Reducing Disturbance from Vessels 

to Southern Resident Killer Whales: 

Assessing the Effectiveness of the 

2011 Federal Regulations in Advancing 

Recovery Goals

Grace A. Ferrara, Teresa M. Mongillo, and Lynne M. Barre

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSOPR-58 

December 2017

Reducing Disturbance from Vessels to Southern Resident 

Killer Whales: Assessing the Effectiveness of the 2011 

Federal Regulations in Advancing Recovery Goals

Grace A. Ferrara, Teresa M. Mongillo, and Lynne M. Barre

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-58

December 2017

U.S. Department of Commerce

Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RDML Timothy Gallaudet, Ph.D., USN Ret., Acting NOAA Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator 
ii

Recommended citation:

Ferrara, G.A., T.M. Mongillo, L.M. Barre. 2017. Reducing disturbance from vessels to Southern 

Resident killer whales: Assessing the effectiveness of the 2011 federal regulations in advancing 

recovery goals. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-58, 76 p.

Copies of this report may be obtained from:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Protected Resources Division

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115

Or online at:

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resources/key-reports
iii

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1

2. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH ......................................................................................... 7

3. ENFORCEMENT.................................................................................................................. 12

4. VESSEL COMPLIANCE ..................................................................................................... 18

5. BIOLOGICAL IMPACT....................................................................................................... 34

6. ECONOMIC IMPACT.......................................................................................................... 46

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................ 56

8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 60

9. APPENDICES....................................................................................................................... 73
iv
1

1. INTRODUCTION

Southern Resident Killer Whale Status

In 2005, Southern Resident killer whales were listed as endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) (70 FR 69903, November 18, 2005) and three primary threats to their 

survival were identified: prey availability, high levels of contaminants, and disturbance from 

vessels and sound. Despite an active research and recovery program, an updated status review 

under the ESA completed in 2016 concluded that these whales should remain listed as 

endangered (NMFS 2016a). They have also been listed as Endangered in Canada under the 

Species at Risk Act (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2017). This small killer whale population has 

fluctuated in size but has remained fairly consistent over the last decade (from 83 whales in 2002 

to 78 whales as of the end of December 2016) (Figure 1.1). Southern Resident killer whales

(Southern Residents) occur in the coastal waters from southeast Alaska to California (NMFS 

2008; Hanson et al. 2013; NWFSC unpubl. data) (Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.1. Population size and trend of Southern Resident killer whales, 1960 to 2017. Data 

from 1960 to 1973 (open circles, gray line) are number projections from the 

matrix model of Olesiuk et al. (1990). Data from 1974 to 2016 (diamonds, black

line) were obtained through photo-identification surveys of the three pods (J, K, 

and L) in this community and were provided by the Center for Whale Research 

(unpubl. data) and NMFS (2008).

Since their listing, a number of actions have been taken to improve our understanding of threats 

to Southern Residents and to address those threats, protect habitat, and support recovery of the 

whales. In 2006, critical habitat was designated and consisted of three specific areas: (1) the 

Summer Core Area in Haro Strait and waters around the San Juan Islands, (2) Puget Sound, and 

(3) the Strait of Juan de Fuca (71 FR 69054, November 29, 2006). On February 24, 2015, NOAA 
2

Fisheries announced in a 12-month finding on a petition to revise the critical habitat designation

that the action was warranted. In the Federal Register notice, NMFS outlined the next steps for 

collecting and analyzing data, and for developing a proposed rule to revise critical habitat 

expected in 2017 (80 FR 9682). 

Figure 1.2. Geographic range of Southern Resident killer whales. Reprinted from Carretta et al.

(2014).

In 2008, NMFS issued the final recovery plan for Southern Residents to identify actions to 

address factors that may be limiting recovery, including quantity and quality of prey, toxic 

chemicals that accumulate in top predators, and disturbance from vessels and sound (NMFS 

2008). Oil spills and disease were also identified as potential risk factors. Despite efforts to study 

these whales over the last 40 years, we are unsure which threats are most significant to the 

survival and recovery of the species. It is likely that these threats are acting together to threaten 

the killer whales. Below are very brief descriptions of the primary threats. More detailed 

information is provided in the recovery plan (NMFS 2008) with additional updates provided in 

the most recent ESA 5-year review (NMFS 2016a).

Prey Quality & Quantity

Southern Residents consume a variety of fish species (Ford et al. 1998, 2000; Ford and Ellis 

2006; Hanson et al. 2010; Ford et al. 2016), but salmon, specifically Chinook salmon, are 

identified as their primary prey (Ford and Ellis 2006; Hanson et al. 2010; Ford et al. 2016). 
3

Recently, Ford et al. (2016) found evidence of diet diversification at the end of summer toward 

coho salmon for all years analyzed (coho salmon contributed to over 40% of their diet in late 

summer). Chum salmon, sockeye salmon, and steelhead made up relatively small contributions 

during this seasonal sampling. In the fall, Southern Residents consume significant amounts of 

chum salmon. Salmon along the West Coast face a number of threats and have declined in 

numbers from historical levels. Several of the salmon runs consumed by the whales are also 

listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, and there are concerns about sufficient salmon 

abundance, quality of prey, and interference from vessels and noise with the whales’ ability to 

find and capture prey. Ongoing salmon recovery efforts are important to secure a sustainable 

food supply for the whales into the future.

Contaminants

Since research on the effects of environmental contaminants on Southern Residents began in the 

early 1990s, it has been widely known that persistent organic pollutants (POPs) or “legacy 

contaminants” are of particular concern to the whales. High concentrations of PCBs, DDTs, and 

PBDEs have been detected in the blubber and scat of the whales (Ross et al. 2000; Krahn et al. 

2007, 2009; Lundin et al. 2015; Mongillo et al. 2016). POPs have been linked to serious health 

concerns in humans and wildlife, including immune and endocrine disruption, cancer, decreased 

reproduction, and increased calf mortality (Reijnders 1986; de Swart et al. 1996; Reddy et al. 

2001; Schwacke et al. 2002; Fonnum et al. 2006; Ylitalo et al. 2005; Buckman et al. 2011; 

Lundin et al. 2016; Mongillo et al. 2016). To address the threat of pollution, NMFS has worked 

closely with the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to identify actions to restore Puget Sound (PSP 2016) and reduce exposure, monitor longterm contaminant levels, and determine the risks posed by POPs in Southern Residents (Gockel 

and Mongillo 2013).

Vessels & Sound

While in inland waters of Washington and British Columbia, killer whales are the principal 

target species for the commercial whale watch industry (Hoyt 2001; O’Connor et al. 2009) and 

encounter a variety of other vessels in their urban environment (e.g., recreational, fishing, ferries, 

military, shipping). Several main threats from vessels were listed in the Recovery Plan, including 

direct vessel strikes, the masking of echolocation and communication signals by anthropogenic 

sound, and behavioral changes (NMFS 2008). There is a growing body of evidence documenting 

effects from vessels on small cetaceans and other marine mammals (NMFS 2010; NMFS 2016a; 

NMFS In Press). Research has shown that the whales spend more time traveling and performing 

surface active behaviors and less time foraging in the presence of all vessel types, including 

kayaks, and that noise from motoring vessels up to 400m away has the potential to affect the 

echolocation abilities of foraging whales (Holt 2008; Lusseau et al. 2009; Noren et al. 2009; 

Williams et al. 2010). Individual energy balance may be impacted when vessels are present 

because of the combined increase in energetic costs resulting from changes in whale activity with

the decrease in prey consumption resulting from reduced foraging opportunities (Williams et al. 

2006; Lusseau et al. 2009; Noren et al. 2009; Noren et al. 2012). At the time of the whales’ 

listing under the ESA, NMFS reviewed existing protections for the whales and developed 

recovery actions, including vessel regulations, to address the threat of vessels to killer whales.
4

Since their listing under the ESA in the U.S. and Species at Risk Act (SARA) in Canada, NMFS 

and the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) have worked together toward the 

recovery of Southern Residents. Canada released their own action plan in 2017 (DFO 2017) 

aimed at reducing threats to Northern and Southern Resident killer whales. The Canadian 

government has conducted several studies aimed at understanding the effects of vessel noise on 

Southern Residents and the impacts from increased shipping activity (RBT2 2013; SMRU 

Canada 2014). In November of 2016, the Government of Canada released their Oceans 

Protection Plan (OPP), which lists the priority issues faced by Canada as a coastal maritime 

nation. Canada will invest $1.5 billion over five years in coastal protections, including better 

understanding effects of shipping and improvements in recovery efforts for Southern Residents 

(Government of Canada 2017). To begin implementation of the OPP, DFO reviewed the 

effectiveness of recovery measures for Southern Resident killer whales noting the voluntary 

guidelines, disturbance charges leading to conviction in Canada, regulations in the U.S., and 

education and outreach, which may all contribute to reductions in acoustic and physical 

disturbance.

MMPA and ESA Prohibitions, Regulations, and NMFS Guidelines

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) generally prohibits take 

of marine mammals. Section 3(13) of the MMPA defines the term take as “to harass, hunt, 

capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.” Except with 

respect to military readiness activities and certain scientific research activities, the MMPA 

defines the term harassment as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which: (i) has the 

potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild, [Level A harassment]; 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by 

causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].” 

Similar to the MMPA, the ESA generally prohibits the taking of endangered species. The ESA 

defines take to mean “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 

to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The statute does not define the term “pursue” nor has 

NMFS adopted regulations defining pursuit. Under both the ESA and MMPA, there are no 

exceptions to the take prohibition for whale watching; therefore, wildlife viewing must be 

conducted in a manner that does not cause take. To promote responsible and sustainable marine 

animal viewing that avoids take, NMFS has worked with a variety of partners in multiple regions 

to develop numerous education programs, viewing guidelines, and regulations. These guidelines 

are available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/viewing.htm. The agency understands that 

whale watching enhances marine mammal conservation by increasing education and fostering 

stewardship and has worked with commercial whale watching industry and recreational boaters 

to promote responsible viewing that does not impact the whales. For particular species in specific 

locations, NMFS has promulgated regulations to provide additional protection to marine 

mammals that are the subject of wildlife viewing activities.

Since the 1990s there has been a transboundary effort between the U.S. and Canada to develop 

and periodically revise voluntary guidelines for viewing marine wildlife in the Pacific 

Northwest, with a specific focus on Southern Resident killer whales. NMFS and partners 
5

developed the “Be Whale Wise” guidelines in 2002 to protect killer whales and all marine 

mammals, and they are available at www.bewhalewise.org and in Appendix A. The ESA listing 

identified vessel impacts as a primary threat to the whales and a growing body of scientific 

research documented impacts to the whales from vessel activities, particularly vessels in close 

proximity to the whales and not following the Be Whale Wise (BWW) guidelines. In addition,

there is a transboundary industry association, formerly the Whale Watch Operators Association 

Northwest and now known as the Pacific Whale Watch Association (PWWA), made up of 

commercial operators from the U.S. and Canada, and they have created their own guidelines that 

include additional measures specific to industry operations 

(http://www.pacificwhalewatchassociation.com/).

Despite these guidelines and outreach efforts, concern remained that the level of disturbance 

caused by vessels surrounding these popular whales may still have harmful effects on individuals 

and the population. For example, NMFS received a number of complaints from the public during 

the listing and recovery planning processes, alleging that killer whales were routinely being 

disturbed by vessels attempting to closely approach and interact with the whales, particularly 

along the west side of San Juan Island. NMFS also received letters from the Marine Mammal 

Commission, members of the scientific research community, and environmental groups 

expressing the view that some types of interactions with wild marine mammals have the potential 

to harass and/or disturb the animals by causing injury or disruption of normal behavior patterns.

Data from the Soundwatch Boater Education Program out of The Whale Museum in Friday 

Harbor, Washington also indicated a high level of noncompliance with the BWW guidelines. 

Soundwatch performs regular patrols in Washington’s inland waters around Haro Strait every 

summer to document vessel behavior and educate boaters on the regulations and guidelines 

pertaining to boating near killer whales. Soundwatch’s Canadian partner, Straitwatch, mirrors 

these efforts in transboundary waters. Soundwatch and Straitwatch have collected information on 

incidents where the guidelines to avoid harassment were not being followed. Violations of 

current ESA and MMPA prohibitions were routinely reported to NOAA’s Office for Law 

Enforcement; however, the prohibitions were difficult to enforce.

The 2008 recovery plan includes a variety of management actions to recover Southern Resident 

killer whales. One goal of the plan is to minimize disturbance of Southern Residents from 

vessels. To achieve this goal, the recovery plan recommends the following actions: 

1. Continue to evaluate and improve voluntary whale-watching guidelines.

2. Evaluate the need to establish regulations regarding vessel activity in the vicinity of killer 

whales.

3. Evaluate the need to establish areas with restrictions on vessel traffic. 

In 2007, NMFS published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to obtain public input on 

whether regulations were needed and what type of regulations might be appropriate to protect the 

whales from vessel impacts. Around the same time, San Juan County and Washington State 

efforts were also underway to implement mandatory regulations to protect the whales. In 

September 2007, the San Juan County Council enacted a local ordinance (No. 35-2007) designed 

to prevent boaters from harassing Southern Resident killer whales that frequent county waters. 

The ordinance made it unlawful to feed killer whales or “knowingly” approach a killer whale
6

within 100 yards in San Juan County. In addition, a state law with similar language to the BWW

guidelines was approved on March 28, 2008 to protect killer whales in Washington State waters 

and became effective in June of 2008 (RCW 77.15.740).

Based on research and vessel monitoring results, an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and public input, NMFS determined that the 

existing prohibitions, regulations, and guidelines did not provide sufficient protection of killer 

whales from vessel impacts. The NEPA review (NMFS 2010) analyzed a variety of alternative 

protective regulations; benefits and impacts to resources including the whales, whale watch 

industry, and recreation; and included the latest scientific information regarding vessel impacts 

and data on economics. 

NMFS concluded it was necessary and advisable to adopt regulations to protect killer whales 

from disturbance and sound associated with vessels, to support recovery of Southern Resident 

killer whales. NMFS proposed vessel regulations in 2009 (74 FR 37674, July 29, 2009), gathered 

public comments, and in 2011 adopted final regulations pursuant to rulemaking authority under 

MMPA section 112(a) (16 U.S.C.1382(a)) and ESA section 11(f) (16 U.S.C.1540(f)). These 

regulations are also consistent with the purpose of the ESA “to provide a program for the 

conservation of [...] endangered species” and “the policy of Congress that all Federal 

departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species [...] and shall utilize their 

authorities in furtherance of the purposes of [the ESA]” (16 24 U.S.C. 1531(b), (c)). The federal 

vessel regulations were established in 2011 to prohibit vessels from approaching killer whales 

within 200 yards (182.9 m) and from parking in the path of the whales within 400 yards (365.8 

m). These regulations apply to all vessels in inland waters of Washington State with exemptions 

to maintain safe navigation and for government vessels in the course of official duties, ships in 

the shipping lanes, research vessels under permit, and vessels lawfully engaged in commercial or 

treaty Indian fishing that are actively setting, retrieving, or closely tending fishing gear (76 FR 

20870, April, 14, 2011). The conclusion of the final NEPA analysis (NMFS 2010) was that the 

preferred alternative (200 yard approach rule and prohibition on parking in the path) would 

provide a high benefit to the whales and minimal impact to the commercial whale watch industry 

or to recreational opportunities. 

Assessing the Effectiveness of Vessel Regulations

Several commenters who supported the vessel regulations suggested that monitoring the 

effectiveness of the regulations would be an important step to assess compliance, the benefit to 

the whales, and identify any needed changes in the future. Several commenters expressed 

concern about the regulations, but were more supportive if there was a periodic review in place 

to evaluate the regulations. NMFS agreed that monitoring effectiveness of the regulations is an 

important part of an adaptive management process to ensure the regulations are effective in 

protecting the whales and to identify any unforeseen impacts to local communities. The success 

of a regulatory program to address vessel impacts is vital to recovery of the Southern Residents. 

Therefore, in the final rule (76 FR 20870, April 14, 2011), NMFS committed to reviewing the 

vessel regulations to evaluate effectiveness, and also to study the impact of the regulations on the 

viability of the local whale watch industry. 
7

In March 2013, NMFS held a killer whale protection workshop to review the current vessel 

regulations, guidelines, and associated analyses; review monitoring, boater education, and 

enforcement efforts; review available industry and economic information and identify data gaps; 

and provide a forum for stakeholder input to explore next steps for addressing vessel effects on 

killer whales. The presentations and supporting documents (including workshop notes) can be 

found at 

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/marine_mammals/killer_whale/vesse

l_regulations.html.

This review of effectiveness is similar to reviews of other rules related to vessel restrictions. For 

example, in 2008, NMFS published a final rule to implement speed restrictions to reduce the 

threat of vessel collisions with North Atlantic right whales (73 FR 60173). The rule was set to 

expire 5 years following the publication, and within the 5 years NMFS was to develop ways to 

monitor and assess the effectiveness of reducing ship strikes (Silber and Bettridge 2012; Laist et 

al. 2014; Silber et al. 2014). In this technical memorandum, we describe our assessment of the 

effectiveness of the 2011 vessel regulations using similar measures analyzed in these previous 

assessments: education and outreach efforts, enforcement, vessel compliance, biological 

effectiveness, and economic impacts. For each measure, we focus on the 5 years leading up to 

the regulations (2006-2010) and compare trends and observations to the 5 years following the 

regulations (2011-2015). We conclude with recommendations for future management and 

policies.

2. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

Educating the public and the whale watching industry is essential to promoting compliance with 

any new regulations and achieving a reduction in vessel impacts to the whales. Both voluntary 

and mandatory programs can create a sense of duty, particularly when education emphasizes the 

importance of the rules as part of the program (May 2005; National Marine Protected Areas 

Center 2005; Keane et al. 2008). Since the 1990s, NMFS has worked with partners to promote 

voluntary viewing guidelines through the BWW campaign, providing guidance to boaters about 

how to operate their vessels and responsibly view whales and other marine wildlife while 

minimizing any impact. One long-term partner, the Soundwatch Boater Education Program, was 

launched by The Whale Museum in Friday Harbor, Washington in 1993. The mission of this 

program is to prevent and record vessel disturbance to marine wildlife in the Salish Sea, 

especially with regard to Southern Resident killer whales and other marine mammals. 

Soundwatch staff and volunteers spend between 4 and 7 days per week every summer educating 

boaters on the water and on land about the mandatory federal and state regulations as well as the 

voluntary BWW guidelines. They also use this time to record incidents of noncompliance with 

these regulations and guidelines (https://whalemuseum.org/pages/soundwatch-boater-educationprogram). 

In 2010, NMFS concluded that compliance with the voluntary guidelines was not sufficient to 

protect the endangered Southern Resident killer whales and that mandatory regulations would 

help improve compliance and protect the whales (NMFS 2010). The first element of 

compliance—ability to comply—depends on knowledge of the regulations and how easy it is to 

follow them. NMFS is confident that commercial operators, particularly members of the PWWA, 
8

are aware of the existence of vessel regulations and their details. NMFS managers and 

enforcement officers have met regularly with the industry association to get input and provide 

updates on the development of regulations and updates to viewing guidelines for over a decade. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) enforcement officers have also met with 

the industry, including participation in meetings with whale watch boat drivers to discuss 

compliance with the U.S. federal and Washington State regulations to protect the whales (see 

Section 4).

Like commercial operators, recreational boaters are subject to the mandatory ESA and MMPA 

rules and penalties, and are the target audience of the BWW education campaign. Since the 

implementation of the 2011 federal regulations, Soundwatch has recorded higher rates of 

noncompliance committed by recreational vessels compared to Canadian and U.S. commercial 

whale watch operators. This is similar to vessel incident patterns prior to the regulations and is 

discussed in detail in Section 4. One reason for this pattern may be that recreational boaters are 

less likely to know about the current general mandatory prohibitions or the specific voluntary 

guidelines. Recreational boaters do not belong to associations whose members all make a 

business of watching whales, are likely to be on the water less frequently than commercial 

operators, and are likely to have less contact with boater education programs and government 

regulators. Recreational boaters may also not be aware that whales are nearby and/or may be less 

able to judge distance from the whales than the more experienced whale watch operators. The 

commercial whale watch vessel operators are knowledgeable and experienced at maintaining the 

proper distance from the whales and serve as a model for recreational boaters to follow. Based 

on the monitoring data, Soundwatch has focused on educating the recreational boating 

community. 

NMFS has partnered with education and outreach organizations, whale advocacy groups, and 

other United States and Canadian government agencies and enforcement divisions over many

years to promote safe and responsible wildlife viewing practices through the development and 

distribution of outreach materials, training workshops, on-the-water education, and public 

service announcements. The Whale Museum/Soundwatch Boater Education Program, 

Straitwatch, and WDFW have been the leading partners in advancing the educational goals set 

by NMFS when the regulations were adopted, and work closely in tandem to achieve them. The 

following sections discuss their efforts leading up to and following the implementation of the 

federal vessel regulations.

Soundwatch Boater Education Program

Based out of The Whale Museum in Friday Harbor, Washington, the Soundwatch Boater 

Education Program has spent thousands of hours educating boaters on and off the water on the 

impacts that vessels have on killer whales and how to view the whales responsibly. During the 

summer months when Southern Residents return to their summer foraging grounds in the inland 

waters of Washington, Soundwatch conducts regular patrols on the water to monitor vessel 

activity around the whales (see Section 4). Soundwatch contacts boaters to educate them about 

the regulations and distribute BWW brochures (Appendix A) in addition to recording incidents 

of boaters not following the federal regulations and guidelines. For example, between the months 

of May and September of 2015, Soundwatch contacted almost 2,000 boaters. In addition to these 
9

on-the-water education efforts, Soundwatch also distributed over 2,000 BWW brochures, 50 

posters, and 2,000 Federal Rules rack cards (Appendix B) to regional federal, state, county, and 

private parks (Seely 2016). 

Soundwatch also plays an integral role in reducing disturbance from commercial and recreational 

kayakers through education and training. In 2010, the San Juan County Park contracted 

Soundwatch to develop an education and monitoring program to enforce a Kayak Vessel Code of 

Conduct aimed at reducing wildlife disturbance caused by kayakers. Soundwatch has continued 

to administer the Kayak Education and Leadership Program (KELP) to teach kayakers how to 

comply with guidelines and the federal vessel regulations to reduce their impact on Southern 

Residents (Appendix C). These efforts have become especially important in the reduction of 

vessel disturbance around San Juan Island since the adoption of the regulations, as commercial 

kayaking companies have seen a 30% increase in their customer base in that time (Seely 2016). 

When Soundwatch contacts a boat on the water to inform them of the federal regulations, they 

perform a brief survey to determine how awareness of the regulations has changed in the years 

following their implementation. This information was collected consistently starting in 2009 with 

the BWW guidelines that later became the federal regulations. The number of people who 

responded that they were aware of the new regulations was highest in 2011, shortly after they 

were announced. Since then, awareness has hovered at around 47% of boaters, with only 42% of 

the boaters contacted in 2015 responding that they had a previous understanding of the 

regulations (Figure 2.1) (Seely 2016). Figure 2.1 also illustrates a significant reduction in the 

number of boaters contacted by Soundwatch before and after the regulations were put in place. 

This reflects a change in Soundwatch’s on-the-water monitoring and outreach protocols, which is 

discussed further in Section 4. 

Figure 2.1. The number of boaters contacted by Soundwatch every year from 2009 to 2015 

who responded that they were aware or unaware of the guidelines (2009-2010) that 

later became the federal regulations (2011-2015). Although awareness increased 

significantly in 2011, overall it has fluctuated around 47% of boaters (Seely 2017).

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2009

N=1270

2010

N=1400

2011

N=1252

2012

N=569

2013

N=526

2014

N=608

2015

N =576

Number of Boaters Contacted

Year

Aware

Unaware
10

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and Straitwatch 

The Canadian counterpart to Soundwatch is Straitwatch, which is operated by Cetus Research & 

Conservation Society, a non-profit based in British Columbia that works to reduce human 

impacts on marine mammals in the Salish Sea and along the coast. Straitwatch’s goals include 

decreasing vessel disturbance on whales and educating boaters about the BWW guidelines. 

Straitwatch’s efforts are supported by the DFO, which has been a core partner for the BWW

campaign for over a decade. They have been integral in developing and updating the 

guidelines—before and after the U.S. regulations went into place—to educate boaters in the 

transboundary area near the San Juan Islands. Although the U.S. federal regulations do not apply 

in Canadian waters, the BWW guidelines still help promote responsible whale watching and 

encourage practices that are in line with the regulations. In addition to operating in the 

transboundary area of the Salish Sea, Cetus also operates a program in Canadian waters to 

protect Northern Resident killer whales that are listed as threatened under the Species at Risk Act 

in Canada. Although Canada has not adopted the same vessel regulations as the U.S., 

Straitwatch’s efforts promote BWW goals and create some continuity in vessel conduct across 

the border and have contributed to our knowledge about compliance with the guidelines and 

impacts of vessels (http://cetussociety.org/marine-stewardship-programs/straitwatch/).

WDFW Outreach

Under the ESA Section 6 grant program, WDFW has received two awards since 2013, each 

covering 3 years. In partial fulfillment of the terms of these grants, WDFW has conducted at 

least 50 10-hour patrols in northern Puget Sound each summer from 2013 to 2015 and will 

continue through 2018. The primary objective of these patrols is to educate vessel operators 

about regulations and proper boating procedures around Southern Residents while on the water. 

For the first funding term (2013 to 2015), WDFW officers contacted over 8,000 boaters. This 

work has been completed with the help of Soundwatch, whose operators coordinate with WDFW 

officers to ensure coverage of the widest area possible between the two groups when both are on 

the water. When interacting with boaters on the water during patrols, officers distribute BWW

educational materials and engage boaters to explain the vessel regulations. They have also used 

funding to include BWW educational graphics in the WDFW Recreational Fishing Pamphlet and 

distribute this pamphlet to approximately 750,000 sport fishermen each year. 

WDFW’s increased presence has facilitated a relationship with whale watch industry groups 

based on collaborative communication and trust, which has also furthered educational and 

compliance goals. The PWWA invites WDFW officers to attend their annual meetings where 

members gather to discuss any changes in laws and practices. WDFW has been able to answer 

questions and engage in collaborations with PWWA members at these meetings. Officers have 

also been invited to assist many whale watching companies with their in-house vessel operator 

training sessions each spring. Their support of WDFW efforts and the regulations has shown that 

whale watching industry groups take seriously their role as examples of responsible viewing on 

the water. 
11

WDFW’s presence on the water has also enabled them to reach a greater audience beyond north 

Puget Sound boaters. They have conducted outreach through local news channels, bringing

reporters and film crews on several patrols in recent years. These media outlets provide a greater 

platform for education, allowing enforcement officers to reach a much broader geographical 

range. As a result, officers have received reports of possible violations from private citizens in 

central and south Puget Sound. 

NOAA Outreach

NOAA has been a key partner in the BWW campaign, developing guidelines, printing and 

distributing BWW materials, and advertising responsible wildlife viewing messages (Figure 2.2). 

Upon the implementation of the new regulations in 2011, NOAA launched an extensive outreach 

campaign to ensure that all boaters were aware of the changes. As a part of this campaign, 

NOAA worked closely with DFO, Soundwatch, and Straitwatch to update the BWW materials 

(Appendix A) and develop new brochure inserts and posters specific to the federal regulations

(Appendix B). NOAA also worked with these and other partners to distribute those materials 

widely, including to all commercial whale watching companies. In addition to Soundwatch, 

Straitwatch, WDFW, and DFO, other partners that help in distributing BWW materials include 

the Center for Whale Research, the Seattle Aquarium, Killer Whale Tales, the Orca Network, the 

Georgia Strait Alliance, the Vancouver Aquarium, the B.C. Cetacean Sightings Network, B.C. 

Parks, the Cetus Research & Conservation Society, the PWWA, the Recreational Boating 

Association of Washington, and The Whale Museum. These partners distribute materials to their 

members and at their events, help post them at local marinas, and incorporate them into their 

websites, programs, and classroom education materials. Much like WDFW enforcement, the 

NOAA Office of Law Enforcement also distributes BWW brochures when interacting with 

boaters on the water.

Figure 2.2. Billboard advertisement purchased to advertise the Be Whale Wise (BWW) 

guidelines prior to the implementation of the federal regulations.

Along with updating and distributing the new BWW materials in 2011, NMFS also developed a 

web page and promoted the new regulations in TV, radio, and magazine advertisements. The 

www.bewhalewise.org web page includes information about the federal and state regulations and 

the BWW guidelines, and provides a mechanism for people to report potential violations. The 
12

TV and radio ads were targeted around Sea Fair to reach large numbers of recreational boaters. 

NMFS has also purchased advertising space in Northwest Sportsman magazine and has given 

presentations to recreational boating groups and the Passenger Vessel Association to ensure that 

recreational boaters, in addition to commercial whale watch and fishing vessel operators, are 

aware of the regulations and can comply with them. Representatives from NMFS have also 

spoken to the media to reach a wider audience across the Puget Sound region.

In 2016, the BWW materials and website were updated to integrate voluntary guidelines and 

mandatory regulations into one brochure for further clarification of the federal regulations and 

recommended best practices. This new brochure was presented to the PWWA at their 2016 

symposium and was printed and distributed in time for the 2016 boating season (Appendix D). 

Another important partnership to reduce vessel impacts to whales is through land-based viewing. 

The Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (NMFS 2008) includes education and 

outreach activities and specifically identifies promoting land-based viewing of killer whales as 

an action to minimize impacts from vessels (Recovery Action 3.2.3). The Whale Trail promotes 

land-based viewing and also supports education and outreach recovery actions to raise awareness 

and promote stewardship through identifying land-based viewing sites around the range of the 

whales. The Whale Trail brings together several of our important BWW partners, including The 

Whale Museum, Seattle Aquarium, WDFW, and others. This project continues to grow as we 

identify new sites along the West Coast and create new signs, which include responsible viewing 

messages, to reach a broad public audience. Lime Kiln State Park on the west side of San Juan 

Island is a Whale Trail site and provides education to large audiences (340,000 visitors in 2015).

The Whale Trail also includes Washington State Ferries and each ferry and terminal posts Whale 

Trail and BWW information, reaching another large audience.

Conclusions

Education and outreach about the regulations and BWW guidelines has been an integral part of 

implementation of the 2011 regulations. Education is essential to promote compliance and 

support protection for the whales. NMFS has worked with many partners to ensure that both 

commercial whale watch operators and recreational boaters are aware of the regulations and 

guidelines through a number of on- and off-the-water efforts. Together with our partners we have 

reached hundreds of thousands of people through distributing materials, advertising, and web 

pages. While many boaters acknowledge that they have prior knowledge of the rules when 

contacted by Soundwatch, there are new recreational boaters visiting the San Juan Islands for the 

first time each year, and these boaters present one of the biggest challenges for ensuring 

awareness of the regulations and guidelines before encountering the whales. NMFS will continue 

to work with partners and the boating community to increase education and outreach programs. 

3. ENFORCEMENT

Prior to adopting the vessel regulations in 2011, NMFS estimated how the number of vessel 

incidents might change compared to under the previous voluntary program (NMFS 2010). The 

analysis described in the EA considered those elements that might influence the level of 

compliance, such as the ability and willingness of individuals to comply with mandatory rules. 
13

An individual’s compliance with the rules depends on awareness of the rules’ existence, and 

whether the rules are clear and easy to follow. Once aware of rules, individuals may be willing to 

comply with them out of a sense of civic duty or obligation, social influences, fear of sanctions, 

or economic consequences associated with non-compliance (May 2005; National Marine 

Protected Areas Center 2005; Keane et al. 2008, Silber et al. 2014). An essential component of 

achieving compliance with mandatory regulations is the enforcement of those regulations.

There are many ways in which vessel operators may be motivated to comply with both voluntary 

and mandatory regulations. Both commercial and recreational operators are motivated by a sense 

of obligation to protect the whales, as stated explicitly by the PWWA. For commercial operators, 

certain social influences can also serve as strong motivation. One example of social influences 

that can positively impact a commercial operator’s compliance is through maintaining their 

reputation among peers and customers. In contrast to incidents of not following voluntary 

guidelines, violations of a mandatory regulation would likely be publicized and therefore cause 

more severe harm to their reputation and therefore business success (National Marine Protected 

Areas Center 2005). Fear of sanctions and their monetary consequences, however, is a stronger 

motivation for compliance with mandatory rules rather than voluntary guidelines, which 

generally do not have sanctions associated with non-compliance. In this sense, stronger 

compliance may be garnered with mandatory regulations versus voluntary guidelines. 

Recreational boaters are also more likely to comply with mandatory regulations, although they 

may be less likely to know the details of mandatory regulations than commercial operators. 

Based on the best available information, NMFS concluded that vessel operators would generally 

be more likely to adhere to mandatory specific regulations than to the voluntary guidelines. 

NMFS also concluded that promulgation of specific mandatory regulations was likely to result in 

fewer incidents between vessels and whales than occurred under the previous regime as a result 

of the enforceability of mandatory regulations (NMFS 2010). The likelihood of compliance with

any particular rule would be affected by the clarity of the rules, motivations to comply, and the 

level of monitoring and enforcement. To achieve the enforcement goals established during the 

rulemaking process, NMFS, including the Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), has partnered with 

WDFW and other enforcement groups. 

Enforcement Effort over Time

Beginning in 2004, WDFW conducted enforcement patrols directed at protecting Southern 

Residents from harassment of vessels. However, prior to 2008, there were only voluntary 

wildlife viewing guidelines and enforcement efforts were primarily focused on education and 

outreach and investigating potential violations under the ESA and MMPA. By June 12, 2008, the 

Washington legislature passed a law that restricted vessel activities near killer whales (this state 

law was updated in 2012, RCW 77.15.740, to correspond to the 2011 federal vessel regulations).

This new legislation provided law enforcement new tools to shift efforts from primarily 

education and outreach to include law enforcement. Between 2004 and 2009, WDFW law 

enforcement officers received funding from NOAA to conduct 25 to 35 summer patrols 

specifically focused on protecting Southern Residents from vessel harassment. Although funding 

was reduced in 2010, WDFW law enforcement officers still conducted 18 patrols. NOAA also 

provided funding to the San Juan County Sheriff for a small number of patrols in 2004-2005. By
14

2012, the number of patrols had increased with WDFW having up to 12 dedicated whale days

and NOAA OLE with 16 dedicated whale days (Eisenhardt 2013).

In 2013, there was a substantial increase in on-the-water patrols. WDFW was awarded an ESA 

section 6 grant that year to last through June 2015. This grant was renewed in 2016 to last 

through June 2018. The primary objective of the awarded project was to educate as many boaters 

as possible, both private and commercial, on how to be in compliance with state and federal 

laws. A second objective included tracking and monitoring progress and results by supporting

Soundwatch. The ESA section 6 funding provided a new WDFW vessel and one additional fulltime officer. In addition, a portion of the funding supported the Soundwatch program with vessel 

upgrades, additional days on the water, and data analysis (specifically for 2013, Soundwatch had 

40 additional days on the water). In the first year of the dedicated patrols (beginning in the 

summer of 2013), 74 patrols were conducted, more than tripling previous efforts. WDFW 

conducted 40 patrols in 2014 and 68 patrols in 2015 (Table 3.1). NOAA’s Office of Law 

Enforcement conducted a total of 81 patrols following the 2011 regulations (Table 3.2). Law

enforcement also reached out to commercial boats and kayak rental stores regarding outreachand enforcement-related issues. 

Violations, Citations, and Warnings over Time

While vessel incidents are recorded and reflect vessel behavior that has the potential to constitute 

harassment and take under the ESA and MMPA, translating this information into enforcement 

cases and successful prosecutions can be difficult. NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement receives 

numerous reports from the public regarding potential violations. The public and the whale watch 

industry refer a large number of additional observed violations to WDFW Enforcement. 

However, there is often insufficient evidence for WDFW or NOAA to investigate the majority of 

these complaints. The BWW web page provides a portal for submitting potential violations 

(including photos) and includes the information required to support further investigation. 

Dozens of verbal and written warnings have been issued in the summer of each year that WDFW 

has been on the water. For example, in 2010 (with an effort consisting of 18 patrols and 160 

vessel hours), 575 citizens were contacted resulting in approximately 35 verbal warnings (Table 

3.1). More enforcement patrols from increased funding following the federal vessel regulations 

resulted in more boaters contacted and more warnings given. In fact, a total of 106 warnings 

were issued in 2013, and 9 citations were issued (three of them to commercial boats and six of 

them to private boats). In the summer of 2014, WDFW officers contacted over 1,900 boaters 

(these contacts included both enforcement and education reasons), gave 90 warnings and 9 

citations in 40 patrols. In 2015, whales began frequenting inland waters by late April. That year, 

WDFW conducted 68 patrols and issued 120 warnings and 20 citations. Early in the season, 

WDFW officers were receiving reports of possible violations in central and southern Puget 

Sound locations, suggesting more awareness of vessel laws outside the primary northern Puget 

Sound locations.
15

Table 3.1. Number of boaters contacted, warnings issued, and citations issued by WDFW 

from 2006 to 2015.

Year # Patrols Boaters Contacted Warnings Issued Citations Issued

2006 33 88

2007 10 33 9

2008 20 598 20 3

2009 22 372 7 3

2010 18 575 35 6

2011 —* — — —

2012 — — — —

2013 74 2200 106 9

2014 40 1900 90 9

2015 68 2200 120 20

*— Indicates no data

Table 3.2 Number of boaters contacted, warnings issued, and citations issued by NOAA OLE 

from 2012 to 2015.

Year # Patrols Boaters Contacted Warnings Issued Citations Issued

2012 11 5 1 —*

2013 23 38 5 2

2014 23 25 6 1

2015 24 40 11 2

*— Indicates no data

Prior to the federal regulations, a small number of cases where negligent operation of a vessel 

resulted in harassment have been successfully pursued. In 2005, one case of harassment of killer 

whales under the MMPA through the negligent operation of a vessel resulted in a $1,000 fine. 

Following the ESA listing in 2005, NMFS assessed an additional violation in 2006, which 

resulted in settlement and imposition of a higher fine based on the endangered status of the 

whales and was settled for $2,000. Both cases were settled in 2007. Three state citations were 

issued in 2008, three were issued in 2009, and six were issued in 2010. Of the six citations issued 

in 2010, four were committed by Canadian whale watch companies, one by a private boater, and 

one by a private pilot. These incidents included repeatedly and intentionally positioning the 

vessel close to passing whales or repeatedly maneuvering the vessel in the path of the whales.

Impact of Enforcement on Incident Rates

Unfortunately, having mandatory regulations and an active education and outreach campaign 

does not always ensure compliance. In fact, data suggests that boater behavior in the vicinity of 

Southern Residents and compliance to vessel regulations are strongly influenced by the presence 

or absence of a marked patrol vessel. For example, from 2013 through 2015, Soundwatch 

recorded a substantial drop in the number of observed incidents that occurred when WDFW was 

on the scene compared to when they were not present (Figure 3.1) (Seely 2015).
16

Figure 3.1. Observed number of incidents by Soundwatch between 2013 and 2015 with and 

without WDFW on the scene (Seely 2015). 

A decrease in the number of observed incidents was not just observed in one vessel type. In fact, 

Soundwatch data has shown better adherence to the laws from both recreational and commercial 

vessels. For example, in 2013, Soundwatch documented a significant decrease in the rate of 

regulatory incidents (per 30 minute sampling period) for both U.S. and Canadian whale watch 

vessels, guided ecotour kayaks, and private boaters in the presence of WDFW enforcement, 

suggesting a continued need to increase enforcement presence (Figure 3.2) (Eisenhardt 2014).

Because compliance with the vessel regulations substantially increases when WDFW 

enforcement vessels are in the area, this suggests that many commercial and some recreational 

boaters may be aware of the regulations, but are more likely to comply only when enforcement 

action may be taken. In fact, Soundwatch documented that approximately 60% of boaters who

were contacted in 2011 were aware of the rules, 13% of them had one or more incidents recorded 

before contact, and approximately 5% had incidents after contact (Koski 2012). This same trend 

was found in several years (see Section 4.0). The benefits from enforcement and outreach patrols 

likely include that the egregious and repeat offenders will be dealt with through the legal process, 

potential violators will be stopped from intentionally violating the laws, and uninformed boaters 

will be educated on responsible whale watch viewing in the proximity of the whales.
17

Figure 3.2. Effect of WDFW enforcement presence on 2013 regulatory incident rates (per 30 

minutes per vessel). Figure from Eisenhardt (2014).

Enforcement Challenges

One challenge to measuring the effectiveness of the vessel regulations is the inconsistent 

regulations, enforcement, and monitoring presence in Canada compared to the U.S. Although 

DFO’s Resident Killer Whale Action Plan lists developing and implementing “regulations, 

guidelines, sanctuaries, and other measures to reduce or eliminate physical and acoustic 

disturbance of Resident Killer Whales” as an approach to recovery, implementing mandatory 

regulations like those in the U.S has not occurred yet (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2017). In 

addition, the long-term trends in the Soundwatch data demonstrate a need for the continued 

increase of enforcement patrols and action on the water (Seely 2016). Soundwatch and other 

groups have highlighted that sustainable funding for enforcement is critical. Increased 

enforcement effort was also supported during the Recovery Plan and vessel regulations public 

input process. 

NMFS has previously acknowledged that enforcement of the prohibition on parking in the path 

of the whales would be challenging and recognized that whales can be unpredictable and can 

approach vessels unexpectedly. However, the prohibition on parking in the path was intended to 

address specific situations observed by monitoring groups where operators repeatedly position 

themselves to intercept the whales and do not get out of the way, rather than situations where 

whales are moving erratically and boaters find themselves in the path unexpectedly. In 

discussions between enforcement officers and vessel operators, awareness about the whales’ 

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

No WDFW on Scene? Yes

n=572 (Num of 30 minute samples) n=89

Ecotour Canadian

Ecotour U.S. *

Private Motor **
18

behavior, the specifics of a situation, and the discretion involved in selecting which cases to 

pursue are all key factors. 

Conclusions

Although education and outreach efforts can improve compliance, the strongest motivations to 

improve behavior are having a sense of civic duty or obligation, social influences, fear of 

sanctions, or economic consequences associated with non-compliance. Enforcement is essential 

to promoting compliance with the vessel regulations and achieving a reduction in vessel impacts 

to Southern Residents. In fact, data suggest that boater behavior and compliance with vessel 

regulations are strongly influenced by the presence or absence of a marked patrol vessel to a 

measurable degree (a 2 to 3 times reduction in incidents when patrol boats were present). Vessel 

operators are more likely to adhere to mandatory specific regulations than to the previous 

voluntary guidelines. It is reasonable to assume that commercial operators know about the 

mandatory regulations for the same reasons that they were familiar with the previous voluntary 

guidelines, and have strong incentives to comply to protect their business reputation. Similarly, 

recreational boaters are more likely to comply with mandatory regulations, although they may be 

less likely to know the details of mandatory regulations than commercial operators. In general, 

promulgation of specific mandatory regulations is likely to increase enforcement capability and 

compliance, which NMFS predicted would result in fewer incidents between vessels and whales 

than occurs under the previous regime. 

4. VESSEL COMPLIANCE

Before the federal vessel regulations were adopted in 2011, monitoring data revealed that vessel 

compliance with voluntary guidelines was low and that the number of violations of these 

guidelines was steadily increasing. Since the 1970s, whale watching has gained popularity, 

becoming an integral part of the tourism industry in the Northwest. It has grown to a near $58 

million industry, with a total of 96 active commercial whale watching vessels in 2015, the 

highest number ever recorded (IEc 2015; Seely 2016). 

Soundwatch has partnered with NMFS for over 15 years to monitor vessel compliance with 

federal regulations and compile their data in annual reports, which can be found at 

https://whalemuseum.org/pages/soundwatch-boater-education-program. These reports depict 

trends in compliance and enforcement both before and after the 2011 implementation of the 

federal vessel regulations. Soundwatch monitors vessels operating near killer whales and records 

activities that are inconsistent with the federal regulations and BWW guidelines as “vessel 

incidents” (Seely 2016). Giles et al. (2010) also reports compliance with the voluntary BWW

guidelines prior to the installment of the federal regulations. After the regulations were 

implemented, WDFW received federal funding to support both monitoring and enforcement

activities (see Section 3). Their biannual grant reports have provided insight into changes in 

vessel operator behavior over time since the implementation of the regulations. Together with the 

Soundwatch reports, these data provide the basis to compare vessel compliance trends before and 

after 2011. The following sections discuss the complexities of the compliance dataset, its 

limitations, and the trends that can be extrapolated from it. 
19

Challenges with Comparing Data Before and After 2011

The primary confounding issue with comparing vessel compliance before and after 2011 is that 

the minimum allowed distance from the whales increased with the federal regulations. The 

voluntary BWW guidelines in place before 2011 recommended vessels remain 100 yards away 

from the whales, whereas federal regulations implemented in 2011 dictate that vessels must stay 

at least 200 yards away. New incident categories were added to measure compliance with the 

new 200-yard approach rule. Because the no-approach distance in the pre-2011 guidelines was 

not as expansive as the one later codified in the federal regulations, Soundwatch did not record 

an incident when vessels were 100 to 200 yards from the whales before 2011. By adding new 

incident categories, the overall number of incidents increased and some incidents are likely 

counted more than once based on the data collection protocol. For example, if a vessel was 

observed within 200 yards and then proceeded to move to within 100 yards, this was counted as 

two incidents, again increasing the number of total incidents in the years following the 

regulations (2011-2015). Furthermore, comparing the number of total incidents recorded each 

year by Soundwatch before and after 2011 is not an accurate depiction of noncompliance 

associated with the federal regulations and rulemaking because there are multiple incident 

categories specific to voluntary guidelines not codified in the regulations (Table 4.1 and Table 

4.2).

Table 4.1. Incidents by category observed by Soundwatch from 1998 to 2015. Table from 

Seely (2016).
20

Table 4.2. Number of incidents of noncompliance with BWW guidelines (2006-2010) and 

federal regulations (2011-2015) per year.

# of Incidents per Year

Before Federal Regulations After Federal Regulations

Incident

Description

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Motoring w/in 100 yards 159 94 164 242 126 210 93 215 219 148

Parked w/in 100 yards -* 58 125 105 110 418 221 150 323 173

Motoring w/in 100-200 

yards

- - - - - 301 269 333 298 150

Parked w/in 100-200 yards - - - - - 460 400 128 351 209

Kayak w/in 100 yards 10 8 11 9 5 10 16 3 11 9

Kayak w/in 100-200 yards - - - - - 15 34 12 21 16

TOTAL 169 160 300 356 242 1414 1033 841 1223 705

Park in path 330 271 284 491 191 263 605 623 642 356

TOTAL distance and path 499 431 584 847 433 1677 1638 1464 1865 1061

Annual Observation Hours 516 420 540 420 442 573 306 331 425 393

*-No Data

In addition to the difficulties associated with comparing data before and after 2011, there are also 

challenges associated with comparing data from year to year. As county and state regulations 

went into effect in 2007 and 2008, some of the BWW guidelines became legally binding, 

including a 100-yard approach limit. The federal regulations completed in 2011 pushed this 

approach limit out to 200 yards, causing a discontinuity between federal and local laws. The state 

regulations were amended in 2012 to match the federal regulations; however, the changes from 

year to year make comparing trends in compliance over time challenging. Furthermore, although 

the regulations have remained consistent in the U.S. since 2011, there are no equitable 

regulations in Canadian waters.

The next challenge in assessing compliance trends is linked to how Soundwatch operates on the 

water, combining outreach activities and monitoring for vessel incidents. Although they record 

how much time is spent on the water overall, they do not estimate how much of that time was 

spent with whales present, and how much was dedicated specifically to monitoring vessel 

activity as opposed to outreach and education activities. As such, the total number of observation 

hours each year with the whales reflects multiple activities, not just collecting vessel incident 

data (Seely 2016). Soundwatch has devised a more accurate estimation of the amount of time 

spent observing vessel behavior when whales are present. They record the number of vessels 

present twice an hour, once on the hour mark and once on the half-hour mark. These 

observations represent 30-minute periods spent actively monitoring the whales and the vessels 

around them. When outreach efforts prevent them from stopping to record the number of vessels 

present at the hour and half-hour mark, the lack of a vessel count represents a 30-minute period 

dedicated to outreach and not monitoring vessel activity. Therefore, the data can be standardized 

to account for variations in effort from year to year by dividing the total number of incidents by 

the number of vessel counts performed that year, and then multiplying by two to get a rate of 

incidents per hour (Seely 2016). Although this method introduces some uncertainty into the 
21

calculation, there is far less uncertainty than would be associated with using the total number 

hours on the water, which represents time split between outreach and monitoring. 

It is also difficult to account for changes in the number of vessels present with the whales when 

incidents are recorded. The average number of vessels near the whales has varied from year to

year, with a decreasing trend prior to the regulations and an increasing trend since 2011 (Figure 

4.1). This may have been due to a variety of factors, such as access to fisheries or economic 

dynamics that affect participation in recreational boating. For example, the increase in the 

number of boats in 2014 and 2015 was likely due, in part, to the healthy salmon fisheries in those 

years. However, the number of vessels with the whales is not recorded every time an incident is 

observed, so standardizing a rate by the number of vessels present for each incident is not 

possible. For the purposes of this analysis, the best available standardization methods for both 

time and number of vessels were used to compare the results and determine if any trends can be 

discerned despite the difficulties associated with standardizing the data using these methods.

Figure 4.1. The average number of vessels with the whales from 2006 to 2015. Before the 

regulations were implemented in 2011, Soundwatch observed a decrease in the 

average number of vessels with the whales from year-to-year. This number 

increased annually from 2011 to 2015. 

Biological factors such as prey availability can influence the behavior of the whales in ways that 

make monitoring and enforcement difficult. Social cohesion has been observed to fluctuate from 

year to year, resulting in a more spread out population in some years (Parsons et al. 2009). Foster 

et al. (2012) found a link between social cohesion of the whales and salmon abundance. In years 

of low salmon abundance, the whales were observed to be more spread out. During these

periods, Southern Resident killer whale total space use was greater and movement patterns were 
22

more convoluted compared to periods of greater salmon abundance (McCluskey 2006). Other 

environmental factors may also result in this behavior, though further study is required to 

identify those factors (Parsons et al. 2009). Lack of social cohesion makes it difficult to monitor 

vessel behavior because as the whales spread out, so do the whale watch vessels. Thus, one 

Soundwatch vessel and/or one WDFW enforcement vessel are left to monitor several groupings 

of vessels over a greater geographic area instead of just one group in a concentrated area. This 

may influence the data in a variety of ways, which can make it difficult to analyze for trends in a 

greater context. 

Compliance by Vessel Type over Time

Prior to 2011, data from Soundwatch indicated a high level of noncompliance with the voluntary 

BWW guidelines with over 1,000 incidents each year. These data supported the need for 

regulations rather than relying on voluntary measures and were used to develop the vessel 

regulations. The high level of noncompliance included recreational vessel operators viewing 

killer whales, commercial whale watch vessels, and other types of vessels in the Pacific 

Northwest. In other regions, reviews of the effectiveness of voluntary conservation agreements 

have also indicated that voluntary guidelines may be insufficient to protect marine mammals. In 

the Northeast, Wiley et al. (2008) found that, despite conditions that seemed supportive of the 

use of voluntary measures, the high level of noncompliance to voluntary speed-zone buffers for 

endangered whales likely failed to achieve the desired conservation goals.

In the 5 years leading up to the installment of the current federal regulations, Soundwatch 

recorded an average annual incident total of 1,480 for the BWW guidelines. The most frequent 

violators tended to be recreational boaters, making up about 55 to 70% of the total annual 

incidents. The high level of noncompliance of recreational vessels relative to commercial whale 

watching vessels was likely due to the inexperience of recreational vessel operators with boating 

near killer whales or their lack of knowledge of the BWW guidelines. Commercial whale 

watching operators also have the advantage of the use of a common radio frequency to alert each 

other of the location of the whales, making them less likely to be “surprised” by the whales than 

private boaters are (Koski 2011). Canadian commercial whale watching operators were 

responsible for about 15 to 30% of all incidents, followed by U.S. commercial operators with 

roughly 10 to 20%. 

Data collected in 2009 by Giles et al. (2010) are consistent with this pattern (Figure 4.2 and 

Figure 4.3). 
23

Figure 4.2. Percentage of the total number of incidents committed by vessel type from 2006 

to 2015. Vessel types include commercial and recreational whale watchers, 

kayakers, fishing vessels, and others, including research and monitoring vessels. 

The incidents of noncompliance represented consist of parking in the path of the 

whales and coming within 100 yards before 2011 and within 200 yards after 2011.

Note that researchers operate under federal scientific permits that specifically 

allow close approaches to the whales.
24

Figure 4.3. Number and percent of incidents of not complying with federal regulations for each 

vessel type observed in the summer of 2009 by Giles et al. (2010). Private 

recreational vessels, Canadian and U.S. commercial whale watching vessels, 

research vessels, and others (including aircraft, kayaks, etc.) were observed out of 

compliance with what would later become federal regulations. Before the 

regulations were created, however, proximity incidents were only recorded for 

vessels within 100 yards of the whales instead of the more stringent 200 yards 

specified in the later regulations.

Another explanation for the higher level of compliance exhibited by the commercial whale watch 

industry is their history of involvement in developing best practices and the BWW guidelines 

long before the federal regulations existed. This process began in 1994 when the industry 

experienced a surge of growth that continued into the early 2000s. A code of conduct developed 

by the Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest—what is now the PWWA—established a 

set of best practices for whale watch operators which served as an example for developing the 

BWW guidelines. Today, PWWA members still abide by specific industry guidelines which, in 

some ways, are even more restrictive than the BWW guidelines. They also hold each other 

accountable for obeying the guidelines and during certain time periods had an industry advisory 

council where noncompliance was addressed (Giles and Koski 2012). 

The 2015 Soundwatch Report summarizes the trends in vessel incident rates in the 5 years 

following the creation of the current regulations (Seely 2016). The percentage of incidents where 

the federal regulations were not followed by vessel type mirrors that of the previous years, with 

recreational boaters committing the majority of the incidents observed, followed by commercial 

whale watching operators. In 2015, private recreational boaters made up about 46% of the 

incidents, with commercial operators at about 31% (Figure 4.2) (Seely 2016). The continued 
25

higher compliance with the new regulations by commercial operators is likely the product of 

their direct engagement in the rulemaking process to develop regulations, clear communication 

with enforcement, and their commitment to conservation (see Section 2.0). 

Compliance Trends over Time

To analyze the effects of the federal regulations on vessel operator behavior, we compared 

compliance with the regulations 5 years before and 5 years after they were codified. Using these 

data, no dramatic changes have been observed since the 2011 regulations were put in place. 

Rather, the compliance data varies greatly from year to year, both before and after 2011 and 

depending on the source of the data. Some reasons for this variation are discussed in the 

Comparing Data Before and After 2011 section above. For all of these reasons and more, it is 

difficult to say whether or not a single consistent trend exists for vessel compliance, and it may 

be several more years before one emerges. 

For this analysis, the Soundwatch data were standardized as described above. The standardized 

annual rate of incidents per hour was then averaged over 5 years before and 5 years after the 

federal regulations were implemented. However, before 2011 no data were collected for the 

number of vessels between 100 and 200 yards from the whales. Therefore, incidents involving 

the 100-yard guideline were analyzed for patterns in compliance instead. An increase in incident 

rates involving both parking in the path and coming within 100 yards of the whales was observed 

(Figure 4.4). When the data are plotted annually instead of as an average, however, high 

variability from year to year is evident. Figure 4.5 presents the annual number of incidents per 

hour. It shows an initial increase in the rate of parking in the path incidents in 2012. This rate has 

decreased steadily since then. Although the rate of incidents of boating within 200 yards of the 

whales has fluctuated since 2011, the data show an overall decreasing trend. 

A preliminary analysis of the Soundwatch data suggests that vessel compliance has actually 

decreased since the implementation of federal regulations, as opposed to the increase in 

compliance that was predicted when the regulations were put in place (Figure 4.4, Table 4.3). It 

is possible that changes in the prioritization of on-the-water activities have influenced the data. 

For example, Seely et al. (in review) report fewer contacts with well-behaved boaters and 

recreational fishing vessels, which may have resulted in an increase in time spent monitoring 

vessel behavior and recording incidents. Further investigation reveals that while the annual 

number of incidents increased after 2011, so did the average number of vessels with the whales 

(Figure 4.1). Seely et al. (in review) report that the total number of incidents is not correlated to 

the number of vessels with the whales, however their analysis does not account for monitoring 

effort. Higher numbers of overall incidents could also be related to a higher number of incident 

categories as described above (Table 4.1) and potential double counting of vessels within 100 

and 200 yards of the whales.
26

Figure 4.4. Rate of incidents of noncompliance before and after implementation of regulations

in 2011. These averages were found by dividing the number of incidents each year 

by the number of vessel counts and multiplying by 2 to get a rate of incidents per 

hour for each year. These rates were then used to find the average for the 5 years 

prior to and the 5 years after 2011. Vessels between 100 and 200 yards of the 

whales were not recorded as out of compliance with any regulation or guideline 

before 2011, so no data are available for the number of vessels within 200 yards

before 2011.

Table 4.3 Average number of annual incidents pre and post-regulation.

Avg. annual incidents 2006-2010 2011-2015

Parked in path 313.4 497.8

Within 100 yards 267.4 467.2

Within 100-200 yards *data not collected 601
27

Figure 4.5. Rate of vessel incidents before and after 2011 plotted with the number of vessels 

with the whales each year. Incident rates were found by dividing the number of 

incidents each year by the number of vessel counts performed in the presence of 

whales. This value was then multiplied by 2 to get a rate of incidents per hour.

The changes in trends of compliance with the BWW guidelines after the regulations were 

codified are also worth noting. Although the guidelines are largely voluntary and include many 

categories not covered by the mandatory federal regulations, trends in compliance with these 

guidelines appear to mirror those of compliance with the regulations. The total number of 

incidents of noncompliance with the guidelines initially increased in 2011 and 2012 before 

steadily decreasing again in the years after (Figure 4.6). This could be due to a number of 

reasons, some linked to the codification of the regulations and some independent of them. For 

example, it is possible that the increase is due to an increased number of vessels with the whales, 

or that the subsequent decrease was due to increased awareness of the threats vessels pose to the 

whales as a result of re-energized education and outreach campaigns when the regulations were 

codified (see Section 2.0). Whatever the reason, the decreasing trend in the rate of some

incidents after 2012 demonstrates some benefit to the whales. 
28

Figure 4.6. The rate of incidents of noncompliance with all BWW guidelines by vessel type 

from 2006 to 2015. Although the number of incidents initially increased in 2011 

and 2012 for almost all vessel types, the data show a decreasing trend in incidents 

over time after the regulations were implemented (Figure from Seely 2016).

Since enforcement presence on the water increased in 2013, Soundwatch has observed an overall 

decrease in the number of incidents while enforcement is present (see Section 3.0). However, 

enforcement data extends back to 2006 and indicates that the number of citations given out over 

time before and after the federal regulations were codified has actually increased, which could 

suggest a decrease in compliance (Table 3.1). One goal of the regulations was to provide 

objective measurable metrics to support enforcement and this could be a reason for the increase 

in citations over time. Like the Soundwatch data, the state regulations only targeted boaters 

within 100 yards until they were changed in 2011 to 200 yards to match the federal regulations. 

Furthermore, prior to receiving federal funding for enforcement in 2013, WDFW was 

constrained by funding limitations to contact fewer boaters on the water. These reasons might 

explain why the number of citations increased after the regulations were codified. It is worth 

noting that there was an unusually high number of citations issued in 2015, which was likely 

because of the eight Southern Resident calves born that season. These births were widely 

publicized, and as reported in WDFW grant reports, the attention resulted in a higher number of 

recreational whale watchers on the water. Because recreational boaters accrue the most incidents 

of any group, it is logical that their increased presence would lead to a significant increase in the 

number of incidents. WDFW also increased their presence on the water in 2015 in response to 

this trend, resulting in the issuance of more citations than in previous years when enforcement 

effort may have been lower. 

Incidents of Risky Behaviors

A subset of the total number of vessel incidents, including (1) parking in the path, (2) head-on 

approaches, (3) crosses the path of whales, and (4) chasing/pursuing whales, are considered the 

most risky vessel behaviors that have the highest likelihood of resulting in vessel strikes. The 
29

average rate of each of these incident categories prior to and following the vessel regulations are 

shown in Figure 4.7. To calculate the average rate of incidents for each time period (2006-2010 

and 2011-2015), we standardized the data to account for variations in effort from year to year, as 

described above, to get a rate of incidents per hour. Lastly, we averaged the rates in each time 

period to compare pre- and post-incident rates for each of the four categories. The results show 

that there were higher rates of incidents for all categories following the regulations except 

‘chasing the whales’ (Figure 4.7). However, when we examine these rates over time for each 

year, we find that rates fluctuated from 2006 to 2010, then increased in most categories, peaking 

in 2013, and then declined through 2015 (Figure 4.8). The total number of incidents for each 

year also reflects a substantial increase in these behaviors following the regulations (Table 4.4).

Figure 4.7. Average rates of vessel incidents from 2006 through 2010, and 2011 through 2015. 

The four incidence categories, (1) parking in path, (2) head on approaches, (3) 

crosses path, and (4) chasing whales, are considered categories that increase the 

likelihood of vessel strikes (Seely 2016). The average number of incidents per hour 

was estimated by averaging the rate of incidents for each time period (2006-2010 

and 2011-2015).
30

Figure 4.8. Annual incident rates from 2006 to 2015 for four incident categories that may 

increase the likelihood of vessel strike: (1) parking in path, (2) head on 

approaches, (3) crosses path, and (4) chasing whales (Seely 2016).

Compliance with a Voluntary Whalewatch Exclusion Zone

The San Juan County Marine Stewardship Area includes a voluntary Whalewatch exclusion zone 

along the west side of San Juan Island, an important foraging area for the whales. It consists of a 

1/4 mile area off the coast of the island, plus an additional 1/2 mile area off of Lime Kiln Point 

State Park (Figure 4.9a). This zone also encompasses a national wildlife refuge and a biological 

reserve (Figure 4.9b). Although the expansion and formalization of a mandatory “no-go” zone 

was considered under Alternative 4 and Alternative 5 of the EA evaluating our vessel regulations 

(NMFS 2010), a no-go zone was not included in the final rule (76 FR 20870, April 14, 2011). 

Strong opposition to the no-go zone alternatives was expressed during the public comment 

period, and several alternatives to the proposed zone were suggested. NMFS ultimately chose not 

to include the no-go zone in the final rule so as to allow for more time to consider the 

suggestions made in the public comments. 
31

(a) (b)

Figure 4.9a and b. Maps of the voluntary no-go zone on the west side of San Juan Island. 

Figure 4.9a (left) shows the 1/4-mile no-go zone on along the coast and the 1/2-

mile no-go zone around Lime Kiln Point State Park (Soundwatch 2005). Figure 

4.9b (right) shows the Whalewatch Exclusion Zone, the Marine Biological 

Reserve, and the National Wildlife Refuge (Evans and Kennedy 2007).

As a part of their monitoring program, Soundwatch has collected data on compliance with the 

voluntary zone to determine if it is effective in influencing vessel operator behavior as a 

voluntary measure. As with the federal regulations, the majority of incidents of noncompliance 

with the zone were committed by recreational boaters (Figure 4.10). In 2009, recreational boaters 

committed these incidents at a rate that was 22 times higher than commercial whale watch 

operators. The rate of noncompliance fluctuates greatly from year to year (Figure 4.10). It is 

clear from the data that recreational boaters have a harder time complying with the voluntary 

zone, potentially because they are less aware of its existence compared to the commercial 

operators. However, the rate of noncompliance with the zone is relatively low compared to the 

rate of noncompliance with the regulations. Even in the worst years, the rate of noncompliance 

with the voluntary zone remained below one incident per hour. This suggests a high level of 

compliance overall with the voluntary whalewatch exclusion zone. 
32

Figure 4.10. Rate of noncompliance with the voluntary whalewatch exclusion zone. The rate of 

incidents per hour fluctuates from year to year, but it is clear that recreational 

boaters are responsible for significantly more incidents than commercial whale 

watch operators (Seely 2016).

Compliance with Voluntary Speed Limits

The BWW guidelines recommend a speed limit near the whales and a mandatory speed limit was 

considered in the EA but not adopted in the final regulations (NMFS 2010). According to the 

guidelines, boaters should reduce their speed below 7 knots any time they are within 400 meters 

of the whales. Although the EA concluded that a speed limit near the whales would reduce the 

risks of vessel strikes and acoustic masking, NMFS concluded that it would ultimately be too 

difficult to enforce. However, NMFS remains committed to working with BWW partners to 

monitor compliance with the voluntary speed restrictions, evaluate new technologies for 

determining speed over water, and reduce impacts from fast moving vessels in close proximity to 

the whales. 

Soundwatch monitors compliance with the voluntary speed limit. Again, recreational boaters 

commit the majority of the incidents of going over the speed recommendation (Figure 4.11). In 

2011, they committed these incidents at a rate 20 times higher, and in 2012 at a rate 30 times 

higher, than commercial whale watch operators. Before 2011, the rate of incidents fluctuated 

greatly from year to year, but appears to follow a decreasing trend beginning in 2012. From these

data, it is apparent that recreational boaters are most likely to not follow the voluntary speed 

limit in the BWW guidelines, although their compliance seems to be improving over the last 4 

years. The overall rate of noncompliance is relatively low, at less than one incident per hour. 
33

Figure 4.11. Rate of noncompliance with the voluntary BWW speed limit. Again, recreational 

boaters are responsible for the most incidents in this category. However, their 

noncompliance appears to be on a downward trajectory (Seely 2016).

Compliance by Kayakers

In 2010, 2011, and 2012, Soundwatch collected specific data from shore on kayaker activities

when whales were present within a half mile of shore along the west side of San Juan Island 

(Koski 2011; Koski 2012; Eisenhardt 2013). In 2012, the effort was the greatest and the data 

from all 3 years provide information on compliance with the BWW and KELP guidelines before 

and after the regulations were put into place in 2011. Observers conducted 10-minute scans 

recording incidents of kayakers not following guidelines (and regulations starting in 2011)

(Table 4.5). 

Table 4.5. Kayaker compliance with BWW and KELP guidelines from 2010 to 2012.

2010 2011 2012

Percent of incidents commercial 66 73 57

Percent of incidents recreational 34 27 43

Average # of incidents per 10-minute scans 5.06 1.46 1.04

Average # incidents per individual kayaker 

per 10-minute scans

1.01 0.46 0.28

Two trends are apparent in these data. First, the commercial kayakers commit a higher 

percentage of incidents compared to recreational kayakers. This is likely due to the larger 
34

number of commercial kayakers present in the area and some companies advertising kayaking 

with the whales may tend to seek out the whales. Second, kayakers significantly improved their 

compliance following implementation of the regulations with declining rates of incidents per 

scan. In addition, taking into account the number of kayakers present for each scan, the rate of 

incidents per individual kayaker also declined over time. The education program at the San Juan 

County boat launch and training for kayak guides likely played a major role in educating 

kayakers about the guidelines and regulations and improving compliance. Those education 

programs have continued beyond the data collection and remain in place.

Conclusions

Although there is an overall decreasing trend in the rate of noncompliance with all of the BWW

guidelines combined as observed in Figure 4.6, there does appear to be a higher rate of 

noncompliance with some of the federal regulations after they were codified in 2011. Following 

the initial increases in rates of regulation incidents starting in 2011 there has been a decreasing 

trend, which suggests compliance may be improving as boaters become more familiar with the 

regulations over time. As discussed in Section 3, the presence of the WDFW enforcement team 

on the water has increased since 2013 and has a positive effect on compliance with the 

regulations. It is possible that if enforcement presence were to increase, compliance could 

continue to increase, providing further benefits to the whales. Canadian regulations similar to 

those in the U.S. might also improve compliance and have been recommended (Giles and Koski 

2012). Unfortunately, there has been an increase in incidents of some particularly risky 

behaviors. These trends in the rates of noncompliance indicate that vessels still pose a threat to 

Southern Resident recovery. Continued monitoring of vessel activity around the whales will be 

important to follow trends over a longer period and evaluate effectiveness of the regulations into 

the future. 

5. BIOLOGICAL IMPACT

Several marine mammal species have demonstrated behavioral responses to vessel activities. 

However, the behavioral responses may not be consistent across species or within a species, and 

the degree of the response can vary as well. Furthermore, changes in behavior may not be 

observable and a lack of an observed response may not indicate a lack of impact (New et al.

2015). This creates a challenge when assessing if Southern Resident killer whales are less 

affected by vessels than they were prior to the federal vessel regulations. However, in this 

section we review previously known behavioral responses to vessel activities (as described in 

detail in NMFS 2010) as well as new studies that have emerged since 2011. In order to put 

behavioral responses into a biologically meaningful context, we analyze the link between 

observed behavioral responses and the whales’ energy requirements. We follow this by 

discussing what we currently know about population-level consequences (such as vital rates) 

from short-term behavioral and physiological changes and highlight where the data gaps are. We

then focus our assessment on whether Southern Residents are more likely to display surface 

active behaviors and/or modify vocal behaviors following implementation of the vessel 

regulations by analyzing vessel compliance and boater behavior. We also describe the acoustic 

environment of the inland waters and the received underwater noise levels the killer whales have 

likely experienced pre- and post-regulations. 
35

Review of Short-Term Behavioral Responses to Vessels

Although the long-term effects of behavioral responses from vessel interactions are not well 

known, it is well documented that resident killer whales respond to vessels engaged in close 

proximity (often engaged in whale watching) with short-term behavioral changes (Kruse 1991; 

Kriete 2002; Williams et al. 2002a, 2002b, 2006, 2009; Foote et al. 2004; Bain et al. 2006; Noren 

et al. 2007, 2009; Lusseau et al. 2009; Wieland et al. 2010; Senigaglia et al. 2016). These 

observed behavioral changes have included faster swimming speeds (Williams et al. 2002a), less 

directed swimming paths (Williams et al. 2002a; Bain et al. 2006; Williams et al. 2009), and less 

time foraging (Bain et al. 2006; Williams et al. 2006; Lusseau et al. 2009; Giles and Cendak 

2010; Senigaglia et al. 2016). Vessels in the path of the whales can also interfere with important 

social behaviors such as prey sharing (Ford and Ellis 2006) or nursing (Kriete 2007). 

Behavior changes have also been observed in the presence of different types of vessels. For 

example, changes in behavior of dolphins and killer whales have been documented in the 

presence of both motorized and non-motorized vessels (Nichols et al. 2001; Lusseau 2003; Trites 

et al. 2007; Noren et al. 2007, 2009; Williams et al. 2010). In addition, researchers have also 

looked at the behavioral responses of killer whales in relation to boat density (Williams and Ashe 

2007; Giles and Cendak 2010). Giles and Cendak (2010) found that whales spent significantly 

less time foraging in high boat density conditions and were also more likely to remain foraging 

in low boat density conditions. In more recent work, Giles (2014) found that when whales are 

grouped together, there are high boat densities around the whales. Previous research results also 

indicate that these short-term behavioral changes observed in killer whales can occur at varying 

distances of the vessels, from vessel approaches within 100 meters (109.4 yards) to vessels at 

400 meters (437.4 yards) and greater (Williams et al. 2002a; Bain et al. 2006; Noren et al. 2007, 

2009; Lusseau et al. 2009; Williams et al. 2009). 

Vessel sounds may mask or partially or completely prevent the perception of clicks, calls, and 

whistles made by killer whales, including echolocation used to locate prey and other signals the 

whales rely on for communication and navigation. Masking of echolocation would reduce 

foraging efficiency (Holt 2008), which may be particularly problematic if prey resources are 

limited. Masking sound from vessels could affect the ability of whales to coordinate their feeding 

activities, including searching for prey and prey sharing. Foote et al. (2004) found that Southern 

Resident killer whales increased the duration of their primary communication call when vessels 

were present. Wieland et al. (2010) also reported increased call durations, but for a larger number 

of call types (16 out of 21 calls) in a similar comparison. Holt et al. (2009) found that killer 

whales increase their call amplitude (i.e., loudness) in response to increased vessel noise levels. 

Energetic Costs from Short-Term Behavioral Disturbance

Increased energetic costs from behavioral disturbance and/or reduced foraging/energy intake can 

decrease the fitness of individuals (Lusseau and Bejder 2007) and can result in poor nutrition. 

Interference with foraging that results in poor nutrition can affect immune function, growth, and 

development. For example, it can affect the age at which animals reach reproductive maturity, 

fecundity, and annual or lifetime reproductive success, and if severe enough, can lead to 
36

mortality (Dierauf and Gulland 2001; Trites and Donnelly 2003). Interference with behaviors 

including prey sharing and communication could also change social cohesion and foraging 

efficiency and therefore the growth, reproduction, and fitness of individuals.

Several researchers have estimated the physiological consequences of behavioral responses and 

the potential energetic costs of the behaviors observed when vessels are present. A recent study 

was designed to determine the energetic costs of surface active behaviors that have been 

observed in response to vessel presence. Noren et al. (2012) estimated the energetic costs in two 

trained adult male Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and found that the more energetically costly 

surface behaviors, such as breaching, can increase metabolic rates in cetaceans and may impact 

an individual’s daily energy requirements depending on the frequency of the vessel interactions 

and the energetic cost of the surface active behaviors performed. Williams et al. (2006) 

previously estimated that Northern Resident killer whales expended slightly more energy in the 

presence of vessels. They estimated that changes in activity budgets in the presence of vessels 

result in an approximate 3% increase in energy expenditure compared to when vessels are not 

present.

Changes in sound production may also affect energetic requirements. When producing sounds, 

including whistles and clicks, captive dolphins were found to have a measurable, although 

relatively small, metabolic cost (Noren et al. 2013; Noren et al. In Press). More recently, Holt et 

al. (2015) measured the oxygen consumption in captive bottlenose dolphins during vocalizations 

that varied in levels of sound production. They found that increased vocal effort (i.e., the total 

acoustic energy of the sounds produced), increased the metabolic rate relative to the resting rate, 

demonstrating that modifications in vocal effort can have an energetic impact on an individual.

There is a potential for significant impact on an individual when the energetic costs from 

increased sound production, or vocal modification, and the costs from increased surface active 

behaviors are combined over an extended period of time.

Although there is a higher energetic cost of increased performance of surface active behaviors 

and modifications of vocal effort, the corresponding increase in energy expenditure may be less 

important than the reduced time spent feeding and the probable reduction in prey consumption. 

From their observations, Williams et al. (2006) calculated that Northern Resident killer whales 

spent 18% less time foraging in the presence of vessels for 12 hours compared to when vessels 

are absent. Similarly, Southern Resident killer whales spent 17 to 21% less time foraging in the 

presence of vessels for 12 hours, depending on vessel distance (D. Noren unpublished data, 

calculated from data in Lusseau et al. 2009). 

Spending less time foraging in the presence of vessels is not an anomaly observed in killer 

whales alone; a similar behavioral response has been found in several cetacean species 

worldwide (Senigaglia et al. 2016). For example, Pirotta et al. (2015) found that changes in 

dolphin echolocation signals in the presence of vessels likely results in a reduction in foraging 

activity, highlighting the impact that repeated disruptions can have on total energy intake.

Reductions in bottlenose dolphin foraging/feeding behavior, based on surface-based observations 

of activity states may be as high as 46 to 87% when dolphins are exposed to vessels for 12 hours 

(D. Noren unpublished data). The large variation in level of impact is attributed to vessel 

distance, how specific populations’ activity budgets change with vessel disturbance, and 
37

geographic location (D. Noren unpublished data). Currently, the degree of impact of repeated 

disruptions from vessels on Southern Residents is unclear. However, reducing repeated 

disruptions from vessels will likely reduce the impact on foraging and, in turn, reduce the 

potential for nutritional stress. Therefore, in order to adequately measure the effectiveness of the 

federal vessel regulations, we need to better understand how vessel disturbance relates to 

foraging and if this impact has been reduced over time.

Link between Short-Term Behavioral Disturbances and Population-Level Impacts

The previous studies described briefly thus far (and in more detail in NMFS 2010) have found 

short-term behavioral changes in response to vessels, and that these changes may affect energy 

requirements. An important component in assessing whether impacts of vessels on Southern 

Residents have been reduced after regulations came into effect, however, is understanding if 

these short-term behavioral changes result in long-term impacts to the population. This 

component still remains unknown. One approach that may help address this knowledge gap is 

using the population consequences of disturbance (PCoD) framework (New et al. 2015). This 

framework has been used for different species to assess acoustic disturbance to individuals and 

link disturbance to population-level effects (National Research Council 2005). Essentially, the 

PCoD framework links a disturbance directly to physiological and/or behavioral changes in an 

individual. These physiological and/or behavioral changes are linked to the health of the 

individual, which in turn might make it possible to link the effects of disturbance from whale 

watch boats to vital rates and population dynamics (Figure 5.1).

This method (using the PCoD framework) to assess whale watching impacts on population 

dynamics has been recently attempted. Christiansen and Lusseau (2015) developed a model to 

measure the effects of whale watching activities on fetal growth for minke whales (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata). They estimated the relative decrease in feeding activity during interactions with 

whale watch vessels (i.e., the proportions of time spent feeding with and without whale watch 

vessels) was approximately 42% and the corresponding non-feeding activities were increased by 

7.6%, leading to a 63.5% decrease in energy intake. However, when they examined the 

cumulative bioenergetic costs over the feeding season, they found that the boat interactions 

experienced at the individual level were low and therefore the estimated effect on fetal growth 

was negligible. The authors emphasize that if individual whales were exposed the majority of 

their day (12 hours) in the presence of whale watch boats, a 60% energy loss would be enough to 

have a biologically relevant effect on fetal growth (Christiansen and Lusseau 2015). Southern 

Resident killer whales spend the majority of daylight hours in inland waters in the presence of 

whale watch vessels. Whale watching tours have now also extended their time on the water to 

include sunset trips in July through September, increasing the time boats spend with the whales. 

Some have even begun offering year-round trips, increasing the duration of the whale watch 

season (Giles and Koski 2012). Although the degree of foraging interruption at the individual 

level is unknown, it likely varies each day and by location. For example, if a whale spends the 

majority of its time feeding off the west side of San Juan Island, it will likely be exposed to boats 

throughout the day because of the relatively high boat traffic that occurs there compared to other 

areas.
38

Figure 5.1. Conceptual framework of the PCoD model that links vessel disturbance at the 

individual level to physiological and/or behavioral changes, the individual health, 

and vital rates, which link to population level dynamics. Adapted from New et al.

2014 and 2015.

As discussed above, previous studies have provided the links between vessel disturbances and 

behavioral changes and the corresponding estimated physiological change (or change in 

energetic requirements). There are also several studies that link vital rates to population 

dynamics (e.g., Brault and Caswell 1993; Olesiuk et al. 1990, 2005). Therefore, there may be 

enough data to fill in components of the PCoD model. However, the missing links include how 

the changes in physiology and behavior affect the health of the whales, as well as how an 

individual’s health affects the vital rates of the population. New and ongoing health studies that 

will help fill these data gaps include photo-identification for the annual census, recording 

observations of physical condition, continuing photogrammetric monitoring (Fearnbach et al. 

2011), collecting contaminant and health biomarkers, conducting stranding investigations and 

disease testing, and developing a database for individual health profiles (NMFS 2016b). These 

efforts can help link vessel disturbances the whales experience subsequent to the vessel 

regulations to help managers understand the population-level consequences following short-term 

behavioral responses. Although we don’t have enough information to fully understand these 

relationships, we acknowledge that the amount of time Southern Residents are likely exposed to 

vessels is enough to affect foraging at the individual level, similar to that seen in other species. 

Moreover, we highlight that if the whales are spending the majority of their day in the presence 

of whale watch boats when they are attempting to forage, there may be a biologically relevant 

effect on the vital rates and therefore may still have an impact at the population-level.

Comparing Short-Term Behavioral Responses Pre- and Post-Regulations

Although there are no studies that specifically analyze if Southern Residents are displaying 

greater or fewer behavioral changes from vessel interactions following the vessel regulations, we 

know that killer whales display certain behaviors (physiological and acoustical) under certain 

vessel conditions. In order to deduce if the vessel regulations are effective at reducing biological

impacts, here we evaluate the specific vessel incidents before and after the regulations that are 

thought to impact the whales to an extent that would either increase energetic requirements 

and/or reduce foraging success and opportunities.
39

Average distance from vessels to whales: The 2011 federal vessel regulations changed the whale 

watch viewing distance from 100 yards to 200 yards. As described above, previous studies have 

documented that behavioral responses can occur at varying distances from vessels, including out 

to 400 meters (437.4 yards) but to a lesser extent than that observed at 100 meters (109.4 yards) 

(Williams et al. 2002a; Bain et al. 2006; Noren et al. 2007, 2009; Lusseau et al. 2009; Williams 

et al. 2009). With all else being equal, and under the assumption that the farther away vessels are 

from the whales the less impact those vessels will have, we assessed the average distance of 

vessels to the whales before and after the regulations. 

Specifically, Houghton (2014) evaluated compliance with the vessel regulations by using spatial 

distributional data for vessels within 1,000 meters of whales that were tagged with DTAGs

(suction-cup multi-sensored archival tags that include hydrophones for audio recordings, an 

accelerometer, sensors for temperature and pressure, and sensors used to derive depth, pitch, roll, 

and heading of the whale) to document any changes in whale watch behavior. She found that 

occurrence of vessels within 100 m, 200 m, and 400 m of the tagged whales changed over time. 

In fact, her study suggests that the average distance between the vessels (both commercial and 

recreational whale watch vessels) and the whales has significantly increased since the regulations 

were codified (Figure 5.2). Although the average distance increased over time, close approaches 

by both commercial and recreational boats occurred each year. For example, the minimum 

distance whale watch boats were observed from the whales in 2010, 2011, and 2012 was 17, 42, 

and 4 m, respectively; private vessels were observed to be 32, 23, and 55 m, respectively. These 

observations of close approaches indicate that the whales may still be negatively impacted by 

close approaches of vessels, and that short-term behavioral responses from these close 

approaches are likely to still occur, similar to before the regulations.

The proportions of vessels by type within these same distance groupings have changed over time 

(Table 5.1) (Houghton 2014). For example, in 2010, 5% of private boaters were within 100 m of 

the whales, 39% were within 200 m, and approximately half of them were within 400 m (Table 

5.1). By 2012, there were lower proportions of private boaters at each distance than compared to 

the proportions in 2010. The proportion of commercial whale watchers in each distance category 

was slightly different than that found for private vessels. Similar to private vessels, the 

proportion of commercial vessels at 100 m decreased over time (Table 5.2), whereas the 

proportions of commercial vessels at 200 m and 400 m appeared to fluctuate.
40

Figure 5.2. Box and whisker plot of distance of vessels from whales by vessel type for 2010, 

2011, and 2012. Median distance is represented by a thick black line, the inner 

quartile range is represented by boxes, and the minimum and maximum distances 

observed are represented as the ends of the whiskers. “Research”–research vessels 

were permitted to conduct research and exempted from the vessel regulations; 

“Priv. WW”–Private whale watch vessels; Comm. WW”–Commercial whale watch 

vessels; “Enf.”–Enforcement; “Monit.”–Monitoring Vessels; “Comm. Fish.”–

Commercial fishing vessels. Figure from Houghton (2014).

Table 5.1. Count and proportion of private (recreational) vessels within 100 m, 200 m, and 400 

m by year (data from Houghton 2014).

Year 100 m 200 m 400 m

Count Proportion Count Proportion Count Proportion

2010 13 5.4% 39 16.2% 122 50.6%

2011 4 5.6% 11 15.3% 33 45.8%

2012 8 3.0% 37 14.0% 101 38.3%

Table 5.2. Count and proportion of commercial whale watch vessels within 100 m, 200 m, and 

400 m by year (data from Houghton 2014).

Year 100 m 200 m 400 m

Count Proportion Count Proportion Count Proportion

2010 25 5.1% 74 15.1% 209 42.7%

2011 3 2.3% 9 6.9% 40 30.5%

2012 9 2.1% 51 11.6% 167 38.0%
41

When analyzing these data, it is worth noting that the sample size was relatively small (22 

individuals were tagged over the course of the study), and that the inner quartile range was quite 

large, indicating a broad spread of the data (Houghton 2014). Furthermore, repeated measures of 

certain boats have not been addressed yet. It also remains unclear if this increased average 

distance of vessels from the tagged whales following the federal regulations is representative of 

the average distance of vessels from all whales, or just a product of the study design. It is also 

unclear if this increased average distance reduces the impacts to such an extent to allow the 

whales more foraging opportunities and reduce energetic requirements. Given these general 

trends in average distance, and decreasing trends in the incidents within 200 yards described in 

Section 4, the impacts from vessel distance may be less than before the federal regulations.

Vessel behaviors that increase the likelihood of vessel strikes: Vessel strikes can result in direct 

injury or mortality, and even small injuries can be a path for infections (Dierauf and Gulland 

2001). Killer whales have been injured or killed by collisions with vessels, primarily from being 

struck by propeller blades (Visser 1999; Ford et al. 2000; Visser and Fertl 2000; Baird 2001; 

Carretta et al. 2001, 2004; Van Waerebeek et al. 2007). Some killer whales that have sustained 

severe injuries from collision with vessels eventually made full recoveries. For example, a 

female killer whale observed by Ford et al. (2000) healed from wounds extending almost to her 

backbone. Leapfrogging also increases the risk of direct contact with killer whales, which 

although rare, resulted in a collision between a Southern Resident and a whale watch vessel off 

the San Juan Islands in July 1, 2005. Only one killer whale mortality was caused by a vessel 

strike from the 1960s through the 1990s in the region (Baird 2002). However, several additional 

mortalities since then have been reported. In March of 2006, a lone Southern Resident killer 

whale (L98) residing in Nootka Sound, British Columbia for several years, was killed by a tug 

boat strike. Although L98 exhibited unusual behavior and often interacted with vessels, his death 

demonstrates the risk of vessel accidents. In July 2006, the death of a stranded Northern Resident 

female was attributed to blunt trauma, likely caused by a vessel strike (Gaydos and Raverty 

2007). Stranding data indicate several other more recent killer whale strandings from vessel 

interactions. For example, an adult female transient killer whale stranded off Westport, 

Washington from trauma, likely from a large propeller strike. In December 2016, an 18 year-old

male Southern Resident died in British Columbia from blunt force trauma and the cause is still 

under investigation (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/species-especes/mammalsmammiferes/srkw-eprs-j34-eng.html). In 2016, a Northern Resident killer whale was observed 

by aerial photogrammetry to have a superficial propeller wound (SWFSC unpubl. data).

As described in Section 4 and NMFS (2010), the risky vessel behaviors that have the highest 

likelihood of resulting in vessel strikes include parking in the path, head on approaches, crossing 

the path of whales, and chasing/pursuing whales. It is likely that the number of vessels 

surrounding the whales largely influences these incident rates, which incorporate the best 

available measure of effort. As noted in Section 4, there are challenges in evaluating trends using 

the Soundwatch dataset. It is difficult to tease out how these trends in rates are directly 

influenced by a change in the number of vessels surrounding the whales. Regardless of the 

influence of vessel count on incident rates, the rates themselves have increased following the 

vessel regulations (see Figures 4.7 and 4.8), and the total number of incidents in each of these 

behavior categories is higher than prior to the regulations. There is variability in the annual 

numbers of the risky incidents, with parking in the path being the most common. For example, 
42

the highest number of observed incidents of parking in the path occurred in 2014 (with 677 

observations), whereas the lowest number of observed parking in the path incidents was 184 and 

occurred in 2007 (see Table 4.4). Because both the rates of incidents and total number of 

incidents in these risky behavior categories has increased following the vessel regulations, there 

is an increased likelihood of vessel strike. However, the annual rate of parking in the path 

incidents has shown a declining trend in the most recent years after peaking in 2012 and 2013 

(Figures 4.5, 4.7, and 4.9). If that trend continues, the risk of vessel strikes may also go down. 

Underwater Noise Levels Prior to and Following the Regulations: Vessel sound has the 

potential to interfere with important biological functions for killer whales. For example, vessels 

likely create sound levels that interfere with the whales’ communication and foraging behavior

by masking their acoustic signals. Killer whales generally have a range of hearing from 0.6 to 

115 kHz (Szymanski et al. 1999; Branstetter et al. 2017) and this wide frequency range of 

hearing makes killer whales susceptible to effects from a wide range of sounds, including sound 

produced by vessels. Killer whales change their behavior in response to changes in their acoustic 

environment. For example, they compensate for increased background noise from vessel traffic 

by increasing their call amplitude (Holt et al. 2009) or by increasing their call length (Foote et al.

2004). 

Holt (2008) reviewed the current knowledge and data gaps at the time regarding sound exposure 

in Southern Resident killer whales. The review provides an overview of acoustic concepts, killer 

whale sound production, ambient sound levels in Haro Strait (Veirs and Veirs 2006), sound 

propagation in killer whale habitats, effects of sound exposure, and assessment of probable 

acoustic impacts on Southern Residents. The recovery plan recommended expanded monitoring 

of whale watch vessels, evaluating the relative importance of different types of vessels (e.g., 

shipping, ferries, etc.), and determining the acoustic environment of the whales. More recently, 

there have been several studies that have improved upon the previous studies and characterized 

sound from ships and vessels as well as ambient noise levels in the inland waters (Bassett et al.

2012; McKenna et al. 2013; Houghton et al. 2015; Veirs et al. 2016). There are new studies that 

have also characterized received noise levels by the whales before and after the vessel 

regulations (Holt et al. 2017) and the potential response of the whales to different noise levels 

(Williams et al. 2014). Here we provide a review of these new studies and the implications to the 

biological effectiveness of the vessel regulations.

In a recent study, Bassett et al. (2012) assessed ambient noise levels in inland waters of 

Washington State (northern Admiralty Inlet, which is not part of the whales’ core summer 

habitat) for both unweighted broadband (between 20 Hz and 30 kHz) and M-weighted (or marine 

mammal weighted) sound pressure levels, and the contribution of different vessel types on the 

ambient noise. Admiralty Inlet provides shipping access to the ports of Seattle, Everett, and 

Tacoma as well as to U.S. Navy and Coast Guard facilities. Ferries and cruise ships also transit 

the Inlet regularly. Therefore, larger vessels such as cargo ships, tugs, and passenger vessels 

dominate this waterway. Bassett et al. (2012) found that the variability measured in the ambient 

noise was largely due to vessel activity. Moreover, cargo ships contributed to almost 80% of the 

vessel noise budget, followed by tugs and then ferries that had a combined contribution of 

approximately 20% of the noise budget. In a similar study, Veirs et al. (2016) estimated sound 

pressure levels for ships (greater than 65 feet [19.8 m]) that transited through the Haro Strait, a 
43

core use area visited by Southern Resident killer whales (Hauser et al. 2007). They estimated the 

average daily ship traffic is 19.5 ships per day. Tugs, cargo ships, vehicle carriers, and tankers 

were the most prevalent ship classes. For both low frequencies (20 to 30 dB from 100 to 1,000 

Hz) and high frequencies (5 to 13 dB from 10,000 to 40,000 Hz), the received levels were above 

background levels, indicating that underwater noise from ships extends up to high frequencies 

similar to noise from smaller boats. Considering large ships pass through Haro Strait 

approximately every hour throughout the year (Erbe et al. 2012), concern over ship noise 

interfering with Southern Resident killer whale communication, foraging, and navigation has

been identified as a concern (Veirs et al. 2016). A new effort based in Canada, the Enhancing 

Cetacean Habitat and Observation (ECHO) Program, is a Vancouver Fraser Port Authority-led 

initiative aimed at better understanding and managing the impact of shipping activities on at-risk 

whales throughout the southern coast of British Columbia

(http://www.portvancouver.com/environment/water-land-wildlife/marine-mammals/echoprogram/). NOAA participates in the advisory working group and technical working groups for 

ECHO.

There are several vessel characteristics that influence source and received levels. McKenna et al.

(2013) collected acoustic measurements from transiting container ships off the coast of southern 

California and compared these measurements to ship design (length, gross tonnage), operational 

conditions (speed), and ocean conditions (month, wave height). Broadband source levels ranged 

between 5 and 10 dB, depending on transit conditions. The majority of the variability in source 

levels was explained by ship speed. Veirs et al. (2016) also found that there was a linear 

relationship between received levels and ship speed. McKenna et al. (2013) suggested that 

because ship speed was the most important covariate in predicting source levels, reducing ship 

speed should result in lower sounds. In fact, speed from smaller private and commercial vessels

was also found to be the best predictor in received levels by the Southern Residents (Houghton et 

al. 2015). They suggest measures that reduced vessel speed would likely reduce acoustic 

exposure to Southern Resident killer whales (Houghton et al. 2015). 

Similar to Houghton et al. (2015), Holt et al. (2017) utilized DTAGs to measure received noise 

levels by the whales (in dB re 1μPa) and compared noise levels before and after vessel 

regulations came into effect. Using the cylindrical or spherical spreading loss model, they 

predicted that changing the vessel approach distance from 100 yards to 200 yards as described by 

the federal vessel regulations, would result in a reduction in noise between 3 and 6 dB. However, 

Holt et al. (2017) found that the received noise levels the killer whales experience were not 

significantly different following the implementation of the federal vessel regulations. Received 

noise levels in 2010 and 2012 were similar and were significantly higher than the similar levels 

in 2011 and 2014 (Figure 5.3). Holt et al. (2017) found that the proportion of observations in 

which vessel speed was categorized as stationary decreased following the implementation of the 

regulations. Vessel operators may spend more time underway to ensure they can maintain the 

required distance and increased speed may have offset noise level reductions from increased 

distance. Noise was best predicted by year, vessel counts, and average vessel speed category. 

Both vessel speed and vessel count were positive predictors of noise levels, however, changes in 

vessel counts had a smaller effect on noise levels than vessel speed.
44

Figure 5.3. Plot of fitted explanatory variables on noise level (in dB re 1 μPa) of the topranking model inclusive of all data. (A) year, bars are standard errors of the 

estimate, pairwise comparisons that are statistically different are indicated by the 

lowercase letters above the plots; (B) vessel speed category; (C) vessel count with 

counts plotted in linear terms, gray area is the 95% confidence interval of the 

predictor. Reprinted from Holt et al. (2017).

The received noise levels (in the 1 to 40 kHz band) were between 96 and 127 dB re 1μPa, with 

an average of 108 dB ± 5.5 (Holt et al. 2017). Recent modeling efforts estimated a dose-response 

function relating behavioral response of killer whales to received levels from ships (Williams et 

al. 2014). Although they acknowledge large uncertainties around their estimates, Williams et al.

(2014) found that whales would have a 50% chance of responding to ship noise when the 

received levels are near 130 dB rms. In a previous study, Holt (2008) concluded that vessel noise 

was predicted to significantly reduce the range at which echolocating killer whales could detect 

salmon in the water column. The detection range for a killer whale echolocating on a Chinook 

salmon could be reduced 88 to 100 percent by the presence of a moving vessel within 100 yards

(91.4 m) of the whale. The detection range was reduced by 38 to 90 percent when different 

vessels were operating at different speeds 200 and 400 yards from the whales. Reduction in 

detection ranges decreased with greater distance from the whales and this was the case for both 

fast (cruise) and slower (powering up) vessels. Holt et al. (2017) cautioned that because there 
45

was inter-annual variability, only one year of baseline data prior to the vessel regulations (i.e., a 

small sample size), and logistical constraints in the field, that the results should be interpreted 

with caution. Although it is unclear if the received levels the Southern Residents experience are 

loud enough to have more than a short-term behavioral response, continuous disruption from 

vessels and reduced foraging efficiency could have physiological effects, such as poor nutrition, 

and affect fitness of individuals as described above. 

Over the next 2 years, the NWFSC will focus on using the DTAG data to investigate fine scale 

details of subsurface acoustic and movement behavior during different activities, especially those 

predictive of foraging, to then determine potential effects of vessels and noise on Southern 

Resident killer whale behaviors. They will analyze acoustic cues (such as echolocation and prey 

handling sounds) that are validated with prey samples, to identify foraging events. They also plan 

to quantify foraging behavior based on kinematics. Acoustic and movement sensor variables that 

reliably identify foraging behavior will then be determined, which will allow them to make 

estimates of foraging effort and success on an individual level. The results will help to determine 

which vessel variables and associated noise have an effect on foraging effort/energy acquisition 

in Southern Resident killer whales. Comparing DTAG results with studies of Northern Residents 

in Canada will also expand our ability to interpret behavioral results.

Conclusions

Southern Resident killer whales respond to vessels in close proximity with short-term behavioral 

changes. There is a higher energetic cost of surface active behaviors and vocal effort resulting 

from vessel disturbance; however, this increased energy expenditure may be less important than 

the reduced time spent feeding and the resulting potential reduction in prey consumption. 

Although it is unknown if these short-term behavioral changes affect the population dynamics, it 

is likely that because Southern Residents are exposed to vessels the majority of daylight hours

they are in inland waters, there may be biologically relevant effects at the population-level.

In summary, the vessel regulations were designed to reduce behavioral impacts, acoustic 

masking, and risk of vessel strike and this review provides mixed results about benefits to the 

whales following implementation of the regulations. Since the regulations were codified, there is 

evidence that the average distance between vessels and the whales has increased, and the

proportions of vessels by vessel type that are within 400 yards has also changed over time. This 

increased average distance likely reduces some of the impacts to the whales. However, there is a 

higher rate of incidence of some of the riskiest vessel behaviors that have the highest likelihood 

of resulting in vessel strikes. These behaviors include parking in the path, head on approaches, 

and crossing the path of whales. Because the overall rates have increased for these vessel 

behaviors, it is likely that Southern Residents are more at risk of a vessel strike. Certain vessel 

incidents, however, such as parking in the path, have declined in the last 2 years. Lastly, from the 

DTAG dataset received noise levels in tagged whales was best predicted by year, vessel counts, 

and average vessel speed category. Sound levels, however, are highly variable and have not 

shown a decline following implementation of the regulations. The majority of the variability in 

source levels was explained by speed. Because speed of both large ships and smaller vessels is

the most important covariate in predicting source levels, several studies have suggested that 

reductions in speed should result in lower sound levels and would likely reduce acoustic 
46

exposure to Southern Resident killer whales. Ongoing analysis of the DTAG data will provide 

additional information on whale behavior in response to changing vessel activities and sound 

levels.

6. ECONOMIC IMPACT

Since the early 1980s, whale watching has developed into a popular and economically viable 

tourist industry in many localities around the world. The whale watching industry in the Pacific 

Northwest has been recognized as one of the fastest growing (Hoyt 2001, 2002). In Washington 

and British Columbia, killer whales are the principle target species for the commercial whale 

watching industry, easily surpassing other species such as gray whales, porpoises, and pinnipeds 

(Hoyt 2001; O’Connor et al. 2009). The popularity of and demand for whale watching activities 

gradually increased in the inland waters of Washington from 1976 to 1991, followed by a period 

of rapid growth through 1997 (Bain 2002; Seely 2016). The commercial whale watch fleet 

reached a peak in 1997 at 78 commercial vessels before rising again in 2001 to over 80 vessels. 

The size of the fleet has continued to grow since then, reaching 96 active commercial vessels in 

2015 (Seely 2016) (Figure 6.1). In 2010, the year prior to implementation of the regulations, 76 

active commercial whale watch vessels (23 U.S. and 53 Canadian) from 35 active companies (16 

U.S. and 19 Canadian) were operating in Haro Strait (Koski 2010). Five years after the federal 

regulations were put in place, these numbers have grown to 96 vessels in 57 active commercial 

whale watch companies (Seely 2016). In 2015, the number of U.S. companies equaled the 

number of Canadian companies at 19 each. However, Canada still has more active vessels than 

the U.S., with 57 Canadian compared to 39 U.S (Seely 2016). Canada’s fleet consists mostly of 

small, high-speed vessels that make up to four trips per day, whereas U.S. vessels tend to be 

much larger and slower, making only a single trip in a day. Ultimately, Canadian and U.S. 

vessels take approximately the same number of passengers out each day despite differences in 

the size of the two fleets (Giles and Koski 2012). 

Figure 6.1. Growth of the whale watch industry in Haro Strait from 1976 to 2015. Figure from 

Seely (2016).

Killer whale watching became a multi-million dollar industry over a relatively short period of 

time. Ticket sales for vessel-based whale watching first broke the million dollar mark in 1991, 
47

and were approaching $5.7 million by the end of 1997 (Koski 2006). Hoyt (2001) estimated that 

52,000 (boat-based) participants in commercial whale watching tours in Washington State spent 

a total of $9.59 million in 1998; $3.31 million in tickets for whale watching, and the remainder 

on indirect expenditures such as food, travel, lodging, and souvenirs. Approximately 80 percent 

of this was estimated to be spent in Puget Sound and Georgia Basin. O’Connor et al. (2009) 

estimated 425,000 whale watchers in Washington State spending nearly $11 million in direct 

expenditures and a total of $61 million including indirect expenditures in 2008. In 2010, 

Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) estimated that the whale watching industry contributed

approximately $22 million annually and 196 jobs to the 12 counties adjacent to the whales’

habitat area through direct, indirect, and induced expenditures related to the industry (IEc 2010). 

When the 2011 regulations were first proposed, many members of the whale watch industry and 

local community expressed concern over the potential impacts that the regulations might have on 

the industry and local economy. While the analysis presented in the EA assembled during the 

rulemaking process suggests that any economic impacts of these regulations would be minor, 

there was uncertainty in the economic analysis, as limited data were available specific to the 

whale watch industry. In addition, there was potential for cumulative economic effects when 

considered with other variables affecting the whale watch industry. The analysis conducted in 

2010 by IEc was updated with new data in 2015 to assess the economic value of the industry in 

the Puget Sound region 5 years after the implementation of the federal regulations. In 2016, IEc 

prepared an analysis of the effects of the regulations on the whale watching industry as well as 

on tourism in San Juan County and the greater Puget Sound region using available data on 

ecotourism indicators. 

Assessing the Value of the Whale Watch Industry 

Approach & Methods: IEc (2015) uses an IMPLAN model to measure the impact of the revenue 

brought to the Puget Sound region by the whale watching industry. IMPLAN is an input-output 

model that measures the impact that expenditures in a given industry have on the region. The 

measures used to evaluate this impact are employment, labor income, value added or revenue, 

and output. In this case, the value added measure is the best representation of the impact of the 

industry on the regional economy, as it does not double-count expenditures across industries 

linked to whale watching, such as restaurants and hotels. IMPLAN analysis is a common 

economic tool used by federal and state agencies to evaluate various policies. This model 

describes the expenditures that would be lost to the region in the absence of the whale watching 

industry. It is also worth noting that this is a static model that measures the effects of monetary 

input to the industry at one point in time, but does not reflect a change in value added over 

several years.

This analysis focuses on the 12 counties surrounding Puget Sound as the study area. Businesses 

in these 12 counties benefit directly from participants’ spending on things like food, lodging, 

souvenirs, etc. The study included only whale watching trips that originated in the U.S., as trips 

from Canada were unlikely to impact the study area economy. IEc (2015) also developed a 

separate input-output model for San Juan County to determine the value of the industry to the 

San Juan County economy in particular.
48

The number of participants in whale watching tours each year was estimated from a 2009 

analysis by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and from a 2014 estimate 

reported by the PWWA at their annual meeting. IFAW estimated that approximately 150,000 

people participated in tours departing from Anacortes, Friday Harbor, Port Angeles, Port 

Townsend, and Bellingham each year. The PWWA estimated that 13,563 whale watching trips 

occurred in Puget Sound in 2014, which amounts to between 128,000 and 170,000 participants 

per year. IEc (2015) used this information to generate low, high, and maximum estimates of 

150,000, 282,000, and 500,000 participants per year in all of Puget Sound and 48,000, 91,000, 

and 162,000 participants per year, respectively, on tours originating only from San Juan County 

(Table 6.1).

Table 6.1. Low, high, and maximum scenario participation estimates for 2014.

Participation Estimate Puget Sound Study Area San Juan County Study Area

Low 150,000 48,000

High 282,000 91,000

Maximum 500,000 162,000

The 2009 IFAW report estimated that each participant spent an average of $145 across the study 

area, which represents the amount that would be lost to the region if they did not participate in a 

whale watching tour. Two other sources—a NOAA Technical Memorandum on the expenditures 

of marine anglers and a Washington State analysis of the impact of travelers to the local 

economy—indicate an estimate of closer to $250 per participant. These represent the low and 

high estimates of spending per participant in the IEc study. The maximum estimate is provided 

by the USFWS survey of expenditures of wildlife-related recreational activities, which they 

estimate amounts to $581 per participant. Expenditures in San Juan County were estimated to be 

the same as the rest of the region with the addition of the cost of the ferry ride to reach the island. 

Although the maximum participation estimate is unlikely, it is helpful in demonstrating the 

sensitivity of the results of the model to the assumptions of the inputs (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2. Low, high, and maximum scenario expenditure estimates.

Expenditure Estimate Puget Sound Study Area San Juan County Study Area

Low $145 $182 

High $250 $287 

Maximum $581 $618 

Results and Interpretation: The analysis conducted by IEc (2015) indicates that the whale 

watching industry may contribute between $17 and $58 million to the local economy annually. It 

also provides hundreds of jobs to the Puget Sound region. This accounts for roughly 0.01 and 

0.02% of the region’s GDP. In San Juan County alone, the industry contributes between $4 and 

$13 million and tens to hundreds of jobs to the economy annually, which makes up about 1 to 

3% of the local GDP (Table 6.3). 
49

Table 6.3. Total value added estimates for the low, high, and maximum scenarios.

Value Added Estimate Puget Sound Study Area San Juan County Study Area

Low $17 million $3.96 million

High $57.9 million $13.1 million

Maximum $248 million $64.7 million

It is important to note several limitations of the IMPLAN model. As noted in the previous 

section, this model relies on data from 2009 to 2014. It therefore does not reflect any changes 

that have occurred since that time, and these estimates have significant uncertainty because of

the lack of primary data. Because the annual number of participants was estimated using 

previous reports and the expenditures of those participants is averaged over a wide range of triprelated goods and services, the range of the impact of the industry on the regional economy 

cannot be narrowed down further. This analysis also doesn’t account for any adjustments that the 

market has made, such as the re-employment of displaced personnel by any changes in 

expenditures that may have arisen. 

A second IMPLAN analysis prepared for the PWWA in 2015 resulted in similar findings (Beyers 

2015). This study also extrapolated participant expenditures in linked industries using a variety 

of sources and assumptions. Unlike the IEc analysis, however, this study incorporated Canadian 

whale watch tours in addition to U.S.-based tours. Beyers (2015) found that the industry 

generated an overall revenue in 2014 of $25 million and employed over 400 people. About half 

of that revenue was generated by Washington-based tour companies. Using an economic impact 

study from ArtsFund, they also estimated that participants spent roughly $35.5 million on goods 

and services in linked industries. Altogether, this means that the whale watching industry 

contributes roughly $60 million to the region annually through consumer expenditures (Beyers 

2015). One other study in 2009 found similar results, estimating total expenditures at roughly 

$61 million (O’Connor et al. 2009). PWWA has cautioned that Beyers (2015) may not fully 

characterize all expenditures, such as purchase costs of new vessels, estimated by PWWA to be 

$15 million in 2016, as well as other services they support including welders, electricians, sign 

makers, and real estate. Although the expenditures in linked industries were not determined for 

Canadian-based and U.S.-based tours individually, it is apparent that the U.S.-based 

contributions estimated in this study fall within the range estimated by IEc (2015). 

Assessing the Economic Impact of the 2011 Regulations on the Industry

Although IEc (2015) provides information on the value of the whale watching industry and its 

importance to the local economy, their results represent a single point in time and are not 

indicative of greater temporal trends. In 2016, IEc prepared an analysis specifically aimed at 

understanding the effects of the 2011 regulations on the whale watch industry as well as on 

tourism in San Juan Island and Washington as a whole. This retrospective analysis used several 

indicators for the whale watch and tourism industries and compared trends before and after 2011, 

as well as compared trends with other comparable industries. They found that the whale watch 

industry and the tourism industry in San Juan Island grew, both in comparison to trends within 

those industries before 2011 and as compared to other wildlife viewing industries (IEc 2016). 
50

1. Whale Watch Industry Indicators

Several metrics serve as indicators of the health of the whale watch industry. These 

include the number of companies active in the industry, the number and capacity of 

all of their vessels, ticket prices, the number of kayak tours, and taxable retail sales in 

the broader economic sector. Since 2011, the industry has experienced growth in the 

number of active companies, the total number of vessels in the fleet, and average 

ticket prices. The number of companies and ticket prices have increased at roughly 

the same rate as in the years leading up to the implementation of the regulations;

however, the number of vessels in the fleet has increased at a markedly higher rate 

(Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3). Although this does not allow for conclusions to be drawn 

about the occupancy of each tour, it does indicate that the industry was profitable 

enough for companies to increase the size of their fleet. Participation in kayak tours 

has also experienced significant growth since 2011; however, data from before the 

regulations were in place is unavailable so this growth cannot be compared to the rate 

experienced in the years prior. The only metric in the entire study that exhibited a 

negative growth rate was the taxable sales in the broader economic sector. However, 

despite the reduced growth in this sector after 2011, this metric is not necessarily a 

consequence of the regulations. The breadth of the sector encompasses more than just 

the whale watch industry, and so the downward trend could be indicative of outside 

influences. Overall, IEc (2016) concludes that the regulations have not had any 

negative economic impacts on the whale watch industry.

Figure 6.2. The total number of whale watch companies in operation from 2003 to 2015 Figure 

from IEc (2016).
51

Figure 6.3. The total number of whale watching boats in the fleet from 2003 to 2015. Figure 

from IEc (2016).

2. San Juan County Tourism Indicators

The impact of the regulations on the San Juan County tourism industry was measured 

using three metrics: the number of ferry trips to the islands, lodging tax income, and 

tourism-related economic sectors. All three of these metrics experienced significant 

growth after 2011, even as compared to the rate of growth in these sectors before 

2011 (IEc 2016). Data from the Washington State Ferry indicates that ridership to the

San Juan Islands has increased at a rate greater than that experienced between 2006 

and 2011, and that ridership to San Juan Island in particular has outpaced visitation to 

other islands in San Juan County (IEc 2016) (Figure 6.4). Annual revenues from 

lodging tax income have also increased by 40% on the island since 2011, as opposed 

to the 10% decline experienced between 2007 and 2010 (Figure 6.5). Finally, all of 

the indicators from tourism-related sectors have exhibited growth since 2011, and this 

growth in San Juan County specifically has outpaced that experienced statewide (IEc 

2016). 
52

Figure 6.4. Ferry ridership to whale watch (WW) islands in San Juan County from 2004 to 

2016. Figure from IEc (2016).

Figure 6.5. Lodging tax revenues during the whale watching season from 2006 to 2016. Figure 

from IEc (2016).

3. Comparison with Comparable Recreational Activities

IEc (2016) analyzed trends in recreational charter boat-based fishing, Olympic 

National Park visitation, and Lime Kiln Point State Park visitation to compare growth 

in the whale watch industry to other similar recreational activities. This comparison 

allows us to determine whether the whale watch and San Juan tourism industries were 

able to grow to their full potential under the pressures of the new regulations, or if the 
53

growth they experienced was lessened by them. The charter boat-based fishing 

industry has seen a 20% growth in the total number of trips taken since 2011, as 

compared to the overall decrease between 2005 and 2010 (Figure 6.6). However, the 

total number of licenses to operate charter boats has decreased, potentially because of

the recession or the increased cost of a license (Figure 6.7). Overall, the charter boat 

industry has experienced a different trend from the whale watch industry since 2011, 

and potentially a more negative one. Visitation to Olympic National Park, although

fluctuating from year-to-year, seems to be growing in a similar fashion to the whale 

watch industry (Figure 6.8). Lime Kiln Point State Park, on the other hand, has 

experienced a significant growth in visitation, potentially as a result of the increase in 

tourism discussed above (Figure 6.9). Overall, comparing trends from the whale 

watch industry to those from other recreational activity sectors does not indicate a 

loss of growth as a result of the implementation of the regulations (IEc 2016). 

Figure 6.6. Trends in charter boat-based fishing trips from 2004 to 2016. Figure from (IEc 

2016).
54

Figure 6.7. The total annual number of charter boat licenses from 2005 to 2015 (Figure from 

IEc 2016).

Figure 6.8. Annual visitation to Olympic National Park from 2004 to 2015. Figure from 

IEc (2016).
55

Figure 6.9. Annual visitation to Lime Kiln Point State Park from 2004 to 2015. Figure from 

IEc (2016). 

The results of this analysis suggest that the 2011 regulations have not had a negative effect on 

the whale watch industry or the San Juan County tourism industry. On the contrary, both have 

experienced significant growth since 2011. This, however, is not an indication of a positive 

effect of the regulations on whale watching and tourism, but rather a lack of hindrance by them. 

It is worth noting that more time may be needed to discern any negative effects of the regulations 

on these industries, and more analysis may be needed in the coming years to continue to monitor 

the situation. 

Willingness-to-Pay Studies

Commercial whale watch companies have identified the potential benefits of whale watching as 

a form of ecotourism that results in firsthand encounters with killer whales in their natural 

habitat. Their mission is to educate and inspire passengers by enhancing awareness about the 

species, the threats impeding recovery, and the actions being taken to address these threats. To 

achieve these goals, many whale watch companies have naturalists on board to educate 

passengers and answer questions. This adds to the quality of the whale watching experience for 

participants. When the regulations were proposed, commercial operators expressed the concern 

that the decreased proximity to the whales would hinder these educational opportunities and the 

experience of participants, and therefore result in decreased participation altogether. Several 

willingness-to-pay studies have explored this theory. 

Some studies have focused on killer whales in the Pacific Northwest and have assessed the value 

that the public places on recovering endangered species. In many cases, the public is willing to 

pay more for the recovery of at-risk species, either in the form of increased taxes or higher prices 

on goods and services impacted by recovery (Anderson and Lee 2013; Wallmo and Lew 2015). 

Stated preference choice experiment surveys indicate that the public puts a value of 

approximately $86 on recovering Southern Residents, both regionally on the West Coast and 

across the country (Wallmo and Lew 2015, 2016). Some studies have even focused specifically 

on the value that whale watching participants have for wildlife viewing. They also provide data 
56

on the factors that lead to an enjoyable or memorable whale watching trip, and how satisfied 

participants are with various aspects of their trip (Duffus and Deardon 1993; Andersen 2004; 

Malcolm 2004; Andersen and Miller 2006). Survey results of whale watch participants indicate 

that proximity to the whales is not the most important part of the whale watchers’ experience and 

that seeing whales and whale behavior at all was much more important (Andersen 2004; 

Malcolm 2004). In addition, Malcolm (2004) found participants were most satisfied with the 

respect their vessels gave the whales. The number of whales, whale behavior, and learning

opportunities also received higher satisfaction than the distance from which whales were 

observed. The participants also strongly agreed with statements related to protection of the 

whales. 

Additional studies have been conducted on whale watching participants viewing other species 

(humpback whales, dolphins, seals, and sea birds) in other locations (e.g., Hawaii, Wales, 

Australia) (Orams 2000; Shapiro 2006; Airey 2007; Stamation 2009; Avila-Foucat et al. 2013; 

Kessler et al. 2014). Seeing whales up close and being close to wildlife were in the top five 

features important for satisfaction in some studies (Airey 2007; Stamation 2009); however, the 

“educational information provided” and “responsible boater behavior to not disturb the wildlife” 

were also important factors affecting trip satisfaction. Participants also reported that crowding of 

boats around the whales was likely to decrease the probability that they would participate in a 

trip again, and that they preferred to observe whales in such a way as to reduce their impacts on 

them (Avila-Foucat et al. 2013; Kessler et al. 2014). 

Conclusions

The whale watch industry has been recognized as an important partner in educating the public 

about Southern Residents and the challenges that face their recovery. The IEc and University of 

Washington’s IMPLAN analyses have confirmed that this industry is also important 

economically, not only to San Juan County but also to the greater Salish Sea region. As such, it 

is important to consider and evaluate any effects of regulation on the industry to determine if it 

has been hindered financially by that regulation. Based on studies and surveys cited above, 

willingness to pay for whale watching has not decreased as a result of the 2011 regulations. 

Furthermore, IEc (2016) has shown that the whale watch and San Juan Island tourism industries 

have experienced significant growth since the regulations were codified, despite the fears of 

many who are reliant on those industries for income. Although it may still be too early for the 

regulations to have had an effect on participation in those industries, it is apparent that they have 

not hindered the growth of whale watching and San Juan tourism since they were put in place. 

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The conclusions of the different chapters in this review provide insight into the effectiveness of 

the regulations, and if the regulations are achieving the goal of reducing vessel impacts on the 

whales. While there are indicators suggesting the regulations have improved conditions for the 

whales, others indicate that vessel impacts continue and that some risks may have increased. 

Based on the above analyses, we believe that there is enough evidence to show value to the 

whales of the vessel regulations and we support the continued implementation of the regulations, 

as well as the future consideration of additional measures to protect Southern Residents from 
57

harmful vessel effects. Below are summaries of the conclusions from each section of this report 

along with detailed recommendations for NMFS and its partners to pursue carrying on

implementation and evaluation of the regulations in support of recovery of the Southern Resident

killer whales. 

Education

Boaters need to know what the rules and guidelines are for responsible boating around whales so 

that they can view the whales without impacting them. Working with partners and through a 

variety of media, NMFS has reached large numbers of boaters to make sure they are aware of the 

federal and state vessel regulations and BWW guidelines. Through on-water contacts with 

boaters, Soundwatch and enforcement patrols play a key role in educating boaters who are in the 

vicinity of whales. NMFS has worked closely with the commercial whale watch industry to 

ensure that drivers and naturalists have accurate information on regulations and guidelines. 

Responsible commercial whale watch operators following the regulations, BWW, and industry 

guidelines set a positive example for less-informed boaters. While partnerships and outreach to a 

variety of audiences has been successful, there are always additional approaches to expand the 

reach of education programs. Looking into the future, NMFS plans to continue current education 

and outreach efforts, and explore opportunities for expanding these efforts to reach more 

recreational boaters. Some of these opportunities include increasing advertising of the 

regulations and incorporating knowledge of the regulations into Washington’s boater registration 

and licensing process. Boating safety courses such as the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary’s Boating 

Safety Education programs may also provide a platform for reaching a wider audience. One way 

to reach recreational boaters that are new to the region or may be visiting and unaware of the 

regulations would be to target boat charter and rental companies. 

Recommendations for expanding the reach of education and outreach programs include:

 Target audiences that may not be aware of the regulations and guidelines, including 

charter boats and rentals, visitors, float planes, and the fishing community

 Include information regarding whale behavior and travel patterns in educational materials 

to assist recreational boaters in predicting whale movements

 Develop materials for new boaters, pilots, etc. 

 Include information on regulations and guidelines with boater registration documents and 

incorporate responsible viewing messages into boater safety training

 Consider expansion of Soundwatch efforts into South Sound during times of peak whale 

and vessel activities

 Include a question regarding how recreational boaters became aware of the regulations in 

the regulation awareness survey to understand how to better target that audience 

 Support additional advertising

Enforcement

It is clear that enforcement presence on the water is important to achieve compliance with vessel 

regulations and guidelines. WDFW and NOAA enforcement officers play an important role to 

support education and outreach and also serve as a strong incentive for compliance through 

issuing warnings and citations. Enforcement officers on the water have contacted a large number 
58

of boaters and have also issued a small number of warnings and citations each year to both 

commercial whale watch operators and recreational boaters. The officers on the water have 

communicated with the whale watch industry members about the challenges of enforcing the 

regulations and acknowledge that the whales can be unpredictable. Therefore, officers use 

discretion in issuing citations or pursuing investigations. Citations have been issued to different 

vessel types, including motorized boats of different sizes, kayaks, and also to drone operators 

(under the Washington State regulation). The Soundwatch data indicate that the enforcement 

program is effective and that compliance improves when enforcement agencies are on the water.

Recommendations for maintaining and improving the role of enforcement in reducing impacts to 

whales include:

 Continued and expanded enforcement presence on the water supported through NOAA 

OLE patrols

 Continued and expanded enforcement presence on the water supported through WDFW 

patrols funded through ESA section 6 grants and Joint Enforcement Agreements

 Continued cooperation between enforcement patrols and the whale watch fleet to share 

whale sightings information

 Improved coordination and communication between WDFW and NOAA enforcement 

and DFO

 A vessel monitoring program utilizing AIS or VMS would allow efficient use of 

enforcement resources through better planning and deployment of assets

 Technology improvements to document violations (e.g., radar, range finders, etc.)

Vessel Compliance

Although the available data presents several challenges in monitoring compliance trends over 

time, there are multiple indicators that show compliance with regulations and guidelines has 

improved since implementation of the regulations in 2011. The number of incident categories 

recorded by Soundwatch has increased with the addition of incidents related to the 200-yard 

(182.9-m) approach rule, and this may be the driver for increases in overall numbers of incidents 

recorded in recent years. New incident categories also affect the rate of incidents. Rates of 

incidents have increased following the regulations in 2011, but there is a decreasing trend from 

2011 to 2015 for total incidents of vessels not following all regulations and guidelines. There are 

also decreases in the incidents of boaters not complying with regulations. Soundwatch data 

indicates that recreational boaters are committing more incidents than commercial operators. 

While there are some positive indicators of improving compliance, there are still vessels 

approaching the whales too closely. In addition, vessel operators also continue to engage in risky 

approaches that likely increase the chance of vessel strikes. 

While the recommendations for education and outreach and enforcement above may help 

improve compliance, additional recommendations to continue monitoring and address 

compliance include:

 Encourage and support establishing equitable vessel regulations in Canada, which could 

improve education and outreach, enforcement, and compliance

 Additional years of data collection to monitor compliance trends
59

 Continued support for Soundwatch monitoring, and consider adjustments to data 

collection 

 Conduct follow-up monitoring of kayak compliance

 Work to bring Soundwatch and Straitwatch data sets together and conduct additional 

analyses to evaluate compliance

 Use Soundwatch data and other available data to inform consideration of updates to 

guidelines and regulations 

Biological Impact

Since the vessel regulations were implemented in 2011, additional research results have been 

published that provide new details on how vessels impact marine mammals worldwide and 

specifically Southern Resident killer whales in the Pacific Northwest. Based on the available 

research on different effects from vessels, the acoustic and behavioral impacts that reduce or 

limit foraging may be the most significant in affecting health, reproduction, and population 

growth. The vessel regulations were designed to reduce behavioral impacts, masking, and risk of 

vessel strike and this review provides mixed results about benefits to the whales following 

implementation of the regulations. There is some evidence that compliance with guidelines and 

regulations as well as average viewing distance have increased, which could result in reduced 

behavioral changes and reduce sound exposure. Sound levels, however, are highly variable and 

have not shown a consistent decline following implementation of the regulations based on the 

available data. Also, some of the riskiest vessel behaviors that could increase risk of strike 

continue or have increased. Although the overall numbers and rates of some of the riskiest boat 

behaviors (e.g., chasing whales, parking in the path, and head-on approaches) are relatively small 

in number, new reports of vessel strikes from marine mammal stranding investigations heighten 

concerns for these risky vessel activities. Overall, while the vessel regulations seem to have 

provided some benefits for the whales, additional time may be needed to ensure them sufficient 

protection. Improved compliance with existing regulations and guidelines and further 

consideration of additional protections could provide additional protection. In addition, more 

information on how vessels affect foraging of the whales would help inform any future 

adjustments or additional protections. 

Several research projects are ongoing to better understand the biological impacts of vessels and 

sound on the Southern Residents and recommendations for continuing these efforts include:

 Continue research regarding vessel impacts on marine mammals

 Analyze baseline sound levels in Southern Resident critical habitat to better understand 

the current soundscape, the potential effects of increased vessel traffic, and the 

effectiveness of measures to reduce vessel noise

 Continue to analyze DTAG data to understand how vessel proximity, sound, and speed 

influences whale behavior, particularly foraging, and coordinate with Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada to compare differences in these factors and foraging behavior between 

Northern and Southern residents

 Analyze DTAG data to compare the behavioral and acoustic effects of different boat 

activity patterns to determine the vessel behaviors with the highest impact (paralleling at

slow speed vs traveling at high speed and parking in the path)
60

 Coordinate with DFO and Transport Canada to implement goals for reducing vessel 

disturbance listed in the OPP and monitor noise from shipping 

 Improve estimates of the energetic cost of reduced foraging opportunities resulting from 

vessel interactions

 Continue thorough necropsies of stranded whales to evaluate the risk of vessel strikes

 Continue monitoring stress hormone levels in relation to vessel activities

Economic Impact

When analyzing the economic effects of the proposed vessel regulations on different stakeholder 

groups, we concluded that the vessel regulations would not have a significant negative impact on 

the whale watching industry. Specific economic data for the industry before and after 

implementation of the regulations is not available to evaluate potential direct effects. Therefore, 

we worked with Industrial Economics, Inc. to evaluate several measures of local tourism to 

determine if our original conclusions were correct. All indicators, with the exception of one

broad measure of taxable sales, indicate that there has been no negative impacts to local tourism 

following implementation of the vessel regulations. In addition, we updated our estimate of the 

value of the whale watching industry to the local community. Since detailed data on industry 

operations were not available, IEc used updated modeling and a range of inputs for variables, 

including ridership and expenditures, to update an estimate of the economic contribution of 

whale watching of up to $58 million annually. In addition, the PWWA worked with the 

University of Washington to collect new information to estimate the economic value of the 

industry, although only in years following the regulations. The University of Washington

estimate is within the range of the updated IEc values. The PWWA has also noted that there may 

be additional contributions to the economy that have not been captured in these estimates.

Overall, it is clear that the whale watching industry is a significant contributor to the local 

economy through jobs and expenditures in the community. Current indicators show that local 

tourism has not declined with the implementation of protective vessel regulations for the whales. 

Additional recommendations to evaluate economic impacts include:

 Identify and evaluate additional indicators of economic impacts, including specific 

measures within the whale watching industry

 Refine estimates of the economic value of the industry as new information becomes 

available

8. REFERENCES

Airey, S. T. 2007. Can a marine code of conduct enhance the visitor experience? M.Sc. 

dissertation, Oxford Brookes University. 87 pages.

Andersen, M. S. 2004. Whale watching and onboard marine environmental education in the San 

Juan Islands, Washington: Tourists’ expectations and evaluations. Master’s thesis, School of 

Marine Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 97 pages.
61

Andersen, M. S. and M. L. Miller. 2006. Onboard marine environmental education: Whale 

watching in the San Juan Islands, Washington. Tourism Mar. Environ. 2(2):111–118.

Anderson, L. E. and S. T. Lee. 2013. Untangling the Recreational Value of Wild and Hatchery 

Salmon. Mar. Resour. Econ. 298(2):175–197. 

Avila‐Foucat, V. S., A. S. Vargas, A. F. Jordan, and O. M. Ramírez Flores. 2013. The impact of 

vessel crowding on the probability of tourists returning to whale watching in Banderas Bay, 

Mexico. Ocean & Coastal Management 78:12–17.

Bain, D. E. 2002. A model linking energetic effects of whale watching to killer whale (Orcinus 

orca) population dynamics. Friday Harbor Laboratories, University of Washington, Friday 

Harbor, Washington. 

Bain, D. E., J. C. Smith, R. William, and D. Lusseau. 2006. Effects of vessels on behavior of 

southern resident killer whales (Orcinus spp.). NMFS Contract Report No. 

AB133F03SE0950 and AB133F04CN0040. 61 pp. 

Baird, R. W. 2001. Status of killer whales, Orcinus orca, in Canada. Can. Field Nat. 115:676–

701.

Baird, R. W. 2002. Killer whales of the world: natural history and conservation. Voyageur Press, 

Stillwater, Minnesota.

Bassett, C., B. Polagye, M. M. Holt, and J. Thomson. 2012. A vessel noise budget for Admiralty 

Inlet, Puget Sound, WA (USA). J. Acous. Soc. Am. 132(6): 3706-3719. DOI: 

10.1121/1.4763548.

Beyers, W. B. 2015. Economic Impacts of Whale Watching in Washington State and the 

Province of British Columbia: A Report Prepared for the Pacific Whale Watch Association. 

University if Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Branstetter, B. K., J. St. Leger, D. Acton, J. Stewart, D. Houser, J. Finneran, and K. Jenkins. 

2017. Killer whale (Orcinus orca) behavioral audiograms. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 141:2387–

2398.

Brault, S. and H. Caswell. 1993. Pod-specific demography of killer whales (Orcinus orca). 

Ecology 74:1444–1454.

Buckman, A. H., N, Veldhoen, G. Ellis, J. K. B. Ford, C. C. Helbing, and P. S. Ross. 2011. PCBAssociated Changes in mRNA Expression in Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) from the NE 

Pacific Ocean. Environ. Sci. Tech. 45:10194–10202. 

Carretta, J. V., J. Barlow, K. A. Forney, M. M. Muto, and J. Baker. 2001. U.S. Pacific marine 

mammal stock assessments: 2001. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-317, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, San Diego, California.
62

Carretta, J. V., K. A. Forney, M. M. Muto, J. Barlow, J. Baker, and M. Lowry. 2004. U.S. Pacific 

marine 16 mammal stock assessments: 2003. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSWFSC-358, U.S. 17 Department of Commerce, San Diego, California. 291 pages.

Carretta, J. V., E. M. Oleson, D. W. Weller, A. R. Land, K. A. Forney, J. Baker, M. M. Muto, B. 

Hanson, A. J. Orr, H. Huber, M. S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. E. Moore, D. Lynch, L. Carswell, 

and R. L. Brownell Jr. 2014. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2014. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, California. 

Christiansen, F. and D. Lusseau. 2015. Linking Behavior to Vital Rates to Measure the Effects of 

Non-Lethal Disturbance on Wildlife. Conserv. Lett. 8(6):424–431.

de Swart, R. L., P. S. Ross, J. G. Vos, and A. D. M. E. Osterhaus. 1996. Impaired immunity in 

harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) exposed to bioaccumulated environmental contaminants: 

review of a long-term study. Environ. Health Perspect. 104(supplement 4):823–828.

Dierauf, L. A. and F. M. D. Gulland. 2001. CRC Handbook of Marine Mammal Medicine. 2nd

Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton , FL.

Duffus, D. A. and P. Deardon. 1993. Recreational use, valuation, and management, of killer 

whales (Orcinus orca) on Canada’s Pacific coast. Environ. Conserv. 20:149–156.

Eisenhardt, E. P. 2013. 2012 Soundwatch Program Annual Contract Report: Soundwatch Public 

Outreach/Boater Education Project. The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, Washington. 

Eisenhardt, E. P. 2014. 2013 Soundwatch Program Annual Contract Report: Soundwatch Public 

Outreach/Boater Education Project. The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, Washington. 

Erbe, C., A. MacGillivray, and R. Williams. 2012. Mapping cumulative noise from shipping to 

inform marine spatial planning. J. Acous. Soc. Am. 132:EL423–EL428.

Evans, K. and J. Kennedy. 2007. San Juan County Marine Stewardship Area Plan. San Juan 

County Marine Resources Committee, Friday Harbor, Washington. 

Fearnbach, H., J. Durban, D. Ellifrit, and K. Balcomb. 2011. Size and long-term growth trends of 

endangered fish-eating killer whales. Endangered Species Research. Volume 13, pages 173 

to 180.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2017. Action Plan for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer 

Whale (Orcinus orca) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada, Ottawa. v + 33 pp.

Fonnum F., E. Mariussen, and T. Reistad. 2006. Molecular mechanisms involved in the toxic 

effects of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs). J. 

Toxicol. Environ. Health A 69: 21-35.
63

Foote, A. D., R. W. Osborne, and A. R. Hoelzel. 2004. Environment: Whale-call response to 

masking boat noise. Nature 428:910.

Ford, J. K. B., G. M. Ellis, L. G. Barrett-Lennard, A. B. Morton, R. S. Palm, and K. C. Balcomb 

III. 1998. Dietary specialization in two sympatric populations of killer whales (Orcinus orca) 

in coastal British Columbia and adjacent waters. Can. J. Zool. 76:1456–1471.

Ford, J. K. B., G. M. Ellis, and K. C. Balcomb. 2000. Killer whales: the natural history and 

genealogy of Orcinus orca in British Columbia and Washington State. 2nd edition. UBC 

Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. 104 pages.

Ford, J. K. B. and G. M. Ellis. 2006. Selective foraging by fish-eating killer whales Orcinus orca

in British Columbia. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 316:185–199.

Ford, M. J., J. Hempelmann, M. B. Hanson, K. L. Ayers, R. W. Baird, C. K. Emmons, J. I. 

Lundin, G. S. Schorr, S. K. Wasser, L. K. Park. 2016. Estimation of a Killer Whale (Orcinus 

orca) Population’s Diet Using Sequencing Analysis of DNA from Feces. PLoS One. January 

6, 2016. 14 pages. 

Foster, E. A., D. W. Franks, L. J. Morrell, K. C. Balcomb, and K. M. Parsons. 2012. Social 

network correlates of food availability in an endangered population of killer whales, Orcinus 

orca. Publications, Agencies, and Staff of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Paper 339.

Gaydos, J. K. and S. Raverty. 2007. Killer Whale Stranding Response, August 2007 Final 

Report. Report under UC Davis Agreement No. C 05-00581 V, August 2007.

Giles, D. A. 2014. Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca): The evolution of adaptive 

management practices for vessel-based killer whale watching in the Salish Sea; A novel noninvasive method to study southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) and vessel 

compliance with regulations, and the effect of vessels on group cohesion and behavior of 

southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca). Dissertation. University of California, Davis. 

125 pp.

Giles, D. A., R. Cendak, and K. L. Koski. 2010. Measuring vessel compliance with Washington 

State vessel regulations and Be Whale Wise boating guidelines. Contract number AB133F07-SE-3026. 66 pages.

Giles, D. and R. Cendak. 2010. An Assessment of Vessel Effects on the Cohesion State of 

Southern 47 Resident Killer Whale Groups, and Measuring Vessel Compliance with Boating 

Guidelines. Contract 48 number AB133F-07-SE-3026. 56 pages.

Giles, D. A. and K. L. Koski. 2012. Managing vessel-based killer whale watching: A critical 

assessment of the evolution from voluntary guidelines to regulations in the Salish Sea. J. Int.

Wildl. Law Policy 15(2):125–151.
64

Gockel, C. K. and T. Mongillo. 2013. Potential Effects of PBDEs on Puget Sound and Southern 

Resident Killer Whales: A report on the Technical Workgroups and Policy Forum. U.S. 

E.P.A. and NMFS. 20 Pages.

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/marine_mammals/killer_whale/rp

i_environmental_contaminants.html

Government of Canada. 2017. Canada’s Oceans Protection Plan. Office of the Prime Minister, 

Ottawa, Canada K1A 0A2. 11 pages. https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/canada-oceans-protectionplan.html

Hanson, M. B., R. W. Baird, J. K. Ford, J. Hempelmann, D. M. Van Doornik, J. R. Candy, C. K. 

Emmons, G. S. Schorr, B. Gisborne, K. L. Ayers, S. K. Wasser, K. C. Balcomb III, K. 

Balcomb, J. G. Sneva, and M. J. Ford. 2010. Species and Stock Identification of Prey 

Selected by Endangered “Southern Resident” killer whales in their summer range. Endanger.

Spec. Res. 11:69–82.

Hanson, M.B., Emmons, C.K., Ward, E.J., Nystuen, J.A., and M.O. Lammers. Assessing the 

coastal occurrence of endangered killer whales using autonomous passive acoustic recorders. 

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134(5):3486-3495.

Hauser, D. D. W., M. G. Logsdon, E. E. Holmes, G. R Van Blaricom, and R. W. Osborne. 2007. 

Summer distribution patterns of southern resident killer whales Orcinus orca: core areas and 

spatial segregation of social groups. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 351:301–310.

Holt, M. M. 2008. Sound exposure and Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca): A 

review of current knowledge and data gaps. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSNWFSC-89, U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle, Washington. 59 pages.

Holt, M. M., D. P. Noren, V. Viers, C. K. Emmons, and S. Viers. 2009. Speaking up: killer 

whales (Orcinus orca) increase their call amplitude in response to vessel noise. J. Acous.

Soc. Am. 125(1):27-32.

Holt, M. M., D. P. Noren, R. C. Dunkin, and T. M. Williams. 2015. Vocal performance affects 

metabolic rate in dolphins: implications for animals communicating in noisy environments. J.

Exp. Biol. 218:1647–1654. 

Holt, M. M., M. B. Hanson, D. A. Giles, C. K. Emmons, and J. T. Hogan. 2017. Noise levels 

received by endangered killer whales (Orcinus orca) before and after vessel regulations. 

Endanger. Spec. Res. 34:15-26. 

Houghton, J. 2014. The relationship between vessel traffic and noise levels received by killer 

whales and an evaluation of compliance with vessel regulations. Master’s Thesis. University 

of Washington, Seattle. 103 pp.
65

Houghton, J., M. M. Holt, D. A. Giles, M. B. Hanson, C. K. Emmons, J. T. Hogan, T. A. Branch, 

and G. R. VanBlaricom. 2015. The Relationship between Vessel Traffic and Noise Levels 

Received by Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). PLoS One. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0140119

Hoyt, E. 2001. Whale watching 2001: worldwide tourism numbers, expenditures, and expanding 

socioeconomic benefits. International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth, Massachusetts.

Hoyt, E. 2002. Whale watching. Pages 1305-1310 in W. F. Perrin, B Würsig, and J. G. M. 

Thewissen, editors. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, 

California.

Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc). 2010. Vessel Traffic Regulations to Protect Killer 

Whales in Puget Sound: Final Regulatory Impact Review. 

Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc). 2015. Memorandum: Regional Economic Benefits of 

Whale Watching in Puget Sound. 

Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc). 2016. Memorandum: Retrospective Analysis of 

Effects of 2011 Puget Sound Vessel Traffic Regulations. 

Keane A., J. P. G. Jones, G. Edwards-Jones and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2008. The sleeping 

policeman: understanding issues of enforcement and compliance in conservation. Anim.

Conserv. 11:75–82.

Kessler, M., R. Harcourt, and W. Bradford. 2014. Will Whale Watchers Sacrifice Personal 

Experience to Minimize Harm to Whales? Tourism Mar. Environ. 10(1-2):1–10.

Koski, K. 2006. 2004-2005 Final Program Report: Soundwatch Public Outreach/Boater 

Education Project. The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, Washington. 

Koski, K. 2010. 2010 Final program report: Soundwatch Public Outreach/Boater Education 

Project. The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, Washington. 

Koski, K. 2011. 2010 Soundwatch Program Annual Contract Report: Soundwatch Public 

Outreach/Boater Education Project. The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, Washington. 

Koski, K. 2012. 2011 Soundwatch Program Annual Contract Report: Soundwatch Public 

Outreach/Boater Education Project. The Whale Musuem, Friday Harbor, Washington.

Krahn, M. M., M. B. Hanson, R. W. Baird, R. H. Boyer, D. G. Burrows, C. E. Emmons, J. K. B. 

Ford, L. L. Jones, D. P. Noren, P. S. Ross, G. S. Schorr, and T. K. Collier. 2007. Persistent 

organic pollutants and stable isotopes in biopsy samples (2004/2006) from Southern Resident 

killer whales. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Volume 54, pages 1903 to 1911.

Krahn, M. M, M. B. Hanson, G. S. Schorr, C. K. Emmons, D. G. Burrows, J. L. Bolton, R. W. 

Baird, and G. M. Ylitalo. 2009. Marine Poll. Bull. 58:1522–1529.
66

Kriete, B. 2002. Bioenergetic changes from 1986 to 2001 in the Southern Resident killer whale 

population, 2 (Orcinus orca). Orca Relief Citizens' Alliance, Friday Harbor, Washington. 26 

pages.

Kriete, B. 2007. Orca Relief citizens’ Alliance Recommendations: Protective Regulations for 

Killer Whales in the Northwest Region under the Endangered Species Act and Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, June 19, 2007. 

Kruse, S. 1991. The interactions between killer whales and boats in Johnstone Strait, B.C. Pages 

149-159 in K. Pryor and K. S. Norris, editors. Dolphin societies: discoveries and puzzles. 

University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Laist, D. W., A. R. Knowlton, and D. Pendleton. 2014. Effectiveness of mandatory vessel speed 

limits for protecting North Atlantic right whales. Endanger. Spec. Res. 23:133–147.

Lundin, J. I., R. L. Dills, G. M. Ylitalo, M. B. Hanson, C. K. Emmons, G. S. Schorr, J. Ahmad, J. 

A. Hempelmann, K. M. Parsons, and S. K. Wasser. 2015. Persistent Organic Pollutant 

Determination in Killer Whale Scat Samples: Optimization of a Gas Chromatography/Mass 

Spectrometry Method and Application to Field Samples. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 

70:9–19.

Lundin, J. I., G. M. Ylitalo, R. K. Booth, B. Anulacion, J. A. Hempelmann, K. M. Parsons, D. A. 

Giles, E. A. Seely, M. B. Hanson, C. K. Emmons, and S. K. Wasser. 2016. Modulation in 

Persistent Organic Pollutant Concentration and Profile by Prey Availability and Reproductive 

Status in Southern Resident Killer Whale Scat Samples. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50:6506–

6516. 

Lusseau, D. 2003. Male and female bottlenose dolphins Tursiops spp. Have different strategies 

to avoid interactions with tour boats in Doubtful Sounds, New Zealand. Mar. Ecol. Prog. CIC 

– 022228522. Ser. 257:267–274.

Lusseau, D. and L. Bejder. 2007. The Long-term Consequences of Short-term Responses to 

Disturbance Experience from Whalewatching Impact Assessment. Int. J. Comp. Psych. 20: 

228-236.

Lusseau, D., D. E. Bain, R. Williams, and J. C. Smith. 2009. Vessel traffic disrupts the foraging 

behavior of southern resident killer whales Orcinus orca. Endanger. Spec. Res. 6:211–221.

Malcolm, C. D. 2004. The current state and future prospects of whale-watching management, 

with special emphasis on whale-watching in British Columbia. Unpublished Ph.D. 

dissertation, University of Victoria, B.C. Canada.

May, P. J. 2005. Regulation and Compliance Motivations: Examining Different Approaches. 

Publ. Admin. Rev. 65(1):31-44. 
67

McCluskey, S. M. 2006. Space use patterns and population trends of southern resident killer 

whales (Orcinus orca) in relation to distribution and abundance of Pacific salmon 

(Oncorhynchus spp.) in the inland marine waters of Washington state and British Columbia 

(Unpublished Master’s Thesis). University of Washington, Seattle.

McKenna, M.F., S.M. Wiggins, and J.A. Hildebrand. 2013. Relationships Between Container 

Ship Underwater Noise Levels and Ship Design, Operational and Oceanographic Conditions. 

Sci. Rep. 3:1-10. DOI: 10.1038/srep01760.

Mongillo, T. M., G. M. Ylitalo, L. D. Rhodes, S. M. O’Neill, D. P. Noren, and M. B. Hanson. 

2016. Exposure to a Mixture of Toxic Chemicals: Implications for the Health of Endangered 

Southern Resident Killer Whales. National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region, 

Seattle, Washington. 

National Marine Protected Areas Center. 2005. Enforcing U.S. Marine Protected Areas: 

Synthesis Report. Enforcing U.S. Marine Protected Areas: Synthesis Report Prepared by the 

National Marine Protected Areas Center in cooperation with the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center, July 2005.

National Research Council. 2005. Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise: Determining 

When Noise Causes Biologically Significant Effects. Marine Mammal Populations and 

Noise, Chapter 3, pp. 35 to 68. 

New, L.F., Clark, J.S., Costa, D.P., Fleishman, E., Hindell, M.A., Klanjšček, T.,

Lussuau, D., Kraus, S., McMahon, C.R., Robinson, P.W., Schick, R.S., Schwarz, L.K.,

Simmons, S.E., Thomas, L., Tyack, P., Harwood, J., 2014. Using short-term measures

of behaviour to estimate long-term fitness of southern elephant seals. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 

496, 99e108.

New, L. F., A. J. Hall, R. Harcourt, G. Kaufman, E. C. M. Parsons, H. C. Pearson, A. M. 

Cosentino, R. S. Schick. 2015. The Modelling and Assessment of Whale-Watching Impacts. 

Ocean & Coastal Management. 115:10-16.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.04.006.

Nichols, C., G. Stone, A. Hutt, J. Brown and A. Yoshinaga. 2001. Observations of interactions 

between Hector’s dolphins (Cephalorhynchus hectori), boats and people at Akaroa Harbour, 

New Zealand. Sci. Cons. 178. 49 pages.

NMFS. 2008. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington.

NMFS. 2010. Final Environmental Assessment for New Regulations to Protect Killer Whales 

from Vessel Effects in Inland Waters of Washington. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. 
68

NMFS. 2016a. Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca), 5-Year Review: Summary and 

Evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region, Seattle, Washington. 

NMFS. 2016b. Species in the Spotlight. Priority Actions: 2016-2020. Southern Resident Killer 

Whale DPS. Orcinus orca. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2016/02/docs/southern_resident_killer_whale_spotlight_s

pecies_5_year_action_plan_final_web.pdf

NMFS. In Press. An Updated Literature Review Examining the Impacts of Toursim on Marine 

Mammals over the Last Fifteen Years (2000-2015) to Inform Research and Management 

Programs. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Region, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

NMFS-SERO-X

Noren, D. P., A. Johnson, D. Rehder, and A. Larson. 2007. Close approaches by vessels elicit 

surface active 9 displays by Southern Resident killer whales. Abstract at the 17th Biennial 

Conference on the Biology of 10 Marine Mammals, Cape Town, South Africa.

Noren, D. P., A. H. Johnson, D. Rehder, and A. Larson. 2009. Close approaches be vessels elicit 

surface active behaviors by Southern Resident killer whales. Endanger. Species Res. 8:179–

192. 

Noren, D. P., R. C. Dunkin, T. M. Williams, and M. M. Holt. 2012. Energetic coast of behaviors 

performed in response to vessel disturbance: one link the in population consequences of 

acoustic disturbance model. In: Anthony Hawkins and Arthur N. Popper, Eds. The Effects of 

Noise on Aquatic Life, pp. 427–430.

Noren D.P., M.M. Holt, R.C. Dunkin, and T.M. Williams. 2013. The metabolic cost of 

communicative sound production in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). J. Exp. Biol.

216:1624–1629.

Noren D. P., M. M. Holt, R. C. Dunkin, and T. M. Williams. In press. Echolocation is cheap for 

some mammals: dolphins conserve oxygen while producing high-intensity clicks. J. Exp.

Marine Biol. and Ecol.

O’Connor, S., R. Campbell, H. Cortez, and T. Knowles. 2009. Whale Watching Worldwide: 

Tourism numbers, expenditures and expanding economic benefits, a special report from the 

International Fund for Animal Welfare. Economists at Large, Yarmouth, MA.

Olesiuk, P. F., M. A. Bigg, and G. M. Ellis. 1990. Life history and population dynamics of 

resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the coastal waters of British Columbia and 

Washington State. Report of the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 12:209–

243.

Olesiuk, P. F., G. M. Ellis, and J. K. Ford. 2005. Life history and population dynamics of 

northern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) in British Columbia. DFO Canadian Science 

Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2005/045.
69

Orams, M. B. 2000. Tourists getting close to whales, is it what whale-watching is all about? 

Tour. Manage. 21:561–569.

Parsons, K. M., K. C. Balcomb, J. K. B. Ford, and J. W. Durban. 2009. The social dynamics of 

southern resident killer whales and conservation implications for this endangered population. 

Animal Behavior. 1-9. doi:10.1016.

Pirotta, E., N. D. Merchant, P. M. Thompson, T. R. Barton, and D. Lusseau. 2015. Quantifying 

the Effect of Boat Disturbance on Bottlenose Dolphin Foraging Activity. Biol. Cons. 181:82–

89. 

Puget Sound Partnership. 2016. The 2016 Action Agenda for Puget Sound. Olympia, 

Washington. 220 pages. www.psp.wa.gov

RBT2. 2013. Roberts Bank Terminal 2, Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Process Report, 

Southern Resident Killer Whales Final Report 2013. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, 

By Compass Resource Management. 26 pages.

Reddy, M.L., Reif, J.S., Bachand, A., and S.H. Ridgway. 2001. Opportunities for using Navy 

marine mammals to explore associations between organochlorine contaminants and 

unfavorable effects on reproduction. Sci. Tot. Enviro. 247:171-182.

Reijnders, P. J. H. 1986. Reproductive failure in common seals feeding on fish from polluted 

coastal waters. Nature 324:456–457.

Ross, P. S., G. M. Ellis, M. G. Ikonomou, L. G. Barrett-Lennard, and R. F. Addison. 2000. High 

PCB concentrations in free-ranging Pacific killer whales, Orcinus orca: effects of age, sex 

and dietary preference. Marine Poll. Bull. 40:504–515.

Schwacke, L.H., Voit, E.O, Hansen, L.J., Wells, R.S., Mitchum, G.B., Hohn, A.A., and P.A. 

Fair. 2002. Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Reproductive Effects of Polychlorinated 

Biphenyls on Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from the Southeast United States 

Coast. Enviro. Toxicol. Chem. 21(12):2752-2764.

Seely, E. 2016. Final 2015 Soundwatch Program Annual Contract Report: Soundwatch Public 

Outreach/Boater Education Project. The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, Washington.

Seely, E. 2017. Final 2016 Soundwatch Program Annual Contract Report: Soundwatch Public 

Outreach/Boater Education Project. The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, Washington. 

Seely, E., R.W. Osborne, K. Koski, S. Larson. In review. Soundwatch: Eighteen years of 

monitoring whale watch vessel activities in the Salish Sea. PLOS One. 

Senigaglia V., F. Christiansen, L. Bejder, D. Gendron, D. Lundquist, D. P. Noren, A. Schaffar, J. 

C. Smith, R. Williams, E. Martinez, K. Stockin, D. Lusseau. 2016. Meta-analyses of whale-
70

watching impact studies: comparisons of cetacean responses to disturbance. Mar. Ecol. Prog.

Ser. 542:251–263.

Shapiro, K. R. 2006. Whale Watch Passengers’ Preferences for Tour Attributes and Marine 

Management in Maui, Hawaii. Master of Science dissertation, Simon Fraser University, 

Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. 119 pages.

Silber, G. K, and S. Bettridge. 2012. As Assessment of the Final Rule to Implement Vessel 

Speed Restrictions to Reduce the Threat of Vessel Collisions with North Atlantic Right 

Whales. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, 

Maryland.

Silber, G. K., J. D. Adams, and C. J. Fonnesbeck. 2014. Compliance with vessel speed 

restrictions to protect North Atlantic right whales. PeerJ. e399: 17 pages. DOI 

10.7717/peerj.399.

SMRU Canada 2014. Marine Mammals Determination of Behavioral Effect Noise Thresholds 

for Southern Resident Killer Whales. Technical data report for proposed Roberts Bank 

Terminal 2. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, by SMRU Canada Ltd. 268 pages.

Soundwatch. 2005. San Juan Island Special Orca Viewing Areas Haro Strait Voluntary No 

Motor Boat Zone for Whales. The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, Washington. 

Stamation, K. A. 2009. Whale-watching in NSW: research to integrate the needs of whales, 

tourists and industry. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Szymanski, M. D., D. E. Bain, K. Kiehl, S. Pennington, S. Wong, and K. R. Henry. 1999. Killer 

whale (Orcinus orca) hearing: auditory brainstem response and behavioral audiograms. J.

Acous. Soc. Am. 106:1134–1141.

Trites, A. W. and C.P. Donnelly. 2003. The decline of Steller sea lions Eumetopias jubatus in 

Alaska: a review of the nutritional stress hypothesis. Mammal Rev. 33(1):3–28.

Trites, A. W., W. M. Hochachka, S. K. Carter, M. M. Wong, and R. Williams. 2007. Boats 

displace killer whales from a marine protected area. International Whaling Commission. 

SC/59/WW14.

Van Waerebeek, K., A. N. Bake, F. Felix, J. Gedamke, M. Iñiguez, G. P. Sanino, E. Secchi, D. 

Sutaria, A. van Helden, and Y. Wang. 2007. Vessel Collisions with Small Cetaceans 

Worldwide and with Large Whales in the Southern Hemisphere, an Initial Assessment. 

LAJAM 6(1):43–69.

Veirs, V. and S. Veirs. 2006. Average levels and power spectra of ambient sound in the habitat 

of southern resident orcas. NMFS Contract Report No. AB133F05SE6681, 16 p.
71

Veirs, S., V. Veirs, and J. D. Wood. 2016 Ship Noise Extends to Frequencies Used for 

Echolocation by Endangered Killer Whales. PeerJ. e1657: 35 pages.

https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1657

Visser, I. N. 1999. Propeller scars on and known home range of two orca (Orcinus orca) in New 

Zealand waters. Mar. Mam. Sci. 15:222–227.

Visser, I. N. and D. Fertl. 2000. Stranding, resighting, and boat strike of a killer whale (Orcinus 

orca) off New Zealand. Aquatic Mammals 26:232–240.

Wallmo, K. and D. K. Lew. 2015. Public Preferences for Endangered Species Recovery: An 

Examination of Geospatial Scale and Non-market Values. Front. Mar. Sci. 2(55):1-7.

Wallmo, K. and D. K. Lew. 2016. A Comparison of Regional and National Values for 

Recovering Threatened and Endangered Marine Species in the United States. J. Environ.

Manage. 179:38–46.

Wieland, M., A. Jones, and S. C. P. Renn. 2010. Changing durations of southern resident killer 

whale 23 (Orcinus orca) discrete calls between two periods spanning 28 years. Mar. Mam.

Sci. 26(1):195–201.

Wiley, D. N., J. C. Moller, R. M. Pace III, and C. Carlson. 2008. Effectiveness of Voluntary 

Conservation Agreements: Case Study of Endangered Whales and Commercial Whale 

Watching. Conserv. Biol. 22:450–457. 

Williams, R. and E. Ashe. 2007. Killer whale evasive tactics vary with boat number. J. Zool.

272:390–397.

Williams, R., A. W. Trites, and D. E. Bain. 2002a. Behavioural responses of killer whales 

(Orcinus orca) to whale-watching boats: opportunistic observations and experimental 

approaches. J. Zool. (London) 256:255–270.

Williams, R., D. E. Bain, J. K. B. Ford, and A. W. Trites. 2002b. Behavioural responses of male 

killer whales to a ‘leapfrogging’ vessel. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 4:305–310.

Williams, R., D. Lusseau and P. S. Hammonda. 2006. Estimating relative energetic costs of 

human disturbance to killer whales (Orcinus orca). Biol. Cons. 133:301–311. 

Williams, R., D. E. Bain, J. C. Smith, and D. Lusseau. 2009. Effects of vessels on behaviour 

patterns of 9 individual southern resident killer whales Orcinus orca. Endanger. Species Res.

6:199–209.

Williams, R., E. Ashe, and D. Lusseau. 2010. Killer whale activity budgets under no-boat, 

kayak-only and power-boat conditions. Contract via Herrera Consulting, Seattle, 

Washington. 29 pp.
72

Williams, R., C. W. Clark, D. Ponirakis, and E. Ashe. 2014. Acoustic Quality of Critical Habitats 

for Three Threatened Whale Populations. Anim. Conserv. 17:174–185.

Ylitalo, G.M., Stein, J.E., Hom, T., Johnson, L.J., Tilbury, K.L., Hall, A.J., Rowles, T., Greig, 

D., Lowenstine, L.J., and F.M.D. Gulland. 2005. The role of organochlorines in cancerassociated mortality in California sea lions (Zalophus californianus). Mor. Poll. Bull. 50:30-

39. 
73

9. APPENDICES

Appendix A. 2011 Be Whale Wise Brochure
74

Appendix B. Rack Cards
75

Appendix C. KELP Brochure
76

Appendix D. 2016 Be Whale Wise Brochure