[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 27, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77704-77716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22182]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 224

[Docket No. 061212328-6328-01; I.D. 120706B]
RIN 0648-XB58


Endangered And Threatened Species; Proposed Endangered Status for 
North Atlantic Right Whales

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed a comprehensive status review of 
right whales in the northern hemisphere under the Endangered Species 
Act (ESA). Based on the findings from the status review, we have 
concluded these right whales exist as two species, the North Atlantic 
right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) and the North Pacific right whale (E. 
japonicus). We have also determined that each of these species is in 
danger of extinction throughout its range. To reflect this taxonomic 
revision, we are issuing two proposed rules to designate each 
separately as an endangered species. This proposed rule is to list the 
North Atlantic right whale; a proposed rule to list the North Pacific 
right whale is issued separately. We are soliciting public comment on 
this proposed listing determination.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by close of 
business on February 26, 2007. Requests for public hearings must be 
made in writing by February 12, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Mark Minton on the North Atlantic right 
whale. Comments may be submitted by:
     E-mail: [email protected]. Include in the subject 
line the following

[[Page 77705]]

document identifier: ``NARW Proposed Rule.'' E-mail comments, with or 
without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
     Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: 
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for 
submitting comments.
     Mail: Mark Minton, NMFS Northeast Region, One Blackburn 
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930
     Hand delivery to: NMFS Northeast Region, One Blackburn 
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930
     Fax: 978-281-9394
    The proposed rule and other materials relating to this proposed 
rule can be found on NMFS' Northeast Region website: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Minton, NMFS, Northeast Region, 
978-281-9328, ext. 6534; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected 
Resources, 301-713-1401, ext. 180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Status Review

    We have completed a status review report that assesses the status 
of right whales in the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans. 
Specifically, we describe the population structure and examine the 
extent to which phylogenetic uniqueness exists between right whales 
found in the North Atlantic and North Pacific. We also examine the 
biological status and adverse impacts on the right whale and its 
habitat in those oceans.

Biology of Right Whales in the North Atlantic Ocean

    The right whale is a large baleen whale. Adults are generally 
between 45 and 55 feet (13.7 - 16.8 m) in length and can weigh up to 70 
tons (63.5 metric tons). Females are larger than males. The 
distinguishing features of right whales include a stocky body, 
generally black coloration (although some individuals have white 
patches on their undersides), lack of a dorsal fin, large head (about 
1/4 of the body length), strongly bowed margin of the lower lip, and 
callosities on the head region. Two rows of long (up to about eight 
feet (2.4 m) in length), dark baleen plates hang from the upper jaw, 
with about 225 plates on each side. The tail is broad, deeply notched, 
and all black with smooth trailing edge.
    The International Whaling Commission (IWC) recognizes two right 
whale populations in the North Atlantic: a western and eastern 
population (IWC, 1986). The current distribution and migration patterns 
of the eastern North Atlantic right whale population are unknown. Based 
on whaling records, it appears that the eastern population migrated 
along the coast from northern Europe to northwest Africa. Sighting 
surveys from the eastern Atlantic Ocean suggest that right whales 
present in this region are rare (Best et al., 2001). The western North 
Atlantic population is believed to contain only about 300 individuals, 
and it is unclear whether its abundance is remaining static, undergoing 
modest growth, or declining, as recent modeling exercises suggest 
(Caswell et al., 1999).
    Prior to extensive exploitation, the North Atlantic right whale was 
found distributed in temperate, subarctic, coastal and continental 
shelf waters throughout the North Atlantic Ocean rim (Perry et al., 
1999). Right whales prefer shallow coastal waters, but their 
distribution is also strongly correlated to the distribution of 
zooplankton prey. In both northern and southern hemispheres, right 
whales are observed in low latitudes and in nearshore waters during 
winter where calving takes place. During the summer and fall months, 
right whales tend to migrate to the high latitudes where their 
distribution is likely linked to the patchy distribution of their 
principal zooplankton prey (Winn et al., 1986; Perry et al., 1999).
    In the western North Atlantic, right whales migrate along the North 
American coast from Nova Scotia to Florida. Considerable data exist 
documenting use of areas in the western North Atlantic Ocean where 
right whales presently occur. Right whales have been observed from the 
Mid-Atlantic Bight northward through the Gulf of Maine during all 
months of the year. Foraging right whales (and their habitat) appear to 
be concentrated in New England waters. In New England, peak abundance 
of right whales in feeding areas occurs in Cape Cod Bay beginning in 
late winter. In early spring (May), peak right whale abundance occurs 
in Wilkinson Basin to the Great South Channel (Kenney et al., 1995). In 
late June and July, right whale distribution gradually shifts to the 
northern edge of Georges Bank. In late summer (August) and fall, much 
of the population is found in waters in the Bay of Fundy and around 
Roseway Basin (Winn et al., 1986; Kenny et al., 1995; Kenny et al., 
2001). Variation in the abundance and development of suitable food 
patches appears to modify the general patterns of movement by reducing 
peak numbers, stay durations, and specific locales (Brown et al., 2001; 
Kenny, 2001). In particular, large changes in the typical pattern of 
food abundance will dramatically change the general pattern of right 
whale habitat use (Kenny, 2001). Known wintering areas for the North 
Atlantic right whale occur along the southeastern U.S. coast where 
calving occurs from December through March (Winn, 1984; Kraus et al., 
1986; IWC, 1986). In the North Atlantic it appears that not all 
reproductively active females return to the calving grounds each year 
(Kraus et al., 1986; Payne, 1986). The location of the majority of the 
population during the winter months remains unknown (NMFS, 2005).
    Knowlton et al. (1992) reported several long-distance movements as 
far north as Newfoundland, the Labrador Basin, and southeast of 
Greenland; in addition, recent resightings of photographically 
identified individuals have been made off Iceland, arctic Norway, and 
in the old Cape Farewell whaling ground east of Greenland. The 
Norwegian sighting (September 1999) represents one of only two 
sightings this century of a right whale in Norwegian waters, and the 
first since 1926. Together, these long-range matches indicate an 
extended range for at least some individuals and perhaps the existence 
of important habitat areas not presently well described. Similarly, 
records from the Gulf of Mexico (Moore and Clark, 1963; Schmidly et 
al., 1972) represent either geographic anomalies or a more extensive 
historic range beyond the sole known calving and wintering ground in 
the waters of the southeastern United States (Waring et al., 2004).

Listing Determinations under the ESA

    The ESA defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a 
threatened species as one that is likely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
(sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively). The statute requires us to 
determine whether any species is endangered or threatened because of 
any one of the following five factors: (1) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence (section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E)). We are to 
make this determination based solely on the best available scientific 
information after conducting a review of the status of the species and 
taking into account any efforts being made by states or foreign 
governments to protect the species. The focus of our

[[Page 77706]]

evaluation of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors is to evaluate whether 
and to what extent a given factor represents a threat to the future 
survival of the species. The focus of our consideration of protective 
efforts is to evaluate whether and to what extent they address the 
identified threats and so ameliorate a species' risk of extinction. The 
steps we follow in implementing this statutory scheme are to: (1) 
delineate the species under consideration; (2) review the status of the 
species; (3) consider the ESA section 4 (a)(1) factors to identify 
threats facing the species; (4) assess whether certain protective 
efforts mitigate these threats; and (5) predict the species' future 
persistence.

Review of ``Species'' Delineation

    Since 1974, NMFS has maintained the right whale listing as 
originally listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
(USFWS) under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, the 
precursor to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.; the ESA)(35 FR 18319, December 2, 1970) -- Eubalaena spp., i.e., 
all the species within the genus Eubalaena. The USFWS maintains the 
official lists of threatened and endangered species and is required to 
add species to the official lists when NMFS or USFWS determines species 
under its jurisdiction should be listed. The USFWS has changed the 
nomenclature for right whales several times over the years in various 
iterations of the list of threatened and endangered wildlife. NMFS also 
changed the nomenclature for a period of time after one of the USFWS 
changes, but later reverted back to the original Eubalaena spp. 
listing. The changes may have been made as a reflection of the 
discussion in the scientific literature over the appropriate taxonomic 
status of right whales. At no point did the USFWS ever propose 
delisting any of the species that were included in the original listing 
of Eubalaena spp. Regardless of the changes to the list, NMFS maintains 
that right whale species were listed as Eubalaena spp., which reflects 
the predominant view that existed in 1974: that right whale species are 
distinct from bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus), they belong in the 
genus Eubalaena, and the genus Eubalaena contains at least two species: 
E. glacialis in the northern hemisphere and E. australis in the 
southern hemisphere.
    Recent investigations of right whale genetics confirm the 
distinction between E. glacialis and E. australis at the species level 
and suggest that the North Pacific form of E. glacialis should be 
recognized as a separate species and named E. japonica, distinct from 
the other two species. NMFS is proposing to adopt this view and, in a 
separate rulemaking, to modify its listing to add E. japonica to the 
current listing Eubalaena spp. (which includes E. glacialis and E. 
australis).

Taxonomy of Right Whales

    All whales belong to the mammalian order Cetacea, which is divided 
into two suborders: Odontoceti (toothed whales) and Mysticeti (baleen 
whales). The Mysticeti are further divided into four families: the 
Eschrichtidae, a monotypic family (i.e., containing only one species), 
the gray whale; Neobalaenidae, another monotypic family containing only 
the pygmy right whale; Balaenidae, which contains two genera: Balaena 
(bowhead whales) and Eubalaena (right whales); and Balaenopteridae, 
which contains all of the other baleen whales.
    Balaena is the genus name for the bowhead whale (Balaena 
mysticetus), recognized by Linnaeus in 1758. Eubalaena is the genus 
name for right whales, first proposed by Gray in 1864. The first right 
whale to be named was what we today call the North Atlantic right whale 
or Nord-Kaper (Balaena glacialis, Muller, 1776), from North Cape, 
Norway. The second right whale to be named was what we today call the 
North Pacific right whale (Balaena japonica, Lacepede, 1818), from 
Japan. And the third right whale to be named was what we today call the 
Southern right whale (Balaena australis, Desmoulins, 1822), from Algoa 
Bay, Cape of Good Hope, South Africa. In the 1970s when all baleen 
whales were being considered for listing as endangered under the 
Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, authors disagreed on the 
taxonomic status of right whales. One view was that they belonged in 
the genus Balaena along with bowhead whales and that the genus contains 
two species: Baleana mysticetus and Baleana glacialis (Rice, 1977). The 
subspecific composition of B. glacialis was unclear. The other view was 
that right whales were distinct from bowhead whales at the genus level 
and that right whales should be identified as Eubalaena (Schevill, 
1986). This later view is currently the prevailing view, and it is the 
view embraced by USFWS and NMFS.
    There were also two views about the species composition of 
Eubalaena. One view was that there was only one species Eubalaena 
glacialis containing several subspecies (E. glacialis glacialis (North 
Atlantic), E. glacialis sieboldii (North Pacific), and E. glacialis 
australis (Southern oceans)) (Tomilin, 1957). Hershkovitz (1966) also 
describes these three subspecies, except that he refers to North 
Pacific right whales as E. glacialis japonica. The other view was that 
Eubalaena comprised two species E. glacialis and E. australis (Omura, 
1958; Omura et al., 1969). This is the view represented by the 
designation of Eubalaena spp. in the original listing by USFWS in 1970 
and by NMFS in its first listing in 1974. Generally accepted taxonomic 
nomenclature recognized the term ``spp.'' as an abbreviation for 
multiple species within a genus.
    The two-species view is summarized by Perry et al.'s (1999) summary 
of morphological (Muller, 1954) and genetic data (Schaeff et al., 
1991), both of which recognized distinct species in the northern and 
southern hemispheres. Cummings (1985) used E. australis for all right 
whales below the equator (southern right whales). The International 
Whaling Commission also recognizes the presence of two distinct 
species, E. glacialis and E. australis, in the schedule appended to the 
Convention in which species under purview of the Commission are listed.

Conclusion

    Although the listing of right whales has changed from the original 
nomenclature of Eubalaena spp., there is no indication in the record 
that USFWS ever intended to delist any of the species contained in the 
original listing of the entire genus. Since the original 1970 listing 
was described as ``Eubalaena spp.'', the logical interpretation is that 
at least two species of right whale were listed, the northern right 
whale (E. glacialis) and the southern right whale (E. australis), since 
``spp.'' refers to more than one species, not ``subspecies.'' Even if 
three separate species had been recognized in 1970, southern right 
whale (E. australis) would have been one of them. Each plausible 
scenario results in the right whale in the Southern Hemisphere being 
recognized as a separate species. Since NMFS has maintained its listing 
as ``Right whales, Eubalaena spp.'', and USFWS has never proposed 
delisting any of the species included in the original listing, we 
conclude that both E. glacialis and E. australis were listed in 1970, 
carried forward to the list created pursuant to the ESA, and determined 
to be endangered in our listing in 1974.

Right Whale Species Currently Being Considered for Listing

    As discussed above, genetic data now provide unequivocal support to 
distinguish three right whale lineages as separate phylogenetic 
species: (1) the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), 
ranging in the North Atlantic Ocean; (2) the North Pacific right whale

[[Page 77707]]

(Eubalaena japonica), ranging in the North Pacific Ocean, and (3) the 
southern right whale (Eubalaena australis), historically ranging 
throughout the southern hemisphere's oceans (Rosenbaum et al., 2000). 
Based on evidence from recent genetic studies (Gaines et al., 2005), we 
conclude that the current taxonomic classification of right whales in 
the northern hemisphere should be revised consistent with the generally 
accepted analyses by Rosenbaum et al. (2000). We have determined that 
listing right whales in the North Atlantic and the North Pacific as two 
separate species is warranted in light of the compelling evidence 
provided by recent scientific studies on right whale taxonomy and 
classification. In accordance with the applicable statutory definitions 
and requirements, the North Atlantic right whale (E. glacialis) and the 
North Pacific right whale (E. japonica) are being considered for 
listing as separate species under the ESA.
    Refining the taxonomy of these endangered cetaceans is critical to 
the recovery planning and conservation of these species. The separate 
listings of these two species in the northern hemisphere will allow for 
consistent scientific practice and management policies in recovering 
these species.

Status of the Three Right Whale Species

    The determination that right whales in the North Atlantic and North 
Pacific Oceans are two separate species requires us to consider these 
species separately for the purposes of listing under the ESA. We will 
consider the status of the North Atlantic right whale (E. glacialis) in 
this proposed rule and that of the North Pacific right whale (E. 
japonica) in a separate proposed rule in today's issue of the Federal 
Register. At the final rule stage, we will address both species in the 
same rule so that any changes become effective together. The southern 
right whale, E. australis, will remain listed as endangered, though we 
intend to conduct a 5-year review of its status in the near future. In 
the following discussion of the status of the North Atlantic right 
whale, E. glacialis, we provide the rationale for today's proposal to 
list this species as a separate endangered species. The other proposed 
rule in today's issue of the Federal Register, referenced above, 
provides the rationale for the proposal to list the North Pacific right 
whale, E. japonica, as a separate endangered species. We also identify 
the southern right whale, E. australis (one of two species that was 
listed in 1970 and is still listed) in the regulatory language as a 
separate endangered species and remove Eubalaena spp. from the list.

Status of the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis)

Abundance and Trends

    Sighting surveys from the eastern Atlantic Ocean suggest that right 
whales present in this region are rare (Best et al,. 2001). In 1992, 
based on a census of individual whales identified using photo-
identification techniques and the assumption that whales not seen for 7 
years are dead, the western North Atlantic stock size was estimated to 
be 295 individuals (Knowlton et al.,1994). In 1998, an updated analysis 
using the same method gave an estimate of 299 animals (Kraus et al., 
2001). Because this was a nearly complete census, it is assumed that 
this represents a minimum population size estimate. However, no 
estimate of abundance with an associated coefficient of variation has 
been calculated for this population. Calculation of a reliable point 
estimate is likely to be difficult, given the known problem of 
heterogeneity of distribution in this population. An IWC workshop on 
status and trends of western North Atlantic right whales gave a minimum 
direct-count estimate of 263 right whales alive in 1996 and noted that 
the true population was unlikely to be substantially greater than this 
(Best et al., 2001).
    The population growth rate for North Atlantic right whale reported 
for the period 1986-1992 by Knowlton et al. (1994) was 2.5 percent 
(coefficient of variation=0.12), suggesting that the stock was showing 
signs of slow recovery. In contrast, southern right whale populations 
(those off Argentina, Australia, and South Africa) are increasing at 
annual rates on the order of 7 to 8 percent (IWC, 1998). However, 
Caswell et al. (1999) found that crude survival probabilities for North 
Atlantic right whale decreased from about 0.99 per year in 1980 to 
about 0.94 in 1994, and that population growth rate declined from about 
5.3 percent in 1980 to a negative 2.4 percent in 1994 (Caswell et al., 
1999). The decline was statistically significant. This model suggested 
that the western population of North Atlantic right whales was headed 
for extinction with an upper bound on the expected time to extinction 
of 191 years (Caswell et al., 1999). Modified versions of the Caswell 
et al. (1999) model as well as several other models were reviewed at 
the 1999 IWC workshop (Best et al., 2001). Despite differences in 
approach, all of the models indicated a decline in right whale survival 
in the 1990s relative to the 1980s with female survival, in particular, 
apparently affected (Best et al., 2001; Waring et al., 2002).
    In 2002, our Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) hosted a 
workshop to review right whale population models to examine: (1) 
potential bias in the models, and (2) changes in the subpopulation 
trend based on new information collected in the late 1990s (Clapham et 
al., 2002). Three different models were used to explore right whale 
survivability and to address potential sources of bias. Although biases 
were identified that could negatively affect the results, all three 
modeling techniques resulted in the same conclusion; survival has 
continued to decline and seems due to female mortalities (Clapham et 
al., 2002).

Life History Characteristics

    Females give birth to their first calf at an average age of 9 years 
(Best et al., 1998; Hamilton et al., 1998a). Standard reproductive 
rates for the western North Atlantic population have yet to be 
calculated. The calving interval for right whales is between 2 and 7 
years, with means ranging from 3.12 (95 percent confidence interval 
(CI) 3.05-3.17) to 3.67 years (95 percent CI 3.3-4.1) (Knowlton et al., 
1994; Best et al., 2001; Burwell, 2001; Cooke et al., 2001). In the 
western North Atlantic, there was a significant increase in the calving 
interval from 3.67 years for the period 1980 to 1992 (Knowlton et al., 
1994) to 5.8 years for the period 1990 to 1998 (Kraus et al. 2001). The 
increase in the calving interval is of particular concern and, together 
with other perplexing biological parameters, may suggest the population 
is under rather unusual biological, energetic, or reproductive stress. 
Most recently (2001-2005), a dramatic increase in North Atlantic right 
whale calving (23 calves per year) may have decreased the interval to 
levels more similar to that of the southern right whale (Kraus et al., 
in press).
    Since 1999, 125 right whale calves have been observed, including 31 
right whale births during a record calving season in 2000-2001 (B. 
Pike, New England Aquarium, pers. comm.). Calving numbers have been 
sporadic, with large differences among years. The three calving years 
(1997-2000) prior to the record year in 2000-2001 provided low 
recruitment with only 10 calves born. The last five calving seasons 
(2001-2005) have been substantially better (31, 21, 19, 16, and 28 
calves, respectively). Despite improved calving rates over the last 
several years,

[[Page 77708]]

mortalities of calves, juveniles, and adults have continued.
    An analysis of the age structure of this population suggests that 
it contains a smaller proportion of juvenile whales than expected 
(Hamilton et al., 1998a; Best et al., 2001), which may reflect low 
recruitment and/or high juvenile mortality. In addition, it is possible 
that the apparently low reproductive rate is due in part to unstable 
age structure or to decreased reproduction due to aging (i.e., 
reproductive senescence) on the part of some females (Waring et al., 
2004).

Genetic Diversity

    The size of the western population of the North Atlantic right 
whale at the cessation of whaling is unknown, but generally it is 
believed to have been very small. Such a reduction of population size 
may have resulted in a loss of genetic diversity that could affect the 
ability of the current population to successfully reproduce (e.g., 
decreased conceptions, increased abortions, increased neonate 
mortality). Studies by Schaeff et al. (1997) and Malik et al. (2000) 
indicate that the western population of the North Atlantic right whale 
is less genetically diverse than southern right whale populations. 
However, several apparently healthy populations of cetaceans, such as 
sperm whales and pilot whales, have even lower genetic diversity than 
observed in the western North Atlantic right whales (IWC, 2001b).

Summary of Factors Affecting the North Atlantic Right Whale

    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce 
(Secretary) to determine whether a species is endangered or threatened 
because of any of the following factors: (A) the present or threatened 
destruction, modification or curtailment of a species' habitat or 
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (c) disease or predation factors; (D) the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. A discussion of 
these considerations follows:

The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
its Habitat or Range

    Habitat loss or degradation is not believed to be a causal factor 
placing the North Atlantic right whale in danger of extinction at this 
time or in the foreseeable future. Unlike many terrestrial species, 
right whales and other cetaceans do not compete directly with human 
populations for space (Clapham et al., 1999). Because right whales are 
dependent on coastal waters adjacent to highly developed coastline, 
however, habitat degradation may adversely affect this species. 
Consequently, threats to right whales may arise from onshore and near 
shore activities.
    Right whales frequent coastal waters where dredging and dredge 
spoil disposal occur on a regular basis, such as along the southeastern 
U.S. coast (Perry et al., 1999). Dredging of harbors and port channels 
occurs in a number of locations in or near areas where right whales 
aggregate. Noise, increased ship traffic, disposal of dredge material, 
and related activities may all contribute to degrade right whale 
habitat. It is unknown to what extent these activities affect right 
whales (Perry et al., 1999). It appears that more information is needed 
to determine specific habitat impacts, if any, from these activities. 
Increased ship traffic associated with dredging activities may increase 
the risk of ship strikes of right whales resulting in serious injury 
and mortality. At present, efforts made to reduce adverse effects on 
right whales include posting observers on ships transporting dredge 
spoils to reduce the risk of ship strikes.
    One potential source of habitat degradation for baleen whales is 
oil pollution. General concerns with regard to oil pollution, some of 
which are direct impacts on the whales rather than habitat impacts, are 
ingestion of contaminated prey, potential irritation of skin and eyes, 
inhalation of toxic fumes, and abandonment of polluted feeding habitat 
(Geraci and St. Aubin, 1980; Geraci, 1990). However, data on the 
effects of oil pollution on cetaceans are inconclusive, and the large 
baleen whales appear to be generally unaffected by oil per se (Geraci, 
1990; Loughlin, 1994).
    Offshore oil and gas exploration activities have been proposed off 
the U.S. Atlantic coast. At the present time however, there are no 
known plans for oil exploration in the major habitats of the western 
population of the North Atlantic right whale, but the possibility 
remains for future oil and gas exploration and development activity.
    In addition to oil and gas exploration and production, the undersea 
exploration and development of techniques for mining minerals deposits 
could threaten the North Atlantic right whale and its habitat (Perry et 
al., 1999).
    An additional potential source of habitat degradation for right 
whales is chemical contaminants. The impact of pollution on right 
whales is debatable. O'Shea and Brownell (1994) conclude that there is 
currently no evidence for significant contaminant-related problems in 
baleen whales. Although more research is needed, the existing data on 
mysticetes support the view that the lower trophic levels at which 
these animals feed should result in lower levels of contaminant 
accumulation than would be expected in many odontocetes, which 
typically show concentrations that differ from those of baleen whales 
by an order of magnitude (O'Shea and Brownell, 1994). However, the 
manner in which pollutants negatively impact animals is complex and 
difficult to study, particularly in taxa such as large whales for which 
many of the key variables and pathways are unknown (Aguilar, 1987; 
O'Shea and Brownell, 1994). A more plausible potential problem is that 
of transgenerational accumulation (Colborn and Smolen, 1996), but this 
remains unstudied in right whales or any other cetacean species.

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Right whales have not been the target of commercial hunting in the 
North Atlantic since 1935, and relatively few catches were made in the 
20th century prior to that date. Historical whaling activities are 
responsible for the significant depletion of the eastern population of 
the North Atlantic right whale and the current severely depleted 
numbers of individuals remaining in the western population. The small 
population size of the North Atlantic right whale is probably the most 
significant factor affecting its continued existence because small 
populations are subject to extinction from a variety of factors that 
would not seriously affect a larger population. The North Atlantic 
right whale is in danger of extinction throughout its range because of 
historical whaling. Unlike right whales in the North Pacific, there is 
no evidence of the illegal harvest of right whales.
    An estimate of pre-exploitation population size is not available. 
Basque whalers may have taken substantial numbers of right whales at 
times during the 1500s in the Strait of Belle Isle region (Aguilar, 
1986), and the stock of right whales may have already been 
substantially reduced by the time colonists began whaling in the 
Plymouth area in the 1600s (Reeves and Mitchell, 1987). A modest but 
persistent whaling effort along the coast of the eastern United States 
lasted 3 centuries, and the records include one report of 29 whales 
killed in Cape Cod Bay in a single day during January 1700. Based

[[Page 77709]]

on incomplete historical whaling data, Reeves and Mitchell (1987) could 
conclude only that there were at least some hundreds of right whales 
present in the western North Atlantic during the late 1600s. In a later 
study (Reeves et al., 1992), a series of population trajectories using 
historical data and an estimated present population size of 350 were 
plotted. The results suggest that there may have been at least 1,000 
right whales in this population during the early to mid-1600s, with the 
greatest population decline occurring in the early 1700s. The authors 
cautioned, however, that the record of removals is incomplete, the 
results were preliminary, and refinements are required. Based on back 
calculations using the present population size and growth rate, the 
population may have numbered fewer than 100 individuals by the time 
international protection for right whales came into effect in 1935 
(Hain, 1975; Reeves et al., 1992; Kenney et al., 1995). However, too 
little is known about the population dynamics of right whales in the 
intervening years to estimate a pre-exploitation population size with 
confidence.
    An intense period of whaling in the eastern North Atlantic between 
1902 and 1967 (including harvest off the Shetlands, Hebrides, and 
Ireland in the years 1906-1910) was particularly catastrophic for the 
eastern North Atlantic right whale population. Since that time, there 
have only been sporadic sightings of right whales in the eastern North 
Atlantic (Best et al., 2001). In two recent winter surveys of Cintra 
Bay (off the northwestern coast of Africa), no evidence was found to 
suggest that right whales still use the area; this absence of evidence 
also corresponds to a lack of recent observations in northern European 
waters (Reeves, 2001). Based on the paucity of sighting information, 
current distribution and migration patterns of the eastern North 
Atlantic right whale population are unknown.
    With respect to recreational and educational use, problems may 
arise from vessels whose operations are directed at the whales 
themselves (i.e., whale watching from either commercial or recreational 
vessels). These activities have the potential to disturb right whales 
or disrupt their activities and behavior such as feeding, courtship, 
and nursing. The impact of such harassment on the reproductive success 
of individuals has not been studied and is unknown. Currently, Federal 
regulations prohibit the close approach by vessels within 500 yards 
(457.2 m) of North Atlantic right whales in U.S. waters. This activity 
is allowed, however, in Canadian waters.
    Scientific research on right whales frequently involves close 
approaches to the animals for the purpose of photographic, genetic, or 
behavioral sampling. These activities are controlled by permits in both 
U.S. and Canadian waters, and the potential adverse impact on the 
animals is considered during the permitting process. Efforts are needed 
to ensure coordination of research activities between the United States 
and Canada, as well as among U.S. researchers themselves to minimize 
any potential adverse impact to right whales.

Disease or Predation

    Disease and predation are not believed to be factors causing the 
North Atlantic right whale to be in danger of extinction. Unlike in 
some dolphin and pinniped (i.e., seals and sea lions) species, there 
have been no recorded epizootics in baleen whales. The occurrence of 
skin lesions on the bodies of North Atlantic right whales has been 
documented in recent years, with an apparent increase in frequency 
culminating in a peak in 1995 when they were observed on 24 percent of 
photographed individuals (Marx et al., 1999). The origins and 
significance of these lesions are unknown. Further research is required 
to determine whether they represent a topical or systemic health 
problem for the affected animals.
    In October 2006, we declared an unusual mortality event (UME) for 
humpback whales in the Northeast United States. At least 17 dead 
humpback whales have been discovered since March 2006. There has also 
been a documented bloom of Alexandrium sp., a toxic dinoflagellate that 
causes red tide from Maine to Massachusetts. Prior to the most recent 
UME, there had been only three other known cases of a mass mortality 
involving large whale species along the east coast: 1987-1988, 2003, 
and 2005. Geraci et al. (1989) provide strong evidence that, in the 
former case, these deaths of humpback whales resulted from the 
consumption of mackerel whose livers contained high levels of 
saxitoxin, a naturally occurring red tide toxin, the origin of which 
remains unknown. It has been suggested that the occurrence of a red 
tide event is related to an increase in freshwater runoff from coastal 
development, leading some observers to suggest that such events may 
become more common among marine mammals as coastal development 
continues. There is currently no conclusive evidence linking red tide 
toxins to the deaths or chronic health problems in right whales. 
Doucette et al. (2006) assessed the occurrence of paralytic shellfish 
poisoning (PSP) toxins in right whales and in co-occurring zooplankton 
assemblages dominated by Calanus finmarchicus, the primary food of the 
North Atlantic right whale. Samples of right whale feces collected from 
at least 11 different whales by these researchers in the Bay of Fundy 
tested positive for PSP toxins. These results suggest that trophic 
transfer of marine algal toxins may be a factor inhibiting the recovery 
of the North Atlantic right whale.
    Predation of right whales by killer whales and large shark species 
is likely to occur, but the level is not documented. North Atlantic 
right whales bearing scars thought to be from killer whale attacks have 
been photographed (Kraus, 1990), but the number of whales killed by 
this predator is unknown (Perry et al., 1999). Mehta (2004) more 
recently concluded that scars recorded on the flukes and bodies of 
North Atlantic right whales are more consistent with harassment by some 
smaller cetacean, possibly pilot whales (Globicephala spp) and do not 
originate from killer whales.

The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Right whales are protected under both U.S. and Canadian law, and 
internationally by the IWC. Death and serious injury resulting from 
ship strikes and fishing gear interactions are significant factors 
that, at current rates, place the North Atlantic right whale in danger 
of extinction throughout its range. There are numerous ongoing 
conservation efforts to reduce the impact of ship strikes on the 
survival and recovery of the species. These efforts involve Federal, 
state, local, conservation, academic, and industry agencies and 
organizations. We, in cooperation with other state, Federal, industry, 
and private groups and organizations, have developed a plan to 
implement a broad Ship Strike Reduction Strategy (SSRS) designed to 
reduce the impacts of vessel interactions on the survival of the North 
Atlantic right whale.
    The SSRS consists of both regulatory and non-regulatory components. 
As part of efforts to implement the SSRS, we published an advanced 
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on June 1, 2004 (69 FR 30857) and 
proposed regulations on June 14, 2006, that contain speed restrictions 
and routing measures to reduce the likelihood of collisions between 
vessels and endangered North Atlantic right whales (71 FR 36299).
    We have implemented a number of measures to reduce the impact to 
right

[[Page 77710]]

whale survival due to fishing gear interactions. We, with the 
assistance of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT), 
developed the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP). The 
goal of this plan is to reduce the level of serious injury and 
mortality of three strategic stocks of large whales, including North 
Atlantic right whales, in commercial gillnet and trap/pot fisheries. In 
general, the ALWTRP consists of a combination of regulatory and non-
regulatory programs, including broad gear modifications, time-area 
closures, expanded disentanglement efforts, extensive outreach efforts 
in key areas, gear research, and an expanded right whale surveillance 
program to supplement the Mandatory Ship Reporting System.
    Since its implementation in 1997, the ALWTRP has been modified on 
several occasions in response to the serious injury and mortality of 
large whales in gillnet and lobster trap/pot gear. Recent amendments to 
the ALWTRP include restrictions to the Southeast Atlantic gillnet 
fishery (67 FR 59471, September 23, 2002; 68 FR 19464, April 21, 2003). 
Other amendments to the ALWTRP include additional gear modifications 
for lobster trap/pot gear in particular management areas and changes to 
the lobster trap/pot and gillnet take reduction technology lists (67 FR 
1300, January 10, 2002; 67 FR 15493, April 2, 2002), a Seasonal Area 
Management (SAM) program (67 FR 1142, January 9, 2002; 67 FR 65722, 
October 28, 2002), a Dynamic Area Management (DAM) program (67 FR 1133, 
January 9, 2002; 67 FR 65722, October 28, 2002), and implementation of 
gear modifications determined to sufficiently reduce the risk of 
entanglement to right whales (68 FR 10195, March 4, 2003; 68 FR 51195, 
August 26, 2003).
    We continue to work with the ALWTRT to evaluate the ALWTRP and 
determine whether additional modifications are necessary to meet the 
goals of the MMPA and the ESA. On June 30, 2003, we published a Notice 
of Intent (NOI) to announce the agency's intent to prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the impacts of 
alternatives for amending the ALWTRP (68 FR 38676). On June 21, 2005, 
we also published a proposed rule (70 FR 35894) that details how 
modifications to the ALWTRP would be implemented.
    Despite previous efforts, ship strikes and fishing gear 
interactions remain a serious factor negatively affecting the continued 
survival and recovery of the species. As the new conservation measures 
discussed above are implemented, the frequency of ship strikes and 
fishing gear interactions will need to be monitored to assess the 
effectiveness of measures in reducing the impact of these factors on 
the survival of the species. Based on the efficacy of these measures, 
it may be necessary to continue or enhance existing regulations or 
promulgate new regulations to reduce or eliminate the effect of these 
factors on the survival and recovery of the species.

Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence

    Ship strikes and fishing gear interactions are the most common 
anthropogenic causes of mortality in western North Atlantic right 
whales, and place the North Atlantic right whale in danger of 
extinction throughout its range. The available evidence strongly 
suggests that the North Atlantic right whale cannot sustain the current 
number of deaths that result from vessel collisions and fishing gear 
interactions. If mortality from these activities continues at current 
rates, it is likely to result in the extinction of the North Atlantic 
right whale.
    Ship Strikes - Collisions with ships are the single largest cause 
of right whale mortality in the western North Atlantic. Of 45 confirmed 
deaths of western North Atlantic right whales between 1970 and 1999, 16 
are known to have been caused by ship strikes, and two additional 
collisions were possibly fatal (Knowlton and Kraus, 1998). There were 
two known ship strike right whale deaths in 2001, one in both 2002 and 
2003, and two in 2004. The low incidence (7 percent) of 
photographically identified whales showing scars and wounds from ship 
propellers compared to the high rate of ship propeller wounds on 
stranded carcasses indicates that a high proportion of interactions 
between ships and whales are fatal to the whale (Kraus, 1990). It 
should be noted that with improved reporting and more thorough 
necropsies in recent years, the rate of detection and confirmation of 
ship-strike deaths has probably increased. This may confound efforts to 
determine trends in the frequency of collisions.
    Concern has been raised over the possible adverse effects of whale 
watching and scientific research activities on right whale 
aggregations, particularly in the western North Atlantic (e.g., Cape 
Cod Bay and lower Bay of Fundy). On February 13, 1997, we published an 
interim final rule (62 FR 6729) to prohibit both boats and aircraft 
from approaching any right whale closer than 500 yards (457.2 m). These 
minimum distance regulations are designed to reduce the potential to 
disturb right whales or disrupt their activities and to reduce the 
adverse effect of vessel collisions. However, collisions between whale-
watching boats and a humpback (2001) and a minke whale (1998) indicate 
that much more serious consequences (e.g., death or serious injury) are 
also possible. In addition, the number of high-speed (capable of speeds 
> 28 knots) whale watching vessels, ferries, and other craft has 
increased recently in areas where right whales occur. Consequently, the 
threat of collisions has potentially grown. It may be necessary to 
examine the effects of whale watching in the vicinity of right whales 
and issue additional regulations and/or guidelines regarding the number 
of vessels, and their speed, manner, and distances of approaches near 
whales.
    Scientific research on right whales frequently involves close 
approaches to the animals for the purpose of photographic, genetic, or 
behavioral sampling. These activities are controlled by permits in both 
U.S. and Canadian waters, and the potential adverse impact on the 
animals is considered during the permitting process. Efforts are needed 
to ensure coordination of research activities between the U.S. and 
Canada, as well as among U.S. researchers themselves to minimize any 
potential adverse impact to right whales.
    Fishing Gear Interactions - The exact magnitude and nature of 
fisheries interactions with right whales is not known. Kraus (1990) 
estimated that 57 percent of right whales in the western North Atlantic 
bear scars and injuries indicating fishing gear interactions. More 
recent analysis estimated that 61.6 percent of right whales exhibit 
evidence of fishing gear entanglement (Hamilton et al., 1998b). The 
1998 North Atlantic Stock Assessment Report (Waring et al., 1999) 
indicated NMFS-monitored fisheries showed a mean annual mortality of 
1.0 right whale from 1992 through 1996. Sources of interaction are 
mainly gillnets, lobster pots, seine nets, and fish weirs (NMFS, 1991), 
which, with the exception of gillnet fisheries, are largely not 
monitored. Gear entanglement was estimated to account for 7 percent of 
the known mortality in right whales in the western North Atlantic from 
1970 through early 1993 (Kenney and Kraus, 1993). There were at least 
two additional entanglement deaths between late 1993 and 1999 (Knowlton 
and Kraus, 2001). Since 2001 there has been at least one additional 
mortality due to entanglement. These mortalities involved entanglements 
with fixed fishing gear. Of 45 known deaths between 1970 and 1999, 
three were

[[Page 77711]]

directly linked to entanglements, and eight were suspected to have been 
linked to entanglements (NMFS, 2005). Entanglements may be responsible 
for more deaths than indicated by the stranding and necropsy data. It 
is possible that fishing gear was responsible for some of the deaths 
for which a cause could not be determined. In addition, some whales may 
become entangled, drown, and fail to resurface. Injuries and 
entanglements that are not initially lethal may result in a gradual 
weakening of entangled individuals, making them more vulnerable to some 
other direct cause of mortality (Kenney and Kraus, 1993). For example, 
entanglement may reduce a whale's ability to maneuver, making it more 
susceptible to ship strikes. Entanglement-related stress may decrease 
an individual's reproductive success or reduce its life span. This may 
in turn depress population growth.
    Noise - The effect on behavior (e.g., foraging, mating, nursing) of 
noise pollution from shipping or oil and gas development is unclear, 
though various observations suggest that marine mammals can habituate 
well to even quite high levels of sound (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1980; 
Richardson et al., 1995). Playback experiments on gray and bowhead 
whales indicate that whales will actively avoid a very loud sound 
source (Malme et al., 1983), but whether real-life sources (such as 
drilling platforms) negatively impact behavior to the point that it 
diminishes reproductive success and population productivity is unclear. 
It appears that right whale sensitivity to noise disturbance and vessel 
activity is related to the behavior and activity in which they are 
engaged in at the time (Watkins, 1986; Perry et al., 1999).
    Recreational boat traffic - Some studies suggest increased 
recreational boat traffic can disrupt whale behavior (Glockner-Ferrari 
and Ferrari, 1990). Pleasure boat traffic occurs in various coastal 
areas with little regulation or enforcement; however, its impact on 
right whales is unknown.

Conservation Measures

    Section 4(b)(1)(a) of the ESA requires that determinations of 
whether a species is threatened or endangered be based solely on the 
best scientific and commercial data available and after taking into 
account those efforts, if any, being made to protect the species. Right 
whales have been listed under the ESA for many years and numerous 
conservation measures have been implemented in order to protect and 
conserve the species. On March 28, 2003, we and the USFWS (the 
Services) published the final policy for evaluating conservation 
efforts (PECE)(68 FR 15100). The PECE provides guidance on evaluating 
current protective efforts identified in conservation agreements, 
conservation plans, management plans, or similar documents (developed 
by Federal agencies, state and local governments, tribal governments, 
businesses, organizations, and individuals) that have not yet been 
implemented, or have been implemented but have not yet demonstrated 
effectiveness. The PECE establishes two basic criteria for evaluating 
current conservation efforts: (1) the certainty that the conservation 
efforts will be implemented, and (2) the certainty that the efforts 
will be effective. The PECE provides specific factors under these two 
basic criteria that direct the analysis of adequacy and efficacy of 
existing conservation efforts.
    Right whales were protected by the 1931 Convention for the 
Regulation of Whaling, which took effect in 1935. Since 1949, right 
whales have been protected from commercial whaling by the IWC and its 
implementing convention. In U.S. waters, right whales are protected by 
the MMPA and the ESA.
    Current North Atlantic right whale conservation efforts in the 
North Atlantic are extensive. These efforts reflect a cooperative 
collaboration between numerous state and Federal agencies, industry 
groups, conservation organizations, academic institutions, and other 
interested parties and individuals. These efforts are vital to the 
survival and recovery of the North Atlantic right whale.
    Current conservation efforts have resulted in the implementation of 
a number of regulatory and non-regulatory measures intended to enhance 
the survival and recovery of the species, particularly fishing gear 
modifications and ship strike reduction strategies. Moreover, a number 
of conservation measures being developed and/or considered will further 
reduce the adverse affect of fishing gear interactions and ship 
strikes. However, despite these ongoing efforts to mitigate factors 
affecting the species, right whales have continued to suffer serious 
injury and mortalities due to ship strikes and fishing gear 
interactions.
    As discussed, direct and indirect impacts from human activities, 
particularly vessel collisions and fishing gear entanglements, place 
the species in danger of extinction throughout its range and have 
contributed to a lack of recovery. Currently, we are working with 
state, Federal, private, and industry groups to address these two 
factors affecting the survival and recovery of the species.

Vessel Interactions

    As discussed, ship strikes are responsible for the majority of 
human-caused right whale mortalities (Jensen and Silber, 2003). The ESA 
provides authority to the Secretary to establish implementation teams 
to, among other things, review recovery activities and provide 
recommendations to NMFS on actions necessary for the survival and 
recovery of the species. Two such teams have been formed: one in the 
southeastern U.S., the second in the northeastern U.S. Although both 
teams have addressed a variety of right whale conservation issues over 
the years, they have evolved over time to focus on issues related 
primarily to the reduction of ship strikes of right whales.
    Southeastern U.S. Implementation Team (SEIT) - In August 1993, the 
SEIT was formed. The team consists of representatives from Federal, 
state, and local agencies, as well as other private organizations. 
Since its inception, the SEIT has met regularly and has been active in 
a number of areas related to ship strike mitigation. Among other 
things, the SEIT was instrumental in developing a system of aircraft 
surveys and communication systems that alert mariners to the presence 
of right whales in the southeast United States (SEUS) in real time. Two 
agencies represented on the SEIT, the Georgia Department of Natural 
Resources (GDNR) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG), implemented 
a local Notice to Mariners broadcast about right whale calving grounds. 
Additionally, the USCG and the GDNR have developed and implemented 
procedures for broadcasting right whale locations over NAVTEX (the USCG 
international communication system). The SEIT has also coordinated a 
number of efforts to educate mariners about the threat of ship strikes, 
including development and distribution of brochures, pamphlets, and 
posters. In addition, the SEIT provides us with recommendations 
regarding measures to reduce the possibility of ship strikes, 
development of safe operating procedures for large vessels transiting 
right whale habitat, minimum vessel approach distances, research needs, 
and measures necessary to reduce fishing gear interactions in right 
whale calving areas.
    Northeast U.S. Implementation Team (NEIT) - The NEIT was 
established in 1994 and is coordinated by our Northeast Regional 
Office. The NEIT was originally created to implement recovery tasks for 
both the North

[[Page 77712]]

Atlantic right whale and the humpback whale.
    The NEIT's responsibilities have evolved since its inception in 
1994. Initially, the NEIT's focus was the mitigation of the threat to 
right whales of fishing gear interactions. More recently the NEIT's 
charge has shifted to focus primarily on issues related to ship strike 
reduction. The NEIT Ship Strike Subcommittee assisted in the 
development of NOAA's SSRS. The NEIT most recently has been reorganized 
to function as a continuation of the former Northeast Large Whale 
Recovery Plan Implementation Team's Ship Strike Committee. The goal is 
for the NEIT to assist, where possible, with various ship-strike 
reduction-related strategies.

SSRS

    We, in cooperation with other state, Federal, industry, and private 
groups and organizations, have developed a broad SSRS designed to 
reduce the danger posed by vessel interactions to the survival of the 
North Atlantic right whale. The SSRS is an Atlantic coast initiative 
consisting of both regulatory and non-regulatory components. The ship 
strike reduction conservation efforts have been implemented, in large 
part, under the statutory authority of the ESA and the MMPA. Certain 
details of the SSRS are still under development. The SSRS consists of 
five elements: (1) Establishment of new operational measures for the 
shipping industry, including consideration of routing measures and 
speed restrictions; (2) negotiation of a Right Whale Conservation 
Agreement with the Canadian Government to address the issue of ship 
strikes; (3) development and implementation of ship strike education 
and outreach programs; (4) initiation of Section 7 consultations under 
the ESA with all Federal agencies that have vessels operating in waters 
inhabited by right whales; and (5) continuation of ongoing research and 
conservation activities.
    Ship Strike Reduction Strategy Proposed Rule - We published an 
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on June 1, 2004 (69 FR 
30857), and proposed regulations on June 26, 2006 (71 FR 36299). The 
proposed regulations would establish speed restrictions and routing 
measures to reduce the likelihood of collisions between vessels and 
endangered North Atlantic right whales.
    Mandatory Ship Reporting System - In 1998, the USCG, on behalf of 
the U.S. Government, submitted a proposal developed by NOAA with the 
assistance of the Marine Mammal Commission and the International Fund 
for Animal Welfare to the International Maritime Organization (IMO). 
The proposal requested approval of two mandatory ship reporting 
systems. The proposal received IMO endorsement and systems became 
operational in 1999. The systems obligate all commercial ships 300 
gross tons (272 metric tons) and greater entering areas designated as 
right whale critical habitat to call into a shore-based station. The 
systems provide information on right whales directly to mariners as 
they enter right whale habitat, the right whales' vulnerability to ship 
strikes, and steps that can be taken to reduce the chance of collision. 
They also provide a means to obtain information on ship traffic volume 
and routes to assist in identifying measures to reduce future ship 
strikes. The systems are administered primarily by the USCG.
    Aerial Surveys - In 1993, the SEIT developed a system to help alert 
area ship traffic to the presence of right whales, thereby reducing the 
possibility of ship strikes. The central feature of the system has been 
an aerial survey program designed to obtain accurate, current 
information on the locations of whales. Aerial surveys were initiated 
in 1993 in the waters off the SEUS and have continued each year since. 
Continuously updated right whale sighting information from survey teams 
is immediately relayed to area mariners via centralized communication 
systems operated by the USCG and the U.S. Navy. Information is provided 
through a number of real time media, including USCG Broadcast Notices 
to Mariners, NAVTEX and NOAA Weather Radio. Among other measures, 
vessels are advised to proceed at reduced speeds to reduce the 
likelihood of serious injury or death if a collision occurs. However, 
even in very good sighting conditions, not all whales are detected. 
Therefore, whales may be present but not always reported to mariners.
    In 1997, an aerial survey program was initiated in waters off the 
northeastern United States. These efforts focused on Cape Cod Bay (CCB) 
and the Great South Channel (GSC) in late winter and early spring. From 
1997 to present, aerial surveys supported by NMFS and the State of 
Massachusetts have been conducted to cover peak abundance periods, 
principally between January and March in CCB, and between March and 
early July in the GSC . Aerial surveys have been recently expanded in 
the Gulf of Maine and waters of Rhode Island, New York, and New Jersey.
    Sightings from aerial survey platforms, right whale researchers, 
and multiple other sources are reported to our NEFSC. These data are 
plotted using a Geographic Information System with sightings grouped 
and 'circled' with a buffer zone. Right whale sighting advisories, or 
'alerts,' are disseminated to notify mariners of the presence of right 
whales via a number of mechanisms. The USCG issues Broadcast Notices to 
Mariners and via NAVTEX. NOAA Weather Radio provides geographic and 
positional data on the sightings periodically. The Cape Cod Canal 
Traffic Controllers contact ships and provide positions and a radius 
for each sighting.
    Notifications to individual ships, commercial fishing vessels, and 
military vessels are made directly from the aircraft when observed 
vessels are transiting close to a whale. In addition, these surveys 
have provided sightings of entangled and floating right whales, and 
provide photo identification data for numerous studies. Current plans 
are to continue the surveys into the foreseeable future. While 
dedicated aircraft surveys may be the best available means to attempt 
to alert mariners about the presence of right whales, these programs 
have a number of limitations. For example, aerial surveys are costly to 
implement. Also, the surveys are limited by weather and can be 
conducted only in daylight and under the best of survey conditions. In 
addition, it is likely that, even under good conditions, many whales 
are missed by observers, especially since only those whales at or near 
the surface can be seen. Nonetheless, until effective alternatives are 
identified, the surveys are expected to continue.
    Vessel Approach Regulations - As discussed, on February 13, 1997, 
an interim final rule (62 FR 6729) was published that prohibits both 
boats and aircraft from approaching any right whale closer than 500 
yards (457.2 m). Exceptions for closer approach are provided for 
emergency situations and where certain authorizations are provided.
    Updating Navigational Publications - The National Ocean Service 
publishes and periodically updates nautical charts and a series of 
regional books called U.S. Coast Pilots. These are basic references on 
regional environmental conditions, navigation hazards, and rules. In 
U.S. waters, captains of ships greater than 1,200 gross tons (1,088 
metric tons) are required to carry Coast Pilots. Information contained 
in the Coast Pilots covering the entire eastern United States has been 
updated to include information on the status of right whales, the times 
and areas where they occur, the threats posed to whales by ships, and 
advice on measures

[[Page 77713]]

mariners might take to avoid hitting right whales. Also, updated 
information regarding right whale critical habitat and regulations 
about approaching right whales are published on nautical charts when 
they are re-printed.
    Educational Materials and Outreach - A number of agencies and 
organizations have collaborated on developing brochures, pamphlets, and 
informational papers to educate mariners about the vulnerability of 
right whales to ship strikes. We have published magazine articles 
directed to the shipping industry. Also, as noted above, a video on 
this subject was prepared and is being distributed to the shipping 
industry. The SEIT and NEIT are developing a comprehensive education 
and outreach strategy and have played a key role in past education and 
outreach efforts. These efforts include providing training at mariner 
academies and local marinas.
    Boston Harbor Ship Routing Measures - Part of NOAA's SSRS includes 
consideration of ship traffic routing measures, including shifting the 
port of Boston's Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS). In 2006, NOAA 
developed a proposal that was submitted by the USCG on behalf of the 
U.S. Government to the IMO to narrow and re-align the northern leg of 
the Boston TSS 12 degrees to the north to redirect shipping traffic 
through areas with lower densities of right whales and other baleen 
species. The shift is expected to significantly reduce the risk of ship 
strikes for both right whales and other baleen whale species. The IMO 
endorsed the proposal in December 2006. The United States expects to 
implement the change by July 2007.
    Canadian Ship Routing Measures - In July 2003, with approval from 
the IMO, Canada moved shipping lanes in the Bay of Fundy four nautical 
miles (7.4 km) to the east to protect the feeding whales from ship 
collisions. During summer and early fall, right whales aggregate to 
feed in the Bay of Fundy, between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, 
Canada. During this time the whales are exposed to heavy vessel traffic 
in major shipping channels that pass through the area.

Fishing Gear Entanglement

    Death and serious injury resulting from entanglement in fishing 
gear are significant factors causing the North Atlantic right whale to 
be in danger of extinction throughout its range. Under the MMPA, we are 
required to develop a List of Fisheries (LOF) that classifies all U.S. 
commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on the level of 
marine mammal deaths and serious injuries that occur incidental to the 
fishery. The categorization of a fishery in the LOF determines whether 
participants in that fishery may be required to comply with certain 
provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and 
take reduction plan requirements.
    The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan - Numerous actions and 
activities have been implemented to reduce the danger posed by gear 
entanglement to the survival and recovery of the North Atlantic right 
whale. Under the 1994 amendments to the MMPA, we are required to 
establish take reduction teams (TRT) to develop and implement take 
reduction plans (TRP). The principle goal of the TRT process is to 
reduce the levels of mortality and serious injury of strategic stocks 
of marine mammals in Category I and II fisheries (i.e., those with 
frequent or occasional mortality and serious injury of marine mammals). 
In general, the purpose of the TRT is to provide recommendations and 
assist us in developing management measures as part of the take 
reduction planning process. Take reduction teams are composed of 
representatives from the fishing industry, fishery management councils, 
state and Federal resource management agencies, the scientific 
community, and conservation organizations. After a plan is implemented, 
the TRT provides us with recommendations on implementation activities, 
feedback on the effectiveness of current management measures, and 
strategies for modifying the plan as necessary.
    We, with the assistance of the ALWTRT, developed the ALWTRP to 
reduce the level of serious injury and mortality of three strategic 
stocks of large whales, including North Atlantic right whales in 
commercial gillnet and trap/pot fisheries. In general, the ALWTRP 
consists of a combination of regulatory and non-regulatory programs, 
including broad gear modifications, time-area closures, expanded 
disentanglement efforts, extensive outreach efforts in key areas, gear 
research, and an expanded right whale surveillance program to 
supplement the Mandatory Ship Reporting System.
    Since its implementation in 1997, the ALWTRP has been modified on 
several occasions to address the serious injury and mortality of large 
whales in gillnet and lobster trap/pot gear. Recent amendments to the 
ALWTRP include restrictions to the Southeast Atlantic gillnet fishery 
(67 FR 59471, September 23, 2002; 68 FR 19464, April 21, 2003). Other 
amendments to the ALWTRP include additional gear modifications for 
lobster trap/pot gear in particular management areas and changes to the 
lobster trap/pot and gillnet take reduction technology lists (67 FR 
1300, January 10, 2002; 67 FR 15493, April 2, 2002).
    In addition, a Seasonal Area Management (SAM) program was 
implemented (67 FR 1142, January 9, 2002; 67 FR 65722, October 28, 
2002), which identified two management areas based on annual 
predictable aggregations of right whales. The SAM program also requires 
gear modifications for lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear in 
these areas on a seasonal basis.
    A Dynamic Area Management (DAM) program (67 FR 1133, January 9, 
2002; 67 FR 65722, October 28, 2002) was also implemented to protect 
unexpected aggregations of right whales that met an appropriate trigger 
by temporarily restricting lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet 
fishing in a designated DAM area. Subsequent to the introduction of the 
DAM program, gear modifications determined to sufficiently reduce the 
risk of entanglement to right whales and, therefore, deemed acceptable 
for fishing in DAM zones were implemented (68 FR 10195, March 4, 2003; 
68 FR 51195, August 26, 2003).
    We reconvened the ALWTRT in 2003 to help evaluate the ALWTRP and 
discuss additional modifications necessary to meet the goals of the 
MMPA and the ESA. Particular emphasis was placed on those options 
designed to reduce the potential for entanglements and minimize adverse 
impacts if entanglements occur. On June 30, 2003, we published a NOI to 
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that would analyze the 
impacts of alternatives for amending the ALWTRP (68 FR 38676). On June 
21, 2005, we also published a proposed rule (70 FR 35894) that 
discussed how modifications to the ALWTRP would be implemented.
    Disentanglement Efforts - The 1991 right whale recovery plan called 
for establishment of a marine mammal disentanglement program. We 
established a team of scientists from the Center for Coastal Studies 
and the New England Aquarium to respond to all marine mammal 
entanglements, with an emphasis on right whale and humpback whale 
entanglements. The current disentanglement effort consists of one 
primary team and basic field support in the Bay of Fundy, Gulf of 
Maine, the mid-Atlantic, and Georgia/Florida. The program covers 
nearshore disentanglement events along the eastern seaboard, though the 
team can be deployed in some offshore locations.

[[Page 77714]]

There are, however, limitations; for example, the northern Gulf of 
Maine/Bay of Fundy field stations are operational only when biologists 
are conducting seasonal whale research, and, even then, disentanglement 
response relies on the timely transfer of the team and its equipment to 
the entanglement site. In the southeast United States, trained 
biologists are available to assist, and disentanglement equipment 
caches have been established at key locations.

Coordination of Federal Agency Recovery Activities under the ESA

    Under section 7(a)(1) of the ESA all Federal agencies, in 
consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, must use 
their authorities in the furtherance of the ESA by carrying out 
programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species 
listed pursuant to section 4 of the ESA. Under Section 7(a)(2) of the 
ESA, all Federal agencies must ensure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify 
designated critical habitat. These agencies must consult with us on any 
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat for species 
under our jurisdiction (including right whales). As a result of these 
consultations, we issue either a letter of concurrence that the 
activity is not likely to adversely affect a species or critical 
habitat, or a Biological Opinion for activities likely to adversely 
affect a species or critical habitat. A Biological Opinion evaluates 
whether the activity is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
the species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat and, if so, provides reasonable and prudent 
alternatives to the activity. In those cases where we conclude that an 
action (or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternatives) 
and the resultant incidental take of listed species is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, we specify 
reasonable and prudent measures necessary and appropriate to minimize 
effects of the action on the species of concern.
    We have consulted under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA with the ACOE, 
USCG, and the U.S. Navy on several occasions for a variety of 
activities. We have also conducted consultations on our fishery 
management plans.

Canadian Recovery Efforts

    In 2000, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans published 
a recovery plan for the North Atlantic right whale (E. glacialis). The 
recovery plan proposes five broad recovery strategies for the North 
Atlantic right whale: (1) reduction of vessel collisions; (2) reduction 
of the impacts of encounters with fishing gear; (3) reduction of 
disturbance from human activities; (4) reduction of exposure to 
contaminants and habitat degradation; and (5) population monitoring and 
research.
    Despite ongoing conservation efforts, the North Atlantic right 
whale remains in danger of extinction throughout its range.

Proposed Listing Determination

    The best available scientific and commercial data supports the 
classification of right whales in the North Atlantic as a separate 
species under the ESA. Based on the review of the status of this 
species and the section 4(a)(1) factors (see above), and after taking 
into account any ongoing conservation efforts to protect the species, 
we conclude that the North Atlantic right whale is in danger of 
extinction throughout its range because of the following factors:

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Historically, North Atlantic right whale populations were severely 
depleted by commercial whaling. While North Atlantic right whales have 
been protected since 1931 under the Convention for the Regulation of 
Whaling and more recently by the IWC (circa 1949) and in U.S. waters 
under the MMPA (1972) and the ESA (1973), the North Atlantic right 
whale is in danger of extinction throughout its range because of past 
whaling and has not exhibited signs of recovery from the effects of 
commercial whaling.

The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    While regulatory mechanisms have provided increased protection to 
right whales in the North Atlantic, human activities still result in 
serious injuries and mortalities of right whales. The inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms is a factor that places the North 
Atlantic right whale in danger of extinction throughout its range.

Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    The most significant factor currently placing the North Atlantic 
right whale in danger of extinction remains human-related mortality, 
most notably, ship collisions and entanglement in fishing gear. The 
available evidence strongly suggests that the western population of 
North Atlantic right whale cannot sustain the number of deaths that 
result from ship strikes and fishing gear interactions. If the impact 
of these activities continue at current rates, it is likely to result 
in the extirpation of the western population of North Atlantic right 
whales. Given the low population size of North Atlantic right whales in 
the eastern Atlantic Ocean, the extirpation of right whales in the 
western Atlantic Ocean would render the entire species effectively 
extinct. No natural factors are known to be threatening the continued 
existence of the North Atlantic right whale at this time.

Conclusion

    Based on an analysis of the best scientific and commercial data 
available, the North Atlantic right whale is a separate species, E. 
glacialis. There is reason for serious concern about the future of the 
North Atlantic right whale. Due to the continued anthropogenic factors 
affecting the survival of the species, and the whale's life history, 
the North Atlantic right whale is in danger of extinction throughout 
its range. Because the right whale is a long-lived species, extinction 
may not occur in the immediate future, but the possibility of 
biological extinction in the next century is very real. Based on an 
analysis of the best scientific and commercial data available and after 
taking into consideration current population trends and abundance, 
demographic risk factors affecting the continued survival of the 
species, and ongoing conservation efforts, it is clear that the North 
Atlantic right whale is in danger of extinction throughout its range 
and because of: (1) overutilization for commercial, recreational 
scientific, or educational purposes; (2) the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms; and (3) other natural and manmade factors 
affecting it continued existence.

Prohibitions and Protective Measures

    Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or 
indirectly affect endangered species. These prohibitions apply to all 
individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
    Sections 7(a)(2) and (4) of the ESA require Federal agencies to 
consult with us to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or 
conduct are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 
listed species or a species proposed for listing, or to destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat or proposed critical habitat. If a 
Federal action may affect a listed species or its

[[Page 77715]]

critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of Federal actions that may affect the 
North Atlantic right whale include coastal development, oil and gas 
development, seismic exploration, point and non-point source discharge 
of contaminants, contaminated waste disposal, water quality standards, 
emerging chemical contaminant practices, vessel operations and noise 
level standards, and fishery management practices.
    Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and (B) of the ESA authorize us to grant 
exceptions to the ESA's Section 9 ''take'' prohibitions. Section 
10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be issued 
to entities (Federal and non-federal) for scientific purposes or to 
enhance the propagation or survival of a listed species. The type of 
activities potentially requiring a section 10(a)(1)(A) research/
enhancement permit include scientific research that targets North 
Atlantic right whales. Under section 10(a)(1)(B), the Secretary may 
permit takings otherwise prohibited by section 9(a)(1)(B) if such 
taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an 
otherwise lawful activity.

NMFS Policies on Endangered and Threatened Fish and Wildlife

    On July 1, 1994, we and FWS published a series of policies 
regarding listings under the ESA, including a policy for peer review of 
scientific data (59 FR 34270) and a policy to identify, to the maximum 
extent possible, those activities that would or would not constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the ESA (59 FR 34272).

Role of Peer Review

    The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings are 
based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Prior to a 
final listing, we will solicit the expert opinions of three qualified 
specialists, concurrent with the public comment period. Independent 
specialists will be selected from the academic and scientific 
community, Federal and state agencies, and the private sector.

Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of 
Section 9 of the ESA

    The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the 
effect of our ESA listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the 
species' range. We will identify, to the extent known at the time of 
the final rule, specific activities that will be considered likely to 
result in violation of section 9, as well as activities that will not 
be considered likely to result in violation. Activities that we believe 
could result in violation of section 9 prohibitions against ''take'' of 
the North Atlantic right whale include, but are not limited to, the 
following: (1) Operating vessels in a manner that results in ship 
strikes or disrupts foraging, resting, or care for young or results in 
noise levels that disrupt foraging, communication, resting, or care for 
young; (2) fishing practices that can result in entanglement when 
lines, nets, or other gear are placed in the water column; (3) coastal 
development that adversely affects North Atlantic right whales (e.g., 
dredging, waste treatment); (4) discharging or dumping toxic chemicals 
or other pollutants into areas used by North Atlantic right whales; (5) 
scientific research activities; (6) Land/water use or fishing practices 
that result in reduced availability of prey species during periods when 
North Atlantic right whales are present.
    We believe, based on the best available information, the following 
actions will not result in a violation of ESA Section 9: (1) federally 
funded or approved projects for which ESA section 7 consultation has 
been completed, and that are conducted in accordance with any terms and 
conditions we provide in an incidental take statement accompanying a 
biological opinion; and (2) takes of North Atlantic right whales that 
have been authorized by NMFS pursuant to section 10 of the ESA.
    These lists are not exhaustive. They are intended to provide some 
examples of the types of activities that we might or might not consider 
as constituting a take of North Atlantic right whales.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 
1532(3)) as: ``(i) the specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the 
provisions of [section 4 of this Act], on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to conservation of the 
species and (II) which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by a species at the time it is listed in accordance with the 
provisions of [section 4 of this Act], upon a determination by the 
Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species.'' Conservation means to use and the use of all methods and 
procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing 
under the ESA is no longer necessary.
    Section 4(a)(3)(a) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires 
that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, critical habitat 
shall be designated concurrent with making a determination that a 
species is an endangered species or threatened species, unless some 
limited exceptions apply.
    In July 2002, we received a petition to revise the current critical 
habitat designation for right whales in the North Atlantic. On August 
28, 2003, we published a determination that the petitioned action was 
not warranted at that time (68 FR 51758). This notice stated that we 
would continue to analyze the physical and biological habitat features 
(PCEs) essential to the conservation of the species. Our Northeast 
Region and Southeast Region are developing a proposed rule to designate 
critical habitat for the North Atlantic right whale.

Public Comments Solicited

    We are soliciting public comments and information from the public, 
other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, 
industry, and any other interested parties on this proposed listing of 
the North Atlantic right whale (E. glacialis) under the ESA as an 
endangered species throughout its range.

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

    The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing 
to the best scientific and commercial data available. Based on this 
limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the opinion in 
Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir. 1981), we 
have concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to the 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. (See NOAA 
Administrative Order 216 6.)

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork 
Reduction Act

    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the 
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of 
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. 
In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under E.O. 12866. 
This proposed rule

[[Page 77716]]

does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for the 
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

E.O. 13132 - Federalism

    E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take into account any federalism 
impacts of regulations under development. It includes specific 
consultation directives for situations where a regulation will preempt 
state law, or impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and 
local governments (unless required by statute). Neither of these 
circumstances is applicable to this proposed listing determination. In 
keeping with the intent of the Administration and Congress to provide 
continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual state and 
Federal interest, we intend to provide this proposed rule to relevant 
state agencies and invite their comments on it.

References Cited

    The status review report of the right whales in the North Atlantic 
and North Pacific forms the basis for the proposed listing 
determinations for both the North Atlantic and the North Pacific right 
whales. This status review report and a complete list of references 
used in its preparation is available online on our website at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ and is available upon request from our Northeast 
Regional Office in Gloucester, Massachusetts (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224

    Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened 
species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Transportation.

    Dated: December 20, 2006.
Samuel D. Rauch III.,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR 
part 224 as follows:

PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

    1. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
    2. Revise Sec.  224.101(b) to read as follows:


Sec.  224.101  Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.

    (b) Marine mammals. Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus); Bowhead 
whale (Balaena mysticetus); Caribbean monk seal (Monachus tropicalis); 
Chinese river dolphin (Lipotes vexillifer); Cochito (Phocoena sinus); 
Fin or finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus); Hawaiian monk seal 
(Monachus schauinslandi); Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae); 
Indus River dolphin (Platanista minor); Mediterranean monk seal 
(Monachus monachus); North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis); 
Saimaa seal (Phoca hispida saimensis); Sei whale (Balaenoptera 
borealis); Sperm whale (Physeter catodon); Western North Pacific 
(Korean) gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus); Steller sea lion, western 
population, (Eumetopias jubatus), which consists of Stellar sea lions 
from breeding colonies located west of 144[deg] W. longitude.
[FR Doc. E6-22182 Filed 12-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S