In its letter to the Service accompanying the report, 
the Commission, in consultation with its Committee of 
Scientific Advisors, noted that analyses in the report 
confirm that all three areas are used seasonally by 
substantial numbers or right whales and/or by a vital 
component of the population (e.g., females with 
calves). It also noted that each area appeared to meet 
established criteria for designating critical habitat. It 
therefore recommended that the Service immediately 
act to designate all three areas identified in the peti- 
tion as critical habitat. In addition, the Commission 
recommended that the Service evaluate right whale 
sighting effort data for each area to determine if 
additional areas adjacent to the proposed boundaries 
also merit designation. 
On 18 October 1991 the Service advised the 
Commission that an environmental assessment of the 
petitioned action was being prepared and that it 
expected to publish proposed rules in January 1992. 
By fall of 1992, the Service had yet to publish a 
determination regarding the petition’s merit. There- 
fore, on 28 October 1992, the Commission wrote to 
the Service, noting that the lack of action was incon- 
sistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of the Endan- 
gered Species Act’s provisions for responding to 
petitions and that it was contrary to the Commission’s 
recommendation of more than a year ago that immedi- 
ate action be taken to proceed with the designation. 
Noting that the Service is bound by the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act to provide a detailed explana- 
tion within 120 days as to why a Commission recom- 
mendation is not adopted, the Commission asked to be 
advised (1) precisely what the Service had done to 
review and respond to the petition; (2) why the 
Service had not adopted the Commission’s recommen- 
dation to proceed immediately with the designation 
process; (3) whether the Service still planned to do so; 
(4) if the Service did not plan to propose critical 
habitat for right whales, the reasons why; (5) if the 
Service did plan to designate critical habitat, the steps 
and schedule to be followed in doing so; and (6) what 
steps the Service had taken to analyze effort data to 
determine if other areas adjacent to the petitioned 
areas also merit critical habitat designation. 
By letter of 24 November 1992 the Service advised 
the Commission that other agency priorities had 
53 
Chapter III — Species of Special Concern 
delayed its response to the petition and that it planned 
to proceed with a proposal to designate all three areas 
as critical habitat. In this regard, the Service stated it 
was completing an environmental assessment on 
designating the three areas and that it would publish 
proposed regulations in January 1993. The Service 
also noted that it had reviewed information on right 
whale sightings adjacent to the proposed areas and 
found that available data were insufficient to warrant 
designation of other areas. 
For the future, the Service stated that it would 
respond to all Endangered Species Act petitions 
according to the following timetable: Proposed rules 
or a determination that a petitioned action is not 
warranted will be announced within one year of the 
date of receipt of a petition, and a decision on final 
rules will be published within one year of the publica- 
tion date of any proposed rules. 
Bowhead Whale 
(Balaena mysticetus) 
Bowhead whales occur only in the Arctic and sub- 
Arctic where they are circumpolar in distribution and 
seasonally associated with sea ice. Historically, there 
are believed to have been at least four separate 
bowhead whale populations. The largest surviving 
population is the western Arctic population, which mi- 
grates seasonally between the Bering Sea and the 
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The status of populations 
in other areas is not known. 
Over-exploitation by commercial whalers between 
1600 and 1900 reduced all populations to extremely 
low levels. Although every stock was subjected to 
intensive hunting at one time or another, both the 
period of exploitation and the extent of depletion 
appear to have differed. In the western Arctic, the 
population off Alaska, eastern Russia, and northwest- 
ern Canada was heavily exploited between 1848 and 
1915. During that period, more than 19,000 whales 
were taken by commercial whalers. The Spitzbergen 
population, found north of Scandinavia, was believed 
to have been extirpated; however, recent sightings 
indicate that a remnant bowhead whale population still 
remains in the region. 
