Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the...

Department of Environment,Water, Heritage and the Arts

Assessment of CetaceanRecovery Plans 2005- 2010

Humpback, Southern Right,Blue, Fin and Sei Whales

May 2010

31/25952/404954 Assessment of Cetacean Recovery Plans 2005- 2010Humpback, Southern Right, Blue, Fin and Sei Whales

Contents

Acronyms 1

Executive Summary 2

1. Introduction 10

1.1 Recovery Plan Review Process 10

1.2 Methodology and Information Sources 10

2. Humpback Whale Recovery Plan Evaluation 12

2.1 Overview of Status 12

2.2 Objectives of the Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 12

2.3 Criteria to Measure Performance of the Plan Against theObjectives 12

2.4 Overview of Actions 13

2.5 Issues 18

2.6 Review of the Information Provided 18

2.7 Recommendations 18

3. Southern Right Whale Recovery Plan Evaluation 20


3.2 Objectives of the Southern Right Whale Recovery Plan 20



3.5 Issues 24

3.6 Review of the Information Provided 24


4. Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recovery Plan Evaluation 26


4.2 Objectives of the Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recovery Plan 26




4.5 Issues 31

4.6 Review of Information Provided 32


5. References 33

AppendicesA Cetacean Recovery Plan Stakeholders from Consultation and

Discussion Guides


Acronyms

AAD Australian Antarctic Division

AMCS Australian Marine Conservation Society

AMMC Australian Marine Mammal Centre

CMP Conservation Management Plan

CMS Convention for Migratory Species

DERM Department of Environment and Resource Management

DEWHA Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

GBRMPA Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

HSI Humane Society International

IPF Indo-Pacific Conservation and Research Fund

IWC International Whaling Commission

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MPA Marine Protected Area

RAN Royal Australian Navy

SA South Australia

SORP Southern Ocean Research Partnership

WA Western Australian

WDCS Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society


Executive Summary

All cetaceans are protected under state and Commonwealth legislation in Australiawith the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)necessitating the development of recovery plans for all listed threatened species andecological communities. This instrument provides for the recovery plans of humpback,southern right, blue, fin and sei whales, pursuant to section 269A(2) of the EPBC Act.

The statutory five year period for the whale recovery plans (2005 – 2010) has seenAustralia actively respond to the conservation and management of threatened whalesat international and domestic scales. Prevailing goodwill within the Australiancommunity has provided contributions through collaborative research, education andmanagement that has furthered Australia’s position as a leader for global cetaceanconservation.

The recovery plans for the humpback, southern right, blue, fin and sei whales havebeen adopted by a range of stakeholders that have used the plans to assist in fulfillingEPBC referral requirements, developing policy decisions and defining and regulatingresearch and management priorities. A general consensus was established amongststakeholders that the plans are indeed a worthwhile tool though information within theplans requires updating to reflect current knowledge of whale species to better respondto coastal impacts and cetacean conservation priorities.

The conservation status of all cetacean species was assessed for the 2008International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Cetacean Red List. Theassessment determined that at a global scale, the humpback whale, Megapteranovaeangliae, is recovering after the commercial hunting of the last century and assuch in 2008, it was reclassified from being Vulnerable to extinction to a listing of LeastConcern. With exception to this the Arabian and Oceania subpopulations wereconsidered and are currently listed as Endangered (IUCN, 2008). The southern rightwhale, Eubalaena australis, was also reclassified to the Least Concern category withapproximately 7,500 southern right whales estimated to transit throughout the southernpart of the Southern Hemisphere. The blue, fin and sei whales maintain anEndangered conservation status globally.

One objective common to the three whale recovery plans for the 2005 - 2010 period isfor the whale populations utilising Australian waters to be considered secure in the wildover long time scales. In Australia, populations of the five whale species haveresponded differently over this five year period with sufficient new information availablefor humpback and southern right whales to warrant a review of the plans. The blue, finand sei whales remain elusive in their presence with relatively less data available for adetailed review.

The definition of secure goes beyond the population status of these species and


should also acknowledge the threatening processes that are likely to impact on thesespecies. With this definition, the unquantified impacts from climate change, increasinginternational whaling pressure, increasing coastal development and shipping activityare all likely to impact on future population growth for all species.

The observed positive population trend of humpback whales in recent years is anencouraging indication that one of many key threatening processes has beenappropriately managed to enhance species recovery at the population level. However,the context of this recovery remains relatively unknown.

Key contributions to whale conservation by Australia at state, national and internationallevels in the period 2005 -2010 have been varied and strategic. These actions are inaccordance with the objectives of the recovery plans, broadly fulfilling legislativerequirements. Species-specific contributions have been identified as per recovery planassessments within relevant chapters of this document. The following significantcontributions summarise Australia’s response to threatened whale species for theperiod of 2005 -2010:

International Contributions

International Whaling Commission

Australia has actively participated in International Whaling Commission (IWC)meetings, sending delegations to all annual meetings, supporting meetings and specialmeetings. In 2008, Australia proposed to the IWC the development of regional non-lethal cetacean research partnerships. These research partnerships would usemodern, non-lethal, scientific methods to provide the information necessary to bestconserve and manage cetacean species. This is the largest single investmentcommitted by any country for non-lethal whale research and establishes Australia asthe leader in marine mammal science and conservation in the Southern Hemisphere.This commitment contributes to Australia's overarching strategy to manage 'scientific'whaling and improve the conservation of whales around the world. The key activitiesunder this program are:

Southern Ocean Research Partnership (SORP)

Enhancement of Australia's marine mammal research and conservation; and

Policy support for Australia's IWC reform agenda.

Australian Marine Mammal Centre

The Australian Marine Mammal Centre (AMMC), also developed in this period, will leadAustralia's scientific commitment to this initiative. The SORP has since been endorsedby the Scientific Committee of the IWC (June 2009), with a Steering Committeeestablished to guide the development of the SORP and associated workplan.

The Australian Marine Mammal Centre is involved in research and management ofmarine mammals around Australia and internationally. Part of this international work is


the development of regional initiatives, mainly in the South Pacific and IndianOceans. Three initiatives presently under way through the Marine Mammal Centre are:

1. The Southern Ocean Research Partnership (SORP)

The SORP as noted above is an Australian Government led initiative through the IWCthat will develop regional non-lethal cetacean research partnerships. Such partnershipswould address key scientific needs in priority areas and employ the best availabletechniques to gather essential information that will lead to increased conservation andprotection of cetaceans.

2. The Indo-Pacific Cetacean Research and Conservation Fund (IPF)

The Fund aims to attract high quality, innovative and relevant research projects thataddress research and conservation challenges of interest to the AustralianGovernment, developing countries in the Indo-Pacific Region and the cetaceanresearch and conservation community more generally.

3. Conservation Management Plans

The Australian Government has proposed the development of ConservationManagement Plans (CMPs) as a new way of protecting cetaceans under the auspicesof the International Whaling Commission (IWC). The vision for CMPs is to improve theconservation and management of cetacean populations. The objectives of such planswould address threats other than whaling, including through the mitigation of bycatchand the regulation of whale watching. They should be tailored to support the recoveryof particular cetacean populations. The Australian Marine Mammal Centre is involvedin providing high quality science that can be used in the development of CMPs.

Regional Pacific EngagementIn 2007 a comprehensive, practical training program on national cetaceanmanagement, research and conservation was held in Papua New Guinea. Theprogram was sponsored by Australia, Papua New Guinea, the Whale and DolphinConservation Society (WDCS) International and the Secretariat of the Pacific RegionalMarine Program (SPREP). The program involved environment, fisheries and researchpersonnel from Vanuatu, Australia, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Theoutcomes resulted in greater knowledge and skills in a range of issues, includingspecies identification and monitoring; priorities for cetacean research andmanagement; plans for future conservation strategies; and contacts to progress thetasks identified.

Australia also provided funding to support the attendance of representatives fromdeveloping nations to the Pacific Islands Working Group on Whale and DolphinWatching hosted by SPREP in Auckland in April 2008. The Working Group draftedregional best practice whale watching guidelines, which support and encourage thesustainable development of whale and dolphin watching tourism within the Pacificregion. The development of such guidelines is an identified priority in the SPREP


Whale and Dolphin Action Plan 2008 – 2012.

This arrangement, under the auspices of the Convention on the Conservation ofMigratory Species (CMS), is an essential framework for cooperation between thenations of our region to improve the conservation status of regional cetaceanpopulations. At the meeting of the CMS Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in July(2009), the SPREP Action Plan was modified and adopted for consistency with CMSMoU.

National Initiatives

Australia’s response to cetacean conservation has been supported by all regulatoryagencies at the national and state level. Significant achievements in conservation andmanagement of the threatened whale species has been achieved by a coordinatedapproach across the state and national jurisdiction. Outlined below are some of theachievements from the Recovery Plan period.

4. Key Regulatory and Policy Guidance

Documents have been developed by the Commonwealth that lead management forareas of growing impact and concern for whales in Commonwealth waters and provideguidance to state regulatory agencies and industry. These include:

National Seismic Guidelines (2008)

Australian National Guidelines for Whale and Dolphin Watching (2005)

State agenciesCodes of Practice for Commercial Fisheries (WA, VIC government)

Oil Spill Response Plan (WA government)

Response to Industry

The offshore oil and gas fields of Australia are being explored at an unprecedentedrate which has entailed numerous proposals for development of infrastructure tosupport the industries and seismic activities. Such development and activities aresubject to an environmental impact assessment under Commonwealth legislation. Twokey areas of interest for oil and gas exploration are the North-West Shelf, WesternAustralia and the Otway Basin, Victoria and South Australia. These areas are alsoknown sites of large whale species aggregations, such as blue, southern right andhumpbacks, at different times of the year. The Australian Government is continuingdiscussions with the energy industry, marine scientists and various state governmentagencies on whether existing assessments and conditions appropriately manage theimpacts associated with infrastructure development and seismic surveys.

5. Entanglement Response

The Commonwealth and state governments have worked together over many years toestablish strong communications and operations networks to manage and respond to


events such as whale stranding and entanglements. Best practice training forgovernment staff involved in disentanglement operations is conducted annually aroundAustralia, with updates on equipment and drawing upon case histories provided by anextended network involved in disentanglement events.

Australia has a world-leading response capacity to assist individual and groups ofwhales in distress in cases where assistance is physically and logistically possible. Forseveral years, dedicated workshops funded by the Australian Government have raisedthe profile of disentanglement efforts across Australia, identifying whale entanglementsas an issue affecting the recovery of migrating whale populations. The annualworkshop has generated a network for facilitating communications between state andfederal government departments and for improving the expertise of the coreoperational staff involved in performing disentanglements.

6. Educational Information

Educational packages have been developed by state and Commonwealth governmentagencies that respond to whale watching interests, seasonal whale management,appropriate interaction behaviors and general whale species information. The RoyalAustralian Navy (RAN) has continued to provide educational material on cetaceansand appropriate vessel management to shipping crews.

7. Reporting Systems for Cetacean Injuries/Mortality/Stranding

Fisheries By-catch Reporting

Improved mechanisms for commercial fishers to report by-catch or other interactionswith whales, dolphins and other protected species (e.g. turtles and dugong) have beendeveloped in conjunction with amendments to federal environmental legislation.

Incident Reporting – Maritime Surveillance

Civil maritime surveillance and response services support Australia’s Oceans Policy,by identifying and responding to illegal fishing in Australian waters, detecting andreporting environmental incidents such as marine pollution, and contributing to marinespecies protection through reporting sightings of marine mammals.

Incident Reporting – State/National Cooperation

Cetacean injuries, stranding and mortality are generally reported to local and stategovernment agencies as most incidents are observed in coastal waters within threenautical miles from shore, within state jurisdictions. Good relationships between thestate and federal agencies responsible for cetacean conservation ensure that incidentresponses and outcomes are monitored at a number of levels. This has recentlyincluded telemetry monitoring of entangled species that can be relayed along thecoastline with respect to the species presence where agencies can then determineappropriate action.

8. Marine Bioregional Planning


This planning process is currently being implemented in five marine bioregionalplanning regions of Australia: South-west, North-west, North, East and South-eastMarine Regions. The Plans are being developed under the Environment Protection andBiodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and will fulfill the Australian Government’scommitment to establishing a National Representative System of Marine ProtectedAreas as agreed by all Australian governments in 1998.

There are two major parts to the marine bioregional planning process:

The identification of regional conservation priorities and

The identification of marine reserves to be included in Australia’s NationalRepresentative System of Marine Protected Areas

Regional conservation priorities arise from an analysis of the threats to theconservation values of each Marine Region. The Marine Bioregional Plans will identifymeasures to address regional conservation priorities and facilitate better decision-making under national environment law. The inclusion of areas important to threatenedcetaceans will be reflected in this process and will be complimentary across states.

Collectively, Australia has demonstrated a commitment to fulfilling the objectives of thewhale recovery plans. The momentum developed from such a response requirescontinued effort to maintain a positive course for action for whale conservation.Recommendations have been included below that reflect upon current knowledge gapsand areas of conservation concern for Australia’s threatened whales and provideguidance to the recovery plan process. The following recommendations have beenextracted from within each of the whale recovery plan assessments.

Recommendations

Humpback whale recovery plan

Continue to maintain research projects that contribute to refined population modelsand impact assessment as populations are not yet considered stable.

Prioritise the east Australia humpback whale conservation management for thebenefit of the threatened Oceania (South Pacific) group recovery.

Maintain a strong position on anti-whaling activities in Australian waters andmaintain close and supportive relationships to regional nations.

Alternatives to invasive scientific whaling should continue to be explored throughthe SORP.

Continue to provide support to management agencies that are likely to experiencean increase in whale interactions with industry and coastal communities in the nearfuture

Provide support to maintain and develop a national stranding database thatincludes basic pathology of stranded species for research benefit


Continue to identify critical habitat areas ie calving or aggregation areas to betterinform management

A general consensus amongst stakeholders recommended a review or an updateof the present humpback whale Recovery Plan.

Australian east coast (excluding the South Pacific populations) and west coasthumpback whales appear to be on a positive and consistent abundance trajectorythough are yet to stabilise at the population level. Until stability has been achievedin this context for all Australian humpback populations, they remain in a state ofrecovery, thus a Recovery Plan should remain in place to support theirconservation.

It is recommended that the information in the humpback whale Recovery Plan isupdated to reflect the significant research contributions of the past five years torefine information for assessors and managers and outline any new research andconservation priorities. Updating the humpback whale habitat mapping in theRecovery Plans is a priority.

Southern right whale recovery plan

As southern right whale habitat occupancy in Australia is still constrained incomparison to historical occupancy, and abundance is still well below estimatehistoric abundance. Given this, a Recovery Plan for the southern right whale is stillrequired and should be updated to reflect new knowledge e.g. mapping ofaggregation area extensions.

Observed correlations between breeding success off Argentina and sea surfacetemperature anomalies at South Georgia suggest that as Antarctic feeding groundswarm up, the average calving rate of southern right whales can be expected todecline (Leaper et al. 2006). Further research on southern right whale feedinggrounds should be undertaken to better predict climate change implications onspecies.

Current research programs are appropriate for long-term species monitoring andshould continue to be supported. This will maintain rigour in long-term datasets.This recommendation is of priority for the south east coast population of southernright whales. Analysis of existing datasets in this region should be undertaken forpopulation trend evaluation.

The term critical habitat is problematic as it is impossible to assess whetherparticular locations are truly essential to the survival of the species. A suggestedchange from ‘critical’, to be replaced by ‘important’. Further research on habitatdelineation should be undertaken to also establish this.

Blue fin and sei whale recovery planMaintain and update a Recovery Plan for all three species given the persistence of


threats such as international whaling and climate change.

Increase focus on photo-identification, to facilitate use of mark-recapture methodsto improve estimates of blue whales using identified habitats. The application ofsatellite tagging studies will also provide valuable information on whale migrationroutes as they head north to winter breeding grounds in the tropics.

The continued collection of population data through programs such as SOWERand in collaboration with the IWC for all three of these species should occur tofacilitate the eventual development of population models.

The recognised dependency of blue whales on krill (Nyctiphanes australis) is acharacteristic that renders them potentially more vulnerable than other obligatebaleen whales to threatening processes associated with climate change (Claphamet al 1999). Further research to better define potential impacts of climate changeon baleen whales should continue.

The increasing prevalence of offshore industry and associated vessel traffic shoulddirect management and research focus on areas of high use and importance totheir protection.

Improve and maintain the stranding database for all threatened whale species toinclude a sampling program that collects for surrogate measures of threateningprocesses i.e. dietary analysis and contributes to population estimates.

Maintain a strong anti-whaling stance on all threatened whale species in Australianwaters to fulfil the objective of considering whale populations ‘secure’.

Improve the management of threatening processes by continuing to supportresearch that better defines their habitat (migratory pathways, feeding areas, etc.)use. Telemetry tagging studies are a likely viable option.

Continue to collect long-term data sets using standardised survey methodologiesfor blue whales in a statistically robust manner.


1. Introduction

1.1 Recovery Plan Review ProcessThe Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)provides a comprehensive legislative framework to protect Australia’s environment.

The EPBC Act provides for recovery plans to be developed for the purposes of theprotection, conservation and management of listed threatened species. Recoveryplans must set out the recovery objectives and the actions required to achieve thoseobjectives. The EPBC Act also requires that a review of recovery plans be undertakenat intervals of not longer than five years (Section 279(2)). This document is a review ofthe three Recovery Plans for Australia’s five threatened whale species (2005-2010):

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)

Southern Right whale (Eubalaena australis)

Blue (Balaenoptera musculus), fin (Balaenoptera physalus) and sei (Balaenopteraborealis) whales

The fundamental aim is to undertake a review of the information available on thethreatened whale species in Australia above, against the objectives listed in therecovery plans to:

Determine what has been accomplished in the protection and management ofthese species over the last five years, and

Recommend for each plan whether changes should be made to the recovery plan,a new recovery plan should be developed, or whether the recovery plan is nolonger required.

A broad review of the information provided within the recovery plans on species,habitat, management practices, and threats is also required to ascertain if the detailsare current and comprehensive or require changes.

This review is not intended to provide actions for new recovery plans although it doesprovide recommendations to facilitate decision-making on the status of the currentplans. Should the Minister for the Environment decide to vary the Whale RecoveryPlans, new Recovery Plans will be developed via a process of stakeholder consultationand with the relevant jurisdictions in accordance with the EPBC Act.

1.2 Methodology and Information SourcesThe information in this document has been derived from engagement with variousstakeholders through face to face, and over the phone discussions, and writtensubmissions. Representatives from 23 different affiliations were contacted to providecomment on the Whale Recovery Plans (2005 -2010). This process was guided by a


discussion outline appropriate to their role (Appendix A). Representatives were fromthe following sectors:

State and Commonwealth government environment agencies

Defence

Industry

Research, including museums

Non-government organisations and

Species specialist consultants

Discussions ranged from 30 minutes to two hours, and a review of peer – reviewedand grey literature was undertaken to supplement stakeholder responses and thisinformation has been included throughout this document and referenced accordingly.

The report is structured to respond to the objectives and performance criteria of eachwhale Recovery Plan. Within each whale Recovery Plan chapter, a species statusoverview is provided along with the Recovery Plan objectives and criteria to measureperformance as per the Recovery Plans (2005 – 2010). An overview of key actions forthe Recovery Plan period is captured under the following sub-headings:

Population recovery

Habitat use and needs

Protection from threats

Issues

Review of information provided; and

Recommendations


2. Humpback Whale Recovery Plan Evaluation

2.1 Overview of StatusNationally, the humpback whale (Megaptera novaengliae) remains listed as Vulnerableunder the EPBC Act, with an international listing on the Convention for InternationalTrade and Endangered Species (CITES) (Appendix I and II) and under the Conventionfor Migratory Species (CMS)(Bonn Convention). The humpback is also listed as LeastConcern on the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species with the Oceaniasubpopulation listed as Endangered. Population interchange has been documentedbetween the east and west Australian humpback whale groups, and between theOceania and east Australian humpback whale groups, which has managementimplications at an international scale. In the recovery plan period numerous researchprojects have contributed to the humpback whale knowledge base with changes tomanagement across numerous jurisdictions. The humpback whale recovery objectiveshave been reviewed and the achievement of these objectives has been evaluated inthe context of the recovery plan criteria.

2.2 Objectives of the Humpback Whale Recovery Plan

The objectives are:

The recovery of populations of humpback whales utilising Australian waters so thatthe species can be considered secure in the wild;

A distribution of humpback whales utilising Australian waters that is similar to thepre-exploitation distribution of the species; and

To maintain the protection of humpback whales from human threats.

‘Secure in the wild’ with respect to humpback whales in Australian waters means: apopulation with sufficient geographic range and distribution, abundance, and geneticdiversity to provide a stable population over long time scales.

2.3 Criteria to Measure Performance of the Plan Against theObjectives

Secure populations of humpback whales in Australian waters were recorded, orpopulations continued to recover at, or close to, the optimum biological rate(understood to be approximately 8-10% per annum at the commencement of thisplan);

Populations of humpback whales in Australian waters were known to have adistribution similar to the pre-exploitation distribution, or the range of humpbackwhale populations continued to expand towards pre-exploitation distributions; and

Domestic and international protection regimes that support the recovery of the


species were maintained and where possible improved.

2.4 Overview of Actions

2.4.1 Population Recovery

Of relevance to Australian humpback whale populations, the International WhalingCommission (IWC) currently recognises four humpback breeding subpopulationsaround the South Ocean, South Pacific and Australia based on “Discovery” markrecoveries, demographic isolation, and genetic differentiation (Olavarria et al. 2007).The wintering grounds of these groups (C – F) are:

(C) (southwestern Indian Ocean): coasts of eastern South Africa, Mozambique,Madagascar (southern, western and eastern coasts), Mayotte, the Comoros and otherwestern Indian Ocean island groups;(D) (southeastern Indian Ocean): northwestern Australia;(E) (southwest Pacific) northeastern Australia, New Caledonia, Tonga and Fiji; and(F) (central South Pacific): Cook Islands and French Polynesia

There is evidence of substructure within the groups, with subunits that are spatially andgenetically isolated to varying degrees. The structure of groups E and F is particularlyunclear: there appear to be at least six separate subpopulations (eastern Australia,New Caledonia, Fiji, Tonga, Cook Islands, and islands further east), and it is unclearhow these should be grouped if at all.

The west Australian humpback whale population is comprised of whales feeding inAntarctic waters and migrating to breeding grounds along the west coast of Australia(Group D). The east coast population (Group E) comprises whales feeding in Antarcticwaters further east and a portion of this population migrates to breeding grounds alongthe east coast of Australia. The remainder is thought to disperse into the South Pacific(Paterson et al. 2001).

They range from their feeding grounds at about 55° S with most feeding occurringbetween 70° E and 130° E for the west coast population, and 130° E and 170° W forthe east coast population (Bannister & Hedley 2001; Paterson et al. 2001). From thesesouthern latitudes, they migrate to their breeding grounds at about 17–27° S aroundthe Great Barrier Reef complex (although some of the east coast whales range furtherto New Caledonia (Garrigue et al. 2000), and the west coast humpback whales areoften sighted as far north as Ashmore Reef (12° S) on the west coast.

Jackson et al (2010), reports that the total number of humpback whales in theSouthern Hemisphere is estimated to be more than 36,763 individuals, however, noabundance estimate is available for Group F. Annual rates of increase are available forall Australian humpback whale groups except Group F and range from to 10.5% p.a.and 10.9% (Group E). Group F is listed separately by the IUCN as Endangered, having


declined by probably more than 70% since 1942, and with varying levels of subsequentincrease amongst subpopulations within the region (Childerhouse et al. 2008). Asnoted above, Group F which has recorded interchange with the East Australian groupis not considered to be increasing at the maximum biological rate. The Oceaniasubpopulation consists of breeding Groups E (including subpopulations E1, E2 and E3)and F recognised by the IWC. The connectivity of these populations implies that thatnot all humpback whales in Australian waters are recovering as anticipated.

Zerbini et al. (2010), undertook an assessment of plausible rates of population growthin humpback whales from life-history data. In this study, recent data on life-historyparameters influencing rates of population growth in humpback whales were reviewed,including survival, age at first parturition and calving rate. Simulations were used tocompute a distribution of rates of increase (ROIs) taking into account uncertainty inbiological parameter estimates. Two approaches for computing juvenile survival areproposed, which taken into account along with other life-history data, resulted in thefollowing estimates of the rate of population growth:

Approach A: mean of 7.3%/year (95% CI = 3.5–10.5%/year) and

Approach B: mean of 8.6%/year (95% CI = 5.0–11.4%/year).

Zerbini et al. (2010) proposes that the upper 99% quantile of the resulting distributionof the ROI for Approach B (11.8%/year) be established as the maximum plausible ROIfor humpback whales and be used in population assessment of the species. Thissuggests that the current biological rate of increase (8 – 10%) may be below theoptimal rate of increase.

East AustraliaThe humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) that migrate along the east coast ofAustralia were hunted to near extinction during the last century. This remnantpopulation is part of Group E. Previous abundance estimates for the east Australianportion of Group E have been based mainly on land-based counts.

Noad et al. (2008) conducted a six week land-based survey at Point Lookout on theeast coast of Australia, in June and July 2007. Over the peak four weeks of thenorthward migration, an average of 70.7 whales passed per 10 hour period. This wascompared with a similar metric from previous surveys at this site yielding a long-termrate of increase of 10.9% per annum (95% CI 10.5 – 11.4%), slightly higher than theprevious estimate from a survey in 2004 (Noad et al., 2006). This indicates that thelong-term rapid increase in the size of the east Australian population of humpbackwhales continues without any apparent slowing.

Approximately 89% of groups passed within 5 km of land and the mean distancesoffshore for both aerial and land-based surveys were less than 2.5 km. This supportsone of the key assumptions of the land-based counts, that they are not greatly affectedby whales missed as a function of increasing distance offshore.


An estimate of absolute abundance for 2007 was made by extrapolating from the 2004absolute abundance estimate. Using the land-based correction factor for groupsavailable but missed estimated in 2004, 2007 absolute abundance is estimated at9,683 whales (95% CI 8,556 – 10,959).

West Australia

Single platform aerial line transect and land-based surveys of Southern HemisphereGroup ‘D’ humpback whales were undertaken off Shark Bay, Western Australia toprovide absolute abundance estimates of animals migrating northward along thewestern Australian coast (2008). The land-based survey was undertaken from CapeInscription, Dirk Hartog Island, Shark Bay, during the expected peak of the whales’northward migration, from July 8 – 20, 2008.

Estimated abundance of northward-migrating whales during that time is 33,850 (95%CI 27,340-50,260)), representing an annual rate of increase of 12.7% (CV=0.19) sincean estimate of 11,500 in 1999. This is based on an estimate of relative abundance ofsurface-available whales of 11,100 (8,960-16,480). Alternative approaches forestimating relative abundance from these data are therefore also presented by Hedley(et al. in press), resulting in considerably higher estimates of around 0.6-0.7, andyielding a conservative abundance estimate of 17,500 (14,130-25,980).

Pacific RegionThe interchange and isolation of individual humpback whales between winteringgrounds of Oceania (South Pacific) and the east coast of Australia were documentedby individual identification photographs collected from 1999 to 2004 (Garrigue et al.2008). Interchange was assessed using regional catalogues of fluke photographs,totalling 692 individuals from Oceania (represented by New Zealand, New Caledonia,Vanuatu, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Niue, Cook Island, French Polynesia and AmericanSamoa) and 1242 individuals from Hervey and Byron Bay representing the southboundand the northbound migration along the east coast of Australia (EA). Overall, therewere seven documented movements between EA and Oceania. Four instances ofmovement of four individuals were documented between EA and Oceania, all betweenEA and the closest breeding grounds of New Caledonia. A further three movementswere recorded between EA and a small catalogue (n = 13) from the New Zealandmigratory corridor. During this same period, 20 cases of interchange were documentedamong nine breeding grounds: French Polynesia, Cook Islands, Niue, AmericanSamoa, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Vanuatu and New Caledonia. The low level of interchangebetween Oceania and the east coast of Australia and the movement across Oceaniahave important implications in understanding the group structure and abundance ofhumpback whales in the South Pacific (Garrigue et al. 2008).

Genetic and acoustic data generated by the study of Australia's humpback whales hasalso been used to describe the links between the east coast population and breedingpopulations found throughout the western Pacific. These Pacific populations have


shown a very slow rate of recovery if any since the cessation of commercial whaling(legally protected since 1966) and remain Endangered.

The Australian humpback whale populations on eastern and western Australia havemost recently been recorded as having population increases that exceed the earlierperceived rate of increase of 8- 10% with 10.9 and 12.7% respectively. Bothpopulations continue to increase suggesting that their recovery is still ongoing. ThePacific whale population which Australia’s east coast population has genetic exchangewith, is not demonstrating recovery at the maximum biological rate or is too small apopulation to detect this trend at present.

2.4.2 Habitat Use and Needs

Several research projects on the east and west coast have lead to enhancedknowledge of humpback whale habitat utilisation. Many of these projects have beenundertaken as collaborations between universities, industry and the RAN withinAustralia and internationally. Some standardised techniques to gather this informationto date include:

Telemetry tagging with Dtags

Past-the-post counting for relative abundance

Aerial surveys to compare with past-the-post counts

Mark-recapture studies

Photo-identification catalogues

Acoustic monitoring

Spatial modelling of presence data as well as biophysical aspects of habitats

Spatial modelling is readily becoming a valuable assessment tool. Research has beenprioritised to better understand the breeding ground of humpback whale BreedingGroup E(i) (East Australian) as it is currently poorly defined, but considered to occurwithin the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP). By means of spatial analysis,research is underway to identify mating/ calving areas. This is crucial for appropriatemanagement and regulation within these areas. The spatial analysis will collate andanalyse existing sighting data to assess distribution and relative abundance ofhumpback whales in the GBRMP to:

1) Identify high concentration areas of humpback whales that indicate potential mating/calving areas;

2) Develop a spatial model of likely breeding habitat to establish priority areas forfuture survey effort.

The data draws from several years of coastal surveys undertaken by Coastwatch aerialsurvey data (Border Protection) to determine regions of higher use in southern


migration.

There is a general agreement from researchers and regulatory agencies on the eastand west coast of Australia that the range of humpback whales is extending. Forexample there are anecdotal reports of more humpback whales occupying Shark Baythan in recent years with humpbacks now also being observed in the Northern Territorymore often.

2.4.3 Protection from Threats

Best practice approaches to management have been undertaken in many states thathave reduced the likelihood of humpback whales being entangled in marine debris,fishing and aquaculture equipment. Codes of Practice have been developed incollaboration with industry partners (fishing, oil and gas) to reduce the potential forharmful interactions such as entanglement and oil spills. Training for disentanglementoperations have been undertaken throughout Australia and extended to other countriesin recognition of the comprehensive course developed by the Western Australiangovernment and collaborators.

Educational packages have also been developed by most states to appeal to industryand the general public. The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) has developed a package forvessel crews on appropriate behaviours during whale season and potential risk ofvessels to whales.

To appropriately address the growing offshore industry sector, seismic guidelines weredeveloped in 2008 by the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and theArts (DEWHA) to provide the most relevant information on how best to reduce thepotential for acoustic impact upon whales. These guidelines have been readily used byindustry and regulators to fulfil EPBC referral requirements and provide for theprotection of whales amidst development. A project currently underway in the form ofa controlled project will involve the use of seismic playback to determine response frommigrating whales (Mike Noad, Rob McCaughley and collaborators). This research isintended to refine the current seismic management system for whales and industry.The RAN has made positive contributions to research on acoustic impacts such asmid-frequency sonar and vessel speed restrictions in areas important to whalespredominantly on the west coast.

Whale watching is increasingly becoming a profitable and sustainable activity aroundAustralia. With the exception of the Northern Territory, all Australian states haveadopted whale watching guidelines that maintain distances for vessels and aircraft.These guidelines enable thousands of people to benefit from a positive interaction withwhales whilst not impacting on the species migration or resting. DEWHA releasedAustralian National Guidelines for Whale and Dolphin Watching Guidelines in 2005;these are applicable for operations in Commonwealth waters though have provided thebasis for other state guidelines eg NSW and Qld.


Australia has recently adopted a regional ecosystem approach to habitat managementthrough the national bioregional planning in addition to demonstrating value of thisapproach to the IWC through programs within the SORP.

Climate change has the potential to change the productivity of the Antarctic region. Thesea ice zone supports much wildlife, particularly large vertebrates such as whales,some exploited to near extinction. Cetacean species in the Southern Ocean will bedirectly impacted by changes in sea ice patterns as well as indirectly by changes intheir principal prey, Antarctic krill, affected by modifications to their own environmentthrough climate change. Understanding how climate change will affect species at alltrophic levels in the Southern Ocean requires new approaches and integrated researchprograms. Many studies are underway to better understand the potential impacts ofclimate change but the long term datasets for high resolution modelling are required.

For the period of the recovery plan, Australia has maintained a strong anti-whalingposition. Significant financial contributions have been made to develop non-lethalresearch programs as a strategic tool in opposition to the Japan’s scientific whalingprogram.

2.5 IssuesAll of the actions within the humpback whale recovery plan have been implementedhowever some actions require a greater period of time to be applied to humpbackwhale conservation, such as climate change research.

2.6 Review of the Information ProvidedThe information within the humpback whale recovery plan was considered sufficient atthe time of writing; however changes to coastal industry (oil and gas) and technologicaladvancements have provided further insight to Australian humpback whalepopulations. Much of the research that has been undertaken during the five yearrecovery plan period has added value to the assessment of these populations. Many ofthe research projects for this period are still undergoing the final stages of review withsome regulatory changes such as marine mammal plans (Qld) currently under review.The information available at present indicates that Australian populations of humpbackwhales are increasing beyond previously projected rates of biological increase, with theexception of the Pacific group. Recognised threats such as climate change and preydepletion are not well-understood at present and have the potential to impact speciesat the population level rapidly if not managed appropriately. Further information onsuch impacts is required to adequately respond to perceived changes.

2.7 RecommendationsContinue to maintain research projects that contribute to refined population modelsand impact assessment as populations are not yet considered stable.


Prioritise the east Australia humpback whale conservation management for thebenefit of the threatened Oceania (South Pacific) group recovery.

Maintain a strong position on anti-whaling activities in Australian waters andmaintain close and supportive relationships to regional nations.

Alternatives to invasive scientific whaling should continue to be explored throughthe SORP.

Continue to provide support to management agencies that are likely to experiencean increase in whale interactions with industry and coastal communities in the nearfuture

Provide support to maintain and develop a national stranding database thatincludes basic pathology of stranded species for research benefit

Continue to identify critical habitat areas ie calving or aggregation areas to betterinform management

A general consensus amongst stakeholders recommended a review or an updateof the present humpback whale Recovery Plan.

Australian east coast (excluding the South Pacific populations) and west coasthumpback whales appear to be on a positive and consistent abundance trajectorythough are yet to stabilise at the population level. Until stability has been achievedin this context for all Australian humpback populations, they remain in a state ofrecovery, thus a Recovery Plan should remain in place to support theirconservation.

It is recommended that the information in the humpback whale Recovery Plan isupdated to reflect the significant research contributions of the past five years torefine information for assessors and managers and outline any new research andconservation priorities. Updating the humpback whale habitat mapping in theRecovery Plans is a priority.


3. Southern Right Whale Recovery Plan Evaluation

3.1 Overview of StatusNationally, the southern right whale (Eubaleana australis) remains listed asEndangered under the EPBC Act, with an international listing on CITES (Appendix Iand) and under the Convention for Migratory Species (CMS) Bonn Convention –Appendix I). The southern right whale is also listed as Least Concern on the 2008IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Following severe historical depletion bycommercial whaling, several breeding populations (Argentina/Brazil, South Africa andAustralia) of southern right whales (E. australis) have shown evidence of strongrecovery, with a doubling time of 10-12 years (Bannister 2001, Best et al. 2001, Cookeet al. 2001). A total of 11 winter calving grounds have been identified in the southernhemisphere based on the distribution of current or historical sightings and catches(IWC 2001). At least four discrete southern right whale populations migrate in winter topopulation-specific ranges off the coasts of Australia, South Africa, Argentina andsubantarctic New Zealand (IWC 2001). The southern right whale population on theeast coast of Australia does not appear to be recovering at the same rate as thepopulation in WA and SA.

Numerous research projects undertaken during the Recovery Plan period havecontributed to the southern right whale knowledge base with changes to managementacross southern jurisdictions. The southern right whale recovery objectives have beenreviewed below in the context of the recovery plan criteria.

3.2 Objectives of the Southern Right Whale Recovery PlanThe objectives are:

The recovery of the southern right whale population utilising Australian waters sothat the population can be considered secure in the wild;

A distribution of southern right whales utilising Australian waters that is similar tothe pre-exploitation distribution of the species; and

To maintain the protection of southern right whales from human threats.

For the purposes of this plan ‘secure in the wild’ is defined qualitatively, recognisingthat stricter definitions are not yet available, but will be refined and where possiblequantified during the life of this plan by work currently underway and identified in theactions of this plan.

‘Secure in the wild’ with respect to southern right whales in Australian waters means: apopulation with sufficient geographic range and distribution, abundance, and geneticdiversity to provide a stable population over long time scales.



It is not anticipated that the objectives for recovery will be achieved during the life ofthis plan. However, the following criteria can be used to measure the ongoingperformance of this plan against the objectives:

The Australian population of southern right whales continued to recover at, or closeto, the optimum biological rate (understood to be approximately 7% per annum atthe commencement of this plan);

Continued expansion into suitable habitat, potentially including pre-exploitationareas of importance; and

Domestic and international protection regimes that support the recovery of thespecies were maintained and where possible improved.


3.4.1 Population recovery

Southern right whale populations in Australia have had varied success with recovery.Population abundance trends off south east Australia have not been measured to date.Anecdotally it would appear that population recovery there is extremely slow for thesouthern right whale in this region as they have not exhibited consistent and reliableexpansion into formerly used areas in the south east. The south west Australianpopulation however, has been recorded to achieve a recovery of optimum biologicalrate.

An aerial survey for southern right whales was conducted off the southern Australiancoast in 2009, close inshore between Cape Leeuwin, Western Australia, and Ceduna,South Australia, the 17th annual survey undertaken since 1993. The majority of the‘Australian’ population approaches that coast in winter/spring, cows about to give birthappearing at an average of three years, others less predictably. Aggregations mainly ofcows accompanied by calves of the year, were encountered in and near DoubtfulIsland Bay (WA), in and east of Israelite Bay (WA), and at Head of Bight (SA). Largernumbers of ‘unaccompanied’ animals than previously observed were recorded east ofAlbany (WA) and from Cape Arid to Twilight Cove (WA). The number recorded (782animals including 244 cow/calf pairs, of which 63 were at Head of Bight, SA, and,unusually, a further eight at Fowler Bay), was higher than in any previous year in theseries, contrasting markedly with the very low figure recorded in 2007 (286 animalsincluding only 57 cow/calf pairs). Exponential increase rates for the period 1993-2009(excluding 1996 and 1997 where there may have been some undercounting) havecorresponding percentage annual increases of 7.17 (95% CI 3.92-10.54) and 7.51(95% CI 3.18-12.02), respectively. This suggests that the optimal biological rate ofpopulation growth is currently being achieved by the southern right whales for this


region. However, the southern right whale population encountered in Tasmania,Victoria and New South Wales remains low with recovery not being recognised to date.

Identifying photographs were obtained using a digital-camera system. Computerisedphotographic matching, introduced comprehensively in late 2003, has continued, alliedwith a computerised database. Of 5338 images available from 1976-2008, mainly fromthe aerial surveys, comparison has been completed for 3892 images, resulting in 1353separately identified individuals, mainly from 1980-2005.

Also, a sightings database has been developed which currently contains information on2669 separate sighting events from 1976, and 892 individuals. Minimum populationsize from which animals visiting the area surveyed are drawn is estimated to be 2530,with a total Australian population of ca 3000.

3.4.2 Habitat use and needs

Southern right whales remain severely constrained in terms of their range-wide coastalhabitat occupancy. Whilst reported from across their entire presumed historic coastalrange, whales are not reliably occupying areas through the south east of this range asmay be expected if approaching a pre-exploitation distribution.

Spatial ecology studies across the Australian range of southern right whales haveincluded investigating the spatial use of habitat, models for habitat selection at fine-and broad-scales, historical ecology, comparing current and historical spatial use andlooking at spatial recovery across the Australian range.

Development of a data management tool, BigFish, for photo-identification data (co-developers G Murdoch and K Lawton): The system provides for integrated digitalmanagement of long-term photo-identification datasets. Long-term photo-identificationmonitoring of the Head of Bight calving aggregation (co-investigator S Burnell): data formonitoring basic biological parameters such as calving interval, calf production, age atfirst reproduction; anthropogenic interactions such as entanglement, vessel collisionsthrough photographic records of injuries and scarring is also used. See (Pirzl andBurnell 2001-2006, Pirzl 2008a, Pirzl et al. 2009, Pirzl et al. in prep).

Extensive information about southern right whale spatial ecology, habitat selection andimportant habitat is available in (Pirzl 2008b) for the coastal regions of Australia. Thisinformation is new since the last recovery plan. The research identifies both currentand historically important aggregation areas and compares past (whaling times) andpresent habitat occupancy patterns. It looks at the spatial recovery of southern rightwhales in terms of habitat occupancy, identifies areas of emerging importance on theAustralian coastline, and discusses a lack of apparent spatial recovery in the SE. Theresearch develops models of fine-scale habitat use (at the calving ground level) todefine the environmental parameters governing the use of habitat by southern rightwhales within those areas. This work includes consideration of how internal populationfactors (breeding status, calf development) and variable environmental (weather, sea


conditions) modulate habitat use within the fixed static environmental variablesdescribed by models. At a broad-scale (whole of Australian range) the researchdevelops rules-based environmental envelope models to define the primary physicalhabitat characteristics associated with the selection of particular locations as calvinggrounds. It discusses the likely influence of memory (site-fidelity) and social factors onsite selection, in combination with environmental parameters, concluding that southernright whales are able to make use of locations characterised by a reasonably broadenvironmental envelope, but that physically suitable habitat will be overlooked ifmemory and social factors are not met. The work defines present, historical andemerging aggregation areas.

Pirzl et al (2009) report the first documented movement between population-specificranges for the Australian and subantarctic New Zealand populations, includingmovements of calving females between population specific calving grounds.Patenaude et al. (2007) proposed that female movement may have been restricted asa consequence of population depletions by whaling. It is possible that movementsbetween grounds are density dependent and may increase as populations recover.The movements may also indicate a non-density dependent meta-population structurefor southern right whales in which limited movement between genetically differentiatedpopulations occurs. Photo-identification resight data support the possibility of a meta-population structure with low levels of interaction, but do not provide conclusiveevidence.

Latest research indicates that southern right whales occasionally move betweenAustralian and subantarctic New Zealand population-specific ranges, and the breedingstatus of the individuals involved supports the possibility of low level gene flow viaintermixing in winter habitat. The photo-identification comparisons reported offerinsights into current movement patterns, enhancing the historical perspective providedby genetic studies.

Comparison of photographs from Hervey Bay and Ballina confirmed that the samesouthern right whale has occurred in both localities, being within 400 m of the coast.The distance between the Hervey Bay and Ballina sightings is approximately 550 km.The northernmost sighting of a southern right whale in east Australia included a motherand calf in Hervey Bay in 2000 (Brigden, 2001). In the context of other recentsightings, these observations suggest that the population may be increasing (Allen &Bejder, 2003). The sightings may also indicate an expansion of the range of E.australis off eastern Australia, which may represent recolonisation of breeding groundsused prior to the whaling era. Similar expansions have been documented elsewhere inthe Southern Hemisphere (Best et al., 1993; Patenaude et al., 1998).


The South Australian government provides management support for the conservationof southern right whales by way of impact assessment and marine park planning.


Seismic activity and ocean energy are current impacts being addressed in this regionby way of conditioning impact assessments and providing buffer zones.

Whale watching with regulations are consistent with National Guidelines includingprotection of congregating animal seasonally protected with an exclusion zone –Regulated in 2009. Temporal and spatial closures have been in existence for sometime in the Head of Bite Marine Park however, more recently have been implementedat critical habitat sites such as Logan’s Beach and Wilson’s Promontory (Victoria)where vessels are not permitted.

All southern regions are working closely with fisheries industry and partners to reduceimpacts and enhance response time to entanglements from crayfish fishing.

The research detailed above provides applied information for management and hasbeen used for a number of purposes (e.g. Commonwealth Bioregional MarinePlanning, Great Australian Bite Marine Park planning, assessment of referrals underthe EPBC Act, input to oil & gas industry activities). It has been widely distributedamongst industry, regulators, managers and scientists.

The BigFish data management system is designed to track evidence of anthropogenicimpacts documented through photographs (e.g. cuts, scars, wounds, entanglements).It allows for quantitative analysis of these aspects. Changes in reproductive output inAustralian southern right whales has been linked to variability in large scale climatesignals in the southern hemisphere. A decrease in annual calf production has beenassociated with El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability. An increase inanomalous calving intervals (extended calving interval) has been associated withvariability in the Southern Annular Mode.

Shipstrike is also a perceived concern with increasing coastal industry and theincreasing SW populations conflicting for space. This has been observed in otherinternational southern right whale populations where a greater number of animalsinhabit the coastal region. The identification of critical habitats in Australia’s southerncoastal region in concert with managed vessel speeds will likely assist in reducingpotential vessel strike issues.

3.5 IssuesThe objectives of the southern right whale Recovery Plan have been achieved wherecommitment to undertaking valuable research on southern right whales in south westAustralia has been achieved however, efforts to attain data from these species in thesouth west region has been inhibited by inherent low numbers. Subsequently, there isless information to evaluate.

3.6 Review of the Information ProvidedAn adequate level of assessment has been achieved for the south west Australian


population of southern right whales however, information available for the south eastpopulation is currently lacking with analysis required of available data to detectpopulation trends.

3.7 RecommendationsAs southern right whale habitat occupancy in Australia is still constrained incomparison to historical occupancy, and abundance is still well below estimatehistoric abundance, a recovery plan for the southern right whale is still required andshould be updated to reflect new knowledge e.g. mapping of aggregation areaextensions.

Observed correlations between breeding success off Argentina and sea surfacetemperature anomalies at South Georgia suggest that as Antarctic feeding groundswarm up, the average calving rate of southern right whales can be expected todecline (Leaper et al. 2006). Further research on southern right whale feedinggrounds should be undertaken to better predict climate change implications onspecies.

Current research programs are appropriate for long-term species monitoring andshould continue to be supported. This will maintain rigour in long-term datasets.This recommendation is of priority for the south east coast population of southernright whales. Analysis of existing datasets in this region should be undertaken forpopulation trend evaluation.

The term critical habitat is problematic as it is impossible to assess whetherparticular locations are truly essential to the survival of the species. A suggestedchange from ‘critical’, to be replaced by ‘important’. Further research on habitatdelineation should be undertaken to also establish this.


4. Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recovery Plan Evaluation

4.1 Overview of StatusNationally, the blue (Balaenoptera musculus) whale is listed as Endangered, and thefin (Balaenoptera physalus) and sei (Balaenoptera borealis) whales are listed asVulnerable under the EPBC Act, with an international listing on CITES (Appendix I) andunder the Convention for Migratory Species (Bonn Convention). The IUCN red listcategorises the blue, fin and sei whales as Endangered with the Antarctic blue whalelikely meeting the criteria for Critically Endangered.

4.2 Objectives of the Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recovery PlanThe objectives are:

the recovery of populations of blue, fin and sei whales utilising Australian waters sothat the species can be considered secure in the wild; and

to maintain the protection of blue, fin and sei whales from human threats.

For the purposes of this plan ‘secure in the wild’ is defined qualitatively, recognisingthat stricter definitions are not yet available, but will be refined and where possiblequantified during the life of this plan by work currently underway and identified in theactions of this plan.

‘Secure in the wild’ with respect to these species means: a population with sufficientgeographic range and distribution, abundance, and genetic diversity to provide a stablepopulation over long time scales.


It is not anticipated that the objectives for recovery will be achieved during the life ofthis plan. However, the following criteria can be used to measure the ongoingperformance of this plan against the objectives:

An indication of the population and recovery status of blue, fin and sei whalepopulations using Australian waters was developed; and

Domestic and international protection regimes that support the recovery of thespecies were maintained and where possible improved.


4.4.1 Population Recovery

The blue, fin and sei whales generally inhabit offshore waters that impose difficulty in


the collection of data relevant to their conservation. These whales were all subject tointensive whaling pressure which has hampered their recovery to date.

In the recovery plan period, numerous research projects have predominantlycontributed to the blue whale knowledge base and to a lesser extent the fin and seiwhales. The blue, fin and sei whale recovery objectives have been reviewed below inthe context of the recovery plan criteria and have been broadly achieved.

Within Australia, blue whales (pygmy and Antarctic) have maintained a positivepopulation trajectory with increases estimated at 7.3% p.a. and 8.2% p.a. respectively.The removal of whaling as a significant threat to these species has had a recognisableimpact on blue whale populations however, a similar level of detection is unfounded forfin and sei whales in Australia to date. Insufficient data on fin and sei whales inAustralian waters has limited the capacity to establish a percentage populationincrease.

Blue WhaleBlue whales appear to be rare in the central southern Indian Ocean (Branch et al.2006). They occur in the south-eastern Indian Ocean off western and southernAustralia but are abundant only in quite small areas (Kato et al. 1996, Bannister et al.2007, Gill 2002), suggesting a population only in the hundreds. The catch of at least12,618 pygmy blue whales Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda in the southern IndianOcean in a rather short period during 1960-71 (Branch et al., 2004) suggests that theinitial population was at least this size, and hence that the current population is stilldepleted, but not as severely as the Antarctic blue whale B. musculus. intermedia.

Commercial whaling harvested more than 360,000 blue whales, primarily in theSouthern Ocean, but with significant numbers from almost every part of the world’soceans (Clapham and Baker, 2001). The Antarctic blue whale was extremely abundantin the past: about 341,830 blue whales have been recorded caught in the Antarctic andsub-Antarctic (IWC 2006) in the 20th century, of which 12,618 were identified aspygmy blue whales or are assumed to have been so from their location (Branch et al.2004). Branch et al. (2004) estimated the pre-exploitation (1905) abundance to be239,000 (202,000-311,000). The population size in 1996, based primarily on data fromthe IWC-sponsored whale sightings cruises conducted during 1978-2001, wasestimated to be 1,700 (860-2,900) and to be increasing at the rate of 7.3% (1.4-11.6%)p.a.

Although there are uncertainties over present abundance of Antarctic blue whales, thetotal population has been depleted by at least 70%, and possibly as much as 90%,over the last three generations, assuming a 31-year average generation time. Thespecies therefore meets the criterion for Endangered, and probably meets the samecriterion for Critically Endangered (IUCN 2008). The dominant contribution to thereduction in the global population is the massive reduction of the formerly very largeAntarctic population. For that reason, the Antarctic blue whale (B. musculus.


intermedia) subspecies should be viewed separately as Critically Endangered due to areduction over the same period of over 97% (that assessment will proceed in future).

Usually found south of 55 S in summer, this subspecies is estimated to havenumbered 239,000 (95% CI: 202,000–311,000) prior to exploitation, but whalingreduced numbers to around 150–840 individuals in the early 1970s before theyincreased to 860–2,900 by 1996, just 0.3%–1.3% of their original abundance (Branchet al. 2004, 2007). Antarctic blue whales were estimated to have increased at anannual rate of 8.2% (95% CI: 3.8–12.5%) between 1978/9 and 2003/4 (Branch 2007).B. musculus intermedia is listed as Critically Endangered by the IUCN, with the currentpopulation remaining below 3% of original abundance levels (Reilly et al. 2008e).

Pygmy blue whales are usually found north of 54 S, particularly in the northern IndianOcean, off southern Australia and New Zealand, and off southern Madagascar, but thepast and present status of this subspecies is poorly known (Branch et al. 2007). Noaccepted current estimates exist for this subspecies and the last evaluation by theIUCN in 1996 listed them as Data Deficient. Sighting rates in recent times suggestpygmy blue whales are not as depleted as Antarctic blue whales, with some regionsshowing sightings rates 1–2 orders of magnitude higher than for Antarctic blue whalesightings (Branch et al. 2007).

Fin WhaleThe IUCN assessment of the fin whale estimates that the global population hasdeclined by more than 70% over the last three generations (1929-2007), although inthe absence of current substantial catches it is probably increasing. Most of the globaldecline over the last three generations is attributable to the decline from whaling in theSouthern Hemisphere (IUCN 2008). The data on the fin whale is too poor to attribute apotential rate of increase.

Similarly, southern hemisphere fin whales were reduced by whaling operations from apopulation of nearly 500,000 individuals at the turn of the 20th Century (Gambell 1985).Approximately 725,000 fin whales were killed in southern hemisphere waters from1904 onwards (Baker and Clapham 2002), and current abundance is likely to be about38,000 (Mori and Butterworth 2006, Reilly et al. 2008).

In the southern hemisphere, a multi-species model of the Antarctic (Mori andButterworth 2006) suggests that the initial abundance of fin whales may have beensubstantially lower (about 200,000) because much of the catch is interpreted asresulting from external dynamics (increased prey level) rather than from internaldynamics (births and deaths assuming constant food levels). The authors consideredthis productivity to be a response to the krill surplus arising from earlier depletion of theblue whale population, but recognised that the quantitative estimates from the analysesshould be regarded as tentative.


In 2005/06, the IWC Scientific Committee gave high priority to collection of any furtherexperimental data needed to assess the feasibility of a full-scale fin whale abundanceestimate. The aim of the feasibility study for fin whale research was to investigatemethods for estimating the abundance of fin whales in waters north of 60°S, andespecially to try out Adaptive Line Transect Sampling (ALTS) techniques to maximisethe efficiency of sighting effort. Additionally, acoustic research was undertaken, and thefeasibility of obtaining fin whale biopsy samples under Antarctic conditions was alsoinvestigated. Twenty days were allocated for the feasibility study for fin whale research(17 days for survey and 3 days for biopsy sampling). The experimental use of ALTS(adaptive line transect sampling) during the 2005/06 cruise showed that there were noserious logistical problems in implementing ALTS, and it was therefore agreed that nofurther ALTS experiment was required for 2006/07.

Sightings were made in the mid-latitude region (between 55°S and 61°S) by theIWC/SOWER (Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research Program) where ahigh density area of fin whales was observed between 0°E and 5°E in the south ofBouvet Island (Ensor et al, 2007). Near the research area, large whales comprised themajority of the sightings, including sperm and baleen whales (humpback fin, andminke). A multi-species aggregation comprising killer whales (4 groups 51 animals), apair of fin whales, a pair of minke whales and a solitary humpback whale wasobserved. During the cruise a total of 3 fin whales were biopsied during 1.78 hours ofresearch time. Photo-id images of the three whales were obtained. Good qualityacoustic recordings of fin whale calls were made at two of 11 deployed acousticstations. Fin whales (5 groups, 23 animals) were observed in the minke whaleresearch area and mostly near the pack ice.

Sei WhaleThe global mature population of sei whales is estimated to have declined by about80% over the last three generations (IUCN 2008). This is supported by observeddeclines in abundance in several regions. Most of this decline is attributable to thesouthern hemisphere. Assuming a maximum annual pregnancy rate of 0.40, aminimum age of first reproduction of 10 years, and no juvenile mortality, the maximumrate of increase is 2.7% p.a. Horwood and Millward (1987) also conclude that themaximum rate of increase for sei whale populations is less than 3% per year.Given this maximum rate of increase in the context of a significantly depletedpopulation, detection of population recovery at this stage in Australia is unlikely.

4.4.2 Habitat Use and Needs

The migration patterns of blue whales are not well understood, but appear to be highlydiverse. Some populations appear to be resident year-round in habitats of year-roundhigh productivity, while others undertake long migrations to high-latitude feedinggrounds, but the extent of migrations and the components of the populations that


undertake them are poorly known.

Research on blue whales during the recovery plan period has been ongoing toelucidate further information on habitat use and habitat profile. Aerial surveys havebeen conducted to monitor the distribution of the blue whales over time, and satelliteimages of sea surface temperature and surface chlorophyll (ie phytoplankton) havebeen used to enable monitoring of upwelling dynamics and biological productivity.Boat-based studies have been used to investigate krill behaviour, while temperatureand conductivity data loggers inform behaviours of the upwelling.

Until 2003 much of the blue whale research in Australia had focussed on thecontinental shelf between Cape Otway in western Bass Strait, Victoria, and Robe,South Australia. In late 2003 and 2005, aerial surveys found blue whales feedingnearly 500 km west of a newly identified core feeding area. This ‘new’ feeding areawas west and south of Kangaroo Island in the eastern Great Australian Bight, thewestern extremity of a large-scale upwelling system that includes the BonneyUpwelling. At this stage it seems that blue whales only use this western area in anynumbers during December.

Photo-identification of individuals has shown a resight in the Bonney Upwelling in 2005of a blue whale photograpically identified in the Perth Canyon, Western Australia, in2004. In April 2005, satellite tagging showed direct movement of a blue whale southfrom the Bonney Upwelling to the Sub-Tropical Convergence, a broad oceanic mixingzone to Australia’s south where Soviet whalers illegally killed many blue whales duringthe 1960s. This evidence suggests that these whales are part of a larger 'open'population, rather than being restricted only to the Bonney Upwelling.

A photograph identification catalogue has been taken of blue whales in the BonneyUpwelling since 1998. Additionally, passive acoustic loggers have been deployed inorder to study local blue whale calls in a global context, to indicate impacts fromhuman activities, and allow tracking of blue whale movements.

A new approach is being used to understand blue whale feeding behaviour in theBonney Upwelling. Australian researchers have collaborated with US blue whaleresearchers of Cascadia Research (2007) to attach benign suction cups, complete withdive and acoustic loggers onto individual blue whales. This project is expected toprovide new insights into the underwater foraging and feeding behaviour of bluewhales in this region, and how they respond to the changing distribution of their prey.Identifying undisturbed blue whale foraging and feeding behaviour, will also beintrinsically valuable information in terms of defining critical habitat, but also essentialas baseline data in the context of measuring human disturbance and analysis of itseffects.

Sightings of fin and sei whales are extremely rare in Australian, as such, habitatpreferences and use patterns cannot be determined and remain unknown until furtherresearch.



A Japanese fleet resumed experimental catches of fin whales in the Antarctic in 2005,taking 10 whales each during 2005/06 and 2006/07, with plans to take 50 per yearfrom the 2007/08 season (IWC 2006a). This would suggest that Australia has only inpart achieved the objective of maintaining its international protection regime as whalinghad occurred. However, Australia has maintained its strong position against whalingduring the recovery plan period, and has invested heavily in alternative non-invasiveresearch techniques.

Mitigation of vessel impacts to date is largely based on critical habitat knowledge suchas the Rottnest Trench being an area of conflict for defence vessel speed trials andfeeding blue whales. The RAN has proactively managed their exercise in this region bynegotiating port speed limits during peak seasonal periods for whales and the seasonalexclusion of mid-frequency sonar. Additionally, the RAN has invested in acousticresearch to better inform potential impacts to whales and the application of appropriatesafety zones. This work has been concurrently implemented with educational programsfor staff on cetacean conservation and vessel management.

Fin whales are also targeted by Japanese special permit whaling (under IWC ArticleVIII) in Antarctica and subsistence hunters in West Greenland, where about 10–15individuals are taken annually.

The inherent low numbers of fin and sei whales in Australian waters will likely maintaina low-level of interaction with anthropogenic threats such as entanglement in fishinggear, vessel strike and pollution compared with some other whale species, due to theirgenerally offshore distribution, although these still occur in some locations (Aguilar2002). As the anthropogenic threats noted above are likely to affect all threatenedwhale species to varying degrees, efforts to reduce such impacts should beimplemented where possible.

4.5 IssuesThe actions proposed for the blue, fin and sei whales have been appropriatelydelivered where possible though due to the inherently low numbers in Australianwaters of these three species, population abundance estimates, trends and thereforedetermination of recovery remains difficult. Historically, the greatest threat to thesespecies has been whaling and as such there is a perceived increase in theirpopulations merely from the elimination of this threat.

During this century, a profound reduction in the extent of sea ice in the Antarctic isexpected, and possibly a complete disappearance in summer, as mean Antarctictemperatures rise faster than the global average (Turner et al. 2006). The implicationsof this for blue whales are unclear but warrant monitoring.


4.6 Review of Information ProvidedThe information available for blue whales is sufficient to suggest recovery is underwaywithin Australian waters with valuable research contributing to conservation andmanagement measures. Information available on fin and sei whales was limited andless targeted to an Australian context. This provided difficulty in assessing theirrecovery.

4.7 RecommendationsMaintain and update a Recovery Plan for all three species given the persistence ofthreats such as international whaling and climate change.

Increase focus on photo-identification, to facilitate use of mark-recapture methodsto improve estimates of blue whales using identified habitats. The application ofsatellite tagging studies will also provide valuable information on whale migrationroutes as they head north to winter breeding grounds in the tropics.

The continued collection of population data through programs such as SOWERand in collaboration with the IWC for all three of these species should occur tofacilitate the eventual development of population models.

The recognised dependency of blue whales on krill (Nyctiphanes australis) is acharacteristic that renders them potentially more vulnerable than other obligatebaleen whales to threatening processes associated with climate change (Claphamet al 1999). Further research to better define potential impacts of climate changeon baleen whales should continue.

The increasing prevalence of offshore industry and associated vessel traffic shoulddirect management and research focus on areas of high use and importance totheir protection.

Improve and maintain the stranding database for all threatened whale species toinclude a sampling program that collects for surrogate measures of threateningprocesses i.e. dietary analysis and contributes to population estimates.

Maintain a strong anti-whaling stance on all threatened whale species in Australianwaters to fulfil the objective of considering whale populations ‘secure’.

Improve the management of threatening processes by continuing to supportresearch that better defines their habitat (migratory pathways, feeding areas, etc.)use. Telemetry tagging studies are a likely viable option.

Continue to collect long-term data sets using standardised survey methodologiesfor blue whales in a statistically robust manner.


5. References

Aguilar, A. (2002). Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus). In: Perrin, W.F., B. Wursig &J.G.W. Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Page(s) 438. Orlando,Florida: Academic Press Inc.

Allen, S. & Bejder, L. (2003). Southern Right Whale Eubalaena australis sightings onthe Australian coast and the increasing potential for entanglement. PacificConservation Biology 9:228-233.

Baker, C.S. & Clapham, P.J. 2004. Modeling the past and future of whales andwhaling. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 365-371.),

Bannister, J.L. (2001). Status of southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) offsouthern Australia. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management (Special Issue 2).Page(s) 103-110.

Best, P. B., Payne, R., Rowntree, V., Palazzo, J.T. & Both, M.D.C. 1993. Long-rangemovements of South Atlantic right whales Eubalaena australis. Marine MammalScience 9: 227-234.

Best, P.B., Bannister, J.L., Brownell, R.L. & Donovan, G.P. (eds) (2001). Right whales:Worldwide status. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management (Special Issue 2).

Blue Whale Study Group website: http://bluewhalestudy.com/

Boyd I., Brownell B., Cato D., Clark C., Costa D., Evans P., Gedamke J., Gentry R.,Gisiner R., Gordon J., Jepson P., Miller P., Rendell L., Tasker M., Tyack P., Vos E.,Whitehead H., Wartzok D., Zimmer W. (2008) Marine Board Position Paper 13: Theeffects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals, A draft research strategy MarineBoard - European Science Foundation, Strasbourg 96pp

Branch, T.A, Stafford, K.M., Palacios, D.M., Allison, C. Bannister, L.J., Burton, C.L.K.,Cabrera, E., Carlson, C.A., Galetti Vernazzani, B., Gill, P.C., Hucke-Gaete, R., Jenner,K.C, Jenner, M.N., Matsouka, K., Miyashita, T. Morrice, M.G. Nishiwaki, S., Sturrock,V. J., Tormosov, D., Anderson, R.C., Baker, A.N., Best, P.B., Borsa, R.L., Brownell,J.R., Childerhouse, S., Findlay, K.P., Gerrodette, T., Ilangakoon, A.D., Joergensen, M.,Kahn, B., LJungblad, D.K., Maughan, B., McCauley, R.D., MCKAY, S.s Norris, T.F.,Oman Whale and Dolphin Research Group, Rankin, S., Samaran, F., Thiele, D., VanWaerebeek, K. and Warneke, R.M. (2007). Past and present distribution, densities andmovements of blue whales Balaenoptera musculus in the Southern Hemisphere andnorthern Indian Ocean. Mammal Rev. 2007, Volume 37, No. 2, 116–175.

Branch, T. A. (2007). Possible reasons for the appreciable decrease in abundanceestimates for Antarctic minke whales from the IDCR/SOWER surveys between thesecond and third circumpolar sets of cruises. Paper SC/58/IA4, presented to the IWC


Scientific Committee, June 2007 (unpublished), 9 pp.

Branch T. A., K. Matsuoka, and T. Miyashita. (2004) Evidence for increases inAntarctic blue whales based on Bayesian modelling. Marine Mammal Science 20:726-754.

Brigden, J. 2001. Southern right whales Eubalaena australis (Desmoulins 1822), inHervey Bay, Queensland. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 47: 430.

Childerhouse, S., Jackson, J., Baker, C.S., Gales, N., Clapham, P.J. & Brownell Jr.,.L. (2008). Megaptera novaeangliae (Oceania subpopulation). In: IUCN 2008. 2008IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.iucnredlist.org>. CITES website

Cooke, J.G., V.J. Rowntree & R. Payne (2001). Estimates of demographic parametersfor Southern Right Whales (Eubalaena australis) observed off Peninsula Valdes,Argentina. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. Page(s) 125-132.

Ensor, P., Minami, K., Morse, L., Olson, P. and Sekiguchi, K. (2008). 2007-2008International Whaling Commission-Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research(IWC-SOWER) cruise. Paper SC/60/IA1, presented to the IWC Scientific Committee,June 2008 (unpublished), 51 pp.

Franklin, T. and Burns, D. (2005) A southern right whale (Eubaleana australis) inHervey Bay, Queensland and Ballina, New South Wales. Memoirs of the QueenslandMuseum 51 (2): 308

Gambell, R. (1985a). Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus. In: Ridgway, S.H. & R.Harrison, eds. Handbook of Marine Mammals Vol. 3: The Sirenians and BaleenWhales. Page(s) 171-192.

Garrigue, C., Franklin, T., Russel, K, BURNS, D., Poole, M. Paton, D. , Hauser, N. Oremus, R.,Constantine, S. Childerhouse, S. Mattila, Gibbs, N., Franklin, W., Robbins, J., Clapham, P. andBaker, C. (2007). First assessment of interchange of humpback whales between Oceania andthe east coast of Australia. IWC Scientific Committee, SC/59/SH15, 2007.

Gill, P.C. 2002. A blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) feeding ground in a southernAustralian coastal upwelling zone. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management4(2): 179-184.

Jackson, J.; Zerbini, A.; Clapham, P.; Garrigue, C.; Hauser, N.; Poole, M.; Baker, C.S.(2006). A Bayesian assessment of humpback whales on breeding grounds of easternAustralia and Oceania (IWC Stocks, E1, E2, E3 and F). Paper SC/A06/HW52presented to IWC Comprehensive Assessment.

Horwood, J.W. and Millward, S. (1987) A note on population growth rates Report to theInternational Whaling Commission. 37:377-378

Nicol S., Kawaguchi S., Jarvis T., Bindoff N., Williams G., Meiners K., Gedamke J.(2006) Krill distribution in relation to oceanographic features and ecosystem structure


in the 30-80E region Presentation at the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research(SCAR) XXIX meeting, July 8-19, 2006, Hobart, TAS .; [Ref: 14039]

Kemper, C., D. Coughran, R. Warneke, R. Pirzl, M. Watson, R. Gales, and S. Gibbs.2008. Southern right whale (Eubalaena australis) mortalities and human interactions inAustralia, 1950-2006. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 10:1-8.

Kato, H., Bannister, J., Burton, C., Ljunglad, D., Matsouka, D., AND Shimada, H.(1996). Report on the Japan / IWC blue whale cruise 1995-96 off the southern coast ofAustralia. Document SC/48/SSH9 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee,Aberdeen, 35 pp.

Leaper, R., Cooke, J., Trathan, P., Reid, K., Rowntree, V., & Payne, R. 2006. Globalclimate drives southern right whale (Eubalaena australis) population dynamics. BiologyLetters, 2(2), 289-292.

McCauley, R.D., Bannister, J.L., Burton, C.K., Jenner, C., Jenner, M.-N., Rennie, S.J.,Salgado Kent, C. and Pattiaratchi, C.B., in preparation. Pygmy bluewhales in the PerthCanyon,Western Australia.

Noad et al., In press

Olavarría, C.; Baker, C.S.; Garrigue, C.; Poole, M.; Hauser, N.; Caballero, S.; Flórez-González, L.; Brasseur, M.; Bannister, J.; Capella, J.; Clapham, P.; Dodemont, R.;Donoghue, M.; Jenner, C.; Jenner, M.; Moro, D.; Oremus, M.; Paton, D.; Russell, K.(2007). Population structure of humpback whales throughout the South Pacific and theorigins of the eastern Polynesian breeding grounds. Marine Ecology - Progress Series330:257-268.

Patenaude, N.J., V.A. Portway, C.M. Schaeff, J.L. Bannister, P.B. Best, R.S. Payne,V.J. Rowntree, M. Rivarola and C.S. Baker. 2007. Mitochondrial DNA diversity andpopulation structure among southern right whales (Eubalaena australis). Journal ofHeredity 98(2): 147-157.

Patenaude, N., Baker, C.S. & Gales, N.J. (1998). Observations of southern rightwhales on New Zealand’s sub-Antarctic wintering grounds. Marine Mammal Science14: 350-355.

Pirzl, R. 2008a. Links between climate signals and southern right whale reproductiveoutput: implications for conservation management in a changing climate., Departmentof Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

Pirzl, R. 2008b. Spatial ecology of E. australis: habitat selection at multiple scales.Deakin University, Victoria.

Pirzl, R., and S. R. Burnell. 2001-2006. Population dynamics/population biology ofsouthern right whales at Head of Bight, South Australia. Annual reports 2000-2006.,Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra.


Pirzl, R., K. Lawton, and G. Murdoch. 2007. Development of a data managementsystem for southern right whale monitoring at Head of Bight, South Australia. FinalReport to South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.

Pirzl, R., N. J. Patenaude, S. R. Burnell, and J. L. Bannister. 2009. Movement ofsouthern right whales (Eubalaena australis) between Australian and subantarctic NewZealand populations. Marine Mammal Science 25:455-461.

Pirzl, R., D. Thiele, J. L. Bannister, and S. R. Burnell. in prep. ENSO and SAM affectreproductive output in southern right whales.

Reilly, S.B., Bannister, J.L., Best, P.B., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., R.L., Butterworth, D.S.,Clapham, P.J., Cooke, J., Donovan, G.P., Urbán, J. and Zerbini, A.N. 2008.Balaenoptera physalus. In: IUCN 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.<www.iucnredlist.org>.<www.iucnredlist.org>.

Thalmann S., Gales R., Greenwood M., Gedamke J. (2008) A new technique forrefloating and release of stranded sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) MarineMammal Science 24(4). 949-955; [Ref: 13563]

Turner, J., Lachlan-Cope, T.A., Colwel, S.I., Marshall, W. Connolley, W.M. (2006)Significant Warming of the Antarctic Winter Troposphere. Science. 31 March: Vol. 311.no. 5769, pp. 1914 - 1917

Zerbini, A N, Clapham, P J and Wade, P R, (2010). Assessing plausible rates ofpopulation growth in humpback whales from life history data. Mar Biol (Springer),published on line 24 February 2010.


Appendix A

Cetacean Recovery PlanStakeholders from Consultationand Discussion Guides


Recovery Plan Stakeholders from Consultation

Affiliation Method of Consultation

QueenslandGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Face to Face DiscussionDepartment of Environment and Resource Management Face to Face DiscussionAustralian Marine Conservation Society Face to Face DiscussionUniversity of Queensland Over the Phone DiscussionUniversity of Queensland Over the Phone DiscussionNew South WalesDepartment of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts - PortsSection Face to Face DiscussionNSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Over the Phone DiscussionMacquarie University Over the Phone DiscussionSouthern Cross University Over the Phone DiscussionRoyal Australian Navy Over the Phone DiscussionHumane Society International Over the Phone DiscussionAustralian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association Ltd(APPEA) Face to Face DiscussionTasmaniaAustralian Antarctic Division Face to Face DiscussionAustralian Antarctic Division Face to Face DiscussionDepartment of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and theEnvironment Face to Face DiscussionSouth AustraliaDepartment for Environment and Heritage Over the Phone DiscussionSouth Australia Museum Over the Phone DiscussionWhale and Dolphin Conservation Society Over the Phone DiscussionNorthern TerritoryNatural Resources, Environment , the Arts and Sport Written SubmissionWestern AustraliaDepartment of Environment and Conservation Face to Face DiscussionDepartment of Environment and Conservation Face to Face DiscussionDepartment of Environment and Conservation Face to Face DiscussionWestern Australia Museum Written SubmissionCentre for Whale Research Face to Face DiscussionWoodside Over the Phone DiscussionVictoriaDepartment of Sustainability and the Environment Over the Phone DiscussionDepartment of Sustainability and the Environment Over the Phone DiscussionSkadia Pty Ltd - Research Written Submission


Humpback, Southern Right, Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recovery PlanObjectives and Criteria

As per the Recovery Plans for humpback, southern right, blue, fin and sei whales:

Objectives for Recovery

Objective 1 The recovery of the above listed whale populations utilising Australian waters so that thespecies can be considered secure in the wild

Objective 2 A distribution of humpback and southern right whales utilising Australian waters that is similarto the pre-exploitation distribution of the species

Objective 3 To maintain the protection of the above listed whales from human threats

Criteria to Measure Performance of the Plan against the Objectives

Humpback

1. Secure populations of humpback whales in Australian waters were recorded, or populations continued torecover at, or close to, the optimum biological rate (understood to be approximately 8-10% per annum atthe commencement of this plan);

2. Populations of humpback whales in Australian waters were known to have a distribution similar to the pre-exploitation distribution, or the range of humpback whale populations continued to expand towards pre-exploitation distributions

3. Domestic and international protection regimes that support the recovery of the species were maintainedand where possible improved.

Southern Right

1. The Australian population of southern right whales continued to recover at, or close to, the optimumbiological rate (understood to be approximately 7% per annum at the commencement of this plan)

2. Continued expansion into suitable habitat, potentially including pre-exploitation areas of importance


Blue, Fin and Sei

1. An indication of the population and recovery status of blue, fin and sei whale populations using Australianwaters was developed



Questions to Guide Discussion – Regulatory Agencies

For each of the species which you have knowledge on please answer the following questions:

Objective 1A. Broadly, for any of the 5 species listed above have you undertaken any management initiatives to measure

population abundance, trends and recovery over the last 5 years?

B. In your opinion have populations of the listed whales above been recorded in Australian waters, and arethey continuing to recover at, or close to the optimum biological rate per annum?

Objective 2C. Broadly, for any of the 5 species listed above have you undertaken management measures to maintain or

gather further information on critical habitat (calving, resting, and feeding), migratory pathways andmigration and how have you achieved that (i.e through collaborations with research groups) over the last 5years? Have these areas been defined?

D. Do your current management measures refer to the historical aggregation areas used by these 5 species,and are they returning to pre-exploitation distributions?

Objective 3E. Have you implemented any management measures on these 5 species for anthropogenic threats in the last

5 years? This may include measures to reduce impacts from acoustic disturbance, entanglements, ship-strike, coastal developments, exploration and extraction industries etc.

F. Have whale habitat requirements been considered in the establishment and management of marineconservation areas and reserves?

G. Have you implemented any education programs to inform marine users ie. whale watchers, fisherman andshipping crews using important habitat?

H. How do your current management measures contribute to domestic protection regimes that support therecovery of these species?

Recovery PlanI. Is the information provided within the recovery plans on species, critical habitat (maps), management

practices, and threats current and comprehensive or does it need to be reviewed/updated? Do you use theplans in making management decisions?

J. In your opinion should changes be made to the recovery plans, should new recovery plans be developed,or has the population of specific whales recovered to numbers in which a recovery plan is no longerrequired?


Questions to Guide Discussion - Researchers


Objective 1A. Broadly, for any of the 5 species listed above have you undertaken research to measure population

abundance, trends and recovery over the last 5 years. This may have included:

Gathering information on population structures, and using methodologies such as geneticanalyses, comparisons of photo identification or telemetry studies

Establishing models for measuring recovery and species status

Collection of long-term data sets


Objective 2C. Broadly, for any of the 5 species listed above have you undertaken research to gather information on critical

habitat (calving, resting, and feeding), migratory pathways and migration and how have you done that(through satellite tracking and other survey methods) over the last 5 years? Have these areas beendefined?

D. Have you looked at the historical aggregation areas used by these 5 species, and are they returning to pre-exploitation distributions?

Objective 3E. Have you undertaken any research on these 5 species on anthropogenic threats from humans and their

impacts in the last 5 years? This may included threats such as acoustic disturbance, entanglements, shipstrike etc.

F. Have you undertaken any research on these species feeding ecology in order to determine if or when preydepletion becomes a threat?

G. Have you undertaken any research on these species and the effects of climate change and oceanographicchange to determine if species survival is being, or likely to be affected?

H. How is your research contributing to domestic or international protection regimes that support the recoveryof these species?


practices, and threats current and comprehensive or does it need to be reviewed?

J. Should changes be made to the recovery plans, should new recovery plans be developed, or has thepopulation of specific whales recovered to numbers in which a recovery plan is no longer required?


Questions to Guide Discussion – Defence


Objective 1A. Broadly, for any of the 5 species listed above have you undertaken any management initiatives to measure

population abundance, trends and recovery over the last 5 years?


Objective 2C. Broadly, for any of the 5 species listed above have you undertaken management measures to maintain or

gather further information on critical habitat (calving, resting, and feeding), migratory pathways andmigration and how have you achieved that (i.e through collaborations with research groups) over the last 5years? Have these areas been defined?

D. Do your current management measures refer to the historical aggregation areas used by these 5 species,and are they returning to pre-exploitation distributions?

Objective 3E. Have you implemented any management measures on these 5 species for anthropogenic threats in the last

5 years? This may include measures to reduce impacts from acoustic disturbance, entanglements, ship-strike, coastal developments, exploration and extraction industries etc.

F. Have whale habitat requirements been considered in the establishment and management measures?

G. Have you implemented any education programs to inform marine users ie. shipping crews using importanthabitat?

H. How do your current management measures contribute to domestic protection regimes that support therecovery of these species?


practices, and threats current and comprehensive or does it need to be reviewed/updated? Do you use theplans in making management decisions?

J. In your opinion should changes be made to the recovery plans, should new recovery plans be developed,or has the population of specific whales recovered to numbers in which a recovery plan is no longerrequired?


Non-government Organisations and Industry Consultation Guide

(HIS, WDCS, AMCS, APPEA)

Successful contributions in the past 5 years to whale conservation and how you worked with theRecovery plan objectives

Successful collaborations and recovery indicators

Provide comment on the validity of the Plan


GHD

201 Charlotte Street Brisbane QLD 4000GPO Box 668 Brisbane QLD 4001T: (07) 3316 3000 F: (07) 3316 3333 E: [email protected]

© GHD 2010

This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purposefor which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission.Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Document Status

Reviewer Approved for IssueRevNo. Author

Name Signature Name Signature Date

A Rachel Groom Nicola O’Donnell 23/05/10

B Rachel Groom Dr Kerry Neil Dr David Dique 25/06/10

Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the...

Documents

Transcript of Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the...