Content uploaded by Corrie Curtice
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Corrie Curtice on Mar 04, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Aquatic Mammals 2015, 41(1), 1, DOI 10.1578/AM.41.1.2015.1
Letter of Introduction to the Biologically Important Areas Issue
Guest Editor: Sofie M. Van Parijs, Ph.D.
NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center
This special issue on Biologically Important Areas
(BIAs) has been a long time in the making. It has taken
considerable effort from all of the authors involved,
in addition to a large body of diverse reviewers,
to produce these papers. This issue originated as a
side bar to the Cetacean Density and Distribution
Mapping (CetMap) Working Group, a part of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
(NOAA) CetSound program (http://cetsound.noaa.
gov). The CetMap Working Group created a mapping
tool that provides cetacean density and distribution
maps that are time-, region-, and species-specific.
Additionally, our CetMap tool highlights areas, sea-
sons, and species for which there are clear data gaps.
The CetMap Working Group recognized the
necessity of creating BIAs to incorporate addi-
tional information into the mapping tool by identi-
fying areas where cetacean species or populations
are known to concentrate for specific behaviors,
or are range-limited, but for which there are insuf-
ficient data for their importance to be reflected
in the quantitative mapping effort. The result of
the BIA assessment process includes narratives,
maps, and tables that provide additional context
within which to examine potential interactions
between cetaceans and human activities. Our aim
for this assessment is to combine expert judgment
with available data (published or unpublished) to
delineate BIAs for each species and each region.
Our goal is not to define marine protected areas.
Rather, we are identifying sites where cetaceans
engage in activities at certain times that contrib-
ute to an individual’s health and fitness and, ulti-
mately, to the fecundity and survivorship of the
population. During the conservation and manage-
ment decision-making process, BIAs should be
considered in addition to existing density esti-
mates, range-wide distribution data, information
on population trends and life history parameters,
known threats to the population, and other rele-
vant information.
The review process for these BIA chapters was
extensive and thorough. Dr. Kathleen Dudzinski
served as the main editor and I as guest editor for
this issue. Prior to submission, each chapter was
reviewed by between 12 to 30 regional experts
from within and outside NOAA (both scientists
and managers), including some of the CetMap
Working Group members. Upon submission to
Aquatic Mammals, Dr. Dudzinski reviewed all
manuscripts with an eye to promoting consistency
and accuracy across all the BIAs, in addition to
soliciting reviews from two to three external
reviewers for each chapter through the journal’s
review process.
There are eight chapters in this special issue, an
introduction and seven regional manuscripts cov-
ering the U.S. East Coast, Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
West Coast, Hawai‘i, Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian
Islands and Bering Sea, and the Arctic. There are
a total of 131 BIAs covering 24 species. Each
chapter was written by scientific experts who
have a thorough knowledge of the species and
region in question. Although a common theme
unites all chapters, there are regional variations
in the amount and type of information available
to undertake the assessment and the number and
types of species covered. It was not feasible to
create BIAs for every species due to either the
lack of information to support the delineation or,
in some cases, simply due to the time available
for this effort. However, these BIAs are meant
to be living documents that should be routinely
reviewed and revised to expand the number of
species covered and to update the existing BIAs
as new information becomes available.
In that light, it is critical to start this special
issue where all good things should start, at the
beginning. The BIA special issue begins with an
introductory chapter that highlights the rationale
and decisions made during this inaugural BIA
assessment process. This is a MUST read before
you delve further into a regional chapter. The
“Overview and Rationale” includes all the BIA
criteria and caveats and summarizes these in a
digestible series of tables. We hope that this BIA
special issue will be of use to scientists and man-
agers alike and will assist with planning, analyses,
and decisions regarding how to reduce adverse
impacts to cetaceans resulting from human
activities.
Aquatic Mammals 2015, 41(1), 2-16, DOI 10.1578/AM.41.1.2015.2
1. Biologically Important Areas for Cetaceans
Within U.S. Waters – Overview and Rationale
Megan C. Ferguson,1 Corrie Curtice,2 Jolie Harrison,3 and Sofie M. Van Parijs4
1NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Mammal Laboratory,
7600 Sand Point Way NE F/AKC3, Seattle, WA 98115-6349, USA
E-mail: Megan.Ferguson@noaa.gov
2Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab, Duke University, Beaufort, NC 28516, USA
3NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA
4NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA
Abstract
We outline the rationale and process used by
the Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping
(CetMap) Working Group to identify Biologically
Important Areas (BIAs) for 24 cetacean species,
stocks, or populations in seven regions within U.S.
waters. BIAs are reproductive areas, feeding areas,
migratory corridors, and areas in which small and
resident populations are concentrated. BIAs are
region-, species-, and time-specific. Information
provided for each BIA includes the following:
(1) a written narrative describing the information,
assumptions, and logic used to delineate the BIA;
(2) a map of the BIA; (3) a list of references used
in the assessment; and (4) a metadata table that
concisely details the type and quantity of informa-
tion used to define a BIA, providing transparency
in how BIAs were designated in a quick reference
table format. BIAs were identified through an expert
elicitation process. The delineation of BIAs does not
have direct or immediate regulatory consequences.
Rather, the BIA assessment is intended to provide
the best available science to help inform regulatory
and management decisions under existing authori-
ties about some, though not all, important cetacean
areas in order to minimize the impacts of anthropo-
genic activities on cetaceans and to achieve conser-
vation and protection goals. In addition, the BIAs
and associated information may be used to identify
information gaps and prioritize future research and
modeling efforts to better understand cetaceans,
their habitat, and ecosystems.
Key Words: anthropogenic activity, anthropogenic
sound, CetMap, BIA, distribution, behavior, con-
servation, management, Arctic, Aleutian Islands,
Bering Sea, North Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Alaska,
Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaiian Islands,
Gulf of Mexico, Northwest Atlantic Ocean
Introduction
Anthropogenic activities in the marine environ-
ment are increasing in number, geographic extent,
and often duration, resulting in increased potential
risk to marine ecosystems worldwide (Hooker &
Gerber, 2004; Convention on Biological Diversity
[CBD], 2009; Reeves et al., 2013). Activities of
concern for the conservation and management
of marine species are diverse and include energy
development (e.g., wind farm installation; oil and
gas exploration, development, and production),
military testing and training (e.g., sonar exercises
and equipment prototyping), shipping, fishing,
tourism, and coastal construction, among others.
This special issue focuses on the potential effects
of human activities on cetaceans. Several compo-
nents of the activities mentioned above have the
potential to adversely affect cetaceans, including
the possibility of vessel strike; bycatch or entan-
glement; alteration of habitat through physical
changes, chemical pollution, or introduction of
alien invasive species; and indirect effects related
to prey distribution and abundance. However, one
common component of these activities is under-
water noise, which is present to some degree in
almost every marine activity and can affect large
areas over long periods of time.
Sound is critical to cetaceans for communicat-
ing, detecting predators and prey, navigating, and
sensing other important environmental cues. A
soundscape is comprised of all of the sounds in a
place, including geophysical, biological, and man-
made contributions. When examined from the per-
spective of the animals experiencing and using it,
a soundscape may also be referred to as an “acous-
tic habitat” (Clark et al., 2009, p. 203). Increased
anthropogenic sound from single or multiple
sources can have deleterious effects on cetaceans’
acoustic habitats, reducing their ability to detect
3 BIAs for Cetaceans: Overview and Rationale
critical sounds, often across large areas and long
periods of time. In addition to these more chronic
acoustic habitat impacts, anthropogenic noise can
cause direct, or acute, effects ranging from alter-
ing important behaviors and threshold shifts in
hearing, to injury, or even death, in certain circum-
stances. The probability, nature, and extent of an
animal’s response to sound depends on a variety of
contextual factors, including the activity or behav-
ior in which the animal is engaged at the time of
sound exposure (e.g., feeding, breeding, resting,
migrating, nursing), the nature and novelty of the
sound, and the location of the sound source rela-
tive to the animal (Ellison et al., 2012). However,
both chronic and acute effects of noise have the
potential to negatively affect an individual’s health
and fitness in certain circumstances, ultimately
leading to effects on a population’s fecundity or
survivorship.
Following on the earlier work of a U.S.
National Research Council (NRC) (2005) com-
mittee, New et al. (2014), in an effort termed the
Potential Consequences of Disturbance, outlined
an updated conceptual model of the relationships
linking disturbance to changes in behavior, physi-
ology, health, vital rates, and population dynam-
ics. Further, New et al. created an energetic model
for southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina) to
study links between disturbance and population-
level effects. Based on extensive morphological,
environmental, and tag data, and biological sam-
ples, the model predicts the quantitative transfer
functions (i.e., mathematical relationships) among
reduced foraging success (potentially the result of
context-specific disturbance events), adult mass,
pup wean mass, and pup survival. It is clear that
understanding the behaviors and activities ani-
mals are involved in when exposed to stressors
may affect both their immediate response and
the ultimate effect of that response. Ellison et al.
(2012) suggested that federal agencies responsible
for regulating entities producing sound with the
potential to affect marine mammals should incor-
porate behavioral context where possible into
their impact assessments.
In the United States, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is charged
with implementing multiple federal statutes,
including the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) (16 USC § 1361 et seq.), the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) (16 USC § 1531 et seq.), and
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA)
(16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.), which contain pro-
visions for the protection and conservation of
marine mammals. These statutes all have sections
that address federal or public activities with the
potential for disturbing or harming marine mam-
mals, their populations, or their habitat, and in
many cases necessitate a consultation or coordi-
nation between NOAA and the entity planning
to conduct the activity. Additionally, the entities
seeking approvals from NOAA pursuant to these
statutes are required to provide information and
impact analyses with their requests. Separately,
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
(42 USC § 4321 et seq.) requires all federal agen-
cies to analyze the potential impacts of their
activities on the environment, including marine
mammals, and to consider enacting mitigation
measures.
NOAA must ultimately reach conclusions, spe-
cific to each statute, regarding the scope and sig-
nificance of the anticipated impacts of a proposed
activity to the affected individuals and their habitat,
and how the effects to individual marine mammals
may impact populations. The analyses inform the
development and requirement of appropriate miti-
gation and monitoring measures. The conclusions
can affect whether the entities conducting the activ-
ities can proceed with their activities as planned
or need to modify their activities. These processes
typically culminate in the issuance or denial of an
authorization, permit, exemption, or recommen-
dation letter from NOAA or other agencies with
jurisdiction over specific activities. As noted above,
the ability to characterize cetacean behaviors or
activities in given areas or times is important in the
assessment of likely impacts of a proposed activ-
ity and the development of appropriate mitigation
strategies. Furthermore, this ability would be valu-
able to both regulators and regulated entities.
The focus of this issue largely relates to under-
standing activities in which cetaceans, in particular,
are likely to be engaged at a certain time and place,
which is indicative of an area’s biological impor-
tance for purposes of impact analysis and manage-
ment. The idea for this undertaking was conceived in
2011 when NOAA convened the Cetacean Density
and Distribution Mapping (CetMap) Working Group
(http://cetsound.noaa.gov) to map cetacean den-
sity and distribution within U.S. waters. CetMap
members were affiliated with government agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, academic institu-
tions, and private research or environmental consult-
ing firms. CetMap members brought a diversity of
experience in cetacean ecology, conservation, and
management to the project, ranging from policy to
modeling to field work. The primary goal of CetMap
was to create and compile comprehensive and easily
accessible regional cetacean density and distribu-
tion maps that are time- and species-specific, ideally
using survey data and models that estimate density
using predictive environmental factors. CetMap con-
sidered predictive habitat-based density (HD) models
to be the best tool for addressing spatially and tem-
porally explicit questions on cetacean abundance,
4 Ferguson et al.
density, or distribution; however, HD models require
a considerable amount of relatively high-quality
data, which is available for only a limited number of
species, regions, and time periods (Kot et al., 2010;
Kaschner et al., 2012). Furthermore, HD models
typically do not provide direct information on activ-
ity state, nor do they provide information on animal
distribution at the relevant time and space scales that
can be obtained from primary information sources
such as acoustic, sighting, genetic, and tagging data
and expert knowledge. Therefore, it is important to
supplement areas that might be identified through
HD models with additional information.
To augment CetMap’s quantitative density
and distribution mapping effort and to provide
additional context for cetacean impact analyses,
CetMap undertook a process to identify, through
expert consultation, Biologically Important Areas
(BIAs). BIAs are reproductive areas, feeding
areas, migratory corridors, and areas in which
small and resident populations are concentrated.
Similar to other products on the CetMap website,
the cetacean BIAs are region-, species-, and time-
specific. Although all products on the CetMap
website are restricted to cetaceans, the tools could
be extended to include other marine mammals
such as pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, fur seals, and
walruses), sirenians (manatees and dugongs), and
fissipeds (sea otters and polar bears).
BIAs were created to aid NOAA, other fed-
eral agencies, and the public in the analyses and
planning that are required under multiple U.S.
statutes to characterize and minimize the impacts
of anthropogenic activities on cetaceans and to
achieve conservation and protection goals. In
addition, the BIAs and associated information
may be used to identify information gaps and
prioritize future research and modeling efforts
to better understand cetaceans, their habitat, and
ecosystems. Because this is a scientific effort,
the identification of BIAs does not have direct or
immediate regulatory consequences. Rather, the
BIA assessment is intended to provide the best
available science to help inform regulatory and
management decisions under existing authorities
about some, though not all, important cetacean
areas. For decision-making purposes, the BIAs
identified here should be evaluated in combina-
tion with areas identified as having high cetacean
density; the present effort is meant to augment,
not displace, cetacean density analyses.
Herein, we describe the process that CetMap
implemented to delineate BIAs; summarize the
resulting BIAs; discuss strengths and limitations
of the existing BIAs and assessment process; and
suggest ways in which this BIA assessment can be
improved in the future. Furthermore, we compare
CetMap’s BIA assessment to similar international
assessments such as the International Union for
Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Key Biodiversity
Areas (KBAs) and Important Marine Mammal Areas
(IMMAs), Convention on Biological Diversity’s
Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas
(EBSAs), Pacific WildLife Foundation’s (PWLF)
Important Cetacean Areas (ICAs), and Australia’s
Biologically Important Areas.
The final products of CetMap’s BIA assess-
ment comprise the subsequent articles in this
special issue that are presented as seven chapters,
separated based on regional divisions that reflect
Large Marine Ecosystem delineations (Sherman
& Alexander, 1986) (Figure 1.1). These regions
are comprised of the U.S. East Coast, Gulf of
Mexico, West Coast, Hawai‘i, Gulf of Alaska,
Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea, and the Arctic
(encompassing the northeastern Chukchi and
western Beaufort Seas). The abbreviations used in
this special issue are defined in Table 1.1.
Methods
The CetMap BIA assessment is a species-focused,
science-based process that is restricted to U.S.
waters. Areas are delineated based on their impor-
tance to specific species, stocks, or populations.
(Hereafter, “species” will be used to represent
species, stocks, and populations, unless a sub-
specific unit is essential for interpretation.) This
inaugural BIA assessment is not comprehensive
in the species evaluated. Rather, it incorporates
a large number of species representing a range
of habitats, foraging methods, social structures,
movement patterns, life history strategies, and
population sizes. This strategy of completing a
trial assessment with a limited suite of representa-
tive species is similar to some of the international
assessments described below. The best available
science is used to evaluate candidate species and
areas according to the BIA criteria listed below.
The assessment is free from legal, socioeconomic,
and political constraints, with the exception that
it is limited to U.S. waters for practical purposes.
Any use of these BIAs in regulatory decisions will
be subject to the standard processes of analysis
and review under the applicable statutes. CetMap
defines “U.S. waters” as the region shoreward
of the offshore boundary of the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ); therefore, U.S. waters
under this definition include state waters.
CetMap BIA Criteria
The BIA criteria are guidelines for delineating
areas of biological importance for cetaceans. The
criteria allow the flexibility to assess ecologically
diverse species using the information available,
which spans a wide range in quality, quantity,
BIAs for Cetaceans: Overview and Rationale 5
and type. The criteria are not based on thresh-
olds. CetMap considers an area to be biologically
important for cetacean species, stocks, or popu-
lations (denoted by “species” in the criteria) if it
meets at least one of the following four criteria
(see also Table 1.2):
1. Reproductive Areas – Areas and times within
which a particular species selectively mates,
gives birth, or is found with neonates or calves
2. Feeding Areas – Areas and times within
which aggregations of a particular species
preferentially feed. These either may be per-
sistent in space and time or associated with
ephemeral features that are less predictable
but are located within a larger area that can be
delineated.
3.
Migratory Corridors – Areas and times within
which a substantial portion of a species is known
to migrate; the corridor is spatially restricted.
4. Small and Resident Population – Areas and
times within which small and resident popula-
tions occupy a limited geographic extent
1
Figure 1.1. Overview of study area, showing the seven regions within which Biologically
Important Areas (BIAs) were assessed. All BIAs were delineated solely within the US waters,
which we define as the region shoreward of the offshore boundary of the US Exclusive
Economic Zone, including state waters. The seven regions are labeled from east to west/north: A.
East Coast (Section 2 in this issue); B. Gulf of Mexico (Section 3 in this issue); C. West Coast
(Section 4 in this issue); D. Hawaiian Islands (Section 5 in this issue); E. Gulf of Alaska
50°W60°W70°W80°W90°W100°W110°W120°W130°W140°W
40°N30°N20°N
Canada
Atlantic
Ocean
Mexico
Gulf
of
Mexico
Pacific
Ocean
140°W150°W160°W170°W180°
60°N50°N40°N
150°W160°W170°W180°
30°N20°N10°N
Canada
Russia
Pacific
Ocean
Gulf of
Alaska
Pacific
Ocean
Main
Hawaiian
Islands
Bering
Sea
Chukchi
Sea Beaufort
Sea
0 1,200600
Kilometers
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
United States
Alaska
Arctic
Ocean
Northwestern
Hawaiian
Islands
0 1,000500
Kilometers
0 1,000500
Kilometers
US EEZ Bound ary
Figure 1.1. Overview of study area, showing the seven regions within which Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) were
assessed. All BIAs were delineated solely within the U.S. waters, which we define as the region shoreward of the offshore
boundary of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), including state waters. The seven regions are labeled clockwise
starting in the east: A. East Coast (Chapter 2 in this issue); B. Gulf of Mexico (Chapter 3 in this issue); C. West Coast
(Chapter 4 in this issue); D. Hawai‘i (Chapter 5 in this issue); E. Gulf of Alaska (Chapter 6 in this issue); F. Aleutian Islands
and Bering Sea (Chapter 7 in this issue); and G. Arctic (Chapter 8 in this issue).
6 Ferguson et al.
U.S. state abbreviations
Alabama
California
Connecticut
ashington, DCW
Delaware
ork
Alaska
Florida
gia
Y
ginia
Geor
Hawai‘i
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Maryland
Maine
Mississippi
North Carolina
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
exas
ir
T
V
Washington
AK
AL
CA
CT
DC
DE
FL
GA
HI
LA
MA
MD
ME
MS
NC
NH
NJ
NY
OR
RI
SC
TX
VA
WA
udy
Abundance and Status of
Whale and Ecosystem Research
-Prey
International Union for Conservation of Nature
Commission
and Atmospheric Administration
Apex Predator
Abbreviations used in this special issue; the state abbreviations are used in many of the figures.
Marine Mammal Protection Act
Minerals Management Service
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
National Environmental Policy Act
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Marine Mammal Laboratory
National Marine Sanctuaries Act
Whaling International
Key
Meter(s)
Northern North Carolina Estuarine System
Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies
Alaska Coastal System
Pacific Coast Feeding Group
Pacific RIght whale Ecology ST
Foundation
Report
Alaska Fairbanks Gulf
IWC-Pacific Ocean
Biodiversity Areas
Mitochondrial DNA
Nautical mile(s)
Oceanic
ildLife
National
Pacific W
Stock Assessment
Study of Northern
Southern North Carolina Estuarine System
SOund SUrveillance System
Structure of Populations, Levels of
Humpbacks
University of
Project
Western North Pacific
Abbreviations
IUCN
A
IWC
IWC-POWER
KBA
m
MMP
MMS
mtDNA
NEFSC
ANEP
NMFS
nmi
NMML
NMSA
NNCES
NOAA
PCCS
PCFG
PRIEST
PWLF
SAR
SNACS
SNCES
SOSUS
SPLASH
UAF GAP
WNP
Arctic Marine Mammals
gy Management
Important Area
Whale Feeding Ecology Study
California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries
Area
urtle
Investigations
Convention on Biological Diversity
Assessment ProgramT
Cascadia Research Collective
ariationof V
Environmental Impact Statement
Species Act
ficient
Ecologically or Biologically Significant
Alaska Line-transect Survey
Areas
Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort
Biologically
Bowhead
Bays, Sounds, Estuaries
Areas
Aerial Surveys of
Bureau of Ocean Ener
Beaufort Stock
Cetacean and
Cook Inlet Belugas
Coef
Deoxyribonucleic acid
Distinct Population Segment
Eastern Chuckchi Sea
Exclusive Economic Zone
Eastern North Pacific
Endangered
Federal Register
Geo-Marine, Inc.
Habitat-based density
Cetacean
Gulf of
Important
Important Marine Mammal
able 1.1.
AP
T
ASAMM
BCB
BIA
BOEM
BOWFEST
BS
BSE
CalCOFI
CBD
CeT
CIB
CRC
CV
DNA
DPS
EBSA
ECS
EEZ
EIS
ENP
ESA
FR
GMI
GOALS
HD
ICA
IMMA
BIAs for Cetaceans: Overview and Rationale 7
Certain qualifying statements are included in the BIA
criteria. For example, the migratory corridor crite-
rion designates a “substantial portion of a species”
that migrates in a “spatially restricted” area. Within
the context of informing conservation and manage-
ment decisions, it is less useful to know that a small
portion of a species might regularly use a 1,000-km
swath of the Pacific Ocean to travel from California
to Hawai‘i than it is to know that 100% of a spe-
cies migrates through the waters of the Bering Strait
(~80 km wide) twice each year. Additionally, CetMap
restricts the fourth type of BIA to “small and resi-
dent” populations “that occupy a limited geographic
extent” because NOAA’s Marine Mammal Stock
Assessment Reports already cite the range and abun-
dance of all recognized U.S. marine mammal species
or populations, including small or resident popula-
tions whose range is either unknown or relatively
large. The North Pacific right whale is an example
of a small population that did not qualify for a small
and resident BIA because their range is relatively
large. The Gulf of Mexico resident sperm whale is
an example of a resident population whose overall
spatial extent was too large to be defined as a BIA.
While CetMap does not explicitly define “small” and
“limited geographic extent,” we delineate BIAs for
populations or stocks whose range spans only a bay,
an area around one or several islands, or a portion
of what CetMap defines as a region. Each regional
chapter provides an explicit definition of “resident”
for each small and resident BIA delineated.
Areas that NOAA has officially designated as
Critical Habitat are included as BIAs, either in
part or whole, only if they meet at least one of
the BIA criteria stated above. The development of
Critical Habitat considers a complex combination
of factors that do not always match the simple
definition of BIAs; therefore, not everything iden-
tified as Critical Habitat will meet the BIA criteria
and vice versa. Where BIAs have been designated
in regions for species that have Critical Habitat,
the Critical Habitat is identified, and its relation-
ship to the BIA is described (i.e., completely, par-
tially, or not overlapping) and mapped.
BIAs are delineated at the minimum spatial
and temporal scales that available information
can support. Coastal BIA assessments were con-
ducted using GSHHS, Version 2.2.4 (full resolution,
level L1) (Wessel & Smith, 1996). Most BIAs were
defined by month, but some could only be identi-
fied by a particular season, which was typically a
3- to 4-mo period. For each region, species, and time
period with delineated areas of biological impor-
tance, four products were created and compiled
into the regional chapters in this issue: (1) a written
narrative describing the information, assumptions,
and logic used to delineate the BIA; (2) a map of
the BIA; (3) a list of references used in the assess-
ment (see the “Literature Cited” section at the end
of the issue); and (4) a metadata table (see online
supplemental tables associated with each region).
The metadata table concisely details the type and
quantity of information used to define a BIA, pro-
viding transparency in how BIAs were designated
in a quick reference table format. In addition, the
metadata table allows an efficient way to update a
BIA as new information becomes available.
Early in the BIA assessment process, CetMap
considered defining a ranked categorical scale for
BIAs based on the strength of supporting infor-
mation. One obstacle to creating a single ordinal
categorization scheme is that the collection of
Table 1.2. The criteria defined below are guidelines for delineating Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) in U.S. waters for
cetaceans. The criteria are not based on quantitative thresholds. CetMap considers an area to be biologically important for
a cetacean species, stock, or population (denoted by “species” in the criteria) if it meets at least one of these four criteria.
Criteria Definition Map color1
Reproductive Area Areas and times within which a particular species selectively mates, gives birth,
or is found with neonates or calves
Feeding Area Areas and times within which aggregations of a particular species preferentially
feed. These either may be persistent in space and time or associated with
ephemeral features that are less predictable but are located within a larger area
that can be delineated.
Migratory Corridor Areas and times within which a substantial portion of a species is known to
migrate; the corridor is spatially restricted.
Small and Resident
Population
Areas and times within which small and resident populations occupy a limited
geographic extent
1
same color scheme is used with horizontal or vertical lines. All depths shown are in meters, unless otherwise noted. The U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is represented as a dashed line ( ) in maps where it is visible.
In figures where there is more than one BIA of the same type, or where multiple BIAs are included and overlapping, the
8 Ferguson et al.
all potential applications for BIAs is broad, and
a single scheme is unlikely to weight each con-
tributing factor appropriately for all scenarios.
Additionally, due to limited understanding of
the linkages between individual- and population-
level effects, CetMap did not rank the BIAs based
on relative importance inferred from known or
assumed impacts associated with disruption of
specific behaviors or other threats to the species.
The Working Group concluded that information
would be lost in a simple ranking process, and that
it is better to document the assumptions and rea-
soning in each BIA narrative, and to compile the
relevant detailed information in associated meta-
data tables and the list of references.
Expert Elicitation and Review Processes
The data that can be used to characterize BIAs
varies considerably in availability, quality, quan-
tity, and type (i.e., sampling methodology used
to collect it); therefore, expert interpretation and
integration of existing information, based on
broad and detailed knowledge of regions, spe-
cies, and the assumptions associated with dif-
ferent datasets, is needed to characterize these
areas. The elicitation process was designed based
on an expert panel approach to foster pooling of
knowledge. CetMap defined a regional expert as
an individual or research group that was actively
conducting scientific research (field work and
analyses) in the region, was internationally rec-
ognized, and had a large body of peer-reviewed
publications on the species in question and/or the
region. The experts were affiliated with a range
of institutions, including academic institutions,
governmental agencies, and nongovernmental
organizations, including a nonprofit research con-
sortium. The amount of experience in cetacean
ecology that each expert who led the drafting of
the BIAs brought to the panel ranged from one to
over three decades. These regional experts were
asked to compile the best available information
(e.g., sighting, acoustic, tagging, genetic, photo-
identification) from scientific literature (including
books, peer-reviewed articles, and government
or contract reports), unpublished data, personal
experience, and other experts’ knowledge to
delineate the BIAs and create the associated nar-
ratives, maps, and metadata tables.
CetMap sought additional review of the BIAs.
CetMap recognized the need for support of the BIA
assessment process by other scientists, managers,
and relevant experts. The scientific community
has accepted the peer-review process conducted
by scientific journals as a way to evaluate science
and syntheses. The review process also helped to
ensure that the BIA narratives, maps, and metadata
tables were accurate, based on the best available
science, presented consistently across regions, and
supported by the references cited. BIA drafts were
reviewed by CetMap members and by other sci-
entific experts external to the process with experi-
ence in particular species and regions, including
individuals able to convey traditional ecological
knowledge and reviewers who operated under the
established guidelines of this journal.
In total, from drafting the original BIA narra-
tives, maps, and metadata tables through the end
of the journal’s peer-review process, each BIA
was reviewed by approximately 7 to 20 experts.
The entire assessment was conducted by experts
communicating and exchanging information
online, over the telephone, or in person.
Assessment Summary
This inaugural assessment identified 131 BIAs for
24 species (including multiple stocks for some spe-
cies) within the seven regions. These BIAs were
based on extensive review and synthesis of pub-
lished and unpublished information by upwards of
70 experts. To put this assessment into perspec-
tive, NOAA Fisheries’ Marine Mammal Stock
Assessment Reports recognize approximately
34 large whale, 61 small whale, and 76 dolphin
and porpoise stocks in U.S. waters. A summary
of the BIAs identified by region, species, BIA
type, and area is provided in Table 1.3. The geo-
graphic extent of the BIAs in all regions ranges
from 117 km2 for one Gulf of Mexico bottlenose
dolphin small and resident BIA (see LaBrecque
et al., 2015) to 373,000 km2 for the fin whale feed-
ing BIA in the Bering Sea (see Ferguson et al.,
2015c). The best estimates of abundance for the
small and resident populations identified across
all regions range from 10 (belugas in Yakutat Bay,
Gulf of Alaska; Ferguson et al., 2015a) to ~2,500
to 3,000 (belugas in Bristol Bay, Alaska; Ferguson
et al., 2015c). The spatial extent of the small and
resident populations’ overall ranges is on the order
of 4,000 km2, though were as small as 117 km2
for the Gulf of Mexico bottlenose dolphin stock
mentioned above and as large as 31,500 km2 for
the Bristol Bay belugas.
There was insufficient available information
or time to identify BIAs for the species listed by
region below. These species should be considered
in subsequent BIA assessments. In the East Coast,
common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), long- and
short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas
and G. macrorhynchus, respectively), Risso’s
dolphin (Grampus griseus), Atlantic white-sided
dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus), Atlantic spot-
ted dolphin (Stenella frontalis), and several stocks
of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) did
not have enough information to be assessed. The
BIAs for Cetaceans: Overview and Rationale 9
possibility of a minke whale migratory corridor in
the East Coast region should be considered in the
future as more acoustic data are evaluated.
There was not enough information for most of
the cetacean species in the Gulf of Mexico to eval-
uate whether BIAs should be delineated. Future
BIA assessments for the Gulf of Mexico should
evaluate potential residency patterns of the sperm
whale (Physeter macrocephalus) and other deep
diving cetaceans that utilize the canyons and shelf
break. In the Gulf of Mexico, several stocks of
bottlenose dolphin also were not evaluated.
For the West Coast region, fin whales
(Balaenoptera physalus) were discussed but no BIAs
defined due to limited or conflicting information.
Other species found in the West Coast region but
not evaluated were the minke whale (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata), killer whale (Orcinus orca), beaked
whales (family Ziphiidae), and sperm whale.
The main information gaps in the Hawai‘i
region were most species within the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands, and some species within the
western half or along the windward sides of the
main Hawaiian Islands.
Species inhabiting the Gulf of Alaska and
Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea regions but not
evaluated include Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides
dalli), Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus
obliquidens), killer whale, beaked whales, sperm
whale, minke whale, sei whale (Balaenoptera bore-
alis), and harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena).
Additional information gaps identified during the
assessment of the Gulf of Alaska region include
(1) reproductive areas for fin, gray (Eschrichtius
robustus), and North Pacific right (Eubalaena
japonica) whales; (2) detailed information on the
migration routes of all species; (3) detailed infor-
mation on the migratory timing of all species except
humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae); and
(4) cetacean distribution, density, and behavior
in U.S. Gulf of Alaska waters off the continen-
tal shelf. Information gaps identified during the
assessment of the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea
region include (1) reproductive areas for all species;
(2) detailed information on the migration routes and
timing of all species; and (3) cetacean distribution,
density, and behavior in U.S. Bering Sea waters off
the continental shelf.
For the Arctic region, species lacking suf-
ficient information for assessment include fin,
humpback, minke, and killer whales, and harbor
porpoise. Other information gaps that were iden-
tified during the Arctic BIA process include
(1) bowhead whale use of the western Beaufort
Sea in summer (e.g., feeding, migration timing,
movement rates); (2) the existence or extent of
a bowhead whale fall migratory corridor in the
Chukchi Sea; (3) the extent and nature of beluga
use of outer continental shelf and slope habitat in
the Beaufort Sea; (4) the existence or location of
gray whale migratory corridors in spring and fall;
and (5) the degree to which gray whales move
between known feeding hotspots.
Strengths and Limitations of CetMap BIAs
Caveats
CetMap made every effort to minimize biases in
the BIAs by requiring that the information used
to identify each BIA was fully documented in the
references and metadata tables and by undertak-
ing multiple levels of review by qualified experts.
Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the user to
understand and keep in mind the following cave-
ats when using the BIAs in planning and decision-
making (see also Table 1.4):
• Only U.S. waters were evaluated as part of
the BIA assessment; however, available infor-
mation for non-U.S. areas was considered in
identifying BIAs. Therefore, absence of BIA
designations outside U.S. waters should not
be interpreted as an absence of BIAs in those
waters.
• Only areas and periods for which sufficient
information was available to determine biolog-
ical importance, under the criteria established
above, were considered for BIA delineation.
Therefore, other areas of biological importance
to cetaceans exist within U.S. waters but were
not included due to insufficient information
because data collection and analyses to identify
such areas are ongoing or because of time limi-
tations of the assessment process.
•
The quantity and type of information used to
delineate BIAs within U.S. waters were spatially
and temporally heterogeneous and included data
derived from visual sightings, passive acoustic
monitoring, tagging, genetic samples, photo-
identification, and expert knowledge.
• TheBIAnarrativesandmetadatatablesshould
be consulted to determine which regions and
periods were considered, what data support the
designations, and where and when information
is lacking.
• TheBIAdesignationisnotequivalenttohabi-
tat or range. BIAs do not identify the physical
and biological factors that characterize a spe-
cies’ habitat. Feeding, migration, and repro-
duction BIAs highlight specific locations and
periods within which critical behaviors occur
and likely represent only a fraction of a species’
overall range. BIAs may represent only the
period when a peak number of individuals use
an area. A small and resident population BIA
may encompass all or most of the population’s
10 Ferguson et al.
Table 1.3. Count and total area (in km2) of BIAs by region, species, and BIA type. A total of 131 BIAs (58 feeding, 15
migration, 10 reproduction, and 48 small and resident) were defined for 24 species across seven regions in U.S. waters,
resulting in a total area of 2,798,466 km2.
Species’ scientific name
Species’ common name
BIA type
# of
BIAs
Total BIA
size (km2)
East Coast Balaenoptera acutorostrata Minke whale Feeding 2 56,597
Balaenoptera borealis Sei whale Feeding 1 56,609
Balaenoptera physalus Fin whale Feeding 3 27,094
Eubalaena glacialis North Atlantic right whale Feeding 3 16,098
Eubalaena glacialis North Atlantic right whale Migration 1 269,448
Eubalaena glacialis North Atlantic right whale Reproduction 2 51,997
Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale Feeding 1 47,701
Phocoena phocoena Harbor porpoise Small and resident 1 12,211
Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin Small and resident 10 13,867
Total 24 551,622
Gulf of Mexico Balaenoptera edeni Bryde’s whale Small and resident 1 23,559
Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin Small and resident 11 6,507
Total 12 30,066
West Coast Balaenoptera musculus Blue whale Feeding 9 16,438
Eschrichtius robustus Gray whale Feeding 6 1,927
Eschrichtius robustus Gray whale Migration 4 263,860
Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale Feeding 7 23,098
Phocoena phocoena Harbor porpoise Small and resident 2 4,941
Total 28 310,264
Hawai‘i Feresa attenuata Pygmy killer whale Small and resident 1 2,265
Globicephala macrorhynchus Short-finned pilot whale Small and resident 1 2,968
Kogia sima Dwarf sperm whale Small and resident 1 2,675
Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale Reproduction 1 5,846
Mesoplodon densirostris Blainville’s beaked whale Small and resident 1 7,442
Peponocephala electra Melon-headed whale Small and resident 1 1,753
Pseudorca crassidens False killer whale Small and resident 1 5,430
Stenella attenuata Pantropical spotted dolphin Small and resident 3 7,252
Stenella longirostris Spinner dolphin Small and resident 5 38,040
Steno bredanensis Rough-toothed dolphin Small and resident 1 7,175
Tursiops truncatus Common bottlenose dolphin Small and resident 4 21,920
Ziphius cavirostris Cuvier’s beaked whale Small and resident 1 23,583
Total 21 126,349
Gulf of Alaska Balaenoptera physalus Fin whale Feeding 1 44,975
Delphinapterus leucas Beluga Small and resident 2 9,209
Eschrichtius robustus Gray whale Feeding 2 7,374
Eschrichtius robustus Gray whale Migration 1 176,921
Eubalaena japonica North Pacific right whale Feeding 1 28,019
Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale Feeding 6 93,920
Total 13 360,418
Aleutian
Islands and
Bering Sea
Balaena mysticetus Bowhead whale Feeding 1 2,130
Balaena mysticetus Bowhead whale Migration 1 19,861
Balaenoptera physalus Fin whale Feeding 1 372,961
Delphinapterus leucas Beluga Feeding 1 61,675
Delphinapterus leucas Beluga Migration 1 22,332
Delphinapterus leucas Beluga Small and resident 1 31,567
Eschrichtius robustus Gray whale Feeding 3 47,866
Eschrichtius robustus Gray whale Migration 3 69,599
Eubalaena japonica North Pacific right whale Feeding 1 92,667
Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale Feeding 2 109,619
Total 15 830,278
BIAs for Cetaceans: Overview and Rationale 11
entire known range, or may represent high den-
sity areas within a larger known range.
• ThisBIAassessment focused on certain ceta-
cean species. It will be necessary, using other
resources, to supplement the areas identified
herein with those having high densities of these
and other marine mammal species. A similar
process could be established for the cetacean,
pinniped, sirenian, and fissiped species that
were not addressed by this effort.
No Thresholds
To maximize the number of species, areas, and
times that could be evaluated under CetMap’s BIA
criteria, CetMap chose to not incorporate thresholds
(quantitative values) into the criteria. The imple-
mentation of thresholds into assessment processes
requires a considerable amount of data of a certain
type and quality, and those data standards are dif-
ficult to meet in most regions. The variability in
the geographic extent of BIAs in this assessment
(Table 1.3) is partially due to the heterogeneity in
the type and quality of data used; however, each
BIA is substantiated by an associated narrative,
map, and metadata table, allowing transparency
into the delineation process. Furthermore, CetMap
encourages users to incorporate information from
multiple sources, including BIAs and HD models
Table 1.3. Count and total area of BIAs by region, species, and BIA type (continued)
# of Total BIA
Species’ scientific name Species’ common name BIA type BIAs size (km2)
Arctic Balaena mysticetus Bowhead whale Feeding 3 32,998
Balaena mysticetus Bowhead whale Migration 2 193,742
Balaena mysticetus Bowhead whale Reproduction 4 142,755
Delphinapterus leucas Beluga Feeding 1 1,527
Delphinapterus leucas Beluga Migration 2 171,231
Delphinapterus leucas Beluga Reproduction 1 1,527
Eschrichtius robustus Gray whale Feeding 3 27,391
Eschrichtius robustus Gray whale Reproduction 2 18,298
Total 18 589,469
Grand total 131 2,798,466
Table 1.4. The caveats below should be considered when using BIAs in planning or decision-making processes.
1 Only U.S. waters were evaluated as part of the BIA assessment; however, available information for non-U.S. areas
was considered in identifying BIAs. Therefore, absence of BIA designations outside U.S. waters should not be inter-
preted as an absence of BIAs in those waters.
2 Only areas and periods for which sufficient information was available to determine biological importance under the
criteria established above were considered for BIA delineation. Therefore, other areas of biological importance to
cetaceans exist within U.S. waters but were not included due to insufficient information because data collection and
analyses to identify such areas are ongoing or because of time limitations of the assessment process.
3 The quantity and type of information used to delineate BIAs within U.S. waters were spatially and temporally het-
erogeneous and included data derived from visual sightings, passive acoustic monitoring, tagging, genetic samples,
photo-identification, and expert knowledge.
4 The BIA narratives and metadata tables should be consulted to determine which regions and periods were consid-
ered, what data support the designations, and where and when information is lacking.
5 The BIA designation is not equivalent to habitat or range. BIAs do not identify the physical and biological factors
that characterize a species’ habitat. Feeding, migration, and reproduction BIAs highlight specific locations and peri-
ods within which critical behaviors occur and likely represent only a fraction of a species’ overall range. BIAs may
represent only the period when a peak number of individuals use an area. A small and resident population BIA may
encompass all or most of the population’s entire known range, or may represent high density areas within a larger
known range.
6 This BIA assessment focused on certain cetacean species. It will be necessary, using other resources, to supplement
the areas identified here with those having high densities of these and other marine mammal species. A similar pro-
cess could be established for the cetacean, pinniped, sirenian, and fissiped species that were not addressed by this
effort.
12 Ferguson et al.
or stratified density estimates, to inform conserva-
tion and management decisions.
Expert Elicitation
The expert elicitation process used in this BIA
assessment is both a strength and a limitation. There
is an urgent need for input into decisions regarding
conservation and management and a lack of data
for quantitative analyses (Kot et al., 2010; Kaschner
et al., 2012). Managers are asked to make decisions
given the best available information (or limitations
thereof), and scientists are asked to provide input
(professional judgments and interpretations) even
when information is limited. Expert elicitation
allows for the interpretation and synthesis of vari-
ous sources of information, such as empirical data,
scientific literature, and personal field experience,
to make existing knowledge directly applicable to
management (Teck et al., 2010).
Expert elicitation is not purely objective, but
neither are empirical data collection and analysis
methods in general. All science requires judgments
to be made at multiple points in the scientific pro-
cess: defining the question; choosing the study
area; creating the study design; deciding on and
implementing data collection methods; analyzing
data, including the identification and treatment of
outliers; deciding on the analytical spatial and tem-
poral extent and scale; subsetting data; identifying
and computing parameters of interest; choosing
an overall analytical paradigm (e.g., frequentist,
Bayesian, or likelihood statistical approaches); and
presenting and interpreting results.
CetMap incorporated safeguards into several
steps of the expert elicitation process: (1) enlist-
ing experts with knowledge about cetaceans in
particular regions, acquired through personal
experience conducting research (field work and
analyses); (2) facilitating transparency of the BIA
assessment process by providing details about
methodology, assumptions, and rationale in the
narratives, and providing details about the infor-
mation used in the narratives, metadata tables, and
references; (3) fostering support for the BIAs by
undertaking an extensive expert review phase for
narratives, maps, and metadata tables, including
reviewers designated by the journal and those who
were external to the journal’s official peer-review
process; and (4) recognizing that this is a first
step in an iterative process, and encouraging these
inaugural BIAs to be reviewed and revised in the
future as new information becomes available.
Future Directions for CetMap BIAs
CetMap’s BIA assessment process should be con-
sidered an iterative process. As noted above, BIAs
are limited by available knowledge, and they are
not intended to provide a complete list of areas
of biological importance for all cetacean species.
NOAA regards the information presented on the
CetMap website, including the BIAs, to be living
resources, which will be maintained and updated as
new information becomes available. This inaugural
set of BIAs represents a snapshot in time. As new
empirical data are gathered, these BIAs can be cali-
brated to determine how closely they correspond
to reality, and they can be updated as necessary.
Future assessments should consider methods for
incorporating uncertainty into the BIA delineation
process. In addition, the number of cetacean species
(within a given region and time period) represented
in the BIA library is likely to expand as knowledge
accumulates. Furthermore, decisionmakers and the
scientific community might find it helpful to have
information about BIAs for pinnipeds, sirenians,
and fissipeds. When planning future BIA assess-
ments, it will be important to account for the time
required to undertake the process. This entire elici-
tation process, starting with CetMap’s initial work-
shop in January 2011 and finishing with publication
in March 2015, took approximately four years.
Comparison to International Assessments
The CetMap BIA assessment is part of a growing
international effort to delineate areas of biological
or ecological importance to inform decisions or
promote actions in the conservation and manage-
ment realm. Herein, we compare CetMap BIAs to
IUCN KBAs and IMMAs, CBD EBSAs, PWLF
ICAs, and Australian BIAs (Table 1.5). Although
IMMAs are still in development (Corrigan et al.,
2014), and KBA criteria are in revision (IUCN,
2013b), sufficient information exists to compare
the proposed assessment to the collection of exist-
ing assessments. It should be noted that other
detailed regional assessments exist, including the
Bering Strait Marine Life and Subsistence Use Data
Synthesis (Oceana & Kawerak, Inc., 2014) and the
Arctic Synthesis compiled by Audubon Alaska
and Oceana (Smith, 2010). We chose to focus on
the assessments in Table 1.5 because they are most
similar to the CetMap BIA process.
The suite of assessments listed above and sum-
marized in Table 1.5 share a collection of common
characteristics. First, all of these examples are proac-
tive efforts to identify important areas. They are not
responses to specific actions or developments; rather,
they address multiple existing and growing environ-
mental concerns in the marine, freshwater, or terres-
trial environment. Second, all efforts are based on the
best available science and rely on expert judgment to
shape the criteria and conduct the assessment. Third,
they are all iterative processes. Recognizing that our
understanding of the marine environment is under
BIAs for Cetaceans: Overview and Rationale 13
Habitats
getedtar
errestrial,
,
and marine6
Marine
T
freshwater
Political
Regional
, Regional6
scale
national,
international
Geographic
scope
United States
Global6
Ecological unit
assessed
Populations,
stocks, species
Gene,
population,
species, or
ecosystem4, 6
Thresholds. = Quantitative
axaT
Cetaceans
Unrestricted
5
s
e
assessment to five similar international assessments; QT
QT
No
Y
ger
esident
and
Migratory
Feeding
Areas
Small and r
eas:
These either may be
: (1) Sites contributing
oductive ar
Areas and times within
Areas and times within which
5
Criteria
Repr
Areas and times within which
eas:
(1)
times within which a particular species
selectively mates, gives birth, or is found
with neonates or calves. (2)
aggregations of a particular species
preferentially feed.
persistent in space and time or associated
with ephemeral features that are less
predictable but are located within a lar
area that can be delineated. (3)
corridors:
which a substantial portion of a species
is known to migrate; the corridor is
oposed criteria
ar
spatially restricted. (4)
population:
small and resident populations occupy a
limited geographic extent
Pr
significantly to the global persistence
of threatened biodiversity; (2) Sites
contributing significantly to the global
persistence of geographically restricted
biodiversity; (3) Sites contributing
significantly to the global persistence of
biodiversity because they are exceptional
examples of ecological integrity and
naturalness; (4) Sites contributing
significantly to the global persistence of
outstanding biological processes; and
(5) Sites contributing significantly to
the global persistence of biodiversity
as identified through a comprehensive
quantitative analysis of irreplaceability
s BIA
Definition
BIAs are reproductive
areas, feeding areas,
migratory corridors,
and areas in which
small and resident
populations are
concentrated.
Areas that contribute
significantly to the
global persistence of
biodiversity6
Comparison of CetMap’
Fisheries
Oversight body
NOAA
Cetacean Density
and Distribution
orking
Mapping W
orld W
Group
IUCN
Commission
on Protected
Areas and
Species Survival
Commission Joint
Task Force on
Biodiversity and
Protected Areas
able 1.5.
T
CetMap
BIAs
KBA
14 Ferguson et al.
Habitats
geted
2, 3
tar
Marine
Marine
Political
2, 3
Regional,
national,
scale
international
Regional,
international
Geographic
2, 3
scope
Global
British
Columbia
and Southeast
Alaska
Thresholds. (continued)
Ecological unit
Population,
species, or
ecosystem2
assessed
Population,
subspecies,
species
= Quantitative
axaT
Unrestricted
Cetaceans
QT
No
se
assessment to five similar international assessments; QT
Y
(1) Uniqueness or rarity; (2) Special
importance for life history stages of
species; (3) Importance for threatened,
endangered, or declining species
and/or habitats; (4) Vulnerability,
, or slow , sensitivity
recovery; (5) Biological productivity;
Biological diversity; and
Naturalness2
Criteria
fragility
(1) Endangered, threatened, or
vulnerable species; (2) Feeding
concentrations; (3) Breeding area or
nursery; (4) Migration corridors; and
Species diversity
(6)
(7)
(5)
s BIA
Definition
Ecologically
and biologically
significant areas are
geographically or
oceanographically
discrete areas that
provide important
services to one
or more species/
populations of an
ecosystem or to
the ecosystem as a
whole, compared to
other surrounding
areas or areas of
similar ecological
characteristics, or
otherwise meet the
criteria as identified
in Annex I to decision
2
IX/20.
Important Cetacean
Areas (ICAs) are
discrete areas of
ocean that are
of importance to
cetaceans for feeding,
breeding, and
migration activities.
Comparison of CetMap’
Oversight body
Conference of the
Parties (COP) to
the Convention
on Biological
ildLife
Diversity
Pacific W
Foundation
(PWLF)
Table 1.5.
EBSA
9
ICA
BIAs for Cetaceans: Overview and Rationale 15
,
Habitats
getedtar
Marine
Marine,
freshwater
terrestrial
Political
scale
Regional,
national
Regional,1
national,
international
Geographic
scope
Australia
Global
Thresholds. (continued)
Ecological unit
assessed
Species
Population,
species1
1
11
= Quantitative
axaT
Seabirds,
cetaceans,
pinnipeds,
sirenians,
marine turtles,
fishes
Cetaceans,
pinnipeds,
sirenians,
fissipeds
assessment to five similar international assessments; QT
QT
No
1
seY
, Population, and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2012)
(1) Breeding; (2) Foraging; (3) Resting;
and (4) Migration10
: (1) Reproductive
, size of populations, and
Criteria
oposed criteria1
Smaller or resident populations;
Abundance estimates and population
, uniqueness, genetic isolation,
ater
Pr
areas and times; (2) Feeding areas
and times; (3) Migration corridors;
(4)
(5)
structure (with consideration of
rarity
irreplaceability
temporal aggregations); (6) 3-D habitat
features; and (7) Considerations of
vulnerability and resilience
, Environment, W
10
Definition
Biologically
important areas
are areas that are
particularly important
for the conservation
of protected
species and where
aggregations of
individuals display
biologically important
behaviour such as
breeding, foraging,
resting, or migration.
Sites that contribute
significantly to the
global persistence
of marine mammal
biodiversity1
s BIA
These are proposed criteria.
Comparison of CetMap’
ask Force
Oversight body
Australian
Government
Department of the
Environment
IUCN Marine
Mammal
Protected Areas
T
able 1.5.T
Australian
ces
BIA
IMMA
Sour
Corrigan et al. (2014).
Australian Government Department of Sustainability
Australian Government Department of the Environment (2014)
1
CBD (2008)
2
CBD (2010)
3
IUCN (2013a)
4
IUCN (2013b)
5
IUCN (2012)
6
PWLF (2013)
9
10
11
16 Ferguson et al.
continual revision and to ensure that the areas identi-
fied under each assessment continue to represent the
best available science, it is necessary to review and
revise the areas on a cycle that tracks the acquisition
of new information.
There are several noteworthy differences among
the assessments, which are highlighted in Table 1.5.
For example, the ecological units assessed to
delineate KBAs and EBSAs range from genes (for
KBAs) or populations (both) to ecosystems and
consider all taxa and habitats (CBD, 2008; IUCN,
2012, 2013a). ICAs (PWLF, 2013), Australian
BIAs (DSEWPaC, 2012), IMMAs (Corrigan et al.,
2014), and CetMap BIAs are based on populations,
stocks, or species. Australian BIAs are restricted
to marine habitats and include seabirds, cetaceans,
pinnipeds, sirenians, marine turtles, and fishes
(DSEWPaC, 2012). IMMAs will include all species
of cetaceans, pinnipeds, sirenians, and fissipeds,
and will encompass terrestrial, marine, and fresh-
water habitats (Corrigan et al., 2014). ICAs (PWLF,
2013) and CetMap BIAs currently include only
cetaceans. The geographic scope and political scale
vary among the efforts. The KBA (IUCN, 2012),
EBSA (CBD, 2008, 2010), and IMMA (Corrigan
et al., 2014) efforts are global, and areas are identi-
fied at geographic scales ranging from regional (a
portion of a nation), national (at the level of a single
nation), or international (crossing national bound-
aries). ICAs are restricted to waters off British
Columbia and Southeast Alaska (PWLF, 2013).
ICA boundaries can cross national borders but are
also identified at the regional scale (PWLF, 2013).
Australian (DSEWPaC, 2012) and CetMap BIAs
are restricted to national waters but are delineated
at the regional scale. In general, KBAs tend to be
smaller than EBSAs, and IMMAs are expected to
be similar in size to KBAs (Hoyt & Notarbartolo
di Sciara, 2014).
Understanding the goals and the intended use
of the designated sites is critical to understanding
whether and how the different types of areas can be
integrated or nested. KBAs are defined as “areas
that contribute significantly to the global persis-
tence of biodiversity” (IUCN, 2012, p. 10). KBA
delineation is meant to “help national government
agencies, decision makers, resource managers,
local communities, the private sector, donor agen-
cies, and others to target the implementation of
site conservation standards” (IUCN, 2013a, p. 3).
KBA size and the location of their boundaries
“should be based on actual or potential manage-
ability for conservation or biodiversity” (IUCN,
2012, p. 21). Therefore, KBA delineation is some-
what constrained by political, socioeconomic, and
legal factors. Furthermore, the proposed KBA cri-
teria are based on quantitative thresholds (IUCN,
2013b).
In the EBSA delineation process, there is less
focus on management and more emphasis on
ecology and biology. EBSAs are defined as “geo-
graphically or oceanographically discrete areas
that provide important services to one or more
species/populations of an ecosystem or to the eco-
system as a whole, compared to other surrounding
areas or areas of similar ecological characteristics”
(CBD, 2008, p. 181). Furthermore, the Conference
of the Parties to the CBD (2010) noted that “the
application of the ecologically or biologically sig-
nificant areas (EBSAs) criteria is a scientific and
technical exercise” (p. 234) and that “areas found
to meet the criteria may require enhanced con-
servation and management measures” (p. 234).
EBSA delineation does not require the evalua-
tion of quantitative thresholds. Criteria for KBAs
(IUCN, 2013b) and EBSAs (CBD, 2008) include
vulnerability to disturbances, which ultimately
involves assessment of threats, risks, and, poten-
tially, cumulative effects analyses. Although still
in development, IMMAs are anticipated to “nest
fully within what would constitute an EBSA, and
either fully or to at least a large degree within
KBAs” (Corrigan et al., 2014, p. 181; see also
Hoyt & Notarbartolo di Sciara, 2014). KBAs
(IUCN, 2013b), EBSAs (CBD, 2008), and ICAs
(PWLF, 2013) all include a criterion regarding
endangered, threatened, or vulnerable species. In
addition, ICAs include some quantitative thresh-
olds (PWLF, 2013). The Australian (DSEWPaC,
2012) and CetMap BIAs are more similar to
each other than to the other assessments because
they are not based on thresholds, and they do not
directly incorporate vulnerability criteria; rather,
they can be considered purely behavior or activ-
ity “layers” that can be input into management
decisions, cumulative effects models, or other
assessment processes (i.e., KBAs, EBSAs, and/or
IMMAs), along with other factors relevant to the
particular issue at hand.
Conclusions
The CetMap BIAs are one in a growing interna-
tional collection of tools created to assist multiple
stakeholders in the characterization, analysis, and
minimization of anthropogenic impacts on ceta-
ceans, other taxa, and ecosystems. All of the tools
require regular review and revision to track emerg-
ing knowledge and understanding about the spe-
cies and ecosystems of concern. Communication
among those overseeing each assessment process
will be critical in order to share limited resources
(i.e., time, money, and knowledge) and to enhance
understanding of how the products from each
assessment can be integrated.
Aquatic Mammals 2015, 41(1), 104-105, DOI 10.1578/AM.41.1.2015.104
Acknowledgments
The production of these BIAs has involved many
decisions about the process and approach that would
be taken. These decisions were largely agreed upon
within the Cetacean Density and Distribution
Mapping (CetMap) Working Group that forms
part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) CetSound program (http://
cetsound.noaa.gov). CetMap is comprised of Jay
Barlow, Elizabeth Becker, Danielle Cholewiak,
Jesse Cleary, Megan Ferguson, Karin Forney,
Lance Garrison, Jolie Harrison, Tim Haverland,
Anu Kumar, Sue Moore, Daniel Palacios, Jessica
Redfern, and Sofie Van Parijs. Additionally, regional
and species experts provided detailed review com-
ments. Funding for CetMap was provided by the
NOAA, the Bureau for Ocean Energy Management,
and the U.S. Navy.
Overview and Rationale
The NOAA Alaska Regional Office provided
detailed review comments. We are grateful
to Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara, Kathleen
Dudzinski, one anonymous reviewer, and all
the reviewers of the regional manuscripts for
improvements to the “Overview and Rationale”
and the collection of manuscripts.
East Coast
We are grateful to Danielle Cholewiak, Lance
Garrison, Elizabeth Josephson, Anu Kumar, Keith
Mullen, Debi Palka, and Denise Risch for provid-
ing internal reviews; to Jooke Robbins for pro-
viding a review and unpublished Provincetown
Center for Coastal Studies (PCCS) sighting data
of feeding baleen whales; to Allison Henry for
providing Northeast Fisheries Science Center
(NEFSC) data; and to Tim Cole for providing the
boundaries of the demographic study of poten-
tial North Atlantic right whale mating in the Gulf
of Maine. The Duke and University of North
Carolina Wilmington (UNCW) monitoring teams
provided us with useful discussion on unusual spe-
cies sightings off Cape Hatteras, and potential resi-
dency patterns of delphinids in Onslow Bay and at
the shelf break. We also thank William McLellan,
Kathleen Dudzinski, and one anonymous reviewer
for improvements to the manuscript.
Gulf of Mexico
We are grateful to Lance Garrison, Keith Mullen,
Patty Rosel, and Randy Wells for providing inter-
nal reviews for the Gulf of Mexico region. We also
thank Kathleen Dudzinski and two anonymous
reviewers for improvements to the manuscript.
West Coast
We are grateful to Jay Barlow, Karin Forney,
Jessica Redfern, Greg Schorr, and an anonymous
reviewer for providing valuable comments. Maps
and comparison to habitat-based density (HD)
models were made with the help of Karin Forney,
Jessica Redfern, and T.J. Moore. Funding for the
development and validation of the U.S. West Coast
HD models was provided by Chip Johnson, Julie
Rivers (U.S. Pacific Fleet, U.S. Navy), and Sean
Hanser (Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Pacific, U.S. Navy), with additional funding pro-
vided by the Southwest Fisheries Science Center.
We also thank all of the researchers, photograph
contributors, and funders who contributed to the
West Coast studies.
Hawaiian Islands
Collection of the unpublished data summarized
herein was funded by a variety of sources, includ-
ing the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center,
the U.S. Navy (Office of Naval Research and
N45), and Dolphin Quest, and was undertaken
under National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Scientific Research Permits No. 15330 and 731-
1774. We thank Erin Oleson, Karin Forney, and
several anonymous reviewers for reviews of vari-
ous versions of the manuscript.
Gulf of Alaska
We are grateful to Catherine Berchok, Manuel
Castellote, Phil Clapham, Marilyn Dahlheim,
Chris Gabriele, Amy Kennedy, Sally Mizroch,
Kim Shelden, Jan Straley, Bree Witteveen, and
Alex Zerbini for providing information and
reviews for the Gulf of Alaska region. We also
thank Kathleen Dudzinski and three anonymous
reviewers for their in-depth reviews, and Jim Lee
for providing a thorough technical review of the
manuscript.
105 Acknowledgments
Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea
We are grateful for the detailed review com-
ments provided by the following Aleutian Islands
and Bering Sea regional and species experts:
Catherine Berchok, Phil Clapham, Nancy Friday,
Ellen Garland, Amy Kennedy, Sally Mizroch, and
Kim Shelden. We also thank Kathleen Dudzinski,
Brenda Rone, and Mari Smultea for their in-depth
reviews and helpful comments, and Gary Duker
for his technical review of the manuscript.
Arctic
We are grateful to Lisanne Aerts, Cynthia
Christman, the NMFS Alaska Regional Office,
and Sue Moore for providing reviews for the
Arctic region. We also thank Gary Duker for pro-
viding a technical review of the manuscript. We are
grateful to Kathleen Dudzinski, Lori Quakenbush,
and one anonymous reviewer for improvements
to the manuscript. The Aerial Surveys of Arctic
Marine Mammals (ASAMM) project was funded
by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM, for-
merly MMS), Alaska Outer Continental Shelf
Region, Anchorage, Alaska, through Interagency
Agreement No. M11PG00033 with the Alaska
Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries.
Aquatic Mammals 2015, 41(1), 106-128, DOI 10.1578/AM.41.1.2015.106
Literature Cited
Agler, B. A., Schooley, R. L., Frohock, S. E., Katona, S. K.,
& Seipt, I. E. (1993). Reproduction of photographically
identified fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) from the
Gulf of Maine. Journal of Mammalogy, 74(3), 577-587.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1382276
Albertson, G. R. (2015). Worldwide phylogeography and
local population structure of the rough-toothed dol-
phin (Steno bredanensis) (Ph.D. thesis). Oregon State
University, Corvallis.
Allen, B. M., & Angliss, R. P. (2012). Alaska marine mammal
stock assessments, 2011 (NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-AFSC-234). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Commerce.
Allen, B. M., & Angliss, R. P. (2014). Alaska marine
mammal stock assessments, 2013 (NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-277). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Commerce. 294 pp.
Andrews, K. R., Karczmarski, L., Au, W. W. L., Rickards,
S. H., Vanderlip, C. A., Bowen, B. W., . . . Toonen,
R. J. (2010). Rolling stones and stable homes: Social
structure, habitat diversity and population genetics of
the Hawaiian spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris).
Molecular Ecology, 19, 732-748. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04521.x
Andrews, R. C. (1909). Observations on the habits of the
finback and humpback whales of the eastern North
Pacific. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural
History, 26, 213-226.
Anonymous. (2010). Report on the execution of marine
research in the Bering Strait, East Siberian and the Chukchi
Sea by the Russian-American Expedition under the pro-
gram of “RUSALCA” during the period from 23 August
through 30 September, 2009. Retrieved 5 February 2015
from http://epic.awi.de/31281/1/RUSALCA_2009_report.
pdf.
Aschettino, J. M. (2010). Population size and structure of
melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra) around
the main Hawaiian Islands: Evidence of multiple popu-
lations based on photographic data (Master of Science
dissertation). Hawai‘i Pacific University, Honolulu.
Aschettino, J. M., Baird, R. W., McSweeney, D. J., Webster,
D. L., Schorr, G. S., Huggins, J. L., . . . West, K. L.
(2011a). Population structure of melon-headed whales
(Peponocephala electra) in the Hawaiian Archipelago:
Evidence of multiple populations based on photo-
identification. Marine Mammal Science, 28, 666-689.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2011.00517.x
Aschettino, J. M., Baird, R. W., Schorr, G. S., Martien,
K. K., McSweeney, D. J., Webster, D. L., . . . West, K. L.
(2011b). Photo-identification, genetic, and telemetry
data show evidence of two populations of melon-headed
whales (Peponocephala electra) in Hawai‘i. Talk at the
Workshop on Science and Conservation of Hawaiian
Odontocetes, Tampa, FL.
Ashjian, C. J., Braund, S. R., Campbell, R. G., George,
J. C., Kruse, J., Maslowski, W., . . . Spitz, Y. H. (2010).
Climate variability, oceanography, bowhead whale
distribution, and Inupiat subsistence whaling near
Barrow, Alaska. Arctic, 63(2), 179-194. http://dx.doi.
org/10.14430/arctic973
Australian Government Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities
(DSEWPaC). (2012). Marine bioregional plan for
the north-west marine region. Canberra: DSEWPaC.
Retrieved 2 February 2015 from www.environment.gov.
au/topics/marine/marine-bioregional-plans/north-west.
Australian Government Department of the Environment
(AU DOE). (2014). National conservation values atlas.
Retrieved 2 February 2015 from www.environment.gov.
au/webgis-framework/apps/ncva/ncva.jsf.
Bailey, H., Mate, B. R., Palacios, D. M., Irvine, L., Bograd,
S. J., & Costa, D. P. (2010). Behavioral estimate of blue
whale movements in the Northeast Pacific from state-
space model analysis of satellite tracks. Endangered
Species Research, 10, 93-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/
esr00239
Baird, R. W. (2005). Sightings of dwarf (Kogia sima) and
pygmy (K. breviceps) sperm whales from the main
Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science, 59, 461-466. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1353/psc.2005.0031
Baird, R. W. (2009). Preliminary revised mark-recapture
population estimates for insular stock false killer
whales. Presentation to the Pacific Scientific Review
Group.
Baird, R. W., Webster, D. L., Aschettino, J. M., Schorr,
G. S., & McSweeney, D. J. (2013a). Odontocete ceta-
ceans around the main Hawaiian Islands: Habitat use
and relative abundance from small-boat sighting sur-
veys. Aquatic Mammals, 39(3), 253-269. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1578/AM.39.3.2013.253
Baird, R. W., Oleson, E. M., Barlow, J., Ligon, A. D.,
Gorgone, A. M., & Mahaffy, S. D. (2013b). Evidence
of an island-associated population of false killer whales
(Pseudorca crassidens) in the Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands. Pacific Science, 57, 513-521. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2984/67.4.2
Baird, R. W., Schorr, G. S., Webster, D. L., McSweeney, D. J.,
Hanson, M. B., & Andrews, R. D. (2010a). Movements
and habitat use of Cuvier’s and Blainville’s beaked whales
in Hawai‘i: Results from satellite tagging in 2009/2010.
Report prepared under Order No. AB133F09SE4843 from
the Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA.
107 Literature Cited
Baird, R. W., Schorr, G. S., Webster, D. L., McSweeney,
D. J., Hanson, M. B., & Andrews, R. D. (2011a).
Movements of two satellite-tagged pygmy killer
whales (Feresa attenuata) off the island of Hawai‘i.
Marine Mammal Science, 27, E332-E337. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2010.00458.x
Baird, R. W., Webster, D. L., Mahaffy, S. D., McSweeney,
D. J., Schorr, G. S., & Ligon, A. D. (2008a). Site fidelity
and association patterns in a deep-water dolphin: Rough-
toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis) in the Hawaiian
Archipelago. Marine Mammal Science, 24, 535-553.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2008.00201.x
Baird, R. W., Webster, D. L., Mahaffy, S. D., Schorr,
G. S., Aschettino, J. M., & Gorgone, A. M. (2013c).
Movements and spatial use of odontocetes in the west-
ern main Hawaiian Islands: Results of a three-year
study off O‘ahu and Kaua‘i. Final report under Grant
No. N00244-10-1-0048 from the Naval Postgraduate
School.
Baird, R.W., Aschettino, J. M., McSweeney, D.J. , Webster,
D.L., Schorr, G.S., Baumann-Pickering, S., & Mahaffy,
S. D. (2010b). Melon-headed whales in the Hawaiian
archipelago: An assessment of population structure and
long-term site fidelity based on photo-identification.
Report prepared under Order No. JG133F09SE4440
to Cascadia Research Collective from the Southwest
Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries
Service, La Jolla, CA.
Baird, R. W., Schorr, G. S., Webster, D. L., Mahaffy,
S. D., McSweeney, D. J., Hanson, M. B., & Andrews,
R. D. (2009a). Movements of satellite-tagged Cuvier’s
and Blainville’s beaked whales in Hawai‘i: Evidence
for an offshore population of Blainville’s beaked
whales. Report prepared under Contract No. AB133F-
08-SE-4534 from the Southwest Fisheries Science
Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, CA.
Baird, R. W., Schorr, G. S., Webster, D. L., Mahaffy, S. D.,
McSweeney, D. J., Hanson, M. B., & Andrews, R. D.
(2011b). Open-ocean movements of a satellite-tagged
Blainville’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris):
Evidence for an offshore population in Hawai‘i? Aquatic
Mammals, 37(4), 506-511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1578/
AM.37.4.2011.506
Baird, R. W., Schorr, G. S., Webster, D. L., McSweeney,
D. J., Mahaffy, S. D., Hanson, M. B., & Andrews, R. D.
(2011c). Movements of satellite-tagged short-finned
pilot whales in the Hawaiian Islands: Evidence for
multiple populations within the Hawaiian archipelago.
Talk at the Workshop on Science and Conservation of
Hawaiian Odontocetes, Tampa, FL.
Baird, R. W., Gorgone, A. M., McSweeney, D. J., Ligon,
A. D., Deakos, M. H., Webster, D. L., . . . Mahaffy,
S. D. (2009b). Population structure of island-asso-
ciated dolphins: Evidence from photo-identification
of common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops trunca-
tus) in the main Hawaiian Islands. Marine Mammal
Science, 25, 251-274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-
7692.2008.00257.x
Baird, R. W., Gorgone, A. M., McSweeney, D. J., Webster,
D. L., Salden, D. R., Deakos, M. H., . . . Mahaffy, S. D.
(2008b). False killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens)
around the main Hawaiian Islands: Long-term site fidel-
ity, inter-island movements, and association patterns.
Marine Mammal Science, 24, 591-612.
Baird, R. W., Hanson, M. B., Schorr, G. S., Webster, D. L.,
McSweeney, D. J., Gorgone, A. M., . . . Andrews, R. D.
(2012). Range and primary habitats of Hawaiian insular
false killer whales: Informing determination of critical
habitat. Endangered Species Research, 18, 47-61. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3354/esr00435
Baird, R. W., Jarvis, S. M., Webster, D. L., Rone, B. K.,
Shaffer, J. A., Mahaffy, S. D., . . . Moretti, D. J. (2014).
Odontocete studies on the Pacific Missile Range Facility
in July/August 2013: Satellite-tagging, photo-identifi-
cation, and passive acoustic monitoring. Prepared for
U.S. Pacific Fleet, submitted to NAVFAC PAC by HDR
Environmental, Operations and Construction, Inc.
Baird, R. W., McSweeney, D. J., Schorr, G. S., Mahaffy,
S. D., Webster, D. L., Barlow, J., . . . Andrews, R. D.
(2009c). Studies of beaked whales in Hawai‘i:
Population size, movements, trophic ecology, social
organization and behaviour. European Cetacean Society
Special Publication 51, 23-25.
Baker, C. S., Herman, L. M., Perry, A., Lawton, W. S.,
Straley, J. M., & Straley, J. H. (1985). Population char-
acteristics and migration of summer and late-season
humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in south-
eastern Alaska. Marine Mammal Science, 1, 304-323.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1985.tb00018.x
Baker, C. S., Herman, L. M., Perry, A., Lawton, W. S.,
Straley, J. M., Wolman, A. A., . . . Östman, J. (1986).
Migratory movement and population structure of
humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the
central and eastern North Pacific. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 31, 105-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/
meps031105
Baker, C. S., Medrano-Gonzalez, L., Calambokidis, J.,
Perry, A., Pichler, F., Rosenbaum, H., . . . Von Ziegesar,
O. (1998). Population structure of nuclear and mito-
chondrial DNA variation among humpback whales
in the North Pacific. Molecular Ecology, 6, 695-707.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00384.x
Baker, C. S., Steel, D., Calambokidis, J., Barlow, J., Burdin,
A. M., Clapham, P. J., . . . Yamaguchi, M. (2008).
GeneSPLASH: An initial, ocean-wide survey of mito-
chondrial (mt) DNA diversity and population structure
among humpback whales in the North Pacific (Final
report for Contract 2006-0093-008). Washington, DC:
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
Baker, C. S., Steel, D., Calambokidis, J., Falcone, E. A.,
González-Peral, U., Barlow, J., . . . Yamaguchi, M.
(2013). Strong maternal fidelity and natal philopa-
try shape genetic structure in North Pacific humpback
whales. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 494, 291-306.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps10508
108 Literature Cited
Balmer, B. C., Wells, R. S., Nowacek, S. M., Nowacek,
D. P., Schwacke, L. H., McLellan, W. A., . . . Pabst, D.A.
(2008). Seasonal abundance and distribution patterns
of common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)
near St. Joseph Bay, Florida, USA. Journal of Cetacean
Research and Management, 10(2), 157-167.
Barco, S. G., McLellan, W. A., Allen, J. M., Asmutis-Silvia,
R. A., Mallon-Day, R., Meagher, E., . . . Clapham,
P. J. (2002). Population identity of humpback whales
(Megaptera novaeangliae) in the waters of the U.S.
mid-Atlantic states. Journal of Cetacean Research and
Management, 4(2), 135-141.
Barlow, J. (1988). Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) abun-
dance estimation in California, Oregon and Washington:
I. Ship surveys. Fishery Bulletin, 86, 417-432.
Barlow J. (2006). Cetacean abundance in Hawaiian
waters estimated from a summer/fall survey in 2002.
Marine Mammal Science, 22, 446-464. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692. 2006.00032.x
Barlow, J. (2010). Cetacean abundance in the California
Current estimated from a 2008 ship based line-tran-
sect survey (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-
SWFSC-456). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science
Center.
Barlow, J., & Forney, K. A. (2007). Abundance and popula-
tion density of cetaceans in the California Current eco-
system. Fishery Bulletin, 105, 509-526.
Barlow, J., Calambokidis, J., Falcone, E. A., Baker, C. S.,
Burdin, A. M., Clapham, P. J., . . . Yamaguchi, M. (2011).
Humpback whale abundance in the North Pacific esti-
mated by photographic capture-recapture with bias
correction from simulation studies. Marine Mammal
Science, 27(4), 793-818. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-
7692.2010.00444.x
Barrett-Lennard, L. G., Matkin, C. O., Durban, J. W.,
Saulitis, E. L., & Ellifrit, D. (2011). Predation on gray
whales and prolonged feeding on submerged carcasses
by transient killer whales at Unimak Island, Alaska.
Marine Ecology Progress Series, 421, 229-241. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps08906
Bassos-Hull, K., Perrtree, R. M., Shepard, C. C., Schilling,
S., Barleycorn, A. A., Allen, J. B., . . . Wells, R. S.
(2013). Long-term site fidelity and seasonal abundance
estimates of common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops
truncatus) along the southwest coast of Florida and
responses to natural perturbations. Journal of Cetacean
Research and Management, 13(1), 19-30.
Baumgartner, M. F., & Mate, B. R. (2003). Summertime
foraging ecology of North Atlantic right whales. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 264, 123-135. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3354/meps264123
Baumgartner, M. F., & Mate, B. R. (2005). Summer and
fall habitat of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena
glacialis) inferred from satellite telemetry. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 62(3), 527-
543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f04-238
Baumgartner, M. F., Cole, T. V., Campbell, R. G.,
Teegarden, G. J., & Durbin, E. G. (2003). Associations
between North Atlantic right whales and their prey,
Calanus finmarchicus, over diel and tidal time scales.
Marine Ecology Progress Series, 264, 155-166. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps264155
Baumgartner, M. F., Lysiak, N. S., Schuman, C., Urban-
Rich, J., & Wenzel, F. W. (2011). Diel vertical migration
behavior of Calanus finmarchicus and its influence
on right and sei whale occurrence. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 423, 167-184. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/
meps08931
Becker, E. A., Forney, K. A., Ferguson, M. C., Barlow, J., &
Redfern, J. V. (2012a). Predictive modeling of cetacean
densities in the California Current ecosystem based on
summer/fall ship surveys in 1991-200 (NOAA Technical
Memorandum). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries
Science Center.
Becker, E. A., Foley, D. G., Forney, K. A., Barlow, J.,
Redfern, J. V., & Genteman, C. L. (2012b). Forecasting
cetacean abundance patterns to enhance management.
Endangered Species Research, 16, 97-112. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3354/esr00390
Best, P. B., Bannister, J. L., Brownell, R. L., Jr., &
Donovan, G. P. (Eds.). (2001). Right whales: Worldwide
status. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management
(Special Issue 2).
Blackwell, S. B., Richardson, W. J., Greene, C. R., Jr., &
Streever, B. (2007). Bowhead whale (Balaena mysti-
cetus) migration and calling behaviour in the Alaskan
Beaufort Sea, autumn 2001-04: An acoustic localization
study. Arctic, 60(3), 255-270.
Blaylock, R. A., & Hoggard, W. (1994). Preliminary esti-
mates of bottlenose dolphin abundance in southern U.S.
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico continental shelf waters.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries
Science Center.
Bluhm, B., Coyle, K. O., Konar, B., & Highsmith, R.
(2007). High gray whale relative abundances associated
with an oceanographic front in the south-central Chukchi
Sea. Deep-Sea Research, Part II, 54(23-26), 2919-2933.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2007.08.015
Bradford, A. L., Weller, D. W., Burdin, A. M., & Brownell,
R. L., Jr. (2011). Using barnacle and pigmentation char-
acteristics to identify gray whale calves on their feed-
ing grounds. Marine Mammal Science, 27(3), 644-651.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2010.00413.x
Bräger, S. (1993). Diurnal and seasonal behavior pat-
terns of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus).
Marine Mammal Science, 9(4), 434-438. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1993.tb00477.x
Bräger, S., Würsig, B., Acevedo, A., & Henningsen, T. (1994).
Association patterns of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops trun-
catus) in Galveston Bay, Texas. Journal of Mammalogy,
431-437. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1382564
Braham, H. W. (1984). Distribution and migration of
gray whales in Alaska. In M. L. Jones, S. L. Swartz, &
S. Leatherwood (Eds.), The gray whale, Eschrichtius
Literature Cited 109
robustus (pp. 249-266). New York: Academic Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-092372-7.50017-0
Braham, H. W., Fraker, M., & Krogman, B. D. (1980).
Spring migration of the western Arctic population of
bowhead whales. Marine Fisheries Review, 42(9-10),
36-46.
Brown, M. W., Brault, S., Hamilton, P. K., Kenney, R. D.,
Knowlton, A. R., Marx, M. K., . . . Kraus, S. D. (2001).
Sighting heterogeneity of right whales in the western
North Atlantic: 1980-1992. Journal of Cetacean Research
and Management (Special Issue 2), 245-250.
Brownell, R. L., Jr., Clapham, P. J., Miyashita, T., &
Kasuya, T. (2001). Conservation status of North Pacific
right whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and
Management, 2, 269-286.
Brueggeman, J. J. (1982). Early spring distribution of
bowhead whales in the Bering Sea. The Journal of
Wildlife Management, 46, 1036-1044. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/3808236
Buckland, S. T., & Breiwick, J. M. (2002). Estimated
trends in abundance of eastern Pacific gray whales from
shore counts, 1967/68 to 1995/96. Journal of Cetacean
Research Management, 4, 41-48.
Burns, J. J., & Seaman, G. A. (1985). Investigations of
belukha whales in coastal waters of western and north-
ern Alaska. II. Biology and ecology. OCSEAP Final
Report (U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA),
56(1988), 221-357.
Calambokidis, J., & Barlow, J. (1991). Chlorinated
hydrocarbon concentrations and their use for describ-
ing population discreteness in harbor porpoises from
Washington, Oregon, and California. In J. E. Reynolds
III & D. K. Odell (Eds.), Marine mammal strandings in
the United States (NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98,
pp. 101-110). Washington, DC: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Calambokidis, J., & Barlow, J. (2004). Abundance of blue
and humpback whales in the eastern North Pacific esti-
mated by capture-recapture and line-transect methods.
Marine Mammal Science, 20(1), 63-85. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004.tb01141.x
Calambokidis, J., & Barlow, J. (2013). Updated abundance
estimates of blue and humpback whales off the U.S. West
Coast incorporating photo-identifications from 2010
and 2011 (Final Report to the Pacific Scientific Review
Group for Contract AB-133F-10-RP-0106 PSRG-2013-
13R). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.
Calambokidis, J., Laake, J. L., & Klimek, A. (2010).
Abundance and population structure of seasonal gray
whales in the Pacific Northwest, 1998-2008 (Paper
SC/62/BRG32). Presented to the International Whaling
Commission Scientific Committee.
Calambokidis, J., Laake, J. L., & Klimek, A. (2012).
Updated analysis of abundance and population struc-
ture of seasonal gray whales in the Pacific Northwest,
1998-2010. Paper SC/M12/AWMP2-Rev submitted to
the IWC Scientific Committee. 65 pp.
Calambokidis, J., Laake, J., & Perez, A. (2014). Updated
analysis of abundance and population structure of
seasonal gray whales in the Pacific Northwest, 1996-
2012 (Final Report). Seattle, WA: National Marine
Mammal Laboratory.
Calambokidis, J., Evenson, J. R., Chandler, T. E., & Steiger,
G. H. (1992). Individual identification of gray whales in
Puget Sound in 1991. Puget Sound Notes, 28, 1-4.
Calambokidis, J., Barlow, J., Ford, J. K. B., Chandler, T. E.,
& Douglas, A. B. (2009a). Insights into the population
structure of blue whales in the eastern North Pacific
from recent sightings and photographic identifications.
Marine Mammal Science, 25, 816-832. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2009.00298.x
Calambokidis, J., Falcone, E., Douglas, A., Schlender, L.,
& Huggins, J. (2009b). Photographic identification
of humpback and blue whales off the U.S. West Coast:
Results and updated abundance estimates from 2008 field
season (Final Report for Contract AB133F08SE2786).
La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.
Calambokidis, J., Steiger, G. H., Ellifrit, D. K., Troutman,
B. L., & Bowlby, C. E. (2004). Distribution and abun-
dance of humpback whales and other marine mammals
off the northern Washington coast. Fishery Bulletin,
102(4), 563-580.
Calambokidis, J., Mate, B., Oleson, E., Irvine, L., Hayslip,
C., & Douglas, A. (2009c). The Costa Rica Dome as a
winter feeding and breeding area for North Pacific blue
whales. Proceedings of the 18th Biennial Conference on
the Biology of Marine Mammals, Quebec City, Quebec.
Calambokidis, J., Darling, J. D., Deecke, V., Gearin,
P., Gosho, M., Megill, W., . . . Gisborne, B. (2002).
Abundance, range and movements of a feeding aggre-
gation of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) from
California to southeastern Alaska in 1998. Journal of
Cetacean Research and Management, 4(3), 267-276.
Calambokidis, J., Falcone, E. A., Quinn, T. J., Burdin,
A. M., Clapham, P. J., Ford, J. K. B., . . . Wade, P. R.
(2008a). SPLASH: Structure of Populations, Levels
of Abundance and Status of Humpback Whales in the
North Pacific (Final Report for Contract AB133F-
03-RP-00078 prepared by Cascadia Research). Seattle,
WA: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Calambokidis, J., Schorr, G. S., Steiger, G. H., Francis,
J., Bakhtiari, M., Marshall, G., . . . Robertson, K.
(2008b). Insights into the underwater diving, feeding,
and calling behavior of blue whales from a suction-cup
attached video-imaging tag (CRITTERCAM). Marine
Technology Society Journal, 41, 19-29. http://dx.doi.
org/10.4031/002533207787441980
Calambokidis, J., Steiger, G. H., Cubbage, J. C., Balcomb,
K. C., Ewald, C., Kruse, S., . . . Sears, R. (1990).
Sightings and movements of blue whales off central
California 1986-88 from photo-identification of individ-
uals. Reports of the International Whaling Commission,
Special Issue 12, 343-348.
Calambokidis, J., Steiger, G. H., Evenson, J. R., Flynn,
K. R., Balcomb, K. C., Claridge, D. E., . . . Green, G. A.
110 Literature Cited
(1996). Interchange and isolation of humpback whales
off California and other North Pacific feeding grounds.
Marine Mammal Science, 12, 215-226. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1996.tb00572.x
Calambokidis, J., Steiger, G. H., Rasmussen, K.,
Urbán R., J., Balcomb, K. C., Ladron de Guevara, P.,
. . . Darling, J. D. (2000). Migratory destinations of
humpback whales that feed off California, Oregon and
Washington. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 192, 295-
304. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps192295
Calambokidis, J., Steiger, G. H., Straley, J. M., Herman,
L. M., Cerchio, S., Salden, D. R., . . . Quinn II, T. J. (2001).
Movements and population structure of humpback
whales in the North Pacific. Marine Mammal Science,
17, 769-794. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2001.
tb01298.x
Calambokidis, J., Steiger, G. H., Straley, J., Quinn II, T. J.,
Herman, L. M., Cerchio, S., . . . Rasmussen, K. (1997).
Abundance and population structure of humpback whales
in the North Pacific Basin. Final Report to Southwest
Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries
Service, La Jolla, CA, for Contract #50ABNF500113.
Caldwell, M. (2001). Social and genetic structure of bot-
tlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in Jacksonville,
Florida (Doctoral dissertation). University of Miami,
Miami, Florida.
Carretta, J. V., Forney, K. A., & Barlow, J. (1995). Report
of 1993-1994 marine mammal aerial surveys conducted
within the U.S. Navy outer sea test range off Southern
California (NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-
TM-NMFSSWFSC-217). La Jolla, CA: Southwest
Fisheries Science Center.
Carretta, J. V., Forney, K. A., & Benson, S. R. (2009).
Preliminary estimates of harbor porpoise abundance in
California waters from 2002 to 2007 (NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFSSWFSC-435). La Jolla,
CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.
Carretta, J. V., Taylor, B. L., & Chivers, S. J. (2001).
Abundance and depth distribution of harbor porpoise
(Phocoena phocoena) in northern California determined
from a 1995 ship survey. Fishery Bulletin, 99, 29-39.
Carretta, J. V., Oleson, E., Weller, D. W., Lang, A. R.,
Forney, K. A., Baker, J., . . . Hill, M. C. (2013). U.S.
Pacific marine mammal stock assessments: 2012
(NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-
SWFSC-504). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science
Center, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Carretta, J. V., Oleson, E., Weller, D. W., Lang, A. R.,
Forney, K. A., Baker, J., . . . Mattila, D. K. (2014)
U.S. Pacific marine mammal stock assessments, 2013
(NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-
SWFSC-532). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Commerce,
Cartwright, R., Gillespie, B., Labonte, K., Mangold, T.,
Venema, A., Eden, K., & Sullivan, M. (2012). Between
a rock and a hard place: Habitat selection in female-calf
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) pairs on
the Hawaiian breeding grounds. PLOS ONE, 7, e38004.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038004
Cerchio, S., Gabriele, C. M., Norris, T. F., & Herman, L. M.
(1998). Movements of humpback whales between Kauai
and Hawaii: Implications for population structure and
abundance estimation in the Hawaiian Islands. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 175, 13-22. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3354/meps175013
Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program (CeTAP). (1982).
A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the
mid- and north Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer continen-
tal shelf (Final Report of CeTAP to the U.S. Department
of Interior under Contract AA551-CT8-48. H. E. Winn,
Scientific Director). Kingston: University of Rhode
Island.
Chivers, S. J., Dizon, A. E., Gearin, P. J., & Robertson,
K. M. (2002). Small-scale population structure of east-
ern North Pacific harbour porpoises (Phocoena pho-
coena) indicated by molecular genetic analyses. Journal
of Cetacean Research and Management, 4(2), 111-122.
Chivers, S. J., Hanson, B., Laake, J., Gearin, P., Muto,
M. M., Calambokidis, J., . . . Hancock, B. (2007).
Additional genetic evidence for population structure of
Phocoena phocoena off the coasts of California, Oregon,
and Washington (SWFSC Administrative Report LJ-07-
08). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.
Citta, J. J., Suydam, R. S., Quakenbush, L. T., Frost, K. J., &
O’Corry-Crowe, G. M. (2013). Dive behavior of eastern
Chukchi beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas), 1998-
2008. Arctic, 66(4), 389-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.14430/
arctic4326
Citta, J. J., Quakenbush, L. T., George, J. C., Small, R. J.,
Heide-Jørgensen, M. P., Brower, H., . . . Brower, L.
(2012). Winter movements of bowhead whales (Balaena
mysticetus) in the Bering Sea. Arctic, 65(1), 13-34. http://
dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic4162
Clapham, P. J., & Mayo, C. A. (1987). Reproduction and
recruitment of individually identified humpback whales,
Megaptera novaeangliae, observed in Massachusetts
Bay, 1979-1985. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 65(12),
2853-2863. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z87-434
Clapham, P. J., & Mayo, C. A. (1990). Reproduction of
humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) observed
in the Gulf of Maine. Reports of the International
Whaling Commission, Special Issue 12, 171-175.
Clapham, P. J., & Seipt, I. E. (1991). Resightings of inde-
pendent fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus, on maternal
summer ranges. Journal of Mammalogy, 72(4), 788-
790. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1381844
Clapham, P. J., Good, C., Quinn, S. E., Reeves, R. R.,
Scarff, J. E., & Brownell, R. L., Jr. (2004). Distribution
of North Pacific right whales (Eubalaena japonica)
as shown by 19th and 20th century whaling catch
and sighting records. Journal of Cetacean Research
Management, 6(1), 1-6.
Clapham, P. J., Kennedy, A. S., Rone, B. K., Berchok, C. L.,
Crance, J. L., & Zerbini, A. N. (2012). North Pacific
right whales (Eubalaena japonica) in the southeastern
Literature Cited 111
Bering Sea (Final Report, OCS Study BOEM 2012-074).
Seattle, WA: National Marine Mammal Laboratory,
Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Clapham, P. J., Baraff, L. S., Carlson, C. A., Christian, M. A.,
Mattila, D. K., Mayo, C. A., . . . Pittman, S. (1993).
Seasonal occurrence and annual return of humpback
whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the southern Gulf
of Maine. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 71(2), 440-443.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z93-063
Clark, C. W. (1995). Application of U.S. Navy underwa-
ter hydrophone arrays for scientific research on whales.
Reports of the International Whaling Commission, 45,
210-212.
Clark, C. W., Ellison, W. T., & Beeman, K. (1986). A
preliminary account of the acoustic study conducted
during the 1985 spring bowhead whale, Balaena mys-
ticetus, migration off Point Barrow, AK. Reports of the
International Whaling Commission, 36, 311-317.
Clark, C. W., Ellison, W. T., Southall, B. L., Hatch, L.,
Van Parijs, S. M., Frankel, A., & Ponirakis, D. (2009).
Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems: Intuitions,
analysis, and implication (“Acoustics in marine ecology”
Theme Section). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 395,
201-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps08402
Clarke, J. T., & Ferguson, M. C. (2010a). Aerial surveys
for bowhead whales in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea:
BWASP update 2000-2009 with comparisons to histori-
cal data (IWC Paper SC/62/BRG14). Presented at the
2010 Annual Meeting of the IWC Scientific Committee,
Agadir, Morocco.
Clarke, J. T., & Ferguson, M. C. (2010b). Aerial surveys
of large whales in the northeastern Chukchi Sea, 2008-
2009, with review of 1982-91 data (IWC Paper SC/62/
BRG13). Presented at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the
IWC Scientific Committee, Agadir, Morocco.
Clarke, J. T., & Moore, S. E. (2002). A note on observations
of gray whales in the southern Chukchi and northern
Bering Seas, August-November, 1980-89. Journal of
Cetacean Research Management, 4(3), 283-288.
Clarke, J. T., Moore, S. E., & Johnson, M. M. (1993).
Observations on beluga fall migration in the Alaskan
Beaufort Sea, 1982-87, and northeastern Chukchi Sea,
1982-91. Reports of the International Whaling Commission,
43, 387-396.
Clarke, J. T., Moore, S. E., & Ljungblad, D. K. (1987).
Observations of bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus)
calves in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during the autumn
migration, 1982-85. Reports of the International Whaling
Commission, 37, 287-293.
Clarke, J. T., Moore, S. E., & Ljungblad, D. K. (1989).
Observations on gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) uti-
lization patterns in the northeastern Chukchi Sea, July-
October 1982-87. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 67,
2646-2654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z89-374
Clarke, J. T., Brower, A. A., Christman, C. L., & Ferguson,
M. C. (2014). Distribution and relative abundance
of marine mammals in the northeastern Chukchi and
western Beaufort Seas, 2013 (Annual Report, OCS
Study BOEM 2014-018). Seattle, WA: National Marine
Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
Clarke, J. T., Christman, C. L., Brower, A. A., & Ferguson,
M. C. (2012). Distribution and relative abundance of
marine mammals in the Alaskan Chukchi and Beaufort
Seas, 2011 (Annual Report, OCS Study BOEM 2012-
009). Seattle, WA: National Marine Mammal Laboratory,
Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine
Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Clarke, J. T., Christman, C. L., Brower, A. A., & Ferguson,
M. C. (2013a). Distribution and relative abundance of
marine mammals in the northeastern Chukchi and west-
ern Beaufort seas, 2012 (Annual Report, OCS Study
BOEM 2013-0017). Seattle, WA: National Marine
Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
Clarke, J. T., Christman, C. L., Ferguson, M. C., & Grassia,
S. L. (2011a). Aerial surveys of endangered whales in
the Beaufort Sea, fall 2006-2008 (OCS Study BOEMRE
2010-042). Report from National Marine Mammal
Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National
Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration for U.S. Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.
Clarke, J. T., Ferguson, M. C., Curtice, C., & Harrison, J.
(2015). 8. Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans
within U.S. waters – Arctic region. In S. M. Van Parijs,
C. Curtice, & M. C. Ferguson (Eds.), Biologically
Important Areas for cetaceans within U.S. waters
(pp. 94-103). Aquatic Mammals (Special Issue), 41(1).
128 pp.
Clarke, J. T., Christman, C. L., Brower, A. A., Ferguson,
M. C., & Grassia, S. L. (2011b). Aerial surveys of endan-
gered whales in the Beaufort Sea, fall 2010 (Annual
Report, OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-035). Seattle, WA:
National Marine Mammal Laboratory.
Clarke, J. T., Ferguson, M. C., Christman, C. L., Grassia,
S. L., Brower, A. A., & Morse, L. J. (2011c). Chukchi
offshore monitoring in drilling area (COMIDA) distribu-
tion and relative abundance of marine mammals: Aerial
surveys (Final Report, OCA Study BOEMRE 2011-06).
Seattle, WA: National Marine Mammal Laboratory.
Clarke, J. T., Stafford, K., Moore, S. E., Rone, B., Aerts, L.,
& Crance, J. (2013b). Subarctic cetaceans in the south-
ern Chukchi Sea: Evidence of recovery or response to
a changing ecosystem. Oceanography, 26(4), 136-149.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2013.81
Coachman, L. K. (1986). Circulation, water masses,
and fluxes on the southeastern Bering Sea shelf.
Continental Shelf Research, 5, 23-108. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/0278-4343(86)90011-7
Cole, T. V. N., Hamilton, P., Henry, A. G., Duley, P., Pace
III, R. M., White, B. N., & Frasier, T. (2013). Evidence
112 Literature Cited
of a North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis
mating ground. Endangered Species Research, 21(1),
55-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/esr00507
Committee on Taxonomy. (2014). List of marine
mammal species and subspecies (Society for Marine
Mammalogy). Retrieved 2 February 2015 from www.
marinemammalscience.org.
Conn, P. B., Gorgone, A. M., Jugovich, A. R., Byrd, B. L.,
& Hansen, L. J. (2011). Accounting for transients
when estimating abundance of bottlenose dolphins in
Choctawhatchee Bay, Florida. The Journal of Wildlife
Management, 75(3), 569-579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
jwmg.94
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (2008). Report
of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/9/29). Convention
on Biological Diversity on the Work of its Ninth Meeting.
Bonn. Retrieved 2 February 2015 from www.cbd.int/doc/
meetings/cop/cop-09/official/cop-09-29-en.pdf.
CBD. (2009). Azores scientific criteria and guidance for
identifying ecologically or biologically significant
marine areas and designing representative networks of
marine protected areas in open ocean waters and deep
sea habitats. Retrieved 2 February 2015 from https://
www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/ebsaws-2014-01/other/
ebsaws-2014-01-azores-brochure-en.pdf.
CBD. (2010). Report of the Tenth Meeting of the Conference
of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity
(UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27). Convention on Biological
Diversity, Nagoya, Japan. Retrieved 2 February 2015
from www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-10/official/cop-
10-27-en.pdf.
Cooke, J. G., Weller, D. W., Bradford, A. L., Burdin, A. M.,
& Brownell, R. L., Jr. (2008). Population assessment
of western gray whales in 2008 (Paper SC/60/BRG11).
Presented to the International Whaling Commission
Scientific Committee.
Cooney, R. T., & Coyle, K. O. (1982). Trophic implications
of cross-shelf copepod distributions in the south-eastern
Bering Sea. Marine Biology, 70, 187-196. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/BF00397684
Corrigan, C. M., Ardron, J. A., Comeros-Raynal, M. T., Hoyt,
E., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., & Carpenter, K. (2014).
Developing Important Marine Mammal Area criteria:
Learning from Ecologically or Biologically Significant
Areas and Key Biodiversity Areas. Aquatic Conservation:
Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 24(Supp. 2), 166-
183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2513
Cortese, N. A. (2000). Delineation of bottlenose dolphin
populations in the western Atlantic Ocean using stable
isotopes (Master’s dissertation). University of Virginia,
Charlottesville.
Courbis, S. S., Baird, R. W., Cipriano, F., & Duffield, D.
(2014). Multiple populations of pantropical spotted
dolphins in Hawaiian waters. Journal of Heredity, 105,
627-641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esu046
Coyle, K. O., Bluhm, B., Konar, B., Blanchard, A., &
Highsmith, R. C. (2007). Amphipod prey of gray whales
in the northern Bering Sea: Comparison of biomass and
distribution between 1980s and 2002-2003. Deep-Sea
Research Part II, 54, 2906-2918. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.dsr2.2007.08.026
Craig, A. S., & Herman, L. M. (2000). Habitat preferences
of female humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae in
the Hawaiian Islands are associated with reproductive
status. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 193, 209-216.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps193209
Croll, D. A., Marinovic, B., Benson, S., Chavez, F. P.,
Black, N., Ternullo, R., & Tershy, B. R. (2005). From
wind to whales: Trophic links in a coastal upwelling
system. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 289, 117-130.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps289117
Dahlheim, M. E., White, P. A., & Waite, J. M. (2009).
Cetaceans of Southeast Alaska: Distribution and sea-
sonal occurrence. Journal of Biogeography, 36, 410-426.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2008.02007.x
Daily, M. D., Reish, D. J., & Anderson, J. A. (1993).
Ecology of Southern California Bight: A synthesis and
interpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Darling, J. D., & Jurasz, C. M. (1983). Migratory destinations
of North Pacific humpback whales (Megaptera novaean-
gliae). In R. Payne (Ed.), Communication and behavior
of whales (pp. 359-368). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Darling, J. D., & McSweeney, D. J. (1985). Observations
on the migrations of North Pacific humpback whales
(Megaptera novaeangliae). Canadian Journal of Zoology,
63, 308-314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z85-047
Delarue, J., Laurinolli, M., & Martin, B. (2011). Acoustic
detections of beluga whales in the northeastern Chukchi
Sea, July 2007 to July 2008. Arctic, 64(1), 15-24. http://
dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic4076
DeMaster, D. P., Lowry, L. F., Frost, K. J., & Bengtson, R. A.
(2001). The effect of sea state on estimates of abundance
for beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in Norton
Sound, Alaska. Fishery Bulletin, U.S., 99, 197-201.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. (2000). Eastern
Beaufort Sea beluga whales (Stock Status Report
E5-38).
Department of Navy. (2011). Marine species monitor-
ing for the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar
Training (AFAST) – Annual report 2010. Norfolk, VA:
Department of Navy, U.S.Fleet Forces Command.
Donovan, G. P. (1991). A review of IWC stock boundar-
ies. Reports of the International Whaling Commission,
Special Issue 13, 39-68.
Douglas, A. B., Calambokidis, J., Munger, L. M., Soldevilla,
M. S., Ferguson, M. C., Havron, A. M., . . . Hildebrand,
J. A. (2014). Seasonal distribution and abundance of ceta-
ceans off southern California estimated from CalCOFI
cruise data from 2004 to 2008. Fishery Bulletin, 112,
197-220.
Duffield, D. A., & Wells, R. S. (1986). Population structure
of bottlenose dolphins: Genetic studies of bottlenose dol-
phins along the central west coast of Florida (Contract
Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast
Fisheries Center, Contract No. 45-WCNF-5-00366:16).
Literature Cited 113
Ellison, W. T., Southall, B. L., Clark, C. W., & Frankel,
A. (2012). A new context-based paradigm to assess
behavioral responses of marine mammals to sound.
Conservation Biology, 26, 21-28. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01803.x
Engleby, L., Read, A. J., Waples, D. M., & Torres, L. G.
(2002). Habitat use of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops
truncatus) in Florida Bay (Final Report to the Southeast
Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries
Service).
Falcone, E. A., Diehl, B., Douglas, A. B., & Calambokidis, J.
(2011a). Photo-identification of fin whales (Balaeanoptera
physalus) along the U.S. West Coast, Baja California, and
Canada (Final Report for Order number JFI 3F09SE 516).
La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.
Falcone, E. A., Schorr, G. S., Diehl, B., Douglas, A. B.,
Calambokidis, J., Barlow, J., . . . Andrews, R. D.
(2011b). The wayward ways of the white-jawed whale:
Following fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) along the
U.S. West Coast with photo-identification and satellite
telemetry. Proceedings of the 19th Biennial Conference
on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Tampa, FL.
Ferguson, M. C., Curtice, C., & Harrison, J. (2015a). 6.
Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans within U.S.
waters – Gulf of Alaska region. In S. M. Van Parijs,
C. Curtice, & M. C. Ferguson (Eds.), Biologically
Important Areas for cetaceans within U.S. waters
(pp. 65-78). Aquatic Mammals (Special Issue), 41(1).
128 pp.
Ferguson, M. C., Harrison, J., & Van Parijs, S. M.
(2015b). 1. Biologically Important Areas for ceta-
ceans within U.S. waters – Overview and rationale. In
S. M. Van Parijs, C. Curtice, & M. C. Ferguson (Eds.),
Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans within U.S.
waters (pp. 2-16). Aquatic Mammals (Special Issue),
41(1). 128 pp.
Ferguson, M. C., Waite, J. M., Curtice, C., Clarke, J. T.,
& Harrison, J. (2015c). 7. Biologically Important Areas
for cetaceans within U.S. waters – Aleutian Islands and
Bering Sea region. In S. M. Van Parijs, C. Curtice, &
M. C. Ferguson (Eds.), Biologically Important Areas
for cetaceans within U.S. waters (pp. 79-93). Aquatic
Mammals (Special Issue), 41(1). 128 pp.
Fertl, D. (1994). Occurrence patterns and behavior of bot-
tlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Galveston
ship channel, Texas. Texas Journal of Science, 46(4),
299-318.
Foley, H. J., Holt, R. C., Hardee, R. E., Nilsson, P. B., Jackson,
K. A., Read, A. J., . . . McLellan, W. A. (2011). Observations
of a western North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena gla-
cialis) birth offshore of the protected southeast U.S. criti-
cal habitat. Marine Mammal Science, 27(3), E234-E240.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2010.00452.x
Forney, K. A. (1995). A decline in the abundance of harbor
porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, in nearshore waters off
California, 1986-93. Fishery Bulletin, 93, 741-748.
Forney, K. A. (1999). The abundance of California harbor
porpoise estimated from 1993-97 aerial line transect
surveys (Administrative Report LJ-99-02). La Jolla, CA:
Southwest Fisheries Science Center.
Forney, K. A., & Barlow, J. (1998). Seasonal patterns in
the abundance and distribution of California cetaceans,
1991-1992. Marine Mammal Science, 14(3), 460-489.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1998.tb00737.x
Forney, K. A., Hanan, D. A., & Barlow, J. (1991). Detecting
trends in harbor porpoise abundance from aerial surveys
using analysis of covariance. Fishery Bulletin, 89, 367-
377.
Forney, K. A., Ferguson, M. C., Becker, E. A., Fiedler, P. C.,
Redfern, J. V., Barlow, J., . . . Balance, L. T. (2012).
Habitat-based spatial models of cetacean density in the
eastern Pacific Ocean. Endangered Species Research,
16, 113-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/esr00393
Frankel, A. S., Clark, C. W., Herman, L. M., & Gabriele,
C. M. (1995). Spatial distribution, habitat utilization,
and social interactions of humpback whales, Megaptera
novaeangliae, off Hawaii, determined using acoustic
and visual techniques. Canadian Journal of Zoology,
73, 1134-1146.
Frasier, T., Koroscil, S., White, B., & Darling, J. (2011).
Assessment of population structure in relation to
summer feeding ground use in the eastern North Pacific
gray whale. Endangered Species Research, 14, 39-48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/esr00340
Friday, N. A., Waite, J. M., Zerbini, A. N., & Moore, S. E.
(2012). Cetacean distribution and abundance in relation
to oceanographic domains on the eastern Bering Sea
shelf: 1999-2004. Deep-Sea Research Part II, 65-70,
260-272.
Friday, N. A., Zerbini, A. N., Waite, J. M., Moore, S. E.,
& Clapham, P. J. (2013). Cetacean distribution and
abundance in relation to oceanographic domains on the
eastern Bering Sea shelf, June and July of 2002, 2008,
and 2010. Deep-Sea Research Part II, 94, 244-256.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2013.03.011
Friedlaender, A. S., Goldbogen, J. A., Hazen, E. L.,
Calambokidis, J., & Southall, B. L. (2014). Feeding per-
formance of sympatric blue and fin whales exploiting a
common prey resource. Marine Mammal Science, 31(1),
345-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mms.12134
Friedlaender, A. S., Hazen, E. L., Nowacek, D. P., Halpin,
P. N., Ware, C., Weinrich, M. T., . . . Wiley, D. (2009).
Diel changes in humpback whale Megaptera novae-
angliae feeding behavior in response to sand lance
Ammodytes spp. behavior and distribution. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 395, 91-100. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3354/meps08003
Frost, K. J., & Lowry, L. F. (1990). Distribution, abundance
and movements of beluga whales, Delphinapterus
leucas, in coastal waters of western Alaska. In T. G.
Smith, D. J. St. Aubin, & J. R. Geraci (Eds.), Advances
in research on the beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas
(pp. 39-57). Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 224.
Frost, K. J., Lowry, L. F., & Carroll, G. (1993). Beluga
whale and spotted seal use of a coastal lagoon system in
114 Literature Cited
the northeastern Chukchi Sea. Arctic, 46(1), 8-16. http://
dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic1316
Frost, K. J., Lowry, L. F., & Nelson, R. R. (1984). Beluga
whale studies in Bristol Bay, Alaska. In Proceedings
of the Workshop on Biological Interactions Among
Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries in the
Southeastern Bering Sea (University of Alaska Sea
Grant Report 84-1, pp. 187-200).
Fulling, G. L., Mullin, K. D., & Hubard, C. W. (2003).
Abundance and distribution of cetaceans in outer
continental shelf waters of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.
Fishery Bulletin, 101(4), 923-932.
Gabriele, C. M., Straley, J. M., Herman, L. M., & Coleman,
R. J. (1996). Fastest documented migration of a North
Pacific humpback whale. Marine Mammal Science,
12(3), 457-464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.
1996.tb00599.x
Gambell, R. (1976). World whale stocks. Mammal Review,
6, 41-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1976.
tb00200.x
Gambell, R. (1979). The blue whale. Biologist, 26, 209-
215.
Garland, E. C., Berchok, C. L., & Castellote, M. (2015).
Temporal peaks in beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas)
acoustic detections in the northern Bering, northeastern
Chukchi, and western Beaufort Seas: 2010-2011. Polar
Biology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1636-1.
Gaskin, D. E. (1977). Harbour porpoise, Phocoena pho-
coena (L.), in the western approaches to the Bay of
Fundy 1969-75. Reports of the International Whaling
Commission, 27, 487-492.
Gaskin, D. E. (1984). The harbour porpoise Phocoena
phocoena (L.): Regional populations, status, and
information on direct and indirect catches. Reports of
the International Whaling Commission, 34, 569-586.
Gaskin, D. E. (1992). Status of the harbour porpoise,
Phocoena phocoena, in Canada. Canadian Field-
Naturalist. Ottawa ON, 106(1), 36-54.
Geo-Marine, Inc. (GMI). (2010). Ocean/wind power eco-
logical baseline studies, January 2008 – December
2009 (Final Report). Trenton, NJ: Department of
Environmental Protection, Office of Science. Retrieved
5 January 2015 from www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/ocean-wind/
report.htm.
George, J. C., Clark, C., Carroll, G. M., & Ellison, W. T.
(1989). Observations on the ice-breaking behavior of
migrating bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) near
Point Barrow, Alaska, spring 1985. Arctic, 42(1), 24-30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic1636
George, J. C., Zeh, J., Suydam, R., & Clark, C. (2004).
Abundance and population trend (1978-2001) of western
Arctic bowhead whales surveyed near Barrow, Alaska.
Marine Mammal Science, 20(4), 755-773. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004.tb01191.x
Gill, R. E., & Hall, J. D. (1983). Use of nearshore and estua-
rine areas of the southeastern Bering Sea by gray whales
(Eschrichtius robustus). Arctic, 38(3), 275-281.
Goddard, P. D., & Rugh, D. J. (1998). A group of
right whales seen in the Bering Sea in July 1996.
Marine Mammal Science, 14, 344-349. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1998.tb00725.x
Goetz, K. T., Rugh, D. J., & Mocklin, J. A. (2008). Aerial
surveys of bowhead whales in the vicinity of Barrow,
Alaska, August-September 2007. In Bowhead Whale
Feeding Ecology Study (BOWFEST) in the western
Beaufort Sea, 2007 annual report (pp. 2-26). Seattle,
WA: National Marine Mammal Laboratory.
Goetz, K., Rugh, D., & Mocklin, J. (2009). Aerial surveys
of bowhead whales in the vicinity of Barrow, Alaska,
August-September 2008. In Bowhead Whale Feeding
Ecology Study (BOWFEST) in the western Beaufort Sea,
2008 annual report (pp. 4-26). Seattle, WA: National
Marine Mammal Laboratory.
Goetz, K., Rugh, D., & Mocklin, J. (2010). Aerial surveys
of bowhead whales in the vicinity of Barrow, Alaska
August-September 2009. In Bowhead Whale Feeding
Ecology Study (BOWFEST) in the western Beaufort Sea,
2009 annual report (pp. 4-21). Seattle, WA: National
Marine Mammal Laboratory.
Goetz, K. T., Rugh, D. J., Read, A. J., & Hobbs, R. C.
(2007). Habitat use in a marine ecosystem: Beluga
whales Delphinapterus leucas in Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Marine Ecology Progress Series, 330, 247-256. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps330247
Goetz, K., Rugh, D., Vate Brattström, L., & Mocklin, J.
(2011). Aerial surveys of bowhead whales near Barrow
Alaska in late summer 2010. In Bowhead Whale Feeding
Ecology Study (BOWFEST) in the western Beaufort Sea,
2010 annual report (pp. 2-19). Seattle, WA: National
Marine Mammal Laboratory.
Goetz, K. T., Montgomery, R. A., Ver Hoef, J. M.,
Hobbs, R. C., & Johnson, D. S. (2012a). Identifying
essential summer habitat of the endangered beluga
whale Delphinapterus leucas in Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Endangered Species Research, 16, 135-147. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3354/esr00394
Goetz, K. T., Robinson, P. W., Hobbs, R. C., Laidre,
K. L., Huckstadt, L. A., & Shelden, K. E. W. (2012b).
Movement and dive behavior of belugas (Delphinapterus
leucas) in Cook Inlet, Alaska (AFSC Processed Report
2012-03). Seattle, WA: Alaska Fisheries Science Center,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
Goldbogen, J. A., Calambokidis, J., Shadwick, R. E.,
Oleson, E. M., & McDonald, M. A. (2006). Kinematics
of diving and lunge-feeding in fin whales. Journal of
Experimental Biology, 209, 1231-1244. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1242/jeb.02135
Goldbogen, J. A., Calambokidis, J., Croll, D. A., Harvey,
J. T., Newton, K. M., Oleson, E. M., . . . Shadwick,
R. E. (2008). Foraging behavior of humpback whales:
Kinematic and respiratory patterns suggest a high cost
for a lunge. Journal of Experimental Biology, 211, 3712-
3719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/jeb.023366
Literature Cited 115
Goldbogen, J. A., Calambokidis, J., Croll, D. A., McKenna,
M. F., Oleson, E., Potvin, . . . Tershy, B. R. (2012).
Scaling of lunge-feeding performance in rorqual whales:
Mass-specific energy expenditure increases with body
size and progressively limits diving capacity. Functional
Ecology, 26(1), 216-226.
Goldbogen, J. A., Southall, B. L., DeRuiter, S. L.,
Calambokidis, J., Friedlaender, A. S., Hazen, E. L., . . .
Tyack, P. L. (2013). Blue whales respond to simulated
mid-frequency military sonar. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 280,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.0657
Good, C. P. (2008). Spatial ecology of the North Atlantic
right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) (Doctoral dissertation).
Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. Retrieved
5 January 2015 from hdl.handle.net/10161/588.
Gorgone, A. M., Baird, R. W., Webster, D. L., Schorr,
G. S., McSweeney, D. J., & Cullins, T. (2013). Satellite-
tagging and photo-ID provide further evidence of
multiple island-associated populations of common bot-
tlenose dolphins in the main Hawaiian Islands. Talk pre-
sented at the 20th Biennial Conference on the Biology of
Marine Mammals, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Gosho, M., Gearin, P., Jenkinson, R., Laake, J., Mazzuca,
L., Kubiak, D., . . . Deecke, V. (2011). Movements and
diet of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) off Kodiak
Island, Alaska, 2002-2005 (Paper SC/M11/AWMP2).
Presented to the International Whaling Commission
Scientific Committee.
Grebmeier, J. M., Overland, J. E., Moore, S. E., Farley,
E. V., Carmack, E. C., Cooper, L. W., . . . McNutt, S. L.
(2006). A major ecosystem shift in the northern Bering
Sea. Science, 311, 1461-1464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.1121365
Gregr, E. J., & Coyle, K. O. (2009). The biogeography of
the North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica).
Progress in Oceanography, 80, 188-198. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.pocean.2008.12.004
Gubbins, C. (2002a). Association patterns of resident
bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in a South
Carolina estuary. Aquatic Mammals, 28(1), 24-31.
Gubbins, C. (2002b). The dolphins of Hilton Head: Their
natural history. Columbia: University of South Carolina
Press.
Gubbins, C. (2002c). Use of home ranges by resident bottle-
nose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in a South Carolina
estuary. Journal of Mammalogy, 83(1), 178-187. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1644/1545-1542(2002)083<0178:UOHR
BR>2.0.CO;2; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/83.1.
178
Hain, J. H., Hyman, M. A., Kenney, R. D., & Winn, H. E.
(1985). The role of cetaceans in the shelf-edge region
of the northeastern United States. Marine Fisheries
Review, 47(1), 13-17.
Hain, J. H., Ratnaswamy, M. J., Kenney, R. D., & Winn,
H. E. (1992). The fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus,
in waters of the northeastern United States continental
shelf. Reports of the International Whaling Commission,
42, 653-669.
Hamilton, P. K., & Mayo, C. A. (1990). Population charac-
teristics of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) observed
in Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bays, 1978-1986.
Reports of the International Whaling Commission,
Special 12, 203-208.
Hannay, D. E., Delarue, J., Mouy, X., Martin, B. S., Leary,
D., Oswald, J. N., & Vallarta, J. (2013). Marine mammal
acoustic detections in the northeastern Chukchi Sea,
September 2007-July 2011. Continental Shelf Research,
67, 127-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2013.07.009
Hansen, D. J., & Hubbard, J. D. (1999). Distribution of
Cook Inlet beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas)
in winter (Final Report OCS Study, MMS 99-0024).
Anchorage: U.S. Department of the Interior, Mineral
Management Service Alaska, OCS Region.
Hauser, D. W., Laidre, K. L., Suydam, R. S., & Richard,
P. R. (2014). Population-specific home ranges and
migration timing of Pacific Arctic beluga whales
(Delphinapterus leucas). Polar Biology, 37, 1171-1183.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1510-1
Hazen, E. L., Friedlaender, A. S., Thompson, M. A., Ware,
C. R., Weinrich, M. T., Halpin, P. N., & Wiley, D. N.
(2009). Fine-scale prey aggregations and foraging ecol-
ogy of humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae.
Marine Ecology Progress Series, 395, 75-89. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps08108
Heide-Jørgensen, M. P., Laidre, K. L., Quakenbush, L. T.,
& Citta, J. J. (2011). The Northwest Passage opens for
bowhead whales. Biology Letters, 8(2), 270-273. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0731
Henderson, E. E. (2004). Behavior, association patterns and
habitat use of a small community of bottlenose dolphins
in San Luis Pass, Texas (Master’s thesis). Texas A&M
University, College Station. Retrieved 12 January 2015
from http://repository.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/2807.
Hendrix, A. N., Straley, J., Gabriele, C. M., & Gende,
S. M. (2012). Bayesian estimation of humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae) population abundance and
movement patterns in southeastern Alaska. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 69, 1783-
1797. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f2012-101
Herman, L. M., Hancock, J. M., Forestell, P. H., & Antinoja,
R. C. (1980). The 1976/77 migration of humpback
whales into Hawaiian waters: Composite description
(Marine Mammal Commission Report MMC-77/19).
Washington, DC: Marine Mammal Commission.
Hobbs, R. C., Rugh, D. J., & DeMaster, D. P. (2000).
Abundance of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook
Inlet, Alaska, 1994-2000. Marine Fisheries Review,
62(3), 37-45.
Hobbs, R. C., Sims, C. L., & Shelden, K. E. W. (2012a).
Estimated abundance of belugas in Cook Inlet, Alaska,
from aerial surveys conducted in June 2012. Seattle,
WA: Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine
Mammal Laboratory.
116 Literature Cited
Hobbs, R. C., Laidre, K. L., Vos, D. J., Mahoney, B. A., &
Eagleton, M. (2005). Movements and area use of belu-
gas, Delphinapterus leucas, in a subarctic Alaskan estu-
ary. Arctic, 58(4), 331-340.
Hobbs, R., Sims, C., Shelden, K., Vate Brattstrom, L.,
& Rugh, D. (2012b). Annual calf indices for beluga
whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in Cook Inlet, Alaska
2006-2010 (AFSC Processed Report 2012-05). Seattle,
WA: Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine
Mammal Laboratory.
Hodge, L. E. (2011). Monitoring marine mammals in
Onslow Bay, North Carolina, using passive acoustics
(Doctoral dissertation). Duke University, Durham,
North Carolina. Retrieved 5 January 2015 from hdl.
handle.net/10161/4988.
Hoelzel, A. R., Potter, C. W., & Best, P. B. (1998). Genetic
differentiation between parapatric “nearshore” and
“offshore” populations of the bottlenose dolphin.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series
B: Biological Sciences, 265(1402), 1177-1183. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0416
Hooker, S. K., & Gerber, L. R. (2004). Marine reserves as
a tool for ecosystem-based management: The potential
importance of megafauna. BioScience, 54(1), 27-39.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0027:
MRAATF]2.0.CO;2
Hoyt, E., & Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. (Eds.). (2014).
Report of the Workshop for the Development of
Important Marine Mammal Area (IMMA) Criteria.
IUCN Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force and
International Committee on Marine Mammal Protected
Areas, Marseille, France.
Hubard, C. W., Maze-Foley, K., Mullin, K. D., & Schroeder,
W. W. (2004). Seasonal abundance and site fidelity of
bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Mississippi
Sound. Aquatic Mammals, 30(2), 299-310. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1578/AM.30.2.2004.299
Huntington, H. P. (2000). Traditional knowledge of the
ecology of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook
Inlet, Alaska. Marine Fisheries Review, 62(3), 134-140.
Huntington, H. P., & the communities of Buckland,
Elim, Koyuk, Point Lay, and Shaktoolik. (1999).
Traditional knowledge on the ecology of beluga whales
(Delphinapterus leucas) in the eastern Chukchi and
northern Bering Seas, Alaska. Arctic, 52(1), 49-61.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
(2012). Consolidating the standards for identifying sites
that contribute significantly to the global persistence of
biodiversity: The results of a framing workshop. Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN.
IUCN. (2013a). Identifying sites that contribute significantly
to the global persistence of biodiversity (Key Biodiversity
Areas): Criteria and delineation technical workshop
report. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Retrieved 11 February
2015 from https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/criteria_
and_delineation_workshop_report_final_28january2014.
pdf.
IUCN. (2013b). Development of the standard for identifi-
cation of sites contributing significantly to the global
persistence of biodiversity (Key Biodiversity Areas):
Recommendations from the Thresholds Workshop. Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN.
International Whaling Commission (IWC). (2011a). Report
of the Scientific Committee, Annex E and F. Report
of the Sub-Committee on Bowhead, Right and Gray
Whales, Tromso, Norway.
IWC. (2011b). Report of the 2011 AWMP workshop with
a focus on eastern gray whales (Report SC/63/Rep.2).
Presented to the International Whaling Commission
Scientific Committee.
IWC. (2011c). Report of the Standing Working Group on the
Aboriginal Whaling Management Procedure (AWMP)
(Report of the Scientific Committee, Annex E). Journal
of the Cetacean Research and Management (Supp.), 143-
167.
Irvine, B., & Wells, R. S. (1972). Results of attempts to
tag Atlantic bottlenosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus).
Cetology, 13, 1-5.
Irvine, A. B., Scott, M. D., Wells, R. S., & Kaufmann, J. H.
(1981). Movements and activities of the Atlantic bottle-
nose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, near Sarasota, Florida.
Fishery Bulletin, 79(4), 671-688.
Irvine, L., Mate, B., Winsor, M., Palacios, D. M., Bograd,
S. J., Costa, D. P., & Bailey, H. (2014). Spatial and
temporal occurrence of blue whales off the U.S. West
Coast, with implications for management. PLOS ONE,
9(7). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102959
Irwin, L. J., & Würsig, B. (2004). A small resident com-
munity of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in
Texas: Monitoring recommendations. Gulf of Mexico
Science.
Ivashchenko, Y. V., & Clapham, P. (2010). Bowhead
whales Balaena mysticetus in the Okhotsk Sea. Mammal
Review, 40(1), 65-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2907.2009.00152.x
Ivashchenko, Y. V., & Clapham, P. J. (2012). Soviet catches
of bowhead (Balaena mysticetus) and right whales
(Eubalaena japonica) in the North Pacific and Okhotsk
Sea. Endangered Species Research, 18, 201-217. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3354/esr00443
Ivashchenko, Y. V., Brownell, R. L., Jr., & Clapham, P. J.
(2013). Soviet whaling in the North Pacific: Revised
catch totals. Journal of Cetacean Research Management,
13, 59-71.
Jefferson, T. A., & Schiro, A. J. (1997). Distribution of ceta-
ceans in the offshore Gulf of Mexico. Mammal Review,
27(1), 27-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1997.
tb00371.x
Johnston, D. W., Chapla, M. E., Williams, L. E., &
Mattila, D. K. (2007). Identification of humpback
whale Megaptera novaeangliae wintering habitat in the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands using spatial habitat
modeling. Endangered Species Research, 3, 249-257.
Jonsgård, A., & Darling, K. (1977). On the biology of
the Eastern North Atlantic sei whale, Balaenoptera
Literature Cited 117
borealis Lesson. Reports of the International Whaling
Commission, Special Issue 1, 124-129.
Kaschner, K., Quick, N. J., Jewell, R., Williams, R., &
Harris, C. M. (2012). Global coverage of cetacean
line-transect surveys: Status quo, data gaps and future
challenges. PLOS ONE, 7(9), e44075. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044075
Katona, S. K., & Beard, J. A. (1990). Population size,
migrations and feeding aggregations of the humpback
whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the western North
Atlantic Ocean. Reports of the International Whaling
Commission, Special Issue 12, 295-305.
Keiper, C., Calambokidis, J., Ford, G., Casey, J., Miller, C.,
& Kieckhefer, T. R. (2011). Risk assessment of vessel
traffic on endangered blue and humpback whales in
the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National
Marine Sanctuaries. Bolinas, CA: Oikonos.
Keller, C. A., Garrison, L., Baumstark, R., Ward-Geiger, L. I.,
& Hines, E. (2012). Application of a habitat model to define
calving habitat of the North Atlantic right whale in the
southeastern United States. Endangered Species Research,
18(1), 73-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/esr00413
Keller, C. A., Ward-Geiger, L. I., Brooks, W. B., Slay, C. K.,
Taylor, C. R., & Zoodsma, B. J. (2006). North Atlantic
right whale distribution in relation to sea-surface temper-
ature in the southeastern United States calving grounds.
Marine Mammal Science, 22(2), 426-445. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2006.00033.x
Kennedy, A. S., Salden D. R., & Clapham P. J. (2011). First
high- to low-latitude match of an eastern North Pacific
right whale (Eubalaena japonica). Marine Mammal
Science, 28(4), E539-E544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1748-7692.2011.00539.x
Kennedy, A. S., Zerbini, A. N., Rone, B. K., & Clapham,
P. J. (2014). Individual variation in movements of hump-
back whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) satellite-tracked
in the eastern Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea during
summer. Endangered Species Research, 23, 187-195.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/esr00570
Kenney, R. D., & Winn, H. E. (1986). Cetacean high-use
habitats of the northeast United States continental shelf.
Fishery Bulletin, 84(2), 345-357.
Kenney, R. D., Mayo, C. A., & Winn, H. E. (2001).
Migration and foraging strategies at varying spatial
scales in western North Atlantic right whales: A review
of hypotheses. Journal of Cetacean Research and
Management, 2, 251-260.
Kenney, R. D., Winn, H. E., & Macaulay, M. C. (1995). Cetaceans
in the Great South Channel, 1979-1989: Right whale
(Eubalaena glacialis). Continental Shelf Research, 15(4-5),
385-414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0278-4343(94)00053-P
Kenney, R. D., Payne, P. M., Heinemann, D. W., & Winn,
H. E. (1996). Shifts in Northeast Shelf cetacean distribu-
tions relative to trends in Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank
finfish abundance. In K. Sherman, N. A. Jaworski, &
T. J. Smayda (Eds.), The Northeast Shelf ecosystem:
Assessment, sustainability, and management (pp. 169-
196). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science.
Kenney, R. D., Hyman, M. A. M., Owen, R. E., Scott,
G. P., & Winn, H. E. (1986). Estimation of prey den-
sities required by western North Atlantic right whales.
Marine Mammal Science, 2(1), 1-13. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1986.tb00024.x
Knowlton, A. R., Kraus, S. D., & Kenney, R. D. (1994).
Reproduction in North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena
glacialis). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 72(7), 1297-
1305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z94-173
Knowlton, A. R., Ring, J. B., & Russell, B. (2002). Right
whale sightings and survey effort in the Mid Atlantic
Region: Migratory corridor, time frame, and proximity
to port entrances. A report submitted to the NMFS Ship
Strike Working Group.
Koski, W. R., Davis, R. A., Miller, G. W., & Withrow, D. E.
(1993). Reproduction. In J. J. Burns, J. J. Montague,
& C. J. Cowles (Eds.), The bowhead whale (Special
Publication Number 2, pp. 409-489). Lawrence, KS:
The Society for Marine Mammalogy.
Kot, C. Y., Fujioka, E., Hazen, L. J., Best, B., Read, A. J.,
& Halpin, P. N. (2010). Spatio-temporal gap analy-
sis of OBIS-SEAMAP project data: Assessment and
way forward. PLOS ONE, 5(9), e12990. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012990
Kraus, S. D., Prescott, J. H., & Stone, G. S. (1983).
Harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, in the U.S.
coastal waters of the Gulf of Maine: A survey to deter-
mine seasonal distribution and abundance. Report to the
Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast
Region, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. 15 pp.
Krupnik, I. I., Bogoslovskaya, L. S., & Votrogov, L. M.
(1983). Gray whaling off the Chukotka Peninsula: Past
and present status. Reports of the International Whaling
Commission, 33, 557-562.
Laake, J. L., Punt, A. E., Hobbs, R., Ferguson, M., Rugh,
D., & Breiwick, J. (2012). Gray whale southbound
migration surveys 1967-2006: An integrated re-analysis.
Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 12(3),
287-306.
LaBrecque, E., Curtice, C., Harrison, J., Van Parijs, S. M., &
Halpin, P. N. (2015). 3. Biologically Important Areas for
cetaceans within U.S. waters – Gulf of Mexico region.
In S. M. Van Parijs, C. Curtice, & M. C. Ferguson (Eds.),
Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans within U.S.
waters (pp. 30-38). Aquatic Mammals (Special Issue),
41(1). 128 pp.
Laidre, K. L., Shelden, K. E., Rugh, D. J., & Mahoney, B.
(2000). Beluga, Delphinapterus leucas, distribution and
survey effort in the Gulf of Alaska. Marine Fisheries
Review, 62(3), 27-36.
Laidre, K. L., Stirling, I., Lowry, L. F., Wiig, Ø., Heide-
Jørgensen, M. P., & Ferguson, S. H. (2008). Quantifying
the sensitivity of arctic marine mammals to climate-
induced habitat change. Ecological Applications, 18(2)
Supp., S97-S125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/06-0546.1
Lammers, M. O., Fisher-Pool, P. I., Au, W. L. L., Meyer,
C. G., Wong, K. B., & Brainard, R. E. (2011). Humpback
whale Megaptera novaeangliae song reveals wintering
118 Literature Cited
activity in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Marine
Ecological Progress Series, 423, 261-268. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3354/meps08959
Lang, A. R. (2010). The population genetics of gray whales
(Eschrichtius robustus) in the North Pacific (Ph.D. dis-
sertation). University of California, San Diego.
Lang, A. R., Weller, D. W., LeDuc, R. G., Burdin, A. M.,
& Brownell, R. L., Jr. (2010). Genetic differentiation
between western and eastern (Eschrichtius robustus) gray
whale populations using microsatellite markers (Paper
SC/62/BRG11). Presented to the International Whaling
Commission Scientific Committee (Unpublished).
Lang, A. R., Calambokidis, J., Scordino, J., Pease, V. L.,
Klimek, A., Burkanov, V. N., . . . Taylor, B. L. (2014).
Assessment of genetic structure among eastern North
Pacific gray whales on their feeding grounds. Marine
Mammal Science, 30(4), 1473-1493. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/mms.12129
Lang, A. R., Taylor, B. L., Calambokidis, J. C., Pease,
V. L., Klimek, A., Scordino, J., . . . Mate, B. (2011a).
Assessment of stock structure among gray whales uti-
lizing feeding grounds in the Eastern North Pacific
(Report of the International Whaling Commission SC/
M11/ AWMP4).
Lang, A. R., Weller, D. W., LeDuc, R., Burdin, A. M.,
Pease, V. L., Litovka, D., . . . Brownell, R. L., Jr. (2011b).
Genetic analysis of stock structure and movements of
gray whales in the eastern and western North Pacific
(Paper SC/63/BRG10). Presented to the International
Whaling Commission Scientific Committee.
LeDuc, R. G. (2004). Report of the results of the 2002
survey for North Pacific right whales (NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-357). Washington, DC:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
LeDuc, R. G., Perryman, W. L., Gilpatrick, J. W., Jr., Hyde,
J., Stinchcomb, C., Carretta, J. V., & Brownell, R. L., Jr.
(2001). A note on recent surveys for right whales in the
southeastern Bering Sea. Journal of Cetacean Research
and Management, Special Issue 2, 287-289.
LeDuc, R. G., Weller, D. W., Hyde, J., Burdin, A. M.,
Rosel, P. E., Brownell, R. L., Jr., . . . Dizon, A. E. (2002).
Genetic differences between western and eastern gray
whales (Eschrichtius robustus). Journal of Cetacean
Research and Management, 4(1), 1-5.
Litz, J. A. (2007). Social structure, genetic structure, and
persistent organohalogen pollutants in bottlenose dol-
phins (Tursiops truncatus) in Biscayne Bay, Florida
(Doctoral dissertation). University of Miami, Florida.
Retrieved 5 January 2015 from scholarlyrepository.
miami.edu/dissertations/2548.
Litz, J. A., Hughes, C. R., Garrison, L. P., Fieber, L. A., &
Rosel, P. E. (2012). Genetic structure of common bottle-
nose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) inhabiting adjacent
South Florida estuaries—Biscayne Bay and Florida Bay.
Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 12(1),
107-117.
Ljungblad, D. K. (1986). Endangered whale aerial surveys in
the Navarin Basin and St. Matthew Hall Planning Areas,
Alaska. In D. K. Ljungblad, S. E. Moore, J. T. Clarke, &
J. C. Bennett (Eds.), Aerial surveys of endangered whales
in the northern Bering, eastern Chukchi, and Alaskan
Beaufort seas, 1985: With a seven year review, 1979-
1985 (Naval Ocean Systems Center Technical Report
1111, Appendix E, pp. E-1–E-50).
Ljungblad, D. K., Moore, S. E., Clarke, J. T., & Bennett,
J C. (1986). Aerial surveys of endangered whales in the
northern Bering, eastern Chukchi, and Alaskan Beaufort
seas, 1985: With a seven-year review, 1979-1985 (Naval
Ocean Systems Center Technical Report 1111).
Ljungblad, D. K., Moore, S. E., Clarke, J. T., & Bennett,
J. C. (1988). Distribution, abundance, behavior and bio-
acoustics of endangered whales in the western Beaufort
and northeastern Chukchi Seas, 1979-87 (Naval Ocean
Systems Center Technical Report 1232).
Ljungblad, D. K., Moore, S. E., Clarke, J. T., Van Schoik,
D. R., & Bennett, J. C. (1985). Aerial surveys of endan-
gered whales in the northern Bering, eastern Chukchi,
and Alaskan Beaufort seas, 1984: With a six-year review,
1979-84. Naval Ocean Systems Center Technical Report
1046.
Lohoefener, R., Hoggard, W., Ford, R., & Benigo, J.
(1990). Studies of Mississippi Sound bottlenose dol-
phins: Assessing the effects of the removal of 30 bottle-
nose dolphins from Mississippi Sound (Part 1 of the
Final report to the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission
No. MM2910909-2). Pascagoula, MS: National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Lowry, L. F. (1993). Foods and feeding ecology In J. J.
Burns, J. J. Montague, & C. J. Cowles (Eds.), The
bowhead whale (Special Publication Number 2, pp.
409-489). Lawrence, KS: The Society for Marine
Mammalogy.
Lowry, L. F., Sheffield, G., & George, J. C. (2004).
Bowhead whale feeding in the Alaskan Beaufort
Sea, based on stomach contents analyses. Journal of
Cetacean Research and Management, 6(3), 215-223.
Lowry, L. F., Frost, K., Zerbini, A., DeMaster, D., &
Reeves, R. (2008). Trend in aerial counts of beluga
or white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in Bristol
Bay, 1993-2005. Journal of Cetacean Research and
Management, 10, 201-207.
Lynn, S. K., & Würsig, B. (2002). Summer movement
patterns of bottlenose dolphins in a Texas bay. Gulf of
Mexico Science, 20(1), 25-37.
Mackey, A. D. (2010). Site fidelity and association pat-
terns of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in
the Mississippi Sound (Master’s thesis). University of
Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg.
Mackintosh, N. A. (1946). The natural history of whale-
bone whales. Biological Reviews, 21(2), 60-74. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1946.tb00453.x
Mahaffy, S. D. (2012). Site fidelity, associations and long-
term bonds of short-finned pilot whales off the island of
Hawai‘i (Master of Science dissertation). Portland State
University, Portland, OR.
Literature Cited 119
Mahaffy, S. D., Baird, R. W., McSweeney, D. J., Webster,
D. L., & Schorr, G. S. (2009). Individual photo-identifi-
cation of dwarf sperm whales off the island of Hawai‘i;
Evidence of site fidelity and a small population size.
18th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine
Mammals, Quebec City, Quebec.
Mahaffy, S. D., Baird, R. W., Cullins, T., Schorr, G. S.,
Webster, D. L., & McSweeney, D. J. (2013). A small res-
ident social group of pygmy killer whales off the island
of O‘ahu: Photo-identification and satellite tagging
reveal differences in social patterns of this species in the
Hawaiian archipelago. 20th Biennial Conference on the
Biology of Marine Mammals, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Mahoney, A. R. (2012). Sea ice conditions in the Chukchi
and Beaufort Seas. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable
Trusts, U.S. Arctic Program.
Mahoney, B. A., & Shelden, K. E. W. (2000). Harvest his-
tory of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet,
Alaska. Marine Fisheries Review, 62(3), 124-140.
Malik, S., Brown, M. W., Kraus, S. D., Knowlton, A. R.,
Hamilton, P. K., & White, B. N. (1999). Assessment
of mitochondrial DNA structuring and nursery use in
the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis).
Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77(8), 1217-1222. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1139/z99-073
Martien, K. K., Baird, R. W., Hedrick, N. M., Gorgone,
A. M., Thieleking, J. L., McSweeney, D. J., . . . Webster,
D. L. (2011). Population structure of island-associated
dolphins: Evidence from mitochondrial and micro-
satellite markers for common bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus) around the main Hawaiian Islands.
Marine Mammal Science, 28, E208-E232. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2011.00506.x
Martien, K. K., Chivers, S. J., Baird, R. W., Archer, F. I.,
Gorgone, A. M., Hancock-Hanser, B. L., . . . Taylor,
B. L. (2014). Nuclear and mitochondrial patterns of
population structure in North Pacific false killer whales
(Pseudorca crassidens). Journal of Heredity, 105, 611-
626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esu029
Mate, B., & Urbán-Ramirez, J. (2003). A note on the route
and speed of a gray whale on its northern migration
from Mexico to central California, tracked by satellite-
monitored radio tag. Journal of Cetacean Research
Management, 5, 155-157.
Mate, B. R., Gisiner, R., & Mobley, J. (1998). Local and
migratory movements of Hawaiian humpback whales
tracked by satellite telemetry. Canadian Journal of
Zoology, 76, 863-868. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z98-008
Mate, B. R., Sharon L. Nieukirk, & Kraus, S. D. (1997).
Satellite-monitored movements of the northern right
whale. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 61(4),
1393-1405. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3802143
Mate, B., Bradford, A. L., Tsidulko, G., Vertyankin, V., &
Ilyashenko, V. (2011). Late-feeding season movements
of a western North Pacific gray whale off Sakhalin
Island, Russia and subsequent migration into the
Eastern North Pacific (Paper SC/63/BRG23). Presented
to the International Whaling Commission Scientific
Committee.
Matsuoka, K., Mizroch, S., & Komiya, H. (2012). Cruise
report of the 2011 IWC-Pacific Ocean Whale and
Ecosystem Research (IWC-POWER) (International
Whaling Commission Scientific Committee Report
SC/64/IA5).
Mattila, D. K., Guinee, L. N., & Mayo, C. A. (1987).
Humpback whale songs on a North Atlantic feeding
ground. Journal of Mammalogy, 68(4), 880-883. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2307/1381574
Mattila, D. K., Clapham, P. J., Katona, S. K., & Stone,
G. S. (1989). Population composition of humpback
whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, on Silver Bank, 1984.
Canadian Journal of Zoology, 67(2), 281-285. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1139/z89-041
Mattila, D. K., Clapham, P. J., Vásquez, O., & Bowman,
R. S. (1994). Occurrence, population composition,
and habitat use of humpback whales in Samana Bay,
Dominican Republic. Canadian Journal of Zoology,
72(11), 1898-1907. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z94-258
Maze, K. S., & Würsig, B. (1999). Bottlenosed dolphins of
San Luis Pass, Texas: Occurrence patterns, site-fidelity,
and habitat use. Aquatic Mammals, 25(2), 91-103.
Maze-Foley, K., & Mullin, K. D. (2006). Cetaceans of the
oceanic northern Gulf of Mexico: Distributions, group
sizes and interspecific associations. Journal of Cetacean
Research and Management, 8(2), 203-213.
Mazzoil, M. S., McCulloch, S. D., & Defran, R. H. (2005).
Observations on the site fidelity of bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus) in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida.
Florida Scientist, 68(4), 217.
Mazzoil, M. S., McCulloch, S. D., Youngbluth, M. J.,
Kilpatrick, D. S., Murdoch, M. E., Mase-Guthrie, B.,
. . . Bossart, G. D. (2008a). Radio-tracking and survivor-
ship of two rehabilitated bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops
truncatus) in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida. Aquatic
Mammals, 34(1), 54-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1578/AM.
34.1.2008.54
Mazzoil, M. S., Reif, J., Youngbluth, M., Murdoch, M.,
Bechdel, S., Howells, E., . . . Bossart, G. D. (2008b). Home
ranges of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the
Indian River Lagoon, Florida: Environmental correlates and
implications for management strategies. EcoHealth, 5(3),
278-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10393-008-0194-9
McGuire, T. L., Blees, M. K., & Bourdon, M. L. (2011).
The development of a catalog of left-side digital images
of individually-identified Cook Inlet beluga whales
Delphinapterus leucas (North Pacific Research Board
Final Report 910).
McLellan, W. A., Meagher, E., Torres, L., Lovewell, G.,
Harper, C., Irish, K., . . . Pabst, A. D. (2004, December).
Winter right whale sightings from aerial surveys of the
coastal waters of the U.S. mid-Atlantic. Proceedings of
the Fifteenth Biennial Conference on the Biology of
Marine Mammals, Greensboro, NC.
McSweeney, D. J., Baird, R. W., & Mahaffy, S. D. (2007).
Site fidelity, associations and movements of Cuvier’s
120 Literature Cited
(Ziphius cavirostris) and Blainville’s (Mesoplodon
densirostris) beaked whales off the island of Hawai‘i.
Marine Mammal Science, 23, 666-687. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2007.00135.x
McSweeney, D. J., Baird, R. W., Mahaffy, S. D., Webster,
D. L., & Schorr, G. S. (2009). Site fidelity and asso-
ciation patterns of a rare species: Pygmy killer whales
(Feresa attenuata) in the main Hawaiian Islands.
Marine Mammal Science, 25, 557-572. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2008.00267.x
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. Reports of the International
Whaling Commission, Special Issue 1, 113-116.
Mead, J. G., & Potter, C. W. (1995). Recognizing two popu-
lations of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)
off the Atlantic coast of North America – Morphologic
and ecologic considerations (International Marine
Biology Research Institute, IRB Reports, [5], pp. 31-44).
Retrieved 3 February 2015 from si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/
handle/10088/4735.
Mellinger, D. K., Stafford, K. M., Moore, S. E., Munger,
L., & Fox, C. G. (2004). Detection of North Pacific right
whale (Eubalaena japonica) calls in the Gulf of Alaska.
Marine Mammal Science, 20(4), 872-887. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004.tb01198.x
Miller, C. E. (2003). Abundance trends and environmental
habitat usage patterns of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops
truncatus) in lower Barataria and Caminada bays,
Louisiana (Doctoral dissertation). Louisiana State
University and Agricultural & Mechanical College,
Baton Rouge. Retrieved 3 February 2015 from http://
etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-1113103-134239/
unrestricted/Miller_dis.pdf.
Miller, L. J., Mackey, A. D., Solangi, M., & Kuczaj II, S. A.
(2013). Population abundance and habitat utilization of
bottlenose dolphins in the Mississippi Sound. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 23(1),
145-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2278
Mitchell, E. (1975). Preliminary report on Nova Scotia
fishery for sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis). Reports
of the International Whaling Commission, 25, 218-225.
Mitchell, E. D. (1991). Winter records of the minke whale
(Balaenoptera acutorostrata Lacepede 1804) in the
southern North Atlantic. Reports of the International
Whaling Commission, 41, 455-457.
Mizroch, S. A., Rice, D. W., & Breiwick, J. M. (1984a).
The fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus. Marine Fisheries
Review, 46(4), 20-24.
Mizroch, S. A., Rice, D. W., & Breiwick, J. M. (1984b).
The sei whale, Balaenoptera borealis. Marine Fisheries
Review, 46(4), 25-29.
Mizroch, S. A., Rice, D.W., Zwiefelhofer, D., Waite, J., &
Perryman,W. L. (2009). Distribution and movements
of fin whales in the North Pacific Ocean. Mammalian
Review, 39, 193-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2907.2009.00147.x
Mobley, J. R., Jr., Bauer, G. B., & Herman, L. M. (1999).
Changes over a ten-year interval in the distribution and
relative abundance of humpback whales (Megaptera
novaeangliae) wintering in Hawaiian waters. Aquatic
Mammals, 25(2), 63-72.
Mobley, J. R., Jr., Spitz, S., & Grotefendt, R. (2001).
Abundance of humpback whales in Hawaiian waters:
Results of 1993-2000 aerial surveys. Report prepared
for the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National
Marine Sanctuary.
Mobley, J. R., Jr., Spitz, S. S ., Forney, K. A., Grotefendt,
R. A., & Forestell, P. H. (2000). Distribution and
abundance of odontocete species in Hawaiian waters:
Preliminary results of 1993-98 aerial surveys (National
Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science
Center Administrative Report LJ-00-14C). Washington,
DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Mocklin, J. A., Rugh, D. J., Moore, S. E., & Angliss, R. P.
(2011). Using aerial photography to investigate evi-
dence of feeding by bowhead whales. Marine Mammal
Science, 28(3), 602-619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-
7692.2011.00518.x
Mocklin, J. A., George, J. C., Ferguson, M. C., Vate
Brattström, L., Beaver, V., Rone, B., . . . Accardo, C.
(2012). Aerial photography of bowhead whales near
Barrow, Alaska, during the 2011 spring migration.
Report prepared for the North Slope Borough by the
Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine
Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Seattle, WA.
Moore, J. E., & Barlow, J. (2011). Bayesian state-space
model of fin whale abundance trends from a 1991-2008
time series of line-transect surveys in the California
Current. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, 1195-1205.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02018.x
Moore, S. E. (1992). Summer records of bowhead whales
in the northeastern Chukchi Sea. Arctic, 45(4), 398-400.
http://dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic1419
Moore, S. E., & Reeves, R. R. (1993). Distribution and
movement. In J. J. Burns, J. J. Montague, & C. J.
Cowles (Eds.), The bowhead whale (Special Publication
Number 2, pp. 409-489). Lawrence, KS: The Society for
Marine Mammalogy.
Moore, S. E., Clarke, J. T., & Johnson, M. M. (1993).
Beluga distribution and movements offshore northern
Alaska in spring and summer, 1980-1984. Reports of the
International Whaling Commission, 43, 375-386.
Moore, S. E., Grebmeier, J. M., & Davies, J. R. (2003).
Gray whale distribution relative to forage habitat in the
northern Bering Sea: Current conditions and retrospec-
tive summary. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 81, 734-
742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z03-043
Moore, S. E., Ljungblad, D. K., & Van Schoik, D. R.
(1986). Annual patterns of gray whale (Eschrichtius
robustus) distribution, abundance and behavior in the
northern Bering and eastern Chukchi Seas, July 1980-
83. Reports of the International Whaling Commission,
Special Issue 8, 231-242.
Literature Cited 121
Moore, S. E., Stafford, K. M., & Munger, L. M. (2010a).
Acoustic and visual surveys for bowhead whales in the
western Beaufort and far northeastern Chukchi seas.
Deep-Sea Research Part II, 57, 153-157. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2009.08.013
Moore, S. E., Stafford, K. M., Mellinger, K. D., & Hildebrand,
J. A. (2006). Listening for large whales in the offshore
waters of Alaska. BioScience, 56(1), 49-55. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0049:LFLWI
T]2.0.CO;2
Moore, S. E., Waite, J. M., Friday, N. A., & Honkalehto, T.
(2002). Cetacean distribution and relative abundance on
the central-eastern and the southeastern Bering Sea shelf
with reference to oceanographic domains. Progress
Oceanography, 55, 249-261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0079-6611(02)00082-4
Moore, S. E., Wynne, K. M., Kinney, J. C., & Grebmeier,
J. M. (2007). Gray whale occurrence and forage south-
east of Kodiak Island, Alaska. Marine Mammal Science,
23(2), 419-428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.
2007.00102.x
Moore, S. E., George, J. C., Sheffield, G., Bacon, J., & Ashjian,
C. J. (2010b). Bowhead whale distribution and feeding near
Barrow, Alaska, in late summer 2005-06. Arctic, 63(2),
195-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic974
Moore, S. E., Shelden, K. E. W., Litzky, L. K., Mahoney,
B. A., & Rugh, D. J. (2000). Beluga, Delphinapterus
leucas, habitat associations in Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Marine Fisheries Review, 62(3), 60-80.
Moore, S. E., Stafford, K. M., Melling, H., Berchok, C.,
Wiig, O., Kovacs, K. M., . . . Richter-Menge, J. (2012).
Comparing marine mammal acoustic habitats in Atlantic
and Pacific sectors of the High Arctic: Year-long records
from Fram Strait and the Chukchi Plateau. Polar
Biology, 35, 475-480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00300-
011-1086-y
Moran, J., Straley, J., Rice, S., Heintz, R., Quinn II, T. J.,
& Teerlink, S. (2011). Late-season abundance and sea-
sonal trends of humpback whales on three important
wintering grounds for Pacific herring in the Gulf of
Alaska. Poster presented at the 19th Biennial Conference
of The Society for Marine Mammalogy, Tampa, FL.
Morano, J. L., Salisbury, D. P., Rice, A. N., Conklin, K. L.,
Falk, K. L., & Clark, C. W. (2012). Seasonal and geo-
graphical patterns of fin whale song in the western
North Atlantic Ocean. The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 132(2), 1207-1212. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1121/1.4730890
Mullin, K. D., & Fulling, G. L. (2004). Abundance of ceta-
ceans in the oceanic northern Gulf of Mexico, 1996-
2001. Marine Mammal Science, 20(4), 787-807. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004.tb01193.x
Munger, L. M., Wiggins, S. M., Moore, S. E., & Hildebrand,
J. A. (2008). North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena
japonica) seasonal and diel calling patterns from long-
term acoustic recordings in the southeastern Bering Sea,
2000-2006. Marine Mammal Science, 24(4), 795-814.
Murphy, M. A. (1995). Occurrence and group character-
istics of minke whales, Balaenoptera acutorostrata, in
Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay. Fishery Bulletin,
93(3), 577-585.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (1998).
Recovery plan for the blue whale (Balaenoptera
musculus) (R. R. Reeves, P. J. Clapham, R. L. Brownell,
& G. K. Silber, Eds.). Silver Spring, MD: NMFS.
NMFS. (2010). Recovery plan for the fin whale
(Balaenoptera physalus). Silver Spring, MD: NMFS.
National Research Council (NRC). (2005). Marine mammal
populations and ocean noise. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Nemoto, T. (1959). Food of baleen whales with reference
to whale movements. Scientific Reports of the Whale
Research Institute, 14, 149-290.
Nemoto, T., & Kawamura, A. (1977). Characteristics of
food habits and distribution of baleen whales with spe-
cial reference to the abundance of North Pacific sei and
Bryde’s whales. Reports of the International Whaling
Institution, Special Issue 1, 80-87.
Nerini, M. (1984). A review of gray whale feeding ecology.
In M. L. Jones, S. L. Swartz, & S. Leatherwood (Eds.),
The gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus (pp. 423-450).
New York: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-08-092372-7.50024-8
New, L. F., Clark, J. S., Costa, D. P., Fleishman, E., Hindell,
M. A., Klanjšek, T., . . . Harwood, J. (2014). Using short-
term measures of behaviour to estimate long-term fit-
ness of southern elephant seals. “Tracking fitness in
marine vertebrates” Theme Section. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 469, 99-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/
meps10547
Newhall, A. E., Lin, Y-T., Lynch, J. F., Baumgartner, M. F.,
& Gawarkiewicz, G. G. (2012). Long distance passive
localization of vocalizing sei whales using an acoustic
normal mode approach. The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 131(2), 1814-1825. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1121/1.3666015
Nilsson, P., Cummings, E., Foley, H., Hardee, R., McAlarney,
R., McLellan, W. A., . . . Read, A. J. (2011, November).
Recent winter sightings of minke whales (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata) in the South Atlantic Bight. Proceedings
of the Nineteenth Biennial Conference on the Biology of
Marine Mammals, Tampa, FL.
Noongwook, G., the Native village of Savoonga, the Native
village of Gambell, Huntington, H, P., & George, J. C.
(2007). Traditional knowledge of the bowhead whale
(Balaena mysticetus) around St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.
Arctic, 60(1), 47-54.
O’Corry-Crowe, G. M., Dizon, A. E., Suydam, R. S., &
Lowry, L. F. (2002). Molecular genetics studies of pop-
ulation structure and movement patterns in a migratory
species: The beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas, in the
western neoarctic. In C. J. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Molecular and
cell biology of marine mammals (pp. 53-64). Malabar,
FL: Kreiger Publishing Company.
122 Literature Cited
O’Corry-Crowe, G., Lucey, W., Castellote, M., & Stafford,
K. (2009). Abundance, habitat use and behavior of
beluga whales in Yakutat Bay, May 2008; as revealed
by passive acoustic monitoring, visual observations and
photo-ID. Final Report to the National Marine Fisheries
Service’s Alaska Regional Office.
O’Corry-Crowe, G., Lucey, W., Bonin, C., Henniger, E., &
Hobbs, R. (2006). The ecology, status, and stock identity
of beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas, in Yakutat Bay,
Alaska. Report to the Marine Mammal Commission.
O’Corry-Crowe, G. M., Suydam, R. S., Rosenberg, A., Frost,
K. J., & Dizon, A. E. (1997). Phylogeography, popula-
tion structure and dispersal patterns of the beluga whale
Delphinapterus leucas in the western Nearctic revealed by
mitochondrial DNA. Molecular Ecology, 6(10), 955-970.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.1997.00267.x
Oceana & Kawerak, Inc. (2014). Bering Strait marine
life and subsistence use data synthesis. Juneau, AK:
Oceana and Kawerak, Inc. Retrieved 3 February 2015
from https://www.google.com/url?q=http://oceana.org/
sites/default/files/reports/REDUCED%2520FILE_
Final%2520PDF_Bering%2520Strait%2520Synthesis_
July%252030,%25202014%2520-%2520Copy.
pdf&sa=U&ei=u-V5VPS1PIPUoATsvILoBQ&ved=
0CAYQFjAB&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=
AFQjCNGEbvZqn01HzMWAdTn-OxcbIIAkOg.
Odell, D. K., & Asper, E. D. (1990). Distribution and
movements of freeze-branded bottlenose dolphins in the
Indian and Banana Rivers, Florida. In S. Leatherwood
& R. R. Reeves (Eds.), The bottlenose dolphin (pp.
515-540). San Diego: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/B978-0-12-440280-5.50034-2
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. (2010). Hawaiian
Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary
condition report, 2010. Silver Spring, MD: U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries. 63 pp.
Oleson, E. M., Baird, R. W., Martien, K. K., & Taylor, B. L.
(2013). Island-associated stocks of odontocetes in the
main Hawaiian Islands: A synthesis of available infor-
mation to facilitate evaluation of stock structure (PIFSC
Working Paper WP-13-003).
Oleson, E. M., Calambokidis, J., Falcone, E., Schorr, G.,
& Hildebrand, J. A. (2009). Acoustic and visual moni-
toring of cetaceans along the outer Washington coast
(Report NPS-OC-09-001). Monterey, CA: Naval Post-
Graduate School.
Oleson, E. M., Boggs, C. H., Forney, K. A., Hanson, M. B.,
Kobayashi, D. R., Taylor, B. L., . . . Ylitalo, G. M. (2010).
Status review of Hawaiian insular false killer whales
(Pseudorca crassidens) under the Endangered Species
Act (NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-
NMFS-PIFSC-22). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Commerce.
Pabody, C. (2008). Occurrence, distribution and behavioral
patterns of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in
Wolf Bay, AL (Master’s thesis). University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa.
Pacific Wildlife Foundation [PWLF]. (2013). Important
cetacean areas – A primer. Retrieved 3 February 2015
from www.pwlf.org/ica.
Palka, D. (1995). Abundance estimate of the Gulf of Maine
harbor porpoise. Reports of the International Whaling
Commission, 16, 27-50.
Palka, D. (2000). Abundance of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of
Fundy harbor porpoise based on shipboard and aerial
surveys during 1999 (Northeast Fisheries Science
Center Reference Document 00-7).
Palka, D. (2012). A comprehensive assessment of marine
mammal, marine turtle, and seabird abundance and
spatial distribution in U.S. waters of the western North
Atlantic Ocean (2011 Annual Report to the Inter-Agency
Agreement M10PG00075/0001).
Pauly, D., Trites, A. W., Capuli, E., & Christensen, V.
(1998). Diet composition and trophic levels of marine
mammals. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal
Du Conseil, 55(3), 467-481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/
jmsc.1997.0280
Payne, P. M., Nicolas, J. R., O’Brien, L., & Powers,
K. D. (1986). The distribution of the humpback whale,
Megaptera novaeangliae, on Georges Bank and in the
Gulf of Maine in relation to densities of the sand eel,
Ammodytes americanus. Fishery Bulletin, 84(2), 271-
278.
Payne, P. M., Wiley, D. N., Young, S. B., Pittman, S.,
Clapham, P. J., & Jossi, J. W. (1990). Recent fluctuations
in the abundance of baleen whales in the southern Gulf
of Maine in relation to changes in selected prey. Fishery
Bulletin, 88(4), 687-696.
Perry, S. L., DeMaster, D. P., & Silber, G. K. (1999a). The
fin whale. Marine Fisheries Review, 61(1), 44-51.
Perry, S. L., DeMaster, D. P., & Silber, G. K. (1999b).
The humpback whale. Marine Fisheries Review, 61(1),
24-37.
Perryman, W. L., & Lynn, M. S. (2002). Evaluation of
nutritive condition and reproductive status of migrating
gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) based on analysis
of photogrammetric data. Journal of Cetacean Research
and Management, 4(2), 155-164.
Pike, G. C. (1962). Migration and feeding of the gray
whale (Eschrichtius gibbosus). Journal of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada, 19, 815-838. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1139/f62-051
Pittman, S., Costa, B., Kot, C., Wiley, D., & Kenney, R. D.
(2006). Cetacean distribution and diversity. In T. Battista,
R. Clark, & S. Pittman (Eds.), An ecological characteriza-
tion of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
Region: Oceanographic, biogeographic, and contaminants
assessment (NOAA Technical Memorandum NCCOS, 45,
pp. 265-326). Silver Spring, MD: National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science.
Pulster, E. L., & Maruya, K. A. (2008). Geographic specificity
of Aroclor 1268 in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)
frequenting the Turtle/Brunswick River Estuary, Georgia
Literature Cited 123
(USA). Science of the Total Environment, 393(2-3), 367-
375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.12.031
Quakenbush, L. (2003). Summer movements of beluga
whales captured in the Kvichak River in May 2002 and
2003 (Alaska Beluga Whale Committee Report 03-03,
15).
Quakenbush, L., & Citta, J. (2006). Fall movements of
beluga whales captured in the Nushagak River, in
September 2006 (Alaska Beluga Whale Committee
Report, 9).
Quakenbush, L. T., Small, R. J., & Citta, J. J. (2010a).
Satellite tracking of western Arctic bowhead whales
(OCS Study BOEMRE 2010-033). Final Report pre-
pared by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation
and Enforcement.
Quakenbush, L. T., Small, R. J., & Citta, J. J. (2013).
Satellite tracking of bowhead whales: Movements and
analysis from 2006 to 2012 (Final Report to BOEM,
OCS Study BOEM 2013-01110). 72 pp.
Quakenbush, L. T., Citta, J. J., George, J. C., Small, R. J.,
& Heide-Jørgensen, M. P. (2010b). Fall and winter
movements of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus)
in the Chukchi Sea and within a potential petroleum
development area. Arctic, 63(3), 289-307. http://dx.doi.
org/10.14430/arctic1493
Quakenbush, L. T., Suydam, R. S., Bryan, A. L., Lowry,
L. F., Frost, K. J., & Mahoney, B. A. (In press). Diet of
beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in Alaska from
stomach contents, March-November. Marine Fisheries
Review.
Quakenbush, L., Citta, J., George, J. C., Heide-Jørgensen,
M. P., Small, R. J., Browers, H., . . . Pokiak, J. (2012).
Seasonal movements of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort
stock of bowhead whales: 2006-2011 satellite telem-
etry results (Paper SC/64/BRG1). Presented to the
International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee.
Quintana-Rizzo, E., & Wells, R. S. (2001). Resighting and
association patterns of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops
truncatus) in the Cedar Keys, Florida: Insights into
social organization. Canadian Journal of Zoology,
79(3), 447-456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjz-79-3-447;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z00-223
Ramakrishnan, U., LeDuc, R., Darling, J., Taylor, B. L.,
Gearin, P., Gosho, M., . . . Steeves, T. E. (2001). Are
the southern feeding group of eastern Pacific gray
whales a maternal genetic isolate? (Report SC/53/SD8).
Prepared for the International Whaling Commission.
(Unpublished)
Rasmussen, K., Calambokidis, J., & Steiger, G. H. (2011).
Distribution and migratory destinations of humpback
whales off the Pacific coast of Central America during
the boreal winters of 1996-2003. Marine Mammal
Science, 28(3), E267-E279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1748-7692.2011.00529.x
Read, A. J., & Hohn, A. A. (1995). Life in the fast lane: The
life history of harbor porpoises from the Gulf of Maine.
Marine Mammal Science, 11 (4), 423-440. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1995.tb00667.x
Read, A. J., Urian, K. W., Wilson, B., & Waples, D. M. (2003).
Abundance of bottlenose dolphins in the bays, sounds,
and estuaries of North Carolina. Marine Mammal Science,
19(1), 59-073. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2003.
tb01092.x
Reeves, R. R., Leatherwood, S., Karl, S. A., & Yohe, E. R.
(1985). Whaling results at Akutan (1912-39) and Port
Hobron (1926-37), Alaska. Reports of the International
Whaling Commission, 35, 441-457.
Reeves, R. R., Ewins, P. J., Agbayani, S., Heide-Jørgensen,
M. P., Kovacs, K. M., Lydersen, C., . . . Blijleven, R.
(2013). Distribution of endemic cetaceans in relation to
hydrocarbon development and commercial shipping in
a warming Arctic. Marine Policy, 44, 375-389. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.005
Rice, A. N., Palmer, K. J., Tielens, J. T., Muirhead,
C. A., & Clark, C. W. (2014). Potential Bryde’s whale
(Balaenoptera edeni) calls recorded in the north-
ern Gulf of Mexico. The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 135(5), 3066-3076. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1121/1.4870057
Rice, D. W. (1963). Progress report on biological studies
of the larger cetacea in the waters off California. Norsk
Hvalfangst-Tidende, 7, 181-187.
Rice, D. W. (1974). Whales and whale research in the
eastern North Pacific. In W. E. Schevill, D. G. Ray, &
K. S. Norris (Eds.), The whale problem (pp. 170-195).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. http://dx.
doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674367128.c9
Rice, D. W. (1998). Marine mammals of the world:
Systematics and distribution (The Society for Marine
Mammalogy Special Publication Number 4). Lawrence,
KS: Allen Press, Inc.
Rice, D. W., & Wolman, A. W. (1971). The life history
and ecology of the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus)
(American Society of Mammalogists, Special Publication
3). 142 pp.
Rice, D. W., Wolman, A. A., & Braham, H. W. (1984). The
gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus. Marine Fisheries
Review, 46(4), 7-14.
Rice, S. D., Moran, J. R., Straley, J. M., Boswell, K. M.,
& Heintz, R. A. (2011). Significance of whale predation
on natural mortality rate of Pacific herring in Prince
William Sound, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration
Project Final Report (Restoration Project: 100804).
Juneau, AK: National Marine Fisheries Service.
Richard, P. R., Martin, A. R., & Orr, J. R. (2001). Summer
and autumn movements of belugas of the eastern
Beaufort Sea stock. Arctic, 54(3), 223-236. http://dx.doi.
org/10.14430/arctic783
Richardson, W. J., & Thomson, D. H. (Eds.). (2002).
Bowhead whale feeding in the eastern Alaskan Beaufort
Sea: Update of scientific and traditional information
(OCS Study MMS 2002-012). Report prepared by LGL
Ltd., King City, Ontario, Canada.
124 Literature Cited
Risch, D., Clark, C. W., Dugan, P. J., Popescu, M., Siebert,
U., & Van Parijs, S. M. (2013). Minke whale acoustic
behavior and multi-year seasonal and diel vocaliza-
tion patterns in Massachusetts Bay, USA. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 489, 279-295. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3354/meps10426
Risch, D., Castellote, M., Clark, C. W., Davis, G. E., Dugan,
P. J., Hodge, L. E., . . . Van Parijs, S. M. (2014). Seasonal
migrations of North Atlantic minke whales: Novel
insights from large-scale passive acoustic monitoring
networks. Movement Ecology, 2(24), 17. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1186/s40462-014-0024-3
Robbins, J. (2007). Structure and dynamics of the Gulf of
Maine humpback whale population (Doctoral dissertation).
University of St. Andrews, Fife, UK. Retrieved 5 January
2015 from hdl.handle.net/10023/328.
Rone, B. K., Douglas, A. B., Zerbini, A. N., Morse, L.,
Martinez, A., Clapham, P. J., & Calambokidis, J. (2010).
Results from the April 2009 Gulf of Alaska Line Transect
Survey (GOALS) in the Navy training exercise area
(NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-209).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Rosel, P. E., & Wilcox, L. A. (2014). Genetic evidence
reveals a unique lineage of Bryde’s whales in the north-
ern Gulf of Mexico. Endangered Species Research,
25(1), 19-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/esr00606
Rosel, P. E., Hansen, L., & Hohn, A. A. (2009). Restricted
dispersal in a continuously distributed marine species:
Common bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus in
coastal waters of the western North Atlantic. Molecular
Ecology, 18(24), 5030-5045. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-294X.2009.04413.x
Rosel, P. E., France, S. C., Wang, J. Y., & Kocher, T. D. (1999).
Genetic structure of harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena
populations in the northwest Atlantic based on mitochon-
drial and nuclear markers. Molecular Ecology, 8, S41-S54.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.1999.00758.x
Rosenbaum, H. C., Brownell, R. L., Jr., Brown, M. W.,
Schaeff, C., Portway, V., White, B. N., . . . DeSalle, R.
(2000). World-wide genetic differentiation of Eubalaena:
Questioning the number of right whale species. Molecular
Ecology, 9, 1793-1802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
294x.2000.01066.x
Rugh, D. J. (1984). Census of gray whales at Unimak Pass,
Alaska: November-December 1977-1979. In M. L.
Jones, S. L. Swartz, & S. Leatherwood (Eds.), The gray
whale, Eschrichtius robustus (pp. 225-247). New York:
Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-
092372-7.50016-9
Rugh, D. J., Mahoney, B. A., & Smith, B. K. (2004).
Aerial surveys of beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska,
between June 2001 and June 2002 (NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-145). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Rugh, D. J., Shelden, K. E. W., & Hobbs, R. C. (2010).
Range contraction in a beluga whale population.
Endangered Species Research, 12, 69-75. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3354/esr00293
Rugh, D. J., Shelden, K. E., & Mahoney, B. (2000).
Distribution of beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska,
during June/July, 1993 to 1999. Marine Fisheries Review,
62(3), 6-21.
Rugh, D., Shelden, K. E. W., & Schulman-Janiger, A.
(2001). Timing of the gray whale southbound migration
(Eschrichtius robustus). Journal of Cetacean Research
and Management, 3, 31-39.
Rugh, D. J., Hobbs, R. C., Lerczak, J. A., & Breiwick, J. M.
(2005a). Estimates of abundance of the eastern North
Pacific stock of gray whales 1997-2002. Journal of
Cetacean Research and Management, 7(1), 1-12.
Rugh, D., DeMaster, D., Rooney, A., Breiwick, J., Shelden,
K., & Moore, S. (2003). A review of bowhead whale
(Balaena mysticetus) stock identity. Journal of Cetacean
Research and Management, 5(3), 267-279.
Rugh, D. J., Shelden, K. E. W., Sims, C. L., Mahoney,
B. A., Smith, B. K., Hoberecht, L. K., & Hobbs, R. C.
(2005b). Aerial surveys of belugas in Cook Inlet, Alaska,
June 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 (NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-149). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Rugh, D. J., Muto, M., Hobbs, R., Shelden, K., D’Vincent,
C., Laursen, I. M., . . . Nilson, S. (2006). Field report
of the 2006/07 census of the Eastern North Pacific
stock of gray whales (Paper SC/59/BRG1). Prepared
for the International Whaling Commission Scientific
Committee.
Sasaki, T., Nikaido, M., Wada, S., Yamada, T. K., Cao,
Y., Hasegawa, M., & Okada, N. (2006). Balaenoptera
omurai is a newly discovered baleen whale that rep-
resents an ancient evolutionary lineage. Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution, 41(1), 40-52. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2006.03.032
Schaeff, C. M., Kraus, S. D., Brown, M. W., & White, B. N.
(1993). Assessment of the population structure of west-
ern North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis)
based on sighting and mtDNA data. Canadian Journal
of Zoology, 71, 339-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z93-
047
Schick, R. S., Halpin, P. N., Read, A. J., Slay, C. K., Kraus,
S. D., Mate, B. R., . . . Clark, J. S. (2009). Striking the
right balance in right whale conservation. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 66(9), 1399-
1403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/F09-115
Schilling, M. R., Seipt, I., Weinrich, M. T., Frohock, S. E.,
Kuhlberg, A. E., & Clapham, P. J. (1992). Behavior of
individually-identified sei whales Balaenoptera borea-
lis during an episodic influx into the southern Gulf of
Maine in 1986. Fishery Bulletin, 90, 749-755.
Schorr, G. S., Falcone, E. A., Calambokidis, J., & Andrews,
R. D. (2010). Satellite tagging of fin whales off
California and Washington in 2010 to identify movement
patterns, habitat use, and possible stock boundaries
(Report prepared under Order No. JG133F09SE4477).
La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.
Schorr, G. S., Baird, R. W., Hanson, M. B., Webster,
D L., McSweeney, D. J., & Andrews, R. D. (2008).
Literature Cited 125
Movements of the first satellite-tagged Cuvier’s and
Blainville’s beaked whales in Hawai‘i. Report prepared
under Contract No. AB133F-07-SE-3706 to Cascadia
Research Collective, Olympia, WA, from the Southwest
Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries
Service, La Jolla, CA.
Schorr, G. S., Baird, R. W., Hanson, M. B., Webster,
D. L., McSweeney, D. J., & Andrews, R. D. (2009a).
Movements of satellite-tagged Blainville’s beaked whales
off the island of Hawai‘i. Endangered Species Research,
10, 203-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/esr00229
Schorr, G. S., Baird, R. W., Webster, D. L., McSweeney,
D. J., Hanson, M. B., Polovina, J., & Andrews, R. D.
(2009b). Satellite tagging of melon-headed whales in
Hawai‘i reveals widely dispersed movement patterns.
18th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine
Mammals, Quebec City, Quebec.
Schulte, D., & Taylor, C. R. (2012). Documenting spatial
and temporal distribution of North Atlantic right whales
off South Carolina and Northern Georgia 2011-2012
(Final Report to National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Contract No. WC113F-11-CN-0144).
Scott, M. D., Wells, R. S., & Irvine, A. B. (1990). A long-term
study of bottlenose dolphins on the west coast of Florida.
In S. Leatherwood & R. R. Reeves (Eds.), The bottlenose
dolphin (pp. 235-244). San Diego: Academic Press. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-440280-5.50015-9
Seaman, G. A., Lowry, L. F., & Frost, K. J. (1982). Foods
of belukha whales (Dephinapterus leucas) in western
Alaska. Cetology, 44, 1-19.
Seaman, G., Lowry, L. F., & Frost, K. J. (1985). Investigation
of belukha whales in coastal waters of western and
northern Alaska. I. Distribution, abundance, and move-
ments (OCSEAP Final Report, 56[1988], 153-220).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Seipt, I. E., Clapham, P. J., Mayo, C. A., & Hawvermale,
M. P. (1990). Population characteristics of individu-
ally identified fin whales Balaenoptera physalus in
Massachusetts Bay. Fishery Bulletin, 88(2), 271-278.
Sellas, A. B., Wells, R. S., & Rosel, P. E. (2005). Mitochondrial
and nuclear DNA analyses reveal fine scale geographic
structure in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in
the Gulf of Mexico. Conservation Genetics, 6(5), 715-
728. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10592-005-9031-7
Shane, S. H. (1980). Occurrence, movements, and distribu-
tion of bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in south-
ern Texas. Fishery Bulletin, 78(3), 593-601.
Shane, S. H. (1990). Behavior and ecology of the bottlenose
dolphin at Sanibel Island, Florida. In S. Leatherwood &
R. R. Reeves (Eds.), The bottlenose dolphin (pp. 245-265).
San Diego: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-440280-5.50016-0; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-440280-5.50035-4
Shane, S. H. (2004). Residence patterns, group characteris-
tics, and association patterns of bottlenose dolphins near
Sanibel Island, Florida. Gulf of Mexico Science, 22(1),
1-12.
Sheffield, G., & George, J. C. (2009). Bowhead whale feed-
ing in the northern Bering Sea near Saint Lawrence
Island, Alaska (Abstract). 18th Biennial Conference of
the Biology of Marine Mammals, Quebec City, Quebec.
Shelden, K. E. W., & Clapham, P. J. (2006). Habitat require-
ments and extinction risks of eastern North Pacific right
whales (AFSC Processed Report No. 2006–06). Seattle,
WA: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Shelden, K. E. W., Rugh, D. J., & Schulman-Janiger, A. (2004).
Gray whale born north of Mexico: Indicator of recovery or
consequence of regime shift. Ecological Applications, 14,
1789-1805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/03-5349
Shelden, K. E. W., Moore, S. E., Waite, J. M., Wade, P. R.,
& Rugh, D. J. (2005). Historic and current habitat use
by North Pacific right whales Eubalaena japonica in the
Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. Mammal Review, 35, 129-
155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2005.00065.x
Sherman, K., & Alexander, L. M. (Eds.). (1986). Variability
and management of large marine ecosystems (AAAS
Selected Symposium 99). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Smith, M. A. (2010). Arctic marine synthesis: Atlas of
the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Anchorage: Audubon
Alaska and Oceana.
Solangi, M. A., & Dukes, G. E. (1983). Atlantic bottle-
nose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus herd studies in the
Mississippi Sound, USA: Capture, freeze marking and
biological sampling (Final Report, NMFS Contract
No. NA82-GA-C-00023). Pascagoula, MA: National
Marine Fisheries Service.
Speakman, T., Zolman, E., Adams, J., Defran, R. H., Laska,
D., Schwacke, L., . . . Fair, P. (2006). Temporal and spa-
tial aspects of bottlenose dolphin occurrence in coastal
and estuarine waters near Charleston, South Carolina.
Silver Spring, MD: Center for Coastal Environmental
Health and Biomolecular Research, NOAA/NOS/
NCCOS.
Springer, A. M., McRoy, C. P., & Flint, M. V. (1996). The
Bering Sea Green Belt: Shelf edge processes and eco-
system production. Fish Oceanography, 5, 205-223.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2419.1996.tb00118.x
Stafford, K. M., Mellinger, D. K., Moore, S. E., & Fox, C. G.
(2007). Seasonal variability and detection range model-
ing of baleen whale calls in the Gulf of Alaska, 1999-
2002. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
122(6), 3378-3390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2799905
Stafford, K. M., Moore, S. E., Stabeno, P. J., Holliday, D. V.,
Napp, J. M., & Mellinger, D. K. (2010). Biophysical
ocean observation in the southeastern Bering Sea.
Geophysical Research Letters, 37(2), L02606. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009GL040724
Steeves, T. E., Darling, J. D., Rosel, P. E., Schaeff,
C. M., & Fleischer, R. C. (2001). Preliminary analy-
sis of mitochondrial DNA variation in a southern
feeding group of Eastern North Pacific gray whales.
Conservation Genetics, 2, 379-384. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1023/A:1012590315579
Straley, J. M. (1990). Fall and winter occurrence of hump-
back whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in southeastern
Alaska. Individual recognition of Cetacea: Use of pho-
toidentification and other techniques to estimate popu-
lation parameters. In P. S. Hammond, S. A. Mizroch,
& G. P. Donovan (Eds.), Reports of the International
Whaling Commission, Special Issue 12, 319-323.
Straley, J. M. (1994). Seasonal characteristics of hump-
back whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in southeastern
Alaska (Master of Science thesis). University of Alaska
Fairbanks. 121 pp.
Straley, J. M., Gabriele, C. M., & Baker, C. S. (1994).
Annual reproduction by individually identified hump-
back whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Alaskan
waters. Marine Mammal Science, 10, 87-92. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1994.tb00392.x
Straley, J. M., Gabriele, C. M., & Baker, C. S. (1995).
Seasonal characteristics of humpback whales (Megaptera
novaeangliae) in southeastern Alaska. In D. Engstrom
(Ed.), Proceedings of the Third Glacier Bay Science
Symposium 1993 (pp. 229-238). Anchorage, AK: National
Park Service.
Sumich, J. L. (1986). Growth in young gray whales
(Eschrichtius robustus). Marine Mammal Science, 2(2),
145-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1986.tb
00035.x
Suydam, R. S. (2009). Age, growth, reproduction, and
movements of belugas whales (Delphinapterus leucas)
from the eastern Chukchi Sea (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Washington, Seattle. Retrieved 3 February
2015 from www.north-slope.org/assets/images/uploads/
suydam_dissertation2009.pdf.
Suydam, R., Lowry, L. F., & Frost, K. J. (2005).
Distribution and movements of beluga whales from the
Eastern Chukchi Sea stock during summer and early
autumn (OCS STUDY MMS 2005-035). Final Report
prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals
Management Service, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf
Region. 39 pp.
Suydam, R. S., Lowry, L. F., Frost, K. J., O’Corry-Crowe,
G. M., & Pikok, Jr., D. (2001). Satellite tracking of eastern
Chukchi Sea beluga whales in the Arctic Ocean. Arctic,
54(3), 237-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic784
Swartz, S. L., Taylor, B. L., & Rugh, D. J. (2006). Gray
whale Eschrichtius robustus population and stock
identity. Mammal Review, 36, 66-84. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1365-2907.2006.00082.x
Swingle, W. M., Barco, S. G., Pitchford, T. D., McLellan,
W. A., & Pabst, D. (1993). Appearance of juvenile hump-
back whales feeding in the nearshore waters of Virginia.
Marine Mammal Science, 9(3), 309-315. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1993.tb00458.x
Teck, S. J., Halpern, B. S., Kappel, C. V., Micheli, F.,
Selkoe, K. A., Crain, C. M., . . . Cooke, R. (2010). Using
expert judgment to estimate marine ecosystem vulnera-
bility in the California Current. Ecological Applications,
20(5), 1402-1416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/09-1173.1
Torres, L. G., & Read, A. J. (2009). Where to catch a
fish? The influence of foraging tactics on the ecology
of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Florida
Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science, 25(4), 797-815.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2009.00297.x
Torres, L. G., Rosel, P. E., D’Agrosa, C., & Read, A. J.
(2003). Improving management of overlapping bottle-
nose dolphin ecotypes through spatial analysis and
genetics. Marine Mammal Science, 19(3), 502-514.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2003.tb01317.x
Townsend, C. H. (1935). The distribution of certain whales
as shown by logbook records of American whaleships.
Zoologica, 19, 1-50.
Tynan, C. (2004). Cetacean populations on the SE Bering
Sea shelf during the late 1990s: Implications for decadal
changes in ecosystem structure and carbon flow. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 272, 281-300. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3354/meps272281
Tynan, C. T., DeMaster, D. P., & Peterson, W. T. (2001).
Endangered right whales on the southeastern Bering Sea
shelf. Science, 294, 1894. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sci-
ence.1065682
Tyson, R. B., Nowacek, S. M., & Nowacek, D. P. (2011).
Community structure and abundance of bottlenose dol-
phins Tursiops truncatus in coastal waters of the north-
east Gulf of Mexico. Marine Ecology Progress Series,
438, 253-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps09292
Urbán R., J., Weller, D., Tyurneva, O., Swartz, S.,
Bradford, A., Yakovlev, Y., . . . Gómez-Gallardo U. A.
(2012). Report on the photographic comparison of the
western and Mexican gray whale catalogues (Paper
SC/64/BRG13). Presented to the International Whaling
Commission Scientific Committee.
Urian, K. W., Hohn, A. A., & Hansen, L. J. (1999). Status
of the photo-identification catalog of coastal bottlenose
dolphins of the western North Atlantic: Report of a
workshop of catalog contributors (NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-425). Washington, DC:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Urian, K. W., Hofmann, S., Wells, R. S., & Read, A. J.
(2009). Fine-scale population structure of bottlenose
dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Tampa Bay, Florida.
Marine Mammal Science, 25(3), 619-638. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2009.00284.x
Van Cise, A. M., Martien, K. K., Baird, R. W., Robertson,
K. M., Chivers, S. J., & Morin, P. A. (2013). Mitochondrial
diversity in short-finned pilot whales in the Pacific Ocean:
Evidence of multiple genetically distinct populations. 20th
Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals,
December 2013, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Vollmer, N. L. (2011). Population structure of common
bottlenose dolphins in coastal and offshore waters of the
Gulf of Mexico revealed by genetic and environmental
analysis (Doctoral dissertation). University of Louisiana
at Lafayette.
von Ziegesar, O., Goodwin, B., & DeVito, R. (2001). A
catalog of humpback whales in Prince William Sound,
Alaska 1977 to 2001. Homer, AK: Eye of the Whale
Research.
Vu, E. T., Risch, D., Clark, C. W., Gaylord, S., Hatch,
L. T., Thompson, M. A., . . . Van Parijs, S. M. (2012).
126 Literature Cited
Literature Cited 127
Humpback whale song occurs extensively on feeding
grounds in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Aquatic
Biology, 14, 175-183.
Wade, P. R., De Robertis, A., Hough, K. R., Booth, R.,
Kennedy, A., LeDuc, R. G., . . . Wilson, C. (2011a).
Rare detections of North Pacific right whales in the
Gulf of Alaska, with observations of their potential prey.
Endangered Species Research, 13, 99-109. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3354/esr00324
Wade, P. R., Heide-Jørgensen, M. P., Barlow, J., Carretta,
J., Durban, J., LeDuc, R., . . . Sauter, A. (2006). Acoustic
detection and satellite tracking leads to discovery of rare
concentration of endangered North Pacific right whales.
Biology Letters, 2, 417-419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/
rsbl.2006.0460
Wade, P., Kennedy, A., LeDuc, R., Barlow, J., Carretta, J.,
Shelden, K., . . . Clapham, P. J. (2011b). The world’s
smallest whale population? Biology Letters, 7, 83-85.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0477
Waite, J. M., Wynne, K., & Mellinger, D. K. (2003).
Documented sightings of a North Pacific right whale
in the Gulf of Alaska and post-sighting acoustic mod-
eling. Northwest Nature, 84, 38-43. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/3536721
Waite, J. M., Dahlheim, M. E., Hobbs, R. C., Mizroch, S. A.,
von Ziegesar-Matkin, O., Straley, J., . . . Jacobsen, J.
(1999). Evidence of a feeding aggregation of humpback
whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) around Kodiak Island,
Alaska. Marine Mammal Science, 15, 210-220. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1999.tb00792.x
Waring, G. T., Josephson, E., Maze-Foley, K., & Rosel,
P. E. (2013). U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine
mammal stock assessments – 2012 (SAR No. TM 223).
Woods Hole, MA: Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
Waring, G. T., Josephson, E., Maze-Foley, K., & Rosel,
P. E. (2014). U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine
mammal stock assessments – 2013 (SAR No. TM 228).
Woods Hole, MA: Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
Weinrich, M. T. (1991). Long term stability in grouping
patterns of humpback whales (Megaptera novaean-
gliae) in the southern Gulf of Maine. Canadian Journal
of Zoology, 69, 3012-3019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/
z91-424; http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z91-425
Weinrich, M. T., & Kuhlberg, A. E. (1991). Short-term
association patterns of humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae) groups on their feeding grounds in the
southern Gulf of Maine. Canadian Journal of Zoology,
69(12), 3005-3011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/z91-424
Weinrich, M. T., Kenney, R. D., & Hamilton, P. K. (2000). Right
whales (Eubalaena glacialis) on Jeffreys Ledge: A habitat
of unrecognized importance? Marine Mammal Science,
16(2), 326-337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2000.
tb00928.x
Weinrich, M., Martin, M., Griffiths, R., Bove, J., &
Schilling, M. (1997). A shift in distribution of hump-
back whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in response to
prey in the southern Gulf of Maine. Fishery Bulletin,
95(4), 826-836.
Weller, D. W. (1998). Global and regional variation
in the biology and behavior of bottlenose dolphins
(Doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University,
College Station. Retrieved 11 February 2015 from
http://search.proquest.com/pqdtft/docview/304480392/
abstract/13A3CF9724350405364/4?account
id=10598.
Weller, D. W., & Brownell, R. L., Jr. (2012). A re-evalua-
tion of gray whale records in the western North Pacific
(Paper SC/64/BRG10). Presented to the International
Whaling Commission Scientific Committee.
Weller, D. W., Würsig, B., Bradford, A. L., Burdin, A. M.,
Blokhin, S. A., Minakuchi, H., & Brownell, R. L.,
Jr. (1999). Gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) off
Sakhalin Island, Russia: Seasonal and annual patterns of
occurrence. Marine Mammal Science, 15, 1208-1227.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1999.tb00886.x
Weller, D. W., Bradford, A. L., Lang, A. R., Kim, H. W.,
Sidorenko, M., Tsidulko, G. A., . . . Brownell, R. L., Jr.
(2008). Status of western gray whales off northeastern
Sakhalin Island, Russia, in 2007 (Paper SC/60/BRG3).
Presented to the International Whaling Commission
Scientific Committee. (Unpublished)
Weller, D. W., Klimek, A., Bradford, A. L., Calambokidis,
J., Lang, A. R., Gisborne, B., . . . Brownell, R. L.,
Jr. (2011). Movements of western gray whales from
the Okhotsk Sea to the eastern North Pacific (Paper
SC/63/BRG6). Presented to the International Whaling
Commission Scientific Committee.
Weller, D. W., Klimek, A., Bradford, A. L., Calambokidis, J.,
Lang, A. R., Gisborne, B., … Brownell, R. L., Jr. (2012).
Movements of gray whales between the western and
eastern North Pacific. Endangered Species Research, 18,
193-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/esr00447
Wells, R. S. (1986a). Population structure of bottlenose
dolphins: Behavioral studies along the central west
coast of Florida (Contract Report to National Marine
Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center. Contract
No. 45-WCNF-5-003BB). 58 pp.
Wells, R. S. (1986b). Structural aspects of dolphin societ-
ies. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz.
Wells, R. S. (1991). The role of long-term study in under-
standing the social structure of a bottlenose dolphin com-
munity. In K. Pryor & K. S. Norris (Eds.), Dolphin soci-
eties: Discoveries and puzzles (pp. 199-225). Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Wells, R. S. (2003). Dolphin social complexity: Lessons
from long-term study and life history. In F. B. M.
de Waal & P. L. Tyack (Eds.), Animal social complex-
ity: Intelligence, culture, and individualized societies
(pp. 32-56). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674419131.c4
Wells, R. S., Scott, M. D., & Irvine, A. B. (1987). The
social structure of free-ranging bottlenose dolphins. In
H. H. Genoways (Ed.), Current mammalogy (Vol. 1,
pp. 247-305). New York: Plenum Press. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9909-5_7
Wells, R. S., Bassos, M. K., Urian, K. W., Carr, W. J., &
Scott, M. D. (1996a). Low-level monitoring of bottle-
nose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Charlotte Harbor,
Florida: 1990-1994 (NOAA Technical Memorandum
No. NMFS-SEFSC-384). 36 pp.
Wells, R. S., Urian, K. W., Read, A. J., Bassos, M. K., Carr,
W. J., & Scott, M. D. (1996b). Low-level monitoring of
bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Tampa Bay,
Florida: 1988-1993 (NOAA Technical Memorandum
No. NMFS-SEFSC-385). 36 pp.
Wells, R. S., Bassos, M. K., Urian, K. W., Shane, S. H.,
Owne, E. C. G., Weiss, C. F., . . . Scott, M. D. (1997).
Low-level monitoring of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops
truncatus, in Pine Island Sound, Florida: 1996 (Contract
report of NMFS-SEFSC No. 40-WCNF601958).
Wessel, P., & Smith, W. H. F. (1996). A global self-con-
sistent, hierarchical, high-resolution shoreline database.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 101(B4), 8741-8743.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/96JB00104
Westgate, A. J., Read, A. J., Cox, T. M., Schofield, T. D.,
Whitaker, B. R., & Anderson, K. E. (1998). Monitoring
a rehabilitated harbor porpoise using satellite telemetry.
Marine Mammal Science, 14(3), 599-604. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1998.tb00746.x
Whitt, A. D., Dudzinski, K. D., & Lalibert, J. R. (2013). North
Atlantic right whale distribution and seasonal occurrence
in nearshore waters off New Jersey, USA, and implications
for management. Endangered Species Research, 20(1),
59-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/esr00486
Wiley, D. N., Asmutis, R. A., Pitchford, T. D., & Gannon,
D. P. (1995). Stranding and mortality of humpback
whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the mid-Atlantic
and southeast United States, 1985-1992. Fishery Bulletin,
93(1), 196-205.
Witteveen, B. H., Wynne, K. M., & Quinn II, T. J. (2007).
A feeding aggregation of humpback whales (Megaptera
novaeangliae) near Kodiak Island, Alaska: Current
and historic abundance estimation. Alaska Fisheries
Research Bulletin, 12(2), 187-196.
Witteveen, B. H., Worthy, G. A. J., Foy, R. J., & Wynne,
K. M. (2011a). Modeling the diet of humpback whales:
An approach using stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes
in a Bayesian mixing model. Marine Mammal Science,
28(3), E233-250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.
2011.00508.x
Witteveen, B. H., Straley, J. M., von Ziegesar, O., Steel,
D., & Scott Baker, C. (2004). Abundance and mtDNA
differentiation of humpback whales (Megaptera novae-
angliae) in the Shumagin Islands, Alaska. Canadian
Journal of Zoology, 82, 1352-1359. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1139/z04-120
Witteveen, B. H., Straley, J. M., Chenoweth, E., Baker, C. S.,
Barlow, J., Matkin, C., . . . Hirons, A. (2011b). Using
movements, genetics and trophic ecology to differentiate
inshore from offshore aggregations of humpback whales
in the Gulf of Alaska. Endangered Species Research, 14,
217-225. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/esr00351
Woodworth, P. A., Schorr, G. S., Baird, R. W., Webster,
D. L., McSweeney, D. J., Hanson, M. B., . . . Polovina,
J. J. (2011). Eddies as offshore foraging grounds
for melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra).
Marine Mammal Science, 28, 638-647. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2011.00509.x
Wynne, K., & Witteveen, B. H. (2005). Opportunistic
aerial sightings of large whales within Steller sea lion
critical habitat in the Kodiak archipelago. In K Wynne,
R. J. Foy, & C. L. Buck (Eds.), Gulf Apex Predator-Prey
Study (GAP) final report FY 2001-2003 (NOAA Grant
NA16FX1270, pp. 105-119). Fairbanks: University of
Alaska Fairbanks.
Wynne, K., & Witteveen, B. H. (2013). GAP09: Whales
as sentinels in a changing environment (Final
Comprehensive Report, NOAA Federal Program Award
Number NA09NMF4390339). Available from UAF
School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, Kodiak Seafood
and Marine Science Center, Kodiak, AK.
Zani, M. A., Taylor, J. K. D., & Kraus, S. D. (2008).
Observation of a right whale (Eubalaena glacia-
lis) birth in the coastal waters of the southeast United
States. Aquatic Mammals, 34(1), 21-24. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1578/AM.34.1.2008.21
Zeh, J. E., Clark, C. W., George, J. C., Withrow, D., Carroll,
G. M., & Koski, W. R. (1993). Current population size
and dynamics. In J. J. Burns, J. J. Montague, & C. J.
Cowles (Eds.), The bowhead whale (Special Publication
Number 2, pp. 409-489). Lawrence, KS: The Society for
Marine Mammalogy.
Zerbini, A. N., Waite, J. M., Laake, J. L., & Wade, P. R.
(2006). Abundance, trends and distribution of baleen
whales off Western Alaska and the central Aleutian
Islands. Deep-Sea Research Part I, 53, 1772-1790.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2006.08.009
128 Literature Cited
