated listings should replace the status of these species (ESA Section replace the existing listing of the species original listing in such circumstances, 4(c)(2)). In addition, we will undertake with separate listings for those DPSs we provide our interpretation of the monitoring of any DPSs that are not that warrant classification as threatened statutory scheme. The purposes of the listed as a result of their improved or endangered, rather than ‘‘delisting’’ statute are furthered in certain status (ESA Section 4(g)). those DPSs that do not warrant such situations where the agency has Conclusions on the Status of Each DPS classification under our regulations (50 determined that it is appropriate to Under the ESA CFR 424.11(d)). However, the effect of revise a rangewide listing in order to our proposed action, if finalized, will be ensure that the current lists of Based on the BRT’s DPS conclusions that the protections of the ESA will no endangered and threatened species (with the exception that we combined longer apply to these 10 DPSs. We note comport with the best available the Okinawa/Philippines and Second that we have previously reclassified a scientific and commercial information. West Pacific populations identified by species into constituent populations and For example, updating a listing may the BRT into the Western North Pacific revised the listing to remove one further the statute’s purpose of DPS), the BRT’s assessment of the population from the list or assign recognizing when the status of a listed demographic and ESA section 4(a)(1) different statuses to the different species has improved to the point that factors, and our evaluation of ongoing populations (e.g., identifying western fewer protections are needed under the conservation efforts, we make the and eastern populations of the gray ESA, allowing for appropriately tailored following listing determinations. whale and removing the eastern one management for the populations that do Endangered DPSs from the endangered species list (59 FR not warrant listing and for those We conclude that 2 humpback whale 31094; June 16, 1994); identifying remaining populations that do. Where a DPSs are in danger of extinction western and eastern DPSs of the Steller species, subspecies, or DPS no longer throughout their ranges: The Cape Verde sea lion, which had been listed as needs protection of the ESA, removing Islands/Northwest Africa DPS and the threatened, and listing the western DPS those protections may free resources Arabian Sea DPS. as endangered (62 FR 24345; May 5, that can be devoted to the protection of Little is known about the total size of 1997)). other species. Conversely, the Cape Verde Islands/Northwest The ESA gives us authority to make disaggregating a listing into DPSs can Africa DPS, and its trend is unknown. these listing determinations and to also sometimes lead to greater For the Cape Verde Islands/Northwest revise the lists of endangered and protections if one or more constituent Africa DPS, the threats of HABs, threatened species to reflect these DPSs qualify for reclassification to disease, parasites, vessel collisions, determinations. Section 4(a)(1) of the endangered. fishing gear entanglements and climate ESA authorizes us to determine by There is no practicable alternative to change are unknown. All other threats regulation whether ‘‘any species,’’ simultaneously recognizing the newly to this DPS are considered likely to have which is expressly defined to include identified DPSs and proposing to assign no or minor impact on the population species, subspecies, and DPSs, is them the various statuses of threatened, size and/or growth rate. The BRT endangered or threatened based on endangered, or not warranted for listing distributed 32 percent of its likelihood certain factors. Review of the status of to replace the original taxonomic points for this DPS to the ‘‘high risk of a species may be commenced at any species listing. It would be nonsensical extinction’’ category, 43 percent to the time, either on our own initiative and contrary to the statute’s purposes ‘‘moderate risk of extinction’’ category, through a status review or in connection and the best available science and 25 percent to the ‘‘not at risk of with a 5-year review under Section requirement to attempt to first extinction’’ category. We have no reason 4(c)(2), or in response to a petition. A separately list all the constituent DPSs; to believe that this DPS’ status has DPS is not a scientifically recognized the best available scientific and improved since humpback whales entity, but rather one that is created commercial information would not within the range of this DPS were listed under the language of the ESA and support listing all of the DPSs now in as endangered. Because of the high effectuated through our 1996 DPS order to delist some of them likelihood that the abundance of this Policy. We have some discretion to subsequently. Nor would it make sense DPS is low and the considerable determine whether a species should be to attempt to first ‘‘delist’’ the species- uncertainty regarding the risks of reclassified into DPSs and what level listing in order to then list some extinction of this DPS due to a general boundaries should be recognized for of the constituent DPSs. Where multiple lack of data, we propose to retain the each DPS. At the conclusion of the DPSs qualify for listing as endangered or Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa listing review process, Section 4(c)(1) threatened, it would inherently thwart DPS on the list of endangered species at gives us authority to update the lists of the statute’s purposes to remove 50 CFR 224.101. endangered species and threatened protections of the ESA from all members The estimated abundance of the species to conform to our most recent of the species even temporarily. The Arabian Sea DPS is less than 100, but its determinations. This can include approach we are proposing ensures a entire range was not surveyed, so it revising the lists to remove a species smooth transition from the current could be somewhat larger. Its trend is from the lists or reclassifying the listed taxonomic species listing to the future unknown. The Arabian Sea DPS faces entity. listing of certain specified DPSs. unique threats, given that the whales do

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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 for both portions of the Western North Madagascar, West Australia, East in the same, relatively constrained Pacific DPS. Given the relatively low Australia, Oceania, and Southeastern geographic location. Energy exploration population size of the Western North Pacific DPSs. When the BRT first and fishing gear entanglements are Pacific DPS (estimated to be less than reached its conclusions regarding considered likely to seriously reduce the 2,000), the moderate reduction of its whether any portions of the ranges of population’s size and/or growth rate, population size or growth rate likely these DPSs were significant, NMFS and and disease, vessel collisions and from energy development, whaling, the FWS had not yet finalized the climate change are likely to moderately competition with fisheries, and vessel SPOIR policy. The draft SPOIR policy reduce the population’s size or growth collisions, the serious reduction of its that the BRT followed differed from the rate. The BRT distributed 87 percent of population size or growth rate likely final SPOIR policy in that a portion of its likelihood points for the Arabian Sea from fishing gear entanglements, the fact the range of a species was considered DPS in the ‘‘at high risk of extinction’’ that the majority of the BRT’s likelihood ‘‘significant’’ if the portion’s category. We agree with the BRT that points were in the ‘‘moderate risk of contribution to the viability of the the Arabian Sea DPS is at a high risk of extinction’’ category for both portions of species was so important that, without extinction, and therefore, we propose to the DPS, and the considerable that portion, the species would be in retain the Arabian Sea DPS on the list uncertainty associated with this, we danger of extinction throughout all of its of endangered species at 50 CFR propose to add the Western North range. The difference between the draft 224.101. Pacific DPS to the list of threatened and final policies is the threshold at species at 50 CFR 223.102. Threatened DPSs which we determine whether a portion The abundance of the Central is significant. Under the final SPOIR We conclude that 2 other DPSs are America DPS is thought to be about 500 policy the hypothetical loss of the likely to become in danger of extinction individuals with unknown trend. All portion being considered would only in the foreseeable future throughout threats are considered likely to have no need to result in the species being their ranges: The Western North Pacific or minor impact on population size and/ threatened throughout its range instead DPS and the Central America DPS. As or the growth rate or are unknown, with of endangered throughout its range to be noted above, in making this the following exceptions: Vessel considered significant. Before finalizing determination, we applied the same 60- collisions and fishing gear its report, the BRT was provided with a year timeframe as the BRT assumed for entanglements are considered likely to draft of the final SPOIR policy, which the foreseeable future. moderately reduce the population size included this lower threshold of The abundance of the Western North or the growth rate of the Central ’’threatened’’ for determining whether a Pacific DPS is thought to be about 1,100 America DPS. The BRT distributed 28 portion is significant. Based on the individuals or more, with unknown percent of its likelihood points for the trend. All threats are considered likely revised SPOIR policy, the BRT revisited Central America DPS in the ‘‘high risk its SPOIR determinations and to have no or minor impact on of extinction’’ category, 56 percent in population size and/or the growth rate concluded for all DPSs that were at low the ‘‘moderate risk of extinction’’ or no risk of extinction, ‘‘The or are unknown, with the following category, and 16 percent in the ‘‘not at exceptions: Energy development, ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ risk of extinction’’ category, but the analyses under the final policy would whaling, competition with fisheries, and distribution of votes among the risk vessel collisions are considered likely to not have resulted in different categories indicates uncertainty. Given conclusions from the analyses moderately reduce the population size the relatively low population size conducted under the draft policy.’’ or the growth rate of the Okinawa/ (estimated to be about 500), the Philippines portion of this DPS. Fishing moderate reduction of its population In the North Atlantic, the abundance gear entanglements are considered size or growth rate likely from vessel of the West Indies DPS is much greater likely to seriously reduce the population collisions and fishing gear than 2,000 individuals and is increasing size or the growth rate of the Okinawa/ entanglement, the fact that the majority moderately. The threats of HABs, vessel Philippines portion of this DPS. In of the BRT’s likelihood points were in collisions, and fishing gear general, there is great uncertainty about the ‘‘moderate risk of extinction’’ entanglements are likely to moderately the threats facing the Second West category, and the high uncertainty reduce the population size and/or the Pacific portion of this DPS. The BRT associated with this, we propose to add growth rate of the West Indies DPS. All distributed 36 percent of its likelihood the Central America DPS to the list of other threats, with the exception of points for the Okinawa/Philippines threatened species at 50 CFR 223.102. climate change (unknown severity), are portion of the DPS in the ‘‘high risk of Pursuant to the second sentence of considered likely to have no or minor extinction’’ category and 44 percent in section 4(d) of the ESA, we propose to impact on population size or the growth the ‘‘moderate risk of extinction’’ extend the prohibitions of Section rate of this DPS. The BRT distributed 82 category, with only 21 percent of the 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) of the ESA percent of its likelihood points for the points in the ‘‘not at risk of extinction’’ (16 U.S.C. 1538) relating to endangered West Indies DPS to the ‘‘not at risk of category. The distribution of likelihood species to the Western North Pacific and extinction’’ category and 17 percent to points among the risk categories Central America DPSs of the humpback the ‘‘moderate risk of extinction’’ indicates uncertainty. There was also whale. category. Given the large population considerable uncertainty regarding the size (>2,000), moderately increasing risk of extinction of the Second West DPSs Not Warranted for Listing Under trend, and the high percentage of Pacific portion of this DPS, with 14 the ESA likelihood points allocated to the ‘‘not at percent of the points in the ‘‘high risk Finally, we conclude that 10 DPSs are risk of extinction’’ category, we of extinction’’ category, 47 percent in neither in danger of extinction conclude that, despite the moderate the ‘‘moderate risk of extinction’’ throughout all or a significant portion of threats of HABs, vessel collisions, and category, and 39 percent in the ‘‘not at their ranges nor likely to become so in fishing gear entanglements and risk of extinction’’ category. The the foreseeable future: West Indies, unknown severity of climate change as majority of likelihood points were in the Hawaii, Mexico, Brazil, Gabon/ a threat, the West Indies DPS is not in ‘‘moderate risk of extinction’’ category Southwest Africa, Southeast Africa/ danger of extinction throughout its

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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 identify portions of the DPS that both to the ‘‘not at risk of extinction’’ foreseeable future throughout its range. faced particularly high threats and were category, indicating moderate certainty, Next, per the SPOIR Policy, we need so significant to the viability of the DPS and 29 percent of its points to the to determine whether the West Indies as a whole that, if lost, would result in ‘‘moderate risk of extinction’’ category, DPS is in danger of extinction or likely the remainder of the DPS being at high indicating some support. None of the to become so in the foreseeable future in risk of extinction. The BRT noted that factors that may negatively impact the a significant portion of its range. The there also are some regional differences status of the humpback whale appear to BRT noted that there are some regional in threats for the Mexico DPS, and some pose a threat to recovery, either alone or differences in threats for the West Indies evidence for minor substructure within cumulatively, for these DPSs. Given the DPS, but it was unable to identify the DPS due to multiple breeding large population sizes (>2,000) for all portions of the DPS that both faced locations associated with somewhat seven DPSs, the fact that none of these particularly high threats and were so distinctive feeding grounds. However, DPSs is known to be decreasing in significant to the viability of the DPS as the BRT was unable to identify portions population size and some are a whole that, if lost, would result in the of the DPS that faced particularly high increasing, the high percentage of (or, in remainder of the DPS being at high risk threats compared to other portions of the case of the Oceania DPS, the of extinction. We agree with the BRT’s the DPS or that appeared to be at high majority of) likelihood points allocated conclusions and conclude that there are risk of extirpation. We agree, and we to the ‘‘not at risk of extinction’’ no portions of the DPS that face conclude that no portions of either DPS category, and the high certainty particularly high threats and are so face particularly high threats and are so associated with six of these extinction significant to the viability of the DPS significant to the viability of the DPS risk estimates and moderate certainty that, if lost, the DPS would be in danger that, if lost, the DPSs would be in associated with the extinction risk of extinction or likely to become so in danger of extinction, or likely to become estimate for the Oceania DPS, we the foreseeable future. Therefore, we so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, conclude that none of these seven DPSs conclude that the DPS is not in danger we conclude that neither DPS is in are at risk of extinction throughout all of extinction in a significant portion of danger of extinction in a significant of their ranges now or in the foreseeable its range, nor likely to become so in the portion of its range, or likely to become future. foreseeable future. so in the foreseeable future. Next, per the SPOIR Policy, we need We conclude that the West Indies DPS We conclude that the Hawaii and to determine whether any of these DPSs is not endangered or threatened Mexico DPSs are not endangered or are in danger of extinction or likely to throughout all or a significant portion of threatened throughout all or a become so in the foreseeable future in its range, and, therefore, we do not significant portion of their ranges, and a significant portion of their ranges. The propose to list the West Indies DPS as we therefore do not propose to list the BRT was unable to identify portions of a threatened or endangered species. Hawaii and Mexico DPSs as a the Brazil, Southeast Africa/Madagascar, In the North Pacific, the abundances threatened or endangered species. West Australia, East Australia, and of the Hawaii and Mexico DPSs are In the Southern Hemisphere, all seven Southeastern Pacific DPSs that both much greater than 2,000 individuals and DPSs are thought to be greater than faced particularly high threats and were are thought to be increasing moderately. 2,000 individuals in population size. so significant to the viability of the DPSs All threats are considered likely to have The Brazil DPS is increasing either as a whole that, if lost, would result in no or minor impact on population size rapidly or moderately. The trend of the the remainder of the DPSs being at high and/or the growth rate of these two Gabon/Southwest Africa DPS is risk of extinction. We agree, and we also DPSs or are unknown, with the unknown. The trend of the Southeast conclude that no portions of these DPSs following exceptions: Fishing gear Africa/Madagascar DPS is thought to face particularly high threats and are so entanglements are considered likely to either be increasing or stable. The trend significant to the viability of the DPSs moderately reduce the population size of the Oceania DPS is unknown. The that, if lost, any DPS would be in danger or the growth rate of the Hawaii and West Australia and East Australia DPSs of extinction, or likely to become so in Mexico DPSs. The BRT distributed 98 are both large and increasing rapidly. the foreseeable future. Therefore, we percent and 92 percent of its likelihood The Southeastern Pacific DPS is thought conclude that the Brazil, Southeast points for the Hawaii and Mexico DPSs, to either be increasing or stable. In the Africa/Madagascar, West Australia, East respectively, to the ‘‘not at risk of Southern Hemisphere, all threats are Australia, and Southeastern Pacific extinction’’ category. Given the large considered likely to have no or minor DPSs are not threatened or endangered population size (>2,000), moderately impact on population size and/or the in a significant portion of their ranges. increasing trend, and high percentage of growth rate or are unknown, with the The BRT concluded that there was likelihood points allocated to the ‘‘not at exception of energy exploration posing some evidence for population risk of extinction’’ category for both the a moderate threat to the West Australia substructure within the Gabon/ Hawaii and Mexico DPSs, we conclude and Gabon/Southwest Africa DPSs, and Southwest Africa DPS, based on an that, despite the moderate threat of fishing gear entanglements posing a extensive breeding range with some fishing gear entanglements, the Hawaii moderate threat to the Southeastern significant genetic differentiation among and Mexico DPSs are not in danger of Pacific, Southeast Africa/Madagascar, breeding locations (Rosenbaum et al., extinction throughout their ranges or and Oceania DPSs. The BRT distributed 2009). However, the BRT was unable to likely to become so in the foreseeable at least 93 percent of their likelihood identify any portions of the DPS that future. points to the ‘‘not at risk of extinction’’ both faced particularly high threats and Next, per the SPOIR Policy, we need category for six DPSs in the Southern were so significant to the viability of the to determine whether the Hawaii and Hemisphere (Brazil, Gabon/Southwest DPS as a whole that, if lost, would result Mexico DPSs are in danger of extinction Africa, and Southeast Africa/ in the remainder of the DPS being at or likely to become so in the foreseeable Madagascar, West Australia, East high risk of extinction. We agree, and future in a significant portion of their Australia, and Southeastern Pacific we also conclude that no portions of ranges. The BRT noted that there are DPSs), thus indicating a high certainty this DPS face particularly high threats some regional differences in threats for in its voting. For the Oceania DPS, the and are so significant to the viability of the Hawaii DPS, but it was unable to BRT distributed 68 percent of its points the DPS that, if lost, the DPS would be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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 review of proposed projects to reduce or likely to jeopardize the continued become so in the foreseeable future. prevent adverse effects to humpback existence of a listed species or a species Therefore, we conclude that the Gabon/ whales and for post-project monitoring proposed for listing, or to adversely Southwest Africa DPS is not threatened to ensure protection to humpback modify critical habitat or proposed or endangered in a significant portion of whales, as well as penalties for violation critical habitat. If a Federal action may its range. of the prohibition on unauthorized take affect a listed species or its critical The BRT noted that the Oceania DPS under the MMPA for all DPSs that occur habitat, the responsible Federal agency has potentially somewhat greater in U.S. waters or by U.S. persons or must enter into consultation with us. substructure than most other humpback vessels on the high seas. However, the Examples of Federal actions that may whale DPSs due to its extended addition and implementation of specific affect the Cape Verde Islands/Northwest breeding range, though a lack of strong Monitoring Plans will provide an Africa, Western North Pacific, and genetic structure indicates there are additional degree of attention and an Central America DPSs of the humpback likely to be considerable demographic early warning system to ensure that whale include permits and connections among these areas. Some constructively removing these ten DPSs authorizations for shipping, fisheries, threats, such as whale watching in the from the endangered species list will oil and gas exploration, and toxic waste Southern Lagoon of New Caledonia, not result in the re-emergence of threats and other pollutant discharges, if they appear to be localized. Nonetheless, the to the DPSs. occur in U.S. waters or the high seas. BRT was unable to identify any specific Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the areas where threats were sufficiently Description of Proposed Regulatory ESA provide us with authority to grant severe to be likely to cause local Changes exceptions to the ESA’s section 9 ‘‘take’’ extirpation. We agree, and we also To implement this proposed action prohibitions. Section 10(a)(1)(A) conclude that no portion of this DPS we propose to replace the humpback scientific research and enhancement faces particularly high threats and is so whale listing on the endangered species permits may be issued to entities significant to the viability of the DPS list at 50 CFR 224.101 with the Cape (Federal and non-Federal) for scientific that, if lost, the DPS would be in danger Verde Islands/Northwest Africa and purposes or to enhance the propagation of extinction, or likely to become so in Arabian Sea DPSs of the humpback or survival of a listed species. The type the foreseeable future. Therefore, we whale and add the Western North of activities potentially requiring a conclude that the Oceania DPS is not Pacific and Central America DPSs of the section 10(a)(1)(A) research/ threatened or endangered in a humpback whale to the list of enhancement permit include scientific significant portion of its range. threatened species at 50 CFR 223.102. research that targets humpback whales, We conclude that none of the seven Prohibitions and Protective Measures including the importation of non-U.S. DPSs in the Southern Hemisphere are samples for research conducted in the endangered or threatened throughout all Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain United States. Section 10(a)(1)(B) or a significant portion of their ranges, activities that directly or indirectly incidental take permits are required for and we therefore do not propose to list affect endangered species. These non-Federal activities that may the Brazil, Gabon/Southwest Africa, prohibitions apply to all individuals, incidentally take a listed species in the Southeast Africa/Madagascar, West organizations and agencies subject to course of an otherwise lawful activity. Australia, East Australia, Oceania, and U.S. jurisdiction. Section 4(d) of the Southeastern Pacific DPSs as ESA directs the Secretary of Commerce Identification of Those Activities That endangered or threatened species. (Secretary) to implement regulations ‘‘to Would Constitute a Violation of Section provide for the conservation of 9 of the ESA Monitoring Plan [threatened] species’’ that may include On July 1, 1994, NMFS and the FWS We will work with the states and extending any or all of the prohibitions issued an Interagency Cooperative countries within the range of the ten of section 9 to threatened species. Policy for Endangered Species Act DPSs that we do not propose for listing Section 9(a)(1)(g) also prohibits Section 9 Prohibitions (59 FR 34272). (which has the effect of removing them violations of protective regulations for The intent of this policy is to increase from the endangered species list) to threatened species implemented under public awareness of the effect of our develop a plan for continuing to section 4(d). We are proposing to extend ESA listing on proposed and ongoing monitor the status of these DPSs. The all of the prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) activities within the species’ range. We objective of the monitoring plan will be in protective regulations issued under will identify, to the extent known at the to ensure that necessary recovery the second sentence of section 4(d) for time of the final rule, specific activities actions remain in place and to ensure the Western North Pacific and Central that will be considered likely to result the absence of substantial new threats to America DPSs of the humpback whale. in violation of section 9, as well as the DPSs’ continued existence. In part No special findings are required to activities that will not be considered such monitoring efforts are already an support extending Section 9 likely to result in violation. Because the integral component of ongoing research, prohibitions for the protection of Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa existing stranding networks, and other threatened species. See In re Polar Bear and Arabian Sea DPSs occur outside of management and enforcement programs Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) the jurisdiction of the United States, we implemented under the MMPA. These Rule Litigation, 818 F.Supp.2d 214, 228 are presently unaware of any activities activities are conducted by NMFS in (D.D.C. 2011); Sweet Home Chapter of that could result in violation of section collaboration with other Federal and Cmties. for a Great Oregon v. Babbitt, 1 9 of the ESA for these DPSs; state agencies, the Western Pacific F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir.1993), modified on nevertheless, the possibility for Fishery Management Council, North other grounds on reh’g, 17 F.3d 1463 violations exists (for example, import Pacific Fishery Management Council, (D.C. Cir. 1994), rev’d on other grounds, into the United States). Activities that the New England Fishery Management 515 U.S. 687 (1995). we believe could result in violation of Council, university affiliates, and Sections 7(a)(2) and (4) of the ESA section 9 prohibitions against ‘‘take’’ of private research groups. As noted in require Federal agencies to consult or the Western North Pacific and Central Bettridge et al. (2015), many regulatory confer with us to ensure that activities America DPSs of the humpback whale avenues already in existence provide for they authorize, fund, or conduct are not include: (1) Unauthorized harvest or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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 The MMPA provides substantial in depleted status may occur. We seek Western North Pacific and Central protections to all marine mammals, comments from the public regarding America DPSs by U.S. citizens; (2) in- such as humpback whales, whether they different options for construing the water activities conducted by U.S. are listed under the ESA or not. In relevant provisions of these statutes in citizens that produce high levels of addition, the MMPA provides harmony and will consider all viable underwater noise, which may harass or heightened protections to marine alternatives (see ADDRESSES). injure humpback whales in the Western mammals designated as ‘‘depleted’’ This rule also has implications for the North Pacific and Central America (e.g., no take waiver, additional approach regulations currently at 50 DPSs; (3) U.S. fisheries that may result restrictions on the issuance of permits CFR 224.103(a) and (b), discussed in entanglement of humpback whales in for research, importation, and captive previously. With regard to the the Western North Pacific and Central maintenance), including humpback regulations in effect in Hawaii America DPSs; (4) vessel strikes from whales. Section 3(1) of the MMPA (224.103(a)), the delisting of the Hawaii U.S. ships operating in U.S. waters or on defines ‘‘depleted’’ as ‘‘any case in DPS, if finalized, would remove the ESA the high seas; and (5) discharging or which’’: (1) The Secretary ‘‘determines basis for promulgation of that rule. dumping toxic chemicals or other that a species or population stock is However, the substantially similar pollutants by U.S. citizens into areas below its optimum sustainable protections in effect within the used by humpback whales from the population’’; (2) a state to which Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Western North Pacific and Central authority has been delegated makes the National Marine Sanctuary, at 15 CFR America DPSs. same determination; or (3) a species or 922.184, may provide sufficient We expect, based on the best available stock ‘‘is listed as an endangered species protection for the species. We note that information, the following actions will or a threatened species under the the Office of National Marine not result in a violation of section 9: (1) [ESA]’’ (16 U.S.C. 1362(1)). Section Sanctuaries has recently proposed to, Federally funded or approved projects 115(a)(1) of the MMPA establishes that among other things, expand the for which ESA section 7 consultation ‘‘[i]n any action by the Secretary to sanctuary boundaries and strengthen the has been completed and necessary determine if a species or stock should be protections from approaching vessels mitigation developed, and that are designated as depleted, or should no (80 FR 16224, 16238; March 26, 2015). conducted in accordance with any terms longer be designated as depleted,’’ such We plan to propose, through separate and conditions we provide in an determination must be made by rule, rulemaking, to remove the approach incidental take statement accompanying after public notice and an opportunity regulations at § 224.103(a) because those a biological opinion; and (2) takes of for comment (16 U.S.C. 1383b(a)(1)). It regulations are specific to endangered humpback whales in the Western North is NMFS’ position that a marine species. If additional protection is Pacific and Central America DPSs that mammal species automatically gains determined necessary, we may have been authorized by NMFS ‘‘depleted’’ status under the MMPA undertake separate rulemaking pursuant pursuant to section 10 of the ESA. These when it is listed under the ESA. In the to the MMPA. We request public lists are not exhaustive. They are absence of an ESA listing, NMFS comment on this issue. With regard to the regulations in intended to provide some examples of follows the procedures described in effect in Alaska (224.103(b)), the the types of activities that we might or section 115(a)(1) to designate a marine impacts of this proposed rule are might not consider as constituting a take mammal species as depleted when the different. When the Alaska provisions of humpback whales in the Western basis for its depleted status is that it is North Pacific and Central America were adopted, we cited Section 112(a) of below its optimum sustainable DPSs. the MMPA in addition to Section 11(f) population. This interpretation was of the ESA as authority (16 U.S.C. Effects of This Rulemaking recently confirmed by the United States 1382(a); 16 U.S.C. 1540(f)). However, Conservation measures provided for Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. because the humpback whale was listed species listed as endangered or See In re Polar Bear Endangered Species throughout its range as endangered, the threatened under the ESA include Act Listing and Section 4(d) Rule rule was codified only in Part 224 of the recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); Litigation, 720 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2013). ESA regulations (which applies to concurrent designation of critical Humpback whales are currently ‘‘Endangered Marine and Anadromous habitat, if prudent and determinable (16 designated as ‘‘depleted’’ under the Species’’). The reclassification of the U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); Federal agency MMPA because of the species’ ESA Western North Pacific DPS to requirements to consult with NMFS listing. NMFS has not separately threatened, if finalized, would require under section 7 of the ESA to ensure determined that the humpback whale relocating the provisions from Part 224 their actions do not jeopardize the species is depleted on the basis that it to Part 223 (which applies to species or result in adverse modification is below its optimum sustainable ‘‘Threatened Marine and Anadromous or destruction of critical habitat should population. Species’’). By separate rulemaking, we it be designated (16 U.S.C. 1536); and NMFS is currently evaluating what plan to propose to relocate these prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538). result sections 3(1) and 115(a)(1) of the provisions to a new section, 223.214 in Recognition of the species’ plight MMPA require when a species that order to continue the protection of the through listing promotes conservation holds depleted status solely because of threatened humpback whales in Alaska, actions by Federal and state agencies, its ESA listing is found to no longer because these provisions have been in foreign entities, private groups, and warrant ESA listing. Thus, we are effect for 14 years and are important in individuals. The main effects of the currently reviewing whether any DPS of light of the potential impacts posed by proposed listings are prohibitions on the humpback whale that is not listed the whalewatching industry, take, including export and import. If under the ESA after a final rule is recreational boating community, and this proposed rule is finalized, the published would automatically lose other maritime users. We would provisions discussed above will no depleted status under the MMPA, or simultaneously delete current 50 CFR longer apply to the DPSs that are in whether the agency must undertake 224.103(b). In the separate rulemaking, effect removed from the endangered additional analysis and complete we also plan to propose to set out these species list. additional procedures before a change provisions in Part 216 of Title 50 of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22353

Code of Federal Regulations for the take into consideration the economic, features may require special protection of all humpback whales that national security, and other relevant management considerations or may occur or transit through the waters impacts of specifying any particular area protection, as well as the economic surrounding Alaska, to reflect that these as critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). activities within the range of the provisions were adopted under the Once critical habitat is designated, Western North Pacific and Central MMPA as well as the ESA and are an section 7 of the ESA requires Federal America DPSs that could be impacted important source of protection for these agencies to ensure that they do not fund, by critical habitat designation. 50 CFR marine mammals. We seek public authorize, or carry out any actions that 424.12(h) specifies that critical habitat comment on this issue as well. are likely to destroy or adversely modify shall not be designated within foreign that habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). This Peer Review countries or in other areas outside U.S. requirement is in addition to the section jurisdiction. Therefore, we request In December 2004, the Office of 7 requirement that Federal agencies information only on potential areas of Management and Budget (OMB) issued ensure their actions do not jeopardize critical habitat within the United States a Final Information Quality Bulletin for the continued existence of the species. or waters within U.S. jurisdiction. Peer Review establishing a minimum In determining what areas qualify as Because the known distribution of the peer review standard. The intent of the critical habitat, 50 CFR 424.12(b) humpback whales in the Cape Verde peer review policies is to ensure that requires that NMFS ‘‘consider those Islands/Northwest Africa and Arabian listings are based on the best scientific physical or biological features that are Sea DPSs occurs in areas outside the and commercial data available. The BRT essential to the conservation of a given jurisdiction of the United States, no enlisted the help of the Marine Mammal species including space for individual critical habitat will be designated for Commission (MMC) to coordinate and population growth and for normal these DPSs. scientific peer review of the June 2012 behavior; food, water, air, light, draft of its status review report. The minerals, or other nutritional or Public Comments Solicited MMC received comments from five physiological requirements; cover or Relying on the best scientific and reviewers and these reviews were shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, commercial information available, we provided, without attribution, to the and rearing of offspring; and habitats exercised our best professional BRT. The BRT addressed all peer review that are protected from disturbance or judgment in developing this proposal to comments in the final status review are representative of the historical divide the humpback whale into 14 report (Bettridge et al., 2015) being geographical and ecological distribution DPSs, retain the Cape Verde Islands/ released with the publication of this 12- of a species.’’ The regulations further Northwest Africa and Arabian Sea DPSs month finding/proposed rule. We direct NMFS to ‘‘focus on the principal on the list of endangered species at 50 conclude that these experts’ reviews biological or physical constituent CFR 224.101, add the Western North satisfy the requirements for ‘‘adequate elements . . . that are essential to the Pacific and Central America DPSs to the [prior] peer review’’ contained in the conservation of the species,’’ and list of threatened species and extend all Bulletin (sec. II.2.). specify that the ‘‘known primary section 9 prohibitions to these DPSs, Critical Habitat constituent elements shall be listed with and remove the other 10 DPSs (West the critical habitat description.’’ The Indies, Hawaii, Mexico, Brazil, Gabon/ Section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. regulations identify primary constituent 1532(5A)) defines critical habitat as ‘‘(i) Southwest Africa, Southeast Africa/ elements (PCEs) as including, but not Madagascar, West Australia, East the specific areas within the limited to: ‘‘roost sites, nesting grounds, Australia, Oceania, and Southeastern geographical area occupied by the spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal Pacific) from the endangered species list species, at the time it is listed . . . on wetland or dryland, water quality or at 50 CFR 224.101. To ensure that the which are found those physical or quantity, host species or plant final action resulting from this proposal biological features (I) essential to the pollinator, geological formation, will be as accurate and effective as conservation of the species and (II) vegetation type, tide, and specific soil possible, we solicit comments and which may require special management types.’’ considerations or protection; and (ii) The ESA directs the Secretary of suggestions concerning this proposed specific areas outside the geographical Commerce to consider the economic rule from the public, other concerned area occupied by the species at the time impact, the national security impacts, governments and agencies, Indian tribal it is listed . . . upon a determination by and any other relevant impacts from governments, Alaska Native tribal the Secretary that such areas are designating critical habitat, and under governments or organizations, the essential for the conservation of the section 4(b)(2), the Secretary may scientific community, industry, and any species.’’ Section 3 of the ESA also exclude any area from such designation other interested parties. Comments are defines the terms ‘‘conserve,’’ if the benefits of exclusion outweigh encouraged on this proposal as well as ‘‘conserving,’’ and ‘‘conservation’’ to those of inclusion, provided that the on the status review report (See DATES mean ‘‘to use and the use of all methods exclusion will not result in the and ADDRESSES). Comments are and procedures which are necessary to extinction of the species. At this time, particularly sought concerning: bring any endangered species or critical habitat for the humpback whales (1) The identification of 3 subspecies threatened species to the point at which in the Western North Pacific and Central of humpback whale comprised of 14 the measures provided pursuant to this America DPSs is not determinable. We DPSs; chapter are no longer necessary’’ will propose critical habitat for the (2) The current population status of (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)). Western North Pacific and Central identified humpback whale DPSs; Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) of the ESA America DPSs of the humpback whale (3) Biological or other information requires that, to the maximum extent in a separate rulemaking if we regarding the threats to the identified practicable and determinable, critical determine that it is prudent to do so. To humpback whale DPSs; habitat be designated concurrently with assist us with that rulemaking, we (4) Information on the effectiveness of the listing of a species. Designation of specifically request information to help ongoing and planned humpback whale critical habitat must be based on the us identify the essential features of this conservation efforts by countries, states, best scientific data available, and must habitat, and to what extent those or local entities;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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 You may submit your comments and Classification violation of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA if materials concerning this proposal by National Environmental Policy Act such prohibitions are applied to the any one of several methods (see (NEPA) Western North Pacific and Central ADDRESSES). We will review all public America DPSs; comments and any additional The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in (6) Whether any DPS of the humpback information regarding the status of the section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the whale that is not listed under the ESA identified DPSs of the humpback whale information that may be considered in a final rule would automatically lose and will complete a final determination when assessing species for listing. Based depleted status under the MMPA, or, if within 1 year of publication of this on this limitation of criteria for a listing not, what analysis and process is proposed rule, as required under the decision and the opinion in Pacific required by the MMPA before a change ESA. Final promulgation of the Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d in depleted status may occur. We seek regulation(s) will consider the 829 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded comments regarding different options comments and any additional that NEPA does not apply to ESA listing for construing the relevant provisions of information we receive, and such actions. (See NOAA Administrative these statutes in harmony; communications may lead to a final Order 216–6.) We are currently (7) Whether approach regulations regulation that differs from this reviewing whether any other aspect of should be promulgated under the proposal. this proposed rule will require NEPA MMPA for the protection of the Hawaii analysis. Public Hearings DPS of the humpback whale, since if Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, this rule becomes final, that DPS will no During each public hearing, a brief Paperwork Reduction Act, and longer be listed under the ESA, or opening presentation on the proposed Regulatory Flexibility Act whether current protections in effect in rule will be provided before accepting This rule is exempt from review the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale public testimony. Written comments National Marine Sanctuary (at 15 CFR under E.O. 12866. This proposed rule may be submitted at the hearing or via does not contain a collection of 922.184) are sufficient for the protection the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal (see of the species from vessel interactions. information requirement for the ADDRESSES) until the scheduled close of purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Commenters should consider the impact the comment period on July 20, 2015. In of the recent proposal by NOAA’s Office Act. the event that attendance at the public As noted in the Conference Report on of National Marine Sanctuaries to hearings is large, the time allotted for the 1982 amendments to the ESA, expand the sanctuary boundaries and oral statements may be limited. Oral and economic impacts cannot be considered strengthen the approach regulations (80 written statements receive equal when assessing the status of a species. FR 16224; March 26, 2015); consideration. There are no limits on Therefore, the economic analyses (8) Whether approach regulations in the length of written comments required by the Regulatory Flexibility effect for the protection of humpback submitted to us. Act are not applicable to the listing whales in Alaska, currently set forth at process. 50 CFR 224.103(b), should be relocated Public Hearing Schedule E.O. 13132, Federalism to Part 223 (which applies to threatened The dates and locations for the four species) for the continuing protection of hearings are as follows: E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take the Western North Pacific DPS, and into account any federalism impacts of 1. Honolulu: May 6, 2015, from 6:00 p.m. whether these regulations should also regulations under development. It be set out in 50 CFR 216 as MMPA to 8:00 p.m. at the Japanese Cultural Center, Manoa Ballroom, 2454 South Beretania includes specific directives for regulations for the protection of all consultation in situations where a humpback whales occurring in that area Street, Honolulu, HI 96826, with an informational open house beginning at 5:30 regulation will preempt state law or in light of the fact that the MMPA was impose substantial direct compliance one of the original authorities cited in p.m. Parking is available at the Japanese Cultural Center for $5. costs on state and local governments promulgating the regulation; 2. Juneau: May 19, 2015, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. (unless required by statute). Neither of (9) Information related to the at the Centennial Hall, Hickel Room, 101 those circumstances is applicable to this designation of critical habitat, including Egan Drive, Juneau, AK. proposed rule; therefore this action does identification of those physical or 3. Plymouth: June 3, 2015, 6 p.m. to 8:30 not have federalism implications as that biological features which are essential to p.m., Plymouth Public Library, 132 South term is defined in E.O. 13132. the conservation of the Western North Street, Plymouth, MA. Pacific and Central America DPSs of 4. Virginia Beach: June 9, 2015, 5 p.m. to E.O. 13175, Consultation and humpback whale and which may 6:30 p.m., at the Hilton Virgina Beach Coordination With Indian Tribal require special management Oceanfront, 3001 Atlantic Ave, Virginia Governments consideration or protection; Beach, VA. This will be in conjunction with The longstanding and distinctive (10) Economic, national security, and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management relationship between the Federal and other relevant impacts from the Council’s meeting being held during the tribal governments is defined by designation of critical habitat for the same week. treaties, statutes, executive orders, Western North Pacific and Central Special Accommodations judicial decisions, and co-management America DPSs of humpback whale; and agreements, which differentiate tribal (11) Research and other activities that These hearings are physically governments from the other entities that would be important to include in post- accessible to people with disabilities. deal with, or are affected by, the Federal delisting monitoring plans for the West Requests for sign language government. This relationship has given Indies, Hawaii, Mexico, Brazil, Gabon/ interpretation or other accommodations rise to a special Federal trust Southwest Africa, Southeast Africa/ should be directed to Marta Nammack responsibility involving the legal Madagascar, West Australia, East (see ADDRESSES) as soon as possible, but responsibilities and obligations of the Australia, Oceania, and Southeastern no later than 7 business days prior to United States toward Indian Tribes and Pacific DPSs. the hearing date. the application of fiduciary standards of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 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, List of Subjects PART 223—THREATENED MARINE tribal trust resources, and the exercise of AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES tribal rights. E.O. 13175—Consultation 50 CFR Part 223 ■ and Coordination with Indian Tribal Endangered and threatened species, 1. The authority citation for part 223 Governments—outlines the Exports, Imports, Transportation. continues to read as follows: responsibilities of the Federal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B, Government in matters affecting tribal 50 CFR Part 224 § 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. interests. Section 161 of Public Law 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 108–199 (188 Stat. 452), as amended by Endangered and threatened species. § 223.206(d)(9). section 518 of Public Law 108–447 (118 Dated: April 15, 2015. ■ 2. In § 223.102, in paragraph (e), the Stat. 3267), directs all Federal agencies Samuel D. Rauch, III, table is amended by adding entries for to consult with Alaska Native tribes or Deputy Assistant Administrator for ‘‘Whale, humpback (Central America organizations on the same basis as Regulatory Programs, National Marine DPS)’’ and ‘‘Whale, humpback (Western Indian tribes under E.O. 13175. Fisheries Service. North Pacific DPS)’’ under MARINE We intend to coordinate with tribal MAMMALS in alphabetical order by For the reasons set out in the governments and native corporations Common Name to read as follows: which may be affected by the proposed preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 224 are action. We will provide them with a proposed to be amended as follows: § 223.102 Enumeration of threatened copy of this proposed rule for review marine and anadromous species. and comment, and offer the opportunity * * * * * to consult on the proposed action. (e) * * *

Species 1 Citation(s) for listing Critical ESA Rules Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity determination(s) habitat

Marine Mammals

******* Whale, humpback Megaptera Humpback whales that breed along the Pa- [Insert Federal Reg- NA 223.213 (Central America novaeangliae. cific coast of Costa Rica, Panama, Gua- ister page where DPS). temala, El Salvador, Honduras, and the document be- Nicaragua in the eastern North Pacific gins], April 21, Ocean or feed almost exclusively off- 2015. shore of California and Oregon in the eastern North Pacific Ocean, with some feeding off northern Washington/south- ern British Columbia. Whale, humpback Megaptera Humpback whales that breed or winter in [Insert Federal Reg- NA 223.213 (Western North Pa- novaeangliae. the area of Okinawa and the Philippines ister page where 223.214 cific DPS). in the Kuroshio Current (as well as un- the document be- known breeding grounds in the Western gins], April 21, North Pacific Ocean), transitthe 2015. Ogasawara area, or feed in the North Pacific Ocean, primarily in the West Ber- ing Sea and off the Russian coast and the Aleutian Islands.

******* 1 Species 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 Western North Pacific DPS and the Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16 as follows: Central America DPS of the humpback U.S.C. 1361 et seq. whale listed in § 223.102(e). ■ 5. In § 224.101, in the table in § 223.213 Western North Pacific and paragraph (h), revise the entry for Central America distinct population PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE segments (DPSs) of the humpback whale. ‘‘Whale, humpback’’ to read as follows: AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES Prohibitions. The prohibitions of § 224.101 Enumeration of endangered section 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) of ■ 4. The authority citation for part 224 marine and anadromous species. the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) relating to continues to read as follows: * * * * * endangered species shall apply to the (h) * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 22356 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Species 1 Citation(s) for listing Critical ESA rules Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity determination(s) habitat

Marine Mammals

******* Whale, humpback Megaptera Humpback whales that breed or feed in the [Insert Federal Reg- NA NA (Arabian Sea DPS). novaeangliae. Arabian Sea. ister page where the document be- gins], April 21, 2015. Whale, humpback Megaptera Humpback whales that breed in waters [Insert Federal Reg- NA NA whale (Cape Verde novaeangliae. surrounding the Cape Verde Islands in ister page where Islands/Northwest the Eastern North Atlantic Ocean, as the document be- Africa DPS). well as an undetermined breeding area gins], April 21, in the eastern tropical Atlantic (possibly 2015. Canary Current) or feed along the Ice- land Shelf and Sea and the Norwegian Sea.

******* 1 Species 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Apr 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\21APP2.SGM 21APP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2