Recover 

n . 

r to the *- . 

q- . , . , . . & ,- - 3 .. , F., ..;.. . . . " J' & <, 2 . ~ Wg",;*, , . 

$ +,*. 

3 .%F': qg 

iae 

November 1991 

U.S. ~e~artment of Commerce 

nal Oceanic and 

Administration 

~atio(na1 Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Protected Resources 
of the humpback 
FINAL RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE 

HUMPBACK WHALE 

(MEGAPTERA NOVAEANGLIAE) 

NOVEMBER 1991 

PREPARED BY THE 

HUMPBACK WHALE RECOVERY TEAM 

APPROVED : 

WZLLIAM W. 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

NATIONAfr OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 
This Receery Plan for the Humpback Whale has been apprwed by the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

It does ot necessarily represent official positions or approvals of cooperating agencies. It does not 

necessa ly represent the views of all individuals involved in the plan formulation. The plan has been 

prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team to delineate reasonable actions believed required to 

lead to t e recovery of the humpback whale. This plan is subject to modiii as dictated by nw 

findings, \ hanges in species status and completion of tasks described in the plan. Ooals and objectives 

will be qained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities and other constraints. 

Liierature Citations should read as follows: 

Fisheries Se~ce. 1991. Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale (Megapten 

Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries 

Spring, Maryland. 105 pp. 
I Acknowledaements 

Whale Recovery Team (Appendix B) thanks the following people and agencies for 

during preparation of this document: R.H. Hofman and D. Laist (Marine Mammal 

(University of Rhode Island), R.V. Miller (National Marine Mammal Laboratory), 

Aquarium), D. Rice (National Marine Mammal Laboratory), T. Smith (NMFS, 

G. Waring (NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Laboratory) and H.E. Wtnn 

dedication of staff members at College of the Atlantic, Bar Harbor, Maine; the Marine 

Washington, D.C.; the Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, D.C., the 

Laboratory, Seattle, Washington; and the New England Aquarium, Boston, 

gather information, arranged meetings for the Recovery Team, and assisted 

We thank particularly J. Beard, S. Crock, L Alley, E. Jenson, K. Johnson, 

authors whose works are cited in the Reference section for providing us with copies 

to others who responded to our requests for documents. We thank the Library 

Zoology, Harvard University, for library privileges during this project. 

Throughout this task, we have appreciated the assistance provided by the NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources, its D rector, N. Foster, and staff members G. Thompson, C. Kamella and R. Ziobro. i 

The New Engla d Aquarium's generous provision of office space, telephone, library and copy facilities, 

and financial su port to S.K. Katona proved essential to completion of this document. We are also 

grateful to Cole 1 e of the Atlantic and President L Rabineau for sabbatical leave provided to S.K. Katona. 

Finally, we the individuals and agencies (Appendix F) whose thoughtful comments on the 

Draft of this Plan have resulted in substantial improvements in this document. 
1 Preface 

passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, (16 USC 1531 et seq., amended 1978, 

1988) to protect species of plants and animals threatened with extinction. The National 

Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) share responsibility for 

the ESA NMFS is responsible for most marine mammal species. The ESA requires 

to use all reasonable methods available to conserve endangered and threatened 

planning and actions to prevent further decline of the species, to facilitate an increase 

to improve the quali of its habitat. 

of the ESA directs the responsible agency to develop and implement a Recovery Plan, if it 

that such a plan will promote conservation of the species. NMFS has determined that a 

Plan (Plan) would promote conservation of the humpback whale, Megaptera 

was written by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team at the request of the Assistant 

for Fisheries of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to promote 

of humpback whales as provided in the 1978 amendments to the ESA. The recovefy 

on marine mammals from the private sector, academia, and government (Appendix 

primarily on populations of humpback whales believed to occur seasonally 

waters of the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans. It summarizes 

whales, identifies problems that may interfere with recovery, and 

actions to restore and maintain the humpback whale as a viable 

The Pla is organized into five major sections. Following a review of Natural History, it provides details 

on pop lations in the North Atlantic Ocean and the North Pacific Ocean. A discussion of Known and 

Potent1 I Impacts to the species and its habitat(s) is followed by Recommended Recovery Actlons. Six 

Append 1 ces (A-F) highlight valuable information that might otherwise clutter the text. 

The pro esses and actions described in this Plan are dynamic. Habitats, population sizes and other 

factors ill change over time, so this Plan will require updating as new information becomes available. 

Recove efforts may be modified, reduced or ended at any point during the planning process as new 

informat on becomes available or if there is sufficient evidence to indicate that protection under the ESA 

is no lo I ger necessary. 

iii 
1 Executive Summary 

pback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, is classified as an endangered species and the Assistant 

for Fisheries has determined that a Recovery Plan (Plan) would help this species to increase 

This Plan first reviews the natural history of the humpback whale, concentrating particularly 

stocks or feeding aggregations which regularly spend portions of the year in waters 

of the United States. Following a summary of existing and potential threats to this 

out a series of recommended goals and actions for (1) maintaining and enhancing 

whales; (2) identifying and reducing death, injury or disturbance to the whales 

performing research to evaluate progress toward recovery goals; and (4) 

improved administration and coordination. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

................................................. i 

cknowledgements .......................................... ii 

.................................................... iii 

Summary .......................................... iv ............................................ v 

I . ~ntrodGucflM 

oals and Objectives ........................................ 1 

II . Natr 

Species description and taxonomy ........................... 5 

.......................................... ......................... .................................. 

Zoogeography 5 

Populations and population sub-units 6 

. ............................. Habitat use and behavior 6 

1 Summering areas: feeding 6 

2 . Migrations ......................................... 8 

3 . Wintering areas: reproduction .......................... 9 

Natural mortality ......................................... 11 

nt Status of North Atlantic Populations 

Summer distribution and habitat use .......................... 13 

. ................................ . ......... 1 Eastern North Atlantic 13 

. ..................................... 2 Iceland. Greenland and Canadian Maritime Provinces 13 

3 U.S. East Coast 13 

Winter distribution and habitat use ............................ 14 

Abundanceandtrends .................................... 15 

IV . Curr 

A . 

6 . 

nt Status of North Pacific Populations 

Summer distribution and habitat use .......................... 17 

1 . California to Briish Columbia ........................... 17 

2 . Southeastern Alaska ................................. 18 

3 . Southcentral Alaska: the Gulf of Alaska including Prince William 

Sound and the Alaska Peninsula ...................... 19 

4 . Aleutian Islands. Bering Sea and Asia .................... 19 

Winter distribution and habitat use ............................ 20 

1 . Hawaiian Islands .................................... 20 

2 . Mexico ............................*.............. 21 

3 . Asia ............................................. 21 

C . Abundanceandtrends .................................... 21 

1 . Summering grounds ................................. 22 

2 . Wintering grounds ................................... 22 
A . ...................................... 25 

B . in fishing gear ................... 25 

C . ...................................... 26 

D . ...................................... 27 

Noise from ships. boats and aircraft ...................... 27 

2 . Commercial whale watching boats and research boats ........ 29 

3 . Noise from industrial activities .......................... 30 

E . Ha 1 itat degradation ....................................... 30 

1 . Chemical pollution. including petroleum ................... 30 

2 . Habitat degradation from coastal development .............. 31 

F . Co m petition for resources with humans : ....................... 32 

VI . Recomm nded Recovery Actions 

A . Go k Is ................................................. 33 

B . ~teb-down outline ........................................ 34 

C . Natrative ............................................... 38 

............................. i . Maintain and enhance habitats used by humpback whales 

currently of historically 38 

. Identify and reduce direct. human-related mortality. injury and 

disturbance ..................................... 45 

. Measure and monitor key population parameters ............ 47 

. Improve administration and coordinationof recovery program .............................. 1 for humpback whales 52 

Tables and ~ibures ............................................... 73 

Appendices I 

A . Schedule .................................. 90 

B . Humpback Whale Recovery Team ............... 98 

C . .................................. 99 

D . abbreviations ...................................... 100 

E . regulations and protective measures .................... 101 

F . submitting written comments ......................... 104 
'Desplte a century of propaganda, 

conservation dlll proceeds at a snall's pace; 

progress dill consists largely of 

letterhead pletles and convention oratory: 

whale, Megeptera novaeangliae (Borowski 1781), occurs in all oceans of the world, 

in Arctic regions. Throughout its range, it was heavily exploited by commercial 

The species first received protection in the North Atlantic in 1955 

Commission (IWC) placed a prohibition on msubsistence hunting by 

extended to the North Pacific and Southern Hemisphere populations 

humpback was classified as an endangered species when the U.S. 

in 1973, and it remains so today. 

of humpback whales was recently evaluated by Whitehead (1987) for the Canadian 

Committee on Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). The COSEWlC Review 

equivalent to the U.S. Recovery Team and that document is the Canadian equivalent to this 

Plan. 

s, humpback whales are probably the fourth most numerically depleted large cetacean 

iling the northern right whale, Eubalaena glacialis; blue whale, Balaenoptera musculus; and 

le, Balaena mysticetus. Prior to commercial whaling, the worldwide population is thought 

in excess of 125,000. American whalers alone killed 14,164-1 8,212 humpbacks between 

st 1987) and the total North Pacific kill was estimated to be about 28,000 (Rice 1978). 

no more than about 10,000 to 12,000 exist (Braham 1984), about 10% of the estimated 

GOALS AND OBJECnVES 

The creat on of goals for a Recovery Plan must be balanced by the development of criteria for measuring 

their achevement. Simply put, it is necessary to establish ways to judge whether a population is 

recoverin or has recovered. The intent of this Plan is to assist humpback whale populations to grow and 

to reoccu y areas where they were historically found. Verification of growth rate will require new research 

describe 1 in Section VI of this Plan. 

of us might like to encourage humpback whale populations to reach the equilibrium canying 

prevailed before commercial hunting, such a goal may na be feasible. For better or 

have claimed an increasing share of the habitat and resources once available to 

other species. Humpback whales have no alternative but to share the oceans with 
in lower numbers. In contrast, it is only through force of law that humans must share 

whales. The actions recommended in this Plan attempt to guarantee that we 

humpback whale populations increase to levels specified below. 

has found it useful to describe three types of goals for this Plan. Of fundamental 

g@ of building and maintaining populations large enough to be resilient 

each of the North Atlantic and North Pacific 

e goals are diiicult to fulfill. The biological goal is vexing, because future changes in 

e or environmental conditions cannot be predicted accurately, so one can never be 

that populations are large enough to rebound. The numerical goal is difficult to 

estimates of present and past abundance and historical carrying capacity are 

me instances unknown. We do not yet know exactly which numbers should be 

produce a long-term population goal. Tasks recommended in this Plan will attempt 

Finally, the political goal is problematic, because different constituencies are 

ut costs, benefii and desirability of different levels of protection. This Plan 

lopment and agreement on criteria for making such decisions. 

In the meantim , this Plan recommends adoption of an interim goal that populations double in size during 

the next 20 yea . It will be important to reach early agreement on the indices used to track population 

status over the long term. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans each contain several relatively distinct 

populations of umpback whales. Each diers somewhat in past and present histories of hunting and 

in ecological r environmental factors. Each population will therefore have somewhat dierent 

management re uirements. Different populations may require different periods of time to double in size, 

but reaching t at milestone within two decades will be evidence of meaningful progress. Tasks 

recommended i this Plan provide for periodic assessment of populations. Data showing (I) statistically 

significant tren of population increase as determined by accepted analytical methods and (2) statistically 

significant tren s of population increase in portions of the range known to have been occupied in 

historical times 1 ill be evidence of continuing satisfactory progress. 

our understanding of the status of those humpback whale populations wholly or 

It recommends management to assist those and other populations 

activities to measure rates of population change. It emphasizes two 

(1) protection of habitats and (2) reduction of human activities 

Activities to educate the public about aspects of this Plan 

years of protection may be necessary before some 

population milestone. 
In summary, the long-term numerical goal of the Plan Is to Increase 

humpback whale populatlons to at least 60% of the number existlng 

before commercial exploltatlon or of current environmental carrylng 

capaclty. Those lwek remain to be determlned. In the meantime, the 

Interim goal Is a doubling of extant populations wlthin the next 20 

years. Acceptable evidence of ongoing populatlon recovery wlll be 

data showing (1) statistlcally rlgnMcant trends of population Increase 

as determlned by accepted analytical methods, and (2) statistlcally 

slgnlflcant trends of population Increase In portlons of the range 

known to have been occupled In hktorlcal times. 

The Major Objectives by whlch this Plan reeks to accomplish that 

Goal are to: (1) Maintain and enhance hablta, (2) Reduce humanrelated mortality, injury and disturbance; (3) Measure and monltor key 

populatlon parameters; and (4) Promote coordinated admlnlstratlon 

and Implementation of this Plan. SpeclfIc recommended tasks are 

organized In Sectlon VI and Appendix A. I 

of the Plan has entailed review of hundreds of published and unpublished documents 

whales. Whenever possible, citations were drawn from recent, peer-reviewed 

but the Recovery Team is aware that many of the citations included in this Plan 

that has not been formally published. Such references include reports to 

or work presented at scientific meetings, personal communications 

C) and manuscripts in preparation. Since such information has 

be interpreted with some degree of caution. Nevertheless, 

of information to require their inclusion in this Plan. An 

whales from 1 864-1 980 is available (Bird 1983). 
4
11. NATURAL HISTORY 

d. Species Description and Taxonomy 

whales are distinguished from other whales in the same Family (Balaenopteridae) by 

long flippers (up to 5 m or about 1P total body length), a more robust body, fewer throat 

more variable dorsal fin, and utilization of very long (up to 30 min.), complex, repetitive 

(Payne and McVay 1971) during courtship. Their grayish-black baleen plates, 

440 on each side of the jaw, are intermediate in length (6570 cm) to those of other 

in dierent geographical areas vary somewhat in body length, but maximum 

and Reichley 1985). Mean length at physical maturity for humpbacks killed 

and 13.5 m (males) (National Marine Mammal Laboratory, unpublished 

metric tons was the heaviest humpback measured by Nishiiaki 

The whal s are generally dark on the back, but the flippers, sides and ventral surface of the body and 

flukes ma have substantial areas of natural white pigmentation plus acquired scars (white or black). 

White col ration on the flippers may be used to startle and herd schools of fish (Brodie 1977). 

Research rs distinguish individual humpbacks by the apparently unique black and white patterns on the 

underside of the flukes as well as other individually variable features (Katona and Whitehead 1981; 

Glockner nd Venus 1983; Kaufman et a/. 1987). i 

ributed worldwide (Fig. 1) in all ocean basins, though it is less common in 

humpbacks occur in temperate and tropical waters of both hemispheres 

most are in waters of high biological producttvity, usually in the higher 

e timing of key biological functions, such as migrations and reproduction, 

n; these functions are therefore about 6 months out of phase between 

uthem Hemispheres vinn and Reichley 1985). 

h our knowledge is still fragmentary and geographically uneven concerning the identity, 

and habitat use of apparently reproductively isolated sub-populations Cstocks'), a general 

zoogeography is emerging. Some aspects of seasonal mwements and distributions 

change as the numbers of whales change. 

Humpbac whales are generally considered to inhabit waters wer continental shelves, along their edges 

and aroun some oceanic islands (Balcomb and Nichols 1978; Whitehead 1987). They winter in warm 

waters at a small number of relatively specific iocations. They probably mate and give birth while on the 

wintering reas, but reproductive events may also take place during migration. It is thought that lile 

feeding oc 1 urs on the wintering grounds. 

migrate considerable distances to high latitude summering areas, where they feed 

ranges are often relatively close to shore, including major coastal embayments and 

humpbacks may also summer offshore, as in the Gulf of Alaska (Brueggeman et d. 

southern ocean, along the margin of the seasonal pack ice and in waters of the 

More detailed information about seasonal movement and distribution of the North 

populations is discussed in subsequent sections. 

of humpback whale migration and distribution indicates that a Recovery Plan must include 

of the whales in all parts of their seasonal ranges, although they may be more vulnerable 
radiitional coastal areas and oceanic islands for reproduction, it is beliwed 

geographic breeding stocks may exist. Worldwide there are thought to be 

winter in the lower latitudes of tropical and sub-tropical waters. Designation 

rical commercial whaling records (bvnsend 1935; Winn and Scott 1981 ; 

g. 2 in Reeves and Mitchell 1986), early research activities associated with 

(Kellogg 1929) and recent studies (in lit.). Winn and Reichky (1 985) suggested that 

ht be oversimplified and that the whales probably form a series of stocks around the 

one goes to smaller units. As one example, instead of the two stocks 

d Central South Pacific, Gaskin (1982, p. 385) names 6 stocks. 

C. POC 

Inconsistency iri 

the exact number and definition of existing stocks does not affect this Plan, which 

stocks which spend at least part of the year in waters under jurisdiction of the 

are Western North Atlantic; central North Pacific; and eastern North Pacific. 

Guam (Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands) and at American Samoa lie 

North Pacific and Central South Pacific stocks, respectively. Those 

this Plan, since U.S. territorial waters form only a small part of the 

this Plan includes Tasks that encourage other nations to form 

under their jurisdiction. 

ulatlons and w~ulation sub-unlts 

the terminology used to demarcate populations and population sub-units of humpbacks 

that stocks of humpback whales return to traditional sites for reproduction and that 

between most of the stocks listed above. Nevertheless, reoccupation of 

is possible in time, because some movement between stocks or feeding 

Possible interchange between the Western 

North Pacific and the Eastern South Pacific 

Analysis of existing photo-identification catalogues and databases (see 

new field research, including long-term radio tagging and genetic 

may help clarify our understanding of relationships between 

stocks. 

has been a source of confusion. Hereafter in this Plan, we use the term 'stocks' to refer 

es using geographically distinct winter ranges for reproduction; and 'feeding 

ups using geographically distinct summer ranges for feeding. Some stocks are 

from several feeding aggregations. These terms are defined to facilitate 

pulation units. The geographical discreteness of these units reflects diierent 

mprising them, but not enough information is yet available to 

D. ~abk Use and Behavlor 

1 Summerln Areas: Feedln 

All humpback w les feed while on the summer range, which is usually Wed wer a continental shelf 

at latitudes betw n about 400 to 75". Many summer habitats are apparently traditional feeding grounds, 

as evidenced by the long historic record of occupation and by recent records of returns of identified 

individuals for m T ny years (e.g. Baker et el. 1988). 

ratures in lower latitude summering habitats, for example in Massachusetts Bay (about 

at least 21°C (Mayo et a/. 1988). However, surface temperatures in higher latitude 

be vety low, e.g. 2°C near the edge of pack ice in western Greenland at 64ON 
. Depending on prey type and abundance, the whales must often die below the 

rsue prey; therefore, even in warmer areas they frequently swim in cool to cold 

in Massachusetts Bay (Mayo et a/. 1988). 

habitats is, on average, very high. Perhaps of more 

is the opportunity for whales to encounter patches of prey in . The productivity and local distribution of prey are directly 

ing upwelling, converging currents and other factots often 

shelves, offshore banks, and the edges of continental 

cluding biological competitiin, may also be important. The search for 

(e.g Brodie et a/. 1978; Dolphin 1987a.b; Mayo et el. 1988), which may vary 

shorter time scales, probably determines the whales' fineer summering areas. Shii in summer distributions of humpbacks along 

and Carscadden 1985), in southeastern Alaska (Bryant et el. 1981 ; 

r et a/. 1988) and in the Gulf of Maine (Payne et el. 1986) have 

nges in prey abundance. 

Sonar o servations have shown humpback whales to dive as deep as 200 m (Whitehead 1981) while 

pursuing prey, but Dolphin (1987a) stated that such efforts may put them into oxygen debt. According 

to his cal ulations, the aerobic limit is reached after a die lasting 4 to 6 minutes, during which the whale 

could d cend to approximately 41-60 m. Dolphin (1987b) observed average ascent and descent 

velocities of 1.8 m s". Dolphin (1987b) also demonstrated the importance of food concentration and 

depth di ribution on humpback feeding. A whale feeding on krill patches (1 o4 m'3) located at 81 -1 00 m 

would re uire 12.7 hr to consume its daily ration, compared to only 4.5 hr if the patches were at 21-40 m. i 

carry out the most diverse repertory of feeding behaviors known for any baleen whale. 

feeding methods reported (Ingebritsen 1929; Jurasz and Jurasz 1979; Watkins and 

et a/. 1982; Weinrich 1983; Baker and Herman 1985; Baker 1985; Hays et al. 1985; 

1985; D'Vincent et a/. 1985) are: (1) use of columns, clouds or nets of expelled 

krill or fish; (2) herding, and possibly disabling, prey by maneuvering, flicking or 

and flippers; (3) using the water surface as a barrier to prevent the escape of 

techelon feeding'); (5) apparent use of acoustic cues to synchronize 

short- and long-term (multi-year) cooperation between individuals, 

There are also same reports of humpbacks approaching fishing 

fish concentrated by the net (W.k Watkins, J. Sigurjonsson, 

trawl mesh (0.E. Sergeant, pers. comm.). 

Alaska, appeared to be feeding on prey stirred 

along the bottom (von Ziegesar 1984). 

cies used by humpback whales have not been studied in detail for most populations, but 

consistently shows major foods to be small schooling fishes and large zooplankton, 

1957, 1959, 1970; Klurnov 1963; Tomilin 1967; Krieger and Wing 1984, 1986). 

feed whenever and wherever sufficient concentrations of suitably-sized prey 

of the mechanisms by which the whales engulf and filter prey are 

Lambertson (1983) and Orton and Brodie (1987). Species 

in dierent regions are mentioned below. 

of humpbacks in the North Atlantic Ocean included herring (Clupea harengus), sand lance 

and capelin (Mallotus villosus). Other fishes taken at times are mackerel 

pollock (Pollachius virens), and haddock (Melanog~mmus aeglefinus). Krill, 

is also an important food (Tomilin 1967; Meyer eta/. 1979; O~erh~ltZ 
J. Lecky (pers. mm.) observed two humpbacks feeding on schools of anchovy (Engraulis mordac) in 

waters of the wthern California Bight. Rice (1963) found that 64% of food-containing-stomachs of 

humpbacks hu ed off the Central California coast contained anchovies (E. mordax) and 36% contained 

krill (Euphausia cifica). 

Alaska and Prince William Sound, Alaska, herring (Clupea harengus pdlrlasi) and krill 

Thysanoessa spinifera, T. raschii and perhaps occasionally T. longipes) are important 

1981; Krieger and Wing 1984, 1986; Baker et a/. 1985; Peny et a/. 1985; Dolphin 

1 987b). 

In the North Pa ific, Nemoto (1957) reported euphausiids as the only food present in 201 of 261 foodcontaining sto chs of humpbacks killed there. Fifly-six (56) stomachs contained only fish or fish plus 

krill. Frost and ry's (1 981) review named at least 10 species of fishes eaten by humpbacks (capelin, 

Mallotus villosus walleye pollock, Theragra chalcogramma; Atka mackerel, Pleurogremmus monopterygius; 

eulechon, Thde chthys pacificus; sand lance, Ammodytes hexaptetus; pollack, Pollachius virens; Pacific 

cod, Gadus m crocephalus; saffron cod, Eleginus gracilis; arctic cod, Boreogadus saida; salmon, 

Oncorhynchus pp. and rockfish, Sebastes spp.); plus several invertebrates (euphausiids, Thysanoessa 

raschii; mysids, is oculata; pelagic amphipods, Parathemisto libellula; shrimps, Eualus gaimardii and 

Pandalus goniu s; and copepods, Calanus spp.). Tomilin (1967) listed mysids as the main prey of 

humpbacks in t t e Bering Strait and southern Chuckchi Sea 

New Zealand, krill (Euphausia spinifera, EL hemigibba and Nyctiphanes austrais); 

gregana) and herring like fishes (pemaps Clupea fimbriata) were reported as 

Antarctic regions, krill, E. supenba, is the species most frequently reported as 

lied several other euphausiids, a copepod (Calanus propinquus) and an 

Two types of may be distinguished: (1) within-season movement through a portion of the 

in order to find or follow concentrations of prey; and (2) longdistance 

and wintering areas. 

As an example within-season movement, Whitehead et al. (1 982) showed that individual humpbacks 

moved along the Northeastern Newfoundland and Labrador coast at a minimum speed of approximately 

1" latitude per onth (0.154 krnfhr), perhaps in association with capelin spawning, which occurs 

progressively lat f r further north along the coast. 

of longdistance migrations between summering and wintering areas were 

(Matthews 1938; Dawbin 1966), because data were available from 

fishery. As summarized by Dawbin (1 966), individual whales could 

Estimates for mean rate of migration were between 180-220 

but one whale swam 500 n. mi. in 6 days. 

Estimated migrat' n speeds of photographicalb-identified Northern Hemisphere whales were; 78 dy (2.38 

km/hr) for a 4,s km distance between Hawaii and Alaska (Baker et al. (1985); and 3.29 km/hr (21" 

latitudelmonth) a 2.28 kmlhr (14.8" latitudelmonth) for two individuals migrating between the Greater 

Antilles and M 4 chusetts Bay (Clapham and Mattila 1988). 

Marking efforts t used Discovery tags (Nishiwaki 1967) and resightings of photographically-identified 

et al. 1984; Darling and McSweeney 1985; Katona 1986; Baker et el. 1986; Katona and 

the beginning and end points of numerous migrations, but the exact routes 
not known. As yet, there are no reported features that characterize the migration routes of 

of humpbacks. Some whales migrate across the open ocean, from Hawaii waters to 

Alaska (e.g., Baker et el. 1986), and from the Caribbean to near Iceland (e-g., 

apparently migrate through coastal waters, as in the case of those that winter 

in California or Southeastern Alaska (Darling and Jurasz 1983; Darling 

routes and the location of feeding areas are probably learned by calves 

(Martin et el. 1984; Baker et el. 1986). 

humpbacks in the Southern Hemisphere appeared to segregate 

During the trip to higher latitudes, females in early pregnancy 

animals, then resting females with mature males, and finally females 

the return trip to low (breeding) latitudes, females and neady weaned nurslings 

in succession by immature animals, mature males with resting females, and 

One resutt noted by Oawbii (1 966) was that lactating females with their 

months less in cold waters of the summer feeding grounds than did 

This se uence has not been as thoroughly documented 'for Northem Hemisphere humpbacks. 

Nishiwak's (1960) data suggested that migrating animals are segregated by length and perhaps 

reprodu ive class. However, Baker et el. (1 985) and Straley (in press) have showed that representatives 

of all ag s, sexes and reproductive classes are found in Southeastern Alaskan coastal waters during 

autumn nd early winter. If there is any segregation of classes in the migration, it cannot be waluated 

by existi 1 g data. 

1 3. Winterlna areas: Re~roductlon 

whales appear to spend winter in relatively specific, traditional locations at lower latitudes 

about 10" and 35" latitude). The sea water temperatures of those locations, up to 25°C 

(Herman 1979) and 28°C in the West lndies (Whitehead and Moore 1982), are among 

by any baleen whale. 

do not participate in reproductive activities until they reach sexual maturity, usually 

2). Sexually mature females give birth approximately wery two or three years 

and muhi-year (up to 5 years, e.g. Baker et el. 1988) calving have been 

Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari 1984,1985a in press; Clapham and Mayo 

1988, in press). Annual calving appears to be unusual. About 14% of 

photoidentified females in Hawaiii waters were only one year @.A 

female humpack whale in southeastern Alaska was seen with a calf 

was seen with a catf in two consecutive summers 

the summer, suggesting that annual calving can occur with 

1989; see also Darling, 1983 and Baker, 1987). 

er range, most mothers with calves are accompanied by an escort whale (Herman and 

Glockner and Venus 1983) that is a male (Glockner 1983). Groups of up to 19 @.A 

pers. comm.) sexually mature males compete for access to females, ramming each other 

flippers or flukes (Tyack and Whitehead 1983; Baker and Herman 1984; Glockner-Ferrari 

by males on the wintering ground appear to have courtship or 

those of bird songs (Tyack 1981; Tyack and Whitehead 1983). The 

recorded on summer ranges (Mattila et 81. 1987; McSweeney et el. 1989) 
bservations of copulation exist for this species. Tomilin's (1967) examination of 68 

humpback whales killed in the North Pacific indicated that conception took place 

in February-April and September-October. Tomilin could not explain that result 

could occur during migration or on the summering grounds, but he also 

autumn peak represented whales that had come from the Southern 

of 2023 embryos collected from Antarctic waters indicated that 

austral winter through spring, with the peak in September milin 

1967). 

In the Northe Hemisphere, young calves have been observed mainly during winter, even though 

Tomilin's (1 96 examination of embryos would suggest that some births occur at other times. Lactation 

continues for u to 12 months (Fig. 2). A summary of information on life history and vital rates is given 

in Table 2 (als see Winn and Reichley 1985). 

Physiographic 

i 

escriptions are available for two important wintering areas in the Northern Hemisphere. 

In both locatio s, there are indications that specific habitat types within the winter range are differentially 

important to di erent reproductive classes. i 

Based primari on their experiences in the North Atlantic, Whitehead and Moore (1982) and Whitehead 

(1 987) listed g neral characteristics of Western North Atlantic wintering areas: latludes between 10" and 

22" north or so h; sea water temperatures between 24O and 28°C; with areas of flat sea floor; and lying 

less than 30 k from deep water. According to these authors, concentrations of humpback whales may 

attract other h mpback whales to a site, but excessive human disturbance may cause shiis to other 

areas. In Whit head and Moore's (1 982) studies at Silver Bank, singing whales were usually found wer 

smooth, flat om 20 m to 40 m deep, but only rarely wer deep water or among coral heads; and 

mothers with c lves were most frequently found in calm water among coral heads or in the lee of coral 

reefs. Those a hors also noted that calves were 'virtually absent' from Navidad Bank, which has no coral 

reef and presu i ably no calm water. 

Characteristics of Hawaiian waters used for breeding, as described by Rice and Wolman (1978) and 

Herman (1 979) ncluded: between approximately 19" to 22" latitude; sea surface temperature between 24O 

and 28°C; swel and surf on northeastern shores caused by northeast tradewinds prevailing during 55- 

65% of Decem r-April, but often interrupted from October through April by southerly 'kona' winds; no 

consistent relat nship between wind or swell patterns and diributii of whales; depths utilized always 

less than 100 f homs (183 m); clear water with low zooplankton content and lile permanent effect on 

water clarity fro 1 land runoff. 

the major calving areas within waters under U.S. jurisdiction are the Hawaiian Islands 

stock) and Guam (U.S. Trust of the Pacific Islands) (Western North Pacific stock). 

waters under American jurisdiction around American Samoa are within the winter 

South Pacific stock. 

of the Western North Atlantic stock, United States protection extends to portions of 

and Puerto Rico where some reproductive activities occur (Mattila and Clapham 1989; 
1 E. Natural Mortality 

of literature for preparation of this Plan has revealed how little is known about natural mortality 

whale populations. Natural mortali rates cannot be accurately quantified at this time. 

contributing to natural mortality, including parasites, predation, red-tide toxins, and ice 

below. 

Parasit s may play a larger role in natural mortali than has generally been acknowledged. For example, 

the hu pback whale is the type host of the giant spirurid nematode Cmssicauda boopis, which in ather 

specie of balaenopterids may cause substantial morbidity and mortality (e.g. extensive and severe 

mesen eric arteritis, complete occlusion of the blood vessels draining the kidneys; congestive kidney 

failure nd death (Lambertson 1985, 1986, in press; Larnbertson et a/. (1 986). i 

(Orcinus orca) prey on humpback whales and Katona et a/. (1988) reported that about 14% 

individually identified humpback whales in the Western North Atlantic Ocean showed scars 

from apparent encounters with killer whales. Whitehead (1 987) reported two incidents of 

humpback whales on the Grand Bank of Newfoundland, but hypothesized that such 

at disabled or young animals. Killer whale attacks on humpbacks have been 

Alaska, but the two species have also been seen there feeding in close 

interactions (Dolphin 1987). Calves have been observed with rake marks 

Glockner-Ferrari and M.J. Ferrari (pers. comm.) speculate may result from 

crassidens). They have observed Pseudorca and humpbacks 

to be shark bites have been observed on adults. In 1974, 

following a juvenile. The shark and whale were soon lost 

in the water and the juvenile returned to the area missing 

Glockner-Ferrari et el. (1987) reported an increase in the 

and strandings in Hawaiian waters furing 1987. 

Betwe n December 1987 and January 1988, 14 humpback whales died in Cape Cod Bay of paralytic 

shellfis poisoning (PSP) (Geraci etal. 1990). Another individual died shortly afterwards in waters off New 

York S ate. It is not yet clear whether PSP poisoning has occurred previously in this species, but not 

been r cognized. The above incident is the only natural mass mortality of humpback whales on record. i 

ents of humpbacks in spring pack ice in Newfoundland have occurred several times during the 

(Merdsoy, Lien and Storey 1979). As many as 25 humpbacks have been ice entrapped in 

event (Lien and Stenson 1986) and some mortali has been documented. 
12
Ill. CURRENT STATUS OF NORTH ATLANTIC POPULATIONS 

(A. Summer Dlstrlbutlon and Habitat Use 

During ummer, humpback whales in the Western North Atlantic migrate andlor feed wer the continental 

shelf a along the coasts of Iceland, southwestern Greenland, the Newfoundland and Labrador coasts, 

the Gu of St. Lawrence, and the Gulf of Maine (Leatherwood et el. 1976; Whitehead et el. 1982; Katona, 

Rough i nd Richardson 1983; Perkins et el. 1984; Payne et el. 1986). 

wer 3,647 individually-identified North Atlantic humpback whales (Katona and Beard, 1990) 

individual whales from waters near Iceland, Southwestern Greenland, Newfoundland and 

Gulf of St. Lawrence, or the Gulf of Maine generally returned to the same area for feeding. 

aggregations' was used to describe groups of whales using these separate parts of 

1 1. Eastern North Atlantlc 

In the E stem North Atlantic (Figure 3), humpback whales feed from the British Isles north as far as Bear 

Island ( SON) and Spitsbergen (78"N) (Mitchell and Reeves 1983) and as far east as Novaya Zemlya (WE) 

(Tomilin 1967). It is not known whether those animals migrate to wintering grounds around the Cape 

Verde Is ands uownsend 1 935; Winn et a/. 1981 ; Mitchell and Reeves 1983), in other unknown locations 

in the E 1 stern Atlantic Ocean, or even around the Antilles (see Sec. lll.B.). 

1 2. Iceland. Greenland and Canadian Marltlmes 

hales in the Western North Atlantic Ocean (Figure 3) appear to feed in Iceland, 

Canadian Maritimes (Tables 1,3). Their primary prey species around Iceland are 

herring (Clupea harengus). Stomachs of humpback whales taken off the 

land contained small fish and krill (Kapel 1979); photographs in Perkins et al. (1982) 

ing what appear to be sand lance (4mmodytes sp.). The main prey taken around 

lin (Mitchell 1973; Whitehead and Glass 1985; Whitehead and Carscadden 1985), 

Iso important and sometimes haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), mackerel 

sand lance @mmodytes spp.) and squid (Illex Illecebrosus) are eaten when 

; Bredin 1983). Herring, capelin, sand lance and krill are all eaten in the Gulf of 

rs. comm.). Little information is available concerning humpback whales on the 

If, but they are abundant in the lower Bay of Fundy, where they eat herring and krill, 

. Haycock, S. Katona, pers. comm.; cf. Brodie et a/. 1978). Peak feeding 

are from July through September, but some whales may remain considerably 

d indeed some remain all winter. Feeding areas may change between weeks 

g on local abundance and distribution of prey (Whitehead 1987; Whitehead 

r example, along the Newfoundland coast, the first sightings of humpbacks 

ril along the South coast. Progressively later sightings are made eastward, 

appearing around the Avalon Peninsula by May and June, along the Northeast coast 

nd in Labrador by July through August (Lien 1980). 

1 3. U.S. ~ast Coast 

whales regularly inhabit waters under jurisdiction of the United States during spring, summer 

(Figure 3). They feed opportunistically all along the continental shelf, but the largest numbers 

to mid-November in the western section of the Gulf of Maine, particularly the Great 

Bank and Jeffreys Ledge; and also from July through October in the eastern 

the Bay of Functy. The extended seasonal presence of humpback whales 

of Maine may be explained by the fact that the Great South Channel is 
and it also probably acts as a funnel for exit and entry of most of the Gulf of Maine 

during migration to and from the breeding range (Kenney et a/. 1981 i Kenney and 

n-season movements of humpback whales within the Gulf of Maine is probably 

and abundance of their prey species, but factors, such as social behavior, 

aps others may also be involved (Kenney and Winn 1985; Payne et 611.1986). 

important prey species in the southwestern Gulf of Maine, supplemented 

d mackerel when abundant (Meyer et a/. 1979; Ovemoltz and Nicdas 

mid-1970's, neither sand lance nor humpback whales were common 

and Nicdas 1979; W.E. Schevill, pers. comm.). Fdlowing a sharp 

became locally abundant and fed voraciously on the fish from 

n et a/. 1982) and through 1 985 (Hays et 81.1985; Mayo et a/. 

undance of sand lance during 1986 and 1987 apparently caused a shii of local 

to the Great South Channel, but both species were again 

n Bank in 1988 (Mayo et a/. 1988). Sightings of humpback whales on Georges 

concomitantly with increases in sand lance (Payne et a/. 1986). 

ge to the Fundy region, herring is thought to be the most important prey of humpbacks, 

surface shoals of euphausiids (M. no~egic8) during late summer, particularly on the 

Ledge (M.T. Weinrich, S.D. Mercer, S.K. Katona, C. Haycock, pers. comm.). 

During the fee ing season, humpback whales are less common south of Cape Cod, but they can be 

found east and outheast of Montauk Point, Long Island, from April to about October (Kenney eta/. 1981 ; 

CETAP 1982; K nney 1984; Kenney and Winn 1986). Large quantities of euphausiids may be eaten near 

heads of subm rine canyons in spring (Kenney and Winn 1987). i 

is no strong evidence of age or sex class segregation, because the geographic 

with calves and of juveniles is similar to that of other humpbacks (Goodale 1982). 

B. wider Dlstrlbutlon and Habltat Utm 

heir principal winter range around the Greater and 

reported along the U.S. coast. A few humpback 

land (CETAP 1982; Mayo at a/. 

may remain all winter. More 

deep water bays in Newfoundland, 

lin stocks (Lien, Fawcett and Stanifotth 

may be in the low hundreds (J. Uen. 

g the eastern Florida coast have 

increased som recent years (S. Kraus, unpublished data), but this may be the result of 

frequented the Cuban coast 

r published observation of this 

ne humpback seen at the mouth of 

1989, a humpback whale was obsenred 

ay, Gulf of Mexico. 

From late Dece ber through early April, most of the population is found at Silver and Navidad Banks, 

located at the e d of the Bahamian Archipelago, and along the coast of the Dominican Republic wnn 

et al. 1975; Balc mb and Nichols 1978, 1981; Whitehead and Moore 1982; Mattila et a/. 1989). Other 

known areas of ncentration include the western edge of Puerto Rico wnn et a/. 1975; Maltila 1982); 

the Virgin Bank 5 inn et a/. 1975; Mattila and Clapham 1989), and the Lesser Antilles south to Venezuela 

(Winn et a/. 197$ Winn and Winn 1978). Whales from all summer feeding aggregations intermingle on 
the winter grounds (Mattila et el. 1989), where courtship, mating, calving and other activities are all 

presumed to take place. Katona and Beard (1 990) emphasized that all humpback whales in the Western 

North Atlantic probably form one interbreeding population, although the possibility that mating might occur 

preferentially between animals from the same feeding aggregations is under investigation (C.S. Baker, 

pers. comm.). 

Silver Bank, a limestone reef located about 120 km north of Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic, in the 

Dominican Exclusive Economic Zone, is the most important wintering site. Up to 3000 humpbacks occur 

there from December to early March (Balcomb and Nichols 1978, 1981). Nearby Navidad Bank also 

provides significant breeding habitat. Winn et a/. (1975) estimated that 85% of the entire Western North 

Atlantic breeding population used Silver and Navidad Banks. Coral heads and reefs that fringe Silver 

Bank provide a lee from the trade winds and offer relatively calm, protected waters that are used by 

females with calves (Whitehead and Moore 1982). 

Females with calves and other whales exhibiting behaviors associated with mating, such as singing and 

agonistic interactions between males (Tyack and Whitehead 1983), also occur along the Dominican coast 

(e.g., Samana Bay, Mattila et el. 1988), along the northwest coast of Puerto Rico (Mattila 1982) and on 

the Virgin Bank (Winn and Winn 1978; Mattila and Clapham 1989). At locations such as these, females 

with calves are usually found relatively close to shore in the lee of the coast (Goodale 1982). Mattila and 

Clapham (1989) concluded that the Virgin Bank might be used primarily for calving and nursing, since 

relatively few of the females with calves they observed were accompanied by escorts (presumed to be 

male by those authors). A few humpbacks occur on Anguilla Bank (by the islands of Anguilla, St. 

Maarten, and St. Batthelerny), near Antigua, in the St. Vincent Grenadines, south of Tobago and off 

Venezuela (Winn and Winn 1978). The remainder of the population may be scattered throughout the 

Lesser Antilles, with perhaps a few wintering wer in northern waters. 

The only United States-controlled portions of the breeding range are along the northwest coast of Puerto 

Rico, including Punta Agujereada and nearby Punta Higuero (Mattila 1082), and in the Virgin Islands. 

Most humpbacks found by Mattila and Clapham (1989) were in waters surrounding the British Virgin 

Islands, where survey effort was most concentrated, but the species also occurs around the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. 

According to historical records, humpbacks were found near the Bermuda Islands from Februafy to May, 

but observations and recordings of vocaliuations from 1957-1975 (Payne and Payne 1985) and 

observations from 1980-1985 (Stone et al. 1987) indicated that they currently occur there mainly during 

April and May, stopping for a few days on their way north from the breeding range and perhaps feeding 

opportunistically. Escorts (presumed to be male) accompanied approximately 6% of females with calves 

(Stone eta/. 1987). Those authors also speculated that humpbacks may have used the Bermuda Islands 

and banks for calving or mating when the population was larger. Humpback whales were reportedly seen 

off Bermuda throughout winter, 1988 (E.B. Tucker, pers. comm.). 

C. Abundance and Trends 

The humpback whale became endangered as a result of wet-exploitation from commercial whaling. Early 

manuscripts summarized in Stone et a/. (1 987), indicated that humpback whales were taken in Bermuda 

as early as 1 61 1, with catches up to 20 whales per year in the mid-1 700's. By 1665, they were hunted 

along the coast of Maine (Martin 1975). Information on hunting in the Western North Atlantic during 

subsequent centuries is drawn from Mitchell and Reeves (1983). After about 1725, humpback hunting 

was combined with fishing for cod during cruises to Georges Bank or Nantucket Shoals. Then shorebased fisheries at Nantucket, Cape Cod and Maine took humpbacks and other species until the Civil War. 

Up to 19 small schooners hunted humpbacks in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Strait of Belle Isle in 1819, 

but this fishery stopped during the 1890's Between the 1830's and 1870's, New England ports launched 

multi-year voyages by large vessels as well as shorter trips. Hunting on the West lndies wintering 
grounds began in 1822 and continued from ships and numerous shore stations. Nordhoff (1856) 

commented that '...the most stupid of whales [humpback], clings obstinately to the [calving] place it has 

chosen ...' Such behavior in the face of hunting methods that focused on females with calves probably 

contributed to rapid elimination of whales from some wintering locations. During the 1900's most catches 

were from Canadian Maritime waters. 

Mitchell and Reeves' (1 983) analysis of whaling records accounted for at least 9,125 whales killed between 

1850-1971 within the North Atlantic Ocean west of Iceland, but noted that additional research could 

document additional kills. Mitchell and Reeves (1983) used their assembled catch estimates to calculate 

that the population size in 1865 was greater than 4,700. Breiwick et a/. (1083) using the same data, but 

incorporating estimates for annual natural mortalii (4%) and net recruitment (3%), revised that estimate 

to 6,300 whales. Reeves and Mitchell (1982) noted that many more humpback whales could have been 

present originally, because humpbacks had been hunted for at least 300 years before 1865, although 

catches were poorly documented. Winn and Reichley (1 985) listed 10,000+ as their estimate for the size 

of the original population in the Western North Atlantic. 

Commercial hunting could have reduced the North Atlantic humpback population to as few as 700 animals 

by 1932 (Breiwick et a/. 1983). Subsequent to protection of the species in the North Atlantic, which began 

in 1955, humpback whales have only been taken at three locations: 41 off eastern Canada from 1969- 

1971 under a scientific permit (Mitchell 1973); up to 10 per year in western Greenland for aboriginal 

subsistence uses until 1980 (Kapel1979); and up to 8 (but usually only 1 or 2) per year in a subsistence 

fishery operating at Bequia Island in the Lesser Antilles (Ward 1987; Price 1985; Adams 1971, 1975). 

Since 1987, this fishery has had an annual quota of 3 whales, but only one whale was taken in 1987 and 

none in following years. 

The estimated population size is 5505 whales (95% confidence interval, 2888 to 8122) (Katona and Beard, 

1990) for the western North Atlantic region. This represents about 90% of Breiwick et al.'s (1 983) estimate 

for the population in 1865. However, Reeves and Mitchell's (1982) comment that many more humpback 

whales may have been present in previous centuries should be considered. 

Population estimates for humpbacks in Newfoundland waters have shown an upward trend since the 

1960's. Although the increase could result mainly from improvements in sampling effort and methodology 

(Whitehead 1987), other evidence suggests that abundance has increased. A rough measure of trends 

in humpback abundance inshore in Newfoundland may be the number of fishing gear collisions and 

entrapments which have occurred each year during the past decade. From 1977-1980, greater numbers 

of humpbacks occurred inshore in Newfoundland due to depletion of capelin offshore on the Grand Bank 

(Whitehead and Lien 1982). This resulted in record high numbers of gear collisions and damage to 

fishing gear. Since 1981, capelin stocks have recovered and remain in good shape to date. 

Nevertheless, from 1981-1989, humpback entrapments in Newfoundland fishing gear nearly doubled 

although fishing effort, which was not carefully measured, appears to be approximately constant. The 

most likely reason for the increase is an increase in the numbers of humpbacks in those waters (Lien 

1 989a). 

Humpbacks belonging to the Gulf of Maine feeding aggregation, estimated by mark-recapture methods 

(Katona and Beard, 1990) to include approximately 240 whales in 1986 (Table 3), are the only whales that 

summer in US. waters within the North Atlantic. This may underestimate the number of whales using U.S. 

waters. Over 600 humpbacks have been photographed in the Gulf of Maine since 1979; and wer 400 

were photographed in 1988 alone (M.T. Weinrich, S.K. Katona pers. comm.). Furthermore, some whales 

from the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Canadian Maritimes may migrate through waters offshore from our 

coast. The fact that waters along the east coast of the United States currently host only a small 

percentage of the humpback whales in the North Atlantic Ocean should not diminish U.S. commitment 

to the recovery of this species in that ocean basin. 
IV. CURRENT STATUS OF NORTH PACIFIC POPULATIONS 

A. Summer Dlstrlbutlon and HabRat Use 

The historic summering range of humpback whales in the North Pacific Ocean (Figure 5) encompassed 

coastal and inland waters around the Pacific rim from Point Conception, California, north to the Gulf of 

Alaska and the Bering Sea, and west along the Aleutian Islands to the Karnchatka Peninsula and into the 

Sea of Okhotsk (Tomilin 1967; Nemoto 1957; Johnson and Wdman 1984). The current status of 

humpback whales in much of this vast range, particularly from the Aleutian Islands west to Asia, is poorly 

described and may be considerably reduced as a result of intensive commercial exploitation during this 

century. In the Eastern North Pacific, aerial and shipboard surveys and observations of naturally-marked 

individuals during the last decade have provided some information on current distribution, abundance and 

habiiat use along the coast of Central California, Southeastern Alaska and Southcentral Alaska, from 

Prince William Sound to Kodiak Island. These data indicate that humpback whales, in at least these three 

regions of the North Pacific, form geographically-segregated feeding aggregations similar to those 

observed in the Northwestern Atlantic. In geu-political terms, however, available descriptions of 

summering and wintering grounds (see following Winter Distribution) suggest one important difference 

between the populations in these two oceans: the majority of humpback whales remaining in the North 

Pacific spend most of their lives within the territorial waters of the 

United States, except during migration. 

Humpback whales are observed migrating through Southern California waters during autumn and spring. 

Most sightings occur along the Santa Rosa-Cortez Ridge @oh1 et a/. 1980), but some occur in more 

coastal waters of the San Pedro (Schulman 1984) and Santa Barbara Channels @oh1 et al. 1980). 

Humpbacks have been seen feeding along this apparent migration corridor, as in J. Lecky's (pers. comm.) 

observation of two individuals feeding on schools of anchovy (Engmulis mordax) south of Santa Cruz 

Island in the Southern California Bight during October 1978. Between 1 to 3 mother-calf pairs were 

reported to exist in Monterey Bay during Spring 1989 (R.L Ternullo, pers. comm.). However, the primary 

feeding ground south of Alaskan waters appears to be the Gulf of the Farallones and nearby offshore 

banks, referred to here as Central California During 1986, humpbacks were found mainly in water about 

75-105 m deep (Cubbage et a!. 1986); but in 1987 mean water depth was nearly 150 m (Calambokidi 

et a/. 1988). 

Aerial surveys by Doh1 et a/. (1980) and recent observations of seasonal residency and yearly return of 

photographically-identified whales suggest that some individuals summering off Central California spend 

winter off Mexico (Baker et a/. 1986; Calambokiis et a/. 1988). No individuals from the Central California 

feeding ground have yet been sighted on other known feeding grounds. However, Baker et a/. (1986) 

reported one identified whale observed summering off Central California and wintering in Hawaii. 

Rice (1 974) summarized the hiiory of humpback whale hunting along the California coast. Two whaling 

stations (Del Monte Fishing Co. and Golden Gate Fishing Co.) operating from Point Pablo on the shore 

of San Francisco Bay killed 841 humpbacks from 1956 until the species was protected in 1965. 

Humpback whales were also hunted off the coast of Caliiia, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia 

Before the arrival of European people lndii probably hunted humpbacks in wastal waters from 

Washington to Southeastern Alaska (Kirk and Daugherty 1974; O'Leary 1984). From 1913 to 1919, 

humpbacks were landed at the Bay City, Washington, whaling station during the months of April through 

October, with the majority taken during June to August (Scheffer and Slipp 1948). Pike and McAskiie 

(1 969) reported: 'This species was formerly abundant along the coast of British Columbia Prior to 1913, 

whaling stations along the west coast of Vancouver Island annually caught between 500 and 1000 whales, 

3. Southcentral Alaska: The Gulf of Alaska includlna Prince Wllllam Sound 

and the Alaska Peninsula 

Humpback whales are known to summer throughout the central and western Gulf of Alaska (Rice and 

Wolman 1982; Leatherwood et d. 1983; Morris et d. 1983), especially in Prince William Sound, along the 

coast of Kodiak Island, including Shelikof Strait and the Barren Islands, and along the southern coastline 

of the Alaska Peninsula Their former abundance in thii region once supported a shore-based whaling 

station operated at Port Hobron, Kodiak Island, from 1926 to 1937 (Reeves et d. 1985). In the 1960's, 

the waters south of the Alaska Peninsula were considered to be the center of the summer distribution of 

humpback whales in the North Pacific (Berzin and Rwnin 1966). Japanese scouting vessels continued 

to observe high densities of humpback whales near Kodiak lsland during 1965-1 974 (Wada 1980). In 

Prince William Sound, during recent years, humpback whales have congregated near Naked Island, in 

Peny Passage, near Chenega Island, in Jackpot, Icy and Whale Bays, in Port Bainbridge and north of 

Montague lsland between Green lsland and the Needle (Hall 1979,1982; von Ziegesar 1984; von Ziegesar 

and Matkin 1986). The few sightings of humpbacks in offshore waters of the central Gulf of Alaska are 

usually attributed to animals migrating into coastal waters (Monis et d. 1983), although use of offshore 

banks for feeding is also suggested (Brueggeman et d. 1987). 

Although it is dicult to draw firm conclusions about this geographically large region, recent studies 

suggest a dramatic reduction in the number and distribution of humpback whales in comparison to earty 

records of commercial catches (Rice and Wolman 1982; Brueggeman et el. 1987; Hall 1977; von Ziegesar 

and Matkin 1986). In Prince William Sound, for example, annual use is variable and less than 100 

individuals use this area during any given year (von Ziegesar and Matkin 1986). In the Shumagin lsland 

region south of the Alaska Peninsula, Brueggernan et el. (1987) reported that humpback whales were 

generally found along shallow shelf breaks near islands and offshore banks. Although thii distribution 

was similar to that reported in commercial whaling records, Brueggernan et el. (1987) reported some 

interesting exceptions. Extensive aerial surveys failed to find any humpback whales wer the Davidson 

Bank, an area that was harvested regularly by the Akutan Whaling Station. A similar absence of 

humpback whales in the eastern Aleutian lslands is reported by Stewart et d. (1 987). Brueggeman et d. 

(1 987) attributed those absences to intensive exploitation of local herds and their failure to recover. 

4. The Aleutlan Islands. Berina Sea and Asla 

The waters along the continental shelf of the central Aleutian Islands were once considered the center 

of the North Paclic humpback whale population (Benin and Rwnin 1966; Nishiiaki 1967). Japanese and 

Soviet whaling fleets harvested whales intensively throughout the Aleutian Islands from 1905 to 1929 and 

again from 1 960 to 1965 (Rice 1978). A shore-based whaling station operated at Akutan from 191 2 to 

1939 (Stewart et d. 1987; Reeves et d. 1985). Nikulin (1946) and Berzin and Rovnin (1966) described 

the northern Bering Sea, Bering Strait, and the southern Chukchi Sea along the Chukchi Peninsula as the 

northern extreme of the humpback's range. Wthin the Bering Sea, humpback whales were sighted with 

greatest frequency south of Nunivak lsland and east of the Pribilof Islands (Benin and Rwnin 1966; 

Braham et a/. 1 977; Nemoto 1978; Braham et d. 1982; Leathemrood et d. 1983). 

Humpback whales were also known to summer along the Asian coast, particularly around the Kamchatcha 

Peninsula and the Sea of Okhotsk (Tomilin 1967), but there are few data on their distribution south of the 

Sea of Okhotsk. A few coastal sightings have been reported in recent years, but no systematic studies 

have been carried out (Wang 1984). Existing information on distribution in the Bering Sea and along the 

Aleutian Islands indicates a dramatic decline since commercial whaling commenced, but little evidence 

of any marked recovery since protection. Brueggeman et d. (1 987) reported no sightings of humpback 

whales in the North leut ti an and St. George Basin OCS planning zones to the'north and west of the 

Alaska Peninsula Similarly, Stewart et d. (1987) reported that no humpback whales were observed 

during aerial surveys on or near areas hunted by vessels from the Akutan whaling station in the eastem 
Aleutians. Braham et d. (1977) saw 14 humpbacks in the northern Bering Sea in August 1976, and 

Braham et a/. (1 982) documented 25 humpbacks between 1958-1 978 in the southern Bering Sea between 

Unimak Pass and the Pribilof Islands. 

B. Wlnter Dlstrlbutlon and Hablta Use 

Humpback whales in the North Pacific now winter on three geographically separated wintering grounds 

(Rice 1978): (1) the coastal and insular waters along western Baja California and the mainland of Mexico 

extending out to the Revillagigedo Archipelago; (2) the main islands of Hawaii; and (3) the islands south 

of Japan, including the Ryukyu, Bonin, and northern Mariana Islands. 

1. Hawaiian Islands 

Surveys during the 1970's (Wolman and Jurasz 1976; Herman and Antinoja 1977; Rice and Wolman 1978) 

found humpback whales concentrated in certain areas around the larger Hawaiian Islands (Figure 6). 

Highest population densities were typically reported in the 'four island area' (Maui, Molokai, Lanai, 

Kahoolawe), on Penguin Bank, around Niihau Island and along the leeward coast of Hawaii Island, from 

Keahole Point north to Upolu Point. Kauai, Oahu and the eastern and southwestern coast of Hawaii had 

lower densities. Few animals have been reported around the atolls, islands, banks, and reefs of the 

northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The whales principally use shallow waters within the 100-fathom isobath. 

Humpbacks arrive in Hawaiian waters as early as November and a few whales remain until early June 

(Herman and Antinoja 1977; Herman et al. 1980). Individual whales have been obsetved in southeastern 

Alaska as late as December 8 and resighted in Hawaii 79 days later on February 25 (Baker et a/. 1985). 

From 1977 to 1979, the earliest influx of whales occurred near the Island of Hawaii. Islands to the 

northwest had progressively later dates of arrival and relative peak abundance (Baker and Herman 1981). 

The highest overall density of whales occurred between February and April, but the timing of the seasonal 

peak shifted from year to year (Herman and Antinoja 1977; Baker and Herman 1981). The average 

duration of stay is not known for either sex or any age class. The maximum reported residency for an 

identified female with calf was 56 days (Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari 1985~1). 

Newborn and nursing calves with cows are seen throughout the winter. Approximately 6-11% of all 

animals sighted during aerial surveys were calves (Bauer 1986; Herman et a/. 1980). Cows with calves 

appear to preferentially use lebward, nearshore waters within the 10-fathom isobath, especially along the 

north coast of Lanai (Herman et d. 1980; Forestell 1986), Maalaea Bay, Maui (Hudnall1978), and the west 

Maui area (Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari 1985a; Glockner and Venus 1983). 

No all-island surveys have been done since 1979, but the general habitat use pattern described above 

has remained fairly consistent, with minor exceptions. Recent shifts in local habitat use by cows with 

calves.have been noted and attributed to increasing coastal development and increasing use of highspeed boats, parasail boats and jet skis near shore (Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari 1985a; Forestell 1986). 

According to D.J. McSweeney (pers. comm.) a 'fie to tenfold' increase wer 'usuaP numbers of whales 

along the Kona coast of the Island of Hawaii occurred during the 1986-87 winter season. 

Photo-identification of individual whales has revealed movements between the Hawaii wintering grounds 

and other locations (Darling and Jurasz 1983; Darling and McSweeney 1985; Baker et a/. 1986). The 

Hawaiian wintering ground appears to be most closely connected to the Alaskan summering grounds and 

less so to the Central Californian summering grounds. From a catalog of photographs contributed by 

researchers throughout the central and eastern North Pacific from 1977 to 1986 Perry et d. (1990) 

reported the following number of resightings between Hawaii (n = sample size = 634) and other regions: 

82 to southeastern Alaska (n = 464); 17 to the Western Gulf of Alaska including Prince William Sound 

(n = 95); 1 to Central California (n = 18); and 2 to Mexico (n = 36). 
Humpback whales winter along the Pacific coast of Mexico, approximately 4,800 km from the Hawaii 

lslands (Figure 6). Whales in Mexican waters are distributed in four subregions (Urban and Agsayo 1987): 

(1) southern coast of Baja California from lsla Cedros around Cabo San Lucas to Loreto; (2) northern Gulf 

of California; (3) Mexican mainland from Mazatlan to Tehuantepec, including lslas Isabel, lslas Tres Marias 

and Bahia de Banderas; and (4) Revillagigedo Archipelago, including lslas Soccoro, San Benedtcto and 

Clarion. Humpbacks are present from autumn until spring throughout this range; as in Hawaii they occur 

mainly within the 100 fathom isobath. Some are also reported in the northern Gulf of California during 

summer months. 

Humpbacks from the Mexican wintering grounds are found with greatest frequency on the Central 

California summering ground (Johnson and Wdman 1984; Baker et a/. 1986; Calambokidis et a/. 1988). 

The whales from this eastern Pacific coastal group may be somewhat segregated from those in the 

Central North Pacific (Baker et el. 1986). However, at least one whale from Southeastern Alaska and one 

whale from the Western Gulf of Alaska have also been seen in Mexican waters (Baker et al. 1986). Some 

interchange with the Hawaiian wintering ground is also demonstrated by Darling and Jurasz's (1983) 

report of two whales sighted in both Hawaii and Mexico and Baker et a/.'s (1 986) report of a third. Other 

evidence of interchange is suggested by the close similarity in humpback songs from these two wintering 

grounds (Payne and Guinee 1983). 

Prior to intensive commercial exploitation, humpback whales were known to winter in the vicinity of the 

Mariana, Bonin and Ryukyu Islands, and the Island of Taiwan (Nishiwaki 1967; lvashin and Rwnin 1967; 

Townsend 1935). A shore-based whaling station in the Ryukyu lslands took substantial numbers of 

humpback whales during the late 1950's and early 1960's. Recovery of Discovery-type tags by the 

commercial whaling fleets prior to the protection of humpbacks documented the mwement of six 

individuals from U.S. waters in the Eastern Bering Sea, north of Unimak Pass, to the Ryukyu lslands 

(Ohsumi and Masaki 1975; Nishiiaki 1967). The degree of interchange with other wintering or summering 

grounds in the North Pacific is unknown. 

Darling (1 989) found humpback whales common during March and April, 1989, in the Ogasawata Islands, 

an archipelago of small islands about 1200 km south of Tokyo. Darling's team identified a total of 60 

individual humpback whales by fluke photographs obtained during 1987-1 989. Since the identified whales 

included mothers and calves, courtship groups and singers, Darling concluded that the Ogasawara 

lslands (also called the Bonin Islands) are used for mating and caking and estimated that the population 

may be at least in the low hundreds. Songs recorded on the Ogasawara range were similar (but not 

identical) to songs recorded in Hawaii at the same time. No photographic matches were found between 

20 of the Ogasawara whales and 2000 humpbacks identified from the Eastern North Pacific (Darling 1989). 

Darling (1 989) identified several other Asian locations that appear to be used during winter by humpback 

whales, including waters southwest of Okinawa: southeast of Taiwan; and southeast of the Ogasawam 

lslands to the Northern Mariana Islands. No conclusions can be made yet about the relationships among 

those groups of whales or among them and the Central or Eastern North Pacific stocks. 

C. Abundance and Trends 

According to Rice (1978), the North Pacific humpback whale population may have numbered 

approximately 15,000 individuals prior to exploitation. Intensive commercial whaling remwed more than 

28,000 animals from the North Pacific during the 20th century and may have reduced this population to 
as few as 1,000 before it was placed under international protection after the 1965 hunting season 

(Rice 1978). 

1. Summerina Grounds 

Current information from aerial and shipboard surveys or individual identification is limited to three regions 

within the territorial waters of the United States: (1) the coast of Central California; (2) southeastern 

Alaska; and (3) Southcentral Alaska, including Prince William Sound, Kodiak Island and the Alaska 

Peninsula 

Available data suggest that the humpback populations off Central California are separate from those off 

Alaska. Estimates of abundance for those regions are therefore probably independent. However, the 

degree to which various estimates for areas within Alaska are additive or overlapping is not yet known. 

There may be some overlap between whales in Southeastern and Southcentral Alaska, and between 

those in Southcentral Alaska and the Bering Sea-Eastem Aleutian Islands region. A reliable estimate of 

the total number of humpback whales summering in U.S. Pacific waters will not be possible until those 

relationships are clarified. These cautions should be considered when interpreting the following regional 

population estimates. 

Aerial surveys off Central Califomia from 1980 to 1983 indicated an annual population of 338 (95% 

confidence limits, 149 to 537) (Dohl eta/. 1984). Capture-recapture estimates from individual identification 

data collected off Central Califomia in 1986 and 1987 are in relatively close agreement with the aerial 

surveys, suggesting a regional population of about 230 individual (95% confidence limits, 200 to 260) 

(Calambokidis et a/. 1988). 

In Southeastern Alaska, capture-recapture analyses of individuals between 1979 and 1983 suggested a 

regional population of 310 (95% confidence limits, 290 to 360) (Baker el 81. 1985). Similar studies in 

Prince William Sound indicated a regional population of about 100 humpbacks (von Ziegesar and Matkin 

1986), with the suggestion that they were part of a larger Southcentral Alaska feeding aggregation that 

might extend out into the Gulf of Alaska along Kodiak Island and further to the southwest. 

Shipboard surveys along the coast of the Gulf of Alaska from Yakutat Bay to Kodiak Island, and including 

Prince William Sound, provided an estimate of 364 individuals, although sample size was too small to 

calculate confidence intervals (Rice and Wolrnan 1982). Aerial surveys along the Alaska Peninsula for the 

combined Shumagin and KodiaWCodc Inlet planning areas of the Shumagin planning zone in 1987 

yielded an estimate of humpback whale abundance of 1247 (standard error, 855 to 1639) (Brueggeman 

et a/. 1988). 

2. Wlnterlna Grounds 

In Hawaiian waters, shipboard surveys in 1979 indicated a seasonal population of 550 to 790 (Johnson 

and Wolman 1984). More recently, Baker and Herman (1987) used capture-recapture methods to 

estimate 1,407 (95% confidence limits, 11 13 to 1701) for this population across a three-year period. 

In the first attempt to census humpbacks in Mexican waters, Rice (unpublished, summarized in Rice 1974) 

counted 1 02 whales during 68 days of shipboard surveys between January 26 and March 15,1965, and 

concluded that he had seen a fairly large proportion of the population, which probably contained only a 

few hundred individuals. Urban and Aguayo's (1 987) ability to photo-identify wer 100 humpbacks near 

lslas Socorro and Isabel during winter and spring of 1986, led those authors to conclude that the overall 

Mexican population is larger than Rice (1974) reported. Ahrarez F. (1985) used photo-identification and 

capture-recapture methods to estimate that in one breeding season, approximately 300 humpback whales 

pass through a circle of 15 nautical miles radius around lsla Isabel. As previously mentioned, movements 
of several whales between Mexico and Hawaii have been reported (Darling and Jurasz 1983; Baker et 81. 

1 986). 

No formal population estimates are available from the Asian wintering grounds. Rice (1 978) thought that 

less than 100 animals used those waters. 

It seems likely that the large majority of animals in the North Pacific currently winter in Hawaiian waters 

(Baker et a/. 1 986). Baker and Herman's (1 987) estimate of 1 ,1 13 to 1,701 for the regional population can 

be considered a minimum for the entire oceanic population (c.f. Darling and Morowitz 1986). This 

suggests that the number of humpback whales in the North Pacific might be currently at only about 7-1 1% 

of the estimated 15,000 in the unexploited population. This must be considered a very rough 

approximation, since the estimate of an aboriginal population of 15,000 is uncertain. 
24
V. KNOWN AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS 

Though hunting caused a major decline in all humpback whale populations, they are no longer 

endangered by that activii. However, humpback whales occur adjacent to human population centers and 

are affected by human activities throughout their range. Both habitat and prey are affected by humaninduced factors that could impede recovery. These factors include subsistence hunting, incidental 

entrapment or entanglement in fishing gear, collision with ships, and disturbance or displacement caused 

by noise and other factors associated with shipping, recreational boating, high-speed thrill craft, whale 

watching or air traffic. Introduction andlor persistence of pollutants and pathogens from waste disposal; 

disturbance andlor pollution from oil, gas or other mineral exploration and production; habiitat degradation 

or loss associated with coastal development; and competition with fisheries for prey species may also 

impact the whales. These factors could affect individual reproductive success, alter sunrival, andlor limit 

availability of needed habitat. 

A. Subslstence Huntlng 

Commercial whale hunting, the single most significant impact on humpback whales ceased in the North 

Atlantic in 1955 and in all other oceans in 1966. The last remaining hunt was carried out from the Island 

of Bequia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Lesser Antilles, using small boats and methods employed by 

19th century Yankee whalers (Ward 1987). In 1987, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) set a 

quota of 3 humpback whales per year for each of the years 1987 through 1989 for that harvest, but only 

one whale was killed in 1987. The Bequia hunt probably did not adversely affect the overall population 

of humpback whales within the Western North Atlantic, but it probably slowed recovery of the species in 

the Lesser Antilles region since it focused on reproductively mature females (Winn and Scott 1981). 

Humpback hunting at Bequia has probably terminated, since the men who organized the tradition are now 

aged or dead. 

B. Entrapment and Entanalement In Flshlna Gear 

Entrapment and entanglement in active fishing gear (O'Hara et el. 1986) is the most frequently identified 

source of humancaused injury or mortality to humpback whales. Humpback whales are large enough 

to break through netting before becoming entangled, but they occasionally entangle in the lead or anchor 

ropes which they cannot break. Drowning or statvation may result if humans do not intenfene to free the 

whales. The incidence of entanglements could at least slow, and perhaps prevent population recovery, 

especially if human efforts to rescue the Wales were reduced or if fishing effort increased. Entanglement 

in debris, especially lost or discarded fishing gear, could be another source of mortality. 

The most significant known entanglement problem occurs in northeastern continental shelf waters around 

Newfoundland, Canada, where humpbacks are entrapped during June and July in traps and gillnets set 

for cod (Gadus morhua); and gillnets set for salmon (Salmo salar), lumpfish (QcIopte~us lumpus), herring 

and various groundfish. The numbers of humpbacks entrapped per year have ranged from 26 to 68 (Uen 

et al. 1989a). Collisions with fishing gear involving all large animals ranged from 174-813 per year (Lien 

1989a), but some of this damage was attributable to other large whales, basking sharks (Cetorhinus 

maximus) (Lien and Fawcett 1985), and other marine species (Goff and Lien 1989). In the past decade 

(1 979-1 989), there have been nearly 600 humpback entrapments in fishery gear reported in Newfoundland 

and Labrador; 93 of the animals died as a result of entrapment (Lien et el. 1989b). 

From 1 976-1 986, the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Laboratory reported 18 humpback whale entanglements 

in fishing gear in northeastern U. S. continental shelf waters (T.P. MacKenzie, pers. comm.). Gillnets 

caused 39% of the entanglements; other gear included unspecified ropes and lines, scallop gear, and 

seine gear. Nine animals were freed by volunteers, 6 were known to have died, and 3 were never 

resighted after disappearing with gear on them. 
The NMFS Southeast Region stranding network reported two humpback whale stranding's related to 

entanglement. 

The number of humpback whale entanglements reported along the Pacific coast of the continental United 

States is lower than that reported for the Atlantic Coast. Since the NMFS Southwest Region began 

collecting stranding reports in 1978, only two dead humpback whales have been reported. Both Were 

entangled in gill nets and were drifting in the Santa Barbara Channel, California (C. Woodhouse, pers. 

comm.). Another humpback was released from a gill net outside of Los Angeles harbor in 1982 (M.T. 

Weinrich, pets. comm.). Factors that could contribute to the apparent lower incidence of entanglement 

are: (1) migration offshore of fishing areas; and (2) lower risk of entanglement during migration than when 

feeding. One of three humpbacks feeding in the Broughton Archipelago, central British Columbia coast, 

became entangled in a prawn trap, a section of which it was dragging when last seen (0. Duffus, pers. 

comm.). 

As summarized by von Ziegesar (1984), one humpback whale became entangled in seine nets set for 

salmon in Prince William Sound during each of the years 1980,1981 and 1983. Two of those animals tore 

large holes in the nets and freed themselves. The animal entangled in 1983 submerged with most of the 

gear attached and was not seen again during an intensive 3 hour search. It was presumed to have 

drowned. From 1984 through 1989, NMFS Alaska Region (J. Sease, pers. comm.) received reports of 

about 1 8 humpback whale entanglements in addition to those reported by von Ziiesar (1 984). Of those, 

13 were entanglements in fishing gear: 6 in gill nets, 3 in long lines or buoy lines; and 4 in unidentified 

nets. Ten were freed by volunteers, one freed itself, one died in a gill net and the fate of one is unknown. 

The other incidents reported include one entangled in cables from an abandoned logging operation and 

presumed drowned; one freed from entanglement in the anchor line of a small motor vessel; and three 

reported entanglements in fishing gear that were never confirmed by resightings. 

Humpback whales presumably encounter the high seas driftnet fishery for squid and salmon in the North 

Pacific during migration between Hawaii to Alaska, but no reports or anecdotal information regarding 

cetacean entanglements from this fishery are available. 

Memorial University of Newfoundland, in cooperation with the Department of Fiiheries and Oceans, the 

Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fiiheries and the Newfoundland Fishermen's Union, has 

operated an entrapment assistance program for wer a decade. Fishermen who incidentally catch whales 

can call a toll-free number and trained crews are dispatched to retrieve fishing gear and release 

entrapped animals unharmed. The program has been designed to minimize costs of accidents to both 

fishermen and whales (Lien 1989b). Prior to the program, entrapped humpbacks died in about 50% of 

incidents (Lien 1980). In the earty years of the program, mortali was reduced to 3096 (Lien 1981). In 

recent years, mortality has typically been about 10% (Lien et a/. 1989~; Lien 1989a). 

In the Northeastern United States, several private research organizations have assisted NMFS by 

designing disentanglement equipment and developing expertise in releasing entangled endangered 

species. They released alive 9 of the 18 humpbacks entangled there. 

C. Collisions with Shim 

Collisions with ships are an increasing threat to many whale species. If ships get larger and faster and 

if the numbers of vessels and/or whales increase, the incidence of encounters can be expected to 

increase. Major shipping lanes cross important humpback feeding grounds. For example, commercial 

shipping into Boston crosses Stelhvagen Bank and the Great South Channel in the Gulf of Maine; 

commercial and military shipping into San Francisco crosses the Gulf of the Farallones. If such whales 

either accommodate to disturbance (Beach and Weinrich 1989) or pay less attention to ships when 

actively feeding, they would have increased risk of collision. M.T. Wienrich and coworkers (pers. comm.) 
documented at least four humpback whales probably scarred by collisions with ships during 1989. Those 

workers considered this a greater number of strikes than has been seen in 8 previous seasons of 

comparable fieldwork. 

At least 5 humpbacks photographed in Southeastern Alaska have large dents or gashes on the upper 

body that were probably caused by collision with vessels. Most of those whales were also noticeably 

skittish when approached by boats or skim for fluke photography (J. M. Straley, pers. comm.). 

Large ships, tugboats with barges on long towlines and recreational vessels are potential collision threats 

in some portions of the Hawaiian wintering range and in portions of some migration routes. According 

to Glockner-Ferrari et al. (1 987), the number of physical injuries to calves, juveniles, and adult humpbacks 

as a result of coliisions with boats has increased in Hawaiian waters. 

D. Acoustic Dlsturbance 

1. Noise from ships, boats and alrcratt 

It would not be surprising if loud noises from ship engines or powerful sonar could potentially adversely 

affect humpback whales by disrupting resting, feeding, courtship, calving, nursing migration or other 

activities. Supertankers or other large ships may create potentially disturbing noise for many kilometers 

around the vessel (Tyack 1989), but noise production is not necessarily a function of ship size and smaller 

vessels can also be very loud. Many factors can infiuence the intensity and frequency spectrum of sounds 

produced by boats and the potential effects on whales. Vessel factors requiring consideration include type 

of hull construction, engine type and mounting, exhaust configuration, power and frequency of sonar 

units, operation of the boat (e.g. abrupt changes in speed or gears) and others. However, the most 

significant source of noise in waters off Alaska, cavitation produced by ship propellers, may be diicult 

to eliminate. Physical oceanographic factors (Payne and Webb 1971; Watkins and Goebel 1984) and 

submarine topography infiuence sound propagation and therefore the distance at which sounds might 

affect a whale's behavior. 

Short-term disturbance of humpback whales by vessels has been investigated in Alaska (Hall 1982; Baker 

et a/. 1982, 1983); Kreiger and Wing 1984; Baker et el. 1988) and in Hawaii (Bauer and Herman 1986). 

Observed responses to vessels included attempts to move away, changes in patterns of breathing and 

diving and occasional displays of possibly agonistic behavior. Baker et el. (1983) described two 

responses of whales to vessels: (1) 'horizontal avoidance' of vessels 2000 to 4000 m away, characterized 

by faster swimming with few long dives; and (2) 'vertical avoidance' of vessels from 0 to 2000 m away, 

during which whales swam more slowly, but spent more time submerged. Other responses observed, 

such as trumpeting (Watkins 1967) or breaching (Whitehead 1985), lobtailing, or flipper slapping may 

sometimes indicate disturbance, but may also signify general excitability (Baker et 81. .1988). The 

significance of the extra energetic costs incurred by whales responding in these ways is not known. 

Whales appear to respond less to vessels when actively feeding (Baker et el. 1988) or energetically 

involved in any other behavior (Hall 1982; W.A. Watkins, J.M. Straley, pers. comm.). 

Humpback whales are also known to approach boats. The frequency with which this behavior is 

expressed may vary bemeen different populations and may change wer time as individuals develop 

learned responses to particular vessels or vessel activities. For example, Watkins (1 986) analyzed log 

book entries and other descriptions of humpback whale behavior observed during research cruises in 

Cape Cod Bay and concluded that humpback whales *proached boats more frequently following the 

start of commercial whale watching in that area in 1976. He also reported that some individual 

humpbacks apparently learned to approach boats that visii regularly, behaving like trained animals. 

Humpback whales that approach boats sometimes remain next to or under the vessel even though the 

idling diesel engine seems noisy to a human observer. Similarly, fishermen in southeastern Alaska often 
report humpbacks circling or following their boats without apparent disturbance to fishing activities or to 

the whales (J.M. Straley, pers. comm.). 

Herman et al. (1980) noted low densities of whales near Lahaina, Maui Island, Hawaii, where boats are 

concentrated, and suggested that whales preferred locations away from human activity. Forestell (1 986) 

conducted a similar survey in 1985 and noted low densities of whales near Lahaina and near Keawakapu, 

Maui. During the years between Herman's survey and Forestell's survey, a boat launching ramp was 

constructed at Keawakapu which increased access to the adjacent waters by small boat operators. 

Forestell (1986) suggested that mothers with calves and groups of large animals, at least, avoided 

locations with high levels of vessel traffic. 

Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari (1 985a) have also reported a change in distribution associated with increasing 

levels of vessel traffic. According to their observations, the percentage of females with calves seen resting 

and nursing in shallow waters (10 fathoms or less) adjacent to Maui's northwestern shore declined from 

77.6% for the period 1976-1 979 to 17.5% in 1983. In 1988, only 1.5% of their motherd sightings 

occurred within 0.4 km of shore @.A Glockner-Ferrari, pers. comm.). Although noise from boats and 

high-speed thrill craft activities are a likely causative agent, Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari (1987) pointed 

out that pollution and runoff may also be factors contributing to the changing distribution of whales 

around Maui. 

Noise from airplanes and helicopters presents another source of disturbance for whales. In Hawaii, interisland commuter traffic and small private planes are the major sources of potential aerial disturbance. 

These planes fly regularly between the islands, often crossing areas of high whale concentrations at 

altitudes of 1,000 feet or less. Pilas occasionally divert from their flight path to circle whales so that 

passengers can watch or photograph. Helicopter tour operators also disturb humpback whales by flying 

low or hovering (Tinney 1988). Noise from low flying aircraft has declined in the past few years, in 

response to greater awareness and recognition of the potential for disturbing whales. 

Noise from military airplanes and other exercises are also sources of disturbance. In Hawaii, aerial 

exercises are executed from Hickam Air Force Base, Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station, and Barbers Point 

Naval Air Station on Oahu. The major impact of tactical military aircraft is their use of Kahoolawe Island 

as a target. Concerns about the effect of military activities on humpback whales were addressed in a 

consutation between the U.S. Navy and NMFS regarding the use of Kahoolawe as a target island in 1979. 

Since then, there have been no reported instances of aircraft-delivered ordnance missing the island. 

Herman et a/. (1 980) suggested that humpback whales arriving in Hawaiian waters may be disturbed by 

military aircraft flying low wer portions of the Auau Channel between the Islands of Hawaii and Maui. 

Other ordnance ranges in humpback wintering areas are Kaula Island, Hawaii; Vieques, Puerto Rico; and 

Farallon de Medonilla, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

Two new military activities are also being considered in summering areas. In southern Southeastern 

Alaska, the U.S. Navy plans to construct a nuclear submarine testing base. The plans include intensive 

sonar arrays and high speed mwement by submarines. Little is known about humpback whales in that 

region or about the potential effects of those activities on them (J.M. Straley, pers. comm.). The Canadian 

government is planning to establish a large bombing range off the Labrador coast, between CamHright 

and Nain, where NATO forces could practice attacking enemy shipping. The environmental impact Study 

on the establishment of the largest NATO base in North America at Goose Bay, Labrador, has not yet 

been released (J. Lien, pers. comm.). 
2. Commercial Whale Watchlna Boats and Research Boats 

Whale watching boats and boats from which scient'lfic research is being done specifically direct their 

activities toward whales and may remain in their vicinity for long periods. Commercial whale watching 

boats are usually less than 30 meters long, although larger vessels have been used on some occasions. 

There is some overlap between whale watching and scientific boats, since many commercial whale watch 

boats carry naturalists who are affiliated with research groups and collect data and photographs as part 

of their duties. Boats used strictly for scientific research include outboard-powered inflatable boats or 

runabouts less than 6 m long, sailboats up to about 12 m long, and inboard-powered boats up to about 

15 m long. Owing to their expense, few larger vessels are used for research on humpback whales. 

Depending on water clarity and other factors, whales may sometimes see the hull or superstructure of 

such boats, and visual factors may cause disturbance in some situations. For example, humpbacks 

approaching the surface in Hawaiian waters sometimes appear to be startled by seeing the hull of a 

drifting boat (D. Glockner-Ferrari, pers. comm.). The potential for such disturbance seems greater in clear 

water, such as on the Hawaiian winter range. Visual disturbance might occur less often when boats are 

under power, since a whale would probably hear the boat before it could see it. 

Commercial whale watching trips focusing on stocks of humpback whales that may enter waters under 

U.S. jurisdiction are already significant tourist industries in the following locations: Canada, the United 

States (including coastal states from Maryland to Maine, California, Hawaii and Alaska); the Dominican 

Republic; Virgin Islands; and Mexico. Rapid expansion of this industry, plus increased whale watching 

by small private boats and (occasionally) large cruise ships, is indicative of the current high aesthetic and 

economic value of the humpback whale (Scott 1985; Kraus, submitted for publication). Since commercial 

whale watch businesses usually operate scheduled tours oh of specific ports, they have an economic 

interest in the long-term welfare of the whales they visit. They are perhaps more likely to cooperate readily 

with efforts to protect the animals than are the numerous private recreational whale watchers, which have 

proliferated wherever small boats have access to whale habitats, and have become problematic in some 

areas. 

In November 1988, NMFS, in cooperation with the Center for Marine Consewation, convened a workshop 

to seek professional and public input regarding guidelines and regulations for operation of commercial 

and private whale watch vessels (Atkins and Swam 1988). The consensus of workshop participants was 

that the impact of whale watching needed to be evaluated, but that it will not be easy to quantify the 

possible disturbance caused by whale watching, especially as the potential for such disturbance may be 

different in different regions. 

Since whale watch trips and scientific research trips frequently operate at locations where humpback 

whales aggregate for feeding or reproduction, it could be feared that such activities might displace whales 

from important habitat. This does not appear to have happened during more than a decade of intensive 

commercial whale watching near Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts. 

The situation may be diierent in Hawaii, as described above, however, it is not yet possible to separate 

the effects of whale watch boats and scientific research boats from the general increase in recreational 

and commercial boat traffic. 

The harm of possible disturbance (Beach and Weinrich 1989) or behavioral habituation (Watkins 1986) 

should be weighed against the potential benefits of commercial whale watching, which include the 

availability of platforms for research at no cost to scientists, the opportunity for members of the public to 

learn about humpback whales and other aspects of marine biology, and stimulation of public support for 

whale conservation. 
The major sources of industrial underwater noise appear to be offshore oil, gas or mineral exploration and 

exploitation. These activities increase vessel traffic, produce loud sounds for seismic profiling, place 

structures in areas used by whales, and introduce ngises from drilling and production into the 

environment. Malme et el. (1985 exposed feeding humpback whales in muheastern Alaska to noise 

from a single air gun (1.6 x 1 o3 cm 4 or to playback of recorded sounds of oil drilling, production platforms 

and aircraft. Whales showed no werall pattern of avoidance during 13 experiments, each of which 

included between 10 and 40 diierent animals. Whales died as soon as the airgun was turned on in 

three experiments. These 'startle responses8, which occured at received sound levels between 150 to 

169 dB (re 1 mPa), were thought to be caused more by the nwelty of the air gun sound than by its 

intensity. 

E. Habitat Dearadatlon 

1. Chemlcal wllutlon. lncludlna mtroleum 

The werall impact of pollution on habitats used by humpback whales is not known. Contaminants may 

be introduced by rivers, coastal runoff, wind, ocean dumping, dumping of raw sewage by boats and 

various industrial activities, including offshore oil and gas or mineral exploitation. Concentrations of 

organochlorine pesticides, heavy metals, and PCB's have been reported in humpback whale tissues from 

Canadian, United States, and Caribbean waters (Taruski et el. 1975). According to Geraci and St. Aubin 

(1 982) and St. Aubin et el. (1984), short-term exposure to spilled oil or other petroleum compounds is 

unlikely to have serious direct effects on baleen whales. However, the biological appropriateness d the 

model used by those authors to evaluate effects of oil on baleen function has been questioned 

(Lambertson et el. 1989). R.H. Lambertson (pers. comm.) contends that the possibili that these whales 

could ingest a lethal dose of oil in a short time needs to be re-evaluated. It is not known whether 

humpbacks avoid oil spills. In 1979, for example, CETAP observers found humpback whales feeding in 

a small oil spill on George's Bank. The consequences of potential long-term exposure from catastrophic 

events such as the March 1989, spill of wer 10 million gallons of crude oil in Prince William Sound caused 

by the wreck of the supertanker Exxon Valdez, are being evaluated, but no information has been released. 

The greatest impact of an oil spill on humpback whales could occur indirectly. Local depletion of food 

resources may occur as a result d displacement and mortalii of food species. Some species of 

euphausiids and other crustaceans may be highly susceptible to the toxic effects of oil and they are 

essentially unable to mwe away from the site of a spill (Rice et el. 1984). Other species such as herring, 

capelin, and sand lance could be effected by rnortalii of eggs and immature life stages, thereby reducing 

recruitment to the size classes used by the whales. Populations of pelagic spawners, such as anchovies, 

might be impacted less severely by an oil spill, since their eggs and larvae would be more widely 

distributed. Under most circumstances, a large portion of a year class is not likely to encounter the same 

spill. However, disasters on the scale of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which spread wer more than 

2,000 km2, could cause large perturbations in the productivity or distribution of many prey species, 

including pelagic breeders. 

Current levels of offshore oil and gas development do not appear to prevent the potential for recovery of 

humpback whale populations. However, the problems of transporting oil may become increasingly 

serious. The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, June 20,1990, page I), Qn two out of every three days, 

on average, an oil tanker in U.S. waters catches fire, explodes, collies with a dock or another ship, 

breaks apart, experiences mechanical failure, runs aground or winds up in some other accident, Coast 

Guard accidents indicate.' NMFS has raised the issue of cumulative effects in consultations with the 

Minerals Management Service (MMS). Currently, offshore oil production occurs off of the Atlantic coast 

of Canada, in the Gulf of Mexico, off of Central and Southern California, in Cook Inlet, Alaska, and in the 
Beaufort Sea near Prudhoe Bay. MMS is considering leasing tracts of outer continental shel lands for 

exploration and development in U.S. North Atlantic waters, particularly George's Bank; and in Northem 

California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska (MMS five-year plan). Several of the areas proposed for 

leasing include, or are adjacent to, humpback whale foraging areas. 

2. Habltat Dearaddon From Coastal Development 

Although Reeves et a/. (1978) speculated that intensive human use of Delaware and Chesapeake Bays 

has precluded their use by North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacials), we cannot be certain that 

such effects have stopped humpback whales from occupying or repopulating any habitats. One place 

where this might have occurred is Oahu Island, Hawaii. Herman (1979) summarized evidence from 

newspaper reports and other sources to suggest that humpbacks occurred along the coast of Oahu from 

the 1930's to 1950'~~ butnot after the later 1960's. Although the apparent disappearance could be related 

to increased commercial hunting in the North Pacific during th6 early 1960'~~ Herman (1979) speculated 

that accelerated coastal development of Oahu may have displaced the whales, citing potential disturbance 

by pile drivers and other construction noises, increased runoff, and increases in boat and air traffic. This 

interpretation is complicated by the complete lack of documentation of the existence of humpback whales 

around the Hawaiian Islands prior to about 1 850 (Herman 1979), and also by Herman et d.'s (1 980) report 

that whales, including some calves, occur along the Oahu coast during March and April, perhaps as they 

begin the northward migration. 

Coastal development could have particularly significant impacts in wintering ranges, where humpback 

populations concentrate. It may not be a coincidence that the primary remaining breeding site in the 

Antillean range, Silver Bank, is located wer 100 km from land, relatively inaccessible to people, and 

protected from much ship traffic by a fringing reef. Most other apparentty suitable wintering habitat in the 

Greater and Lesser Antilles is exposed to rapid growth of human populations, and concomitant increases 

in industry, shipping, harbor construction and dredging, small boat recreation, fishing, tourism and resort 

development, and local pollution. The degree to which these activities have restricted repopulation of the 

Lesser Antillean wintering range is not known. 

Among the activities occurring in Hawaiian humpback whale habitat are harbor and boat ramp 

development, installation of permanent vessel moorings, recreational water sports, increased boat traffic, 

dumping of raw sewage by boats, commercial thrill craft activities, construction of outfalls for waste water 

discharge, runoff from the Olowalu dump site, agriculture and associated runoSf, and development of 

thermal turbines for energy generation. Undetwater noise and chemical contamination may be the most 

important potential impacts, but increased turbidity or other factors could also be locally significant. 

Similar lists could be constructed for coastal areas in many states or countries. However, these activities 

are particularly significant in Hawaii, because local waters are the primary site for reproduction of the 

eastern North Pacific feeding aggregation. 

Water-dependent construction activities frequently involve blasting, dredging, and filling which could result 

in displacement, injury, or mortality of humpback whales. These adverse effects can and should be 

mitigated or eliminated through seasonal timing or construction design modifications. While the actual 

physical loss of habitat may be small in comparison to the total habitat available, secondary effects 

associated with the initial habitat modification may have negative consequences on the distribution and 

reproductive success of humpback whales. Examples of such impacts might include increased vessel 

traffic associated with harbors, ramps, moorings, and hotels; development of tourism focusing on watching 

whales or diving with them; degradation of water quality resulting from increased surface runoff 

(agricultural, industrial, and residential); and sewage effluent from land and vessels. For example, onb 

one Hawaiian marina has a sewage pumping station. Consequently, boats dump sewage directly into 

the water and sewage slicks can be seen at the surface (Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari 1985b). 
Both the mainland shore of Western Mexico and the coast of southern Baja California are currently 

undergoing rapid development for tourism. Evidence from photo-identification studies indicates that 

waters along those shores are the primary wintering ground for humpbacks of the Central California 

feeding aggregation. Protective actions in U.S. waters used by this population in summer will be less 

effective in promoting population recovery if development produces a decline in the suitability of their 

winter habitat. 

The effects of the Alaskan logging industry are increased soil erosion and runoff, plus infusion of large 

quantities of bark into nearshore waters where humpbacks concentrate. Discharges from pulp mills 

containing numerous toxic chemicals occur where whales congregate to feed on herring in Sitka Sound 

(J.M. Straley, pers. comm.). Increased vessel traff~c and log rafting could negatively impact whales directly 

or indirectly in local feeding areas (C.S. Baker, pers. comm.). 

F. ComPetltlon for Resources wtth Humans 

Cetaceans are important components of marine ecosystems (Katona and Whitehead 1988). Recent 

information indicates that marine mammals probably consume at least as much fish as is hatvested by 

humans (Kenney et el. 1985; Laws 1985; Winn el el. 1987). Humans and humpbacks may be competing 

for prey if either takes a large fraction of a fishery stock, even if those takes occur at dierent times. 

Humpback whales are known to feed on several species of fish that are harvested directly by humans. 

In addition, they feed on species which are the prey of harvestable fishes. The magnitude and details of 

potential resource competition between humans and humpback whales is not known, but expanding 

human and whale populations and the increased demand for fish products may create new problems. 

The issue could become especially severe if new or expanding fisheries target on species used 

extensively by humpbacks, such as sand lance in the North Atlantic and capelin and herring in Alaska 

The relationship between humpbacks and fishermen in Newfoundland demonstrates that recovery of the 

whale population may create some practical difficulties. Humpbacks are seen as pests by Newfoundland 

fishermen. Perhaps the chief reasdn that fishermen tolerate the level of fishing damages caused by the 

whales is that the animals are classified as endangered (Lien eta/. 1985). tf damages increase on a scale 

similar to trends in the last 10 years, it seems likely that Newfoundland fishermen will not continue to 

cooperate with programs that encourage population growth and that they will demand full compensation 

for damages that the animals inflict (Lien 1989a; Uen et a/. 1989a). Thus, the degree of additional 

humpback population recovery that can be sustained along the Newfoundland coast may depend in large 

part on whether it will be possible to make technological changes in fishing practices or fishing gear which 

minimize damage by the whales. 
VI. RECOMMENDED RECOVERY ACTIONS 

A. Goals 

This Plan recommends actions designed to help humpback whale populations to grow to at least 60% 

of their abundance before commercial hunting and to expand into formerly occupied ranges. Since it is 

not yet possible to estimate pre-hunting population sizes sufficiently accurately, an interim goal is 

recommended that humpback whale populations addressed in this Plan double in size within the next 20 

years. The Plan sets out four major objectives: (1) maintain and enhance habiiat; (2) identify and reduce 

human-related mortality, injury and disturbance; (3) measure and monitor key population parameters to 

determine if recommended actions are successful; and (4) imprwe administration and coordination of the 

werall recovery effort for this species. Recommended legislative, enforcement, management, and 

research tasks are detailed below. 

The ultimate goal of this Plan is to be 'bioloaicallv successful.' Biological success will be achieved when 

humpback whales occupy all of their former range in sufficient abundance to buffer their populations 

against normal environmental fluctuations or anthropogenic environmental catastrophes (e.g. a large oil 

spill). The best estimator of continued biological success will be if the Plan is 'numericallv successful.' 

Numeric success will occur when humpback whale populations grow to levels where their population 

dynamic responses indicate density dependent reductions in productivii. Such changes will indicate that 

the population is nearing its carrying capacity under prevailing environmental conditions. Managers will 

then have to judge whether that population is sufficiently large to expect long-term biological success, or 

whether some environmental parameters might be modified to allow the population to increase further. 

Finally, this Plan will be 'politically successfur when humpback whales are abundant enough to allow them 

either to be reclassified from 'endangered' to rhreatened'; or possibly remwed from the list of protected 

species. 

This Plan cannot now identify specific target population sizes at which such 'downlisting' might be 

considered. Different populations of large mammals achieve maximal productivity at approximately 60% 

to 80% of environmental carrying capacity. Since neither pre-commercial whaling historical abundance 

nor current environmental carrying capacity can yet be estimated sufficiently accurately for humpback 

whales, such percentages cannot now be used as goals. The desirability of downlisting a population may 

be considered when its population dynamic parameters indicate that it is approaching the environmental 

carrying capacity. 

Given the interim goal of doubling the size of populations within 20 years, acceptable evidence of ongoing 

population recovery will be (1) statistically significant trends of population increase as determined by 

accepted methods of population analysis; and (2) statistically significant trends of population increase in 

portions of the range known to have been occupied in historical times. Such evidence must be collected 

separately for the populations which either breed and/or feed largely in waters under the jurisdiction of 

the United States. This Plan recommends the development of imprwed, standardized methods for 

estimation of current population sizes and trends, so that recovery can be monitored more preciseb. 

Additional research to estimate historical population sizes is also recommended in order to put current 

and future population levels into a broader context. 

Underlying this Plan is the necessity that humans and humpback whales share the marine habidat. 

Human use of the ocean will .not cease, so it is unlikely that the humpback whale could or should return 

to its full abundance of previous millennia On the other hand, recovery to the degree identified above 

will still require some restraints on the part of humans. In seeking this balance, any interference with 

human activities that may be proposed in this Plan should be based on -reasonable evidence that there 

would be some corresponding benefii to the whales. 
B. Step-down Outllne 

OBJECTIVE 1. MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE HABITATS USED BY HUMPBACK WHALES 

CURRENTLY OR HISTORICALLY. 

1 .1 ldentify essential habitat. 

1 .1 1 ldentify essential habitat in Hawaiian waters. 

1.12 ldentify other essential habitat in U.S. waters. 

1 .I3 Encourage protection of essential habitat under the jurisdiction of other nations. 

1.14 Refine description of habitats and habitat features utilued by humpback whales. 

1.2 Examine history of occupancy and potential for repopulation of important habitats. 

1.21 Gutf of Mexico and northwestern Caribbean. 

1.22 Hawaiian Islands. 

1.23 Western North Pacific and Trust Territories of the Pacific (Guam). 

1.24 American Samoa. 

1.25 Lesser Antilles. 

1.3 ldentify and minimize possibte adverse impacts of human activities and pollution on important 

habitat. 

1.31 Develop protocol for monitoring physical and chemical factors that could decrease habitat 

suitability. 

1.31 1 Investigate responses of humpback whales to human-related habitat changes. 

1.31 11 Reduce disturbance from human-produced underwater noise in Hawaiian 

waters and in other important habitats when humpback whales are present. 

1.4 Monitor parasite load, biotoxins and anthropogenic contaminant level in tissues of whales and 

their prey. 

1.41 Develop standardized protocol for sampling tissues of whales using strandings and 

biopsies. 

1.42 Develop protocol to sample anthropogenic contaminant levels in tissues of prey. 

1.43 Implement base-line study of parasite load in whale tissues and contaminant levels in 

tissues of whales and prey. 

1.44 Monitor biotoxin concentration in tissues of prey species and whales. 
1.5 Prwide adequate nutrition. 

1.51 Monitor levels of prey abundance. 

1.52 Identify and evaluate fisheries competition. 

1.53 Prevent initiation of new large-scale fisheries for primary prey of humpback whales. 

1.54 lmprwe cooperation with commercial fishermen. 

1.6 Develop Federal-State-Local partnerships for protecting humpback whale habitats. 

1.61 Encourage government entities at all levels to correct existing impacts on habita! of 

humpback whales. 

1.61 1 Convene workshop on habitat protection of humpback whale winter ranges in waters 

under U.S. jurisdiction. 

1.612 Convene workshop on protecting humpback whale habitats in Alaska 

1.613 Convene workshop on protecting humpback whale habitats in California and Mexico. 

1.614 Convene workshop on protecting humpback whale habitats along the east coast of 

the United States. 

1.7 Encourage multinational cooperation to protect humpback whale habiitats. 

1.71 Distribute U.S. Humpback Whale Recwery Plan to other countries and provide follow-up 

communication as appropriate. 

1.72 Integrate plan recommendations with goals of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). 

1.73 Encourage habitat and environmental protection for humpback whales by other nations. 

1.74 Encourage other nations to develop recwery plans for conservation and management of 

humpback whales. 

1.75 Negotiate bilateral or multilateral agreements to protect humpback whale habitats. 

OBJECTIVE 2. IDENTIFY AND REDUCE DIRECT HUMAN-RELATED INJURY AND MORTALITY. 

2.1 Continue prohibition on commercial hunting of humpback whales. 

2.2 Continue to identify sources and rates of human-induced injury and mortality and use information 

to reduce those factors. 

2.21 Reduce mortality and injury from entanglement in fishing gear or other obstacles. 

2.21 1 lmprwe reporting of entangled whales and rescue them when possible. 

2.212 Use standardized forms for entanglement reports. 
2.213 Investigate and modify fishing gear to prevent entrapinent or entanglement. 

2.214 Identify and implement seasonal and/or geographic regulations for fishing gear that 

may kill or injure humpback whales. 

2.215 Require fishing gear to be remwed when fishery ends. 

2.22 Evaluate impact on humpback whales from collisions with ships or boats. 

OBJECTIVE 3. MEASURE AND MONITOR KEY POPULATION PARAMETERS. 

3.1 Estimate and re-evaluate historic population sizes. 

3.2 Improve current population estimates by evaluating and re-analyzing existing data with imprwed 

techniques. 

3.21 Convene workshop to develop capture-recapture estimate of humpback whale abundance 

in the North Pacific Ocean using existing photographs. 

3.3 Systematize sampling methods for estimating population size. 

3.4 Maintain and develop facillies for obtaining, archiving and analyzing data on humpback whales. 

3.41 Archive existing data 

3.41 1 Maintain centers for comparative analysis of identification photographs. 

3.41 2 Identify,. accumulate and archive existing sightings survey data 

3.42 Dedicate research vessels to study humpback whales and other endangered cetaceans. 

3.421 Build or retrofit research vessels. 

3.422 Charter research vessels. 

3.43 Extend photo-identification studies. 

3.5. Perform new field studies on population dynamics. 

3.51 Examine rates of birth, survivorship and mortali. 

3.51 1 Convene workshop to estimate survivorship of calves based on existing indiidualidentification photographs. 

3.512 Identify and quantify causes of natural mortali in juvenile and adult humpback 

whales. 

3.52 Define geographic subdivisions of population. 

3.521 Analyze and evaluate existing information on population subdivisions. 

3.522 Implement immediately initial surveys of selected regions. 
3.523 Describe migration routes and transit times. 

3.5231 Employ long-term radio tags. 

3.5232 Employ underwater listening stations. 

3.5233 Utilize genetic techniques. 

3.53 Estimate abundance of humpback whale populations. 

3.531 Perform new census surveys. 

3.532 Encourage and participate in international sightings surveys. 

3.533 Implement imprwed sampling program for capture-recapture estimate of population 

abundance. 

3.6 Assess population status and trends. 

OBJECTIVE 4. IMPROVE ADMINISTRATION AND COORDINATION OF RECOVERY PROGRAM 

FOR HUMPBACK WHALES. 

4.1 Select Director and implement Recovery Plan. 

4.2 Improve governmental coordination. 

4.3 Improve coordination with non-gwernmental agencies. 

4.4 Expand or reconstitute a Recovery Implementation Team, update the Recovery Plan and prepare 

Comprehensive Work Plans for each stock. 

4.5 Collect and archive available information on humpback whales, Including translations of foreign 

literature. 

4.6 Improve process for obtaining permits to do research on marine mammals and make appropriate 

changes. 

4.7 Maintain coordination with other recovery programs. 

4.8 Reassess as appropriate the goals for population recovery. 

4.81 Change listings in Endangered Species Act (ESA) as appropriate. 

4.9 Develop educational materials in support of Recovety Plan objectives. 

4.91 Produce and distribute educational materials. 

4.92 Improve cooperation with the whale watching industry. 
C. NARRATIVE 

OBJECTIVE 1. MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE HABITATS USED BY HUMPBACK WHALES 

CURRENTLY OR HISTORICALLY. 

Humpback whale populations in each ocean basin occupy broad geographic ranges. The extent and 

quality of those habitats must be maintained so that current populations may increase. Modification or 

destruction of essential habitat or food resources from pollution and/or other human activities may 

become a major limiting factor for humpback whale populations. While further studies are being done 

and ameliative measures are accomplished (see below), an interim objective is to prevent further habitat 

degradation. This can be accomplished by carrying out measures identified throughout Objective 1. 

Compliance with existing environmental laws at all levels will eliminate many, but not all, threats to 

humpback habitats. Federal, state and local agencies and their international counterparts must be 

encouraged to maintain and protect natural populations through appropriate legislative, enforcement and 

management activities. Federal, state and local agencies, as well as private institutions that operate 

facilities or programs, authorize or fund such activities, or otherwise retain jurisdiction or control over 

portions of the marine environment where populations of humpback whales now exist, will be asked to 

take pan in maintaining existing populations under the appropriate steps described below. 

1.1 ldentifv essential habitat. NMFS should identify areas essential to the survival or population 

growth of existing humpback whale populations. Winter habitats are especially critical to humpback 

whales. Winter ranges are typically restricted in geographical extent and may be used by whales 

from several feeding locations. In order for recovery of populations to occur, winter breeding habitat 

must not be constricted further, and mothers must be able to bear and nurse their'calves without 

disruption. 

1.1 1 ldentifv essential habitat in Hawaiian waters, Coastal waters less than 100 fathoms deep 

around the main Hawaiian Islands are essential to humpback whales. These waters are of 

paramount importance for reproductive activities of the Central Pacific stock, which includes the 

majority of humpback whales in the North Pacific Ocean. Since these waters are threatened by 

increased coastal development activities and possible habitat disruption, determination of 

appropriate protection for essential areas should be completed. 

1.12 ldentifv other essential habitats in U.S. waters. Seasonal protection of other winter or 

summer ranges within U.S. waters also enhance population recovery. A determination of 

appropriate protection for these areas should be completed. 

1.13 Encouraae protection of essential habitats under the iurisdiction of other nations. Winter 

ranges crucial to reproduction of various humpback whale stocks are located in waters under 

the jurisdiction of many countries (Fig. 1). NMFS should encourage and assist, as appropriate, 

initiatives to protect such habitats in ways that will benefit the recovery of humpback 

populations. 

1.14 Refine descriDtion of habitats and habitat features utilized bv humpback whales. More 

accurate characterization of humpback whale habitats and their use will contribute to effective 

decisions for managing this species. Meaningful description of use of habitats must combine 

basic information on the whales' biology and behavior with detailed descriptions of physical and 

biological characteristics of habitats currently utilized. Factors to be evaluated more precisely 

include depth, bottom type and topography, water temperature, turbidity, acoustic 

characteristics, current speed and direction. Features offering protection from currents or 

storms need to be identified for wintering ranges. Seasonal abundance of prey species needs 

to be characterized for summering ranges. Sampling duration on the summer range should be 
extended through the winter, where possible, to ascertain the number, age, sex, reproductive 

state and behavior of humpback whales that do not migrate to the breeding grounds. Any 

differences in spatial and/or temporal use of summering or wintering habitats by sex, age, 

dierent reproductive classes or whales from different feeding aggregations should be 

described. The resulting data should be incoprated into methods for population estimation 

and other management decisions, including environmental impact statements. When possible, 

this information should be obtained by using or modifying existing sampling programs (e.g. 

MARMAP, NMFS surveys, EPA environmental assessment programs, etc.). New sampling 

initiatives may also be needed, and additional factors to be sampled may be identified in the 

Mure. 

1.2 Examine historv of occu~ and wtential for remoulation of imwrtant habitats. A goal of this 

Plan is to give humpback whale populations the opportunity to expand into habitat occupied during 

historical times. Further information is needed on the hist* of occupancy of the fdlowing regions, 

the location and extent of habitats utilized, and their potential for repopulation by this species. The 

regions listed below are at least partly under U.S. jurisdiction, include winter range currently or 

historically used by humpback whales, or are particularly important to recovery of selected 

populations. 

1.21 Gulf of Mexico and northwestern Caribbean. Humpbacks now visit the Gulf of Mexico and 

northwestern Caribbean Sea only infrequently. However, portions of that region could be 

suitable for the species and may have been used in earlier times. Surveys of existing literature 

should be undertaken to provide baseline information regarding any historical humpback whale 

occurrence in these areas. Examination of Spanish log books from the early periods of 

American colonization could be useful in thii task. Resulting information plus data from any 

recent or ongoing cetacean census surveys should be used to evaluate whether additional field 

sutveys are needed. In support of this subtask, it is recommended that international 

collaboration with Mexico, Jamaica and Cuba be initiated. Appropriate vehicles for this 

collaboration could be the MIC, MWUS-GULF, or the Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium 

PATS) model. 

1.22 Hawaiian Islands. A discrepancy exists between the current high use of the Hawaiian 

lslands as winter range for humpback whales and the lack of historical documentation of the 

presence of this species in Hawaiian waters. Further research is needed to evaluate whether 

humpback whales have only colonized Hawaiian waters in recent centuries, and if so, to 

determine where else they might have wintered. 

1.23 Western North Pacific and Trust Territories of the Pacific (Guam). As summarized in Rice 

(1 974), humpback whales have historically wintered around the Manana Islands, Bonin Islands, 

and from southern Honshu, Kyushu and South Korea southwest through the Ryukyu Islands to 

Taiwan. A long history of shore-based hunting and pelagic whaling reduced this population to 

the low numbers seen today. Ecological characterization of historically important wintering areas 

within this general range may help to evaluate their potential for repopulation. Darling's (1 989) 

ongoing research on humpback whales in the Ogasawara lslands (Bonin Islands) includes 

updated information on occurrence at various locations in thii region. Further information on 

historic abundance is needed. 

1.24 American Samoa. In order to evaluate possible changes in abundance and distribution, 

it is recommended that NMFS describe current and historical abundance of humpback whales 

in waters surrounding American Samoa. 
1.25 Lesser Antilles. The Lesser Antilles include winter habitat historically important to 

humpback whales, but current population size appears to be depressed. Further research is 

needed to examine the reasons for this difference and to evaluate whether the subsistence hunt 

at Bequia Island, St. Vincent and the Grenadines (Ward 1987), affected population recovery. 

In support of this subtask, collaborative research with the Caribbean nations of the region 

should be initiated. Appropriate vehicles for this research may be through IWC, IOCARIBE, or 

using the WATS model. 

1.3 ldentifv and minimize ~ossible adverse impacts of human activities and ~ollution on immrtant 

- habitat. Now and for the foreseeable future it will be necessary to monitor the occurrence and 

abundance of human-related chemical and physical factors that could decrease the ability of habitats 

to support humpback whales or their prey. Among the environmental factors that could affect the 

suitability of habiats for humpback whales we: (1) physical structures, such as oil drilling platforms 

or rigs; (2) industrial activities, byproducts, effluent, and/or domestic waste disposal; (3) dredging or 

disposal of dredge spoil; (4) runoff from agriculture, mining, lumbering or other activities; (5) 

underwater noise from ships or boats. As effects of human activities become more pervasive 

throughout the ocean, the pcssibilii increases that habitats or populations might become unsuitable 

by insignlicant stages, each too small to command notice or action. Evaluation of results should 

also take into consideration the possibility of cumulative or synergistic interactions between various 

factors. Better compliance with existing environmental laws is also needed to reduce potential 

impacts on habitat qualii. 

1.31 Develop protocol for monitorina phvsical and chemical factors that could decrease habitat 

suitability. Increases in the amount of human-made noise, turbidity caused by erosion or 

eutrophication, and perhaps other physical factors could affect the suitability of habiitats currently 

or potentially used by humpback whales. A plan for long-term sampling and monitoring of 

physical and chemical factors at selected locations known to be important to humpback whales 

should be constructed and incorporated, where possible, in existing environmental sampling 

programs or in new programs recommended in this Plan. Among agencies already conducting 

related monitoring activities are NMFS (groundfish surveys, Status and Trends Benthic 

Surveillance Program, Mussel Watch Program), MMS (environmental impact assessment), EPA 

(monitoring of disposal sites for dredge spoils, sewage sludge, industrial wastes), ONR and the 

Army Corps of Engineers (environmental impact assessment). 

1.311 lnvestiaate responses of humpback whales to human-related habitat chanaes. 

Investigations of short- and long-term responses of humpback whales are needed when 

human-related habitat changes, such as pollution, waste disposal, oil spills, vessel traffic, 

or others, occur near known feeding or breeding areas. The resulting information should 

..be used to predict potential effects of future changes and to identify previous modifications 

to habitat that may have affected distribution or population size of the humpback whale. 

Agencies such as MMS, Navy, U.S. Forest Service, Army Corps of Engineers and others 

that oversee development activities that can result in habitat alteration should be involved 

in such research. Valuable information may be gained when such incidents occur within 

foreign or international waters, but other provisions for leadership in this task will then be 

necessary. 

1.31 11 Reduce disturbance from human-produced underwater noise in Hawaiian 

waters and in other important habitats when humpback whales are present. Acoustic 

information is important in the lie of a humpback whale. Feeding humpbacks may key 

in on sounds produced by other individuals or by prey. Migrating humpbacks may 

listen for sounds produced by other individuals, animals on the bottom, or echoes of 

their own vocalizations. They may also listen for calls of killer whales (Orcinus orca), 
as warnings of the presence of those potential predators. The exact functions of calls 

produced by humpback males on the winter range, and possibly at other times, are 

not fully understood, but they appear to have extremely important functions in 

reproduction and social organization. 

Human-produced noises could potentially reduce information available to whales, 

physically disturb them, prevent them from carrying out some activities, or even 

displace them from preferred habitats. It is not possible to predict these effects on 

humpback whales by generalizing from information known about other species. Some 

information is available for this species (Baker 1982, 1983; Malme et a/. 1985). 

Additional research could be performed, but it is likely to be expensive and may 

provide ambiguous results. 

A more direct and cost-effective approach will be to work toward minimizing hurnanproduced underwater noise, particularly in critically important areas such as Hawaiian 

waters or other winter ranges, but also at other locations when whales are present. 

For example, whale watch boats and some research or commercial boats should be 

designed (or chosen) and operated with noise reduction in mind. Choice of features 

such as exhaust configuration, engine and generator types and mountings, should 

include noise reduction as a design goal. Boat operators should be instructed in the 

importance of underwater sound and taught how to maneuver quietly so as to reduce 

the intensity (amplitude) of underwater sounds and avoid abrupt changes in sound 

intensity. Reduction of human-produced underwater noise could also benefit other 

marine species present, including some endangered species. Efforts to reduce 

industrial noise should also be undertaken by MMS and other appropriate agencies, 

where possible. 

1.4 Monitor parasite load, biotoxins and anthrowaenic contaminant level in tissues of whales and 

their prey. Contaminants such as pesticides, PCB's, hydrocarbons (e.g. crude oil), heavy metals and 

others, could affect survival of humpback whales. Systematic, long-term monitoring of the presence 

and quantity of such substances in humpback whales and in their prey species is needed to 

determine trends in environmental quali, Tiiues sampled should be analyzed by a standardized 

laboratory protocol to allow comparabiii. Samples should be archived in a centralized locatii for 

future verification of results or use in further analyses. The EPA, NOAAINOSIOAD and MMS should 

take the lead in contaminant monitoring studies. 

1.41 Develo~ standardized ~rotocol for samplina tissues of dead or liiina whales utiliing 

strandinas and biocsies. NMFS should consult with veterinarians, physiologists, biochemists 

and field biologists to develop a list of tissues that should be sampled from dead or ling 

whales and analyses performed in order to evaluate the amounts of contaminants they contain. 

This list should also include detailed information on procedures for obtaining, preserving, storing 

and ultimate disposition of samples. In order to make best use of samples, tissues and resuting 

information, construction of this list should be coordinated with other photographic and tissue 

sampling needs identified in this Plan. Material prepared by Geraci and St. Aubin (1 978), Becker 

et a/. (1988), Wise et a/. (1988) and Heyning (in press) may be helpful in this task. 

Implementation of this protocol should utilize, supplement and support stranding and salvage 

networks already in place. Synthesis of existing information or new research should be 

undertaken to ascertain whether and how biopsy samples taken at sea could be wed for 

physiological analysis (e.g. hormone levels) or analysis of anthropogenic contaminants. 

1.42 Develop ~rotocol to sample anthrowaenic contaminant levels in tissues of Prey. Concern 

over the accumulation of chemical residues in human foods has stimulated programs to monitor 
their occurrence in commercial fishes. Similar initiatives should be undertaken to monitor 

chemical and biological toxicants in humpback whale prey species. Federal agencies that 

commonly monitor the marine environment for contaminant levels, including the EPA, 

NOWNOSIOAD and MMS, should take lead responsibility for this monitoring activity. 

1.43 lm~lernent baseline studv of masite load in whale tissues and contaminant levels in 

tissues of whales and prey. Information developed in fulfillment of previous tasks should be put 

to use in implementation of a continuing program for sampling, analysis and evaluation of 

parasite levels and levels of contamination in whales and their prey. This information will 

contribute to better understanding of natural mortality and human-related mortality. 

1.44 Monitor biotoxin concentration in tissues of Drev smies and whales. Biotoxins are poisons 

produced naturally by ling organisms. The involvement of toxins produced by dinoflagellates 

in the deaths of humpback whales (Geraci et a/., 1990) and possibly bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus) (Geraci 1989) in the Western North Atlantic underscores the importance of 

developing a standardized program for sampling and analyzing the occurrence and quantity of 

substances such as saxitoxin, brevetoxin, or other biologically-produced toxins in humpback 

whale prey species and in the whales themselves. Appropriate sampling procedures should be 

developed and coordinated with other long-term sampling programs called for in this Plan. The 

degree to which recent appearances of biotoxins in baleen whales and porpoises are related 

to human-induced changes in habiiat qualii should also be evaluated. NMFS should take the 

lead in these activities. 

1.5 Prwide adeauate nutrition. Humans can assist humpback whales to achieve their maximal 

productivi by providing, maintaining and optimizing their access to suitable habitats and prey. 

Humpback whales need access to their prey populations wer a feeding range sufficiently widespread 

to buffer them from local fluctuations in productivity or fisheries take. Despite the tendency of 

individual whales to return to traditional summer grounds, the locations where humpback whales feed 

may change somewhat in response to naturally-occurring short- or long-term ecological changes. 

Parts of the summer range which are not currently used for feeding may produce more prey or 

attract more whales in the future. Therefore, maintaining quality and sufficient availability of prey 

throughout the current werall extent of humpback whale summer ranges is an important objective. 

It is also important to improve our understanding of the natural processes underlying the productivity 

and distribution of prey species as an aid to defining more exactly what portions of the summer 

range are required for feeding. 

It will be necessary to strike an equitable balance between the whales' need for prey resources and 

the continuing need for humans to utilize fishery resources. Close consultation with appropriate 

Fishery Management Councils during accomplishment of tasks in this section will help find that 

balance. 

1.51 Monitor levels of mev abundance. Much information on the abundance and ecology of 

some potential prey populations may already exist from surveys such as MARMAP, NMFS 

groundfish or scallop surveys, or others. However, NMFS should evaluate, refine and 

systematize these or other methods to maximize their utility for measuring or indexing the 

population sizes of humpback whale prey species. Appropriate methods should be applied to 

determine whether any trends in prey availability are occurring which might affect recovery of 

humpback whale populations. 

As part of this subtask, NMFS should determine the degree to which the distribution and 

abundance of humpback whales is correlated with the distributions and abundances of their 

prey species. Available fishery resource data sets such as MARMAP, SEAMAP and Groundfish 
Surveys should be compared with available information on relative abundance of humpback 

whales. If available data are not sufficient, NMFS should recommend ways to improve sampling 

or other factors in order to permit such comparisons. 

1.52 Identh and evaluate fisheries competition. Initiate research to evaluate direct cornpetition 

for resources between human fisheries and humpback whales. Use resulting informath to 

assist fisheries management plans to ensure adequate escapement of prey species to meet the 

needs of humpback whales on traditional feeding grounds. The Recovery Team is aware that 

this task has complex ramifications and potential conflicls. For example, fishes eaten by 

humpbacks are themselves predators on zooplankton. Encouraging large populations of hening 

or other humpback prey could potentially reduce the abundance of copepods required by right 

whales (Eubalanea glacialis), and could conflict with goals of the recovery plan for that spedes. 

1.53 Prevent initiation of new larae-scale fisheries fdi ~rirnarv LWW of humoback whales. No new 

large-scale fisheries should be initiated that target important humpback prey species, such as 

sand lance along the southern New England coast or krill in Alaskan waters. Prevention of such 

fisheries will help preserve existing feeding opportunities for humpback whales. Management 

of existing fisheries for humpback prey species, such as herring or capelin, should consider the 

feeding requirements of humpback whales as a factor in determining harvest size. 

1.54 Improve coooeration with commercial fishermen. Many conflicts could be resolved more 

efficiently and cooperatively through better communication between fisheries managers and 

commercial fishermen. NMFS should work with Regional Firy Management Councils, 

appropriate State agencies (e.g. Departments of Fish and Wildlife) or others, and appropriate 

segments of the fishing industry to ensure that fishing activities will not cause direct or indirect 

adverse affects to the humpback whale. Information on the status of humpback whales should 

be provided to commercial and recreational fishermen. Fishermen should be involved from the 

start in planning and implementation of tasks involving fisheries-related topics. The importance 

of reporting injured, entangled or dead humpback whales should be explained and 

emphasized. Instructions for making such reports should be prepared and distributed. 

Obstacles to reporting of incidentally emangled whales, such as fear of legal consequences for 

fishermen, should be eliminated. Canadian scientists at the Memorial University of 

Newfoundland, St. John's, have considerable experience balancing the needs of fishermen with 

the needs of humpback whales (Lien et a/. 1989ab) and should be consulted in this Task. 

1.6 Dwelo~ Federalaate-Local ~artnershiw for protectina humoback whale habitats. Although 

management of the humpback whale is primarily a Federal responsibility delegated to NMFS, some 

states have important humpback whale habitat within or adjacent to waters under their jurisdiction. 

Actions by these states may have a direct bearing on the accomplishment of recovery objectives. 

For example, states can aid the recovery of humpback whale populations by: (1) reviewing relevant 

local laws and making changes where appropriate to enhance habiiats; (2) identifying potential 

impacts of proposed construction and/or habitat modification activities on humpback whales and their 

habitats; and (3) using the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended (e.L 

92-583) and other legislative processes to ensure protection for the whales and their habitats. Use 

of the CZMA to protect humpbacks or their habitats requires that states CZM plans include specific 

provisions to that effect. All components of CZM plans require approval by the Department of 

Commerce. 

For these reasons, and because Federal actions to protect humpback whales and their habitat may 

affect state or local programs and interests, states and some local representatives should be closely 
involved in reviewing recovery needs and cooperating to carry out appropriate actions. NMFS should 

take the lead in developing such productive Federalstate-Local partnerships. 

1.61 Encouraae awemment entities at all levels to correct existina impacts on habitat of 

humpback whales. When aware of activities in state waters that appear to threaten humpback 

whales or their habitat, NMFS should initiate actions to mitigate or prevent those threats. A 

series of workshops to explore ways to protect humpback whale habitats should be 

implemented and federally funded. They should identify policy problems, discuss recovery or 

management plans, and present current research that may relate to species recwery. Input 

from representatives of private research facilities, academic institutions and other nongovernmental organizations should be solicited as appropriate in order to stimulate cooperation. 

1.61 1 Convene worksho~ on habiat protection of humpback whale winter ranaes in waters 

under the iurisdiction of the U.S. The United States has jurisdiction wer portions of several 

winter ranges used by humpback whales, including waters in Hawaii, Samoa, Guam, the 

U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. NMFS should convene a workshop attended by 

appropriate representatives from those locations to address problems concerning 

protection of humpback whales and their winter habitats. Continued suitability of the 

wintering range is necessary to meet the goals of this Plan. The workshop should assess 

actions that could be taken to maintain or upgrade habitat quality for humpback whales. 

1.612 Convene workshop on protectina humpback whale habitats in Alaska Alaskan 

waters host the majority of humpback whales that feed along the U.S. Pacific coast. 

Continued growth of this historically large population will be the main impetus to recovery 

of the North Pacific humpback population. Suitabili of Alaskan habitat is essential to this 

population. The recent Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster emphasizes that industrial activities 

threaten portions of the Alaskan coast. At the same time, fisheries could potentially reduce 

the amount of prey available for humpbacks. A workshop to discuss short-term and longterm plans for ensuring the health of Alaskan humpback whales and their habitat will help 

to meet the goals of this Plan. 

1.613 Convene workshop on protectina humpback whale habitats in California and Mexico. 

Federally- regulated waters adjacent to the California coast host the majority of humpback 

whales found along the west coast of the Continental United States (coastal Eastern North 

Pacific stock). Shipping, industrial activities and pollution could affect the long-term 

suitability of this habitat. Most whales that feed along the California coast migrate to 

Mexican waters during winter. Their winter habitat faces threats from increasing human 

development. A workshop to discuss short-term and long-term plans for ensuring the 

health of the California and Mexico habitats that sustain the coastal Eastern North Pacific 

stock of humpbacks will contribute to meeting the goals of this Plan. 

1.614 Convene worksho~ on protectina humpback whale habitats dona the east coast of 

the U.S. Federally- regulated waters in New England host the majority of humpback whales 

found along the U.S. Atlantic coast. Continued suitability of habitats such as the Great 

South Channel and Stellwagen Bank, for example, is essential to maintain a population of 

humpback whales along the U.S. east coast and meet the goals of this Plan. A workshop 

to discuss short-term and long-term plans for ensuring the health of this population and its 

habiat should receive high priority, as should implementation of those plans. Designation 

of Stellwagen Bank as a National Marine Sanctuary should be discussed at this workshop 

if it has not already been accomplished. 
1.7 Encouraae multinational coowration to Drotect hum~back whale habitats. The humpback whale 

is a migratory species that occupies broad geographical ranges, spending portions of its annual life 

cycle in different habitats under the jurisdiction of various countries. Effective actions to achieve 

population recovery will not only require an understanding of all regions and ecosystems used by 

the species, but will also require strong multinational cooperation. Nations, whose waters are 

inhabited by humpback whales or whose overseas activities take place in such waters, may have 

opportunities to perform actions that can aid the success of this Plan. NMFS should encourage such 

actions as may be identified by bringing them to the attention of colleagues from other nations or 

the Department of State. If the recommendations of this Plan become strong priorities in U.S. foreign 

policy and in the foreign policy of other Nations, this Plan will be more likely to succeed. 

1.71 Distribute U.S. Humpback Whale Recwerv Plan to other countries. A first step toward 

fostering international cooperation should be distribution of this Recovery Plan, and other 

relevant information about U.S. actions for humpback whale recovery, to gwemments of all 

countries where humpback whales are found; countries whose fisheries or other industries might 

affect humpback whales in international waters; and appropriate international agencies identified 

by NMFS. The Director of implementation for the Recovery Plan should arrange follow up 

communications with personnel in other countries as appropriate. 

1.72 Intearate ~lan recommendations with aoals of the International Whalina Commission (IWC). 

Since NMFS cannot directly determine IWC goals, consultation between the Proposed Recovery 

Director (Task 4.1) and the U.S. Commissioner.to the IWC will be necessary to see how the IWC 

can contribute to the recovery effort most effectively. 

1.73 Encouraae habitat and environmental ~rotection for hum~back whales bv other Nations. 

Agencies responsible for marine environmental protection in other nations whose waters are 

inhabited by humpback whales, such as Canada, Greenland, the Dominican Republic and other 

island nations of the Caribbean region, Mexico, Japan, Colombia, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, 

and Tonga, among others, should be consulted to determine what actions they are taking to 

maintain and enhance the quali of habitats used by this species. Mutual exchange of 

information and appropriate resources bemeen those Nations and the United States is 

encouraged. 

1.74 Encouraae other nations to develop recwew ~lans for consewation and manaaement of 

humpback whales. Any Nation, whose waters may be used by humpback whales, could make 

an important contribution by constructing a recovery plan detailing appropriate actions that 

could be initiated to foster recovery of this species. 

1.75 Neaotiate bilateral or multilateral aareements to protect humpback whale habitats. NMFS 

should request the Department of State to negotiate for bilateral or multilateral agreements to 

protect critical habitat or regions of particular significance for humpback whales that visit or pass 

through U.S. waters or other stocks that could benefit by such actions. High priority should be 

given to agreements for protecting habitats at Silver Bank, the Ogasawara Islands and Ryukyu 

Islands, and along the Pacific coast of Mexico, including the Revillagigedo Archipelago, Puerta 

Vallerta and Cabo San Lucas. 

OBJECTIVE 2. IDENTIFY AND REDUCE DIRECT HUMAN-RELATED MORTALITY, 

INJURY AND DISTURBANCE. 

The rate of change of population size is the net resuft of four processes, birth (+), immigration (+), death 

(-) and emigration (-). Techniques for artificially increasing birth rate are not yet feasible for this species. 

Rates of immigration and emigration between stocks are probably low, if such movements occur at all, 
and probably cannot be speeded up. Thus, the major ways that we can increase humpback whale 

population growth is to optimize natural fecundity by providing adequate feeding opportunities.(Task 1.5) 

and by reducing death or injury cawed by human activities, as recommended in the following tasks. 

2.1 Continue prohibition on commercial huntina of humpback whales. Since hunting was responsible 

for the decline of humpback whale populations throughout their range, existing prohibitions against 

hunting of this species should remain in force at least until recovery is compl&e. 

2.2 Continue to identifv sources and rates of human-induced iniutv and mortali and use information 

to reduce those factors. NMFS should investigate and identify sources and rates of injuries and 

mortality attributed to human activities. Useful information already exists in collections of pMoidentified whales, necropsy reports from Regional Stranding Networks and the Smithsonian 

Institution's Marine Mammal Event Program (MMEP) and other sources. Recent amendments to the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act require reports of incidental take of any marine mammal by U.S. 

fisheries. The impact of other fisheries, such as the widespread North Pacific driftnet fishery for 

squid, needs to be studied. All dead humpback whales should be photographically identified to 

provide information on variation in mortality by age, reproductive class or other variables. SuocessM 

accomplishment of this task will be enhanced by increased support of Regional Stranding Networks. 

After compiling available information, NMFS should initiate actions to reduce the causes and rates 

of human-induced injury and mortalii. Based on current information, the largest source of direct 

human-related mortality for humpback whales appears to be incidental entrapment or entanglement, 

primarily in fishing gear, but occasionally in other obstacles such as abandoned logging cable. Injury 

or death from collision with ships is also known to occur. 

2.21 Reduce mortali and iniutv from entanalement in fisherv aear or other obstacles. The 

current rate of injury and mortality from fishing gear and other potential obstacles such as 

logging cable or sonar arrays, does not threaten the humpback whale with extinction. However, 

it could retard the recovery of segments of the population. In most locations the species is not 

sufficiently endangered to require exceptionally expensive or heroic measures to save every 

entrapped or entangled whale. However, reasonable efforts are appropriate for humanitarian 

reasons, to minimize damage to fishing gear and to aid in population recovery. Where possible, 

such rescues should be attempted by existing groups experienced in appropriate techniques. 

Insurance should be provided for approved personnel who attempt to save entangled whales. 

Whenever possible, whales should be photographically identified and biopsy sampled before 

release. These occurrences may also provide good opportunities for attachment of long-term 

radio tags for use in Task 3.5231. All carcasses that can be retrieved through reasonable efforts 

should be photographically identified and thoroughly examined and sampled using standardiied 

techniques. Material prepared by Hare and Mead (1 987) will be helpful in identifying causes of 

mortality. These data may help to identify classes of whales that become entangled with 

increased frequency. Biopsy or tissue samples can also be used to increase the sample size 

available for genetics studies (Task 3.5233) and environmental contamination (Task 1.4). 

Performance of these and related tasks will benefit from coordination with recommendations 

included in the Right Whale Recovery Plan. 

2.21 1 Improve re~ortina of entanaled whales and rescue them when ~ossible. NMFS, U.S. 

states and other Nations with interests in this species should continue to assist in 

developing a communications network to facilitate timely reporting of entangled whales and 

rapid dispatch of experienced personnel and equipment to save whales or salvage their 

carcasses for necropsy. Agencies that may become involved in rescue or salvage 

operations (e.g., U.S. Coast Guard, Air National Guard, etc.) should be included in 

development of contingency plans for rescue or carcass retrieval. A major objective of this 
Plan should be to streamline authorization and deployment of personnel and equipment, 

thus reducing the time needed to take appropriate action. Development of this Plan should 

be coordinated with other related efforts, such as the Right Whale Recovery Plan. 

The current reporting program is likely to underestimate large whale mortalii from 

entanglement, because some whales will tear away nets or lines and swim away carrying 

a portion of the gear. This could encumber swimming, diving, feeding or other fundions, 

but if such a whale is not seen again there is no way to evaluate the outcome of the 

entanglement event. lmprwed reporting of ling or dead whales carrying pieces of fishery 

gear may reduce this problem, but the outcome of some events will never be known. 

2.212 Use standardized form for entanalement reoorts. A standardized form for reporting 

entangled whales should be used. A comparable form was devdoped for reporting 

stranded marine mammals and has been useful to the Regional Stranding Networks. 

2.213 lrwestiaate and mod& fishina aear to prevent entrapment or entanrrlement. Uen el 

81. (1 989b) have demonstrated that acoustic warning signals can substantially increase the 

abili of humpback whales to detect fishing gear and can decrease both the probability 

and cost of collisions with gear. Research on large-scale implementation of acoustical 

protection for nets is underway in Canada (Lien and Guigne 1989). Imopmth of 

breakaway links might help whales to escape drowning and perhaps minimize damage to 

gear. These and other potential innwations should be investigated and incorporated as 

appropriate into new gear specifications. Canadian scientists should be consulted during 

implementation of this Task. 

2.214 ldentifv and implement seasonal andlor aeocrmhii recrulations for fishincl aear that 

mav kill or iniure humpback whales. Information from evaluation of injuries and rnortalii 

caused by fishing gear will provide a basis for deciding whether to Wi existing seasonal 

or geographic regulations to minimize impacts on humpback whales. This form of 

management should only be implemented as a last resort, following documentation of 

several impacts on humpback whales, and only after consultation with any affected States. 

This task should be coordinated with the reporting program required by the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, as amended in 1988, and with new information gathered in Tasks 

identified in this Plan. If sufficient evidence for adverse effects is gathered, driftnet fisheries 

along humpback migratory paths should be prohibited during the times of year when the 

whales are present there. 

2.215 Reauire fishina aear to be remwed when fisherv ends. If evidence indicates that 

humpback whales become entangled or entrapped in fishing gear still in place after a 

fishery ends, regulations requiring gear remwal should be enacted. 

2.22 Evaluate immct on humpback whales from collisions with shim or boats. Collisions with 

ships have been identified as an important cause of death in right whales (Kraus, in press), but 

no comparable body of information has been assembled for humpback whales. Information 

existing in photographic collections, strandings reports or other sources should be analyzed and 

synthesized to fulfill this Task. 

OBJECTIVE 3. MEASURE AND MONITOR KEY POPULATION PARAMETERS. 

More accurate assessment of present and histotical changes of humpback whale populations throughart 

the range of the species is necessary for evaluating the success of this Plan. k will be important to reach 

early agrwnent on the indices used to track population status wer the long term. Consistent long-term 
data are needed to identify spatial and temporal trends in abundance. Interpretation of data is hampered 

by inconsistent methodology, high variance surrounding estimates of the mean, and biological 

considerations such as low intrinsic rate of whale population growth and temporal variations in 

geographical distribution. Research methods must be designed to prwide reliable and comparable 

results, funding must be provided for long-term research and monitoring efforts must continue long 

enough for population trends to be detected. Research collaboration between scientists from different 

Nations will be needed in many of the tasks outlined in this section. 

3.1 Estimate and re-evaluate historic m~ulation sizes. Better estimates of historic population sizes 

are needed as a context for evaluating current sizes and establiihing future objectives. NMFS should 

review existing descriptions of historic populations of humpback whales to determine whether they 

are adequate for recovery planning. If additional information is needed to determine historical 

population sizes, NMFS should allocate funds for analysis of any relevant whaling logs and literature 

on humpback sightings or fisheries that have not already been studied. 

3.2 lm~rwe current m~ulation estimates bv evaluatina and re-anatvzina existina data with im~rwed 

techniaues. If any data relevant to estimation of population sizes exist that have not been analyzed 

or that could provide better information if reanalyzed, efforts should be made to improve estimates 

by applying new or diierent analytical techniques to that information. For example, a re-analysis of 

available shipboard and aerial sunrey data is necessary. 

3.21 Convene worksho~ to devel0D capture-recarnure estimate of humpback whale abundance 

in the North Pacific Ocean usina existina ~hotoara~hs. The NMML is curating photographs of 

at least several thousand humpback whales contributed by research workers throughout the 

North Pacific Ocean (Mizroch, et el., 1990). This collection may contain enough resightings to 

permit calculation of an imprwed estimate of population sue using capture-recapture methods. 

NMFS should convene a workshop to review relevant data and photographs and prepare a 

population estimate. Preliminary data compilation and analysis will need to be accomplished in 

the first year as preparation for the workshop in year two. 

3.3 Svstematize sam~lina methods for estimatina current mpulation sizes. The research community 

must continue to evaluate, refine and systematize methods for measuring population size. Particular 

consideration should be given to improving sampling consistency, precision, accuracy and 

frequency. Improving comparability between dierent studies is an important goal. Standardized 

techniques for analyzing relative trends in population size, including the use of index areas, should 

be adopted. 

3.4 Maintain and develop facilities for obtainina, archiivina and anahrzina data on humpback whales. 

3.41 Archive existina data Recovery of humpback whale populations will take many years. The 

time period needed to detect a trend in abundance will often exceed the average career length 

of individual scientists. Therefore, access to data on which population estimates were based 

should be preserved for years to come. NMFS should, whenever possible, take appropriate 

actions to gather and archive relevant existing data, as well as new data to be collected. 

Emphasis should be placed on peer-rev'wed information pubiished in scientific journals, but 

other sources of information should not be overlooked. 

3.41 1 Maintain centers for comparative anahrsis of identification ~hotwraohs. The 

information that individual research workers derive from photo-identification studies can be 

extended through collaborative studies. Such studies are already providing data on 

natality, survivorship, population size and sub-structure, migrations and habitat use. 

Photographic collections can also be analyzed to determine types and frequencies of 
injuries; habitat use and partitioning; and other relevant demographic and behaviotal 

factors. Such analyses benefit from collaboration between researchers so that the 

photographic database includes a sufficiently large and widespread sample. Analysis of 

all photographs at central locations facilitates such collaboration and also provides 

improved opportunities for communication and qualii control of data. Whole ocean 

catalogues of humpback whale fluke photographs are now curated at the National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory, Seattle (mainly Pacific Ocean); and at the College of the Atlantic, Bar 

Harbor, Maine (Atlantic Ocean). NMFS should continue to provide financial support for 

central analysis and archiving of the international collections of photographs curated at 

those locations. Incentives for collaboration and cooperation with those projects should be 

provided as appropriate by NMFS, IWC, other countries, and concerned nongovernmental 

organizations. NMFS should encourage those facilities to apply new technology to faciliie 

standardization, storage, analysis and publication or distribution of photographs (e.g. 

Mizroch et el., 1990). 

3.412 Identifv, accumulate and archive existina siahtinas survev data. A large number of 

sighting surveys for humpback whales have been conducted. Many analyses of temporal 

trend will require access to raw data NMFS should identify, accumulate and archive these 

data sets in a fashion that will allow access for present and future analyses. 

3.42 Dedicate research vessels to studv humoback whales and other endanaered swcies. The 

success of this Plan requires increased seagoing research capabilities. At least 200 days per 

year of sea-time will be required for each ocean basin. Sharing time on existing research 

vessels and working from platforms of opportunity is feasible for some tasks. Other tasks 

require vessels to be available. for specific periods for several years. Existing large 

oceanographic vessels are not atways practical for some tasks such as photographicidentification, biopsy, and behavioral observations. Small boats are available for such tasks in 

local or inshore waters, but no appropriate vessels exist for extended cruises in the continental 

shelf and slope waters of North America. Two vessels are needed, one for the east coast and 

one for the west coast. Funding and use of these vessels should be coordinated with other 

recovery plans, such as the Right Whale Recovery Plan, and in conjunction with such problems 

as assessment of the impacts of incidental take associated with the 1988 Amendments of the 

MMPA. 

3.421 Build or retrofit research vessels. The most cost-effective way to provide the 

seagoing research capabilities needed for this Plan may be to construct or retrofit two 

research vessels. This approach would guarantee availabili of appropriate vessels and 

would maximize chances for success of required research. If such vessels are constructed, 

funds required for research vessel charter (Task 3.422) would be much less than budgeted 

in Appendix A. 

3.422 Charter research vessels. if dedicated research vessels are not constructed, 

substantial levels of support will be required for charter of available vessels best-suited for 

research needs. Current chatter costs for oceanographic andlor commercial vessels 

needed for some tasks are on the order of $5,000 to $1 0,000 per day. As an example, 180 

days for winter surveys in Hawaii and Mexico and summer surveys in Alaska and Caliiomia 

would cost about $1,000,000 at the lower daily rate. 

3.5. Perform new field studies on w~ulation dvnamics. NMFS should implement new research to 

estimate the sizes and rates of change of humpback whale populations. The research is essential 

for evaluating actual and potential rates of population recovery. Some of these studies will also 

provide information about habitat use or other topics important for determining management actions. 
Identification of the studies and highest priority data needs should be based on the review and 

analysis of existing data In some cases, a useful way to determine population trends may be to 

extend an existing database by duplicating an earlier study. This strategy may be cost-effective even 

when new methods or technology have superseded those used previously. 

3.51 Examine rates of birth, suwivmhb and mortality. Estimates of birth rate, survivorship and 

mortality are i~portant for evaluating the potential rate of recovery of humpback whale 

populations and comparing reproductive success in diierent geographic regions. Suwivorship 

and mortality rates should be detailed as a function of age, sex, or other characteristics. 

Resulting data should be used to refine estimates of parameters used in models of population 

dynamics. 

3.51 1 Convene worksho~ to estimate suwivorshi~ of calves based on existina indiidualidentification ~hotoaraohs. Photo-identification studies are already providing 

documentation of calf production by humpback whale females. Existing photographic 

samples of females with calves on the winter range should be compared with samples of 

the same females six months later on the summer range. Absence of calves will provide 

an estimate of mortality during the first year of life. NMFS should convene a workshop 

during which such photographs and data could be reviewed and analyzed for that purpose. 

Participants in this workshop should also consider whether implantation of long-term radii 

tags in mothers nursing on the winter ranges could provide significant improvement in 

sample sue on the summer ground; or whether small enough tags could be developed and 

safely implanted to justify tagging calves directly. 

3.512 ldentifv and auantifv causes of natural mortalitv in iwenile and adult hum~back 

whales. Information resulting from activities recommended in this Plan will lead to a better 

understanding of natural mortality. Episodic events, such as entrapment of humpback 

whales in ice along the coast of Newfoundland, should be documented when they occur. 

Better information on parasite load, biotoxin occurrence and effects and natural pathology 

of stranded whales may shed new light on the role of those factors in causing death. 

3.52 Define aeoqra~hic subdiisions of wpulation. Further information on seasonal and longerterm differences in geographic movements of individuals is needed to describe the behavioral 

and genetic relationship between groups of humpback whales frequenting different regions. 

Isolation of existing sub-populations could affect population recovery at two levels. First, flow 

of individuals for replenishment of depleted sub-populations might be limited; second, 

inbreeding and subsequent loss of genetic variation could occur in small, isolated or remnant 

populations. 

3.521 Anahne and evaluate existina information on wwlation subdivisions. Studies using 

photo-identification have indicated that humpback whales in both the North Pacific and the 

North Atlantic Ocean aggregate into dierent feeding groups, between which there is 

apparently relatively rile interchange. Furthermore, rile interchange appears to occur 

between whales on the Hawaiian and Mexican Pacific wintering ranges. Some information 

on migration has been obtained from photo-identification and from earlier work using 

artificial (e.g. Discovery) tags. Following evaluation of existing information, studies using 

new techniques should be implemented, if needed, to provide more details on habitat use 

of individual whales. 

3.522 Implement immediatelv initial photwraphic suwevs of selected recrions. Broadranging photo-identification studies are among the most powerful techniques available for 

determining migrational end points, population subdivisions, abundance and other 
important population parameters. Data need to be collected from the entire population 

range, much of which is outside of U.S. territorial waters. The Eastern North Atlantic, Azores 

Islands, and Cape Verde Islands; offshore waters of the Gulf of Maine and New York BigM; 

and Western Alaska, the Aleutian Islands and the western North Pacific are known areas 

of current and former distribution where inadequate sampling takes place. NMFS should 

promote extended sampling in those and other regions through directed effort in waters 

under U.S. jurisdiction and by encouraging collaborative or cooperative research programs 

with other countries in distant waters. Such efforts will contribute substantially to the 

objectives of Task 3.52. Scientists from many Nations have already contributed 

photographs to humpback whale fluke catalogues in both the North Atlantic and North 

Pacific Oceans, and such efforts are developing at several locations in the Southern 

Hemisphere. 

3.523 Describe mhration routes and transit times. Long-range movements of humpback 

whales are now known only by beginning and end points. The route travelled in between 

those observations is unknown. Better descriptions of migration routes are needed in order 

to know whether additional habitats might require protection and to ascertain the likelihood 

that migrating humpbacks might be exposed to serious environmental threats, such as high 

seas driftnet fisheries. 

3.5231 EmPlov lonq-term radio taas. Studies using new tagging techniques, 

particularly long-lived radio tags tracked by satellite or other methods, should be 

carried out to provide detailed long-term and long-range information on habitat use 

and migration. Detailed charting of migration paths may reveal additional potential 

threats to the whales and may suggest additional management needs. Radio tags 

employed should minimize disturbance to the tagged whale and to other individuals 

with which it may physically interact. MMS, which has considerable experience in 

funding or carrying out such studies, should be consulted when planning these 

projects. 

3.5232 Utilize underwater listenina stations. Humpback whales begin vocalizing at the 

end of the feeding season while still on the summer range (Mattila et el. 1987). 

Listening for vocalizations may reveal information about migration routes (Clapham 

and Mattila 1990). Additional opportunistic acoustic sampling should be done. NMFS 

should urge the Department of Defense and the Office of Naval Research to share 

information on whale vocalizations obtained by military listening posts. 

3.5233 Utilize aenetic techniaues. Recently developed molecular techniques for 

describing genetic variability at the DNA level (Lambertson et al. 1988; Hoelzel and 

Dwer 1 988; Amos 1989; Baker et al. 1990 and unpuMied manuscript; Amos and 

Hoelzel, in press; Lambertson et el., in press) facilitate examination of the genetic 

exchange or isdatatbn between population sub-divisions. Such studies have just 

begun for humpback whales and should be extended. Biopsy sampling of several 

species of large whales for genetic analysis has already occurred. Naturally sloughed 

skin may also be useful for some analyses. Following evaluation of recent work, n8W 

studies should be implemented to obtain appropriate samples (from ph~t~graphl~allyidentified individuals, when possible) for genetic analysis of population sub-structure 

and degree of isolation between population sub-units. Genetic analysis of tissue from 

dead whales should also be performed when appropriate. Genetic techniques may 

also be useful to augment demographic studies by identifying sex and corroborating 

individual identification of naturally marked whales (Amos and Hoelzel, in press; Baker 

et a/., in review). 
3.53 Estimate abundance of hum~back whale ~o~ulations. Present and future sizes of 

humpback whale populations need to be estimated using existing or imprwed methods for 

census surveys or capturerecapture experiments. Futfillment of this and related tasks is 

essential for monitoring and evaluating progress toward the numerical goal of this Plan. 

3.531 Perform new census survevs. As part of tasks identified elsewhere in this plan, new 

census surveys should be designed and implemented to estimate population abundance 

and trends. New tools such as acoustic census methods, high-resolution high-altitude 

photography, satellite imagery or others should be utilized if feasible and appropriate in 

order to improve or verify existing estimates of population size or growth trend. 

3.532 Encouraae and mrticime in international siahtinas survevs. Throughout the period 

of humpback whale population recovery, shipboard and aerial census surveys will be 

needed to monitor population changes in the waters of many countries and in international 

waters. International cooperative census surveys have already produced valuable 

information on humpback whales and other species in the North Atlantic, North Pacific and 

Southern Ocean. The IWC is the appropriate focus for coordinating such efforts. 

3.533. Im~lement im~rwed sam~lina Proclram for camre-recaoture estimation of 

po~ulation abundance. Application of capture-recapture analysis to collections of 

individual-identification photographs is a powerful method for estimating population size of 

baleen whales. The accuracy and precision of such estimates can be imprwed by 

designing imprwed photographic sampling and analysis protocols. The major goals of 

such a protocol should be to equalize the probabilii of being sampled for each animal in 

the population and to minimize or eliminate other sampling biases that could affect 

population estimates. 

3.6 Continue lona-term ohoto-identification studies at current sites. Photo-identification of humpback 

whales has been carried out for many years in the summer and winter ranges of populations which 

use waters under United States jurisdiction. Photographic collections spanning more than a decade 

exist for humpbacks from the Gulf of Maine and portions of their West lndies winter range; the coast 

of Central Callomia and the Mexican winter range; and the coast of Alaska and the Hawaiian winter 

range used by those animals. Continuation of research at those sites to build on previous results 

is a cost-effective way to provide data required by the Plan; to identify long-term trends; and to 

evaluate progress toward goals specified in the Plan. 

3.7 Assess ~o~ulation dvnamics and trends. All of the data resulting from fulfillment of tasks listed 

in this Plan should be incorporated into an assessment of status and trends of humpback whale 

populations. An assessment incorporating other fisheries data and ecological information will help 

predict rates of population recovery. All relevant data should be characterized and reviewed in light 

of newer methods of analysis, such as the dynamic response method to determine whether a 

population is likely to be at or near carrying capacity (Goodman 1988; Gerrodette and DeMaster 

1 990). 

OBJECTIVE 4. IMPROVE ADMINISTRATION AND COORDINATION OF RECOVERY PROGRAM 

FOR HUMPBACK WHALES. 

Successful planning for the recwery of an endangered species is complex and requires the efforts of 

individuals, the collective public and branches of government at all levels, as indicated in the tasks below. 

Failure to cooperate effectively could seriously jeopardize population recwery. Additional tasks requiring 

administration and cooperation at the international level were detailed above. 
4.1 Select Director and implement Recwerv Plan. This Plan recommends many actions, including 

some that are broad in scope and span long periods of time. Successful implementation of these 

recommendations will require sustained attention and initiative from an individual who understands 

govammental processes at all levels and who can work effectively with scientists, fishermen, fisheries 

managers, shipping interests, the general public and other sectors. Designating a Director of the 

Humpback Whale Recovery Effort, who will have autonomy, a dedicated budget and responsibility 

for overseeing the implementation of this Plan will increase the chances for its overall success. It 

may be advantageous for this person to serve also as Director of the right whale recovery effort, if 

feasible. 

4.2 Itin~rove awemmental coordination. Achievement of the goals of this Plan will require long-term 

coorbination between many gWerIIment agencies at local, state and Federal levels. NMFS should 

take the lead in developing effective communications between agencies involved in the recovery 

effort, for example in Task 1.6. Expansion or reconstitution of the Recovery Team to improve 

representation of responsible agencies will also be important (Task 4.4). 

4.3 Jmprove coordination with non-awemmental aaencies. Non-governmental agencies make 

impdrtant contributions to the success of recovery efforts. NMFS should develop effective 

communications with appropriate groups interested in conservation and marine affairs, so that they 

may have the opportunity to direct some of their resources toward tasks identified in this Plan. 

4.4 Bx~and or reconstitute a Recovetv Imdementation Team. update the Recovew Plan and oreme 

Com~rehensive Work Plans for each stock. During consideration of the tasks and priorities contained 

in this Plan, it has become apparent that implementation will benefit by having representatives of 

several additional constituencies on the Recovery Team. For example, MMS, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service should be represented. Representation is also 

desirable from states containing critical habitat for humpback whales. Representation from other 

public and private institutions or by knowledgeable individuals should be continued. The 

reconstituted Recovery Team and Recovery Director should prepare Comprehensive Work Plans for 

each stock that identify and schedule recovery actions specific for each area The Team and Director 

should also update the Recovery Plan or Comprehensive Work Plan when necessary. 

4.5 Collect and archive available information on hum~back whales, includina translations of fotei~n 

literature. A comprehensive library of publications and information on humpback whales should exist 

in order to facilitate tasks called for in this Plan. NMFS should implement such a collection or assist 

in maintaining and extending an existing collectin. 

4.6 lm~rove process for obtainina permits to do research on marine mammals and make appropriate 

channes. Permits are required for working with free-living, entangled or dead humpback whales (and 

other marine mammals). Obtaining such permits has become a cumbersome task, requiring 

considerable paperwork and long periods of time. NMFS is currently reviewing its public display and 

scientific research permit program and making changes as appropriate to create integrated, efficient 

permitting procedures that will facilitate research recommended in this Plan. Additional coordination 

with the USFWS should be carried out in order to streamline the process for obtaining CITES permits, 

which will also be needed to cany out research recommended in this Plan. 

4.7 Maintain coordination with other recovew efforts. It may be possible to save effort and expense 

by coordinating with other recovery efforts currently in progress. For example, opportunities for 

coordination with the tasks identified in the Right Whale Recovery Plan might include combined 

educational or public relations efforts; collaboration in canying out fieldwoik or analyzing results; 

cooperation in reporting and saving entangled whales; and sharing resources for archiving data and 
bliihed literature. NMFS should identify such opportunities and implement coordination 

, If the Recovery Plan is 

one or more stocks or 

them entirely ~ddist') 

ing whether its Goals 

ng stocks or feeding 

and the Recovery 

ation Team and agreed upon well ahead of the time when they might be employed. 

4.8 Reasses6 

facilitate the 

before the 

as a~~ropriate theaoals for ~o~ulation recovery. The uttimate goal of this plan is to 

growth of humpback whale populations until they reach at least 60% of their abundance 

species was impacted by commercial whale hunting. 

4.91 ~koduce and diibute educational materials. NMFS should consult with persons 

ced in education and public relations to plan the most effective instruments for 

public cooperation, including brochures, pamphlets, media presentations and others. 

on appropriate vessel behavior when in the vicinity of whales should be included 

Is distributed with boat registrations. Accompanying distribution of these or other 

instruments 

possib 

private 

4.92 lhprwe cooperation with the whale watchina industry. NMFS should work with 

organktions of commercial whale watch operators and others to enlist their cooperation in 

should be an evaluation of their utility in producing the desired behaviors. When 

e, this Task should be accomplished in cooperation with appropriate State agencies or 

groups active in public education. 

achiev 

to the 

incorporating 

by nat 

ng the objectives of this Plan. Ways in which whale watch tour operators can contribute 

humpback whale recovery effort include minimizing the potential for harassment, and 

information about the Plan into their own public education efforts or presentations 

~ralists accompanying trips. 
:;::+ 1971. Historical geography of whaling in Bequia Island, West Indies. Caribbean Studies 

Adams, J. . 1975. Primitive whaling in the West Indi. Sea Frontiers 21 (5):303313. E 

1987. Fotoidentificacion del rorcual jorobado, Megapten novaeangiiae, (Borowski, 1781), 

adyacentes a lsla Isabel, Nay. (Cetacea: Balaenopteridae). Professbnal Thesis, Faculty of 

of Biology, National Autonomous University of Mexico. 105 pp. (English summary). 

Amos, W. 989. Use of DNA probes for stock Mentity-progress report for MIC. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 

sc/40/038. 1 

d Hoelzel, AR. 1990. DNA fingerprinting cetacean biopsy samples for capture-recapture 

Rep. Int. Whal. Commn (Special Issue 12): 79-85. 

Whiie, A.W. 1989. Toxic dinoflagellates and marine mammal mortalities. Woods Hde 

Rept., WHOI-8936 (CRC-89-6) 65 pp. 

Andrews, d.~. 191 6. Whale Hunting with Gun and Camera. D. Appleton and Co., N.Y. 333 pp. 

Swartz, S.L 1988. Proceedings of the workshop to review and revaluate whale watching 

needs, November 14-16, 1988, Monterey, California. Center for Marine 

D.C., and NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 1335 East West Hwy., Silver 

Baker, C.S, 1985. The population structure and social organization of humpback whales (Megapten 

novaeanglihe) in the central and eastern North Pacific. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 

306 PP. 

Baker, C.S. and Herman, LM. 1981. Migration and local movement of humpback whales through Hawalian 

waters. Call. J. Zwl. 59:460-469. 

Baker, C.S, and Herman, LM. 1984. Aggressive behavior between humpback whales (Megaprefa 

novaeanglide) wintering in Hawaiian waters. Can. J. Zwl. 62: 1922-1 937. 

Baker, C.S., Herman, LM., Bays, B.G. and Stifel, W.F. 1982. The impact of vessel traffic on the behaviot 

of humpback whales in southeast Alaska Contract 81-ABE00114, NMFS, National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory, Seattle, WA, 78p. 

Baker, C.S., Herman, LM., Bays, B.G. and Bauer, G.B. 1983. The impact of vessel traffic on the behavior 

of humpba@k whales in Southeast Alaska: 1982 season. Report submitted to the National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory, NMFS, Seattle, WA. May 17, 1983.30~~. 

Baker, C.S. and Herman, LM. 1985. Whales that go to extremes. Nat. Hist. 94(10):52-61. 

Baker, C.S,, Herman, LM., Perry, A, Lawton, W.S., Straky, J.M. and Straley, J.H. 1985. Population 

characteristics and migration of summer and late-season humpback whales (Megapten novaeangliae) in 

southeastern Alaska Mar. Mamm. Sci. 1:304323. 
LM., Peny, A, Lawton, W.S., Straley, J.M., Wolman, A.A., Kaufman, G.D., Winn, H.E., 

and Ostman, J. 1986. Migratory movement and population structure of humpback 

in the central and eastern North Pacific. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 

31 :105-119. 

Baker, C.S. and LM. 1987. Alternative population estimates of humpback whales (Megeptera 

novaeangliae) in waters. Can. J. Zool. 65(11):2818-2821. 

Baker, C.S., per$ A., and Hemwn, LM. 1987. Reproductive histories of female humpback whales 

Megaptera nova gliae in the North Pacific. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser 41:103-114. 

Baker, C.S., ~e? A and Vequist, G. 1988. Humpback whales of Glacier Bay, Alaska. Whalewatcher, Fall 

1988:13-17. 

bi, S.R., Lambertsen, R.H., Weinrich, M.T., Calambokidi, J. and OIBrien, S.J. 1990. The 

the geographic stttucture of mitochondria1 DNA variation in humpback 

Nature 344(6263):238-240. 

Baker, C.S., Lam rtsen, R.H., Weinrich, M.T., Calambokidis, J., Early, G. and OBBrien, S.J. unpublished 

manuscript. Mol ular genetic identification of the sex of humpback whales (Megaptera novaemgliae). 

Unpublished ma F uscript. 15 pp. 

Nichols, G. 1981. Humpback whale censuses in the West Indies. Rept. Int. Whal. 

Balcomb, K. and 

28:159-164. 

Bannister, J.L, M chell, E.D., Balcomb, KC., Brown, S.G. and Martin, AR. 1984. Report of the subgroup 

on North Atlantic I humpback whale boundaries. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 341 81. 

Nichols, G. 1978. Western North Atlantic humpback whales. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 

Bauer, G.B. The behavior of humpback whales in Hawaii and modification of behavior induced by 

ns. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 

Bauer, G.B. and Herman, LM. 1986. Effects of vessel traffic on the behavior of humpback whales in 

Hawaii. Report ubmitted to NMFS Southwest Region, Western Pacific Program Office, Honolulu, HI. 

151 pp. Q 

Beach, D.W. an Weinrich, M.T. 1989. Watching the tyhales: is an educational adventure for humans 

turning out to be d another threat for endangered species. Oceanus 32(1):84-88. 

Becker, P.R., Wi , S.A, Koster, B.J. and Zeisler, R. 1988. Alaskan marine mammal tissue archival project: 

a project descri ion including collection protocols. NBSlR 883750. National Bureau of Standards, U.S. 

Department of C a mmerce, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.53 pp. 

Berzin, A.A. and AA 1966. [The distribution and migration of whales in the northeastern part of 

the Pacific Ocea the Bering Sea and the Sea of Chukotsk]. lzvestia Tikhookeanskogo NauchnoRybnogo Khozyaistva i Okeanografii 58:179-207. 

Best, P.B. 1981. he status of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) off South Afrida, 1969-1979. lnvestl Rep. 

Div. Sea Fish. S. T Afr. 123:14. 
Estimates of the landed catch of right (and other whalebone) whales in the American 

Fish. Bull. 85(3):403418. 

of the puglihed Merature on the humpback whale (Megeptera 

glacialislaustralis). pp. 467-628 In: Payne, R. (ed.) 

Westview Press. 

Krogman, B.D., Rugh, D.J. and Withrow, D.E. 1977. Marine mammals of the 

a preliminary report on distribution and abundance, 1975-76. NWAFC Processed Report, U.S. 

NOAA, NMFS, NWAFC. National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, 

.W., Oliver, G.W., Fowler, C., Frost, K, Fay, F., Cowles, C., Costa, D., Schneider, K and Calkins, 

mammals. Chapter 4, pp. 55-81 In: Harneedi, M.J. (ed.) The St. George Basin 

Possible Consequences of Planned Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Alaska 

Braham, F.w. 1984. The status of endangered whales: an overview. Mar. Fish. Rev. 46(4):2-6. 

1983. Foraging ecology of humpback whales off Newfoundland. Fifth Biennial Conf. on the 

Marine Mammals. Boston. Abstract. pp. 13-1 4. 

Breiwick, J.M., Mitchell, E. and R.R. Reeves. 1983. Simulated population trajectories for northwest Atlantic 

humpba C k whales, 1865-1980. Fiih Biennial Conf. on Biol. of Marine Mammals, Boston. Abstract. p. 14. 

. 1977. Form, function and energetics of cetacea: discussion. p. 45-58 In: Harrison, R.J. (ed.), 

Anatomv of Marine Mammals, Vd. 3. Academic Press, London. 

Sameoto, D.D. and Sheldon, R.W. 1978. Population densities of euphausii of Nova Scotia 

by net samples, whale stomach contents, and sonar. Limnol. Oceanogr. 23(6):1264-1267. 

an, J.J. eta/. 1987. Aerial surveys of endangered cetaceans and other marine mammals in the 

Gulf of Alaska and southeastern Bering Sea Envirosphere Co., Bellevue, Washington. Report 

Service, Alaska OCS Offii OCSEAP Unit 673 for Contract No. 85-ABC-00093. 

an, J.J. et a/. 1988. Shipboard surveys of endangered cetaceans in the northwestern Gulf of 

Co., Bellevue, Washington. Final Report to Mineral Management Service, Alaska OCS 

of Oceanography and Marine Assessment, Alaska Office. OCSEAP Unit 673. 

Nichols, G., Bryant, T.B. and Miller, K 1981. Krill availability and the distribution of humbpack 

J.C., Balcomb, KC., Steiger, G.H. and Bloedel, P. 1988. Humpback whale 

and abundance in the Gulf of Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, 

National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA, for Contract CX 8000-6- 

Washington. 65 pp. 
1958. The breeding cycle of the female humpback whale, Megaptern nodosa 

Mar. Freshw. Res. 9:1-18. 

Chiittleborough, .G. 1965. Dynamics of two populations of humpback whale, Megeptera novaeangliae 

@orowski). Aust. 7 J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 16: 33-128 

The attainment of sexual maturity in two female humpback whales. 

C.A. Mayo. 1987b. Reproduction and recruitment of individually identified humpback 

novaeangliae, observed in Massachusetts Bay, 1979-1985. Can. J. Zod. 

65(12):2853-2 

Maltila, D.K 1990. Humpback whale songs as indicators of migration routes. Mar. 

d Mayo, C.A. 1990. Reproduction of humpback whales, Megaptern novaeangliee, 

ulf of Maine. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn (Special issue 12):171-175. 

bokidis, J., Balcomb, KH. and Steiger, G.H. 1987. Humpback whale (Megaptern 

ution and abundance in the Gulf of Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Annual 

ional Seashore, National Park Service, and Gulf of the Farallones National Marine 

Contract CX 8000.6-0003. NO&. Cascadia Research Collective, Olympia, 

. Unpublished manuscript. 

Cuni, LA 191 8. ontribution al estudio de rnamiferos aquaticos observados en las coastas de Cuba 

Sociedad Cuba $ de Historia Natural 'Felipe Pay' Memorias 3:83-123. 

. Migration abundance and behavior oS Hawaiian humpback whale, Megapten 

novaeangliae (B rowski). Univ of Cali at Santa Cruz Ph.D. dirtation. 147pp. 

Darling, J.D. and Jurasr, C.M. 1983. Migratory destination of North Pacific humpback whales (Megaptern 

novaeangliae). p .359-368, In: Payne, R. (ed.) Communication and Behavior of Whales. Boulder, WavieW 

Press. P 

McSweeney, D.J. 1985. Observations on the migrations of North Pacific humpback 

novaeangliae) Can. J. Zool. 63:308-314. 

Darling, J.D. 198 . A study of the current status of humpback whales in Japan. Progress report submitted 

to World Japan and World Wildlife Fund U.S. October, 1989. 11 pp., 3 fig. Unpublished 

manuscript. 

Darling, J.D. an H. Morawitz. 1986. Census of 'Hawaiian' humpback whales (Megeptefa novaemgliee) 

by individual ide % ification. Can. J. Zod. 64. 
1 987. Observations of humpback whale, Megaptea novaeengliiae, -killer whale, Orcinus or-, 

Alaska: comparison with terrestrial predator-prey relationships. Canadian Fiild-Naturalii 

. 1984. Harbor porpoise and other cetaceans of the Farallone basin. Southwest Fisheries Center 

., Norris, KS., Guess, R.C., Bryant, J.D. and Honig, M.W. 1980. Cetacea of the Swthem 

Bight. Part II of summary of marine mammal and seabird sutveys of the California Bight Area, 

Final Report to the Bureau of Land Management. 414 pp. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, 

Dohl, T. ., Guess, R.C., Duman, M.L and Helm, RC. 1983. Cetaceans of central and northern California, 

108019k: Status, abundance and distribution, Final Report to the Minerals MaIIagefW?nt Sentice m 

Contract 14-1 2-0001 -29090. MMS 84-0045. 284 pp. 

1987a. Dive behavior and foraging of humpback whales in southeast Alaska Can. J. Zool. 

W.F. 1987b. Prey densities and foraging of humpback whales, Megaptea novaeangli6le. 

, C.G., Nilson, R.M. and Hanna, R.E. 1985. Vocalization and coordinated feeding behavior of the 

whale in southeastern Alaska Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. Tokyo 36:41-47. 

Ficus, .H., Braham, H.W., Mercer, R.W., Everitt, Krogman, B.D., McGuire, P.D., Peterson, C.E., Sonntag, 

R.M. an Withrow, D.E. 1976. Seasonal distribution and relative abundance of marine mammals in the Gun 

of Alask P U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA, NMFS Marine Mammal Diin, Seattle, Washington. 238 pp. 

Forestell P. 1986. Assessment and verification of abundance estimates, seasonal trends, and populrrtion 

characte 'stics of the humpback whale in Hawaii. Final Report to the Marine Mammal Commission. 

Contract No. MM2911014-6.43~. b 

.W. 1984. Density dependence in cetacean populations. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn (Special issue 

and Smith, T.D. (eds.) 1981. Dvnamics of Larae Mammal Pooulations. New York, John Wilgr 

and Lowry, LF. 1981. Foods and trophic relationships of cetaceans in the Bering Sea pp. 825- 

D.W. and Calder, J.A (eds.), The eastern Berina Sea Shek Oceanocrraohv and Resources. 

University of Washington Press. 

. 1982. The Ecolocrv of Whales and Dolohins. Heinemann Educational Books Ltd. London. 

459 pp. 

Geraci, . 1989. Clinical investigation of the 1987-88 mass mortality of battlenose dolphins along the U.S. 

central d south Atlantic coast. Final report to NMFS, U.S. Navy Office of Naval Research and Marine 

Mammal i Commission. April, 1989. 63 pp. 
St. Aubin. 1978. Analysis of marine mammal strandings and recommendations for 

program. pp. 1-33 b: Geraci, J. and St. Aubin, D. (eds.) Bidogy of Marine 

Final Report to U.S. Marine Mammal Commission in fulfillment of 

from NTIS, Springfield, VA as PB-293890. 343 pp. 

Geraci, J.R. a$ D.J. St. Aubin. 1982. Study of the effects of oil on cetaceans. Final Report. U.S. 

Department of I erior, Bureau of Land Management. Contract AA-551-CT9-29.274 pp. 

D.M., Timperi, RJ., St. Aubin, D.J., Earty, G.A., Prescatt, J.H. and Mayo, C.A. 1990. 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) fatally poisoned by dimflagellate toxin. Can. J. Fish. and 

Gerrodette, T. a d DeMaster, D.P. 1990. Quantitative determination of optimal sustainable population level. 

Mar. Mamm. SC f. 6(1):1-16. 

, J. 1988. Leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriaceae) in cold water off Newfoundland 

Field-Naturalist 102(1):1-5. 

Glockner, D.A. 11983. Determining the sex of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in their natural 

environment. ppi. 447464, In: Payne, R. (ed.) Communication and Behavior of Whales. Boulder, Westview 

Press. 

Glockner, D.A. and Venus, S.C. 1983. Identification, growth rate, and behavior of humpback whale 

(Megaptera novdeangliae) cows and calves in the waters of Maui, Hawaii. Pp. 223-258, In: Payne, R. (ed.) 

Communication and Behavior of Whales. Boulder, Westview Press. 

Glockner-Ferrari, D.A., and Ferrari, M.J. 1984. Reproduction in humpbackwhales, Megaptern novaeangliae, 

in Hawaii. Rep. Ilnt. Whal. Commn (Special issue 6):237-242. 

Glockner-Ferrari, D.A., and Ferrari, M.J. 19- Individual identification, behavior, reproduction, and 

distribution of humpback whales, Megaptern novaeangliae, In HMI. Nat. Tech. Inf. Serv. Report 

MMC-83-06. 36 pp. 

Glockner-Ferrari, D.A, and Ferrari, M.J. 1987. Identification, reproduction and distribution of humpback 

whales in Hawaiian waters, 1984 and 1985. Report to National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, 

Washington. 33 pp. 

Glockner-Ferrari, D.A., Ferrari, M.J., and McSweeney, D. 1987. Occurrence of abnormalities, injuries, and 

strandings of humpback whales in Hawaiian waters. Seventh Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, Miami. Abstract. 

Goodale, D.R. 1982. The temporal and spatial distribution of humpback, finback, and right whale calves. 

Appendix C. In: CETAP 1982. A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the mid- and north 

Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer continental shelf. Report of the Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 

Bureau of Land Management, Contract No. AA551 -CT8-48, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington, D.C., 450p. 

Goodman, D. 1988. Dynamic response analysis. I. Qualitative estimation of stock status relative to 

maximum productivii level from observed dynamics. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 4(3):183-195. 

Haley, D. (ed.) 1986. Marine Mammals. 2nd ed. Pacific Search Press, Seattle. 295 pp. 
Hall, J.D. 1982. Prince William Sound, Alaska: Humpback whale population and vessel trafffc study. Final 

Report, d ontract No. 81 -ABG-00265. NMFS, Juneau Management Office, Juneau, Alaska 14 pp., 4 fig. 

Hall, J.D. 

seasonal 

Edel, R.K, Hays, H.E., Katona, S.K and Roanowicz, J.D. 1981. General distribution of 

shelf waters of the northeastern United States. In: CETAP 1981, A 

mammals and turtles of the mid- and north Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer 

Bureau of Land Management, Contract No. AA551-CT8-48, U.S. Dept. of Interior, 

1979. A survey of cetaceans of Prince William Sound and adjacent vicinity-their numbers and 

movements. pp. 631 -726, In: Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf. Final 

Carter, G.R., Kraus, S.D., Mayo, C.A and Winn, H.E. 1982. Feeding behavior of the 

Megaptera novaeangliae, in the western north Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 80:259-268. 

Re~orts of the Princiwl Investiqators. Biolocrical Studies, Vol. 6. Boulder, NOAA-OCSEAP . 

P.S., Mizroch, S.A. and Donovan, G.P. (eds.). 1990. Use of natural marks to assess cetacean 

Rep. Int. Whal. Commn, Special issue 12. Cambridge, England. International Whaling 

and Mead, J.G. 1987. Handbook for determination of adverse human-marine mammal 

from necropsies. Northwest Alaska Fisheries Center Processed Rept. 87-06.35 pp. 

Hays, ~.,$nn, H.E. and Petricig, R. 1985. Amnolous feeding behavia of a humpback whale. J. Mammal. 

66:819-8 

1979. Humpback whales in Hawaiian waters: a study in historical ecology. Pacific Science 

33: 1 -1 5. 4" 

M. and Antinoja, R.C. 1977. Humpback whales in the Hawaiian breeding waters: Population 

Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. Tokyo 29:59-85. 

P.H. and Antinoja, R.C. 1980. The 1976/1977 migration of humpback whales into 

description. Marine Mammal Commission Report No. MMC 77-19. 

.E. in press. Collecting and archiving of cetacean data and specimens. In: Reynolds, , J.E., Ill 

D.K. (eds.), Proc. Second Marine Mammal Stranding Workshop, 35 December, 1987, Miami. 

Hoelzel, R. and Dover, G.A. 1988. Molecular techniques for examining genetic variation and stock 

identity in A cetacean species. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. SC/39/07. 

1978. A report on the general behavior of humpback whales near Hawaii and the need for 

a whale park. Oceans 11 (2):8-15. 

, A. 1929. Whales caught in the North Atlantic and other seas. Rapp. P.4. Reun. Int. Cwnc. 

. and Rwnin, A.A. 1967. Some results of the Swiet whale marking in the waters of the North 

Hvalfangst-Tid. 56(6):123-135. 
Johnson; J.H. and Wolman, AA 1984. The humpback whale, Megapfern novaengliae. Mar.'Fish. Rev. 

46(4):30-37. 

Jurasz, C.M. and Jurast, V.P. 1979. Feeding modes of the hurjlpback whale, Megaptern novaeangliae, in 

southeast Alaska Sci. Rep. Whales Res. lnst 31:69-83. 

Kapel, F.O. 1979. Exploitation of large whales in west Greenland in the 20th century. Rep. Int. W. 

Cornmn. 29: 1 97-21 4. 

Katana, S.K 1986. Biogeography of the humpback whale, Megaptern noveeengliae, in the ~oih Atlantic. 

pp. 166-171 in: AC. Pierrot-Butts, AC. van der Spoel, S., Zahuranec, B.J. and Johnson, R.K (eds.), 

Pelaaic Bioaeoara~hv. Unesco Technical Papers in Marine Science 49, Paris. 

Katona, S.K and Whitehead, H.P. 1981. Identifying humpback whales using their mural markings. POW 

Record 20:439-444. 

Katona, S.K, Rough, V. and Riidson, D.T., 1983. A Field Guide to the Whales. Pomises and Seals 

of the Gun of Maine and eastern Canada Cam Cod to Newfoundland. Charles Scribner's Sons, New 

York. 255 pp. 

Katona, S.K and Beard, J.A. 1990. Population site, migrations and substock stmcture of the humpback 

whale (Megaptern novaeangliae) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. (Special 

issue 12):295305. 

Katona, S.K, Beard, J.A., Girton, P.E. and Wenzel, F. 1988. Killer whales (Orcinus m) from the Bay of 

Fundy to the Equator, including the Gulf of Mexico. Rit. Fiskideldar 11:205-224. 

Katona, S. and Whitehead, H. 1988. Are cetacea ecologicalty important Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 26:%3-568. 

Kaufman, G., Smultea, M.A. and Forestell, P. 1987. Use of lateral body pigmentation patterns for photo 

ID of east Australian (Area V) humpback whales. Cetus 7(1):5-13. 

Kellogg, R. 1929. What is known of the migration of some of the whalebone whales. Smithsonian 

lnstit ution Annual Report, 1928. PuM. 2981, pp. 467494. 

Kenney, R.D. 1984. Distributional biology of the cetacean fauna of the northeast United States continental 

shelf. PhD thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. 

Kenney, R.D., Goodale, D.R., Scott, G.P. and Winn, H.E. 1981. Chapter V. Spatial and temporal distribution 

of humpback whales in the CETAP study area pp. V1-V32 In: CETAP 1981. A characterization of marine 

mammals and turtles of the mid- and north Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer continental shelf. Bureau of 

Land Management, Contract No. AA551-CT8-48, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington, DC. 

Kenney, R.D., Hyman, M.A.M. and Winn, H.E. 1985. Calculation of standing stocks and energetic 

requirements of the cetaceans of the northeast United States outer continental shelf. NOAA Tech. Mern. 

NMFS-FJNEC41. 99 pp. 

Kenney, R.D. and Winn, H.E. 1986. Cetacean high-use habitats on the northeast U.S. continental shelf. 

Fish. Bull. 84(2):345357. 

Kenney, R.D. and Winn, H.E. 1987. Cetacean biomass densities near submarine canyon5 compared to 

adjacent shelflslope areas. Continental Shelf Research 7(2):107-114. 
Kirk, R. and Dougherty, R.D. 1974. Hunters of the Whale. William Morrow and Co., N.Y. 160 pp. 

Klumov, S.K. 1963. [Food and helminthofauna of the baleen whales (Mystamceti) in the World ocean]. 

Trudy Inst. Okeanol., Acad. Sci. USSR, 71 :94-194. 

Kraus, S.D. in press. Whales for Profit. Whalewatcher. In press. 

Kraus, S.D. in press. Rates and potential causes of mortality in North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena 

glacialis). Mar. Mamm, Sci. 

Kreiger, U and Wing, B.L 1984. Hydroacoustic surveys and identification of humpback whale forage in 

Glacier Bay, Stephens Passage, and Frederick Sound, southeastern Alaska, Summer 1983. NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFSINWC-66. 60pp 

Kreiger, K. and Wing, B.L 1986. Hydroacoustic monitoring of prey to determine humpback whale 

movements. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWC-98.62 pp 

Lambertsen, R.H. 1983. Internal mechanism of rorqual feeding. J. Mammal. 6476-88. 

Lambertsen, R.H. 1985. Taxonomy and distribution of a Cmsicauda see. infecting the kidney of the 

common fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus (Linne 1758). J. Parasitology 71:485-488. 

Larnbertsen, R.H. 1986. Disease of the common fin whale, Balaenoptere physalus: Crassicaudiosis of the 

urinary system. J. Mammalogy 67:353-366. 

Lambertsen, R.H., Bimir, B., and Bauer, J.E. 1986. Serum chemistry and evidence of renal failure in the 

North Atlantic fin whale population. J. Wildlife Disease 22389396. 

Lambertsen, R.H., Baker, C.S., Duffield, D.A and Charnberlin-Lea, J. 1988. Cytogenetic determination of 

sex among individually identified humpback whales (Megaptera noveeangliae). Can. J. Zwl. 66: 1243-1 248. 

Larnbertsen, R.H., Hintz, R.J., Lancaster, W.C., Hirons, A, Krieton, KJ., and Mwr, C. 1989. 

Characterization of the functional morphology of the mouth of the bowhead whale, Balaena mysh'cetus, 

wlh special emphasis on feeding and filtration mechanisms. Report to the Department of Wildlife 

Management, North Slope Borough, Bm, Alaska 

Lambertsen, R.H. in press. Disease biomarkers in large whale populations of the North Atlantic and other 

oceans. pp. xx-xx In: McCarthy, J.E. and Shugart, L (eds.), Binmarkers of Environmental Contamination, 

Lewis Publishers, in press. 

Lambertsen, R.H., Duffield, D.H. and Baker, C.S. in press. Biopsy studies of the humpback whale, 

Megaptera novaeangliae. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn (Special issue 12). in press. 

Laws, R.M. 1985. The ecology of the southern ocean. Amer. Scientist 73%-40. 

Layne, J.N. 1965. Observations on marine mammals in Florida waters. Bull. Florida State Mus. 

9(4) :I31 -1 81. 

Leathewood, S., Caldwell, D.K., and Winn, H.E. 1976. Whales dolphins and pomises of western, 

-- North Atlantic: a auide to their identification. NOAA Tech. Rept. NMFS Cir. 396. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 

Washington. 176 pp. 
Bowles, AE., and Reeves, R.R. 1983. Aerial surveys of marine mammals in the 

Sea. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOM OCS Environmental Assessment 

42(1986): 147-490. 

Leopold, A 1944. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press. 

Leapley, W.T. 1978. Distribution of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the 

ined by a rapid acoustic method. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 35:1150-1152. 

ale entrapment in inshore fishing gear in Newfoundland. Report to the Department of 

Ottawa, Ontario, 31 December, 316 pp. 

S., and Fawcett, L 1985. Teaching fishermen about whales: the role of education in 

merit and conservation problem. pp. 231 -240 In: Lien, J. and Graham, R. (eds.), Marine 

Challenge and Promise, Vol. 1. Henderson Park Book Series No. 10, National 

of Canada, Toronto. 

L and Staniforth, S. 1985. Wet and Fat: Whales and Seals of Newfoundland and 

ater Books, St. John's, Newfoundland, 136 pp. 

Lien, J. and Ste son, G.B. 1986. Blue whale ice strandings in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (1978-1986). 

CAFSAC WPl86 f 1 05. 

Lien, J. and J. 1989. Development of acoustic protection for fixed fishing gear to minimize 

marine mammals. Fisheries lnnwation Industrial Support Program, St. John's, 

Newfoundland. 

Lien, J., Ledwell, W. and Naven, J. 1988. lncidental entrapments in inshore fishing gear during 1988: a 

preliminary repo 4 to the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada-Newfourhdland Region. 15 pp., Tab. 1-9, Fig. 13. 

Lien, J. Stenson, G.B. and Hsun Ni, 1. 1989a A review of incidental entrapment of seabirds, seals and 

whales in inshord fishing gear in Newfoundland and Labrador: a problem for fishermen and fishing gear 

designers. pp.67471 In: Proceedings of the World Symposium on Fishing Gear and Fishing Vessel Design. 

Newfoundland-ubrador Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology. St. Johns, Labrador. 

Lien, J., Ledwell, W. and Huntington, J. 1989~. Whale and shark entrapments in inshore fishing gear in 

Newfoundland.ahd Labrador during 1989. Report to the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of 

Fisheries and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 30 pp. 

Lien, J., Ledwell, M. and Huntington, J. 1990. incidental entrapments by inshore fishery gear reported in 

1989. A prelimidary report to the Development Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada-Newfoundland 

region; and the i'hewfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries. 36 pp. 

Lockyer, C. 1984. Review of baleen whale (Mysticeti) reproduction and implications for management. Rep. 

Int. Whal. Commn (Special issue 6):27-50. 

Lockyer, C. and Brown, S.G. 1981. The migration of whales. pp. 105-137 In: Aidley, D.G. (ed.) Animal 

Miaration. Soc. Bxper. Biol., Seminar Series 13, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, England. 264 pp. 
Miles, P.R., Tyack, P., Clark, C.W. and Bird, J.E. 1985. Investigation of the potential effects 

noise from petroleum industry activities on feeding humpback whale behavior. U.S. Dept. 

Management Senrice. Alaska OCS Office, Anchorage. MMS 85-001 9. NnS-PB86-218385, 

.R., Katona, S.K, Mattila, D., Hembree, D. and Waters, T.D. 1984. Migration of humpback whales 

the Caribbean and Iceland. J. Mammal. 65:330-333. 

R. 1975. Whalemen and whaleshops of Maine. Marine Research Society of Bath, Brunmvick, 

Matth@? 

, LH. 1937. The humpback whale-Megeptera nodosa. Discovery Rep. 17:7-92. 

1982. Fluke identification survey and song recordings of humpback whales, Megaptern 

along the northwest coast of Puerto Rim. Progress report to NMFS Northeast Fisheries 

1983. Humpback whales off Puerto Rim: population composition and habi use. Fih 

on Bio. of Marine Mammals, Boston. Abstract. p. 53. 

Mattila, D , Guinee, LN. and Mayo, C.A. 1987. Humpback whale songs on a North Atlantic feeding ground. 

J. Mamm b logy 68:880-883. 

Clapham, P.J., Katona, S. and Vasquez, 0.1988. An investigation of humpback whale and 

mammal critical habitats in the Dominican Republic: research and education in the Samana 

1987188. Final Report to World Wildl'ie Fund-U.S. 11 1 pp. 

Mattila, D K, Clapham, P.J., Katona, S.K and Stone, G.S. 1989. Humpback whales on Silver Bank, 1984: 

populatio b composition and habitat use. Can. J. Zool. 67:281-285. 

and Clapham, P.J. 1989. Humpback whales (Megaptern novaeangliae) and other cetaceans 

and in the northern Leeward Islands, 1985 and 1986. Can. J. Zool. 67(9):2201-2211. 

S. and Baraff, L 1988. Abundance, diribution and habitat use of large 

Gulf of Maine. Final report to NMFS Northeast Fisheries Laboratory. Contract No. 

manuscript. 

D.J., Chu, KC., Dolphin, W.F. and Guinee, LN. 1989. North Pacific humpback whale songs: 

of southeast Alaskan feedingground songs with Hawaiian wintering ground songs. Mar. 

A 1979. An extralimital record of a narwhal (Monodon monoceros) in 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 93(3):303304. 

Cooper and R.W. Langton 1979. Relative abundance, behavior, and food habits of the 

amen'cenus, from the Gulf of Maine. Fiih. Bull. 77(1):243-253. 

1973. Draft report on humpback whales taken under special scientific permit by Canadian 

. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 23:138-154. 

Mitchell, E. 

W.E. (ed.), 

1974. Present status of northwest Atlantic fin and other whale stocks. pp.108-169 In: Schevill, 

The Whale Problem. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard University Press. 419 pp. 
Mitchell, E.D. and Reeves, R.R. 1983. Catch hiiory, abundance, and present status of nOrthWest Atlantic 

humpback whales. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn (Special issue 5):153-212. 

Mizroch, S.A, Beard, J.A. and Lynde, M., 1990. Computer assisted photo-identification of humpback 

whales. Rep. Int. Commn. Whal. (Special Issue 12):63-70. 

Morris, B.F., Alton, M.S. and Braham, H.W. 1983. Living marine resources of the Gulf of Alaska, a resource 

assessment for the Gulf of AlaskafCook Inlet proposed oil and gas Lease Sale 88. U.S. Dept. Commerce, 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS FIAKR-5.232 pp. 

Nemoto, T. 1957. Foods of baleen whales in the northern Pacific. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. Tokyo 

1233-89. 

Nemoto, T. 1959. Food of baleen whales with reference to whale movements. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. 

Tokyo 14:149290. 

Nemoto, T. 1970. The feeding pattern of baleen whales in the ocean. pp. 241-252, In: Steele, J.H. (ed.), 

Marine Food Chhns. Edinburgh. Oliver and Boyd. 

Nemoto, T. 1978. Humpback whales observed within the continental shel waters of the Bering Sea Sci. 

Rep. Whales Res. Inst. Two 39:245247. 

Nikulin, P.G. 1946. [Distribution of cetaceans in seas surrounding the Chukchi Peninsula.] Trudy Inst. 

Okeanol. Akad. Sci. USSR 22255-257. 

Nihiiaki, M. 1959. Humpback whales in Ryukyuan waters. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. Tokyo. 14:49-86. 

Nishiwaki, M. 1960. Ryukyuan humpback whaling in 1960. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. Tokyo 15:l-15. 

Nishiwaki, M. 1966. Distribution and migration of the larger cetaceans in the North Pacific as shown by 

Japanese whaling results. pp. 171 -1 91, $: Norris, ICS. (ed.) Whales. Dd~hins and Porwises. Berkeley, 

University of California Press. 

Nordhoff, C. 1856. Whalina and Fishinq. Moore, WiMach, Keys and Co. Cincinnati. 

O'Hara, K., Atkins, N. and ludicello, S. 1986. Marine wildlife entanglement in North America. Center for 

Marine Conservation, Washington, D.C. 21 9 pp. 

Ohsumi, S., and Y. Masaki. 1975. Japanese whale marking in the North Pacific, 1963-1 972. Bulletin of the 

Far Seas Fisheries Research Laboratory 12:171-219. 

O'Leary, B.L 1984. Aboriginal whaling from the Aleutian Islands to Washington State. pp. 79-102 In: 

Jones, M.L, Swartz, S.L and Leatherwood, S. (eds.), The Grav Whale (Echfichtius robustus). Academic 

Press, Orlando. 

Orton, LS. and Brodie, P.F. 1987. Engulfing mechanics of fin whales. Can J. Zool. 65:2898-2907. 

Overholtz, W.J. and Nicholas, J.R. 1979. Apparent feeding by the fin whale, Baleenoptem physalus, and 

humpback whale, Megaptem novaeangliae, on the American sand lance, Ammodytes americanus, in the 

Northwest Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 77:285-287. 
Paterson, R. and Paterson, P. 1989. The status of the recovering stock of humpback whales Megaptern 

novaeangliae in east Australian waters. Bid. Conserv. 4733.48. 

Payne, K. and Payne, R. 1985. Large scale changes wer 19 years in songs of humpback whales in 

Bermuda. 2. Tierpsycho!. 68(2):89-114. 

Payne, P.M., Nicholas, J.R., O'Brien, L and Powers, ICD. 1986. The distribution of the humpback whale, 

Megaptern novaeangliae, on Georges Bank and in the Gutf of Maine in relation to densities of the sand 

eel, Ammodytes americanus. Fish. Bull. 84271 -277. 

Payne, R.S. and McVay, S. 1971. Songs of humpback whales. Science 173:585-597. 

Payne, R. and Webb, 0. 1971. Orientation by means of long-range acoustic signalling in baleen whales. 

Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 188:110-141. 

Payne, R. and Guinee, LN. 1983. Humpback whale (Megapefa novaeengliae) songs as an indicator of 

'stocks'. Pp. 333-353 in: R. Payne (ed.), Communication and Behavior of Whales. AAAS Selected 

Sympsium 76, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 

Perkins, J.S., Bryant, P.J., Nichols, G. and Patten, D.R. 1982. Humpback whales (Megaptern novaeangliae) 

off the west coast of Greenland. Can. J. Zool. 60(11):2921-2930. 

Perkins, J.S., Balcomb, KC. Ill, Nichols, G. Jr., and M. Deavilla 1984. Abundance and distribution of 

humpback whales (Megaptern novaeangIiae) in west Greenland waters. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 

41 533-536. 

Perkins, J.S., Balcomb, KC. Ill, and Nichols, G. Jr. 1985. Status of the West Greenland humpback whale 

feeding aggregation, 1 981 -1 983. Rep. Im Whal. Commn 3S379-383. 

Perry, A. and Baker, C.S. 1985. Population characteristics of humpback whales in southeastern Alaska: 

summer seasons 1984 and 1985. Draft report to the Nat'mal Park Senrice, Cooperative Agreement No. 

CA-9700-8028, NMFS, National Marine Mammal Laboratow, Seattle. 

Perry, A., Baker, C.S. and Herman, LM. 1985. The natural history of humpback whales in Glacier Bay, 

Alaska. Final report to the National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage. 

Perry, A., Baker, C.S. and Herman, LM. 1990. Population characteristics of individually identified 

humpback whales in the central and eastern North Pacific: a summary and critique. Rep. Int. Whal. 

Commn (Special issue 12):307-317. 

Piatt, J.R., Methven, D.A Burger, AE., Mclagan, R.1 and Creelman, E. 1989. Baleen whales and their 

prey in a coastal environment. Can. J. Zd. 67:1523-1530. 

Pike, G.C. and MacAskie, 1.6. 1969. Marine mammals of British Columbia Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 

171 :1-54. 

Pivorunas, A. 1979. The feeding mechanisms of baleen whales. Amer. Sciientist. 67:432-440. 

Price, W.S. 1985. Whaling in the Caribbean: historical perspective and update. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 

35:413420. 
Reeves, R.R., Mead, J.G. and Katona, S. 1978. the right whale, Eubalaena glacialis, in the western North 

Atlantic. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 28:303312. 

Reeves, R.R. and Mitchell, E. 1982. How many humpbacks-then and now? The Log (Mystic Seaport) 

34(3) :71-83 

Reeves, R.R., Leatherwood, S., Karl, S.A. and Yohe, E.R. 1985. Whaling results at Akutan (1912-39) and 

Port Hobron (191237), Alaska Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 35:441457. 

Reeves, R.R. and Mitchell, E. 1986. American pelagic whaling for right whales in the North Atlantic. Rep. 

Int. Whal. Commn (Special issue 10):221-254. 

Rice, D. W. 1963. Progress report on biological studies of the larger cetaceans in the waters off California 

Norsk Hvalfangst-Tid. 52:181-187. 

Rice, D.W. 1974. Whales and whale research in the eastern North Pacific. pp. 170-195, In: Schevill, W.E. 

(ed.), The Whale Problem: a status remrt. Cambridge, Mass. Haward University Press. 

Rice, D.W. 1978. The humpback whale in the North Pacific: distribution, exploitation and numbers. 

Appendix 4, pp. 2944, In: Norris, KS. and Reeves, R.R. (eds.) Report on a workshop on problems related 

to humpback whales (Megaptera noveeangliae) in Hawaii. U.S. Dept. Commerce, Nat. Tech. Info. Sew. 

PB-280 794. Springfield, Virginia 

Rice, D.W. and Wolman, A.A. 1978. Humpback whale census in Hawaiian waters- February 1977. In: 

Norris, KS. and Reeves, R.R. (eds.) Report on a workshop on problems related to humbpack whales 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaii. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NTIS. PB-280 794. Springfield, Virginia. 

Rice, D.W. and Wolman, A.A. 1982. Whale census in the Gulf of Alaska, June to August, 1980. Rep. Int. 

Whal. Commn 32:491498. 

Rice S.D., D.A. Moles, J.F. Karinen, S. Korn, M.G. Cads, C.C. Brodemn, J.A. Gharrett, and M.M. Babcock. 

1984. Effects of petroleum hydrocarbons on Alaskan aquatic organisms: a comprehensive review of all 

oil-effects research on Alaskan fish and invertebrates conducted by the Auke Bay Laboratory, 1970-1 981. 

U.S. Dept. of Comm., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS fnwc-67. 128pp. 

St. Aubin, D.J., Stinson, R.H. and Geraci, J.R. 1984. Aspects of the structure and composition of baleen, 

and some effects of exposure to petrdeum hydrocarbons. Can. J. Zool. 62:193-198. 

Scheffer, V.B. and Slipp, J.W. 1948. The whales and dolphins of Washington State with a key to the 

cetaceans of the west coast of North America Am. Midl. Nat. 39:257-337. 

Schulman, A. 1 984. Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) sighting off Los Angeles harbor, southern 

California. S. Cal. Acad. Sci. 83(3):157-162. 

Scott, G.P. 1985. Report of the working group on NEFCISEFC marine mammal research: results of the 

meeting held 8-9 January 1985. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSSEFC-168. 27p. 

Sigurjonsson, J. 1989. To Iceland, whaling is a godsend. Oceanus 32(1):29-36. 

Simmons, M.L and Marsh, H. 1986. Sightings of humpback whales in Great Barrier Reef waters. Sci. Rep. 

Whales Res. Inst. Tokyo 37:3146. 
Stewart, B.S., Karl, S.A., Yochem, P.K., Leathewood, S. and Laake, J.L 1987. Aerial surveys for cetaceans 

in the former Akutan, Alaska, whaling grounds. Arctic 40(1):3342. 

Stone, G.S., Katona, S.K. and Tucker, E.B. 1987. History, migration and present status of humpback 

whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, at Bermuda. Biol. Conserv. 42: 1 22-1 45. 

Stone, G.S. and Florez-Gonzalez, L, 1990. Report of individual humpback whale (Megaptea novaeangliae) 

migration from Antarctic Peninsula to Colombian Coast, Nature. 

Straley, J.M. 1989. Population characteristics of humpback whales (Megaptera nov8emgIiiae) in Glacier 

Bay and adjacent waters, summer 1989. Report to the National Park Senrice, Gustavus, Alaska 18 pp. 

Straley, J.M., in press. Fall and winter occurrence of humpback (Megaptea noveeangliae) whales in 

southeastern Alaska. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. (special issue 12):~~-xx. 

Taruski, A.G., Olney, C.E. and Winn, H.E. 1975. Chlorinated hydrocarbons in cetaceans. J. Fish. Res. Bd. 

Canada. 322205-2209 

Thompson, P.O. and Friedl, W.A. 1982. A long term study of low frequency sounds from several species 

of whales off Oahu, Hawaii. Cetology 45, pp.1-19. 

Tinney, R.T. 1988. Review of information bearing upon the conservation and protection of humpback 

whales in Hawaii. Marine Mammal Commission final report. Contract No. MM3309689-0 48pp, plus 

appendix 

Tomilin, A.G. 1967. Mammals of the USSR and adjacent countries. Vol. 9, Cetacea Israel Program Sci. 

Transl. No. 1 124, Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv. TT 65-50086. Springfield, VA 717 pp:~ranslation of Russian text 

published in 1957). 

Townsend, C.H. 1935. The distribution of certain whales as shown by logbook records of American 

whaleships. Zoologica 19:l-50. 

Tyack, P. 1981. Interactions between singing Hawaiian humpback whales and conspecifics nearby. Behav. 

Ecol. Sociobiol. 8: 105-1 1 6. 

Tyack, P. 1989. Let's have less public relations and more ecology. Oceanus 32(1):103-108. 

Tyack, P. and H. Whitehead. 1983. Male competition in large groups of wintering humpback whales. 

Behavior 833 32-1 54. 

Urban R., J. and Aguayo L, A. 1987. Spatial and seasonal distribution of the humpback whale, Megaptera 

novaeangliae, in the Mexican Pacific. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 3(4):333-344. 

von Ziegesar, 0. 1984. A survey of the humpback whales in southeastern Prince William Sound, Alaska: 

1980,1981, and 1983. Report to the State of Alaska, Alaska Council on Science and Technology, 34 pp. 

von Ziegesar, 0. and Matkin, C.O. 1986. Humpback whales in Prince William Sound in 1985: a Contract 

report. Contract No. 41 USC 252, NMFS, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle. 

Wada, S. 1980. Japanese whaling and whale sighting in the North Pacific 1978 season. Rep. Int. Whal. 

Commn 30:415-424. 
Wang, P. 1984. [Distribution of cetaceans in Chinese waters. Chinese J. Zool. 652-56.1 pnslated by 

Perrin, C.H. and edited by Penin, W.F., &: Administrative Report LJ-85-24, October,. 1985. NMFS 

Southwest Fisheries Center, P.O. Box 271, La Jolla, CA 92038. 11 pp.). 

Ward, N. 1987. The whalers of Bequk Oceanus 30(4):89-93. 

Watkins, W.A 1967. Airborne sounds of the humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae. J. Mammal. 

48:573-578. 

Watkins, W.A 1986. Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 2:Wl-262. 

Watkins, W.A and Schevill, W.E. 1979. Aerial observation of feeding behavior in four baleen whales: 

Eubalaena glacialis, Balaenoptera borealis, Megaptem novaeangliae and Belaenoptera physalus. J. 

Mammal. 60:155-163. 

Watkins, W.A, Moore, ICE., Wartzok, 0. and Johnson, J.H. 1981. Radii tracking of finback (Belaenoptera 

physalus) and humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Prince William Sound, Alaska Deep-Sea Res. 

28:577-588. 

Watkins, W.A. and Goebel, C.A 1984. Sonar observations explain behaviors noted during boat manewers 

for radio tagging of humpback whales (Megapten novaeangliae) in the Glacier Bay area Cetology 48:18. 

Weinrich, M.T. 1983. Observations. the humpback whales of Steliwagen Bank. Whale Research Press, 

Gloucester, MA 01 930. 150 pp. 

Whitehead, H.P. 1981. The humpback whale in the northwest Atlantic. Ph.0. Thesis. University of 

Cambridge, Cambridge, England. 

Whitehead, H. 1982. Populations of humpback whales in the northwest Atlantic. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 

32345-353. 

Whitehead, H. 1985. Humpback whale breaching. pp. 117-155. &: Pilleri, G. (ed.), Investigations on 

Cetacea, Vol. 9. Brain Anatomy Institute, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland. 

Whitehead, H. 1987. Updated status of the humpback whale, Megapten novaeangliae, in Canada. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 101 (2):284-294. 

Whitehead, H., Chu, K., Harcourt, P. and Alling, A 1981. The humpback whales off west Greenland, 1981, 

with notes on other marine mammals and seabirds sighted. Draft report to U.S. Marine Mammal 

Commission in fulfillment of Contract MM2079259-2. Report No. MMC-81112. NTlS PB-82-243924. 

Whitehead, H. and M.J. Moore 1982. Distribution and movements of West Indian humpback whales in 

winter. Can. J. Zool. 60:-2211. 

Whiehead, H. and Lien, J. 1982. Changes in the abundance of whales, and whale damage, along the 

Newfoundland coast 1973-1 981. CAFSAC WP134D1. 

Whiehead, H., Silver, R. and Harcourt, P. 1982. The migration of humpback whales along the northeast 

coast of Newfoundland. Can. J. Zool., 60:2173-2179. 

Whiehead, H. and Carscadden, J. 1985. Predicting inshore whale abundance-whales and capelin off the 

Newfoundland coast. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42:976-981. 
Whiiehead, H. and Glass, C. 1985. The significance of the Southeast Shoal of the Grand Bank to 

humpback whales and other cetacean species. Can. J. Zod. 63261 7-2685. 

Whitehead, H., Payne, R. and Payne, P.M. 1986. Population estimate for the right whales off Peninsula 

Valdes Argentina, 1971 -1 976. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn (Special issue 10):169-171. 

Williamson, G.R. 1961. Winter sighting of a humpback suckling its calf on the Grand Bank of 

Newfoundland. Norsk Hvalfangst-Tid. 50:335336,339341. 

Winn, H.E., Edel, R.K and Taruski, AG. 1975. Population estimate of the humpback whale, MegBptem 

novaeangliae, in the West lndies by visual and acoustic techniques. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 

32(4):499-506. 

Winn, H.E. and Winn, LK. 1978. The song of the humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the West 

Indies. Mar. Biol. 47:97-114. 

Winn, H.E. and Scott, G.P. 1979. A model for the stock structuring of the humpback whale (Megaptern 

novaeangliae) in the western North Atlantic. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn SC/30/Doc. 16. Unpublished 

manuscript. 

Winn, H.E., Thompson, T.J., Cummings, W.C., Hain, J.H.W., Hudnall, J., Hays, H. and Steiner, W.E. 1981. 

Song of the humpback whale- population comparisons. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 8:41-46. 

Winn, H.E. and Scott, G.P. 1981. The humpback whale: present knowledge and future trends in research 

with special reference to the western North Atlantic. pp. 171 -1 80, In: Mammals in the Seas. Vol. 3. General 

Paoers and Lame Cetaceans. Rome, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. 

Winn, H.E. and Reichley, N. 1985. Humpback whale-Megaptera novaeangliae. pp. 241-274, In: Ridgway, 

S.H. and Harrison, R. (eds.) Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol. 3: The Sirenians and Baleen Whales. 

London, Academic Press. 

Winn, H.E., Hain, J.H.W., Hyman, M.AM. and Scott, G.P. 1987. Whales, dolphins, and porpoises. pp. 375- 

382, In: R. Backus and Bourne, D.W. (eds.) Georaes Bank. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. 

Wolman, A.A. and Jurasz, C.M. 1977. Humpback whales in Hawaii: vessel census, 1976. Mar. Fish. Rev. 

390 : 1 -5. 

Wray, P. and Martin, KA. 1983. Historical whaling records from the western Indian Ocean. Rep. Int. Whal. 

Commn (Special issue 5):213-241. 
72
TABLE 1. World population levels of humpback whales by stock or regional geographic area, 

according to guidelines set up by the International Whaling Commission. Data summarized from 

Breiwick and Braham (1984) and literature cited. (n.e. = no estimate; initial = before commercial 

whaling). 

Population 

or stock 

Po~ulation size 

initial current 

Approximate 

% of initial 

Eastern No. Atlantic n.e. n.8. 

Western No. Atlantic >4,400-6,300" 5,505~ 

Eastern No. Pacific 

Western No. Pacific 

No. Indian Ocean n.8. n.e. 

Southern Oceans 100,OOO >3,000f 

a Breiwick gt &I. (1983) and Mitchell and Reeves (1 983) anatyzed only a portion of the available 

whaling logbooks, and concluded that initial population size is probably underestimated. 

5,505 (95% C.I. 2,88&8,122) from Katona and Beard (1990). 

this percentage may be based upwards if initial numbers were greater than Breiwick g &. 

(1 983) estimated. 

Rice (1978) for the entire North Pacific. 

1,407 (95% CI 1,113-1,701) from Baker and Herman (1 987). 

The Western South Pacific (eastern Australian coast) stock shows signs of recovering from 

excessive hunting. Simmons and Marsh (1986) reported an increase in sightings within waters 

of the Great Barrier Reef and Paterson and Paterson (1989) estimated that the population had 

increased from fewer than 500 when whaling ceased in 1962 to approximately 1100 in 1987. 
TABLE 2. Summary of humpback whale life history data. Data are from the Northern 

Hemisphere, except where otherwise noted. (n.e. = no estimate). 

Parameterlevent Estimate Source 

Conception 

Gestation 

ca. 12 mo. 

Parturition 

Lactation 

Age at: 

sex.mat.-female 

Length at: 

birth 

weaning 

sex.mat.-female 

sex.mat.-male 

phys.maturity 

phys.mat.-female 

-male 

maximum-female 

-male 

Proportion of 

mature females 

January Nishiwaki (1 959), Rice (1 963) 

Year arounda Tomilin (1 967) 

Dec.-Mar. NMML (unpub~ished)~ 

10-1 2 mo. Nishiwaki (1 959), Rice (1 963) 

NMML (unpub~)~ 

January Nishiwaki (1959), Rice (1963) 

Dec.-Mar. NMML (unpub~ished)~ 

10-12 mo. Nishiwaki (1 959), Rice (1 963) 

10.5 mo. NMML (unpub~ished)~ 

4-5-6 yr. Clapham and Mayo (1 987a) 

4-5 Chiileborough (1 958,1965)' 

7-9 yr. NMML (unpub~ished)~ 

7-15 yr. NMML (unpub~ished)~ 

61 yr. NMML (unpub~ished)~ 

57 yr. NMML (unpublished) 

Nishiwaki (1 959), Rice (1 963) I* 11 

(I I1 

I1 11 

81 11 

NMML (unp~blished)~ I1 

11 

I8 

0.25 Nishiwaki (1 959) 

74 
Pregnancy rate 

Annual rate of 

calf production 

Calving interval 

0.42 yr.-' NMML (unpub~ished)~ 

0.40 yr." Nishiki (1 959) 

0.30-0.43 yr." Clapham and Mayo (1 987b) 

0.37 & 0.58 yr:' Baker @ a. (1 986) 

2.39 yr. Clapham and Mayo (1 987b) 

2.70 yr. Peny et a/., in press 

2.38 yr. NMML (unpublished) 

1.2 yr.-3.1 yr. Glockner-Ferrari & Fenari (in press) 

Sex ratio of calves 48.8% female Glockner-Ferrari & Ferrari (1 984) 

44% female Clapharn and Mayo (1987b) 

Proportion of calves 

in population 10.3% Chittleborough (1 965)' 

3.9-1 1.8% Whitehead (1 982) 

6-1 1% Bauer (1 986), Herman et a/. (1 980) 

7.5% Clapham and Mayo (1 987b) 

a Peaks noted from Feb.-Apr. and from Sept.-Oct. 

From humpbacks taken by commercial whalers along Central California coast, 

1958-1 965, compiled by D.W. Rice, A.A. Wolman, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 

NOAA, Seattle, Washington 

Data gathered from the southern oceans. 
TABLE 3. Variance-weighted means for estimated humpback whale populations of 

regions of the North Atlantic summer and winter range, based on capture-recapture 

analysis of photographically identified individuals. 

(Modified from Katona and Beard, in press). 

EASTERN ATIANTIC 

Iceland 

Greenland 

Newfoundland 

G. St. Lawrence 

G. of Maine 

Bermuda 

Dominican Rep. 

Puerto Rico 

Virgin Bank 

95% Confidence lntenral 

(no estimate) 

(no estimate)2 

1 to 478 

1730 to 2890 

94 to 206 

147 to 333 

(only one annual estimate) 

1 to 6953 

1 to 1344 

(no estimate) 

' Variance-weighted mean. 

Sigurjonsson (1989) estimated the population of humpback 

whales in Icelandic waters to be less than 2000. 

FIGURE 1. STOCKS OF HUMPBACK WHALES. OVERALL WINTER AND SUMMER 

RANGES ARE LISTED FOR EACH STOCK, WHERE KNOWN. 

8TOCK C WINTER RANGE 

Western North Atlantic Lesser Antilles, Virgin 

Islands, Puerto Rico, 

Dominican Republic 

Eastern North Atlantic Cape Verde Islands, 

West Africa to Southern 

Morocco 

Western South Atlantic Southern Argentina to 

Southern Brazil 

Eastern South Atlantic Angola, Gabon, Sao Tome 

and Principe 

Western North Pacific Northern Mariana 

Islands, Ogasawara 

Islands, Ryukyu Islands 

Taiwan 

Central North Pacific Main Hawaiian Islands 

Eastern North Pacific Islas Revillagigedo 

Central Baja 

California, West Coast 

of Mexico 

Western South Pacific Eastern Australia, 

Chesterfield 'Island, 

Northern New Zealand, 

Tonga, Samoa 

SUMMER RANGE 

Gulf of Maine, Canadian 

Maritimes, Western 

Greenland, Denmark Strait 

European Coast North to 

Bear Island and East to 

Novaya Zemlya 

Antarctic Area I1 

Antarctic Areas 11, III? 

Western North Pacific, 

Bering Sea, Okhotsk Sea, 

Eastern Aleutian Islands 

Coast of Alaska and 

British Columbia 

Central California 

Coast 

Antarctic Area V 
Biennual reproductive cycle of female humpback whales in the Northern Hemisphere 

" N I First year I Second year I 

E: 

b JIFIMIAIMIJ IJIA~S~OIN~OIJ~FIMIAIMIJIJIA~S~O~

4 Gestation- 

- -Lactation - 

FIGURE 2. Schematic annual cycle oP humpback whales in the 

Northern Hemisphere (adapted from the design of Lockyer and Brown 

1981). Seasonal distributional patterns were averaged. Some 

whales do not leave the summer or winter grounds until well past 

the average departure time. Arrows indicate the approximate 

extent of latitudinal movements during the course of a year. 
FIGURE 3. North Atlantic Ocean - showing Locations Mentioned 

in text. 

From Eannister, J.L., Mitchell, E.D.; Balcomb, K.C., Brown, S.G., 

and Martin, A.R. 1984. Report of the subgroup on North Atlantic 

humpback boundaries. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 34:181. 
FIGURE 3. North Atlantic Ocean - Showing Locations Mentioned 

in text. 

FROM CETAP 1980 
FIGURE 3. North Atlantic Ocean - Showing Locations Mentioned 

in text. 

UNITED STATES 

N. AtLANT/C OCEAN 

CARf88EAN SEA 

PAC/FIC OCEAN 

Y 
FIGURE 4. Caribbean winter range for humpback whales in the 

western North Atlantic Ocean. 

From Matilla & d. (1988). 
FIGURE 5. North Pacific Ocean, showing locations mentioned in 

text 

From Haley, H. (ed.). 1986, Marine Mammals, Seattle, Pacific 

Search Press. 295 pp. 
FIGURE 5. North Pacific Ocean - Showing locations 

mentioned in text. 

From Rice C19631. 
- 'LE61-ZZ6T :Z9 'TOOZ 'f 'UP3 'SlaqeM UeTFPMeH 

uy bu~raquyn (ae~~buae~ou exaqaeaa~) saTeqn y~eqdunq uaamqaq 

XoTAeqaq a~yssarby *~861 '-~*q 'ueuua~ pue *s*3 'layea UOZJ 

-ueaDo DTjTDed ~3x0~ aqq u~ 

saleqm yaeqdwnq 203 sabuez ~aqu~~ uea~xa~ pue ueTTeneH *g aan31d 

FIGU E 6. ~awaiian and Mexican Winter Ranges for r Humpback Whales in the North Pacific Ocean. 

Figure 4. Subregion of the Revillagigcdo Archipelago. showing the spatial distribution 

of the sightings. 

of 

From Urban, R. and 

Aguayo, L. (1987). 

Fj~rrrt 3. Subregion of the mainland codst of Xlcsico, showing the spatial distribution 

the sightings. 

APPENDIX A. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND COST ESTIMATES 

1. Tasks identified in the implementation schedule are described more fully in the Narrative 

(Section VI). 

2. Lead agencies identified have the legal responsibility for tasks in the schedule, subject to 

constraints imposed by appropriations and personnel availability. Cooperating agencies share 

responsibility for a task, have expertise needed for accomplishing it, or have an interest in its 

fulfillment. Lead agencies should develop a schedule specifying the methods and timing for 

accomplishing each task. 

3. Cost estimates were prepared based on personnel time, equipment and materials projected to 

be needed for tasks. Costs for ship time are itemized separately as Tasks 3.42 and 3.421. 

Cost estimates may change in response to new research findings or management information. 

Costs may also change as a result of budgetary considerations, unforeseen needs, or other 

factors. For reasons discussed below in ltem 4, costs within a column cannot be summed; 

some of them will actually be incurred in different years. N (nominal) in a cost column 

indicates that no costs are anticipated in excess of the normal duties of the agencies 

specified. TBD (to be determined) in a cost column indicates that costs cannot be determined 

at this time. 

4. lime periods shown for recommended actions are task-specific and represent the number of 

years estimated to be necessary for completion. Some tasks are contingent upon the prior 

initiation or completion of others, but additional scientific, logistic, economic or political factors 

must also be considered in deciding when tasks should begin. 

5. Priorities for tasks included in the implementation schedule are assigned as follows: 

Prior-ity 1 - An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species 

from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future. 

Priority 2 - An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in the 

population or habitat quality of the species, or to prwent some other significant 

negative impact shaft of extinction. 

Priority 3 - All other actions necessary to facilitate or encourage full recovery of the 

species. 

6. Agencies identified are sections of U.S. or State governments with legal responsibilities related 

to the task described or which could be particularly helpful in completing the task. 

Representatives from the private sector and from academic institutions will also be invoked in 

many tasks. 
P8ge lo. 1 

10/28/91 

APPENDIX A. IWLERENTATIOW SCHEWLE AND COSTS 

IK). TASK NM PRIORITY LUD/COOPERATORS WRATIOW YEAR1 YEAR2 YEAR3 YEAR4 YEARS 

1. I(A1lTAIN AND ENHANCE HABITATS USED 

BY IILMPBACK'UHALES CURRENTLY OR 

nIsTaIcALLr 

1. Identify rrentisl habitat. 2 WFS 5 

1.11 Identify essential habitat in 2 MFS/HAUAII,USCG 2 

Hatmifan waters. 

1.12 Identifyotheressential habitat in2 WFS/IWS,USCG 3 

U.S. waters. 

1.13 Encourage protection of essential 3 WFS/DOS, IUC 3 

habitat vdcr the jurisdiction of 

other nations. 

1.14 Refine description of habitats end 3 NHFS 

hebitat features utilized by 

h-ck Aales. 

TsD TsD TBD TBD TED 

1.2 EXAWIlE HISTORY OF OCCUPATIM AND 

POTENTIAL FOR REPOWLATIM OF 

IWCWANT HABITATS 

1.21 Gulf of Mexico and northwestern 3 IIIIFS/NPS 1 10 

Caribkm. 

1.22 Hawaiian Islands. 3 NHFS/HAUAI I FUS 1 15 

1.23 Wtern North Pacific end Trust 3 NHFS 

Territories of the Pacific (Gum). 

1.24 AnrricanSmoa. 3 NMFS 1 10 

1.25 Lesser Anti tlcr. 3 NHFS 2 10 lo 

1.26 Mexico 3 MIFS, IUC, Mexico 1 15 

1.3 IDENTIFY AND HIMIHIZE POSSIBLE 

ADVERSE IMPACTS OF HWAN ACTIVITIES 

AND POLLUTIOW OW IMPORTANT HABITATS 

1.31 Dewlap protocol for monitoring 2 WFS/EPA,WWS,OWR, 1 

physical and chemical factors that ACE 

could decrease hebi tat sui tebi 1 i ty. 

1.311 Investigate responses of hurpback 3 WMFS 

whales to hunan-related habitat 

changes. 
Page No. 2 

10/28/91 

APPENOIX A. IWLEMENTATIOW SCHEDULE AN0 COSTS 

NO. TASK NAME PRIORITYLEAD/COOPERATORS DURATlONYEARlYEAR2YEAR3YEARGYEARS 

1.3111 Reduce disturbance from 2 IIIIFS/ONR,mS 5 50 50 TBD TBD TBD 

hum-proclucd udcrwater noise in 

Hlwiian waters end in other . inportant habi tats. 

1.4 MONITOR PATHOGENS, BIOTOXINS AND 

ANTHROPOGENIC CONTAMINANT LEVEL IN 

TISSUES OF UHALES AND THEIR PREY 

1.41 Develop stabrdizcd protocol for 2 WFS/EPA,NIH,NCI,FYS 1 

scupling tissues of whales I 

uti lizing strudings and biopsies. FDA,NIS 

1.42 Develop protocol to sanple 2 WFS/EPA,NIH,FDA, 1 

anthropoganic contatinant levels in NC1,NIS 

tissues of prey. 

1.43 llplarmt baseline stud/ of 3 WFS/EPA,mS,APHIS, 3 

pnthogcrrrr in whale tissues and FDA,NIS 

contminmt Levels in tissues of 

hales and prey 

1.5 PROVIDE ADEQUATE NUTRITION. 

1.51 Monitor levels of prey abmdance. 2 NMFS/RFMC 

1.52 Identify and evaluate fisheries 2 WCIFS/RFWC 

caqwtition. 

1.53 Prevent initiationof ncw 2 WFS/RFWC 

large-scale fisheries for primary 

prey of h-ck whales. 

1.54 Inprovecooptrationwith carnrrcial 2 Wf S/RFMC 

fishermen. 

1.6 DEVELOP FEDERAL-STATE-LOUL 

GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIPS FOR 

PROTECTING HUMPBACK WHALE HABITATS 

1.61 Encourage governnent entities at 2 WFS/SEA GRANT 5 

all Levels to correct existing 

inpacts on habitat of hunpback 

halts. 

1.621 Comcne workshop on habitat 2 WFSJHAUAI I ,W, 1 

protection of hqhck whale winter UWOA,PTO.RI#),USVI 

ranges in waters under U.S. 

jurisdiction. 

TBD TED TBD TBD TBD 

NNNNN 

NNNNN 
Page No. 3 

10/28/91 

APPENDIX A. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND COSTS 

NO. 

1.622 

1.623 

1.624 

TASK NAnt PRIORITY LEAD/COOPERATORS DURATION YEAR1 YEAR2 YEAR3 YEAR4 YEARS 

Comcnc workshop on protecting NMFS/ALASKA,SEA 1 60 

hurpback whale habitats in Alaska. GRANT, NPS 

Convene workshop on central Pacific 2 WFS/NPS, 1 '15 

stock. CALIFORNIA, MEXICO 

Comanc workshop on protecting 2 NMFS/NORTHEASTERN 1 75 

habitats for Gulf of Maine feeding U.S., EASTERN CANADA 

aggregation. 

ENCOURAGE WLT INAT IONAL COOPERAT ION 

TO PROTECT HUMPBACK UHALE HABITATS 

Distribute U.S. Hurpback Whale 2 NMFS/DOS 1 

Recovery Plan to other countries 

nd provide follow-rp cammication 

as appropriate. 

Integrate plan reconmendations with 3 NMFS/IUC 5 

goals of the Intematiml Uhaling 

Conmission (It&). 

Encourage habitat and emirormntal 3 NMFS/ICES,WS 5 

protection for huqhck whales by 

other mtions. 

Encourage other nations to develop 2 DOS/NHFS, IUC,DOS 5 

recovery plans for conservation and 

mnagancnt of hurpback whales. 

Negotiate bilateral or ultilateral 2 NMFS/DOS 5 

agrccnmts to protect hmpback 

whale habitats. 

IDENTIFY AND REDUCE DIRECT 

HUMAN-RELATED INJURY AND MORTALITY 

Continue prohibition on comnercial 2 NMFS/IUC, DOS 5 

hunting of hunpbrck whales. 

CONTINUE TO lDENTIFY SOURCES AND 

RATES OF WN-WED INJURY AND 

WRTALITY AND USE INFORMATION TO 

REDUCE THOSE FACTORS 

NNNNN 

NNNNN 

NYNIN 

10 10 10 10 10 

REDUCE MORTALITY AND INJURY FROM 

ENTANGLEMENT IN FISHERY GEAR OR 

OTHER OBSTACLES 
Page No. 4 

10/28/91 

APPENDIX A. IMPLEHENTATIOII SCHEDULE AND COSTS 

NO. TASK NAME PRIORITY LEAD/COOPERATORS DURATIOII YEAR1 YEAR2 YEAR3 YEAR4 YEAR5 

Irprove reporting of entangled 3 

whales and rescue animsls when 

possible. 

NMFS/REGIOWAL 5 

STRANDING NETUORKS 

Use stendardized form for 3 

entanglement reports. 

NNNNN 

50 50 50 

NWFS/REGIOIIAL 1 

STRANDING NETUORKS 

Investigate and modifyofishing gear 2 

to prevent entrapment or 

entanslawnt. 

NMFS 3 

Identify and inplcnrcnt seasonal 2 

Wor geographic regulations for 

fishing gear that may kill or 

injure hurpkck whales. 

NMFS 

Require fishing gear to k rd 2 

when fishery cnds. 

NMFS 5 

Evaluate irpcrct on himphek whales 2 

from collisions with ships or 

boats. 

NWFS/REGIOIIAL 5 

STRANDING NETUORKS 

MEASURE AN0 mITOR KEY POWLATION 

PARAMETERS. 

Estilnate and re-evaluate historic 3 

population sizes. 

Estimate current population 

estimates by evaluating and 

re-analyzing existing data with 

improved techniques. 

2 NMFS 

Workshop to develop 

capture-recapture estimate of 

hurpkck whale atnmdance in the 

North Pacific using existing 

photos. 

Systematize sanpling methods for 2 

estimating present population size. 

MAINTAIN AND DEVELOP FACILITIES FOR 

OBTAINING, ARCHIVING AND ANALYZING 

DATA ON HUMPBACK MALES 

Archive existing data. 
APPENDIX A. IMPLEIQNTATION SCHEWLE AND COSTS 

NO. TASK MAME PRIORITYLEAD/COOPERATORS WRATIONYEARlYEAR2YEAR3YEAR4YEARS 

3.411 Maintain centers for conprrativt 2 WFS 

uulyris of idmtification 

photographs. 

3.412 Idmtify, ucwlate nd archive 2 MUFS 

exlsting sighting8 survey dmta. 

5 IS0 loo loo' loo loo 

3.42 Dedicate research vessels to study 2 MUFS/NFS,mS,ONR,EPA 5 200 5000 250 250 250 

hmk dales nd other 

endmetred cetu.nr. 

3.421 Charter resenrch vessels. 2 MFS/NSF,WS,EPA 5 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 

3.5 PERFORM NEU FIELD STLOIES ON 

POWLATION DYNAMICS 

3.51 EXAMINE RATES OF BIRTH, 

SURVIMRSHIP AND MORTALITY 

3.511 Conwnc workshop to tstirte 2 WnFS 

survivorship of calves based on 

existing individual-idcntif ication 

photogrclphs. 

3.513 Identify nd qbmttify sources of 3 HF S/EPA,MS,USCG, 5 60 50 40 40 40 

natural mortality in juvenile nd FDA,CDC,NIH,RSW 

rclult hmk whales. 

3.52 DEFINE GEOGRAPHIC SUBDIVISIONS OF 

POWLATION 

3.521 Anlyze md evaluate existing 2 NWFS 

information on population 

srrbdivisionr. 

3.522 Ilplemtnt idiately initial 2 MFS 

surveys of seluttd regions. 

3.523 DESCRIBE MIGUATION ROUTES AMD 

TRANSIT TIMES. 

3.5231 Elploy long-term radio tws. 2 WFS/mS,ONR,000 5 200 240 240 240 240 

3.5232 Enploy udcrwrter listening 2 MUFS/DQ),ONR 3 50 50 50 

stations. 

3.5233 Utilize genetic techniques. 2 HIIFS/NSF,1ICI 3 60 60 100 
Page No. 6 

10/28/91 

NO. TASK NAME 

APPENDIX A. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND COSTS 

PRIORITY LEAD/COOPERATORS DURATION YEAR1 YEAR2 YEAR3 YEAR4 YEARS 

3.53 ESTIMATE ABWlDANCE OF INMPBACK 

WHALE WWLATIWS. 

3.531 Perform new census surveys. 

3.532 Encourage and pnrticipnte in 

international sightings surveys. 

3.533 Inplement ilproved sanpling program 2 NMFS 

for capture-recapture estimation of 

population .kndance. 

3.6 Continue long-term photo 10 

studies. 

3.7 Assess population status and 

trends. 

4. IMPROVE ADMINISTRATION AND 

CWRDINATIW OF RECOVERY PROGRAM 

FOR HUMPBACK WHALES 

4.1 Select Director and inplccnent 2 NMFS/MMC 

recovery Plan. 

4.2 Inprwe gwemmmtal coordination. 3 NMFS/(IIIC 

4.3 Inprove coordination with 3 NMFS 

m-~overmcntal agencies. 

4.4 Expand or reconstitute a Recwery 2 NMFS/MMC 

Inplanentation Team, update the 

Recovery Plan and prepare 

Conprehmsive Work Plans. 

4.5 Collect and archive available 3 NMFS 

informetion on hmpback whales. 

including translations of foreign 

Literature. 

4.6 Inprove process for obtaining 

permits to do research on lnarine 

inanmals and make appropriate 

changes. 

4.7 Maintain coordination with other 3 NMF S/FUS 

recovery programs. 

TBD 180 TBD TBD TED 

NNNNN 
APPENDIX A. IMPLEWENTATIOW SCHEDULE AND COSTS 

NO. TASK NAME PRIORITY LEAD/COOPERATORS DURATIW YEAR1 YEAR2 YEAR3 YEAR4 YEARS 

4.8 Reassess as rppropriate political 2 NMFS 

goals for population recovery. 

5 NNNNN 

4.81 Change listings in Endangered 3 NHFS/MHC 5 NNNIN 

Spcci~ Act (EM) wd Urine -1 

Protection Act <WA) as 

qqwopriate. 

4.9 DEVELOP EWCATIONAL MATERIALS IN 

SUPPORT OF RECOVERY PW 

OBJECTIVES. 

4.91 Produte wd distribute educational 3 

materials. 

4.92 I~prove cooperation with the 3 

whalewatching incluctry. 
C. Scott Baker 

APPENDIX B. Members of the Humpback Whale Recovery Team. 

Victoria University of Wellington 

Wellington, New Zealand 

Howard W. Braham National Marine Mammal Laboratory/NMFS/NOAA 

Seattle, Washington 981 15 

John J. Bums Living Resources, Inc. 

P.O. Box 83570 

Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 

Douglas G. Chapman University of Washington 

Center for Quantitative Science, Forestry, 

Fisheries and Wildlife 

Sealtle, Washington 981 95 

Deborah Glockner-Ferrari Center for Whale Studies 

39 Woodvine Court 

Covington, LA 70433 

Wildlife Conservation International 

New York Zoological Society 

Steven K Katona College of the Atlantic 

Bar Harbor, Maine 04609 

James H. Lecky 

John H. Prescott 

Gerald P. Scott 

National Marine Fisheries Senrice/NOAA 

Long Beach, California 90802 

New England Aquarium, Central Wharf 

Boston, Massachusetts 021 10 

National Marine Fisheries Senrice/NOAA 

Miami, Florida 33149 

William A. Watkins Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 

The following indi~iduals serve as Technical Advisors to the Recovery Team: 

Charles A. Mayo, Jr. Center for Coastal Studies 

Prwincetwn, Massachusetts 02657 

Roger Payne Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society 

Lincoln, Massachusetts 01 773 

Gloria Thompson Office of Protected Resources/NMFS/NOAA 

1335 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Ms. Thompson sewed as liaison between NMFS and the Recovery Team. 
APPENDIX C. Personal communications. Unpublished obsefvations from the following. individuals are 

included in the text of the recovery Plan, identified by the notation 'pers. comm: Addresses for 

members of the National Humpback Whale Recovery Team can be found in Appendii 6. 

Baker, C.S. (Appendii B) 

Blanckenblecker, W.D. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

2030 Sea Level Drive, Ketchikan, AK 99901 

Braham, H.W. (Appendii 6) 

Ferrari, M.J. 1728 San Luis Rd., Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Glockner-Ferrari, D.A (Appendi B) 

Haight, R.E. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Auke Bay Laboratory, 11305 Glacier Highway, 

P.O. Box 210155, Juneau, AK 99821 

Haycock, C. Brier Island Ocean Study, Westport, Nwa Scotia 

Lwky, J. (Appendix B) 

Mercer, S.D. New England Whalewatch, Newburyport, MA 

Katona, S.K. (Appendii 6) 

MacKenzie, T.P. NOAA/NMFS, Habitat Conservation Branch, Narragansett, RI 

MacSwwney, D.J. West Coast Whale Research Foundation, P.O. Box 139, Holuda, HI 96725 

Robinson, E. P.O. Box 616, Kihei, HI 96753. 

Schevill, W.E. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543 

Sears, R. Mingan Island Cetacean Study, 285 Greene St., St. Lambert, P.Q., Canada J4P IT3 

Sergeant, D.E. 325 Main Road, Hudson, P.Q., Canada JOP 1HO 

Sigurjonnson, J. Marine Research Institute, Skulagata 4, 121 Reykjavik, Iceland 

Straley, J.M. P.O. Box 273, Sitka, AK 

Tucker, E.B. Kings Point, Somerset, Bermuda 

Watkins, W.A. (Appendi B) 

Weinrich, M.T. Cetacean Research Unit, Gloucester, MA 

Woodhouse, C., Santa Barbara Natural History Museum, Santa Barbara, CA 
APPENDIX D. List of abbreviations used in text. 

A AAS 

ACOE 

APHIS 

CDC 

CETAP 

CZMA 

CZM 

COSEWlC 

DOD 

DOS 

€PA 

ESA 

FDA 

Fws 

ICES 

IOCARIBE 

IWC 

MARMAP 

MEXUS 

MMC 

MMEP 

MMPA 

MMS 

NCI 

NMFS 

NMML 

NOAA 

NOMAD 

NOANNOS 

NlST 

NTlS 

OCS 

OCSEAP 

ONR 

RFMC 

RSN 

SEAMAP 

WATS 

American Association for the Advancement of Science 

Army Corps of Engineers 

Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service 

Center for Disease Control 

Cetacean and Turtle Askssment Program, 

University of Rhodg Island, Narragansett, RI 

Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

Coastal Zone Management 

Committee for Studying Endangered Wildlife in Canada 

Department of Defense 

Department of State 

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.) 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (U.S.) 

Food and Drug Administration 

Fish and Wildlife Senrice (U.S.) 

International Council for Exploration of the Sea 

lntergwemmental Oceanographic Commission Association 

for the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions 

International Whaling Commission 

Marine Resources Mapping and Assessment Program (NOAA) 

MexicoIUnited States Gulf of Mexico Cooperative Program 

Marine Mammal Commission (U.S.) 

Marine Mammal Event Program (Smithsonian Institution) 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (U.S.) 

Minerals Management Service (U.S.) 

National Cancer Institute (U.S.) 

National Marine Fisheries Service (U.S., NOAA) 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory (U.S., NOAA) 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U.S.) 

NOAA Ocean As3essment Division (U.S.) 

NOAA National Ocean Senrice (U.S.) 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 

Outer Continental Shew 

Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment 

Program (U.S.) 

Office of Naval Research (U.S.) 

Regional Fisheries Management Council 

Regional Stranding Networks 

Southeast Atlantic Marine Assessment Program 

Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium 
APPENDIX E. Existing treaties, acts and regulations protecting humpback whales. 

lntemational Whalina Convention 

The lnternational Whaling Convention provided for the formation of the lntemational Whaling 

Commission, formed in 1946. Member nations meet annually to review scientific and 

management-related information on all kinds of whales and dolphins. Starting in July 1966, 

the IWC prohibited all commercial hunting for humpback whales. This protection remains in 

effect. Compliance with any regulations enacted by the IWC is voluntary. Current information 

on most cetacean species, including humpback whales, is summarized in the Report of the 

lntemational Whaling Commission, which is published annually. 

Convention on International Trade in Endanaered Swies (CITES) 

Humpback whales are listed in Appendii I of this treaty. This level of listing prohibits all 

international trade in this species except for scientific research. Obtaining a research permit 

requires a four-part permit process involving both the Scientific Authority and Management 

Authorities of the exporting and importing countries. All Appendi I permits are reviewed by 

the CITES Secretariat and made available to all signatory nations for procedural review. 

lntemational lndian Ocean Sanctuarv for Whales 

In 1979, the lnternational Whaling Commission adopted a proposal introduced by the 

Seychelles Islands designating the entire lndian Ocean north of 55" S as a sanctuary for all 

cetaceans. All commercial hunting was prohibited for 10 years. The lndian Ocean Sanctuary 

was reauthorized by the IWC at its meeting in June 1989. 

U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (as amended 1988) 

Protects all species of marine mammals. Establishes moratorium on taking of marine 

mammals, goal for achieving 'optimum sustainable populations' of species and stocks of 

marine mammals, and protects species that are endangered, threatened or below their 

optimum sustainable population (OSP). Regulates incidental take of marine mammals by 

fisheries. 

U.S. Endanaered Species Act of 1973 

Provides for designation and protection of endangered and threatened species and 

populations. Significant provisions of the Act indudes Section 7(a)(2) which requires all 

Federal agencies to 'ensure that any action authorized, funded, or canied out by such agency 

... is not likely to jeopardiie the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species 

or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habiat ... criticar to their survival. All 

Federal agencies must consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service for any actions that 

may adversely effect such species, including humpback whales. Section 9 prohibits the 

raking' of any endangered species of fish and wildlife in the United Stf es, the territorial sea 

of the United States, or by U.S. citiiens on the high seas. 'Take' is defined as meaning to 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage 
in any such conduct. Knowing violations are punishable with civil penalties up to $10,000. 

Civil penalties of up to $500 may be assessed for violations other than knowing violations. 

Criminal violations are punishable by fines of up to $20,000, or imprisonment for up to a year, 

or both. 

U.S. Fisherv Conservation and Manaaemem Act of 1976 FCMAL 

Establishes regional fishery management councils with authority to dwelop programs for the 

conservation and management of all fishery resources within the Fishery Consewation Zone 

(FCZ), out to 200 miles from the territorial sea The councils establish fishery management 

plans for specific fisheries in the FCZ. These plans can be useful in limiting or mitigating any 

fishery-related activities, commercial or recreat'mal, that adversely affect humpback whales, 

for example. Amendments to the FCMA, notably the Packwood-Magnuson and Pelly 

Amendments, permit economic sanctions against any country whose fisheries operate 

contrary to accepted conservation procedures. 

U.S. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 

Title Ill of this act authorizes the designation of ocean areas as marine sanctuaries for the 

purpose of preserving or restoring their conservation, recreational, ecological or aesthetic 

values. Once an area is designated as a national marine sanctuary, comprehensive 

management programs are established to (1) promote and coordinate research to expand 

scientific knowledge and improve management decision making; (2) provide interpretive and 

recreational programs to enhance public awareness, understanding, and wise use of the 

marine environment; and (3) prwide for optimum compatible public and private use of marine 

areas. Three national marine sanctuaries, affecting humpback whales and all in California, 

have been designated-Channel Islands (1 980), Gulf of the Farallones (1 981), and Cordell 

Bank (1989). The Gulf of the Farallones is an important feeding range for humpback whales. 

Cordell Bank, offshore from San Francisco and contiguous to the existing Gulf of the 

Farallones National Marine. Sanctuary, is used for feeding by humpback whales. A proposal 

to establish certain waters offshore from Maui, Hawaii, as a national marine sanctuary was 

rejected by Hawaii in 1984 owing to concern that it would impose undue restrictions on 

fishermen and boaters. However, in 1990, Congress directed NOAA to conduct a study of the 

feasibility of establishing a national marine sanctuary in the marine environment adjacent to 

Kahoolawe Island, Hawaii. In conducting the study, NOAA was instructed to give special 

consideration to the effects of such a sanctuary on the humpback whale populations that 

inhabit the waters off Kahoolawe. The feasibility study, along with NOAA's recommendation 

for further action, is to be transmitted to Congress by December 1, 1991. 

Three areas are currently being waluated for designation as national marine sanctuaries: 

(1) Stellwagen Bank in Massachusetts Bay is one of the most important feeding sites from 

mid-April to November; (2) Monterey Bay provides habitats to a diverse array of ocean species 

including humpback whales; and (3) Western Washington Outer Coast, offshore from the State 

of Washington, was historically inhabited by humpback whales. 
Reaulations of Glacier Bav National Park. National Park Setvice MPS) DeDartment of the Interior 

NPS regulations were established May 15,1980, and modified into permanent regulations May 

31,1985, to protect humpback whales at the Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. These 

regulations establish a system for limiting entry into Glacier Bay and restricting the operation 

of these vessels, including limiting speed, maneuvering and approach distance towards 

whales. They also prohibited the harvest of certain species of fish and crustaceans which are 

prey species of humpback whales. 

Hawaii Humpback Whale Reaulations 

The Department of Commerce (NOAA) established interim regulatii on December 23, 1987, 

to protect humpback whales in Hawaiian waters. These regulations prohibit aircraft from 

approaching closer than 1,000 feet, and prohibit vessels or people from approaching closer 

than 100 yards to a whale. The approach limit is extended to 300 yards in cowlcalf areas. 

State of Hawaii 

In 1978, Hawaii designated the humpback whale to be its official state marine mammal. The 

Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) establishes programs for ensuring the 

'continued perpetuation of indigenous wildlife and plants for their habitats for human 

enjoyment, for scientific purposes, and as members of ecosystems .:. The Division of Aquatic 

Resources within DLNR is responsible for marine endangered species management. To date, 

no comprehensive consewation program has been established for humpback whales in 

Hawaii. The Legislature of the State of Hawaii has passed HB 2994 to regulate the operation 

of thrill craft, parasailing vessels and high-speed motorized vessels in Hawaiian waters. Among 

other provisions, this act prohibits operation of such vessels on the west and south coasts of 

Maui between December 15 and May 15, the period when humpback whales are normally 

present. This act is awaiting signature by the Gwemor of Hawaii. State permits are required 

for performing research on humpback whales; possession of a Federal research permit is 

necessary for issuance of a state permit. 

Silver Bank Sanctuaw for Humpback Whales 

During winter, Silver Bank, along with neartry Navidad and Mouchoir Banks, is inhabited by the 

largest concentration of humpbacks whales in the world, approximately 85% of the populan'in 

of the entire westem North Atlantic Ocean. Most of the whales are found on Silver Bank, a 

shallow, limestone plateau, located about 80 miles off the north coast of the Dominican 

Republic. Silver Bank was designated as a sanctuary for humpback whales in October 1986, 

by decree of the President of the Dominican Republic. No activitii are permitted that would 

threaten humpback whales. Since this sanctuary was established by Presidential Decree, its 

future during the tenure of another Dominican President is not automatically assured. 
APPENDIX F. PERSONS WHO SUBMITTED WRITEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT 

HUMPBACK WHALE RECOVERY PLAN (ALPHABETICAL ORDER). 

Associate Director for 

Offshore Minerals Management 

Minerals Management Service 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Jeffrey Benoit 

Director, Massachusetts 

Coastal Zone Management Office 

Leverett Saltonstall State Office Building 

100 Cambridge St. 

Boston, MA 02202 

Howard W. Braham 

Alaska Fisheries Center 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory 

7600 Sand Point Way N.E. Bin C15700 

Seattle, WA 981 15-0070 

W. Leigh Bridges 

Assistant Director 

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 

Leverett Saltonstall State Office Building 

100 Cambridge St. 

Boston, MA 02202 

David Duffus 

University of Victoria 

P.O. Box 1700 

Victoria, Briiish Columbia 

Canada V8W 2Y2 

Paul H. Forestell 

Director of Research and Education 

Pacific Whale Foundation 

Kealia Beach Plaza Suite 25 

101 North Kihei Rd. 

Kihei, Maui, Hawaii 96753 

Marvin 0. Jensen 

Superintendent 

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve 

P.O. Box 140 

Gustavus, AK 99826-01 40 

Charles Karnella 

Office of Protected Resources 

NOWNMFS 

1335 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

R. H. Larnbertsen 

Ecosystems, Inc. 

Institute for Environmental Medicine 

University d Pennsylvania 

14 Medical LaboratoriedG2 

Philadelphia, PA 191 04 

Jon Lien 

Whale Research Group 

XU) Mf. Scio Rd. 

Memorial University of Newfoundland 

St. John's, Newfoundland 

Canada A1 C 5S7 

David K. Mattila 

Cetacean Research Program 

Center for Coastal Studies 

P.O. Box 826 

Provincetown, MA 02657 

Paul E. NacMiall 

Naval Ocean Systems Center 

Hawaii Laboratory, Code 512 

P.6. Box 997 

Kailua, HI 96734-0997 

Mark J. Palmer 

Conservation Director 

Ocean Alliance 

Fort Mason Center Building E 

San Francisco, CA 94123 

Wllli W. Paty 

State of Hawaii 

Department of Land and Natural Resources 

P.O. Box 621 

Honolulu, HI 96809 

John Sease 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

P.O. Box 21668 

Juneau, AK 99802-1 668 

Michael R. Sherwood 

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc. 

2044 .Fillmore St. 

San Francisco, CA 941 15 
Leslie Shields 

Issues Committee 

Cetacean Society International 

25 Johnson Ave. 

Plaineville, CT 06062 

Tim Smith 

Northeast Fisheries Center 

NOWNMFS 

Woods Hole, MA 02543 

Jan Straley 

P.O. Box 273 

Sitka, AK 99835 

Richard L Ternullo 

1013 Hillside Ave. 

Pacific Grove, CA 93950 

John R. Twiss, Jr. 

Executive Director 

Marine Mammal Commission 

1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20009 

Mason Weinrich 

Director 

Cetacean Research Unit 

P.O. Box 159 

Gloucester, MA 01 930 

Nina Young 

Center for Marine Conservation 

1725 DeSales St. NW 

Washington, D.C. 20036 
printed on recycled paper