FINAL

RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE FIN WHALE 

(Balaenoptera physalus) 

Office of Protected Resources

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

July 2010

James Cotton
FINAL 

RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE FIN WHALE 

(Balaenoptera physalus) 

Prepared by: 

Office of Protected Resources 

National Mru~· .......... 01,0;). 

Approv : __ ~~~~ __ --::.==--_ 

ASSIS an inistrator for Fisheries' 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Date: __ JU_l_,.3_0_2_0tl __ _ 
July 2010 i NMFS

PREFACE 

Congress passed the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq) (ESA) to

provide a means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened 

species depend, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered and 

threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes 

of the treaties and conventions that conserve such species. The National Marine Fisheries 

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

administration of the Act. NMFS is responsible for most marine mammals including the 

fin whale. This Recovery Plan was prepared at the request of the Assistant Administrator 

for Fisheries to promote the conservation of fin whales. 

The goals and objectives of the Plan can be achieved only if a long-term commitment is 

made to support the actions recommended here. Achievement of these goals and 

objectives will require the continued cooperation of the governments of the United States 

and other nations. Within the United States, the shared resources and cooperative 

involvement of federal, state, and local governments, industry, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals will be required throughout the recovery 

period. 
July 2010 ii NMFS

DISCLAIMER

Recovery plans delineate such reasonable actions as may be necessary, based upon the 

best available scientific and commercial data available, for the conservation and survival 

of listed species. Plans are published by NMFS, sometimes prepared with the assistance 

of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Recovery plans do not 

necessarily represent the views, official positions, or approval of any individuals or 

agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than NMFS. They represent the official 

position of NMFS only after they have been signed by the Assistant Administrator. 

Recovery plans are guidance and planning documents only; identification of an action to 

be implemented by any public or private party does not create a legal obligation beyond 

existing legal requirements. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or 

requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in any one fiscal year in 

excess of appropriations made by Congress for that fiscal year in contravention of the 

Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341, or any other law or regulation. Approved recovery 

plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, 

and the completion of recovery actions.

LITERATURE CITATION SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS:

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010. Recovery plan for the fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 121 pp.

ADDITIONAL COPIES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM:

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Protected Resources 

1315 East-West Highway, 13th Floor 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

301-713-2322 or 301-713-1401 

Recovery plans can also be downloaded from the NMFS website: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm

Cover photographs of fin whales by Paula Olson courtesy of the International Whaling 

Commission, Ann Zoidis courtesy of Cetos Research Organization/Allied Whale, and 

James Cotton courtesy of the Southwest Fisheries Science Center.
July 2010 iii NMFS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The National Marine Fisheries Service gratefully acknowledges the contributions of 

Randall R. Reeves and Gregory K. Silber in developing the original draft of the Draft 

Recovery Plan for the Fin Whale. Subsequent revisions were made by Jay Barlow, 

Monica DeAngelis, Rick LeDuc, Susan Pultz, and Barbara L. Taylor.

Special thanks goes to Simona Perry, the lead author of “The Great Whales:

History and Status of Six Species Listed as Endangered Under the U.S. Endangered 

Species Act of 1973” (Perry et al., 1999), which proved very useful in drafting this 

document. Additional thanks go to the following for their technical assistance, editing, 

and review: Shannon Bettridge, Robert Brownell, Jr., Phil Clapham, Don Croll, Christina 

Fahy, Dan Goodman, Lance Garrison, David Gouveia, Bob Kenney, Naomi Lundberg, 

Mike Newcomer, Misty Neimeyer, Richard Pace, Per Palsbøll, Larissa Plants, Amy 

Scholik-Schlomer, Bernie Tershy, Mason Weinrich, and Chris Yates.
July 2010 iv NMFS

LIST OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS

The following is a list of acronyms, abbreviations and terms used throughout the 

recovery plan.

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora

CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort

dB decibels

Delisting removal from the list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants 

DPS Distinct Population Segment

Downlisting considered for reclassification from endangered to threatened 

under the ESA

DOS U.S. Department of State

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

ESA Endangered Species Act

FR Federal Register

HZ hertz

IWC International Whaling Commission 

kHZ kilohertz

LFA Low Frequency Active (for sonar)

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

M meters

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield

mtDNA Mitochondrial Deoxyribonucleic acid

μPa micro Pascal

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOS National Ocean Service

SPLASH Structure of Populations, Levels of Abundance and Status of 

Humpback whales

SURTASS Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System
July 2010 v NMFS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Current Species Status: Fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus, are widely distributed in 

the world’s oceans. The fin whale has been listed as “endangered” under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) since its passage in 1973. Although most populations were depleted 

by modern whaling in the mid-twentieth century, there are tens of thousands of fin 

whales worldwide. Commercial whaling for this species ended in the North Pacific in 

1976, in the Southern Ocean in 1976–77, and in the North Atlantic in 1987. Fin whales 

are still hunted in Greenland, subject to catch limits under the International Whaling 

Commission’s (IWC) “aboriginal subsistence whaling” scheme. Although reliable and 

recent estimates of fin whale abundance are available for large portions of the North 

Atlantic Ocean, this is not the case for most of the North Pacific Ocean nor for the 

Southern Hemisphere. Moreover, the status of populations in these ocean basins, stated 

in terms of present population size relative to “initial” (pre-whaling, or carrying capacity) 

level, is uncertain. 

Fin whales have a global distribution and can be found in the Atlantic, Pacific, and 

Southern Hemisphere. Currently, the population structure of fin whales has not been 

adequately defined. Most models have assigned arbitrary boundaries, often based on 

patterns of historic whaling activity and catch reports, rather than on biological evidence. 

Populations are often divided on an ocean basin level. Since the Southern Ocean often 

refers only to waters surrounding Antarctica and fin whales occur not only in those 

waters but also in temperate waters, we refer to the geographic area for the fin whale 

subspecies Balaena physalus quoyi as the Southern Hemisphere. Therefore, this

Recovery Plan is organized, for convenience, by ocean basin and discussed in three 

sections, those fin whales in the Atlantic Ocean, those in the Pacific Ocean and its 

adjoining seas and gulfs, and those in the Southern Hemisphere, referring particularly to 

areas near Antarctica. There is a need for improved understanding of the genetic 

differences among and between populations to determine stock structure — a prerequisite 

for assessing abundance and trends. 

Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: Populations in the North Atlantic, North 

Pacific, and Southern Hemisphere have been legally protected from commercial whaling 

for the last twenty or more years, and this protection continues. Although the main direct 

threat to fin whales was addressed by the IWC whaling moratorium on commercial 

whaling, several potential threats remain. Among the current potential threats are 

collisions with vessels, reduced prey abundance due to overfishing and/or climate 

change, the possibility that illegal whaling or resumed legal whaling will cause removals 

at biologically unsustainable rates and, possibly, the effects of increasing anthropogenic 

ocean noise. 

Recovery Strategy: This plan identifies measures that need to be taken to protect, 

promote, and monitor the recovery of fin whale populations in the North Atlantic, North 

Pacific, and Southern Hemisphere. Key elements of the recovery program for this 

species are 1) coordinate state, federal, and international actions to implement recovery 

efforts; 2) determine population discreteness and stock structure; 3) develop and apply 
July 2010 vi NMFS

methods to estimate population size and monitor trends in abundance; 4) conduct risk 

analyses; 5) identify and protect habitat essential to fin whale survival and recovery; 6)

identify causes of and minimize human-caused injury and mortality; 7) determine and 

minimize any detrimental effects of anthropogenic noise in the oceans; 8) maximize 

efforts to acquire scientific information from dead, stranded, and entangled or entrapped 

fin whales; and 9) develop a post-delisting monitoring plan.

Recovery Goals and Criteria: The goal of this recovery plan is to promote the recovery 

of fin whales to the point at which they can be downlisted from endangered to threatened 

status, and ultimately to remove them from the list of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants, under the provisions of the ESA. The intermediate goal is to 

reclassify the species from endangered to threatened. 

The recovery criteria presented in this Recovery Plan were based on the Report of the 

Workshop on Developing Recovery Criteria for Large Whales Species (Angliss et al.

2002). The fin whale is currently listed as a single species on a global scale. 

Downlisting Criteria: 

Fin whales will be considered for reclassifying from endangered to threatened when all of 

the following are met: 

1. Given current and projected threats and environmental conditions, the fin whale 

population in each ocean basin in which it occurs (North Atlantic, North Pacific and 

Southern Hemisphere) satisfies the risk analysis standard for threatened status (has no 

more than a 1% chance of extinction in 100 years) and has at least 500 mature, 

reproductive individuals (consisting of at least 250 mature females and at least 250 

mature males) in each ocean basin. Mature is defined as the number of individuals 

known, estimated, or inferred to be capable of reproduction. Any factors or 

circumstances that are thought to substantially contribute to a real risk of extinction that 

cannot be incorporated into a Population Viability Analysis will be carefully considered 

before downlisting takes place.

and 

2. None of the known threats to fin whales are known to limit the continued growth of 

populations. Specifically, the factors in 4(a)(l) of the ESA are being or have been 

addressed: A) the present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of a 

species’ habitat or range; B) overutilization for commercial, recreational or educational 

purposes; C) disease or predation; D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; 

and E) other natural or manmade factors.
July 2010 vii NMFS

Delisting Criteria: 

Fin whales will be considered for removal from the list of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants under the provisions of the ESA, when all of the following are met: 

1. Given current and projected threats and environmental conditions, the total fin whale 

abundance in each ocean basin in which it occurs (North Atlantic, North Pacific and 

Southern Hemisphere) satisfies the risk analysis standard for unlisted status (has less than 

a 10% probability of becoming endangered (has more than a 1% chance of extinction in 

100 years) in 20 years). Any factors or circumstances that are thought to substantially 

contribute to a real risk of extinction that cannot be incorporated into a Population 

Viability Analysis will be carefully considered before delisting takes place.

and 

2. None of the known threats to fin whales are known to limit the continued growth of 

populations. Specifically, the factors in 4(a)(l) of the ESA have been addressed: A) the 

present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of a species’ habitat or 

range; B) overutilization for commercial, recreational or educational purposes; C) disease 

or predation; D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and E) other natural 

or manmade factors.
July 2010 viii NMFS

Estimated Cost of Five-Year Recovery Efforts Including All Three Ocean Basins 

(estimates are in thousands of dollars). The costs below reflect task duration (i.e., 5 

years) and are included in the Fiscal Year when those tasks are anticipated to begin. 

If no start time was identified, we assumed the task started in FY1:

Action FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Total

1 300 300 300 300 300 1,500

2 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 6,500

3 270 184,536 40 40 40 184,9261

4 n/a n/a n/a 200 200 4002

5 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 6,750

6 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 17,000

7 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 9,500

8 1,500 1,504 1,500 1,500 1,500 7,5043

9 * * * * * *

Total 10,020 194,290 9,790 9,990 9,990 234,080 1 This action is for one survey for each ocean basin. It was assumed that the surveys would begin in FY2 across ocean

basins, thus cost is reflected in FY2 only (even though surveys in each of the ocean basins will be conducted for 

different lengths of time and it is likely the costs will be spread out over the length of the surveys rather than all at 

once).

2 Should recovery occur in the minimum time of 6 years, then action 4 would likely occur for only the Atlantic 

Ocean/Mediterranean Sea and Pacific Ocean, cost reflected in Total. If efforts take longer to collect the data 

necessary for action item 4, then this action item would incur no cost during the first five years of recovery efforts for 

any ocean basin. 3 Assumed that one time cost of $4K for action number 8.3 occurs in FY2. * No cost associated, NMFS staff time.

ESTIMATED COST OF RECOVERY (FIRST 5 FISCAL YEARS) (in thousands): $234,080

Estimated Cost of Actions Necessary to Achieve Recovery, Including All Three 

Ocean Basins (estimates are in thousands of dollars): 

Year Action

1

Action

2

Action

3

Action

4

Action

5

Action

6

Action

7

Action

8

Action 

9 Total1

N. Atl. 

(2020) 1,000 1,335 51,680 200 2,750 6,375 3,750 7,502 * 74,592

N. Pac. 

(2020) 1,000 1,830 15,072 200 2,750 6,375 3,750 7,502 * 38,479

S. Hem. 

(2030) 2,000 3,335 118,344 200 2,750 4,250 2,000 132,879

Total for 

Task 

Duration

4,000 6,500 185,1262

 600 8,250 17,000 9,500 15,004 * 245,980

1 Total reflects cost of recovery for ocean basin. 2 Total reflects an additional cost of $30K that is not specific to one ocean basin. * No cost associated, NMFS staff time.
July 2010 ix NMFS

ANTICIPATED DATE OF RECOVERY: The time to recovery is not predictable with the 

current information and global listing of fin whales. We can, however, estimate the 

minimum time it would take to meet the criteria above if fin whales were recovering at a 

conservative expected rate for a baleen whale. However, minimum data needed to satisfy 

criterion 1 for delisting are population structure work and ocean-basin wide surveys, 

which are estimated to take an additional 10 years within the North Atlantic and Pacific 

Ocean basins (date of recovery at 2020) and likely an additional 20 years in the Southern 

Hemisphere (date of recovery at 2030), given uncertainties about population structure in 

the Southern Hemisphere. The exact date of recovery cannot be determined as it will 

likely take decades. The effectiveness of many management activities is not known on a 

global level, and currently it is impossible to predict when such measures will bring the 

species to a point at which the protections of the ESA are no longer warranted. In the 

future, as more information is obtained on the threats, their impacts on fin whales, and 

how they can be effectively mitigated, it should be possible to make more informative 

projections about the time to recovery, and its expense. 

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF RECOVERY FOR THREE OCEAN BASINS: $245.98 MILLION 
July 2010 x NMFS

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
July 2010 xi NMFS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE..............................................................................................i

DISCLAIMER........................................................................................ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................iii

ACRONYM LIST...................................................................................iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................v

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................x

I. BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................I-1

A. Brief Overview.............................................................................................I-1

B. Species Description, Taxonomy, and Population Structure.........................I-1

C. Zoogeography ..............................................................................................I-4

D. Life History – North Atlantic Ocean ...........................................................I-5

D.1 Population Structure......................................................................................I-5

D.2 Distribution and Habitat Use ........................................................................I-6

D.3 Feeding and Prey Selection...........................................................................I-7

D.4 Interspecific Competition..............................................................................I-8

D.5 Reproduction.................................................................................................I-8

D.6 Natural Mortality ..........................................................................................I-9

D.7 Abundance and Trends .................................................................................I-9

E. Life History – North Pacific Ocean ...........................................................I-11

E.1 Population Structure....................................................................................I-11

E.2 Distribution and Habitat Use ......................................................................I-11

E.3 Feeding and Prey Selection.........................................................................I-13

E.4 Interspecific Competition............................................................................I-13

E.5 Reproduction...............................................................................................I-13

E.6 Natural Mortality ........................................................................................I-13

E.7 Abundance and Trends ...............................................................................I-13

F. Life History – Southern Hemisphere .........................................................I-15

F.1 Population Structure....................................................................................I-15

F.2 Distribution and Habitat Use ......................................................................I-15

F.3 Feeding and Prey Selection.........................................................................I-15

F.4 Interspecific Competition............................................................................I-15

F.5 Reproduction...............................................................................................I-15

F.6 Natural Mortality ........................................................................................I-16

F.7 Abundance and Trends ...............................................................................I-16

G. Threats........................................................................................................I-17

G.1 Fishery Interactions – LOW.........................................................................I-17

G.1.1 Global..................................................................................................I-17

G.2 Anthropogenic Noise – UNKNOWN.............................................................I-19

G.2.1 Ship Noise – UNKNOWN......................................................................I-22

G.2.2 Oil and Gas Exploration – UNKNOWN ................................................I-22

G.2.3 Coastal Development – LOW ..............................................................I-24

G.2.4 Military Sonar and Explosives – UNKNOWN ......................................I-24

G.3 Vessel Interactions......................................................................................I-26

G.3.1 Ship Strikes – UNKNOWN BUT POTENTIALLY HIGH ............................I-26
July 2010 xii NMFS

G.3.2 Disturbance from Whale Watching and Other Vessels – LOW...........I-27

G.4 Contaminants and Pollutants – LOW...........................................................I-28

G.5 Disease – LOW ............................................................................................I-29

G.6 Injury from Marine Debris – LOW ..............................................................I-30

G.7 Research – LOW ..........................................................................................I-30

G.8 Predation and Natural Mortality – LOW......................................................I-31

G.9 Direct Harvest – MEDIUM ...........................................................................I-31

G.9.1 North Atlantic .....................................................................................I-32

G.9.2 North Pacific .......................................................................................I-33

G.9.3 Southern Hemisphere..........................................................................I-34

G.10 Competition for Resources – UNKNOWN ....................................................I-34

G.11 Loss of Prey Base Due to Climate and Ecosystem Change – UNKNOWN BUT 

POTENTIALLY HIGH ....................................................................................I-35

H. Conservation Measures................................................................................ 41

II. RECOVERY STRATEGY.................................................................................... II-1

III. RECOVERY GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND CRITERIA...................................III-1

A. Goals.........................................................................................................III-1

B. Objectives and Criteria .............................................................................III-1

B.1 Downlisting Objectives and Criteria.......................................................... III-1

B.2 Delisting Objectives and Criteria............................................................... III-3

IV. RECOVERY PROGRAM ....................................................................................IV-1

A. Recovery Action Outline ..........................................................................IV-1

B. Recovery Action Narrative .......................................................................IV-4

V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE...................................................................... V-1

VI. LITERATURE CITED .........................................................................................VI-1
July 2010 I-1 NMFS

I. BACKGROUND

A. Brief Overview

Fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus (Linnaeus 1758), have been listed as “endangered”

since 1970 under the precursor to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and have remained 

on the list of threatened and endangered species since the ESA was passed in 1973 (35 

FR 8491; June 2, 1970). Fin whales are widely distributed throughout the world’s 

oceans; critical habitat has not been designated for fin whales. Although the original 

listing did not cite reasons, it is understood that the main reason for listing is that most 

populations were depleted by modern whaling. Commercial whaling for this species 

ended in the North Pacific in 1976, in the Southern oceans in 1976–77, and in the North 

Atlantic in 1987. Fin whales are still hunted in Greenland, subject to catch limits under 

the International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) “aboriginal subsistence whaling”

scheme. Iceland resumed commercial whaling of fin whales in 2006 under a formal 

objection to the IWC’s ban on commercial whaling and Japan kills fin whales as part of 

its scientific whaling program. There are currently believed to be tens of thousands of fin 

whales worldwide. Although reliable and recent estimates of fin whale abundance are 

available for large portions of the North Atlantic Ocean, this is not the case for most of 

the North Pacific Ocean and Southern Hemisphere. Status of populations in both of these 

ocean basins, stated in terms of present population size relative to “initial” (pre-whaling, 

or carrying capacity) level, is uncertain. 

Although the main direct threat to fin whales was addressed by the IWC whaling 

moratorium on commercial whaling, several potential threats remain. Among the current 

potential threats are collisions with vessels, reduced prey abundance due to overfishing 

and/or climate change, the possibility that illegal whaling or resumed legal whaling will 

cause removals at biologically unsustainable rates and, possibly, the effects of increasing 

anthropogenic ocean noise. 

Collisions with vessels is considered a high threat (see Section G. Threats). Reduced 

prey abundance is considered a medium threat as trends in fish populations, whether 

driven by fishery operations, human-caused environmental deterioration, or natural 

processes, may strongly affect the size and distribution of fin whale populations. The 

effects of ever-increasing anthropogenic noise are unknown, but this plan stresses 

continuing to investigate these effects, which are potentially significant. 

B. Species Description, Taxonomy, and Population Structure

Species Description

The fin whale is a well-defined, cosmopolitan species of baleen whale (Gambell 1985). 

Fin whales are the second-largest whale species by length. They are long-bodied and 

slender, with a prominent dorsal fin set about two-thirds of the way back on the body. 

The streamlined appearance can change during feeding when the pleated throat and chest 

area becomes distended by the influx of prey and seawater, giving the animal a tadpolelike appearance. The basic body color of the fin whale is dark gray dorsally and white 
July 2010 I-2 NMFS

ventrally, but the pigmentation pattern is complex. The lower jaw is gray or black on the 

left side and creamy white on the right side. This asymmetrical coloration extends to the 

baleen plates as well, and is reversed on the tongue. Individually distinctive features of 

pigmentation, along with dorsal fin shapes and body scars, have been used in photoidentification studies (Agler et al. 1990). 

The general similarity in appearance of fin whales to sei whales (B. borealis) and Bryde’s 

whales (B. edeni) has resulted in confusion about distributional limits and frequency of 

occurrence, particularly in low latitudes where “fin” whales described in the whaling 

literature have often proved to be Bryde’s whales. The diagnostic features for 

distinguishing the three species were outlined by Mead (1977). Fin whales and blue 

whales (B. musculus) are known to interbreed occasionally in the North Atlantic (Bérubé 

and Aguilar 1998) and apparently also in the North Pacific (Doroshenko 1970).

Hearing 

Marine mammal hearing has been reviewed by several authors, notably Popper (1980a,b), 

Schusterman (1981), Ridgway (1983), Watkins and Wartzok (1985), Moore and 

Schusterman (1987), Au (1993), Richardson et al. (1995), Wartzok and Ketten (1999), 

and Southall et al. (2007). Auditory thresholds at various frequencies can be determined 

either by tests with trained captive animals or by electrophysiological tests on captive or 

beached animals or indirectly predicted via inner ear morphology, taxonomy, behavior, or 

vocalizations. Hearing abilities have been studied in some toothed whales, hair seals, and 

eared seals. Most of the available data on underwater hearing deal with frequencies of 1 

kilohertz (kHz) or greater, and many relate to frequencies above 20 kHz (up to 180 kHz). 

Recently, Southall et al. (2007) suggested that marine mammals be divided into five 

basic hearing groups: high-frequency cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, 

cephalorhychids), mid-frequency cetaceans (“dolphins,” toothed whales, beaked whales, 

and bottlenose whales), low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes), pinnipeds in water, and 

pinnipeds in air.

There is no direct information about the hearing abilities of baleen whales but estimation 

of hearing ability based on inner ear morphology has been completed on two mysticete 

species: humpback whales (700 hertz [Hz] to 10 kHz; Houser et al. 2001) and North 

Atlantic right whales (10 Hz to 22 kHz; Parks et al. 2007a). The anatomy of the baleen 

whale inner ear seems to be well-adapted for detection of low-frequency sounds (Ketten 

1991, 1992, 1994). Baleen whale calls, especially fin whale calls (especially known for 

their characteristic 20 Hz moans), are also predominantly at low frequencies, mainly 

below 1 kHz (Richardson et al. 1995), and their hearing is presumed good at 

corresponding frequencies. Southall et al. (2007) estimated the hearing range of lowfrequency cetaceans to extend from approximately 7 Hz to 22 kHz. Thus, the auditory 

system of baleen whales is almost certainly more sensitive to low-frequency sounds than 

that of the small-to-moderate-sized tooth whales. However, auditory sensitivity in at 

least some species extends up to higher frequencies than the maximum frequency of the 

calls, and relative auditory sensitivity at different low-moderate frequencies is unknown. 
July 2010 I-3 NMFS

Taxonomy

At present, there are two named subspecies: B. p. physalus (Linnaeus 1758) in the North 

Atlantic and North Pacific and B. p. quoyi (Fischer 1829) in the Southern Hemisphere. 

Most experts consider the North Pacific fin whales a separate unnamed subspecies. On a 

global scale, populations in the North Atlantic, North Pacific, and Southern Hemisphere 

(e.g., particularly those found near Antarctica) probably mix rarely, if at all, and there are 

geographical populations within these ocean basins. The distinctness of North Pacific 

and North Atlantic fin whales has been supported by recent genetic analysis (Bérubé et 

al. 1998) and by differences in vocalizations (Clark 1995; Hatch 2004). Hatch (2004) 

also reported regional differences in fin whale vocalizations within the North Atlantic. 

Although whales from these ocean basins are genetically distinct, no formal consideration 

for different subspecies status has occurred. There are morphological distinctions 

between these three groups, as well. Adults in the Antarctic can be more than 23 m long 

and weigh more than 70,000 kg. In general, fin whales in the Northern Hemisphere attain 

a smaller maximum body length (by up to 3 m) than Antarctic fin whales, and those in 

the North Atlantic are leaner than their Antarctic counterparts (Lockyer and Waters 

1986). The largest fin whales caught in the Northern Hemisphere were off California—a 

24.7 m (81 ft) female and a 22.9 m (75 ft) male, between 1919 and 1926 (Clapham et al. 

1997). As with other baleen whales, female fin whales grow to a larger size than males 

(Aguilar and Lockyer 1987). 

Population Structure

From a U.S. perspective, fin whales are managed under three constructs, all with different 

objectives and, therefore, different terminology for population structure: the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the IWC, and the ESA. Roughly, the MMPA protects 

marine mammal species with a goal of maintaining marine mammal population “stocks”

as functioning elements of their ecosystem, the IWC manages whales with a goal of 

maintaining healthy stocks while authorizing harvest to meet aboriginal needs (and 

potentially commercial catches), scientific research and related purposes, and the ESA 

seeks to avoid extinction and recover threatened and endangered species to a point at 

which they no longer need ESA protections. 

Both the MMPA and the IWC use the term “stocks” to refer to units to conserve. 

In this document we use the term “stocks” in the context of MMPA or IWC stocks and 

use the more generic term “populations” when referring to subunits of the same species in 

other contexts. The stock concept has been the subject of much discussion among 

biologists and natural resource managers. A recent working definition of “stock” under 

the MMPA is a “demographically isolated biological population” (Wade and Angliss 

1997) where internal dynamics (births and deaths) are far more important than external 

dynamics (immigration and emigration) to maintaining the population. The IWC 

continues to waver somewhere between two types of stock definitions: biological stocks 

based on genetic separation and management stocks referring to population units defined 

in functional terms of some kind (Donovan 1991). Although considerable effort has been 

expended to tighten the definition of stocks, current IWC practice continues to define on 

a case-by-case basis and only on stocks in need of current management. Thus, stock 

definition for areas with no aboriginal whaling or anticipated commercial whaling, as 
July 2010 I-4 NMFS

would be the case for fin whales in the North Pacific, has not been considered for 

decades.

The IWC has considered only one stock of fin whales in the main body of the North 

Pacific even though studies suggest differently (Fujino 1960; Ohshumi et al. 1971; Rice 

1974; Nasu 1974; Mizroch et al. 1984a; Donovan 1991; Hatch 2004). Based on a 

“conservative management approach,” NMFS recognizes three MMPA stocks in U.S. 

Pacific waters: Alaska (Northeast Pacific), California/Oregon/Washington, and Hawaii 

(Barlow et al. 1997; Hill et al. 1997). A separate subspecies (B. p. quoyi; Fischer 1829) 

is recognized in the Southern Hemisphere and all southern ocean fin whales currently 

belong to the subspecies B. p. quoyi. To date there has been no effort to define 

subspecies or Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) for fin whales under the ESA. For a 

more detailed discussion on population structure, see the Life History sections in this 

Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic Ocean, North Pacific Ocean, and Southern 

Hemisphere. 

C. Zoogeography 

Fin whale populations exhibit differing degrees of mobility, presumably depending on the 

stability of access to sufficient prey resources throughout the year. Most groups are 

thought to migrate seasonally, in some cases over distances of thousands of kilometers. 

They feed intensively at high latitudes in summer and fast, or at least greatly reduce their 

food intake, at lower latitudes in winter. Some groups apparently move over shorter 

distances and can be considered resident to areas with a year-round supply of adequate 

prey. The fin whale is a cosmopolitan species with a generally anti-tropical distribution 

centered in the temperate zones. Two subspecies, a larger Southern Hemisphere form 

and a smaller Northern Hemisphere form, have been supported by some scientists 

(Tomilin 1946, 1967; Sokolov and Arsen’ev 1994; Rice 1998). 

In this Recovery Plan we separate description of the data into three sections: North 

Atlantic Ocean, North Pacific Ocean, and Southern Hemisphere. Since the Southern 

Ocean often refers only to waters surrounding Antarctica and fin whales occur not only in 

those waters but also in temperate waters, we refer to the geographic area for the fin 

whale subspecies B. p. quoyi as the Southern Hemisphere. This organization follows the 

way fin whales have been treated by both IWC and MMPA management regimes and the 

way that data are often gathered. Further work would be needed to identify population 

segments that are both discrete and significant as described in the NMFS and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service joint policy regarding DPS’ under the ESA (61 FR 4722). While no 

firm boundaries can be drawn, there is likely very limited movement between the North 

Atlantic Ocean, the North Pacific Ocean, and the Southern Hemisphere. Therefore, the 

Recovery Criteria in this Recovery Plan use these three large oceanic regions. The 

Recovery Criteria for the global listing, therefore, mean that all three of these oceanic 

regions must meet the criteria.
July 2010 I-5 NMFS

D. Life History – North Atlantic Ocean

D.1 Population Structure

Recent genetic analyses confirm that there is structuring within the North Atlantic 

population along the lines suggested by Ingebrigtsen (1929) and Kellogg (1929). They 

found significant heterogeneity in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) between the

Mediterranean Sea, the eastern North Atlantic (Spain), and the western North Atlantic 

(Gulf of Maine and Gulf of St. Lawrence) (Bérubé et al. 1998; Palsbøll et al. 2004). 

Mixing between the eastern and western North Atlantic populations apparently occurs

regularly in the waters around Iceland and Greenland. As noted earlier, it has also been 

suggested that the vocalizations of fin whales recorded off Bermuda and the West Indies 

differ from those recorded in the Norwegian Sea (Clark 1995). 

Fin whales in the North Atlantic are defined by the IWC by seven management units: 

Nova Scotia, Newfoundland-Labrador, West Greenland, East Greenland-Iceland, North 

Norway, West Norway-Faroe Islands, and British Isles-Spain-Portugal. Results of markrecapture experiments suggest that some movement occurs across the boundaries of these 

management units (Mitchell 1974; Gunnlaugsson and Sigurjønsson 1989; IWC 1992a), 

indicating that perhaps these management units are not completely discrete and some 

immigration and emigration does occur. Management of the exploitation of fin whales in 

the North Atlantic has presupposed the existence of these seven management units, 

although the scientific basis for defining some of these as biological populations was 

weak (Donovan 1991). 

After evaluating all available evidence through 1991, the IWC Scientific Committee was 

unable to decide whether the population of fin whales in the North Atlantic consisted of 

several discrete breeding groups or instead, comprised a single stock existing in a “patchy 

continuum” (Sergeant 1977) across the entire ocean basin (IWC 1992a). It was, however, 

agreed that the balance of evidence from various types of analyses (e.g., biochemical, 

genetic, tag-recapture, morphologic, and biometric; Lockyer 1982; Gunnlaugsson and 

Sigurjønsson 1989; Arnason et al. 1992; Jover 1992) indicated that the fin whales hunted 

off Spain belonged to a different stock than those hunted off Iceland (IWC 1992a). 

Based on a comparison of biological parameters and analyses of catch and effort at 

Canadian shore whaling stations, Breiwick (1993) supported Mitchell’s (1974) 

hypothesis that there are at least two stocks in the western North Atlantic, one centered in 

Nova Scotia and New England waters and the other in Newfoundland waters. 

NMFS posits that there is a single stock of fin whales in U.S. waters of the western North 

Atlantic (Waring et al. 1997), presumably equivalent to the Nova Scotia stock, as 

recognized by the IWC (Mitchell 1974; IWC 1992a). It is considered likely that fin 

whales in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) migrate into Canadian waters, openocean areas, and possibly more equatorial regions (Waring et al. 1997). Of particular 

importance in the current management context, is the IWC’s continued recognition of a 

West Greenland stock of fin whales (IWC 1992a), even though the evidence for genetic 
July 2010 I-6 NMFS

isolation of this population remains inconclusive (IWC 1996a,b; IWC 1998a; Bérubé et 

al. 1998). 

To date there has been no effort to define DPSs for fin whales under the ESA. In order to 

qualify as a DPS, a unit must first be discrete and second, significant (61 FR 4722). It is 

unlikely that the seven IWC stocks in the North Atlantic would all qualify as DPSs. It is 

likely, given the genetic and acoustic analyses of whaling data discussed above, that more 

than a single DPS could be identified within the North Atlantic. 

D.2 Distribution and Habitat Use 

The fin whale has an extensive distribution in the North Atlantic, occurring from the Gulf 

of Mexico (Jefferson and Schiro 1997) and Mediterranean Sea, northward to the edges of 

the arctic pack ice (Jonsgård 1966a, 1966b; Sergeant 1977; IWC 1992a). In general, fin 

whales are more common north of approximately 30°N latitude. Considerable confusion 

arises about their occurrence south of 30°N latitude, because of the difficulty in 

distinguishing fin whales from Bryde’s whales (Mead 1977). Extensive ship surveys led 

Mitchell (1974) to conclude that the summer feeding range of fin whales in the western

North Atlantic was mainly between 41°20’N and 51°00’N, from shore seaward to the 

1,000-fathom contour. 

Although fin whales are certainly migratory, moving seasonally into and out of highlatitude feeding areas, the overall migration pattern is confusing and likely complex 

(Christensen et al. 1992a). Regular mass movements along well-defined migratory 

corridors, with specific end-points, have not been documented by sightings. However, 

acoustic recordings from passive-listening hydrophone arrays indicate a southward “flow 

pattern” occurs in the fall from the Labrador-Newfoundland region, south past Bermuda, 

and into the West Indies (Clark 1995). Fin whales occur year-round in a wide range of 

latitudes and longitudes, but the density of individuals in any one area changes 

seasonally. Thus, their aggregate movements are patterned and consistent, but 

movements of individuals in a given year may vary according to their energetic and 

reproductive condition, climatic factors, etc. In some parts of their range, such as the 

Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Newfoundland shelf, ice formation in winter forces fin 

whales offshore, and its disintegration in spring allows them to move back inshore 

(Jonsgård 1966a; Sergeant 1977). One or more “populations” of fin whales were thought 

by Norwegian whalers to remain year-round in high latitudes, actually moving offshore, 

but not southward, in late autumn (Hjort and Ruud 1929; Jonsgård 1966a). These 

observations were recently reinforced by acoustic evidence that fin whales occur 

throughout the winter in the Norwegian and Barents Seas, apparently in considerable 

numbers (Clark 1995). 

The local distribution of fin whales during much of the year is probably governed largely 

by prey availability (Ingebrigtsen 1929; Jonsgård 1966a, 1966b). For example, the 

positions off southwestern Iceland where fin whales were caught correlated well with the 

known distribution of spawning krill (Meganyctiphanes norvegica), their preferred prey 

in that area (Rørvik et al. 1976). In general, fin whales in the central and eastern North 
July 2010 I-7 NMFS

Atlantic tend to occur most abundantly over the continental slope and on the shelf 

seaward of the 200 m isobath (Rørvik et al. 1976). In contrast, off the eastern United 

States they are centered along the 100-m isobath but with sightings well spread out over 

shallower and deeper water, including submarine canyons along the shelf break (Kenney 

and Winn 1987; Hain et al. 1992). Two feeding areas in the late 1970s and early 1980s 

were identified between the Great South Channel and Jeffrey’s Ledge and in waters 

directly east of Montauk, Long Island, New York (Hain et al. 1992). Fin whales were 

also seen feeding as far south as the coast of Virginia (Hain et al. 1992).

Segregation seems to occur at least in summer, with the larger (mature) whales arriving at 

feeding areas earlier, and departing later, than the smaller individuals (Rørvik et al.

1976). Within the Gulf of Maine, lactating females and their calves primarily occupy, or 

at times are the only ones occupying, this southern portion of their summer feeding range 

(Agler et al. 1993). 

Tagging and photo-identification studies suggest considerable site fidelity on feeding 

grounds (Mitchell 1974; Edds and Macfarlane 1987; Gunnlaugsson and Sigurjønsson 

1989; Seipt et al. 1990; Agler et al. 1990; Clapham and Seipt 1991), but the documented 

long-distance movements of some individuals (Mitchell 1974; Watkins et al. 1984; Agler 

et al. 1990) show that fin whales are capable of using large resource areas. 

Fin whales are locally common in the River and Gulf of St. Lawrence during the summer 

and fall, especially on the north shore shelf (Edds and Macfarlane 1987; Borobia et al.

1995; Kingsley and Reeves 1998). Sergeant (1977) suggested that they associate with 

steep contours of the Laurentian Channel, either because tidal and current mixing along 

such gradients drives high biological production or because changes in depth aid their 

navigation. 

D.3 Feeding and Prey Selection 

Fin whales in the North Atlantic eat pelagic crustaceans (mainly euphausiids or krill, 

including Meganyctiphanes norvegica and Thysanoessa inerrnis) and schooling fish such 

as capelin (Mallotus villosus), herring (Clupea harengus), and sand lance (Ammodytes

spp.) (Hjort and Ruud 1929; Ingebrigtsen 1929; Jonsgård 1966a; Mitchell 1974; Sergeant 

1977; Overholtz and Nicolas 1979; Christensen et al. 1992b; Borobia et al. 1995). The 

availability of sand lance, in particular, is thought to have had a strong influence on the 

distribution and movements of fin whales along the east coast of the United States 

(Kenney and Winn 1986; Payne et al. 1990; Hain et al. 1992). 

Although there may be some degree of specialization, most individuals probably prey on 

both invertebrates and fish, depending on availability (Watkins et al. 1984; Edds and 

Macfarlane 1987; Borobia et al. 1995). Sergeant (1977) suggested that euphausiids were 

the “basic food” of fin whales and that they took advantage of fish when sufficiently 

concentrated, “particularly in the pre-spawning, spawning, and post-spawning adult 

stages on the Continental Shelf and in coastal waters.” See section D.2 for a discussion 

on seasonal movements associated with feeding areas. 
July 2010 I-8 NMFS

D.4 Interspecific Competition

There has been considerable discussion of interspecific competition among mysticete 

whales. The substantial dietary overlap among the balaenopterids (Nemoto 1970; 

Kawamura 1980) establishes the potential for interference competition but no conclusive 

evidence has been adduced to demonstrate that it occurs (Clapham and Brownell 1996). 

The fin whale feeds on a fairly broad spectrum of prey, but regional groups of fin whales 

seem to specialize on particular types of prey. From an analysis of annual sighting 

frequencies in the Gulf of Maine, Payne et al. (1990) concluded that fin whales were able 

to exploit more widely separated patches of prey and thus, were more independent of 

local fluctuations in prey availability than were humpbacks (Megaptera novaeangliae). 

The responses of fin whales to shifts in prey abundance were less pronounced than those 

of humpback, right (Eubalaena glacialis), and sei whales in this region. As pointed out 

by Clapham and Brownell (1996), this is not necessarily evidence of competition, per se, 

but rather could indicate simply that the four species have different adaptive traits 

(Kenney 1990). 

D.5 Reproduction 

Most reproductive activity, including mating and births, takes place in the winter season 

(November to March; peak December/January) (Haug 1981; Mitchell 1974), although 

“out-of-season” births do occur off the eastern United States (Hain et al. 1992). The 

gestation period is probably somewhat less than a year, and fin whale calves are nursed 

for 6–7 months (Haug 1981; Gambell 1985).

The average calving interval has been estimated at about two years, based on whaling 

data (Christensen et al. 1992b). In unexploited populations, the interval may be 

somewhat longer. Agler et al. (1993) used photo-identification data to estimate an 

average interval of 2.7 years for fin whales in the Gulf of Maine although they 

acknowledged that this value was probably biased upward by incomplete sighting 

histories. If certain females calved in “missed” years (i.e., years in which they were not 

photo-identified in the study area), the mean interval could have been as low as 2.24 

years (Agler et al. 1993). The gross annual reproductive rate of fin whales in the Gulf of 

Maine (calves as a percentage of the total population) was about eight percent during the 

1980s (Agler et al. 1993). Sigurjønsson (1995) gave the range of pregnancy rates for the 

species (proportion of adult females pregnant in a given year) as 0.36–0.47.

Breiwick (1993) found that the annual pregnancy rate (defined as the percentage of 

mature females that are pregnant in a given year) was significantly lower in the 

population hunted from Blandford, Nova Scotia, than in the population hunted from 

Williamsport and South Dildo, Newfoundland. Among the hypotheses that could explain 

this difference is that fin whales show a density-dependent response by shortening the 

birth interval (and/or the time to sexual maturity) and that the Nova Scotia population 

was less depleted than the Newfoundland population, at the time of sampling. 
July 2010 I-9 NMFS

Fin whales, in populations near carrying capacity, may not attain sexual maturity until ten 

years of age or older, whereas those in exploited1

D.6 Natural Mortality 

populations can mature as early as six 

or seven years of age (Gambell 1985). 

Little is known about the natural causes of mortality of fin whales in the North Atlantic. 

Ice entrapment is known to injure and kill some whales, particularly in the Gulf of St. 

Lawrence (Sergeant et al. 1970). Mitchell and Reeves (1988) reported evidence, most of 

it anecdotal, indicating that killer whales (Orcinus orca) attack fin whales in the western 

North Atlantic. Disease presumably plays a major role in natural mortality as well, and 

shark attacks on weak or young individuals are probably common, but have not been 

documented. Lambertsen (1986) contended that crassicaudiosis in the urinary tract was 

the primary cause of natural mortality in North Atlantic fin whales. Rates of natural 

mortality in fin whales generally are thought to range between 0.04 and 0.06 (Aguilar and 

Lockyer 1987). 

D.7 Abundance and Trends 

No good estimate of pre-exploitation population size is available, and it seems unlikely 

that a robust estimate will ever be possible, considering the long history of exploitation 

and the many uncertainties about current abundance and population boundaries (Breiwick 

1993). An estimated abundance of about 56,000 fin whales throughout the North 

Atlantic in the early 1990s has been cited (Bérubé and Aguilar 1998), based on IWC 

(1992a) and Buckland et al. (1992a,b). Sigurjønsson (1995) estimated a total preexploitation population size in the North Atlantic in the range of 50,000 to 100,000, but 

provided no supporting data and no explanation of his reasoning. Sergeant’s (1977) 

summary of population estimates, derived using various techniques and always assuming 

sustainable catch levels, suggested a “primeval” aggregate total of 30,000 to 50,000 fin 

whales throughout the North Atlantic. Of the 30,000, about 8,000 to 9,000 would have 

belonged to the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia “stocks” (Allen 1970; Mitchell 1974), 

with whales summering in U.S. waters south of Nova Scotia presumably not having been 

taken fully into account. With no explanation, Chapman (1976) gave the “original”

population sizes as only 1,200 off Nova Scotia and 2,400 off Newfoundland. According 

to Chapman’s calculations, the Nova Scotia stock of about 400 whales was 41% below its 

maximum sustainable yield (MSY) level (700 whales longer than 50 ft) in 1975, while 

the Newfoundland stock (1,600 whales) was still above its MSY level of 1,400. Breiwick 

(1993) concluded, based on population models, the Newfoundland stock likely declined 

during the most recent episode of whaling (1966 to 1972). A decline in abundance of the 

Nova Scotia stock (hunted from 1965 to 1972) was evident from both catch-per-uniteffort (CPUE) analyses and population modeling. Breiwick (1993) estimated the 

 1 It should be noted, however, that the question of whether whaling data from the Southern Hemisphere (i.e., an 

exploited population) do or do not demonstrate density-dependent responses in the reproductive cycle of fin whales is 

controversial (Mizroch and York 1984; Sampson 1989).
July 2010 I-10 NMFS

“exploitable” component of the Nova Scotia stock (i.e., animals above the legal size limit 

of 50 ft) as about 1,500–1,600 animals in 1964, reduced to only about 325 in 1973. 

Based on survey data, about 5,000 fin whales were estimated to inhabit northeastern 

United States continental shelf waters in the spring and summer of 1978–1982 (Hain et 

al. 1992). Combined shipboard and aerial surveys from Georges Bank to the mouth of 

the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the summer of 1999 (designed for harbor porpoise, Phocoena 

phocoena, abundance estimation), resulted in an estimate of 2,814 (CV=0.21) fin whales 

(Palka 2000). The best abundance estimate available for the Western North Atlantic 

stock is 2,269 (CV = 0.37) from August 2006 with a minimum population estimate of 

1,678 (Waring et al. 2009). 

The IWC has continued to use Mitchell’s (1974) mark-recapture data from 1965 to 1972 

for estimating abundance of fin whales in eastern Canadian waters, with no attempt at 

updating the estimates to take account of possible changes in abundance since 1972, 

when whaling ended in this area (IWC 1992a). The central estimate was about 11,000, 

interpreted to refer only to animals longer than 50 ft. This presumably included at least 

some whales that moved seasonally into U.S. waters. Mitchell (1974) reported shipboard 

survey estimates of 340 fin whales (of all sizes) for the Gulf of St. Lawrence and 2,800 

for “the remainder of the Nova Scotia area.” Two line-transect aerial survey programs 

have been conducted in Canadian waters since the early 1970s, giving negatively biased 

estimates of 79 to 926 fin whales on the eastern Newfoundland-Labrador shelf in August 

1980 (Hay 1982) and a few hundred in the northern and central Gulf of St. Lawrence in

August 1995 and 1996 (Kingsley and Reeves 1998). 

Estimates of the number of fin whales in West Greenland waters in summer range 

between about 500 and 2,000 (Larsen 1995; IWC 1995). Jonsgård (1974) considered the 

fin whales off western Norway and the Faroe Islands to “have been considerably depleted 

in postwar years, probably by overexploitation.” The evidence of depletion around 

Iceland, however, was much less conclusive, and it was suggested that the population had 

undergone only a moderate decline since the early 1960s (Rørvik et al. 1976; Rørvik and 

Sigurjønsson 1981). Large-scale shipboard sighting surveys in the summers of 1987 and 

1989 produced estimates in the order of 10,000 to 11,000 fin whales in the northeastern 

Atlantic between East Greenland and Norway (Buckland et al. 1992b). This compares 

with an estimate of 6,900 “fully recruited” whales in the East Greenland-Iceland stock in 

1976 (including only animals longer than 50 ft) made using CPUE data from the 

Icelandic whaling industry (Rørvik et al. 1976). The CPUE data were interpreted as 

indicating a “slight” decrease in the population size since 1948 (Rørvik et al. 1976). 

The most recent estimates for the British Isles-Spain-Portugal stock area in summer have 

ranged from about 7,500 (Goujon et al. 1995) to more than 17,000 (Buckland et al.

1992a). An estimation of the entire Mediterranean Sea population of fin whales is 

unknown, but the western basin portion of the population, where most of the population 

is found, is estimated to be 3,500 animals (Notarbartolo-di-Sciara et al. 2003).
July 2010 I-11 NMFS

E. Life History – North Pacific Ocean

E.1 Population Structure 

The IWC has considered there to be only one stock of fin whales in the main body of the 

North Pacific even though early work by Fujino (1960), based on blood typing, markrecapture, and morphological data, suggested there were separate stocks (Donovan 1991). 

A small separate stock in the East China Sea has been generally recognized, and Ohsumi 

et al. (1971) referred to “Asian” and “American” stocks as some type of management 

units. Tag recoveries have established a connection between southern California and the 

Gulf of Alaska (Rice 1974) and shown considerable movement by fin whales along the 

Aleutian Islands from areas near Kamchatka to the Alaska Peninsula (Nasu 1974). 

Mizroch et al. (1984a) discussed five possible populations, which they called “feeding 

aggregations”: the eastern and western groups that move along the Aleutians (Berzin and 

Rovnin 1966; Nasu 1974); the East China Sea group; a group that moves north and south 

along the west coast of North America between California and the Gulf of Alaska (Rice 

1974); and a group centered in the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California). Sighting data show 

no evidence of migration between the Sea of Cortez and adjacent areas in the Pacific, but 

seasonal changes in abundance in the Sea of Cortez suggests the possibility of such 

exchange (Tershy et al. 1993). Nevertheless, Bérubé et al. (2002) found the Sea of 

Cortez population to be genetically distinct from the oceanic population and to have 

lower genetic diversity. Hatch (2004) found heterogeneity in vocalizations among five 

regions of the eastern North Pacific: the Gulf of Alaska, the northeast North Pacific 

(Washington and British Columbia), the southeast North Pacific (California and northern 

Baja California), the Gulf of California (Sea of Cortez), and the eastern tropical Pacific. 

Tissue samples (from biopsies) to assess population structure questions for much of the 

eastern North Pacific are archived at the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, but 

not yet analyzed (B. Taylor, NMFS, pers. comm., 2006). Many tissue samples are also 

archived by Japan from commercial whaling, but these are also mostly unanalyzed and 

likely not available for analysis outside of Japan. 

Based on a “conservative management approach,” NMFS recognizes three MMPA stocks 

in U.S. Pacific waters: Alaska (Northeast Pacific), California/Oregon/Washington, and 

Hawaii (Barlow et al. 1997; Hill et al. 1997). To date there has been no effort to define 

DPSs for fin whales under the ESA. In order to qualify as a DPS, a unit must first be 

discrete and second, significant (61 FR 4722).

E.2 Distribution and Habitat Use 

Rice (1974) reported that the summer distribution of fin whales included “immediate 

offshore waters” throughout the North Pacific from central Baja California to Japan, and 

as far north as the Chukchi Sea. They occurred in high densities in the northern Gulf of 

Alaska and southeastern Bering Sea from May to October, with some movement through 

the Aleutian passes into and out of the Bering Sea (Reeves et al. 1985). Fin whales were 

observed and taken by Japanese and Soviet whalers off eastern Kamchatka and Cape 

Navarin, both north and south of the eastern Aleutians, and in the northern Bering and 
July 2010 I-12 NMFS

southern Chukchi Seas (Berzin and Rovnin 1966; Nasu 1974). They were also taken by 

whalers off central California throughout the year (Clapham et al. 1997). In general, 

however, the numbers reached a peak in late May or early June, and then fell off until 

another influx occurred later in the summer (Rice 1974). Rice (1974) also reported that 

several fin whales tagged in the winter (November to January) off southern California 

were killed in the summer (May to July) off central California, Oregon, British Columbia, 

and in the Gulf of Alaska. A radio-tagged fin whale remained in Prince William Sound 

for almost the entire month of June and showed a strong preference for a small area 

within the Sound (Watkins et al. 1981). 

Fin whales have been observed feeding in Hawaiian waters during mid-May (Balcomb 

1987; Shallenberger 1981), and their sounds have been recorded there during the autumn 

and winter (Thompson and Friedl 1982; Northrop et al. 1968; Shallenberger 1981). 

Several winter sightings were made in recent years off the island of Kauai (Mobley et al.

1996; M. Newcomer, pers. comm., September 1998), and sightings were made in 

November northwest of the main Hawaiian Islands (Barlow et al. 2004). Thompson and 

Friedl (1982) and Northrup et al. (1968) suggested that fin whales migrate into Hawaiian 

waters mainly in fall and winter, based on acoustic recordings off Oahu and Midway 

Islands. McDonald and Fox (1999) reported calling fin whales about 16 km off the north 

shore of Oahu, based on passive acoustic recordings. Fin whales have also been observed 

year-round off central and southern California, with peak numbers in summer and fall 

(Dohl et al. 1983; Barlow 1995; Forney et al. 1995), in summer off Oregon (Green et al.

1992), and in summer and fall in the Gulf of Alaska (including Shelikof Strait), and the 

southeastern Bering Sea (Leatherwood et al. 1986; Brueggeman et al. 1990) Their 

regular summer occurrence has also been noted in recent years around the Pribilof Islands 

in the northern Bering Sea (Baretta and Hunt 1994). 

Data suggest that, as in the North Atlantic, the migratory behavior of fin whales in the 

eastern North Pacific is complex: whales can occur in any one season at many different 

latitudes, perhaps depending on their age or reproductive state as well as their “stock”

affinity. Movements can be either inshore/offshore or north/south. Some individuals 

remain at high latitudes through the winter (Berzin and Rovnin 1966). Japanese marking 

data suggest some differences in the movements of immature and mature whales, the 

latter tending to be more strongly migratory in the Aleutians area (Nasu 1974). Fin whale 

concentrations in the northern North Pacific and Bering Sea generally form along frontal 

boundaries, or mixing zones between coastal and oceanic waters, which themselves 

correspond roughly to the 200 m isobath (shelf edge) (Nasu 1974).

Although some fin whales apparently are present in the Gulf of California year-round, 

there is a marked increase in their numbers in the winter and spring (Tershy et al. 1990). 

Relatively large fin whale concentrations have been observed in the northern Gulf of 

California (Silber et al. 1994). Their migration into the mid- and lower Gulf is thought to 

be related to the high seasonal abundance of krill (Tershy 1992). 
July 2010 I-13 NMFS

E.3 Feeding and Prey Selection 

In the North Pacific overall, fin whales apparently prefer euphausiids (mainly Euphausia 

pacifica, Thysanoessa longipes, T. spinifera, and T. inermis) and large copepods (mainly 

Calanus cristatus), followed by schooling fish such as herring, walleye pollock 

(Theragra chalcogramma), and capelin (Nemoto 1970; Kawamura 1982). 

Fin whales killed off central California in the early twentieth century were described as 

having either “plankton” (assumed to have been mainly or entirely euphausiids) or 

“sardines” (assumed to have been anchovies, Engraulis mordax) in their stomachs 

(Clapham et al. 1997). A larger sample of fin whales taken off California in the 1950s 

and 1960s were feeding mainly on krill, mostly Euphausia pacifica , with only about 

10% of the individuals having anchovies in their stomachs (Rice 1963). 

Fin whales in the Gulf of California prey mainly on zooplankton such as Nyctiphanes

simplex (Tershy 1992). 

E.4 Interspecific Competition 

See summary in section D.4. In the Gulf of California where fin and Bryde’s whales are 

sympatric, the two species apparently specialize on different prey types. Bryde’s whales 

feed mainly on small pelagic fishes, and fin whales feed on krill (Tershy 1992). 

E.5 Reproduction 

The reproductive biology of fin whales in the North Pacific is assumed to be broadly 

similar to that of fin whales in the North Atlantic (see Section D.5). However, Ohsumi’s 

(1986) analysis of age at sexual maturity for a large sample of fin whales killed in the 

eastern North Pacific from the mid-1950s to 1975 showed a marked decline with time. 

According to Ohsumi, the average age at attainment of sexual maturity declined from 12 

to 6 years in females and from 11 to 4 years in males. This change was interpreted by 

Ohsumi as a density-dependent response to heavy exploitation of the population. 

E.6 Natural Mortality 

Injury or suffocation from ice entrapment is not known to be a factor in the natural 

mortality of fin whales in the North Pacific as it is in the western North Atlantic (see 

Section D.6). Although killer whales presumably attack fin whales at least occasionally, 

there is little evidence of such predation from the North Pacific (Tomilin 1967). Shark 

attacks presumably occur on young or sick fin whales, although such events have not 

been documented. 

E.7 Abundance and Trends 

The total North Pacific fin whale population before whaling began, has been estimated at 

42,000–45,000, based on catch data and a population model (Ohsumi and Wada 1974; 

Omura and Ohsumi 1974). Of this, the “American population” (i.e., the component 
July 2010 I-14 NMFS

centered in waters east of 180° W longitude) was estimated to be 25,000–27,000. Based 

on sighting and CPUE data and a population model, the same authors estimated that there 

were 8,000–11,000 fin whales in the eastern North Pacific in 1973 (Ohsumi and Wada 

1974). From a crude analysis of catch statistics and whaling effort, Rice (1974) 

concluded that the population of fin whales in the eastern North Pacific declined by more 

than half, between 1958 and 1970, from about 20,000 to 9,000 “recruited animals” (i.e.,

individuals longer than the minimum length limit of 50 ft). Chapman (1976) concluded 

that the “American stock” had declined to about 38% and the “Asian stock” to 36% 

below their MSY levels (16,000 and 11,000, respectively) by 1975. As pointed out by 

Barlow (1994), citing IWC (1989b), CPUE techniques for estimating abundance are not 

certain, therefore, the absolute values of the cited abundance estimates should not be 

relied upon. 

Shipboard sighting surveys in the summer and autumn of 1991, 1993, 1996, and 2001 

produced estimates of 1,600–3,200 fin whales off California and 280–380 fin whales off 

Oregon and Washington (Barlow 2003). The most recent estimate for 

California/Oregon/Washington is 2,636 (CV = 0.15), which is the geometric mean of the 

line transect estimate from summer/autumn ship surveys conducted in 2001 (Barlow and 

Forney 2007) and 2005 (Forney 2007). The minimum estimate for the 

California/Oregon/Washington stock, as defined in the U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal 

Stock Assessments: 2008, is about 2,316 (Carretta et al. 2009). An increasing trend 

between1979/80 and 1993 was suggested by the available survey data, but it was not 

statistically significant (Barlow et al. 1997). 

An aerial survey of the former Akutan whaling grounds around the eastern Aleutians in 

1984 produced no sightings of fin whales (Stewart et al. 1987). The absence of sightings 

in this area of former high abundance (at least 2,500 fin whales were taken there between 

1912 and 1939 even though whaling was not conducted in five of these years; Reeves et 

al. 1985) was interpreted to mean that the local density of fin whales remained far below 

that of the early twentieth century (Stewart et al. 1987). A ship cruise south of the 

Aleutians in August 1994 also failed to find appreciable numbers of fin whales (Forney 

and Brownell 1996). However, large numbers of fin whales were seen in the Gulf of 

Alaska during the Structure of Populations, Levels of Abundance and Status of 

Humpback whales surveys (SPLASH) in 2004 (Jay Barlow, pers, comm., 2006). Seabird 

surveys near the Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea indicated a substantial increase in the 

local abundance of fin whales between 1975–1978 and 1987–1989 (Baretta and Hunt 

1994).

Zerbini et al. (2006) estimated rates of increase of fin whales in coastal waters south of 

the Alaska Peninsula (Kodiak and Shumagin Islands). An annual increase of 4.8% (95% 

CI: 4.1–5.4%) was estimated for the period 1987–2003. This estimate is the first 

available for North Pacific fin whales and is consistent with other estimates of population 

growth rates of large whales. It should be used with caution, however, due to 

uncertainties in the initial population estimate for the first trend year (1987) and due to 

uncertainties about the population structure of the fin whales in the area. Also, the study 

represented only a small fraction of the range of the northeast Pacific stock.
July 2010 I-15 NMFS

F. Life History – Southern Hemisphere

F.1 Population Structure

A separate subspecies (B. p. quoyi; Fischer 1829) is recognized in the Southern 

Hemisphere and is commonly called the Antarctic fin whale. Antarctic fin whales are 

approximately 3 m longer than their Northern Hemisphere counterparts. The IWC has 

divided the Southern Hemisphere into six baleen whale stock areas (Donovan 1991). 

These areas may loosely correspond to fin whale stocks, but there are still insufficient 

distributional data on where these whales breed to validate this designation (IWC 1992b). 

All southern ocean fin whales currently belong to the subspecies B. p. quoyi. However, 

Clarke (2004) presented evidence that fin whales from mid-latitudes in the Southern 

Hemisphere are smaller and darker in coloration, and he proposed they be recognized as a 

different subspecies, B. p. patachonica (Burmeister 1865). In effect, these pygmy fin 

whales are comparable to the pygmy blue whale subspecies (B. musculus brevicauda), 

segregated during the austral summer from their sister subspecies further south. 

F.2 Distribution and Habitat Use 

Antarctic fin whales migrate seasonally from relatively high-latitude Antarctic feeding 

areas in the summer, to relatively low-latitude breeding and calving areas in winter. 

Arrival time on the summer feeding areas may differ according to sexual class, with 

pregnant females arriving earlier in the season than other whales (Mackintosh 1965). The 

location of winter breeding areas is still uncertain. These whales tend to migrate in the 

open ocean, and therefore migration routes and the location of wintering areas are 

difficult to determine.

F.3 Feeding and Prey Selection

Antarctic fin whales feed on krill, Euphausia superba, which occurs in dense nearsurface schools (Nemoto 1959). However, off the coast of Chile, fin whales are known to 

feed on the euphasiid E. mucronata (Antezana 1970; Perez et al. 2006).

F.4 Interspecific Competition

There is some speculation, because of the sharing of the Antarctic krill resource between 

both whale and nonwhale predators (e.g., birds), that interspecific competition may be a 

critical factor in the biology of Southern Hemisphere fin whales (IWC 1992a). However, 

there is no direct information on how such ecosystem level interactions may or may not 

affect the status of baleen whales (Kawamura 1994; Clapham and Brownell 1996). 

Murphy et al. (1988) and Fraser et al. (1992) suggest that competition among whales and 

other small krill predators in the Antarctic ecosystem is relatively low. 

F.5 Reproduction 

The reproductive biology of fin whales in the Southern Hemisphere is assumed to be 

broadly similar to that of fin whales in the North Atlantic (see Section D.5). It should be 
July 2010 I-16 NMFS

noted, however, that the question of whether whaling data from the Southern Hemisphere 

do or do not demonstrate density-dependent responses in the reproductive cycle of fin 

whales, is controversial (Mizroch and York 1984; Sampson 1989).

F.6 Natural Mortality

Little is known about the natural causes of mortality of fin whales in the Southern 

Hemisphere. Disease presumably plays a major role in natural mortality, and shark 

attacks on weak or young individuals are probably common, but have not been 

documented. Fin whales have been observed near the pack ice off of Antarctica and in 

other areas of complex bathymetry; however, injury or suffocation from ice entrapment is 

not known to be a factor in the natural mortality of fin whales in the Southern 

Hemisphere. Although killer whales presumably attack fin whales at least occasionally, 

there is no published literature documenting such predation in the Southern Hemisphere.

F.7 Abundance and Trends 

From 1904 to 1975, there were 703,693 fin whales taken in Antarctic whaling operations 

(IWC 1990). Whaling in the Southern Hemisphere originally targeted humpback whales, 

but by 1913, this target species became rare, and the catch of fin and blue whales began 

to increase (Mizroch et al. 1984b). From 1911 to 1924, there were 2,000–5,000 fin 

whales taken per year. After the introduction of factory whaling ships in 1925, the 

number of whales taken per year increased substantially. From 1931 to 1972, 

approximately 511,574 fin whales were caught (Kawamura 1994). In 1937 alone, over 

28,000 fin whales were taken. From 1953 to 1961, the number of fin whales taken per 

year continued to average around 25,000. In 1962, sei whale catches began to increase as 

fin whales became scarce. By 1974, less than 1,000 fin whales were being caught per 

year. The IWC prohibited the taking of fin whales from the Southern Hemisphere in 

1976. 

Recently released Soviet whaling records indicate a discrepancy between reported and 

actual fin whale catch numbers by the Soviets in southern waters between 1947 and 1980 

(Zemsky et al. 1995). The USSR previously reported 52,931 whales caught, whereas the 

new data indicates that only 41,984 were taken. Catches of fin whales were overreported to hide the illegal catches of other species like pygmy blue, humpback, and right 

whales. 

The most current (1979) population estimate is 85,200 (no CV) based on the history of 

catches and trends in CPUE (IWC 1979). In addition, 15,178 whales (no CV given and 

uncorrected for probability of sighting) were estimated to occur within surveyed areas 

south of 30°S latitude by combining data from Japan Scouting Vessels and 

IWC/International Decade of Cetacean Research 1978–88 ship-based estimated to 

contain 400,000 fin whales (IWC 1989). Both the current abundance estimate and 

historical estimates should be considered as poor estimates because CPUE-based 

abundance estimates are no longer accepted in IWC stock assessments and the historical 

back calculation was based on historical catches known to be seriously flawed. There are 

no currently accepted estimates of trends in abundance. 
July 2010 I-17 NMFS

Fin whales were a target species for Japanese Antarctic Special Permit whaling for the 

2005/2006 and 2006/2007 seasons at 10 fin whales/year. The proposal for the following

12 years includes 50 fin whales/year; despite this higher target, Japan took zero fin 

whales in the 2007/2008 season and one in the 2008/2009 season.

G. Threats 

A threat is defined as any factor that could represent an impediment to recovery. In this 

recovery plan all threats, those that are natural and those that are human-related, are 

considered. The rankings were developed relative to each other, and put into one of four 

categories: high, medium, low, and unknown (further research is needed to determine 

whether it falls into high, medium, or low). Relative Impact to Recovery, which is 

defined in the last column in the threats table (Table 1) and at the end of each subsection, 

is a combination of the severity (magnitude, scope, and relative frequency with which the 

threat is expected to occur) and uncertainty of information for each. There are different 

types of uncertainty relating to threats. For example, there may be uncertainty about the 

extent to which something affects fin whales (e.g., ship strikes); whether a factor affects 

fin whales negatively or positively (e.g., climate change); or how a factor affects fin 

whales (e.g., anthropogenic noise). Therefore, how severity and uncertainty interact (to 

produce Relative Impact to Recovery ranking) is unique by situation. Threats to fin 

whales are summarized in Table 1.

G.1 Fishery Interactions – LOW

Fin whales may break through or carry away fishing gear. Whales carrying gear may die 

at a later time due to trailing fishing gear, become debilitated or seriously injured, or have 

normal functions impaired, but with no evidence of the incident recorded. More 

information is needed to evaluate the serious injury and mortality of fin whales from 

entanglement. Fin whales are occasionally killed or injured by inshore fishing gear (e.g.,

gillnets and lobster lines) off of eastern Canada and the east coast of the United States 

(Read 1994; Lien 1994; Waring et al. 1997). Fin whales apparently are entangled in 

inshore fishing gear in the North Pacific, but only very rarely (Barlow et al. 1994, 1997).

G.1.1 Global

Globally, the ranking of the threat posed by the incidental capture of animals by gillnet, 

trawl, pot/trap, sink gillnet, and purse seine fishing practices to fin whale recovery was 

based on the assertion that while the uncertainty of information is medium, the severity of 

this threat is low, and the overall impact to the recovery of fin whale populations is 

considered low (Table 1). Rankings of these threats for some populations are also shown 

in the table and discussed below. 
July 2010 I-18 NMFS

Western North Atlantic Ocean

In the Western North Atlantic2

, there were 4 confirmed entanglements of fin whales from 

2002 to 2006; two resulted in mortalities and two resulted in serious injury (Waring et al.

2009). In addition to those mentioned above, there were four additional records of 

entanglement within the period that either lacked substantial evidence to make a serious 

injury determination or did not provide the detail necessary to determine if an 

entanglement had been a contributing factor in the mortality (Waring et al. 2009). The 

ranking of the threat posed by the incidental capture of animals in the western North 

Atlantic and Nova Scotia from lobster and mixed species pot/trap and sink gillnet fishing 

practices to fin whale recovery was based on the assertion that there is a low uncertainty 

with regard to impacts to individual animals and the impact to the recovery of fin whale 

populations due to these fishing practices is considered low (Table 1). 

U.S. Pacific Ocean

In the North Pacific, Heyning and Lewis (1990) made a crude estimate of about 73 

rorquals killed per year in the southern California offshore drift gillnet fishery during the 

1980s. Some of these may have been fin whales and some of them sei whales. Some 

balaenopterids, particularly fin whales, may also be taken in the drift gillnet fisheries 

targeting sharks and swordfish along the Pacific coast of Baja California, Mexico 

(Barlow et al. 1997) and from the California/Oregon/Washington stock. While the 

California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery killed/seriously injured fin whales, since the 

leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) conservation area was implemented in 

2001 off central California and Oregon (66 FR 44549), no fin whales have been observed 

taken in this fishery. Based on the most recent observer data, the average fin whale 

bycatch in the offshore drift gillnet fishery was approximately zero per year from 2002–

2006 (Carretta et al. 2009) and between 1994 and 2002, no interactions with fin whales 

were observed in the Hawaii-based longline fishery (Forney 2004). Between 2002 and 

2006, there was one observed incidental mortality of a fin whale in the Bering 

Sea/Aleutian Islands pollock trawl (Angliss and Allen 2009). The ranking of the threat 

posed by the incidental capture of animals off of California/Oregon/Washington from 

gillnet and from the Northeast Pacific from the pollock trawl fishing practices to fin 

whale recovery was based on the assertion that there is a low uncertainty with regard to 

impacts to individual animals and the impact to the recovery of fin whale populations due 

to these fishing practices is considered low (Table 1). In Hawaii, the ranking of the threat 

posed by the incidental capture of animals from the longline and pot/trap fisheries was 

also based on the assertion that there is a low uncertainty with regard to impacts to 

individual animals and the impact to the recovery of fin whale populations due to these 

fishing practices is considered low (Table 1). However, Heyning and Lewis (1990) 

suggested that most whales killed by offshore fishing gear do not drift close enough to 

shore to strand on beaches or be detected floating in the nearshore corridor, where most 

whale watching and other types of boat traffic occur. Thus, the small amount of 

 2 The IWC has proposed stock boundaries for North Atlantic fin whales of the eastern United States, Nova 

Scotia, and the southeastern coast of Newfoundland and are believed to constitute a single stock, however, 

whether the current stock boundaries define biologically isolated units has long been uncertain (Waring et 

al. 2009). 
July 2010 I-19 NMFS

documentation should not be interpreted to mean that entanglement in fishing gear is an 

insignificant cause of mortality. 

Southern Hemisphere

It is not known if fin whales interact with fisheries in the Southern Hemisphere. 

However, the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

(CCAMLR) was established chiefly as a result of concerns that increasing krill catches in 

the Southern Ocean could have serious effects on the population of krill. Krill is a major 

and vital part of the Antarctic food web and so disturbances to populations could have 

major and far-reaching effects on the whole ecosystem. Typically, krill is fished using 

trawl gear. In addition to krill fishing, the Patagonia toothfish is also a target species for 

fisheries in Antarctica and those fisheries likely use hooks and lines or demersal longline 

gear for their catch. It is assumed, based on the types of fisheries and fishing gear that 

could be used in the Southern Hemisphere, interactions are possible and the small amount 

of documentation should not be interpreted to mean that entanglement in fishing gear is 

an insignificant cause of mortality. The impact to the recovery of fin whale populations 

due to these fishing practices is considered low (Table 1). 

G.2 Anthropogenic Noise – UNKNOWN

Humans have introduced sound intentionally and unintentionally into the marine 

environment for underwater communication, navigation, and research. Noise exposure 

can result in a multitude of impacts, ranging from those causing little or no impact to 

those being potentially severe, depending on level and on various other factors. 

Response to noise varies by many factors, including the type and characteristics of the 

noise source, distance between the source and the receptor, characteristics of the animal 

(e.g., hearing sensitivity, behavioral context, age, sex, and previous experience with 

sound source) and time of the day or season. Noise may be intermittent or continuous, 

steady or impulsive, and may be generated by stationary or transient sources. As one of 

the potential stressors to marine mammal populations, noise may seriously disrupt marine 

mammal communication, navigational ability, and social patterns. Many marine 

mammals use sound to communicate, navigate, locate prey, and sense their environment. 

Both anthropogenic and natural sounds may cause interference with these functions. 

The effects of anthropogenic noise are difficult to ascertain and research on this topic is 

ongoing. The possible impacts of the various sources of anthropogenic noise, described 

below, have not all been well studied on fin whales. The threat occurs at an unknown 

severity and there is a high level of uncertainty associated with the evidence described 

below. Thus, the relative impact of anthropogenic noise to the recovery of fin whales due 

to anthropogenic noise is ranked as unknown (Table 1).

Types of Noise: Ambient and Discrete Sources

Ambient or background noise levels are an important consideration in assessing acoustic 

impacts. Natural (e.g., wind, biologics) and anthropogenic sources contribute 

significantly to ambient noise levels as a whole (i.e., composite of all sources together)

(Wenz 1962). These sound sources can occur locally or contribute from afar, like distant 
July 2010 I-20 NMFS

shipping (Curtis et al. 1999; Andrew et al. 2002; McDonald et al. 2006; McDonald et al.

2008). The ambient noise level of an environment can be quite complicated and vary 

from location to location (deep versus shallow water), from day to day, within a day, 

and/or from season to season. For example, the amount of noise from shipping can be 

correlated to amount of traffic (e.g., major shipping lanes are louder than other areas 

outside shipping lanes; Hatch et al. 2008). Furthermore, soniferous fish species have a 

seasonal or diel pattern to their vocalizations (e.g., Rountree et al. 2006; Śirović et al. 

2009). In addition to describing the ambient acoustic environment, sound can be 

described as discrete sources (e.g., individual seismic vessel, individual tactical sonar, 

individual ships). More information on sound produced by discrete sources is provided 

later in this section.

Hearing Damage or Impairment

As mentioned previously, there are no direct measurements of the hearing abilities of 

baleen whales. Baleen whale calls, especially fin whale calls, are predominantly at low 

frequencies, mainly below 1 kHz (Richardson et al. 1995), and their hearing is 

presumably good at corresponding frequencies. Direct changes in hearing ability from 

noise exposure have only been measured in a laboratory on a limited number of species 

(odontocete or pinniped species only) and individuals within those species (see Southall 

et al. 2007 for a review). 

The potential effects of continuous or impulse noise sources on fin whales are of 

particular concern. Intense sound transmissions in the marine environment (i.e., 

explosives) may impact whales by causing damage to body tissue or gross damage to 

ears, causing a permanent threshold shift (PTS) or a temporary threshold shift (TTS) if 

the animal is in close range of a sound source or exposed for a long duration. 

Masking

An animal’s detection threshold may be masked by noise that is at frequencies similar to 

those of biologically important signals, such as mating calls. Masking, obscuring of 

sounds of interest by interfering sounds (generally at similar frequencies), occurs when 

noise interferes with a marine animal’s ability to hear a sound of interest. Marine 

mammals use acoustic signals for a variety of purposes, which differ among species, but 

include communication between individuals, navigation, foraging, reproduction, and 

learning about their environment (Erbe and Farmer 2000; Tyack 2000). “Auditory 

Interference,” or masking, generally occurs when the interfering noise is louder than, and 

of a similar frequency to, the auditory signal received by the animal. Masking these 

acoustic signals can disturb the behavior of individual animals, groups of animals, or 

entire populations. 

The size of this “zone of masking” of a marine mammal is highly variable, and depends 

on many factors that affect the received levels of the background noise and the sound 

signal (Richardson et al. 1995; Foote et al. 2004). Masking is influenced by the amount 

of time that the noise is present, as well as the spectral characteristics of the noise source 

(i.e., overlap in time, space, and frequency characteristics between noise and receiver). 

There are still many uncertainties regarding how masking affects marine mammals. For 
July 2010 I-21 NMFS

example, it is not known how loud acoustic signals must be for animals to recognize or 

respond to another animal’s vocalizations (National Research Council 2003). It is also 

unknown if animals listen/respond to all the sounds they can hear or can be selective 

about what they will listen to. Richardson et al. (1995) argued that the maximum radius 

of influence of an industrial noise (including broadband low frequency sound 

transmission) on a marine mammal is the distance from the source to the point at which 

the noise can barely be heard. This range is determined by the hearing sensitivity of the 

animal and/or the background noise level present. Masking of industrial noise is likely to 

affect some species’ ability to detect communication calls and natural sounds (i.e., surf 

noise, prey noise, etc.; Richardson et al. 1995).

Animals may try to minimize masking by changing their behavior. These behavior 

changes may include producing more calls, longer calls, or shifting the frequency of the 

calls. For example, it has been demonstrated that mysticetes, like the North Atlantic right 

whale (Parks et al. 2007b; Parks et al. 2009) and blue whale (Di Iorio and Clark 2009) 

alter their vocalizations (call parameters or timing of calls) in response to background 

noise levels. There are still many uncertainties regarding how masking affects marine 

mammals, including fin whales. The potential impacts that masking may have on 

individual survival, the behaviors marine mammals may exhibit to avoid masking, and 

the energetic costs of changing behavior to reduce masking, are poorly understood. 

Behavioral Response

Behavioral reactions to noise can vary not only across species and individuals but also for 

a given individual, depending on previous experience with a sound source, hearing 

sensitivity, sex, age, reproductive status, geographic location, season, health, social 

behavior, or context. Severity of responses can also vary depending on characteristics 

associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is moving or stationary, number of 

sound sources) or the potential of source and individuals co-occurring temporally and 

spatially (e.g., how close to shore, region where animals may be unable to avoid 

exposure, propagation characteristics of the area either enhancing or reducing exposure) 

(Richardson et al. 1995; National Research Council 2003, 2005). As one of the potential 

stressors to marine mammal populations, noise and acoustic influences could disrupt 

marine mammal communication, navigational ability, and social patterns. 

Most observations of behavioral responses of marine mammals to the sounds produced 

have been limited to short-term behavioral responses, which included the cessation of 

feeding, resting, or social interactions. Relationships between specific sound sources, or 

anthropogenic sound in general, and the responses of marine mammals to those sources 

are still subject to scientific investigation, but no clear patterns have emerged (see 

Southall et al. 2007 for a review). Animals may adapt to alter vocalizations, but acute

changes or slight modifications of normal vocalizing behavior or other behaviors for a 

period of time, could have efficiency and energetic consequences. Sensitization 

(increased behavioral or physiological responsiveness over time) to noise could also 

exacerbate other effects, and habituation (decreased behavioral responsiveness over time) 

to chronic noise could cause animals to remain close to noise sources. Sound 

transmissions could also displace animals from areas for a short or long time period. 
July 2010 I-22 NMFS

Noise may also reduce the availability of prey, or increase vulnerability to other hazards, 

such as fishing gear, predation, etc. (Richardson et al. 1995). 

It is important to recognize the difficulty of measuring behavioral responses in freeranging whales. The cumulative effects of habitat degradation are difficult to define and 

almost impossible to evaluate. Additionally, there is a lack of information on how shortterm behavioral responses to noise translate into long-term or population-level effects 

(Wartzok et al. 2004; NRC 2003, 2005). Responses of fin whales to anthropogenic 

sounds probably depend on the age and sex of animals being exposed, as well as other 

factors. There is evidence that many individuals respond to certain sound sources, 

provided the received level is high enough to evoke a response, while other individuals 

do not. Like other marine mammals, behavioral responses of fin whales to anthropogenic 

sounds may be highly variable and may not result in the death or injury of individual 

whales or result in reductions in the fitness of individuals involved. For more specific 

information on potential impacts of noise associated with military activities, oil and gas 

exploration, and research, see sections below. 

G.2.1 Ship Noise – UNKNOWN 

Sound emitted from large vessels, particularly in the course of transit, is the principal 

source of noise in the ocean today, primarily due to the properties of sound emitted by 

cargo vessels. Ship propulsion and electricity generation engines, engine gearing, 

compressors, bilge and ballast pumps, as well as hydrodynamic flow surrounding a ship’s 

hull and any hull protrusions and vessel speed contribute to a large vessels’ noise 

emission into the marine environment. Prop-driven vessels also generate noise through 

cavitations, which accounts for approximately 85% or more of the noise emitted by a 

large vessel. Larger vessels tend to generate lower frequency sounds and are louder 

(Polefka 2004). 

Surface shipping is the most widespread source of anthropogenic, low frequency (0 to 

1,000 Hz) noise in the oceans (Simmonds and Hutchinson 1996). Ross (1976) estimated 

that between 1950 and 1975, shipping had caused a rise in ambient noise levels of 10 dB. 

He predicted that this would increase by another 5 dB by the beginning of the 21st

century. The National Research Council (2003) estimated that the background ocean 

noise level at 100 Hz has been increasing by about 1.5 dB per decade since the advent of 

propeller-driven ships and others have estimated that the increase in background ocean 

noise is as much as 3 dB per decade in the Pacific (Andrew et al. 2002; McDonald et al.

2006, 2008). Clark et al. (2009) recently attempted to quantify the effects of masking on 

mysticetes, including fin whales, exposed to noise from ships (change in communication 

space). At this point, the severity of the threat of ship noise to fin whales is unknown, 

and uncertainty of the threat is high. Therefore, the relative impact to recovery of fin

whales due to this threat is ranked as unknown (Table 1). 

G.2.2 Oil and Gas Exploration – UNKNOWN 

Drilling for oil and gas generally produces low-frequency sounds with strong tonal 

components. There are few data on the noise from conventional drilling platforms. 
July 2010 I-23 NMFS

Recorded noise from an early study of one drilling platform and three combined drilling 

production platforms found that noise was so weak it was almost not detectable alongside 

the platform at Beaufort scale sea states of three or above. The strongest tones were at 

very low frequencies near 5 Hz (Richardson et al. 1995). 

Oil and gas exploration, including seismic surveys, typically operate with marine 

mammal observers as part of required mitigation measures detailed in permits issued for 

the activity. There have been no reported seismic-related or industry ship-related 

mortalities or injuries to fin whales in areas where marine mammal observers are present. 

However, the severity of this threat is unknown and the uncertainty of this threat is high. 

Therefore, the relative impact to recovery of fin whales due to this threat is ranked as 

unknown (Table 1).

A variety of devices and technologies exist which introduce energy into the water for 

purposes of geophysical research, bottom profiling, and depth determination. They are 

often characterized as high-resolution or low-resolution systems. Low-resolution systems 

such as 2-D and 3-D seismic surveys put appreciable sound energy into the water and 

operate at low frequencies, which overlap those used by baleen whales. Thus lowresolution systems have more potential to affect fin whales when used in open water. All 

these systems require a vessel platform (or several vessels) which themselves may impact 

whales. Baleen whales are known to detect the low-frequency sound pulses emitted by 

airguns and have been observed reacting to seismic vessels (e.g., McCauley et al. 2000; 

Stone 2003). However, in a study off Oregon, fin whales continued to produce their 

normal sounds despite the presence of seismic air gun pulses (McDonald et al. 1995). 

Seismic surveys have also occurred in areas of krill abundance, where fin whales have 

occasionally been seen feeding in Australia (Department of the Environment and 

Heritage 2005). The results of collaborative research conducted by several scientists 

from a variety of nations and the Cornell Lab of Ornithology from 1999–2000 in the Sea 

of Cortez, suggest that the long, low-frequency songs of male fin whales function to 

attract females to dense patches of food, where mating then occurs. The findings of that 

study helped to focus growing concern over the potential effects of human-produced 

underwater noise on large whales because if whales rely on long-distance acoustic signals 

to find each other for mating, the recovery rate of fin whale populations from past 

exploitation could be impeded by low-frequency sounds generated by human activities 

such as seismic surveys (http://www.birds.cornell.edu/brp/research/fin-whales-in-the-seaof-cortez).

During exploration, noise is also produced by supply vessels and low-flying aircraft, 

construction work, and dredging. The transmission of aircraft sound to cetaceans or other 

marine mammals while they are in the water is influenced by the animal’s depth, the 

altitude, aspect, and strength of the noise coming from the aircraft. Generally, the greater 

the altitude of the aircraft, the lower the sound level received underwater. 
July 2010 I-24 NMFS

G.2.3 Coastal Development – LOW

Anthropogenic noise associated with construction (e.g., pile driving, blasting, or 

explosives) has the potential to affect fin whales. In-water construction activities, such as 

pile driving and dredging, can produce sound levels sufficient to disturb marine mammals 

under certain conditions. The majority of the sound energy associated with both pile 

driving and dredging is in the low frequency range (<1,000 Hz) (Illingworth and Rodkin, 

Inc. 2001, 2007; Reyff et al. 2002, Reyff 2003). Several techniques have been adopted to 

reduce the sound pressure levels to minimize impacts to marine mammals. Because fin 

whales would only be affected when close to shore, it is assumed that effects would be 

low in the life cycle of the whale. However, if coastal development occurred in seasonal 

areas or migration routes where animals concentrate, individuals in the area could be 

compromised. Scheduling in-water construction activities to avoid those times when 

whales may be present would likely minimize the disturbance. 

In recent years, many Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities have been proposed 

worldwide. The noise generated from construction and operation activities could affect 

marine mammals located within the vicinity of the project site. In addition, any increase 

in vessel traffic resulting from construction or operation of an LNG facility could 

negatively impact fin whales in or moving through the area. For more information on 

vessel impacts, see section G.3

Based on this information, the threat occurs at a low severity and there is a medium level 

of uncertainty. Thus, the relative impact to recovery of fin whales due to noise associated 

with coastal development is ranked as low (Table 1).

G.2.4 Military Sonar and Explosives – UNKNOWN

Military training activities by the U.S. Navy and the navies of other countries regularly 

occur in the Atlantic (including the Gulf of Mexico, Mediterranean Sea), Indian, and 

Pacific Oceans. These activities include anti-submarine warfare, surface warfare, antisurface, mine warfare exercises, missile exercises, sinking exercises, and aerial combat 

exercises. In addition to these training activities, the U.S. Navy conducts ship shock 

trials, which involve detonations of high explosive charges, and operates several 

permanent and temporary (portable) undersea warfare training ranges that employ 

acoustic sensors.

As part of its suite of training activities, the U.S. Navy employs low-frequency, midfrequency, and high-frequency active sonar systems. The primary low-frequency sonar 

active sonar system is the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency 

Active (SURTASS LFA) sonar system, which produces loud signals in the 100–500 Hz 

range, and has operated in the western and central Pacific Ocean. The U.S. Navy 

employs several mid-frequency sonar systems that range from large systems mounted on 

the hulls of ships (e.g., AN/SQS-53 and -56), to smaller systems that are deployed from

helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, sonobuoys, and torpedoes. These sonar systems can 
July 2010 I-25 NMFS

produce loud sounds at frequencies of between 1 and 10 k Hz and higher (Evans and 

England 2001; U.S. Department of the Navy 2008).

The effect of active sonar on fin whales has not been studied extensively and remains 

uncertain; however, active sonar associated with naval training activities might adversely 

affect fin whales in several different ways. First, low-frequency sonar transmissions that 

overlap with fin whale vocalizations might mask communication between whales which 

would affect the social ecology and social interactions of fin whale groups. Second, 

overlap between fin whale hearing and low- and mid-frequency active sonar, sonar 

transmissions might result in noise-induced losses of hearing sensitivity or behavioral 

disturbance as fin whales avoid or evade sonar transmissions. Nevertheless, studies of 

the effects of SURTASS LFA sonar on foraging blue and fin whales in California did not 

detect biologically significant responses to the LFA sonar in fin whales (U.S. Department 

of the Navy 2007). 

Underwater detonations associated with military training activities range from large high 

explosives such as those associated sinking exercises or ship shock trials, to missile 

exercises, gunnery exercises, mine warfare, disposal of unexploded ordnance, and 

grenades. Detonations produce shock waves and sound fields of varying size. Animals 

that occur close to a large detonation might be killed or seriously injured; animals that are 

further away might suffer lesser injury (i.e., tympanic membrane rupture, or slight to 

extensive lung injury); while animals that are even further away might experience 

physiological stress responses or behavioral disturbance whose severity depends on their 

distance from the detonation.

Various measures are being developed to prevent fin whales from being exposed to active 

sonar transmissions or underwater detonations. For example, the SURTASS LFA sonar 

system employs a high-frequency active sonar that allows the U.S. Navy to detect large 

and most small cetaceans and shut down sonar transmissions until whales have moved 

away from the sonar source; tests of this sonar system suggest that it detects more than 96 

percent of the whales that occur within 1 kilometer of the sonar system. As another 

example, the suite of monitoring protocols the U.S. Navy developed during the ship 

shock trial on the U.S.S. Winston Churchill were effective at preventing fin whales, other 

cetaceans, and sea turtles from being exposed to the shock wave associated with those 

detonations. Other measures are being developed and tested to reduce the probability of 

exposing fin whales and other cetaceans to active sonar transmissions and shock waves of 

underwater detonations.

The relatively large spatial scale, frequency, duration, and diverse nature of these training 

activities in areas in which fin whales also occur suggests that these activities have the 

potential to adversely affect fin whales. However, the severity of the effect of military 

sonar and detonations on fin whales and the effectiveness of measures that avoid any 

adverse effects remains largely unknown and the uncertainty of our knowledge is high. 

Therefore, the relative impact to recovery of fin whales due to this threat is ranked as 

unknown (Table 1).
July 2010 I-26 NMFS

G.3 Vessel Interactions

G.3.1 Ship Strikes – UNKNOWN BUT POTENTIALLY HIGH

Laist et al. (2001), Jensen and Silber (2004), Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007), and Van 

Waerebeek and Leaper (2008) compiled information available worldwide regarding 

documented collisions between ships and large whales. Of the 292 ship strike records 

compiled by Jensen and Silber (2004), 75 of the records (26%) indicated that fin whales 

had been struck. In some areas studied, one-third of all fin whale strandings appeared to 

involve ship strikes. 

From 1993–2002, a minimum of 15 fin whales were struck and killed by ships off the 

east coast of the U.S. (Jensen and Silber 2004). During the same time frame, a minimum 

of five were killed off the west coast of the U.S., one was killed off the Gulf Coast, one 

was hit but appeared uninjured in Alaska and 12 were hit in foreign waters (Canada, UK, 

France and Italy) (Jensen and Silber 2004). From January 2002–December 2006, six fin 

whales from the North Atlantic fin whale stock were struck and killed by ships off the 

east coast (Waring et al. 2009). During 2002–2006, ship strikes were implicated in the 

deaths of seven fin whales from the California/Oregon/Washington stock and the injury 

of another (Caretta et al. 2009) and in 2008, at least one confirmed mortality by ship 

strike of one fin whale occurred (California Marine Mammal Stranding Database, U.S. 

Department of Commerce 2009). Two additional fin whales from the 

California/Oregon/Washington stock stranded dead in California in 2007, but cause of 

death was not determined. From 2006–2008, an additional five unidentified cetaceans

(likely baleen whales) were killed due to ship strikes and were reported in California 

(California Marine Mammal Stranding Database, U.S. Department of Commerce 2009). 

Four fin whales were struck off the Northwest coast of the United States; three were 

identified in Washington and one was identified in Oregon (S. Norman, pers. comm. 

2006). Because many ship strikes go either undetected or unreported, these are minimum 

estimates. 

Within specified areas of U.S. waters in the Atlantic, NMFS has established ship speed 

restrictions, mandatory ship reporting systems, recommended routes, and an extensive 

sighting advisory system to protect North Atlantic right whales. While these measures 

were designed to protect right whales specifically, they are expected to also reduce the 

risk of ship strikes to other marine mammals, including fin whales (NMFS 2008a).

The possible impacts of ship strikes on recovery of fin whale populations is not well 

understood. Because many ship strikes go unreported or undetected for various reasons 

and the offshore distribution of fin whales may make collisions with them less detectable 

than with other species, the estimates of serious injury or mortality should be considered 

minimum estimates, thus there is a high level of uncertainty associated with the evidence 

presented above. The threat occurs at a medium severity, but with the high level of 

uncertainty, the relative impact to recovery of fin whales due to ship strikes is ranked as 

unknown but potentially high (Table 1).
July 2010 I-27 NMFS

G.3.2 Disturbance from Whale Watching and Other Vessels – LOW

Fin whales are among the main attractions of whale watching enterprises in eastern 

Canada and the northeastern United States (Hoyt 1984; Beach and Weinrich 1989). As a 

result, they are regularly subjected to close and persistent following by vessels. 

Several investigators reported behavioral responses to close approaches by vessels 

suggesting that individual whales might experience a stress response (Watkins et al.

1981; Baker et al. 1983; Malme et al. 1983; Bauer 1986; Bauer and Herman 1986; Baker 

and Herman 1987; Richardson et al. 1995; Jahoda et al. 2003). Others suggest that there 

is mounting evidence that wild animals respond to human disturbance in the same way 

that they respond to predators (Harrington and Veitch 1992; Lima 1998; Gill and 

Sutherland 2000; Gill et al. 2001; Frid and Dill 2002; Beale and Monaghan 2004; 

Romero 2004). These responses have been associated with the abandonment of sites 

(Bartholomew Jr., 1949; Allen 1991; Sutherland and Crockford 1993), reduced 

reproductive success (Giese 1996; Müllner et al. 2004), and the death of individual 

animals (from expending energy and thus compromising their survival) (Feare 1976; 

Daan et al. 1996). 

According to Schevill et al. (1964), the fin whale “seems somewhat to avoid ships.” In 

Cape Cod waters, fin whales were notably wary of vessels before the mid-1970s, but 

subsequently were observed to have become much less responsive to vessels (Watkins 

1986). Edds and Macfarlane (1987) documented that a fin whale observed from an 

elevated site on the north shore of the St. Lawrence River, significantly reduced its mean 

dive time while it was being pursued by a ferry carrying whale watchers. Also in the St. 

Lawrence, Michaud and Giard (1998) documented short-term changes in dive behavior of 

fin whales approached by vessels. Fin whales observed from a lighthouse in Maine 

responded to the presence of vessels by decreasing dive times, surface times, and number 

of blows per surfacing (Stone et al. 1992). Fin whales observed in the Mediterranean had 

similar responses, including not returning to normal behaviors (e.g., feeding) observed 

prior to the disturbance (Jahoda et al. 2003). 

Fin whales are subject to whale watching much less often in the eastern North Pacific 

than in the western North Atlantic. Thus, disturbance in the Pacific is more likely to 

come from industrial, military, and fishing vessel traffic off the Mexican, U.S., and 

Canadian coasts, than from the deliberate approaches of whale watching vessels. The 

low-frequency sounds used by fin whales for communication and (possibly) in courtship 

displays (Watkins 1981) could be masked or interrupted by ship noise. 

The potential for injury or disturbance to cetaceans from military ships is also a concern. 

NMFS conducted an assessment in its Biological Opinion on Rim of the Pacific 

(RIMPAC) exercises, focusing on ship traffic and mid-frequency sonar, and concluded 

that fin whales in the action area were likely to respond to ship traffic associated with the 

maneuvers (NMFS 2008b). 
July 2010 I-28 NMFS

Based on this information, the threat occurs at a low severity and there is a medium level 

of uncertainty. Thus, the relative impact to recovery of fin whales due to disturbance 

from vessels and tourism is ranked as low (Table 1).

G.4 Contaminants and Pollutants – LOW

Based on studies of contaminants in baleen whales, including fin whales, and other 

marine mammals, habitat pollutants do not appear to be a major threat to fin whales in 

most areas where fin whales are found. O’Shea and Brownell (1995) state that 

concentrations of organochlorine and metal contaminants in tissues of baleen whales are 

low, and lower than other marine mammal species. They further state that there is no 

firm evidence that levels of organochlorines, organotins, or heavy metals in baleen 

whales generally are high enough to cause toxic or other damaging effects. In a study of 

organochlorine exposure and bioaccumulation in another baleen whale, the North 

Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), Weisbrod et al. (2000) note that biopsy 

concentrations are an order of magnitude lower than the blubber burdens of seals and 

odontocetes. They conclude that they do not have evidence that right whales 

bioaccumulate hazardous concentrations of organochlorines, and further note that these 

were consistent with other surveys of baleen whales (Weisbrod et al. 2000). Among 

baleen whales, Aguilar (1983) observed that mean levels of dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) in a study of North Atlantic 

fin whales were significantly lower (0.74 and 12.65 respectively) than in a study of North 

Atlantic sperm whales (4.68 and 26.88 respectively). In a review of organochlorine and 

metal pollutants in marine mammals from Central and South America, Borrell and 

Aguilar (1999) note that organochlorine levels in marine mammals (based on studies of 

franciscana dolphins, Pontoporia blainvillei, from Argentina and spotted dolphins, 

Stenella attenuata, from the eastern tropical Pacific) suggest low levels of exposure 

compared to other regions of the world. Indeed, although data are extremely scarce, 

concentrations of organochlorines in the tropical and equatorial fringe of the northern 

hemisphere and throughout the southern hemisphere are low or extremely low in marine 

mammals, and organochlorine concentrations in marine mammals off South America, 

South Africa and Australia are invariably low (Aguilar et al. 2002). The lowest 

organochlorine concentrations are found in the polar regions of both hemispheres. 

However, due to the systematic long-term transfer of airborne pollutants from warmer to 

colder regions, it is expected that the Arctic and, to a lesser extent, the Antarctic will 

become major sinks for organochlorines in the future, warranting long-term monitoring 

of polar regions (Aguilar et al. 2002). 

The highest concentrations of organochlorines found in marine mammals, including fin 

whales, are in the Mediterranean Sea. High concentrations of organochlorines in marine 

mammals also occur, although to a lesser extent, along the Pacific coast of the U.S. and 

generally in other mid-latitudes in the northern hemisphere (Aguilar et al. 2002). Fossi et 

al. (2003) state that concentrations in the Mediterranean could have an effect on 

reproductive rates of this species, warranting further study (Fossi et al. 2003). 
July 2010 I-29 NMFS

Little is known about the possible long-term and trans-generational effects of exposure to 

pollutants. Aguilar and Borrell (1988) note that while pollutant burdens in young fin 

whale specimens from the two sexes were indistinguishable, from the onset of sexual 

maturity, concentrations of all organochlorines increased with age and body size in males 

and decreased in females until both reached a plateau. The decrease observed in female 

blubber concentrations was attributed to reproductive transfer, mainly though lactation. 

Oil Spills

Oil spills that occur while fin whales are present could result in skin contact with the oil, 

baleen fouling, ingestion of oil, respiratory distress from hydrocarbon vapors, 

contaminated food sources, and displacement from feeding areas (Geraci 1990). Actual 

impacts would depend on the extent and duration of contact, and the characteristics (age) 

of the oil. Most likely, the effects of oil would be irritation to the respiratory membranes 

and absorption of hydrocarbons into the bloodstream (Geraci 1990). If a marine mammal 

was present in the immediate area of fresh oil, it is possible that it could inhale enough 

vapors to affect its health. Inhalation of petroleum vapors can cause pneumonia in 

humans and animals, due to large amounts of foreign material (vapors) entering the lungs 

(Lipscomb et al. 1994). Long term ingestion of pollutants, including oil residues, could 

affect reproductive success, but data are lacking to determine how oil may fit into this 

scheme for fin whales. 

In general, the threat from contaminants and pollutants occurs at a low severity and there 

is a medium level of uncertainty. Thus, the relative impact to recovery of fin whales due 

to contaminants and pollution is ranked as low (Table 1). However, this ranking may 

need to be elevated if future data indicate reproductive rates are indeed impacted by 

exposed to contaminants or pollution. For instance, we may obtain new information 

based on the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill that leads us to reevaluate threats from 

contaminants in general. Given the limited geographic scope of this spill relative to fin 

whale distribution, we maintain the low ranking of this threat even in light of this specific 

event. 

G.5 Disease – LOW

Disease presumably plays a role in natural mortality of fin whales but it is assumed that it 

is not a high threat to fin whale populations. Lambertsen (1986) indicated that 

crassicaudiosis in the urinary tract was a primary cause of natural mortality in individual 

North Atlantic fin whales. The potential for parasitism to have a population level effect 

on fin whales is largely unknown, although it is unlikely that parasites have much effect 

on otherwise healthy animals, but effects could become significant if combined with 

other stressors. Currently, there is no evidence of an increased level of disease in fin 

whales, so the severity of this threat is considered to be low. However, given the 

potential but unknown effect of disease on immune suppression, the uncertainty in this 

determination is considered to be medium. Thus, the relative impact to recovery of fin 

whales due to disease is ranked as low (Table 1). 
July 2010 I-30 NMFS

G.6 Injury from Marine Debris – LOW

Harmful marine debris consists of plastic garbage washed or blown from land into the 

sea, fishing gear lost or abandoned by recreational and commercial fishers, and solid nonbiodegradable floating materials (such as plastics) disposed of by ships at sea. Examples 

of plastic materials are: bags, bottles, strapping bands, sheeting, synthetic ropes, synthetic 

fishing nets, floats, fiberglass, piping, insulation, paints, and adhesives. Marine species 

confuse plastic bags, rubber, balloons, and confectionery wrappers with prey and ingest 

them. The debris usually causes a physical blockage in the digestive system, leading to 

painful internal injuries. 

Observational studies cannot fully evaluate the potential for entanglement because many 

entangled animals may die at sea and thus not be seen or reported. Instances of stomach 

obstruction caused by marine debris have not been documented in fin whales, although 

there are documented cases of problematic ingestion of marine debris in sperm, pygmy 

sperm (Kogia breviceps), and minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) (Viale et al.

1992; Tarpley and Marwitz 1993), however, it is not believed to be a major threat to the 

species and the severity of this threat is ranked low. Given the unknown effect of 

entanglement and ingestion of marine debris on fin whales, the uncertainty in this 

determination is considered to be medium. Thus, the relative impact to recovery of fin 

whales due to injury from marine debris is ranked as low (Table 1). 

G.7 Research – LOW

Fin whales have been the subject of field studies for decades. The primary objective of 

many of these studies has generally been monitoring populations to gather data for 

behavioral and ecological studies. Existing permits authorize investigators to make close 

approaches of endangered whales for photographic identification, behavioral 

observations, passive acoustic recording, aerial photogrammetry, and underwater 

observations. Reported responses of gray whales to research activities ranged from no 

visible responses to short-term behavioral responses; however the consequences of these 

levels of close approaches on the population ecology of listed species remains unknown 

(Moore and Clarke 2002). Research on fin whales is likely to continue and increase in 

the future, especially for oceanographic surveys, the collection of genetic information, 

photographic studies, and acoustic studies. 

The effects of research not directly associated with fin whales are addressed in other 

subsections of the threats section of this Recovery Plan, such as vessel interactions, 

anthropogenic noise, contaminants and pollutants, oil and gas exploration, and military 

sonar and explosives. 

Research activities could result in disturbance to fin whales, but are closely monitored 

and evaluated in an attempt to minimize any impacts of research necessary for the 

recovery of fin whales. Specifically, the National Environmental Policy Act requires the 

development of environmental impact statements to assess the potential impact of a 

project on protected species, and ESA and MMPA permits are required for any incidental 
July 2010 I-31 NMFS

take of fin whales. The threat occurs at a low severity and a medium level of uncertainty, 

as the potential does exist for unobserved mortality to occur following the completion of 

research activities. Thus, the relative impact to recovery of fin whales due to this threat is 

ranked as low (Table 1). 

G.8 Predation and Natural Mortality – LOW

Shark attacks presumably occur on young or sick fin whales, although such evidence has 

not been documented. Injury and suffocation from ice entrapment is not known to be a 

factor for fin whales in the North Pacific, as it is for fin whales in the western North 

Atlantic. The potential impact of predation by killer whales on the dynamics of the North 

Pacific marine ecosystem over the last several decades, has received substantial attention 

within the scientific community in recent years. Information on killer whale abundance, 

diet, and movements, has increased, and new hypotheses have been developed within the 

scientific community on how predation by killer whales has influenced marine mammal 

populations. Although killer whales presumably attack fin whales everywhere, evidence 

has only been reported from the North Atlantic (Mitchell and Reeves 1988), with little 

evidence of such predation from the North Pacific (Tomilin 1967) or Southern 

Hemisphere. Evidence indicates that predation by killer whales has been, and still is, a 

source of natural mortality for fin whales; however, the extent of natural mortality and 

predation is not known as few observations have occurred. Thus, the relative impact to 

recovery from predation and natural mortality is ranked as low, based on low severity and 

medium uncertainty (Table 1). 

G.9 Direct Harvest – MEDIUM

Direct harvest, although rare today, was the main cause of initial depletion of fin whales

and other large whales. Fin whales were hunted occasionally by the sailing-vessel 

whalers of the 19th century (Scammon 1874; Mitchell and Reeves 1983). The 

introduction of steam power in the second half of that century made it possible for boats 

to overtake the large, fast-swimming rorquals, including fin whales, and the use of 

harpoon-gun technology resulted in a high loss rate (Schmitt et al. 1980; Reeves and 

Barto 1985). The eventual introduction of deck-mounted harpoon cannons made it 

possible to kill and secure blue, fin, and sei whales, on an industrial scale (Tønnessen and 

Johnsen 1982). Fin whales were hunted, often intensively, in all the world’s oceans for 

the first three-quarters of the twentieth century. The total reported catch of fin whales in 

the Southern Hemisphere from 1904 through 1979 was close to three-quarters of a 

million, making them numerically dominant among the commercially exploited baleen 

whales (IWC 1995). 

The IWC’s moratorium on the commercial hunting of fin whales in most of their range 

has been in force for more than two decades, and it has almost certainly had a positive 

effect on the species’ recovery. There is currently no legal commercial whaling for fin 

whales in the Northern Hemisphere by IWC member nations party to the moratorium. 

There is an annual take of up to about 20 fin whales in Greenland for subsistence 

purposes, which is sanctioned and managed under an IWC quota scheme. Iceland has 

consistently expressed a strong interest in resuming its whaling industry targeting fin, sei, 
July 2010 I-32 NMFS

and minke whales (Sigurjønsson 1989) and returned to commercial whaling of fin whales 

beginning in 2006. Iceland and Norway3 do not adhere to the IWC’s moratorium on 

commercial whaling because both countries filed objections to that moratorium. Japan 

started killing fin whales in its scientific whaling program in 2005–2006 and increased its 

target from 10 to 50 fin whales for the next twelve seasons beginning with the 2007/2008 

season. Japan took zero fin whales in the 2007/2008 season and one in the 2008/2009 

season.

Well-documented pirate whaling in the northeastern Atlantic occurred as recently as 1979 

(Sanpera and Aguilar 1992; Best 1992), and attempted illegal trade in baleen whale meat 

has been documented several times during the 1990s (Baker and Palumbi 1994). Since 

the mid-1970s, there has been some demand in world markets (most of it centered in 

Japan) for baleen whale meat (Aguilar and Sanpera 1982). Therefore, it cannot be 

assumed that fin whales have been fully protected from commercial whaling since 1986 

or that their current legal protection from commercial whaling will continue into the 

future. Based on this information, the threat occurs at a medium severity and there is a 

medium level of uncertainty. Thus, the relative impact to recovery of fin whales due to 

direct harvest is ranked as medium (Table 1). 

G.9.1 North Atlantic 

Some whaling for fin whales occurred in New England waters during the 1880s (Reeves 

and Barto 1985). Large numbers of fin whales were killed in the western North Atlantic 

beginning in the late 1890s when whaling stations were established on the coast of 

Newfoundland (Mitchell 1974). More than 12,500 fin whales were reported in the 

Newfoundland-Labrador catch statistics from 1903 to 1972, and this does not include the 

nearly 1,800 whales listed as taken but not identified as to species (Mitchell 1974: in 

Table 5-5; supplemented by data from Committee for Whaling Statistics 1973). Nearly 

400 whales (blue and fin, combined) were taken at whaling stations in the Gulf of St. 

Lawrence between 1911 and 1915 (Mitchell 1974: in Table 5-7; supplemented by data 

from Committee for Whaling Statistics 1973), and an additional 1,564 fin whales were 

taken off Nova Scotia between 1964 and 1972 (Mitchell 1974; supplemented by data 

from the Committee for Whaling Statistics 1973). Thus, the total number of fin whales 

taken by modern whaling in eastern Canada is probably close to 15,000 animals.

Fin whales were hunted in Davis Strait by Norwegian and Danish pelagic whalers 

beginning in 1919 or earlier (Hjort and Ruud 1929) and 1924, respectively (Jonsgård 

1977; Kapel 1979). Although this whaling had ended by the late 1950s, fin whales have 

continued to be taken from Greenlandic fishing vessels equipped with mounted harpoon 

cannons operating in coastal waters off Greenland (Kapel 1979). 

 3 In 1982, the IWC adopted a temporary moratorium on the commercial whaling of all whale species, effective from 

1986. Norway objected to the moratorium, but nevertheless introduced a temporary ban on minke whaling pending 

more reliable information on the state of stocks. The Norwegian government unilaterally decided to resume whaling in 

1993. Norway’s legal right to hunt minke whales is not disputed, as Norway objected to the moratorium when it was 

adopted by the IWC.
July 2010 I-33 NMFS

Shore-based commercial whaling for fin whales began in Iceland in 1883, was suspended 

for 20 years beginning in 1916, and was again interrupted during the Second World War 

(Hjort and Ruud 1929; Rørvik et al. 1976; Sigurjønsson 1988). From 1948, it continued 

without interruption through the 1986 season. Effort was especially intensive during the 

period 1889 to 1915, when an estimated 8,100 fin whales were taken at stations on the 

east and west coasts. From 1916 to 1948 fin whale catches around Iceland were more 

modest. From 1948 through 1985 the average annual take was 234, IWC quotas having 

been introduced in 1977. The total catch of fin whales near Iceland from 1948 through 

1986 was 8,963 (Sigurjønsson 1988; IWC 1988). In 1987–89 Iceland took an additional 

216 fin whales under a national scientific research permit (IWC 1989, 1990, 1991). 

Sigurjønsson (1988) noted that fin whales have long been the preferred target species in 

Icelandic whaling because of their large yield of high-quality meat. 

Fin whales were hunted intensively off northern and western Norway from the earliest 

days of modern whaling. Between 1868 and 1904, about 10,500 were taken off 

Finnmark (Christensen et al. 1992a), and they continued to be hunted in this area through 

1971 (Jonsgård 1977). Norwegian whalers took more than 8,700 fin whales off the west 

coast of Norway between 1913 and 1969 and close to 6,000 off the Faroe Islands between 

1910 and 1969 (Jonsgård 1977). Large numbers of fin whales were taken off Spain and 

Portugal during the 1920s and 1930s, and some whaling continued in this region until the 

mid-1980s (Sanpera and Aguilar 1992). 

An estimated 414 fin whales were taken in the eastern North Atlantic between 1977 and 

1979 by “pirate” whalers, i.e., whalers whose operations were not subject to IWC 

regulation (Best 1992). 

In accordance with the IWC moratorium, fin whales are presently commercially hunted 

in the Northern Hemisphere only in Greenland under the IWC’s procedure for aboriginal 

subsistence whaling (Gambell 1993; Caulfield 1993). Meat and other products from 

whales killed in this hunt are widely marketed within the Greenland economy, but export 

is illegal. The IWC Scientific Committee has repeatedly expressed concern about the 

small central estimate and lower confidence limit (1,096, 95% CI, 520–2,106) for this 

stock (IWC 1998a). In the absence of scientific management advice, the IWC has 

continued to set a quota of 19 fin whales per year for Greenland (IWC 1998b). As stated 

above, Iceland and Norway do not adhere to IWC’s moratorium on commercial whaling 

because both countries filed objections to that moratorium. Iceland resumed commercial 

whaling after whalers caught a fin whale and issued a quota of 9 fin whales in 2006–2007 

(7 reportedly killed), and at least two fin whales were killed in 2009. 

G.9.2 North Pacific 

Fin whales were hunted at shore-based stations in western North America from the early 

twentieth century. Minimum recorded catches were 3,000 at Akutan, Alaska, 1912–39, 

and 464 at Port Hobron, Alaska, 1926–37 (Reeves et al. 1985); well over 6,000 in British 

Columbia, early 1900s to 1967 (Pike and MacAskie 1969); 602 in Washington, 1911–25 
July 2010 I-34 NMFS

(Scheffer and Slipp 1948); 177 and 1,060 in California, 1919–26 (Clapham et al. 1997) 

and 1956–70 (Rice 1974), respectively. 

Japanese pelagic whaling for fin whales in the Bering Sea and around the Aleutian 

Islands began in 1954 and continued through 1975 (Ohsumi 1986). A reported total of 

approximately 46,000 fin whales were killed by commercial whalers in the North Pacific 

between 1947 and 1987, including the shore-based catches mentioned above as well as 

Japanese and Russian pelagic catches (Barlow et al. 1997). Yablokov’s (1994) 

acknowledgment that the Soviet Union engaged in the illegal killing of protected whale 

species in the North Pacific, both from land stations and in pelagic operations, implies 

that reported catch data are incomplete. Soviet catch data from the North Pacific have yet 

to be revised and validated, but judging from the Southern Hemisphere example (see 

below), it seems certain that the officially reported data for the North Pacific will prove to 

be equally unreliable. 

G.9.3 Southern Hemisphere

From 1904 to 1975, there were 703,693 fin whales taken in Antarctic whaling operations 

(IWC 1990). Whaling in the Southern Hemisphere originally targeted humpback whales, 

but by 1913, this target species became rare, and the catch of fin and blue whales began 

to increase (Mizroch et al. 1984b). From 1911 to 1924, there were 2,000–5,000 fin 

whales taken per year. After the introduction of factory whaling ships in 1925, the 

number of whales taken per year increased substantially. From 1931 to 1972, 

approximately 511,574 fin whales were caught (Kawamura 1994). In 1937 alone, over 

28,000 fin whales were taken. From 1953 to 1961, the number of fin whales taken per 

year continued to average around 25,000. In 1962, sei whale catches began to increase as 

fin whales became scarce. By 1974, less than 1,000 fin whales were being caught per 

year. The IWC prohibited the taking of fin whales from the Southern Hemisphere in 

1976. 

There is evidence of large-scale misreporting of whaling data from Soviet factory ships in 

the Southern Hemisphere (Yablokov 1994; Zemsky et al. 1995). Soviet authorities 

originally over-reported fin whale catches to camouflage illegal takes of protected species 

(right, pygmy blue, and humpback whales). 

Fin whales are a target species for Japanese Antarctic Special Permit whaling for the 

2005/2006 and 2006/2007 seasons at 10 fin whales/year. The proposal for the following 

12 years includes 50 fin whales/year; despite this higher target, Japan took zero fin 

whales in the 2007/2008 season and one in the 2008/2009 season. 

G.10 Competition for Resources – UNKNOWN

In a review of the evidence for interspecific competition in baleen whales, Clapham and 

Brownell (1996) found it to be extremely difficult to prove that inter-specific competition 

comprises an important factor in the population dynamics of large whales. The prey 

species taken by fin whales are also taken by other baleen whales. Thus, competitive 

interactions are possible; however, there is no basis for assuming that competition for 
July 2010 I-35 NMFS

food among baleen whales, per se, is a factor in determining their population trend and 

abundance. 

The fin whale feeds on a fairly broad spectrum of prey, but fishery-caused reductions in 

prey resources (e.g., herring and mackerel in the North Atlantic) could have an influence 

on fin whale abundance (Waring et al. 1997). The effect on fin whales’ foraging 

efficiency resulting from disruption of large prey aggregations due to commercial fishing 

is not well known. Commercial removal of prey species may have a limited effect on fin 

whales, particularly if a large biomass remains unharvested and accessible. Furthermore, 

the disruption of large aggregations of prey into multiple smaller aggregations by fishing 

activity could enhance fin whale foraging success. The species-specific duration and 

degree of prey disruption due to commercial harvest are also unknown and it is not 

known what impact switching to alternate prey may have on fin whales. Other threats 

that could be confounded with fisheries are environmental variability and inter-specific 

competition. Research is needed to reduce these uncertainties. The severity of this threat 

was ranked as unknown and the uncertainty is high, thus the relative impact to recovery 

of fin whales due to this threat is ranked as unknown (Table 1).

G.11 Loss of Prey Base Due to Climate and Ecosystem Change – UNKNOWN BUT 

POTENTIALLY HIGH

Climate change has received considerable attention in recent years, with growing 

concerns about global warming and the recognition of natural climatic oscillations on 

varying time scales, such as long term shifts like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or short 

term shifts, like El Niño or La Niña. Evidence suggests that the productivity in the North 

Pacific (Quinn and Neibauer 1995; Mackas et al. 1989) and other oceans could be 

affected by changes in the environment. Increases in global temperatures are expected to 

have profound impacts on arctic and sub-arctic ecosystems, and these impacts are 

projected to accelerate during this century (ACIA 2004; IPCC Climate Change 2007). 

The potential impacts of climate and oceanographic change on fin whales will likely 

affect habitat availability and food availability. Site selection for whale migration, 

feeding, and breeding for fin whales, may be influenced by factors such as ocean currents 

and water temperature. Any changes in these factors could render currently used habitat 

areas unsuitable. Changes to climate and oceanographic processes may also lead to 

decreased productivity in different patterns of prey distribution and availability. Such 

changes could affect fin whales that are dependent on those affected prey. Recent work 

has found that copepod distribution has showed signs of shifting in the North Atlantic due 

to climate changes (Hays et al. 2005). 

The feeding range of fin whales is larger than that of other species and consequently, it is 

likely that the fin whale may be more resilient to climate change, should it affect prey, 

than a species with a narrower range. The threat severity posed by environmental 

variability to fin whale recovery was ranked as medium due to the oceanographic and 

atmospheric conditions that have changed over the last several decades and the 

uncertainty was ranked as high, due to the unknown potential impacts of climate and 
July 2010 I-36 NMFS

ecosystem change on fin whale recovery and regime shifts on fin whale prey; thus the 

relative impact to recovery was ranked as unknown but potentially high (Table 1).
July 2010 I-37 NMFS

The following table provides a visual synopsis of the text regarding threats to fin whales, the sources of these threats, and populations 

that are affected (where information is available). For each threat, the table describes the severity, including the magnitude, scope and 

relative frequency with which the threat is expected to occur; the uncertainty of information or effects; and the relative impact to 

recovery, which is a combination of the severity and uncertainty of each threat. The rankings were developed relative to each other, 

and put into one of four categories: high, medium, low and unknown (further research is needed to determine whether it falls into 

high, medium, or low). Ranking assignments were determined by an expert panel with contributions from reviewers. 

Table 1. Fin whale threats analysis table. 

Reference Population Threat Source Severity Uncertainty Relative Impact 

to Recovery

(Unknown, Unknown but Potentially High, 

Low, Med, High)

G.1 Fishery Interactions

G.1.1 Global Injury or mortality 

from gillnet gear 

entanglement 

Gillnet, Trawl, 

Pot/trap, Sink 

gillnet, and Purse 

Seine fisheries 

Low Medium Low

G.1.2 U.S. North

Atlantic 

Injury or mortality 

from trap/pot gear 

entanglement

Northeast/MidAtlantic 

American lobster 

trap/pot fishery

Low Low Low

G.1.2 U.S. North 

Atlantic

Injury or mortality 

from sink gillnet 

entanglement

Northeast sink 

gillnet fishery 

Low Low Low 

G.1.2 U.S. North 

Atlantic

Injury or mortality 

from trap/pot gear 

entanglement

Atlantic mixed 

species trap/pot 

fishery 

Low Low Low
July 2010 I-38 NMFS

Reference Population Threat Source Severity Uncertainty Relative Impact 

to Recovery

G.1.2 Nova Scotia Injury or mortality 

from trap/pot gear 

entanglement

American lobster 

trap/pot fishery 

Low Low Low

G.1.2 Nova Scotia Injury or mortality 

from sink gillnet 

entanglement

Sink gillnet 

fishery 

Low Low Low

G.1.2 Nova Scotia Injury or mortality 

from trap/pot gear 

entanglement

Atlantic mixed 

species trap/pot 

fishery

Low Low Low

G.1.3 CA/OR/WA Injury or mortality 

from drift gillnet 

entanglement 

CA/OR drift

gillnet (≥14 in. 

mesh) 

Low Low Low 

G.1.3 Northeast 

Pacific 

Injury or mortality 

from trawl 

entanglement 

AK Gulf of 

Alaska Pollock 

trawl 

Low Low Low 

G.1.3 Hawaiian Injury or mortality 

from longline 

Hawaii-based 

longline fishery 

Low Low Low 

G.1.3 Hawaiian Injury or mortality 

from trap/pot gear 

entanglement 

Hawaii-based 

trap/pot fishery 

Low Low Low

G.1.4 Southern 

Hemisphere

Injury or mortality 

from trawl, or

longline gear 

entanglement

Krill or Patagonia 

toothfish fishery

Low Low Low

G.2 Anthropogenic 

Noise 

Several sources 

G.2.1 Global Ship Noise Ships Unknown High Unknown 
July 2010 I-39 NMFS

Reference Population Threat Source Severity Uncertainty Relative Impact 

to Recovery

G.2.2 Global Oil and Gas 

Activities

Seismic surveys, 

noise from 

construction and 

operation of oil 

exploration work

Unknown High Unknown 

G.2.3 Global Coastal 

Development

Coastal 

development, 

LNG facilities

Low Medium Low

G.2.4 Global Military Sonar and 

Explosives

Vessel 

interactions, ship 

shock trials, low 

and midfrequency sonar

Unknown High Unknown 

G.3 Vessel interactions 

G.3.1 Global Ship strikes Areas of high 

vessel traffic 

and/or high speed 

vessel traffic 

Medium High Unknown but 

potentially high

G.3.2 Global Disturbance from 

Whale Watching 

and Other Vessels

Whale watching

and military 

vessels

Low Medium Low 

G.4 Global Contaminants and 

Pollutants 

Organochlorines, 

organotins, heavy 

metals 

Low Medium Low

G.5 Global Disease Parasites, other 

vectors

Low Medium Low
July 2010 I-40 NMFS

Reference Population Threat Source Severity Uncertainty Relative Impact 

to Recovery

G.6 Global Injury from Marine 

Debris

Plastic garbage 

from land, 

lost/abandoned 

fishing gear, nonbiodegradable 

garbage from 

ships

Low Medium Low

G.7 Global Disturbance due to 

Research

Oceanographic 

surveys, and 

genetic, 

photographic and 

acoustic studies 

Low Medium Low

G.8 Global Predation and 

Natural Mortality 

Killer whales, 

sharks

Low Medium Low

G.9 Global Direct Harvest Greenland

(sanctioned) 

whaling, Japanese 

whaling in 

Antarctic, 

Icelandic 

whaling, possible 

pirate whaling 

Medium Medium Medium 

G.10 Global Competition for 

Resources 

Competition with 

human fisheries 

Unknown High Unknown

G.11 Global Loss of Prey Base 

due to Climate and 

Ecosystem Change 

or Shifts in habitat

Climate and 

Ecosystem 

Change

Medium High Unknown but 

potentially high
July 2010 I-41 NMFS

H. Conservation Measures

Under the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, a minimum size 

limit of 55 ft (16.8 m) was in effect for fin whales taken by commercial whaling in the 

North Pacific, and two fin whales were calculated as equivalent to one “blue whale unit”

under the initial production quota scheme (Allen 1980). The IWC did not begin 

managing commercial whaling for fin whales on a species basis until 1969 in the North 

Pacific (Allen 1980) and 1976 in the North Atlantic (Sigurjønsson 1988). 

The fin whale was given protection from commercial whaling by the IWC in the 

Antarctic beginning in the 1976/77 whaling season, the North Pacific in the 1976 season, 

and the North Atlantic in the 1987 season. Since 1987, the only area in the Northern 

Hemisphere where fin whales have been hunted legally is Greenland. There, a take of 

about 19 fin whales per year has been authorized under the IWC’s aboriginal subsistence 

whaling scheme (Gambell 1993; Caulfield 1993). Iceland does not adhere to the IWC 

moratorium and resumed commercial whaling of fin whales in 2006. 

The fin whale is protected in the U.S. under both the ESA (listed as endangered) and the 

MMPA. It is listed as endangered by the World Conservation Union (known as the 

IUCN) (Baillie and Groombridge 1996) and is listed in Appendix I of the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (known as CITES). 

The CITES classification is intended to ensure that no commercial trade in the products 

of fin whales occurs across international borders. 
July 2010 I-42 NMFS

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
July 2010 II-1 NMFS

II. RECOVERY STRATEGY 

The primary purpose of this Recovery Plan is to identify actions that will minimize or 

eliminate effects of human activities that are detrimental to the recovery of fin whale 

populations. Immediate objectives are to identify factors that may be limiting 

abundance/recovery/productivity, and cite actions necessary to allow the populations to 

increase. The main threats to fin whale populations include collisions with vessels, direct 

harvest, and possibly competition for resources, loss of prey base due to climate change, 

and disturbance from anthropogenic noise. Other potential (but likely low impact) threats 

include entanglement in fishing gear, disturbance from vessels and tourism, contaminants 

and pollutants, disease, injury from marine debris, disturbance due to research, and 

predation and natural mortality (see Table 1).

The original direct threat to fin whales was addressed by the IWC’s whaling moratorium, 

and an important element in the strategy to protect fin whale populations is to continue 

the effective international regulation of whaling. 

Another important component of this recovery program is to determine population 

structure of the species and population discreteness. This would be a first step in 

estimating population size, monitoring trends in abundance, and enabling an assessment 

of the species throughout its range. 

Because fin whales move freely across international borders, it would be unreasonable to 

confine recovery efforts to U.S. waters, and this plan stresses the importance of a 

multinational approach to management. This Recovery Plan recognizes the limits 

imposed by the national nature of protective legislation. As demonstrated by recent work 

on humpback whales, SPLASH (Calambokidis et al. 2008) and the Year of the North 

Atlantic Humpback (YONAH), involving a number of researchers from different 

countries (Palsbøll et al. 1997; Smith et al. 1999), considerably more information is 

gathered for management of whale populations when research is conducted on the basis 

of biological, rather than political, divisions and through multilateral cooperation. 

Ideally, both research and conservation should be undertaken at oceanic rather than 

national levels. 

Although not an explicit goal, this Recovery Plan is also expected to help achieve the 

MMPA’s purpose of maintaining marine mammal populations at optimum sustainable 

levels. 
July 2010 II-2 NMFS

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
July 2010 III-1 NMFS

III. RECOVERY GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND CRITERIA

A. Goals 

The goal of this Recovery Plan is to promote recovery of fin whales to levels at which it 

becomes appropriate to “downlist” them from endangered to threatened status, and 

ultimately to “de-list”, or remove them from the list of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants, under the provisions of the ESA. The Act defines an “endangered 

species” as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range.” A “threatened species” is defined as “any species which is likely to 

become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.”

B. Objectives and Criteria 

The two main objectives for fin whales are to 1) achieve sufficient and viable populations 

in all ocean basins, and 2) ensure significant threats are addressed. Likewise, recovery 

criteria take two forms: 1) those that reflect the status of the species itself and 2) those

that indicate effective management or elimination of threats. The former criterion may 

explicitly state a certain risk of extinction as a threshold for downlisting or delisting and 

uses models based on at least abundance and trends in abundance to assess whether this 

threshold has been reached. Since fin whales are currently globally listed, all ocean 

basins where fin whales occur would need to meet these criteria. 

Guidance on appropriate levels of risk for down-listing and de-listing decisions was 

developed in a workshop for large cetaceans (Angliss et al. 2002). This guidance was 

employed in the North Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Plan criteria (NMFS 2005) and is 

also appropriate here. The following framework was suggested: 

• A large cetacean species shall no longer be considered endangered when, given 

current and projected conditions, the probability of quasi-extinction is less than

1% in 100 years;

• A large cetacean species shall no longer be considered threatened when, given 

current and projected conditions, the probability of becoming endangered is less 

than 10% in a period of time no shorter than 10 years and no longer than 25 years 

(in the case of the fin whale the period of 25 years is considered necessary given 

imprecise abundance estimates); and

• Recurrence of threats that brought the species to the point that warranted listing 

and current threats to the species have been addressed.

B.1 Downlisting Objectives and Criteria 

Objective 1: Achieve sufficient and viable population in all ocean basins

Criterion: Given current and projected threats and environmental conditions, the fin

whale population in each ocean basin in which it occurs (North Atlantic, North Pacific
July 2010 III-2 NMFS

and Southern Hemisphere) satisfies the risk analysis standard for threatened status (has 

no more than a 1% chance of extinction in 100 years) and has at least 500 mature, 

reproductive individuals (consisting of at least 250 mature females and at least 250 

mature males) in each ocean basin. Mature is defined as the number of individuals 

known, estimated or inferred to be capable of reproduction. Any factors or circumstances 

that are thought to substantially contribute to a real risk of extinction that cannot be 

incorporated into a Population Viability Analysis will be carefully considered before 

downlisting takes place.

Objective 2: Ensure significant threats are addressed

Criteria: Factors that may limit population growth, i.e., those that are identified in the 

threats analysis under relative impact to recovery as high or medium or unknown, have 

been identified and are being or have been addressed to the extent that they allow for 

continued growth of populations. Specifically, the factors in 4(a)(l) of the ESA are being 

or have been addressed as follows: 

Factor A: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 

a species’ habitat or range.

o Competition with fisheries for resources is being addressed through fishery 

management plans and other measures.

o Effects of reduced prey abundance due to climate change continue to be 

investigated and action is being taken to address the issue, as necessary. 

o Effects of anthropogenic noise continue to be investigated and actions taken to 

minimize potential effects, as necessary.

Factor B: Overutilization for commercial, recreational, or educational purposes.

o Management measures are in place that ensure that any direct harvest

(commercial, subsistence, and scientific) is at a sustainable level. 

Factor C: Disease or Predation.

There are no criteria for this factor because there are no data to indicate that disease 

or predation are threats. 

Factor D: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.

o Ship collisions continue to be investigated and actions taken to minimize potential 

effects, as necessary.

Direct harvest addressed under Factor B.
July 2010 III-3 NMFS

Factor E: Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

No other factors are known to be limiting threats. 

B.2 Delisting Objectives and Criteria 

Objective 1: Achieve sufficient and viable population in all ocean basins

Criterion: Given current and projected threats and environmental conditions, the fin

whale population in each ocean basin in which it occurs (North Atlantic, North Pacific, 

and Southern Hemisphere) satisfies the risk analysis standard for unlisted status (has less 

than a 10% probability of becoming endangered (has more than a 1% chance of 

extinction in 100 years) in 20 years). Any factors or circumstances that are thought to 

substantially contribute to a real risk of extinction that cannot be incorporated into a 

Population Viability Analysis will be carefully considered before delisting takes place.

Objective 2: Ensure significant threats are addressed

Criteria: Factors that may limit population growth (those that are identified in the threats 

analysis as high or medium or unknown) have been identified and are being or have been 

addressed to the extent that they allow for continued growth of populations. Specifically, 

the factors in 4(a)(l) of the ESA are being or have been addressed as follows: 

Factor A: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of

a species’ habitat or range. 

o Competition with fisheries for resources continues to be addressed through fishery 

management plans and other measures or is no longer believed to be a threat.

o Effects of reduced prey abundance due to climate change have continued to be 

investigated and any necessary actions being taken to address the issue are shown 

to be effective or this is no longer believed to be a threat.

o Effects of anthropogenic noise have continued to be investigated and any 

necessary actions being taken to address the issue are shown to be effective or this 

is no longer believed to be a threat.

Factor B: Overutilization for commercial, recreational, or educational purposes.

o Management measures are in place that ensure that any direct harvest

(commercial, subsistence, and scientific) is at a sustainable level. 
July 2010 III-4 NMFS

Factor C: Disease or Predation. 

There are no criteria for this factor because there are no data to indicate that disease 

or predation are threats. 

Factor D: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.

o Ship collisions have been investigated and actions being taken to address the issue 

are shown to be effective or this is no longer believed to be a threat.

Direct harvest is identified as a medium threat in the threats analysis and is addressed 

under Factor B.

Factor E: Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

No other factors are known to be threats. 
July 2010 IV-1 NMFS

IV. RECOVERY PROGRAM

A. Recovery Action Outline

Items in this outline are not in order of priority. Priorities are identified in the 

Implementation Schedule below. 

1.0 Coordinate State, Federal, and International Actions to Implement Recovery 

Actions and Maintain International Regulation of Whaling for Fin Whales. 

2.0 Determine Population Discreteness and Population Structure of Fin Whales. 

2.1 Support existing studies and initiate new studies to investigate population 

discreteness and population structure of fin whales using genetic analyses.

2.2 Assess daily and seasonal movements and inter-area exchange, using 

telemetry and photo-identification.

3.0 Develop and Apply Methods to Estimate Population Size and Monitor 

Trends in Abundance.

3.1 Determine the best methods for assessing fin whale status and trends.

3.2 Conduct surveys to estimate abundance and monitor trends in fin whale 

populations worldwide.

3.3 Develop an intensive and geographically broad scale program to obtain 

biopsies of fin whales for mark-recapture abundance estimation.

3.4 Maintain existing fin whale photo-identification catalogs.

4.0 Conduct Risk Analyses.

4.1 Conduct risk analyses for North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans.

4.2 Conduct risk analyses for the Southern Hemisphere.

5.0 Identify, Characterize, Protect, and Monitor Habitat Important to Fin Whale 

Populations in U.S. Waters and Elsewhere.

5.1 Characterize Fin Whale Habitat.

5.2 Monitor important habitat features and fin whale use patterns to assess 

potentially detrimental shifts in these features that might reflect disturbance or 

degradation of habitat.
July 2010 IV-2 NMFS

5.3 Promote actions to protect important habitat in U.S. waters.

5.4 Promote actions to define, identify, and protect important habitat in 

foreign or international waters.

5.5 Improve knowledge of fin whale feeding ecology.

5.6 Conduct research and perform analyses to understand the impacts of

climate change on fin whales and seek strategies to reduce these impacts. 

6.0 Investigate Causes and Reduce the Frequency and Severity of Human-caused 

Injury and Mortality.

6.1 Identify areas where concentrations of fin whales coincide with significant 

levels of maritime traffic, fishing, or pollution (including marine debris).

6.2 Reduce injury and mortality caused by fisheries and fishing equipment.

6.2.1 Conduct a systematic review of data on fin whale interactions with 

fishing operations. 

 

6.2.2 Review existing photographic databases for evidence of injuries to 

fin whales caused by encounters with fishing gear to better characterize 

and understand fishing gear interactions. 

6.2.3 Investigate the development of a deterrence system to non-lethally 

deter fin whales from fishing gear.

6.2.4 Conduct studies of gear modifications that reduce the likelihood of 

entanglement, mitigate the effects of entanglements, and enhance the 

possibility of disentanglement. Determine whether measures to reduce 

entanglements are effective.

6.2.5 Develop and implement schemes to reduce the rate at which gear is 

lost, and improve the reporting of lost gear, in conjunction with studies in 

6.2.3, 6.2.4, and 6.2.6. 

6.2.6 Continue to review, evaluate, and act upon reports from fisherman 

and fishery observers of fishery interactions with fin whales. 
July 2010 IV-3 NMFS

6.3 Investigate and reduce mortality and serious injury from vessel collisions.

6.3.1 Identify specific areas where recorded ship strikes of fin whales 

have occurred and conduct studies to identify ecosystem-based traits that 

could support an assemblage of predictive tools. 

6.3.2 Once areas in 5.0 and 6.1 are identified, and in conjunction with 

information derived and resulting predictive tools from 6.3.1, conduct 

analyses of shipping routes and important fin whale habitat areas, to 

determine the risk of ship collisions with fin whales. 

6.3.3 Develop a system to encourage, collect, and appropriately analyze 

opportunistic sightings of fin whales from fishing vessels, whale watching

vessels, charter vessels, etc. 

6.3.4 Work with mariners, the shipping industry, and appropriate State, 

Federal, and International agencies to develop and implement regionallybased measures to reduce the threat of ship strikes. Assess the 

effectiveness of ship strike measures and adjust, as necessary. 

6.3.5 Explore possible mechanisms to encourage vessels that have struck 

a whale to report the incident.

6.3.6 Review existing photographic databases for evidence of injuries to 

fin whales caused by ships to better characterize and understand vessel 

collisions. 

6.4 Conduct studies of environmental pollution that may affect fin whale 

populations and their prey.

6.4.1 Conduct studies on individual health and body condition as they 

may be related to accumulated contaminants. 

6.4.2 Take steps to minimize adverse effects from pollutants, if 

necessary. 

7.0 Determine and Minimize Any Detrimental Effects of Anthropogenic Noise in 

the Oceans.

7.1 Conduct studies to assess the effects of anthropogenic noise on the 

distribution, behavior, and productivity of fin whales.

7.2 Take steps to minimize anthropogenic noises that are found to be 

potentially detrimental to fin whales.
July 2010 IV-4 NMFS

8.0 Maximize Efforts to Acquire Scientific Information from Dead, Stranded, 

and Entangled or Entrapped Fin Whales.

8.1 Respond effectively to strandings of fin whales in U.S. waters.

8.1.1 Continue and improve program to maximize data collected from 

necropsy of fin whale carcasses.

8.1.2 Maintain and review, and if needed improve, the system for 

reporting dead, entangled, or entrapped fin whales.

8.1.3 Improve, or as necessary, develop and implement protocols for 

securing and retrieving stranded (on land) or floating (at sea) fin whale 

carcasses.

8.2 Review, analyze, and summarize data on stranded fin whales on an annual 

basis. 

8.3 Develop protocols for handling live-stranded fin whales.

8.4 Establish reliable sources of funding for rescue, necropsy, and tissue 

collection and analysis efforts.

9.0 Develop Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan.

B. Recovery Action Narrative 

1.0 Coordinate State, Federal, and International Actions to Implement 

Recovery Actions and Maintain International Regulation of Whaling for Fin 

Whales.

A coordinated approach to the tasks described in this Recovery Plan would greatly 

facilitate their completion. The establishment of a team charged with coordinating state 

and federal implementation efforts, and with pursuing international cooperative efforts, is 

highly desirable. Liaison efforts between the team and the lead agency would be the 

responsibility of the designated individual from the latter body. 

Cooperate with the IWC (and other relevant international bodies or agreements) to ensure 

that any resumption of commercial whaling on fin whales is prosecuted on a sustainable 

basis and that all whaling activity is conducted within the purview of the IWC (i.e., there 

is no “pirate” whaling).

The international regulation of whaling is vital to the recovery of whale populations. 

This is particularly true for fin whales because of their wide distribution, far-ranging 

movements, and high commercial value. The IWC’s Revised Management Procedure 
July 2010 IV-5 NMFS

was developed for use with baleen whale populations. With the possible exception of the 

central and eastern North Atlantic, there is no area in the Northern Hemisphere where 

enough is known about the recent and current status of fin whale populations to justify 

the resumption of exploitation. Even in the case of the central and eastern North Atlantic, 

great uncertainty remains about population structure, particularly when compared with 

the whales occurring seasonally off eastern North America, Greenland, and Iceland. The 

possibility that fin whales found around Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands, 

belong to the same populations as those found off the eastern United States and Canada, 

cannot be ruled out. Thus, any whaling in the central or eastern North Atlantic, could 

directly affect recovery of the populations in the western North Atlantic.

2.0 Determine Population Discreteness and Population Structure of Fin Whales.

Existing knowledge of the population structure of fin whales is insufficient, and a more 

comprehensive understanding is essential for developing strategies to promote recovery 

and for classifying the populations according to their recovery status. Fin whales were 

listed as endangered under predecessor legislation to the ESA of 1973. In 1996, the 

Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments (DPS) (61 

FR 4722), stated that “Any DPS of a vertebrate taxon that was listed prior to 

implementation of the DPS policy will be reevaluated on a case-by-case basis as 

recommendations are made to change the listing status for that distinct population 

segment.” Given that there are two named, and possibly three recognized subspecies of 

fin whales, it is almost certain that the global listing inadequately captures the current 

population structure. 

To the maximum extent possible, data should be collected in such a way that 

comparisons with historical data are practicable. It may be necessary to develop 

calibration methods so that results of studies using new or recent techniques can be 

compared with those obtained using more traditional methods. Analyses should be 

directed at examining trends over time, and attempts should be made to correlate 

observed changes in whale populations with physical, biological, or human-induced 

changes in the environment. As much as possible, data should be presented in peerreviewed journals and other open publications to ensure that research programs benefit 

from regular peer scrutiny. Models of fin whale movement (2.2 below) are necessary to 

understand population structure determined genetically (2.1 below) and to manage the 

effects of human activities on this species. NMFS proposes two interrelated research 

initiatives to assess population structure described in detail below: the first, 2.1, uses 

genetic analysis to determine population structure and discreteness and the second, 2.2, 

uses telemetry and photo-identification to assess movement.

2.1 Support existing studies and initiate new studies to investigate population 

discreteness and population structure of fin whales using genetic analyses. 

This is among the highest priority actions in this plan because it would improve 

understanding and management of the species; however, it cannot be given a
July 2010 IV-6 NMFS

Priority 1 ranking as we do not believe we can make the case that it would prevent 

extinction. 

Although fin whales are regularly observed on the continental shelf in U.S. 

waters, important questions concerning population discreteness and structure can 

only be addressed by reference to materials that include samples obtained in areas 

outside U.S. coastal waters. Researchers equipped to sample other whale species 

(e.g., right and humpback whales) within U.S. waters, particularly in more remote 

areas where fin whale samples have not previously been obtained (e.g., Oregon, 

Washington, and Alaska in the Pacific), should be encouraged to take advantage 

of opportunities to obtain samples from fin whales, on an opportunistic basis. 

Collaborative efforts with foreign (particularly Canadian, Mexican, Greenlandic, 

and Icelandic) agencies and researchers will probably be necessary to obtain 

sufficient samples over wide enough areas for conclusive analyses. Standard 

sampling protocols and analytical procedures should be used. All biopsy samples 

should be preserved in such a way that the accompanying blubber can be used for 

contaminant analyses (item 5.3, below). The genetics work should be 

complemented by a thorough review of existing data from whaling and other 

sources. This might include investigation of geographical variation in 

morphology and meristics of fin whales. New methods examining stable isotopes 

and fatty acids have also proven effective auxiliary data in cases where there is 

population mixing (i.e., genetically distinct groupings mix spatially usually on the 

feeding grounds.) Any such methods that can assist in resolving population 

structure should be encouraged. See Action 3.2 for a discussion of cost estimates.

2.2 Assess daily and seasonal movements and inter-area exchange using 

telemetry and photo-identification.

Telemetry studies using satellite-linked and VHP radio tags are needed to 

investigate patterns and ranges of daily, seasonal, and longer-term movements of 

individual fin whales. Exchange rates between populations might also be 

addressed to some degree by telemetry studies. Long-term efforts at photoidentification should also be encouraged to continue. It may not be realistic to use 

photo-identification of fin whales in U.S. waters for mark-recapture population 

estimation, or even for detailed investigations of social organization and behavior. 

However, opportunistic efforts to photo-document sightings could contribute to 

knowledge of individual animal movements and residency times. A central 

repository for fin whale photographs, and a system for curating and analyzing 

them, should be established. Photographs should be supplemented whenever 

possible by tissue samples (whether sloughed skin or biopsies), for DNA 

fingerprinting (Amos and Hoelzel 1990). 
July 2010 IV-7 NMFS

3.0 Develop and Apply Methods to Estimate Population Size and Monitor 

Trends in Abundance.

Along with determining population structure, this is among the highest priority actions in 

this plan. Recovery of fin whale populations can only be assessed if reliable estimates of 

abundance are available, and if trends in abundance can be determined. Although 

abundance estimates are available for the species in portions of their range along both the 

Atlantic and Pacific coasts, these estimates are generally imprecise and refer to 

geographic areas rather than to well-founded population units (i.e., populations or 

stocks). 

3.1 Determine the best methods for assessing fin whale status and trends.

Considerable effort has been made to gather information on fin whales in the 

North Atlantic and North Pacific, but very little in the Southern Hemisphere. An 

assessment of the level and distribution of survey efforts required to achieve 

optimal assessment results for the three ocean basins is essential to ensure that the 

entire population of fin whales is surveyed and that field work is as efficient and 

cost-effective as possible. This may be achieved through a workshop or other 

means. 

3.2 Conduct surveys to estimate abundance and monitor trends in fin whale 

populations worldwide.

Systematic surveys should be conducted to assess abundance in areas known, 

primarily from historic whaling data and large-scale sighting surveys, to have 

been inhabited regularly by fin whales in the past. The timing of such surveys 

would be critically important in view of these whales’ migratory behavior. For 

meaningful estimates, it will be necessary for U.S. scientists to promote and 

participate in cooperative surveys with scientists from other countries. Findings 

from population structure studies identified in item 2.0, above, will be useful in 

interpreting survey results. Because of the relatively long generation times of fin 

whales and the time scales on which environmental factors affecting their 

distribution may operate, programs to monitor trends in their populations must 

involve long-term commitments and extended periods of ship-based surveys on 

large research vessels. A primary goal should be to foster an international 

collaboration and cooperation in the study and protection of the worldwide 

population of fin whales. Potential cost savings include combining this objective 

with other large ship-based research projects in the same area and other objectives 

listed in this Recovery Plan.4

 4 The daily cost of an ocean class University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) ship was 

estimated to be about $35K per day. This estimate does not account for inflation factors such as fuel costs. It 

was also assumed that the cost of the ship would mainly be split between Actions 2.1, 3.2, and 5.1. These 

actions were assumed to be split in the following proportions for ship time: Action 3.2 at 80%, Action 5.1 at 

15%, and Action 2.1 totaling 5%. The task duration was rounded up to the nearest 6 or 12 month period for 

ease of estimating costs. Action 3.2 represents the total cost for the ship time. Other actions items where ship 

time may be necessary are also included in the total cost, but determining what proportion of ship time would 

 
July 2010 IV-8 NMFS

3.3 Develop an intensive and geographically broad scale program to obtain 

biopsies of fin whales for mark-recapture abundance estimation.

The feasibility of using a genotype-based mark-recapture study to estimate 

abundance was demonstrated for North Atlantic humpbacks by Palsbøll et al.

(1997). This approach uses microsatellite DNA to identify individuals 

unequivocally, without any of the challenges associated with obtaining photos for 

photo-identification studies. Microsatellite primers have already been developed 

for fin whales (Bérubé et al. 1998); however, fin whales are more difficult to 

biopsy than humpback whales. Given the likely large sizes of the fin whale 

populations involved, a great amount of effort will be required to sample a 

sufficient number of individuals to generate reasonably precise abundance 

estimates. In addition, the feasibility of large-scale programs should be 

investigated, particularly in areas where high recapture rates are anticipated and 

acceptable levels of precision are possible. 

3.4 Maintain existing fin whale photo-identification catalogs.

The existing photo-identification catalogs for fin whales in (e.g., Agler 1992; 

Agler et al. 1990) should be maintained. The scientific importance of such 

catalogs has been demonstrated with numerous species, and the possibilities for 

obtaining insights relevant to effectively managing the species will increase as 

more information is obtained. 

It should be noted, however, that mark-recapture models for abundance 

estimation, using photo-identification as the marking and recapture method, will 

be more difficult to apply to fin whales than to humpback whales. There are two 

main reasons: (a) variation in natural markings in fin whales is not nearly as great 

(or as obvious) as in some other species (e.g., humpback, right, and blue whales), 

and matching is therefore difficult and sometimes equivocal; and (b) many 

researchers who have worked with fin whales believe that the population contains 

significant numbers of unmarked animals, i.e., whales that have so few markings 

that they are effectively unrecognizable from one encounter to the next (P.J. 

Clapham, pers. comm. 2006). From the standpoint of mark-recapture statistics, 

this creates the problem of potential false positives (two individuals wrongly 

identified as one animal), which is a much more serious source of bias than false 

negatives (an individual observed repeatedly but not matched) (Gunnlaugsson and 

Sigurjønsson 1990).

 be used was less than what is reported here for action items 2.1, 3.2, and 5.1 and thus, those specific actions 

are not discussed in detail.
July 2010 IV-9 NMFS

4.0 Conduct Risk Analyses.

Risk analyses incorporate known and projected risks into a population projection. Given 

the large uncertainties in abundance and population growth rate, such uncertainties 

should also be directly incorporated into population projections. The output will be the 

probability of extinction over time for use in the down- and delisting criteria. A

workshop may be needed to address how to treat uncertainty in population structure in 

risk assessment. 

4.1 Conduct risk analyses for North Atlantic and North Pacific.

Analyses will be based on time series of abundance estimates including 

uncertainty for a significant portion of each ocean basin and including known 

population structure. Some of the needed data gathering has been done for the 

comprehensive assessment of North Atlantic fin whales. The North Pacific 

requires more comprehensive abundance estimates (current estimates are for only 

portions of the range, such as the area off California/Oregon/Washington) and 

improved understanding of population structure (such as the connection between 

feeding aggregations in Alaska and other areas). Such an analysis could take 

place following this research as early as 2013. 

4.2 Conduct risk analyses for Southern Hemisphere.

Analysis of risks in the Southern Hemisphere are anticipated to take much longer 

because of much greater uncertainties within this large region (including whether 

there are multiple subspecies present) and the potential of no abundance estimates 

for some areas and consequently great uncertainty about trends. Data gathering 

and analyses that are prerequisites to risk analysis make this effort impossible 

before 2020. 

5.0 Identify, Characterize, Protect, and Monitor Habitat Important to Fin Whale 

Populations in U.S. Waters and Elsewhere.

Identifying important habitat and reducing direct and indirect threats to fin whale habitat 

is integral to recovery. Important habitat may or may not qualify as critical habitat under 

the ESA. Information is needed on environmental factors that influence fin whale 

distribution. In addition, adequate protective measures are needed to reduce or eliminate 

human-related impacts to fin whale habitat. 

5.1 Characterize Fin Whale Habitat.

This is among the highest priority actions in this plan because it would improve 

understanding and management of the species; however, it cannot be given a 

Priority 1 ranking as we do not believe we can make the case that it would prevent 

extinction. 
July 2010 IV-10 NMFS

Areas where fin whales are consistently seen and heard are assumed to be 

important to their survival. Areas used infrequently or for short periods may also 

be linked to population fitness. Compile or collect relevant physical, chemical, 

biological, meteorological, fishery, and other data to characterize features of 

important habitats and potential sources of human-caused destruction and 

degradation of what are determined to be important areas for fin whales. Habitat 

characterization also involves, among other things, descriptions of prey types, 

densities, and abundances, and of associated oceanographic and hydrographic 

features. Inter-annual variability in habitat characteristics, and in fin whale 

habitat use, is an important component of habitat characterization. More research 

is needed to define rigorously and specifically, the environmental features that

make an area important to fin whales. A predictive framework for identifying 

potentially important fin whale habitat would be a useful management tool. Some 

areas are known to be important habitat while others may be discovered during 

survey work discussed in sections 2.0 and 3.0, above. Only with information on 

the ecological needs of the species will managers be able to provide necessary 

protections. 

5.2 Monitor important habitat features and fin whale use patterns to assess 

potentially detrimental shifts in these features that might reflect 

disturbance or degradation of habitat.

After baseline data are obtained and analyzed, ongoing studies should be done to 

determine if shifts are occurring in essential habitat components. Fin whale 

habitat should be assessed periodically through surveys and GIS analysis. Shifts 

in distribution or habitat use should be analyzed as potentially resulting from 

anthropogenic sources of habitat degradation or disturbance. If shifts are detected 

and are linked to human activities, actions may be taken to modify the activity to 

reduce or eliminate the cause.

5.3 Promote actions to protect important habitat in U.S. waters.

Support efforts to collect and compile data on habitat use patterns for the fin 

whale population in U.S. waters. Once 5.1 and 5.2 are determined, mitigate for 

those actions. Validate those areas where fin whales are thought to occur and 

determine if those areas are important areas warranting habitat protection. 

5.4 Promote actions to define, identify, and protect important habitat in 

foreign or international waters.

Fin whale range is transboundary. Collaborative efforts should be made with 

foreign governments to protect fin whale habitat within their EEZ’s, and to join 

multi-national efforts on behalf of marine habitat protection. International efforts 

to collect and compile data on habitat use patterns for the fin whale population 

should be supported. Actions that have impacts on fin whales should be 

mitigated, and the U.S. should support and endorse such efforts. Validation of 
July 2010 IV-11 NMFS

those areas where fin whales are thought to occur and protection of those areas 

that are determined as important areas warranting habitat protection should be 

supported. Due to the very wide-ranging movements of individual fin whales 

(demonstrated by tag returns) and the species’ extensive distribution in both the 

North Pacific and North Atlantic, international initiatives to reduce pollution (see 

6.4) and protect resources (such as 5.5) on the high seas may be key to the longterm conservation of fin whale populations. 

5.5 Improve knowledge of fin whale feeding ecology.

Studies designed to improve knowledge of fin whale prey preferences, dietary 

requirements, and energetics will be important to understanding habitat use, 

impacts of fishery practices on whale populations (e.g., food-web effects of 

factory-ship trawling for herring), and recovery potential. Consumption of finfish 

by fin whales suggests that they could interact in important ways with commercial 

fisheries in many areas, in addition to being affected by shifts in prey abundance 

and distribution, caused by climatic fluctuations. 

5.6 Conduct research and perform analyses to understand the impacts of 

climate change on fin whales and seek strategies to reduce these impacts. 

In addition to the information collected in 5.1, 5.2, and 5.5, improved knowledge 

of the effects of climate change on fin whale feeding ecology and habitat use 

would be informative for evaluating or predicting shifts in prey abundance or 

distribution caused by climatic fluctuations. Investigating the degree of overlap 

between distributions of different species, the environmental factors influencing 

their distributions, and the effect of spatial scale on the significance of different 

environmental predictors should be supported to improve knowledge on the 

potential effects of climate change on fin whales. Although the natural absorption 

of carbon dioxide (CO2) by the world’s oceans helps mitigate the climatic effects 

of anthropogenic emissions of CO2, it is believed that the resulting decrease in pH 

will have negative consequences. While the full ecological consequences of these 

changes are not known, organisms, such as fin whales, may suffer adverse effects, 

either directly as reproductive or physiological effects or indirectly through 

negative impacts on their food resources. Strategies developed through 

international efforts to mitigate and minimize the effects of climate change should 

be followed for the benefit of fin whales as well as other ecosystem components. 

6.0 Investigate Causes and Reduce the Frequency and Severity of Human-caused 

Injury and Mortality of Fin Whales.

Known or suspected causes of anthropogenic mortality in fin whales include vessel 

strikes and entanglement in fishing gear or marine debris. Studies of the circumstances 

leading to collisions with ships and fishing gear are required before measures can be 

developed and implemented to reduce the frequency of these harmful interactions. 
July 2010 IV-12 NMFS

6.1. Identify areas where concentrations of fin whales coincide with significant

levels of maritime traffic, fishing, or pollution (including marine debris).

In an effort to reduce human-caused injury and mortality of fin whales, 

identification of the coincidence between fin whales and human activities 

identified below is necessary. 

6.2. Reduce injury and mortality caused by fisheries and fishing equipment.

6.2.1 Conduct a systematic review of data on fin whale interactions with 

fishing operations. 

 

From such a review, it should be possible to make a preliminary 

evaluation of what types of fisheries and fishing gear pose the greatest risk 

to fin whales. Data from areas outside U.S. waters could be useful for 

strengthening inferences and extrapolations.

6.2.2 Review existing photographic databases for evidence of injuries to 

fin whales caused by encounters with fishing gear to better characterize 

and understand fishing gear interactions.

Existing databases, especially those with extensive photographic records

of fin whale observations, should be searched for evidence of encounters 

with fishing gear. Studies to quantify the volume and type of ship traffic, 

fisheries, and pollution in areas known to be important to fin whales 

would provide a useful perspective on the potential seriousness of these 

threats. Although it may prove impossible to derive quantitative measures 

of injury or mortality rates, such a review might at least help to identify 

areas where the risk is especially high, and the types fishing gear that are 

particularly troublesome. 

6.2.3 Investigate the development of a deterrence system to non-lethally 

deter fin whales from fishing gear.

6.2.4 Conduct studies of gear modifications that reduce the likelihood of 

entanglement, mitigate the effects of entanglements, and enhance the 

possibility of disentanglement. Determine whether measures to reduce 

entanglements are effective. 

Current and ongoing research on possible modifications to fishing gear 

that facilitate an entangled whale to free itself once entangled should be 

continued. These studies might include assessing the potential use of 

biodegradable lines, study ways to reduce the number and length of 

vertical lines in the water column, design breakaway lines for heavy gear, 

and research acoustic deterrents. 
July 2010 IV-13 NMFS

6.2.5 Develop and implement schemes to reduce the rate at which 

fishing gear is lost, and improve the reporting of lost gear, in conjunction 

with studies in 6.2.3, 6.2.4, and 6.2.6.

6.2.6 Continue to review, evaluate, and act upon reports from fisherman 

and fishery observers of fishery interactions with fin whales.

6.3 Investigate and reduce mortality and serious injury from vessel collisions.

6.3.1 Identify specific areas where recorded ship strikes of fin whales 

have occurred and conduct studies to identify ecosystem-based traits that 

could support an assemblage of predictive tools. 

The above would assist in the determination of when fin whales may be 

present, why fin whales are present in the area at that time, and whether

the presence of ships alter the ecosystem in such a way that fin whales 

become more susceptible to a strike.

6.3.2 Once areas in 5.0 and 6.1 are identified, and in conjunction with 

information derived and resulting predictive tools from 6.3.1, conduct 

analyses of shipping routes and important fin whale habitat areas, to 

determine the risk of ship collisions with fin whales. 

6.3.3 Develop a system to encourage, collect, and appropriately analyze 

opportunistic sightings of fin whales from fishing vessels, whale watching

vessels, charter vessels, etc. 

6.3.4 Work with mariners, the shipping industry, and appropriate State, 

Federal, and International agencies to develop and implement regionallybased measures to reduce the threat of ship strikes. Assess the 

effectiveness of ship strike measures and adjust, as necessary. 

The practicality and effectiveness of options to reduce ship strikes should 

be assessed. Methods and measures developed for other endangered 

whales (e.g., right whales) should be considered for their possible 

application to fin whales. 

6.3.5 Explore possible mechanisms to encourage vessels that have struck 

a whale to report the incident.

6.3.6 Review existing photographic databases for evidence of injuries to 

fin whales caused by ships to better characterize and understand vessel 

collisions. 

Existing databases, especially those with extensive photographic records 

of fin whale observations, should be searched for evidence of ship strikes. 
July 2010 IV-14 NMFS

Studies to quantify the volume and type of ship traffic, fisheries, and 

pollution in areas known to be important to fin whales would provide a 

useful perspective on the potential seriousness of these threats. Although 

it may prove impossible to derive quantitative measures of injury or 

mortality rates, such a review might at least help to identify areas where 

the risk is especially high, and the types of vessel traffic that are 

particularly troublesome. 

6.4 Conduct studies of environmental pollution that may affect fin whale 

populations and their prey.

In general, baleen whales have lower contaminant levels in their tissues than 

toothed whales. Research is needed on the long-term and trans-generational 

effects of various contaminants on the whales and on their prey. The inconclusive

nature of studies related to contaminants in fin (and other baleen) whales makes it 

difficult to develop (and justify) measures to reduce their risks of exposure.

Research should be extended to include studies of metabolic pathways and the

influence on contaminant burdens of sex, reproductive condition, and geographic 

origin. 

6.4.1 Conduct studies on individual health and body condition as they 

may be related to accumulated contaminants. 

Biopsy samples collected under item 2.1 (above) will be usable for some 

of this work. Related studies of pollution sources and transport processes 

are necessary to provide the basis for management measures. 

6.4.2 Take steps to minimize adverse effects from pollutants, if 

necessary. 

If studies indicate that contaminants in the marine environment are 

adversely affecting fin whales, steps should be taken to reduce the sources 

of such contaminants. 

7.0 Determine and Minimize Any Detrimental Effects of Anthropogenic Noise in 

the Oceans. 

Fin whales are among the cetaceans likely to be sensitive to disturbance by loud or 

unfamiliar noise. Their deep-ocean distribution and far-ranging movements put them in 

potential conflict with a wide array of human activities, including mineral exploration 

and exploitation (e.g., seismic surveys), military maneuvers, and research using acoustic 

methods. It is therefore important to understand and mitigate the effects of anthropogenic 

noise on these animals. 
July 2010 IV-15 NMFS

7.1 Conduct studies to assess the effects of anthropogenic noise on the 

distribution, behavior, and productivity of fin whales.

As discussed in section G.2, very little research has addressed questions about the 

effects of noise on fin whales, and there has been very little conclusive evidence

in regard to the biological significance of observed effects. Studies are needed to 

assess potential adverse effects of underwater noise (including ship noise) on fin 

whales, including, but not limited to, disturbance of intraspecific communication,

disruption of vital functions mediated by sound, distributional shifts, and stress 

from chronic or frequent exposure to loud sound. Noise sources studied should 

include, but not be limited to, industrial and shipping activities, oceanographic 

experiments, military related activities, and other human activities. 

7.2 Take steps to minimize anthropogenic noises that are found to be 

potentially detrimental to fin whales.

If studies of the kind mentioned in item 7.1 indicate that particular types of 

underwater noise have adverse effects on fin whales (either by masking their 

sounds or by damaging their auditory organ systems), or add physiological stress 

to their lives, implement appropriate regulatory measures on sources of the threat. 

It is important that the effects of underwater noise on baleen whales become 

better understood. 

8.0 Maximize Efforts to Acquire Scientific Information from Dead, Stranded, 

and Entangled or Entrapped Fin Whales.

Assessment of the causes and frequency of mortality (either natural or human-caused) is 

important to understanding population dynamics and the threats that may impede the 

recovery of fin whale populations. However, discovery of a carcass under circumstances 

allowing it to be examined in a timely and rigorous manner is a relatively rare event. 

Accordingly, efforts to detect and investigate fin whale deaths should be as efficient as 

possible. 

8.1 Respond effectively to strandings of fin whales in U.S. waters.

8.1.1 Continue and improve program to maximize data collected from 

necropsy of fin whale carcasses.

Each fin whale carcass represents an opportunity for scientific 

investigation of the cause of death, as well as addressing other questions 

related to the biology of the species. Delays in attempts to secure or 

examine a carcass can result in the loss of valuable data, or even of the 

carcass itself. The Stranding Network coordinator should work with 

appropriate agencies, organizations, and individuals to ensure that, when a 

fin whale carcass is reported and secured: (i) a necropsy is performed as 

rapidly and as thoroughly as possible by qualified individuals to gather 
July 2010 IV-16 NMFS

information regarding the cause of death; (ii) samples are taken and 

properly preserved for studies of genetics, toxicology, and pathology; and 

(iii) funding is available to notify and transport appropriate experts to the 

site rapidly and to distribute tissue samples to appropriate locations for 

analysis or storage. In addition, the coordinator should work with 

stranding networks and the scientific community, to develop and maintain 

lists of tissue samples requested by qualified individuals and agencies, and 

ensure that these samples are collected routinely from each carcass and 

stored in appropriate locations or distributed to appropriate researchers. 

8.1.2 Maintain and review, and if needed improve, the system for 

reporting dead, entangled, or entrapped fin whales.

8.1.3 Improve, or as necessary, develop and implement protocols for 

securing and retrieving stranded (on land) or floating (at sea) fin whale 

carcasses.

The detection and reporting of dead fin whales, whether stranded or 

floating at sea, need to be encouraged. The Large Whale Recovery 

Program coordinator and the National Marine Mammal Stranding 

Network coordinator, should continue working with representatives of 

local, state, and federal agencies, private organizations, academic 

institutions, and regional and national stranding networks, to facilitate 

efficient observer coverage and information exchange. In areas where 

protocols do not exist, they should be developed. The responsibilities of 

all relevant agencies, organizations, and individuals should be clearly 

defined. 

Fin whales may die at sea, but not be detected or reported. Mariners, 

including Navy and Coast Guard personnel, commercial and recreational 

boaters, and fishermen might observe carcasses at sea, but not recognize 

the importance of their observation. Mariners should be educated about 

the importance of reporting carcasses so that as much information as 

possible can be collected from them. 

8.2 Review, analyze, and summarize data on stranded fin whales on an annual 

basis. 

Current and complete data on stranding events and the data derived from them is 

essential to developing protective measures. Summaries should include, but not 

be limited to, assessments of the cause of death and, where applicable, the types 

of fishing gear, if fishing operations resulted in the death of the animal. 
July 2010 IV-17 NMFS

8.3 Develop protocols for handling live-stranded fin whales.

Disentanglement readiness, contingencies, and programs are essential. When 

feasible, and with maximum regard for human safety, efforts should be made to 

free entangled or entrapped whales. Therefore, clearly defined strategies should 

be in place. Disentanglement response teams should be trained and efforts to 

expand disentanglement response should be considered to ensure coverage is 

adequate. Studies of possible advances of disentanglement gear should be 

conducted to improve disentanglement efforts. Response teams should also be 

trained and efforts expanded to consider that coverage is adequate for an 

entrapped animal.

Rehabilitation of live-stranded fin whales may be feasible in very limited 

circumstances. Attempting and effecting rehabilitation requires advanced 

planning including decisions regarding appropriate facilities, logistics, and 

equipment to be used. These are likely regionally specific and should be 

developed in advance with responsibilities clearly defined. 

8.4 Establish reliable sources of funding for rescue, necropsy, and tissue 

collection and analysis efforts.

As noted, collection of information from fin whale carcasses is essential to 

recovery efforts. Therefore, identifying and committing to predictable sources of 

funding for completing these tasks is also critical. 

9.0 Develop Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan.

After populations have been identified, determined to be stable or increasing, and threats 

controlled, a monitoring plan should be developed to ensure that fin whales do not revert 

in abundance, or become subject to new threats that cause adverse effects. Normally, this 

monitoring plan will be a scaled-down version of the monitoring conducted prior to 

delisting, and will continue for a minimum of 1.5 generations, although it may be 

continued for longer.
July 2010 IV-18 NMFS

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
July 2010 V-1 NMFS

V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

The implementation schedule that follows is used to estimate costs to direct and monitor 

implementation and completion of recovery tasks set forth in this Recovery Plan. It is a 

guide for meeting recovery goals outlined in this Recovery Plan. The Implementation 

Schedule indicates the action numbers, action descriptions, action priorities, duration of 

the action, the parties responsible for the actions, and estimated costs. Parties with 

authority, responsibility, or expressed interest to implement a specific recovery action are 

identified in the Implementation Schedule. 

Priorities in column 3 of the implementation schedule are assigned as follows: 

Priority 1 – An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to identify those actions 

necessary to prevent extinction. 

Priority 2 – An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in population 

numbers or habitat quality, or to prevent other significant negative trends short of 

extinction. 

Priority 3 – All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species. 

This implementation schedule accords priorities to individual tasks to specify their 

importance in the recovery effort. It should be noted that even the highest-priority tasks 

within a plan are not given a Priority 1 ranking unless they are actions necessary to 

prevent extinction or to identify those actions necessary to prevent extinction. 

Any action is listed under that section which best describes the intent of that action. 

However, a single action may have multiple consequences. For instance, many of the 

actions described in Action 5 (Identify, Characterize, Protect, and Monitor Habitat 

Important to Fin Whale Populations in U.S. Waters and Elsewhere) also have an impact 

on the threats identified in Action 6 (Investigate Causes and Reduce the Frequency and 

Severity of Human-caused Injury and Mortality) as important habitat areas may coincide 

with areas with significant human influences. While this is of little consequence to the 

overall goal of recovering fin whales, readers should note that because actions are linked, 

the total cost of achieving the single action will include the cost of actions completed in 

other sections. Hence, while the total cost of recovery described in the Implementation 

Schedule reflects the cost of recovering the species, individual actions, or the costs of 

completing the goals of individual actions, may be understated when actions are viewed 

in isolation. Funding is estimated in accordance with the number of years necessary to 

complete the task once implementation has begun. The provision of cost estimates does 

not mean to imply that appropriate levels of funding will necessarily be available for all 

fin whale recovery tasks. In addition, the listing party in the Implementation Schedule 

does not require the identified party to implement the action(s) or to secure funding for 

implementing the action(s). The cost of actions within each category is assigned to the 

subsection of that action which encompasses those described under that subsection (i.e.,

costs in subsection 6.2 include those costs incurred in actions 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 
July 2010 V-2 NMFS

and 6.2.5). For each, sub-totals are given as a whole in bold italics. Some costs are listed 

as discrete (e.g., 5 years) and some are until time to recovery (i.e., “TBD” and 

“Ongoing”). Thus, “TBD” and “ongoing” were treated equally and both were assumed to 

equal the time to recovery for cost purposes (2020 for N. Atlantic Ocean and N. Pacific 

Ocean and 2030 for the Southern Hemisphere) and costs that were discrete, were 

calculated for that discrete time period.

DISCLAIMER

The Implementation Schedule that follows outlines actions and estimated costs for the 

recovery program for the fin whale, as set forth in this Recovery Plan. It is a guide for 

meeting the recovery goals outlined in this Recovery Plan. This schedule indicates action 

numbers, action descriptions, action priorities, duration of actions, the parties responsible 

for actions (either funding or carrying out), and estimated costs. Parties with authority, 

responsibility, or expressed interest to implement a specific recovery action are identified 

in the Implementation Schedule. The listing of a party in the Implementation Schedule 

does not require the identified party to implement the action(s) or to secure funding for 

implementing the action(s). 
July 2010 V-3 NMFS

FIN WHALE (BALAENOPTERA PHYSALUS) IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Action

Number Action Description Priority

Task

Duration

(years)

Agencies/

Organizations

Involved/

Potentially

Involved

Cost Estimates by Ocean Basin

(thousands of dollars)

North 

Atlantic

(2020)

North 

Pacific

(2020)

South. 

Hem.

(2030)

Total

Total/yr. 

x Task 

Duration

1 Coordinate State, 

Federal, and 

International Actions 

to Implement Recovery 

Actions and Maintain 

International 

Regulation of Whaling 

for Fin Whales.

1 Ongoing NMFS, IWC, 

Department of 

State (DOS)

100 100 100 300 4,000

TOTAL 1 100 100 100 300 4,000

2 Determine Population 

Discreteness and 

Population Structure 

of Fin Whales.

2.1

See text for 

explanation 

of costs

Support existing 

studies and initiate new 

studies to investigate 

population discreteness 

and population 

structure of fin whales 

using genetic analyses. 

2 5 NMFS, IWC,

International 

Partners

100 200 500 800 4,000
July 2010 V-4 NMFS

Action

Number Action Description Priority

Task

Duration

(years)

Agencies/

Organizations

Involved/

Potentially

Involved

Cost Estimates by Ocean Basin

(thousands of dollars)

North 

Atlantic

(2020)

North 

Pacific

(2020)

South. 

Hem. 

(2030)

Total

Total/yr. 

x Task 

Duration

2.2

See text for 

explanation 

of costs

Assess daily and 

seasonal movements 

and inter-area 

exchange, using 

telemetry and photoidentification.

2 5 NMFS,

International 

Partners

167 166 167 500 2,500

TOTAL 2 267 266 667 1,300 6,500

3 Develop and Apply 

Methods to Estimate 

Population Size and 

Monitor Trends in 

Abundance.

3.1 Determine the best 

methods for assessing 

fin whale status and 

trends.

2 1 NMFS, 

International 

Partners

30 30
July 2010 V-5 NMFS

Action

Number Action Description Priority

Task

Duration

(years)

Agencies/

Organizations

Involved/

Potentially

Involved

Cost Estimates by Ocean Basin

(thousands of dollars)

North 

Atlantic

(2020)

North 

Pacific

(2020)

South. 

Hem. 

(2030)

Total

Total/yr. 

x Task 

Duration

3.2 Conduct surveys to 

estimate abundance and 

monitor trends in fin 

whale populations 

worldwide.

2 One 

survey5

NMFS, 

International 

Partners

50,8806 15,0727 118,3448 184,296 184,296

3.3 Develop an intensive, 

geographically broad 

scale program to obtain 

biopsies of fin whales 

for mark-recapture 

abundance estimation.

2 2 NMFS, 

International 

Partners

200 200 400

3.4 Maintain existing fin 

whale photoidentification catalogs. 

2 Ongoing NMFS 40 40 400

TOTAL 3 51,120 15,072 118,344 184,566 185,126

 5 Using two ships for approximately 4.5 months/year. The task duration was rounded up to the nearest 6 or 12 month period for ease of estimating 

costs.

6 In this case, the Task Duration is one survey and for the N. Atlantic Ocean, one survey is expected to last 5.3 years. Rounding the value up to 

coincide with the nearest 6th or 12th month, the total annual cost is the total cost in thousands ($50,880), divided by 5.5 years which is $9,251.

7 In this case, the Task Duration is one survey and for the N. Pacific Ocean, one survey is expected to last 1.57 years. Rounding the value up to 

coincide with the nearest 6th or 12th month, the total annual cost is the total cost in thousands ($15,072), divided by 2 years which is $7,536.

8 In this case, the Task Duration is one survey and for the S. Hemisphere, one survey is expected to last 12.3 years. Rounding the value up to 

coincide with the nearest 6th or 12th month, the total annual cost is the total cost in thousands ($18,344), divided by 12.5 years which is $9,468.
July 2010 V-6 NMFS

Action

Number Action Description Priority

Task

Duration

(years)

Agencies/

Organizations

Involved/

Potentially

Involved

Cost Estimates by Ocean Basin

(thousands of dollars)

North 

Atlantic

(2020)

North 

Pacific

(2020)

South. 

Hem. 

(2030)

Total

Total/yr. 

x Task 

Duration

4 Conduct risk analysis.

4.1 Conduct risk analysis 

in the North Atlantic 

and North Pacific. 

2 2 NMFS 100 100 200 400

4.2 Conduct risk analysis 

in the Southern 

Hemisphere 

2 2 NMFS 100 100 200

TOTAL 4 100 100 100 300 600

5 Identify, Characterize, 

Protect, and Monitor 

Habitat Important to 

Fin Whale 

Populations in U.S. 

Waters and Elsewhere.

5.1

See text for 

explanation 

of cost

Characterize fin whale 

habitat. 

2 5 NMFS 350 350 350 1,050 5,250
July 2010 V-7 NMFS

Action

Number Action Description Priority

Task

Duration

(years)

Agencies/

Organizations

Involved/

Potentially

Involved

Cost Estimates by Ocean Basin

(thousands of dollars)

North 

Atlantic

(2020)

North 

Pacific

(2020)

South. 

Hem. 

(2030)

Total

Total/yr. 

x Task 

Duration

5.2

See 5.1 for 

costs

Monitor important 

habitat features and fin

whale use patterns to 

assess potentially 

detrimental shifts in 

these features that 

might reflect 

disturbance or 

degradation of habitat.

2 Ongoing NMFS, 

International 

Partners

5.3 Promote actions to 

protect important 

habitat in U.S. waters.

3 Ongoing NMFS, 

National Ocean 

Service (NOS)

* * * * *

5.4 Promote actions to 

define, identify, and 

protect important 

habitat in foreign or 

international waters.

3 Ongoing NMFS, DOS, 

International 

Partners

* * * * *

5.5 Improve knowledge of 

fin whale feeding 

ecology.

2 10 NMFS 100 100 100 300 3,000
July 2010 V-8 NMFS

Action

Number Action Description Priority

Task

Duration

(years)

Agencies/

Organizations

Involved/

Potentially

Involved

Cost Estimates by Ocean Basin

(thousands of dollars)

North 

Atlantic

(2020)

North 

Pacific

(2020)

South. 

Hem. 

(2030)

Total

Total/yr. 

x Task 

Duration

5.6 Conduct research and 

perform analyses to 

understand the impact 

of climate change on 

fin whales and seek 

strategies to reduce 

these impacts. 

2 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

TOTAL 5 450 450 450 1,350 8,250

6 Investigate Causes and 

Reduce the Frequency 

and Severity of 

Human-caused Injury 

and Mortality.

6.1

See 

sections 

6.2, 6.3, 

and 6.4 for 

details and 

costs

Identify areas where 

concentrations of fin 

whales coincide with 

significant levels of 

maritime traffic, 

fishing, or pollution 

(including marine 

debris).

2

6.2 Reduce injury and 

mortality caused by 

fisheries and fishing

equipment.

2 5 NMFS, USCG, 

NOS, DOS

150 150 300 1,500
July 2010 V-9 NMFS

Action

Number Action Description Priority

Task

Duration

(years)

Agencies/

Organizations

Involved/

Potentially

Involved

Cost Estimates by Ocean Basin

(thousands of dollars)

North 

Atlantic

(2020)

North 

Pacific

(2020)

South. 

Hem. 

(2030)

Total

Total/yr. 

x Task 

Duration

6.2.1

See 6.2 for 

costs

A systematic review of 

data on fin whale 

interactions with 

fishing operations. 

2 TBD NMFS, DOS, 

International 

Partners

6.2.2 Review existing 

photographic databases 

for evidence of injuries 

to fin whales caused by 

encounters with fishing 

gear to better 

characterize and 

understand fishing gear 

interactions.

2 TBD NMFS * * TBD * *

6.2.3

See 6.2 for 

costs

In conjunction with 

6.2.2, investigate the

development of a 

deterrence system to 

non-lethally deter fin 

whales from fishing 

gear.

2 TBD TBD
July 2010 V-10 NMFS

Action

Number Action Description Priority

Task

Duration

(years)

Agencies/

Organizations

Involved/

Potentially

Involved

Cost Estimates by Ocean Basin

(thousands of dollars)

North 

Atlantic

(2020)

North 

Pacific

(2020)

South. 

Hem. 

(2030)

Total

Total/yr. 

x Task 

Duration

6.2.4

See 6.2 for 

costs

Conduct studies of gear 

modifications that 

reduce the likelihood of 

entanglement, mitigate 

the effects of 

entanglements, and 

enhance the possibility 

of disentanglement. 

Determine whether 

measures to reduce 

entanglements are 

effective.

2 TBD TBD

6.2.5

See 6.2 for 

costs

Develop and 

implement schemes to 

reduce the rate at which 

gear is lost, and 

improve the reporting 

of lost gear, in 

conjunction with 

studies in 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 

and 6.2.6.

2 TBD TBD
July 2010 V-11 NMFS

Action

Number Action Description Priority

Task

Duration

(years)

Agencies/

Organizations

Involved/

Potentially

Involved

Cost Estimates by Ocean Basin

(thousands of dollars)

North 

Atlantic

(2020)

North 

Pacific

(2020)

South. 

Hem. 

(2030)

Total

Total/yr. 

x Task 

Duration

6.2.6 Continue to review, 

evaluate, and act upon 

reports from fisherman 

and fishery observers of 

fishery interactions with 

fin whales.

2 Ongoing NMFS, States, 

USCG

* * TBD * *

6.3 Investigate and address 

the significance of 

mortality from serious 

injury from ship 

collisions.

2 5 NMFS, USCG, 

States

750 750 750 2,250 11,250

6.3.1

In 

conjunction 

with 3.2, 

5.1, and 

5.5. See 6.3 

for costs

Identify specific areas 

where recorded ship 

strikes of fin whales have 

occurred and conduct 

studies to identify 

ecosystem-based traits 

that could support an 

assemblage of predictive 

tools.

2 5 NMFS, NOS, 

NOAA, States, 

International 

Partners
July 2010 V-12 NMFS

Action

Number Action Description Priority

Task

Duration

(years)

Agencies/

Organizations

Involved/

Potentially

Involved

Cost Estimates by Ocean Basin

(thousands of dollars)

North 

Atlantic

(2020)

North 

Pacific

(2020)

South. 

Hem. 

(2030)

Total

Total/yr. 

x Task 

Duration

6.3.2

See 6.3 for 

costs

Once areas in 5.0 and 6.1 

are identified, and in 

conjunction with 

information derived and 

resulting predictive tools 

from 6.3.1, conduct 

analyses of shipping 

routes and important fin 

whale habitat areas, to 

determine the risk of ship 

strikes with fin whales. 

2 TBD NMFS, DOS, 

International 

Partners

6.3.3

See 6.3 for 

costs

Develop a system to 

encourage, collect, and 

appropriately analyze 

opportunistic sightings 

of fin whales from 

fishing vessels, whale 

watching vessels, 

charter vessels, etc.

3 TBD NMFS, USCG, 

NOS, 

International 

Partners
July 2010 V-13 NMFS

Action

Number Action Description Priority

Task

Duration

(years)

Agencies/

Organizations

Involved/

Potentially

Involved

Cost Estimates by Ocean Basin

(thousands of dollars)

North 

Atlantic

(2020)

North 

Pacific

(2020)

South. 

Hem. 

(2030)

Total

Total/yr. 

x Task 

Duration

6.3.4

See 6.3 for 

costs

Work with mariners, 

the shipping industry, 

and appropriate State, 

Federal, and

International agencies 

to develop and 

implement regionallybased measures to 

reduce the threat of 

ship strikes. Assess the 

effectiveness of ship 

strike measures and 

adjust, as necessary.

2 TBD NMFS, USCG, 

NOS, DOS, 

International 

Partners

6.3.5

See 6.3 for 

costs

Explore possible 

mechanisms to 

encourage vessels that 

have struck a whale to 

report the incident.

3 Ongoing NMFS, USCG, 

NOS, DOS, 

International 

Partners

6.3.6 Review existing 

photographic databases 

for evidence of injuries 

to fin whales caused by 

ships.

2 TBD NMFS * * * * *
July 2010 V-14 NMFS

Action

Number Action Description Priority

Task

Duration

(years)

Agencies/

Organizations

Involved/

Potentially

Involved

Cost Estimates by Ocean Basin

(thousands of dollars)

North 

Atlantic

(2020)

North 

Pacific

(2020)

South. 

Hem. 

(2030)

Total

Total/yr. 

x Task 

Duration

6.4 Conduct studies of 

environmental

pollution that may 

affect fin whale 

populations and their 

prey.

3 5 Environmental 

Protection 

Agency, NMFS

375 375 100 850 4,250

6.4.1

See 6.4 and 

8.0 for 

costs

Conduct studies on 

individual health and 

body condition as they 

may be related to 

accumulated 

contaminants.

3 Ongoing NMFS, NOS, 

States, 

International 

Partners

6.4.2

See 6.4 for 

costs

Take steps to minimize 

adverse effects from 

pollutants.

3 TBD TBD

TOTAL 6 1,275 1,275 850 3,400 17,000
July 2010 V-15 NMFS

Action

Number Action Description Priority

Task

Duration

(years)

Agencies/

Organizations

Involved/

Potentially

Involved

Cost Estimates by Ocean Basin

(thousands of dollars)

North 

Atlantic

(2020)

North 

Pacific

(2020)

South 

Ocean 

(2030)

Total

Total/yr. 

x Task 

Duration

7 Determine and 

Minimize Any 

Detrimental Effects of 

Anthropogenic Noise 

in the Oceans.

7.1 Conduct studies to 

assess the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on 

the distribution, 

behavior, and 

productivity of fin

whales.

2 5 NMFS, U.S. 

Navy (USN), 

International 

Partners

750 750 400 1,900 9,500

7.2 Take steps to minimize 

anthropogenic noises 

that are found to be 

potentially detrimental 

to fin whales. 

3 TBD NMFS, Army 

Corps of 

Engineers, 

USN, USCG, 

Bureau of 

Ocean Energy 

Management, 

Regulation, and 

Enforcement

TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

TOTAL 7 750 750 400 1,900 9,500
July 2010 V-16 NMFS

Action

Number Action Description Priority

Task

Duration

(years)

Agencies/

Organizations

Involved/

Potentially

Involved

Cost Estimates by Ocean Basin

(thousands of dollars)

North 

Atlantic

(2020)

North 

Pacific

(2020)

South 

Ocean 

(2030)

Total

Total/yr. 

x Task 

Duration

8 Maximize Efforts to 

Acquire Scientific 

Information from 

Dead, Stranded, 

and/or Entrapped Fin 

Whales.

8.1 Respond effectively to 

strandings of fin whales 

in U.S. waters.

2 Ongoing NMFS, NOS, 

States

750 750 1,500 15,000

8.1.1

See 8.1 for 

costs

Continue and improve 

program to maximize 

data collected from

necropsy of fin whale 

carcasses.

2 Ongoing NMFS

8.1.2 Maintain and review, 

and if needed improve, 

the system for reporting 

dead, entangled, or

entrapped fin whales.

3 Ongoing NMFS, States * * TBD * *
July 2010 V-17 NMFS

Action

Number Action Description Priority

Task

Duration

(years)

Agencies/

Organizations

Involved/

Potentially

Involved

Cost Estimates by Ocean Basin

(thousands of dollars)

North 

Atlantic

(2020)

North 

Pacific

(2020)

South 

Ocean 

(2030)

Total

Total/yr. 

x Task 

Duration

8.1.3 Improve, or as 

necessary, develop and 

implement protocols 

for securing and 

retrieving stranded (on 

land) or floating (at 

sea) fin whale 

carcasses.

3 1 NMFS, NOS, 

States

* * TBD * *

8.2 Review, analyze, and 

summarize data on 

stranded fin whales on 

an annual basis.

3 Ongoing NMFS, NOS, 

States

* * * * *

8.3 Develop protocols for 

handling live-stranded 

fin whales.

2 1 NMFS 2 2 TBD 4 4

8.4 Establish reliable 

sources of funding for 

rescue, necropsy, tissue 

collection, and analysis

efforts.

2 Ongoing NMFS * * TBD * *

TOTAL 8 752 752 1,504 15,004

9 Develop post-delisting 

monitoring plan.

2 TBD NMFS * * * *

TOTAL 9 * * * *

* No cost associated, NMFS staff time
July 2010 V-18 NMFS

Estimated Cost of Action Items Listed as Priority 1, Priority 2, and Priority 3 in the 

Implementation Schedule above and are presented below in thousands. The cost below 

does not reflect task duration (i.e., 5 years) rather all costs were estimated until time to 

recovery for all three ocean basins (2020 for the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean and 

2030 for the Southern Hemisphere):

ACTION ITEMS LISTED AS: TOTAL COST (in thousands)

PRIORITY 1 $4,000

PRIORITY 2 $237,730

PRIORITY 3 $4,250

Estimated Cost of Five-Year Recovery Efforts Including All Three Ocean Basins 

(Estimates are in thousands of dollars). The costs below do reflect task duration 

(i.e., 5 years) and are included in the Fiscal Year when those tasks are anticipated to 

begin. If no start time was identified, we assumed the task started in FY1:

Action FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 Total

1 300 300 300 300 300 1,500 

2 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 6,500

3 270 184,536 40 40 40 184,9261

4 n/a n/a n/a 200 200 4002

5 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,350 6,750

6 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 17,000

7 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 9,500

8 1,500 1,504 1,500 1,500 1,500 7,5043

9 * * * * * *

Total 10,020 194,290 9,790 9,990 9,990 234,080

1 This action is for one survey for each ocean basin. It was assumed that the surveys would begin in FY2 across ocean 

basins, thus cost is reflected in FY2 only (even though surveys in each of the ocean basins will be conducted for 

different lengths of time and it is likely the costs will be spread out over the length of the surveys rather than all at 

once).

2 Should recovery occur in the minimum time of 6 years, then action 4 would likely occur for only the Atlantic 

Ocean/Mediterranean Sea and Pacific Ocean, cost reflected in Total. If efforts take longer to collect the data 

necessary for action item 4, then this action item would incur no cost during the first five years of recovery efforts for 

any ocean basin.

3 Assumed that one time cost of $4K for action number 8.3 occurs in FY2. * No cost associated, NMFS staff time.
July 2010 VI-1 NMFS

VI. LITERATURE CITED

ACIA. 2004. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Impacts of a Warming Arctic available 

at http://www.acia.uaf.edu/.

Agler, B.A. 1992. Testing the reliability of photographic identification of individual fin 

whales. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 42:731–737. 

Agler, B.A., R.L. Schooley, S.E. Frohock, S.K. Katona, and I.E. Seipt. 1993. 

Reproduction of photographically identified fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus, from the 

Gulf of Maine. J. Mamm. 74:577–587.

Agler, B.A. J.A. Beard, R.S. Bowman, H.D. Corbett, S.E. Frohock, M.P. Hawvermale, 

S.E. Katona, S.S. Sadove, and I.E. Seipt. 1990. Finback whale, Balaenoptera physalus, 

photographic identification: methodology and preliminary results from the Western North 

Atlantic. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. (Special Issue 12): 349–356.

Aguilar, A. 1983. Organochlorine Pollution in sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus, 

from the temperate waters of the Eastern North Atlantic. Mar. Poll. Bull. 14(9): 349–

352.

Aguilar, A. 1999. A review of organochlorine and metal pollutants in marine mammals

from Central and South America. J. of Cetacean Res. Manage. Suppl l: 195–207.

Aguilar, A. and C. Sanpera. 1982. Reanalysis of Spanish sperm, fin and sei whale catch 

data (1957-1980). Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 32:465–470.

Aguilar, A. and C. Lockyer. 1987. Growth, physical maturity, and mortality of fin whales 

(Balaenoptera physalus) inhabiting the temperate waters of the northeast Atlantic. Can. J. 

Zool. 65253–264.

Aguilar. A. and A. Borrell. 1988. Age- and sex-related changes in organochlorine 

compound levels in fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) from the Eastern North Atlantic. 

Mar. Env. Res. 25:195–211

Aguilar, A., A. Borrell, and P.J.H. Reignders. 2002. Geographical and temporal 

variation in levels of organochlorine contaminants in marine mammals. Marine Env. 

Res. 53 (5): 425–452.

Allen, K.R. 1970. A note on baleen whale stocks of the northwest Atlantic. Rep. Int. 

Whal. Commn. 20:112–113. 
July 2010 VI-2 NMFS

Allen, K.R. 1980. Conservation and management of whales. Univ. of Washington Press, 

Seattle. Angliss., R.P., G.K. Silber, R. Merrick. 2002. Report of a Workshop on 

Developing Recovery Criteria for Large Whale Species. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/OPR-21. 

Allen, S. G. 1991. Harbor seal habitat restoration at Strawberry Spit, S. F. Bay. Point 

Reyes Bird Observatory Report PB91-212332/GAR.

Amos, W. and A.R. Hoelzel. 1990. DNA fingerprinting cetacean biopsy samples for 

individual identification. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. (Spec. Iss. 12):79–85.

Andrew, R. K., B. M. Howe, J. A. Mercer, and M. A. Dzieciuch. 2002. Ocean ambient 

sound: Comparing the 1960s with the 1990s for a receiver off the California coast. 

Acoustics Research Letters Online-ARLO 3:65–70.

Angliss, R.P. and B.M. Allen. 2009. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2008. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-193:

269 pp.

Angliss, R. P., G. K. Silber, and R. Merrick. 2002. Report of a workshop on developing 

recovery criteria for large whale species. NOAA.

Antezana. T.J. 1970. Eufausidos de la costa di Chile. Su rol en la economia del mar. 

Revista de biologia marina. Valparaiso: 14:19–27.

Arnason, A., A.K. Danielsdottir, R. Spilliaert, J.H. Sigurdsson, S. Jonsdottir, A. 

Palsdottir, E.J. Duke, P. Joyce, V. Groves, and J.Trowsdale. 1992. A brief review of 

protein and DNA marker studies in relation to the stock identity of fin whales 

(Balaenoptera physalus) from Iceland and Spain. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 42:701–705.

Au, Whitlow W. L. 1993. The Sonar of Dolphins. New York: Springer-Verlag. Baillie J., 

and B. Groombridge (eds.). 1996. 1996 IUCN red list of threatened animals. IUCN, 

Gland, Switzerland, and Conservation International, Washington, D.C.

Baillie, J. and B. Groombridge. 1996. 1996 IUCN red list of threatened animals. IUCN, 

Gland, Switzerland; Conservation International, Washington, D.C. 

Baker, C. S. and L. M. Herman. 1987. Alternative population estimates of humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaiian waters. Canadian Journal of Zoology

65:2818–2821.

Baker, C.S. and S.R. Palumbi. 1994. Which whales are hunted? A molecular genetic 

approach to monitoring and whaling. Science 265:1538–1539.
July 2010 VI-3 NMFS

Baker, C. S., L. M. Herman, B. G. Bays, and G. B. Bauer. 1983. The impact of vessel 

traffic on the behavior of humpback whales in southeast Alaska: 1982 season. Report 

submitted to the National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, Washington.

Balcomb, K.C., III. 1987. The whales of Hawaii. Marine Mammal Fund. 99 pp. 

Baretta, L. and G.L. Hunt, Jr. 1994. Changes in the numbers of cetaceans near the 

Pribilof Islands, Bering Sea, between 1975–78 and 1987–89. Arctic 47:321–326.

Barlow, J. 1994. Abundance of large whales in California coastal waters: a comparison of 

ship surveys in 1979/80 and in 1991. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 44:399–406.

Barlow, J. 1995. The abundance of cetaceans in California waters. Part I: ship surveys in 

summer and fall of 1991. Fish. Bull. U.S. 93:1–14. 

Barlow, J. 2003. Preliminary Estimates of the Abundance of Cetaceans along the U.S. 

West Coast: 1991–2001. Administrative Report LJ-03-03, available from Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Dr., La Jolla CA 92037. 31pp. 

Barlow, J., R.W. Baird, J.E. Heyning, K. Wynne, A.M. Manville, II, L.F. Lowry, D. 

Hanan, J. Sease, and V.N. Burkanov. 1994. A review of cetacean and pinniped mortality 

in coastal fisheries along the west coast of the USA and Canada and the east coast of the 

Russian Federation. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. (Spec. Iss. 15):405–425. 

Barlow, J. and K.A. Forney. 2007. Abundance and population density of cetaceans in the 

California Current ecosystem. Fishery Bulletin 105:509–526.

Barlow, J., K. A. Forney, P.S. Hill, R.L. Brownell, Jr., J.V. Carretta, D.P. DeMaster, F. 

Julian, M.S. Lowry, T. Ragen, and R.R. Reeves. 1997. U.S. Pacific marine mammal 

stock assessments: 1996. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SWFSC-248: 223 pp. 

Barlow, J., S. Rankin, E. Zele, and J. Appier. 2004. Marine mammal data collected 

during the Hawaiian Islands cetacean and ecosystem assessment survey (HICEAS) 

conducted aboard the NOAA ships McARTHUR and DAVID STARR JORDAN, JulyDecember 2002. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-362. 

Available from Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Dr., La Jolla 

CA 92037. 32pp.

Bartholomew Jr., G. A. 1949. A census of harbor seals in San Francisco Bay. Journal of 

Mammalogy 30:34–35.

Bauer, G. B. 1986. The behavior of humpback whales in Hawaii and modification of 

behavior induced by human interventions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University 

of Hawaii, Honolulu.
July 2010 VI-4 NMFS

Bauer, G. B. and L. M. Herman. 1986. Effects of vessel traffic on the behavior of 

humpback whales in Hawaii. Report Submitted to NMFS Southwest Region, Western 

Pacific Program Office, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Beach, D.W. and M.T. Weinrich. 1989. Watching the whales: Is an educational adventure 

for humans turning out to be another threat for endangered species? Oceanus 32(l):84–

88.

Beale, C. M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free 

predators? Journal of Applied Ecology 41:335–343.

Bérubé, M. and A. Aguilar. 1998. A new hybrid between a blue whale, Balaenoptera 

musculus, and a fin whale, B. physalus: frequency and implications of hybridization. Mar. 

Mamm. Sci. 14:82–98.

Bérubé, M., F. Larsen, G. Notarbartolo di Sciara, R. Sears, A. Aguilar, J. Sigurjønsson, J. 

Urban- Ramirez, D. Dendanto, and P.J. Palsbøll. 1998. Population genetic structure of 

North Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea and Sea of Cortez fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus

(Linnaeus, 1758): analysis of mitochondrial and nuclear loci. Molecular Ecology 7:585–

599.

Bérubé, M., J. Urban R., A. E. Dizon, R. L. Brownell and P. J. Palsbøll. 2002. Genetic 

identification of a small and highly isolated population of fin whales (Balaenoptera 

physalus) in the Sea of Cortez, Mexico. Conservation Genetics 3(2):183–190. 

Berzin, A. A. and A. A. Rovnin. 1966. The distribution and migrations of whales in the 

northeastern part of the Pacific, Chukchee and Bering seas. Izvestiya, Vladivostok. 

TINRO TOM 58:179–208. 

Best, P.B. 1992. Catches of fin whales in the North Atlantic by the M.V. Sierra (and 

associated vessels). Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 42:697–700. 

Borobia, M., P.J. Gearing, Y. Simard, J.N. Gearing, and P. Beland. 1995. Blubber fatty 

acids of finback and humpback whales from the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Mar. Biol. 

122:341–353.

Borrell, A. and A. Aguilar. 1999. A review of organochlorine and metal pollutants in 

marine mammals from Central and South America. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (special 

issue) 1:195–207.

Breiwick, J.M. 1993. Population dynamics and analyses of the fisheries for fin whales 

(Balaenoptera physalus) in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Ph.D. thesis, University of 

Washington, Seattle. 310 pp. 
July 2010 VI-5 NMFS

Brueggeman, J.J G.A. Green, K.C. Balcomb, C.E. Bowlby, R.A. Grotefendt, K.T. Briggs, 

M.L. Bonnell, R.G. Ford, D.H. Varoujean, D. Heinemann, and D.G. Chapman. 1990. 

Oregon-Washington marine mammal and seabird survey: information synthesis and 

hypothesis formulation. OCS Study, Minerals Management Survey, Contract 89–0030. 

Buckland, ST., K.L. Cattanach, and S. Lens. 1992a. Fin whale abundance in the eastern 

North Atlantic, estimated from Spanish NASS-89 data. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 42:

457–460. 

Buckland, S.T., K.L. Cattanach, and Th. Gunnlaugsson. 1992b. Fin whale abundance in 

the North Atlantic, estimated from Icelandic and Faroese NASS-87 and NASS-89 data. 

Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 42:645–651. 

Burmeister, H. 1865. [Letter on a new species of whale Balaenoptera patachonica from 

Argentina]. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 13:190–195.

Calambokidis, J., E.A. Falcone, T.J. Quinn, A.M. Burdin, P.J. Clapham, J.K.B. Ford, 

C.M. Gabriele, R. LeDuc, D. Mattila, L. Rojas-Bracho, J.M. Straley, B.L. Taylor, J. 

Urbán R., D. Weller, B.H. Witteveen, M. Yamaguchi, A. Bendlin, D. Camacho, K. 

Flynn, A. Havron, J. Huggins, and N. Maloney. 2008. SPLASH: Structure of 

Populations, Levels of Abundance and Status of Humpback Whales in the North Pacific. 

Final report for Contract AB133F-03-RP-00078 by Cascadia Research Olympia, 

Washington 98501, for U.S. Dept of Commerce Western Administrative Center Seattle, 

Washington. May 2008. 57 pp.

Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, M.S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. Baker, D, Johnston, B. Hanson, 

M.M. Muto, D. Lynch, and L. Carswell. 2009. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessments: 2008. U.S. Department of Commerce Technical Memorandum, NOAATM-NMFS-SWFSC-434, 340 p.

Caulfield, R.A. 1993. Aboriginal subsistence whaling in Greenland: the case of 

Qeqertarsuaq municipality in West Greenland. Arctic 46:144–155. 

Chapman, D.G. 1976. Estimates of stocks (original, current, MSY level and MSY) (in 

thousands) as revised at Scientific Committee meeting 1975. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn.

26:44–47.

Christensen, I., T. Haug, and N. 0ien. 1992a. Seasonal distribution, exploitation and 

present abundance of stocks of large baleen whales (Mysticeti) and sperm whales 

(Phvseter macrocephalus) in Norwegian and adjacent waters. ICES Journal of Marine 

Science 49:341–355. 

Christensen, I., T. Haug, and N. 0ien. 1992b. A review of feeding and reproduction in 

large baleen whales (Mysticeti) and sperm whales Phvseter macrocephalus in Norwegian 

adjacent waters. Fauna norvegica Series A 13:39–48.
July 2010 VI-6 NMFS

Clapham, P.J. and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1996. The potential for interspecific competition in 

baleen whales. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 46:361–367.

Clapham, P.J., S. Leatherwood, I. Szczepaniak, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1997. Catches of 

humpback and other whales from shore stations at Moss Landing and Trinidad, 

California, 1919-1926. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 13:368–394. 

Clapham, P.J. and I.E. Seipt. 1991. Resightings of independent fin whales, Balaenoptera 

physalus, on maternal summer ranges. J. Mammal. 72:788–790. 

Clark, C.W. 1995. Application of US Navy underwater hydrophone arrays for scientific 

research on whales. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 45:210–212. 

Clark, C.W., W.T. Ellison, B.L. Southall, L. Hatch, S.M. Van Parijs, A. Frankel, and D. 

Ponirakis. 2009. Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and 

implication. Marine Ecology Progress Series 395:201–222.

Clarke, R. 2004. Pygmy fin whales. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 20:329–334. 

Committee for Whaling Statistics. 1973. International whaling statistics LXXI. 49 pp.

Curtis, K. R., B. M. Howe, and J. A. Mercer. 1999. Low-frequency ambient sound in the 

North Pacific: Long time series observations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 106, 3189–3200. 

Daan, S., C. Deerenberg, and C. Dijkstra. 1996. Increased daily work precipitates natural 

death in the kestrel. Journal of Animal Ecology 65:539–544.

Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2005). Blue, Fin and Sei Whale 

Recovery Plan 2005 – 2010. [Online]. Department of the Environment and Heritage. 

Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia. Viewed July 2009 and Available from: 

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/balaenopte

ra-sp/index.html.

Di Iorio, L., and C.W. Clark. 2009. Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic 

communication. Biology Letters, published online 23 September 2009. 

Dohl, T.P., R.C. Guess, D.L. Duman, and R.C. Helm. 1983. Cetaceans of central and 

northern California, 1980-1983: status, abundance and distribution. OCS Study MMS 84-

0045. Minerals Management Service contract 14-12-0001-29090. 284 pp.

Donovan, G.P. 1991. A review of IWC stock boundaries. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn.

(Special Issue 13): 39–68.

Doroshenko, V.N. 1970. A whale with features of the fin and the blue whale. Izvestia 

TINRO 70:225–257. 
July 2010 VI-7 NMFS

Edds, P.L. and J.A.F. Macfarlane. 1987. Occurrence and general behavior of 

balaenopterid cetaceans summering in the St. Lawrence Estuary, Canada. Can. J. Zool. 

65:1363–1376. 

Erbe, C. and D. M. Farmer. 2000. A software model to estimate zones of impact on 

marine mammals around anthropogenic noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 108:1327–1331.

Evans, D.L. and G.R. England. 2001. Joint Interim Report; Bahamas Marine Mammal 

Stranding Event of 15-16 March 2000. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. Available online at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Health_and_Stranding_Response_Program/lnter

im_Bahamas_Report.pdf

Feare, C. J. 1976. The breeding of the Sooty Tern Sterna fuscata in the Seychelles and 

the effects of experimental removal of its eggs. Journal Zoology (London) 179:317–360.

Fischer, J.B. 1829. Synopsis Mammalium. J. G. Cottae, Stuttgart. Fobes, J.L and C.C

Smock. 1981. Sensory capabilities of marine mammals. Psychol. Bull. 89(2):288–307. 

Foote, A.D., R.W. Osbourne, and A.R. Hoelzel. 2004. Whale-call response to masking 

boat noise. Nature 428, 910. 

Forney, K.A. 2007. Preliminary estimates of cetacean abundance along the U.S. west 

coast and within four National Marine Sanctuaries during 2005. U.S. Department of 

Commerce NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-406. 27p.

Forney, K.A., J. Barlow, and J.V. Carretta. 1995. The abundance of cetaceans in 

California waters. Part II: aerial surveys in winter and spring of 1991 and 1992. Fish. 

Bull. U.S. 93:15–26. 

Forney, K.A. and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1996. Preliminary report of the 1994 Aleutian Island 

marine mammal survey. Unpubl. document, International Whaling Commission, 

Cambridge, UK. SC/48/011.15pp.

Fossi, M.C., L. Marsili, G. Neri, A. Natoli., E. Politi, S. Panigada. 2003. The use of a 

non-lethal tool for evaluating toxicological hazard of organochlorine contaminants in the 

Mediterranean cetaceans: new data 10 years after the paper first published in MPB. Mar. 

Poll. Bull. 46: 972–982 (2003). 

Fraser, W. R., W. Z. Trivelpiece, D. G. Ainley, and S. G. Trivelpiece. 1992. Increases in 

Antarctic penguin populations: reduced competition with whales or a loss of sea ice due 

to environmental warming? Polar Biol. 11(8): 525–531.
July 2010 VI-8 NMFS

Frid, A. and L. Dill. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. 

Conservation Ecology 6:1–11.

Fujino, K. 1960. Immunogenetic and marking approaches to identifying subpopulations 

of the North Pacific whales. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. 15:85–142. 

Gambell, R. 1985. Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus (Linnaeus, 1758). Pp. 171–192 in 

S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 3. Academic 

Press, London.

Gambell, R. 1993. International management of whales and whaling: an historical review 

of the regulation of commercial and aboriginal subsistence whaling. Arctic 46:97–107.

Geraci, J.R. 1990. Physiologic and toxic effects on cetaceans, pp. 167–192. In: Sea 

mammals and oil: confronting the risks J.R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin, Editors. First ed., 

Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, California: 239 p. 

Giese, M. 1996. Effects of human activity on Adélie Penguin Pygoscelis adeliae breeding 

success. Biological Conservation 75:157–164.

Gill, J. A., K. Norris, and W. J. Sutherland. 2001. Why behavioral responses may not 

predict the population consequences of human disturbance. Biological Conservation

97:265–268.

Gill, J. A. and W. J. Sutherland. 2000. Predicting the consequences of human disturbance 

from behavioural decisions. Pages 51–64 in L. M. Gosling and W. Sutherland, editors. 

Behaviour and conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK).

Goujon, M., J. Forcada, and G. Desportes. 1995. Fin whale abundance in the eastern 

temperate North Atlantic for 1993. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 45:287–290.

Green, G.A., J.J. Brueggeman, R.A. Grotefendt, C.E. Bowlby, M.L. Bonnell, and K.C. 

Balcomb. 1992. Cetacean distribution and abundance off Oregon and Washington, 1989–

1990. Final report to Minerals Management Service, Contract 14-12-0001-30426. 

Gunnlaugsson, T. and J. Sigurjønsson. 1989. Analysis of North Atlantic fin whale 

marking data from 1979–1988 with special reference to Iceland. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn.

39:383–388.

Gunnlaugsson, T. and J. Sigurjønsson. 1990. A note on the problem of false positives in 

the use of natural marking data for abundance estimation. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn.

(Special Issue 12):143–145.

Hain, J.H.W., M.J. Ratnaswamy, R.D. Kenney, and H.E. Winn. 1992. The fin whale, 

Balaenoptera physalus, in waters of the northeastern United States continental shelf. Rep. 

Int. Whal. Commn. 42:653–669.
July 2010 VI-9 NMFS

Harrington, F. H. and A. M. Veitch. 1992. Calving success of woodland caribou exposed 

to low-level jet fighter overflights. Arctic 45:213–218.

Hatch, L. T. 2004, Male genes and male song: Integrating genetic and acoustic data in 

defining fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus, management units. PhD Thesis, Cornell 

University 277 pp. 

Hatch, L., C. Clark, R. Merrick, S. Van Parijs, D. Ponirakis, K. Schwehr, M. Thompson, 

and D. Wiley. 2008. Characterizing the relative contributions of large vessels to total 

ocean noise fields: A case study using the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary. Environmental Management 42:735–752.

Haug, T. 1981. On some reproduction parameters in fin whales Balaenoptera physalus

(L.) caught off Norway. Rep. Int. Whal Commn. 31:373–378. 

Hay, K. 1982. Aerial line-transect estimates of abundance of humpback, fin, and longfinned pilot whales in the Newfoundland-Labrador area. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn.

32:475–486. 

Hays, G.C., A.J. Richardson, C. Robinson. 2005. Climate change and marine plankton. 

Trends in Ecology and Evolution.: 20(6). June 2005.

Heyning, J.E. and T.D. Lewis. 1990. Entanglements of baleen whales in fishing gear of 

southern California. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 40:427–431.

Hill, P.S., D.P. DeMaster, and R.J. Small. 1997. Alaska marine mammal stock 

assessments, 1996. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFDC-78: 150 pp. 

Hjort, J.J and J.T, Ruud. 1929. Whaling and fishing in the North Atlantic. Rapports et 

Proces verbaux des reunions, Cons. Perm. Int. L’Explor. Mer, Vol. LVI. Høst (STnls, 

Copenhagen. 73pp. 

Houser, D.S., D.A. Helweg, and P.W.B. Moore. 2001. A bandpass filter-bank model of 

auditory sensitivity in the humpback whale. Aquatic Mammals 27(2):82–91.

Hoyt, E. 1984. The whale watcher’s handbook. Madison Press, Toronto, Ontario, 

Canada. 208 pp.

Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. 2001. San Francisco Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety 

Project. Final Data Report: Noise and Vibration Measurements Associated with the Pile 

Installation Demonstration Project for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East 

Span, May 21, 2001.

Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. 2007. Compendium of pile driving sound data. Prepared for 

the California Department of Transportation by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. September, 

27, 2007.
July 2010 VI-10 NMFS

Ingebrigtsen, A. 1929. Whales caught in the North Atlantic and other seas. Rapports et 

Procesverbaux des reunions, Cons. Perm. Int. L’Explor. Mer, Vol. LVI. Høst & Fils, 

Copenhagen. 26 pp. 

IPCC Climate Change 2007-Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability report available at 

http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/index.html. 

IWC. 1979. Report of the sub-committee on protected species. Annex G, Appendix I. 

Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 29:84–86. 

IWC. 1988. International Whaling Commission Report 1986–87. Rep. Int. Whal.

Commn. 38:1–9.

IWC. 1989. International Whaling Commission Report 1987–88. Rep. Int. Whal. 

Commn. 39:1–9. 

IWC. 1990. International Whaling Commission Report 1986–87. Rep. Int. Whal. 

Commn. 40:1–8.

IWC. 1991. International Whaling Commission Report 1986–87. Rep. Int. Whal. 

Commn. 41:1–10. 

IWC. 1992a. Report of the comprehensive assessment special meeting on North Atlantic

fin whales. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 42:595–606. 

IWC. 1992b. Report of the Scientific Committee. Annex I. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 

42:236–239.

IWC. 1995. Report of the Scientific Committee. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 45:53–221.

IWC. 1996a. Report of the Scientific Committee. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 46:49–236. 

IWC. 1996b, Report of the sub-committee on Southern Hemisphere baleen whales, 

Annex E. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 46:117–131. 

IWC. 1998a. Report of the Scientific Committee. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 48. 

IWC. 1998b. International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946. Schedule. 

As amended by the Commission at the 49th Annual Meeting 1997, and replacing that 

dated October 1996. 27pp. 

Jahoda, M., C.L. Laforuna, N. Biassoni, C. Almirante, A. Azzellino, A.S. Panigada, M. 

Znardelli., G.N. Di Siara. 2003. Mediterranean fin whale's (Balaenoptera physalus) 

response to small vessels and biopsy sampling assessed through passive tracking and 

timing of respiration. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 19(1):96–110. 
July 2010 VI-11 NMFS

Jefferson, T.A. and A.J. Schiro. 1997. Distribution of cetaceans in the offshore Gulf of 

Mexico. Mammal Review 27:27–50. 

Jensen, A. and G. Silber. 2004. Large Whale Ship Strike Database. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-25, 37pp.

Jonsgård, A. 1966a. Biology of the North Atlantic fin whale Balaenoptera physalus (L): 

taxonomy, distribution, migration and food. Hvalradets Skrifter 49:1–62. 

Jonsgård, A. 1966b. The distribution of Balaenopteridae in the North Atlantic Ocean. Pp. 

114-124 in K.S. Norris (ed.), Whales, dolphins, and porpoises. Univ. of California Press, 

Berkeley.

Jonsgård, A. 1974. On whale exploitation in the eastern part of the North Atlantic Ocean. 

Pp. y7–107 in W.E. Schevill (ed.), The whale problem. Harvard University Press, 

Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Jonsgård, A. 1977. Tables showing the catch of small whales (including minke whales) 

caught by Norwegians in the period 1938–75, and large whales caught in different North 

Atlantic waters in the period 1868–1974. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 27:413–26. 

Jover, L. 1992. Morphometric differences between Icelandic and Spanish fin whales 

(Balaenoptera physalus). Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 42:747–750.

Kapel, F.O. 1979. Exploitation of large whales in West Greenland in the twentieth 

century. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 29:197–214.

Kawamura, A. 1980. A review of food of balaenopterid whales. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. 

Inst., 32:155–197. 

Kawamura, A. 1982. Food habits and prey distributions of three rorqual species in the 

North Pacific Ocean. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. 34:59–91. 

Kawamura, A. 1994. A review of baleen whale feeding in the Southern Ocean. Rep. Int. 

Whal. Commn. 44:261–271. 

Kellogg, R. 1929. What is known of the migrations of some of the whalebone whales. 

Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst. 1928:467–494.

Kenney, R.D. 1990. SCOPEX: Whale ecosystem interactions. Maritimes 34(1):9–11. 

Kenney, R.D. and H.E. Winn. 1986. Cetacean high-use habitats of the northeast United 

States continental shelf. Fish. Bull. 84:345–357.
July 2010 VI-12 NMFS

Kenney, R.D. and H.E. Winn. 1987. Cetacean biomass densities near submarine canyons 

compared to adjacent shelf/slope areas. Continental Shelf Research 7:107–114.

Ketten, D. 1991. The marine mammal ear: Specializations for aquatic audition and 

echolocation. pp. 717–750 in D. Webster, R. Fay, and A. Popper (eds.), The biology of 

hearing. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 

Ketten, D. 1992. The cetacean ear: Form, frequency, and evolution, pp. 53–75 in J.A. 

Thomas, R.A. Kastelein, and A. Ya. Supin (eds.), Marine mammal sensory systems. 

Plenum, New York. 773 p.

Ketten, D.R. 1994. Functional analyses of whale ears: Adaptations for underwater 

hearing. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Proceedings in Underwater 

Acoustics 1:264–270.

Kingsley, M.C.S. and R.R. Reeves. 1998. Aerial surveys of cetaceans in the Gulf of St. 

Lawrence in 1995 and 1996. Can. J. Zool. 76:1529–1550. 

Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead A.S. Collet, M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions 

between ships and whales. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 17(1): 35–75.

Lambertsen, R.H. 1986. Disease of the common fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) 

crassicaudiosis of the urinary system. J. Mammal. 67(2):353–366.

Larsen, F. 1995. Abundance of minke and fin whales off West Greenland. Rep. Int. 

Whal. Commn. 45:365–370. 

Leatherwood, S., A.E. Bowles, and R.R. Reeves. 1986. Aerial surveys of marine 

mammals in the southeastern Bering Sea. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, OCSEAP 

Final Report 42(1986): 147–490.

Lien, J. 1994. Entrapments of large cetaceans in passive inshore fishing gear in 

Newfoundland and Labrador (1979–1990). Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. (Special Issue

15):149–157.

Lima, S. L. 1998. Stress and decision-making under the risk of predation: recent 

developments from behavioral, reproductive and ecological perspectives. Advances in the 

Study of Behavior 27:215–290.

Lipscomb, Thomas P., Richard K. Harris, Alan H. Rebar, Brenda E. Ballachey, and 

Romona J. Haebler. 1994. “Pathology of Sea Otters.” Marine Mammals and the Exxon 

Valdez. 1st ed. Ed. Thomas R. Loughlin San Diego: API, 1994. 265–80. 

Lockyer, C. 1982. Preliminary investigation of some anatomical characters of fin whale 

earplugs collected from different regions of the N.E. Atlantic. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn.

32:101–103.
July 2010 VI-13 NMFS

Lockyer, C. and T. Waters. 1986. Weights and anatomical measurements of northeastern 

Atlantic fin (Balaenoptera physalus, Linnaeus) and sei (B. borealis, Lesson) whales. Mar. 

Mamm. Sci. 2:169–195.

Mackas, D.L., Goldblatt, and A.G. Lewis. 1989. Importance of walleye Pollack in the 

diets of marine mammals in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea and implications for 

fishery management, Pages 701–726 in Proceedings of the international symposium on 

the biology and management of walleye Pollack, November 14-16,1988, Anchorage, AK. 

Univ. AK Sea Grant Rep. AK-SG-89-01.

Mackintosh, N. A. 1965. The stocks of whales. Fish. News (Books) Ltd., Lond., 232 p. 

McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand, S. Webb, L. Dorman, and C.G. Fox. 1993. 

Vocalizations of blue and fin whales during a midocean ridge airgun experiment. J. 

Acoust. Soc. Am. 94(3, pt. 2): 1849. 

Malme, C. I., P. R. Miles, C. W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J. E. Bird. 1983. Investigations of 

the potential effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating 

gray whale behavior. Report MMS/AK/ESU-83-020, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., 

Cambridge, MA (USA).

McCauley, R. D., Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A. J., Jenner, C., Jenner, M. N., Penrose, J. D., 

Prince, R. I. T., Adhitya, A., Murdock, J., & McCabe, K. 2000. Marine seismic surveys: 

analysis and propagation of air-gun signals; and effects of air-gun exposure on humpback 

whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Report R99-15 prepared for Australian Petroleum 

Production Exploration Association.

McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand, and S.C. Webb. 1995. Blue and fin whales observed 

on a seafloor array in the Northeast Pacific. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

98 (2), pp. 712–721. Postprint available free at: 

http://repositories.cdlib.org/postprints/2320

McDonald, M. A. and C. G. Fox. 1999. Passive acoustic methods applied to fin whale 

population density estimation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105:2643–

2651.

McDonald, M. A., J. A. Hildebrand, and S. M. Wiggins. 2006. Increases in deep ocean 

ambient noise in the Northeast Pacific west of San Nicolas Island, California. Journal of 

the Acoustical Society of America 120:711–718.

McDonald, M. A., J. A. Hildebrand, S. M. Wiggins, and D. Ross. 2008. A 50-year 

comparison of ambient ocean noise near San Clemente Island: A bathymetrically 

complex coastal region off Southern California. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America 124:1985–1992.
July 2010 VI-14 NMFS

Mead; J.G. 1977. Records of sei and Bryde’s whales from the Atlantic coast of the United 

States, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. (Special Issue 1): 

113–116. 

Michaud, R. and J. Giard. 1998. VHF tracking of fin whales provides scientific ground 

for the management of whale watching in the St. Lawrence estuary. World Marine 

Mammal Science Conference, Monaco, January 1998. Abstracts, p. 91. 

Mitchell, E. 1974. Present status of Northwest Atlantic fin and other whale stocks, pp. 

108–169 in The Whale Problem: A Status Report, ed. W.E. Schevill. Harvard University 

Press, Cambridge, MA.

Mitchell, E. and R.R. Reeves. 1983. Catch history, abundance, and present status of 

northwest Atlantic humpback whales. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. (Special Issue 5):

153–212.

Mitchell, E. and R.R. Reeves. 1988. Records of killer whales in the western North 

Atlantic, with emphasis on eastern Canadian waters. Rit Fiskideildar 11:161–193.

Mizroch, S.A., D.W. Rice, and J.M. Breiwick. 1984a. The fin whale, Balaenoptera 

physalus. Mar. Fish. Rev. 46(4):20–24. 

Mizroch, S.A., D.W. Rice, and J.M. Breiwick 1984b. The blue whale. Balaenoptera

musculus. Mar. Fish. Rev. 46(4):15–19.

Mizroch, S. A. and A.E. York. 1984. Have pregnancy rates of Southern Hemisphere fin 

whales, Balaenoptera physalus, increased? Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. (Special Issue

6):401–410. 

Mobley, J.R., Jr., M. Smultea, T. Norris and D. Weller. 1996. Fin whale sighting north of 

Kauai, Hawaii.-Pacific Science. 50(2): 230–233. 

Moore, S.E. and Schusterman, R.J. 1987.Audiometric assessment of northern fur seals, 

Callorhimts ursinus. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 3(l):31–53.

Moore, S. E. and J. T. Clarke. 2002. Potential impact of offshore human activities on 

gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus). J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 4:19–25.

Müllner, A., K. E. Linsenmair, and M. Wikelski. 2004. Exposure to ecotourism reduces 

survival and affects stress response in Hoatzin chicks (Opisthocomus hoazin). Biological 

Conservation 118:549–558.

Murphy, E. J., D. J. Morris, J. L. Watkins, and J. Priddle. 1988. Scales of interaction 

between Antarctic krill and the environment. In D. Sahrage (Editor), Antarctic ocean and 

resources variability, p. 120–130. Springer-Verl., Berl. 
July 2010 VI-15 NMFS

Nasu, K. 1974. Movement of baleen whales in relation to hydrographic conditions in the 

northern part of the North Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea. Pp. 345-361 in D.W. Hood

and E.J. Kelley (eds.), Oceanography of the Bering Sea. Institute of Marine Science, 

Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks.

National Research Council. 2003. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. Washington, D.C.: 

National Academies Press. 

National Research Council. 2005. Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise. 

Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. 

Nemoto, T. 1959. Prey of baleen whales with reference to whale movements. Sci. Rep. 

Whales Res.Inst. 14:149–290.

Nemoto, T. 1970. Feeding pattern of baleen whales in the oceans, pp. 241–252 in Marine 

food chains, ed. J.H. Steele. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic Right 

Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008a. Final Rule to Implement Speed Restrictions to 

Reduce the Threat of Ship Collisions with North Atlantic Right Whales. 73 FR 60173, 10 

October 2008.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008b. Biological Opinion for the 2008 Rim of the 

Pacific Exercise, several continuing exercises, and Research, Development, Test and 

Evaluation Activities. Office of Protected Resources, Endangered Species Division, 

Silver Spring, Maryland.

Northrop, J., W.C. Cummings, and P.O. Thompson. 1968. 20-Hz signals observed in the 

central Pacific. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 43:383–384. 

Notarbartolo-di-Sciara. G., M. Zanardelli, M. Jahoda, S. Panigada, S. Airoldi. 2003. The 

fin whale in the Mediterranean Sea. Mammal Review 33(2): 105–150.

Ohsumi, S. 1986. Yearly change in age and body length at sexual maturity of a fin whale 

stock in the eastern North Pacific. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. 37:1–16. 

Ohsumi, S., Y. Shimadzu, and T. Doi. 1971. The seventh memorandum on the results of 

Japanese stock assessment of whales in the North Pacific. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 

21:76–89. 

Ohsumi, S. and S. Wada. 1974. Status of whale stocks in the North Pacific, 1972. Rep. 

Int. Whal. Commn. 24:114–126. 
July 2010 VI-16 NMFS

Omura, H. and S. Ohsumi. 1974. Research on whale biology of Japan with special 

reference to the North Pacific stocks, pp. 196-208 in The whale problem: a status report, 

ed. W.E Schevill. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass. 419 pp.

O'Shea, T.J. and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1995. Organochlorine and metal contaminants in 

baleen whales: a review and evaluation of conservation implications. Sci. Total 

Environment 154:179–200.

Overholtz, W.J. and J.R. Nicolas. 1979. Apparent feeding by the fin whale, Balaenoptera 

physalus, and humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, on the American sand lance, 

Ammodytes americanus, in the northwest Atlantic. Fish. Bull., U.S. 77:285–287. 

Palka. D. 2000. Abundance of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy harbor porpoise based on 

shipboard and aerial surveys during 1999. NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Ref. Doc. 00-07; 29 pp. 

Palsbøll, P., J. Allen, M. Bérubé, P.J. Clapham, T.P. Feddersen, P. Hammond, H. 

Jorgensen, S. Katona, A.H. Larsen, F. Larsen, J. Lien, O.K. Mattila, J. Sigurjønsson, R. 

Sears, T. Smith, R. Sponer, P. Stevick, and N. 0ien. 1997. Genetic tagging of humpback 

whales. Nature 388:767–769. 

Palsbøll, P., Bérubé, M., Aguilar, A., Notarbartolo-Di-Sciara, G., Nielsen, R. 2004.

Discerning between Recurrent Gene Flow and Recent Divergence under a Finite-Site 

Mutation Model Applied to North Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea Fin Whale 

(Balaenoptera physalus). Evolution 58(3): 670–675.

Parks, S., D.R. Ketten, J.T. O’Malley, and J. Arruda. 2007a. Anatomical Predictions of 

Hearing in the North Atlantic Right Whale. The Anatomical Record 290:734–744.

Parks, S.E., C.W. Clark, and P.L. Tyack. 2007b. Short- and long-term changes in right 

whale calling behavior: The potential effects of noise on acoustic communication. Journal 

of the Acoustical Society of America 112:3725–3731.

Parks, S.E., I. Urazghildiiev, and C. Clark. 2009. Variability in ambient noise levels and 

call parameters of North Atlantic right whales in three habitat areas. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America 125: 1230–1239.

Payne, P.M., D.N. Wiley, S.B. Young, S. Pittman, P.J. Clapham, and J.W. Jossi. 1990. 

Recent fluctuations in the abundance of baleen whales in the southern Gulf of Maine in 

relation to changes in selected prey. Fish. Bull., U.S. 88:687–696.

Perez, M.J. , F. Thomas, F. Uribe, M. Sepúlveda, M. Flores, and R. Moraga. 2006. Fin 

whale (Balaenoptera physalus) feeding on Euphausia mucronata in nearshore waters off 

north-central Chile. Aquatic Mammals 32(1):109–113.
July 2010 VI-17 NMFS

Perry, S.L., D.P. DeMaster, and G.K. Silber. 1999. The great whales: History and status 

of six species listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Mar. 

Fish. Rev. 61(1):1–74.

Pike, G.C, and I.E. MacAskie. 1969. Marine mammals of British Columbia. Fish. Res. 

Bd. Canada Bull. 171.

Polefka, S. 2004. Anthropogenic Noise and the Channel Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary: How Noise Affects Sanctuary Resources and What We Can Do About It. 

Report by the Environmental Defense Center, Santa Barbara, CA:53 pp.

Popper, A.N. 1980a. Sound emission and detection by delphinids. pp. 1–52 in L.M. 

Herman (ed.), Cetacean behavior: Mechanisms and functions. Wiley-Interscience, New 

York. 463 p. 

Popper, A.N. 1980b. Behavioral measures of odontocete hearing, pp. 469–481 in R-G. 

Busnel and J.R Fish (eds.), Animal sonar systems. Plenum, New York. 1135 p.

Quinn, TJ.II, and H.J. Niebauer. 1995. Relation of eastern Bering Sea walleye Pollock 

(Theragra chalcogramma) recruitment to environmental and oceanographic variables, 

Pages 497-507in R.J. Beamish (ed.), Climate change and northern fish populations. Can. 

Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat.Sci. 121. 

Read, A.J. 1994. Interactions between cetaceans and gillnet and trap fisheries in the 

northwest Atlantic. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. (Special Issue 15):133–147. 

Reeves, R.R. and M.F. Barto. 1985. Whaling in the Bay of Fundy. Whalewatcher 19(4): 

14–18. 

Reeves., R.R., S. Leatherwood, S.A. Karl, and E.R. Yohe. 1985. Whaling results at 

Akutan (1912–39) and Port Hobron (1926-37), Alaska. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 35:441–

457. 

Reyff, J. A., P. P. Donavan and C. R. Green Jr., 2002. Underwater Sound Levels 

Associated with Construction of the Benicia-Martinez Bridge. Preliminary results based 

on measurements made during the driving of 2.4 meter steel shell piles. Unpublished.

Reyff, J.A. 2003. Underwater sound pressures associated with restrike of pile installation 

demonstration project piles. Report prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. for State of 

California Department of Transportation.

Rice, D.W. 1963. Progress report oil biological studies of the larger Cetacea in the waters 

off California. Norsk Hvalfangsttid 52(7):181–187.
July 2010 VI-18 NMFS

Rice, D.W. 1974. Whales and whale research in the eastern North Pacific, pp. 170-195 in 

The whale problem: a status report, ed. W.E. Schevill. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 

Mass. 419pp.

Rice, D.W. 1998. Marine mammals of the world: systematics and distribution. Society 

for Marine Mammalogy, Lawrence, Kansas. Spec. Publ. No. 4.

Richardson, W. J., J. Charles R. Greene, C. I. Malme, and D. H. Thomson. 1995. Marine 

Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Ridgway, S. H. 1983.Dolphin hearing and sound production in health and illness, pp. 

247–296 in R.R. Fay and G. Gourevitch (eds.), Hearing and other senses: Presentations in 

honor of E.G. Wever. Amphora Press, Groton, CT. 405 p.

Romero, L. M. 2004. Physiological stress in ecology: lessons from biomedical research. 

Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19.

Rørvik, C.J., J. Jonsson, O.A. Mathisen, and A. Jonsgård. 1976. Fin whales, 

Balaenoptera physalus (L.), off the west coast of Iceland distribution, segregation by 

length and exploitation. RitFisk 5:1–30. 

Rørvik C.J. and J. Sigurjønsson. 1981. A note on the catch per unit effort in the Icelandic 

fin whale fishery. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 31:379–383. 

Rountree, R.A., R.G. Gilmore, C.A. Goudey, A.D. Hawkins, J.J. Luczkovich, and D.A. 

Mann. 2006. Listening to fish: Applications of passive acoustics in fisheries science. 

Fisheries 31:433–446.

Ross, D. 1976. Mechanics of underwater noise. Pergamon, New York. 375 p. 

Sampson, D.B. 1989. Pregnancy rate versus length in southern fin whales. Rep. Int. 

Whal. Commn. 39:255–265. 

Sanpera, C. and A. Aguilar. 1992. Modern whaling off the Iberian Peninsula during the 

20th century. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 42:723–730.

Scammon, C.M. 1874. The marine mammals of the northwestern coast of North America. 

Together with an account of the American whale-fishery. John H. Carmany and Co., San 

Francisco. 

Scheffer, V.B. and J.W. Slipp. 1948. The whales and dolphins of Washington State with 

a key to the cetaceans of the west coast of North America. Am. Mid. Nat. 39:257–337.

Schevill, W.E., W.A. Watkins, and R.H. Backus. 1964. The 20-cycle signals and 

Balaenoptera (fin whales). Pp. 147–152 in Marine Bio-acoustics—Proceedings of a 

symposium held at Bimini, Bahamas. 
July 2010 VI-19 NMFS

Schmitt, P.P., C. de Jong, and F.H. Winter. 1980. Thomas Welcome Roys. America’s 

Pioneer of Modern Whaling. Univ. Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. 253 pp. 

Schusterman, R.J. 1981. Behavioral capabilities of seals and sea lions: A review of their 

hearing, visual, learning, and diving skills. Psychol. Rec. 31(2): 125–143. 

Seipt, I., P.J. Clapham, C.A. Mayo, and M.P. Hawvermale. 1990. Population 

characteristics of individually identified fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus, in 

Massachusetts Bay. Fish. Bull. 88:271–278.

Sergeant, D.E. 1977. Stocks of fin whales Balaenoptera physalus L. in the North Atlantic 

Ocean. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 27:460–473.

Sergeant, D.E., A.W. Mansfield, and B. Beck. 1970. Inshore records of Cetacea for 

eastern Canada, 1949-68. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 27:1903–1915.

Shallenberger, E.W. 1981. The status of Hawaiian cetaceans. Final report to Marine 

Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. MMC-77/23. 79 pp. 

Sigurjønsson, J. 1988. Operational factors of the Icelandic large whale fishery. Rep. Int. 

Whal. Commn. 38:327–333.

Sigurjønsson, J. 1989. To Icelanders, whaling is a godsend. Oceanus 32(l):29–36. 

Sigurjønsson, J. 1995. On the life history and autecology of North Atlantic rorquals. Pp. 

425–441 in A.S. Blix, L. Wall0e, and 0. Ulltang (eds), Whales, seals, fish and man. 

Elsevier Science. 

Silber, G.K., M.W. Newcomer, P.C. Silber, H. Perez-Cortes M. and G.M. Ellis. 1994. 

Cetaceans of the Northern Gulf of California: Distribution, occurrence, and relative 

abundance. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 10(3): 283–298. 

Simmonds, M. P. and J. D. Hutchinson, editors. 1996. The Conservation of Whales and 

Dolphins. Wiley, Chichester, United Kingdom.

Śirović, A., G.R. Cutter, J.L. Butler, and D.A. Demer. 2009. Rockfish sounds and their 

potential use for population monitoring in the Southern California Bight. ICES Journal of 

Marine Science 66:981–990.

Smith, T.D., J. Allen, P.J. Clapham, P.S. Hammond, S. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D. 

Mattila, P.J. Palsbøll, J. Sigurjønsson, P.T. Stevick, and N. Oien. 1999. An ocean-basinwide mark- recapture study of the North Atlantic humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae). Mar. Mamm. Sci. 15:1–32. 

Sokolov, V.E. and V.A. Arsen’ev. 1994. Mlekopitayushchie Rossii I sopredel’nykh 

regionov Usatye kity. Izdatel’stvo “Nauka,” Moscow. 208 pp. 
July 2010 VI-20 NMFS

Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene, Jr., 

D. Kastak, D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and 

P.L. Tyack. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific 

recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33(4):411–521.

Stewart, B.S., S.A. Karl, P.K. Yochem, S. Leatherwood, and J.L. Laake. 1987. Aerial 

surveys for cetaceans in the former Akutan, Alaska, whaling grounds. Arctic 40:33–42. 

Stone, G.S., S.K. Katona, A. Mainwaring, J.M. Allen, and H.D. Corbett. 1992. 

Respiration and surfacing rates of fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) observed from a 

lighthouse tower. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 42:739–745. 

Stone, C.J. 2003. The effects of seismic activity on marine mammals in UK waters, 

1998–2000. JNCC Report No. 323.

Sutherland, W. J. and N. J. Crockford. 1993. Factors affecting the feeding distribution of 

Red-breasted Geese Branta ruficollis wintering in Romania. Biological Conservation

63:61–65.

Tarpley, R.J. and S. Marwitz. 1993. Plastic debris ingestion by cetaceans along the Texas 

coast: Two case reports. Aquatic Mammals 19(2): 93–98.

Tershy, B.R. 1992. Body size, diet, habitat use, and social behavior of Balaenoptera

whales in the Gulf of California. J. Mamm. 73:477–486. 

Tershy, B.R., D. Breese, and C.S. Strong. 1990. Abundance, seasonal distribution and 

population composition of balaenopterid whales in the Canal de Ballenas, Gulf of 

California, Mexico. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. (Special Issue 12):369–375. 

Tershy, B. R., J. Urban-R., D. Breese, L. Rojas-B., and L. T. Findley. 1993. Are fin 

whales resident to the Gulf of California? Rev. Invest. Cient, Univ. Auton. de Baja 

California Sur. 1:69–71.

Thompson, P.O. and W.A. Friedl. 1982. A long term study of low frequency sound from 

several species of whales off Oahu, Hawaii. Cetology 45:1–19.

Tomilin, A.G. 1946. Thermoregulation and the geographical races of cetaceans

(Termoregulyatsiya I geograficheskie racy kitoobraznykh.) Doklady Akad. Nauk CCCP

54(5):465–472. (English and Russian) 

Tomilin, A.G. 1967 [1957]. Cetacea. Vol. 9 of Mammals of the U.S.S.R. and adjacent 

countries. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem. 717 pp. [Orig. in 

Russian] 

Tønnessen, J.N. and A.O. Johnsen. 1982. The History of Modern Whaling. Univ. of 

California Press, Berkeley. 798 pp. 
July 2010 VI-21 NMFS

Tyack, P. L. 2000. Functional aspects of cetacean communication. Pages 270-307 in J. 

Mann, R. C. Connor, P. L. Tyack, and H. Whitehead, editors. Cetacean societies: field 

studies of dolphins and whales. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2009. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Regional Office, 

California Marine Mammal Stranding Network Database.

U.S. Department of the Navy. 2007. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active 

(SURTASS LFA) Sonar. Vols. 1 and 2.

U.S. Department of the Navy. 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement: Southern California Range Complex. Vols. 1 and 2.

Vanderlaan. A. S.M. and C.T. Taggart. 2007. Vessel Collisions with Whales: The 

Probability of Lethal Injury Based on Vessel Speed. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 23:144–156.

Van Waerebeek, K. and R. Leaper. 2008. Second report of the IWC Vessel Strike Data 

Standardisation Working Group. Report to the International Whaling Commission’s 

Scientific Committee at the IWC’s 60th Annual Meeting, Santiago, Chile, June 2008. 

Viale, D. N. Verneau and Y. Tison. 1992. Stomach obstruction in a sperm whale 

beached on the Lavezzi islands: Macropollution in the Mediterranean. J. Rech. 

Oceanogr. 16(3–4): 100–102. 

Wade, P.R. and R.P. Angliss. 1997. Guidelines for assessing marine mammals stocks: 

report of the GAMMS workshop April 3–5, 1996, Seattle, Washington. NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS OPR-12. 93pp.

Waring G.T., D.L. Palka, K.D. Mullin, J.H.W. Main, L.J. Hansen, and K.D. Bisack. 

1997. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments — 1996. 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-114: 250 pp. 

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfield-Walsh, K. Maze-Foley. 2009. U.S. Atlantic 

and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments—2008. NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-NE-210. 440 p.

Wartzok, D., and D.R. Ketten. 1999. Marine mammal sensory systems. Pages 117-175 in 

J.E. Reynolds III and S.A. Rommel, eds. Biology of Marine Mammals. Washington, 

D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Wartzok, D., A.N. Popper, J. Gordon, and J. Merrill. 2004. Factors affecting the 

responses of marine mammals to acoustic disturbance. Marine Technology Society 

Journal 37:4–13.
July 2010 VI-22 NMFS

Watkins, W.A. 1981. Activities and underwater sounds of fin whales. Sci. Rep. Whales 

Res. Inst 33:83–117.

Watkins, W.A. 1986. Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod Waters. Mar. 

Mamm. Sci. 2(4):251–262. 

Watkins, W.A. and D. Wartzok. 1985. Sensory biophysics of marine mammals. Mar. 

Mamm. Sci. 1(3):219–260. 

Watkins, W.A., K.E. Moore, D. Wartzok, and J.H. Johnson. 1981. Radio tracking of 

finback (Balaenoptera physalus) and humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) whales in 

Prince William Sound, Alaska. Deep-Sea Research 28A:577–588.

Watkins, W.A., K.E. Moore, J. Sigurjønsson, D. Wartzokj and G. Notarbartolo di Sciara. 

1984. Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) tracked by radio in the Irminger Sea. Rit 

Fiskideildar 8(1):1–14.

Weisbrod, A.V., D. Sjea, M.J. Moore and J.J. Stegeman. 2000. Organochlorine 

exposure and bioaccumulation in the endangered northwest Atlantic right whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis) population. Envir. Tox Chem. 19 (3):654–666.

Wenz, G.M. 1962. Acoustic ambient noise in the ocean: Spectra and sources. Journal of 

the Acoustical Society of America 34:1936–1956.

Yablokov, A.V. 1994. Validity of whaling data. Nature 367:108. 

Zemsky, V.A., A.A. Berzin, Yu.A. Mikhalyev, and D.D. Tormosov. 1995. Soviet 

Antarctic Whaling Data (1947–1972). Center for Russian Environmental Policy, 

Moscow. 320 pp. 

Zerbini, A. N., J. M. Waite, J. L. Laake and P. R. Wade. 2006. Abundance, trends and 

distribution of baleen whales off western Alaska and the central Aleutian Islands. Deep 

Sea Res. Part I:1772–1790.
July 2010 VI-23 NMFS

PEOPLE PROVIDING PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Jay Barlow. Southwest Fisheries Science Center. 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, 

CA 92037.

Phillip. J. Clapham, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East. 

Seattle. WA. 98112. 

Michael W. Newcomer, 22371 Hartman Drive, Los Altos, CA 94024.

Stephanie Norman, DVM. Northwest Regional Office. 7600 Sand Point Way NE. Seattle, 

WA, 98115. 

Barbara Taylor. Science Center. 3333 North Torrey Pines Court. La Jolla, CA 92037.