Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-11-01

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries January 2011

Reducing the Threat of Ship Strikes on Large 

Cetaceans in the Santa Barbara Channel Region and 

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary:

Recommendations and Case Studies
About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean Service (NOS) 

administers the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS). Its mission is to identify, 

designate, protect and manage the ecological, recreational, research, educational, 

historical, and aesthetic resources and qualities of nationally significant coastal and 

marine areas. The existing marine sanctuaries differ widely in their natural and 

historical resources and include nearshore and open ocean areas ranging in size from 

less than one to over 5,000 square miles. Protected habitats include rocky coasts, kelp 

forests, coral reefs, sea grass beds, estuarine habitats, hard and soft bottom habitats, 

segments of whale migration routes, and shipwrecks.

Because of considerable differences in settings, resources, and threats, each marine 

sanctuary has a tailored management plan. Conservation, education, research, 

monitoring and enforcement programs vary accordingly. The integration of these 

programs is fundamental to marine protected area management. The Marine 

Sanctuaries Conservation Series reflects and supports this integration by providing a 

forum for publication and discussion of the complex issues currently facing the sanctuary 

system. Topics of published reports vary substantially and may include descriptions of 

educational programs, discussions on resource management issues, and results of 

scientific research and monitoring projects. The series facilitates integration of natural 

sciences, socioeconomic and cultural sciences, education, and policy development to 

accomplish the diverse needs of NOAA’s resource protection mandate.
Reducing the Threat of Ship Strikes on Large Cetaceans in the 

Santa Barbara Channel Region and Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary:

Recommendations and Case Studies

Leslie Abramson1, Shiva Polefka2, Sean Hastings1, Kristen Bor1

1

NOAA Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, 2Environmental Defense Center

Silver Spring, Maryland

January 2011

U.S. Department of Commerce

Gary Locke, Secretary

National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration

Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D.

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere

National Ocean Service

David M. Kennedy, Acting Assistant Administrator

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

Daniel J. Basta, Director
DISCLAIMER

Report content does not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use.

REPORT AVAILABILITY

Electronic copies of this report may be downloaded from the Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries web site at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov. Hard copies may be available from

the following address:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

SSMC4, N/ORM62

1305 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

COVER

A container ship just missing a blue whale. Credit: NOAA.

SUGGESTED CITATION

Abramson, L., S. Polefka, S. Hastings, K. Bor. 2010. Reducing the threat of ship strikes 

on large cetaceans in the Santa Barbara Channel region and Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary: recommendations and case studies. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation 

Series ONMS-11-01. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 59pp. 

KEY CONTACTS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

David Wiley and Leila Hatch (Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary), Lindy 

Johnson (USEC Deputy General Counsel Attorney Advisor General), Gregory Silber, 

Lisa Van Atta, Tim Cole, Kaja Brix, Chris Yates (National Marine Fisheries Service), 

Janet Neilson (Glacier Bay National Park), John Calambokidis (Cascadia Research 

Collective), Naomi Campbell (Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary), Kristi Birney Rieman (Environmental Defense Center), International 

Maritime Organization, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, International Wildlife 

Coalition, Whale Center of New England, Hawai’i Department of Aquatic Resources.

CONTACT

Sean Hastings 

Resource Protection Coordinator

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

113 Harbor Way, Suite 150

Santa Barbara, CA 93109

Phone: (805) 966-7107

Email: Sean.Hastings@noaa.gov 
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Problem Statement

During September of 2007, NOAA received reports of five blue whale carcasses between 

Santa Cruz Island and San Diego. Historically, the maximum number of blue whale 

documented fatalities in a single year in the region was three, occurring in both 1988 and 

2002. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) designated the blue whale 

mortalities as an “Unusual Mortality Event” (UME) on October 11, 2007, recognizing 

that the observed mortalities had met one or more criteria for the declaration of an UME 

(Hogarth 2007). The first animal was brought into port on the bow of a large ship, and 

necropsies on two of the other whales found floating in the Santa Barbara Channel 

appeared to confirm ship strike as the cause of death. Two additional blue whale 

carcasses, an adult female and a very young individual (believed to be a fetus expelled 

after stranding of the adult) were discovered on San Miguel Island on November 29, 

2007. Though the San Miguel carcasses were several weeks old, it was determined that 

the adult had injuries consistent with those sustained in a collision with a large vessel, 

and that the calf likely died as a consequence of its mother being struck and killed (Lecky 

2008). 

In response to these events, the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS) and 

its Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) have been working to develop both short and 

long-term management measures to reduce the ship strike threat to Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) listed large whales in CINMS and the Santa Barbara Channel region. 

Information gathering through case studies and stakeholder engagement are the first steps 

towards a long-term plan.

Regional Context

Ship strikes have been identified by the NMFS as a threat to endangered blue, right, 

humpback and fin whales (NMFS 1998, NMFS 2005, NMFS 1991, NMFS 2006). Most 

of the work analyzing the relationship between incidence of whale strikes and ship speeds 

has been done on the east coast in relation to the recovery of the highly endangered North 

Atlantic right whale. An analysis of ship and whale collisions showed that the chance of 

serious injury or death to the whale was reduced to 50% at speeds of 11.8 knots 

(Vanderlaan and Taggart 2007).

The Santa Barbara Channel contains some of the highest densities of commercial 

maritime traffic in the world. Many vessels transiting to or from the Ports of Long Beach 

and Los Angeles pass through the Channel (75% of the northbound departing vessel 

traffic and 65% of the arriving southbound traffic). On average, some 6,500 large (over 

300 gross tons) vessels transit through the Channel every year, the majority of them at 

speeds greater than 14 knots (CINMS 2006). 

The krill patches in the colder waters of the Channel Islands provide critical feeding 

grounds for the largest blue whale stock in the world (Fiedler et al. 1998). It has been 

speculated that krill aggregations in the Santa Barbara Channel and its shipping lanes 
ii

may lead to higher densities of several endangered baleen whale species, including 

humpback, blue and fin whales, making them vulnerable to ship strikes in this region. 

There have been a number of collisions involving large cetaceans on the west coast 

(Jensen and Silber 2004). Of the species known to have been hit by ships on the west 

coast, fin whales appear most affected, but blue, gray and humpback whales are also at 

risk (Douglas et al. 2008, Laist et al. 2001). 

NMFS is the agency responsible for implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and protecting species throughout their 

range. The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS) is responsible for 

implementing the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) which includes protecting 

marine resources within the Sanctuary.

Public Process

In order to focus specifically on the issue of ship strikes on ESA listed large whales, the 

CINMS SAC created a Ship Strike Subcommittee. Through case study synthesis and 

expert panel discussions, the Subcommittee generated a draft set of recommendations to 

reduce the threat of ship strikes on large whales in the Santa Barbara Channel region. 

These recommendations were reviewed and approved by the SAC and forwarded to the 

Sanctuary Superintendent in September 2009. The SAC process also included:

• Prevention and Emergency Response Plan Development

This document exists in draft form and is currently utilized internally by CINMS, 

US Coast Guard, and NMFS staff. It outlines agency actions to track large whales 

in the Santa Barbara Channel region, implement precautionary actions to reduce 

the threat of ship strikes and respond quickly and appropriately to a stranded 

whale. The Emergency Response portion of this document is structured 

according to the Incident Command System used by the United States military 

(CINMS 2008).

• Case Studies Development and Review

In regions such as Glacier Bay National Park (GLBA), Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS) and Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National 

Marine Sanctuary (HIHWNMS), regulatory and cooperative actions have been 

implemented to reduce ship strikes on large whales. Analyses of successes, 

lessons learned, and applicability to CINMS and the Santa Barbara Channel 

region will inform the policy process. 

• Sanctuary Education Team

The Sanctuary Advisory Council’s Sanctuary Education Team (SET) has initiated 

an outreach and education program for the general public and for the maritime 

industry. 

• Information Sharing Meetings

In the last year, meetings with NMFS, CINMS staff, commercial shipping agents 

and the California Ocean Protection Council have made progress in forming 

mutual goals. Representatives from the shipping industry have indicated an 

interest and willingness to work together.
iii

In addition, Sanctuary staff continue to: 

1. Host a ship strike web page (http://www.channelislands.noaa.gov/focus/alert.html);

2. Develop ecologically-based research and monitoring proposals (unfortunately, as 

yet unfunded) related to understanding and predicting ship strike conditions;

3. Work with partners at Scripps Institution of Oceanography on analysis of 

Automatic Identification System (AIS) ship data;

4. Support whale tagging work by Cascadia Research Collective’s John 

Calambokidis, and help with deployment and servicing of Scripps' acoustic 

recording packages within and around the sanctuary;

5. Oversee the Channel Islands Naturalist Corps program which, among other 

things, trains and dispatches volunteers to collect whale identification data from 

commercial whale watch vessels; and

6. Conduct weekly aerial whale surveillance, compile whale observation data, 

generate map products, and communicate with the shipping industry and others.

Recent regulatory action by NMFS along the eastern seaboard to create Seasonal

Management Areas (SMA), which are breeding and calving areas, and voluntary 

measures, including Dynamic Management Areas (DMA) and Areas To Be Avoided 

(ATBA), may have some transferability to the Santa Barbara Channel region and 

CINMS. Large whale species in the Santa Barbara Channel have somewhat predictable 

temporal behaviors (e.g., large concentrations are typically in the Channel from June 

through September). Additionally, Sanctuary Aerial Monitoring and Spatial Analysis 

Program data suggest that there may be spatial areas of greater whale aggregations. 

NMFS has also provided the ship strike subcommittee a workshop report titled: Report 

of a Workshop to Identify and Assess Technologies to Reduce Ship Strikes of Large 

Whales (NMFS 2009) (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/shipstrike/). The workshop

brought together leading experts to (a) identify existing or emerging technologies that 

might be useful in reducing ship strikes, (b) assess the feasibility of each in reducing ship 

strikes, and (c) identify research and development timelines needed to make a given 

technology useful in reducing the threat (NMFS 2009). 

Case Studies

The following case studies focus on the reduction of the threat of ship strikes on large 

whales. The first examines the role of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 

and NMFS in protecting the North Atlantic right whale along the eastern seaboard of the 

United States. The second case study focuses on humpback whale protections 

implemented by Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve in Alaska. The third case study 

looks again at humpback whales, this time in their wintering grounds in the Hawaiian 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary. The final case study examines ongoing efforts by the

Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (the entities comprising the San Pedro Bay Ports or 

(Ports)), in collaboration with the Marine Exchange of Southern California, the US 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), 

the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), and shipping industry 
iv

representatives to reduce air pollution through vessel speed reductions within the South 

Coast Air Basin, a multicounty area managed by the South Coast AQMD.

Each case study includes a summary of the range of research and monitoring projects, 

education and outreach initiatives and regulatory actions pursued to reduce the threat of 

ship strikes. The case studies each present an analysis of the relevance of these actions to 

CINMS and the Santa Barbara Channel region, with similarities and differences explicitly 

considered. Finally, recommendations for future opportunities are included in each 

study, along with key contacts and references.

Recommendations Adopted by the SAC1

In general, the case studies presented indicate that dynamic (spatially and temporally 

explicit) management of vessel behavior can reduce the risk of ship strikes. They may 

also minimize impact on commercial activities by limiting vessel speed or course only 

during necessary times or in critical areas. Scientific data, such as, aerial monitoring, 

Automatic Identification System (AIS) data on commercial vessel movements, krill 

abundance and distribution data, whale tagging, and passive acoustic monitoring, is 

important when crafting effective dynamic management. All four case studies describe 

some form of a dynamic or spatial management area either to minimize whale-vessel 

interactions along the East Coast (Stellwagen Bank), Glacier Bay, Hawaii, or improve air 

quality in the case of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. It should be recognized 

that the creation of these management actions were time and resource intensive.

The case studies also demonstrate the effectiveness of mariner education and training. All 

case studies have required or used voluntary programs for recreational and/or commercial 

mariner training. In the case of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve (see Case Study 

II), all cruise ships are required to participate in marine mammal awareness and 

avoidance training as conditional to permit issuance. 

Specific recommendations include:

1. Continue and Expand Research and Monitoring Efforts. 

The key to any ship strike management measure, whether voluntary or regulatory, 

is a better understanding of the vessel strikes on large whales in the Santa Barbara 

region. The following research and monitoring efforts are recommended:

a. Continue and improve on monitoring efforts to track large whale 

distribution both spatially and temporally within the Sanctuary and 

shipping lanes, and in the vicinity of the shipping lanes (e.g., acoustic, 

aerial and photographic monitoring);

b. Improve understanding of the life history, biology, and behavior of large 

whales present in the Santa Barbara Channel region;

 1 These recommendations were unanimously adopted by the Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) on 

September 18, 2009. For information on the Council’s deliberations and vote, see 

http://channelislands.noaa.gov/sac/minutes.html.
v

c. Monitor annual distribution of krill, which can be affected by 

oceanographic conditions and is critical to predicting large whale spatial 

distribution;

d. Continue and improve on monitoring efforts to track vessels (spatially and 

temporally) within the Sanctuary and in vicinity of the shipping lanes 

(e.g., AIS data, acoustic and aerial monitoring);

e. Recruit local colleges, universities, and research institutions to conduct

research projects related to large whales and impacts of shipping traffic in 

the Santa Barbara Channel and greater southern California region;

f. Seek out additional sources of funding to continue monitoring and 

research efforts in the Santa Barbara Channel region;

2. Consider appropriateness of changes to vessel behavior in the Santa Barbara 

Channel region. 

a. In 2007, an unusually high number of blue whales were observed to be 

struck and killed by ship strikes in the Santa Barbara Channel. In 

response, NOAA now provides a speed reduction recommendation to 

mariners when whale abundance in the shipping lanes triggers an elevated 

concern of ship strikes. These speed reduction recommendations, if 

continued, need to be explicit and consistent so mariners can account for 

them during voyage planning;

b. In general, AIS data analysis has indicated that ships are not, in most 

cases, slowing to 10 knots in the Santa Barbara Channel despite the local 

notices to mariners and speed reduction recommendations. Consequently, 

the appropriateness of SMAs, DMAs, or ATBAs should be evaluated for 

the Santa Barbara Channel region. Use of these management tools, as 

described in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Case Study, 

may provide shippers with the information necessary to decrease the risk 

of ship strike while transiting the Santa Barbara Channel;

3. Explore Changes to the Santa Barbara Channel Traffic Separation Scheme.

Utilizing large whale distribution data from the Santa Barbara Channel, it should 

be explored if a shift in or narrowing of the traffic separation scheme (TSS) can 

separate commercial shipping traffic from concentrations of whales (e.g., a minor 

shift in the TSS off Boston Harbor). Any changes in the shipping lanes would 

need to consider impacts on other marine species in the area, as well as impacts 

on the shipping industry, recreational boaters, and other constituents that utilize 

the SBC;

4. Continue and Expand Education and Outreach.

a. Expand education and outreach, including development of educational 

products, to other agencies, stakeholders, and the maritime industry in 

order to improve compliance with voluntary recommendations; 

b. Assure education and outreach strategies and products are consistent with 

NOAA statutes (e.g., ESA, MMPA, and NMSA) and policies;
vi

5. Explore Incentive and Mandate Based Options for Vessel Speed Reduction.

In general, it has been determined that vessel speed reduction is an effective 

method to reduce the risk of harmful ship strikes on large whales. Therefore, both 

incentive based and mandate based approaches should be explored to reduce 

vessel speeds within the Santa Barbara Channel Traffic Separation Scheme. 

Incentive and mandate based options could be carried out simultaneously. 

Consideration of the application of relevant statutes (e.g., Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and 

others) will be necessary. It should be noted that a 10 knot speed limit is 

mandated by NMFS to protect North Atlantic right whales and has been 

recommended by NMFS when blue and humpback whales have been sighted in 

and near the shipping lanes between Point Conception and Point Dume during the 

summers of 2008 and 2009;

6. Apply an adaptive management approach for the implementation of the 

recommendations. 

Current and future science-based research and monitoring will help refine our 

understanding of whale distribution within the Santa Barbara Channel region, and 

this information should be integrated into the evaluation and consideration of any 

management option, including SMAs, DMAs, and ATBAs. A similar approach 

was used by NMFS on the eastern seaboard where data was collected, analyzed, 

and used in designating SMAs, DMAs, ATBAs, and other management options in 

order to protect Right Whales;

7. Continue to engage and involve relevant agencies, stakeholders and the 

maritime industry groups in the consideration and implementation of these 

recommendations.

KEY WORDS

Whales (blue, humpback, North Atlantic right), endangered, cetaceans, ship strike, 

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, Santa Barbara, vessel speed reduction, 

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, Glacier Bay National 

Park, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

recommendations, Sanctuary Advisory Council, case studies.
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Topic Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. i

Problem Statement........................................................................................................... i

Regional Context ............................................................................................................. i

Public Process................................................................................................................. ii

Case Studies...................................................................................................................iii

Recommendations Adopted by the SAC ....................................................................... iv

KEY WORDS.................................................................................................................... vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................. vii

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES.................................................................................. ix

LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................... x

CASE STUDY I: Protecting Right Whales by Reducing the Risk of Mortality by Ship 

Strike in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and on the Eastern Seaboard, USA

............................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1

Regional Context ............................................................................................................ 2

Management Actions - Overview ................................................................................... 3

Analysis: Potential Application to the Santa Barbara Channel Region........................ 12

Opportunities and Recommendations........................................................................... 14

References..................................................................................................................... 15

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009a. Download the "A 

Prudent Mariner’s Guide to Right Whale Protection CD-ROM". NOAA Northeast 

Regional Office. http://www.nero.noaa.gov/shipstrike/doc/cd.html ........................... 15

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009b. Right Whales: 

Guidelines for Mariners. NOAA Northeast Regional Office. ...................................... 15

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/shipstrike/doc/guidelines%20placard_high.pdf................. 15

Appendix I-A ................................................................................................................ 17

CASE STUDY II: Vessel Management Tools to Reduce the Risk of Humpback Whale 

Harassment, Injury and Mortality in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska ....................... 19

Introduction................................................................................................................... 19

Regional Context .......................................................................................................... 20

Management Actions.................................................................................................... 21

Analysis: Potential Application to the Santa Barbara Channel Region........................ 26

Opportunities and Recommendations........................................................................... 27

References..................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix II-A: Timeline .............................................................................................. 30

Appendix II-B: Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart N § 13.1174 Whale 

water restrictions........................................................................................................... 31

Appendix II-C............................................................................................................... 32

Appendix II-D: GLBA Cruise Ship Concession Permit - Environmental Objectives.. 35
viii

CASE STUDY III: Protecting Humpback Whales by Reducing the Risk of Mortality by 

Ship Strike in Hawaiian Island Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary............... 38

Introduction................................................................................................................... 38

Regional Context .......................................................................................................... 39

Management Actions.................................................................................................... 40

Legal Issues................................................................................................................... 41

Analysis: Potential Application to the Santa Barbara Channel Region........................ 42

References..................................................................................................................... 43

Appendix III-A: Timeline ............................................................................................. 45

CASE STUDY IV: Smog, Soot, and Cetaceans? An examination of vessel speed 

reduction efforts at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach ........................................ 46

Introduction................................................................................................................... 46

Regional Context .......................................................................................................... 47

Management Actions.................................................................................................... 49

Analysis: Potential Application to the Santa Barbara Channel Region........................ 52

Appendix A: “How Does Slowing a Ship Down Reduce Emissions?”....................... 56
ix

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure/Table Number and Title Page

Figure 1. Photograph of breaching right whale ................................................................. 1

Figure 2. Reported paths of inbound ships and TSS (in purple) in relation to SBNMS..... 2

Figure 3. Right Whale Advisory Zones. ............................................................................. 4

Figure 4. Northeast Reporting Area (Sample Reply Message)........................................... 5

Figure 5. Relative Entanglement Risk within the SBNMS................................................. 5

Figure 6. Whale watch vessel guidelines............................................................................ 6

Figure 7. Shift in the Traffic Separation Scheme ............................................................... 9

Figure 8. The location of real-time acoustic detection buoys and LNG terminals........... 10

Figure 9. The distribution of SMAs and DMAs with the SBNMS region ....................... 12

Figure 10. Glacier Bay National Park............................................................................... 19

Figure 11. Study area in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait showing distribution of humpback 

whale pods in 2008.. ......................................................................................................... 23

Figure 12. Map indicating location of Whale Waters....................................................... 25

Figure 13. Map of Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary ...... 38

Figure 14. Photograph of the Hawai'i Superferry............................................................. 39

Figure 15. Ocean going vessel transiting the Santa Barbara Channel ............................. 46

Figure 16. Delineation of Southern California air basins and the jurisdiction of South 

Coast AQMD. ....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 17. Map depicting traffic zones of Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach........... 48

Figure 18. NOx emissions sources in Santa Barbara County. .......................................... 53

Figure 19. Santa Barbara County APCD forecast for total NOx emissions, delineated by 

mainland versus offshore sources (Dressler 2008). .......................................................... 53

Figure 20. Snapshot of vessel tracking display at the Marine Exchange of Southern 

California. ......................................................................................................................... 53

Table 1. Vessel entry restrictions to Glacier Bay National Park ...................................... 33
x

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AIS Automatic Identification System

APCD Air Pollution Control District

AQMD Air Quality Management District

ATBA Areas To Be Avoided

AZ Advisory Zone

BRP Bioacoustics Research Program

CAAP Clean Air Action Plan

CARB California Air Resources Board

CINMS Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

CUA Commercial Use Authorization

DMA Dynamic Management Areas

DVQ Daily vessel quota

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

GLBA Glacier Bay National Park

HIHWNMS Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary

IMO International Maritime Organization

ITP Incidental take permit

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

MARAD Maritime Administration

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPA Marine protected area

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NM Nautical mile

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NMSA National Marine Sanctuaries Act

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOPP National Oceanographic Partnership Program

NOS National Ocean Service

NOx Nitrogen oxides

NPCA National Parks and Conservation Association

NPS National Park Service

OGV Ocean Going Vessel

ONMS Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

PM Particulate matter

POLA Port of Los Angeles

POLB Port of Long Beach

RIP Relative Interaction Potential

SAC Sanctuary Advisory Council
xi

SAMSAP Sanctuary Aerial Monitoring and Spatial Analysis Program

SBC Santa Barbara Channel

SBNMS Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

SET Sanctuary Education Team

SMA Seasonal Management Areas

SOx Sulfur oxides

SPLASH Structures of Populations, Levels of Abundance and Status of Humpback 

Whales

SVQ Seasonal vessel quota

TSS Traffic Separation Scheme

UME Unusual Mortality Event

USCG United States Coast Guard

VSR Vessel Speed Reduction
1

CASE STUDY I: Protecting Right Whales by Reducing the Risk of 

Mortality by Ship Strike in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and 

on the Eastern Seaboard, USA

Figure 1. Photograph of breaching right whale. (Source: Trisha Cheney)

Introduction

The North Atlantic right whale (Figure 1) is one of the most endangered whales on the 

planet, with fewer than 400 individuals remaining. Human threats include ship strikes by 

large commercial vessels, strikes and behavioral modification from whale watching 

vessels, and fishing gear entanglement (Fujiwara et al. 2001, Kraus et al. 2005). In the 

early 1990s, mortalities due to ship strikes were considered a significant threat to the 

survival of the species, and NOAA began a sightings network to better understand the 

distribution of the animals along the eastern seaboard of the United States. 

Management actions in the 1990s employed voluntary measures and outreach tools along 

with extensive research, however, ship strikes and mortalities continued each year. In 

1999, it was determined that voluntary measures were insufficient to prevent the 

continued threat of ship strikes and improve the chances of recovery of the species. 

Between 1999 and 2001 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) hosted over 20 

stakeholder meetings to discuss ways to reduce ship strikes and in 2001 formed a ship 

strike working group to address this urgent issue. A strategy for addressing ship strikes 

was developed with five major elements: ongoing research, education and outreach, 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultations on federal actions that may affect right 

whales, formal agreement with Canada to protect right whales, and operational measures 

for commercial and recreational vessels (Elizabeth Petras, NOAA NMFS, pers. comm.). 

Within the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS) there are three 

regulations that are applicable to commercial vessels. The first regulation shifts the 

Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS), which governs the movement of large commercial 

vessels. This has been negotiated with the United Nations’ International Maritime 

Organization (IMO), the NMFS and the United States Coast Guard (USCG). This shift 

locates the majority of vessel traffic to a spatial area of historically low densities of right 
2

whales, and is predicted to reduce the probability of ship strike by 58% (SBNMS 2006a). 

The second regulation is a license condition implemented for Liquefied Natural Gas 

(LNG) carriers accessing two new ports in Massachusetts Bay which requires these 

vessels to slow to 10 nautical miles per hour (knots) or less in response to real-time 

acoustic detections of right whales in the TSS. The third regulation, administered by 

NOAA, establishes Seasonal Management Areas (SMAs) that require commercial ships 

to slow down to 10 knots or less within areas on the U.S. east coast, two of which overlap 

SBNMS boundaries during the right whale feeding season. Please refer to Appendix A 

for a timeline of the three above-mentioned management actions.

Regional Context

As early as the 11th century, the North Atlantic right whale was subject to immense 

whaling pressure. The particular species was preferred by whalers due to their slow 

swimming pace and propensity to float when dead, which lead to their common name as 

the “right” whale to hunt. Recovery of the species has been slowed due to their unusually 

low reproductive rates and high vulnerability to the human threats mentioned above. In 

1970 North Atlantic right whales were listed as endangered under the Endangered 

Species Conservation Act (the precursor to the Endangered Species Act (ESA)). In 1973 

they were listed as endangered on the ESA and as depleted under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. Ship strikes were identified as one of the factors limiting recovery and 

survival of this species (NMFS 2005).

North Atlantic right whales calve in the warm coastal waters off Georgia and Florida 

during the winter. Some fraction of the population then travels north to the waters of the 

SBNMS and Cape Cod Bay in the early springtime to feed and nurse the calves. Some 

right whales are present in the SBNMS in the mid-late fall and throughout the winter 

months, too. In the summer, right whales can be found in Canadian Atlantic waters until 

early fall, when some fraction of the population migrates south (NMFS 2005). As noted 

above, NOAA has taken actions to protect North Atlantic right whales throughout their 

range, but this case study focuses mainly on activities within the SBNMS. 

Figure 2. Reported paths of inbound ships (black lines) and the Traffic Separation Scheme (in purple) in 

relation to Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (white boundary). (Source: SBNMS)
3

The SBNMS is located in Massachusetts Bay, between Cape Ann and Cape Cod, 

straddling the entrances to Boston Harbor, Provincetown and Gloucester (Figure 2). Its 

close proximity to these populous coastal zones gives it the designation of an “urban 

sanctuary” due to intense maritime commerce, fisheries, and tourist activity within its 

boundaries.

The Stellwagen Bank is an underwater plateau composed of sand and gravel which 

formed during the last ice age. The bathymetry of the bank creates ideal conditions for 

upwelling of cold, nutrient rich water, thereby supporting an abundance of marine life. 

Historically, this region has been host to some of the most productive fisheries in the 

world, including cod, bluefin tuna, lobster and herring. In addition, these waters serve as 

feeding and nursery grounds for several large whale species including the endangered 

humpback, northern right, sei, and fin whales. 

Management Actions - Overview

Eleven management actions have been taken to address the threat of ship strikes, fishing 

gear entanglement, and disturbance by whale watchers. 

1) Research/Monitoring: Right Whale Sighting Advisory System (1997-2008)

2) Monitoring: Mandatory Ship Reporting Systems (1999-2008)

3) Research: Surveys of Human Use Patterns and Baleen Whale Sightings (2001)

4) Research: Voluntary Whale Watching Guidelines (2003)

5) Monitoring: Digital Tagging (2004-Ongoing)

6) Monitoring: Passive Acoustic Programs (2004-Ongoing)

7) Regulations: Recommended Shipping Routes (2006)

8) Outreach/Education: Mariner Training (2007-Ongoing)

9) Regulations: Shifting the Boston Traffic Separation Scheme (2007)

10) Regulations: Real-time Passive Acoustic Detections and Dynamic Speed 

Reduction by LNG Carriers (2007-Ongoing)

11) Regulations: Establishment of Seasonal and Dynamic Management Areas (2008)

A summary of each management action follows and a timeline associated with these 

actions is provided in the Appendix. The Key Contacts and References section provides 

links to additional information.

1) Right Whale Sighting Advisory System, 1997-2008

In 1997, NOAA began conducting seasonal aerial surveys, using DeHavilland Twin 

Otter, Grumman Widgeon and Grumman Goose aircrafts. By 2004, over-flights were 

conducted year-round on a daily basis (weather permitting) and served three 

purposes. First, observers photographed individual right whales in order to contribute 

to a population database. Second, flights allowed surveys of areas farther offshore 

and the opportunity for systematic data gathering. Lastly, locations with right whale 

presence were designated “Advisory Zones” (AZs) and allowed for the creation of a 

“real-time” warning system for mariners (Figure 3). Ships were advised through 
4

email, fax, NOAA Weather Radio or USCG broadcast Notice to Mariners to either 

route around the AZs or to reduce speed below 10 knots. 

Advisories were distributed daily to ships. SBNMS and the USCG collaborated to 

analyze ship behavior within these AZs. The analysis included observational and 

Automatic Identification System data of 40 ships. Results showed one vessel re-route 

and two vessels reducing speed below 10 knots. The study was considered fairly 

inconclusive, however, as it was unclear whether ships were not receiving advisories 

or whether they were choosing not to respond (Moller et al. 2005). 

The ship advisories have been terminated due to new legislation. Also, there is 

anecdotal information suggesting that the Advisory Zones were causing a lack of 

clarity in policy. In addition, in the busy ports along the eastern seaboard the AZ 

information may have been “washed out” with the huge volume of information 

flowing through several communication channels. Aerial flights now focus on the 

monitoring program and designation of Dynamic Management Areas for commercial 

vessels (Tim Cole, NMFS/NEFSC Protected Species Branch Research Fish Biologist, 

pers. comm.).

Figure 3. Right Whale Advisory Zones shown in red circles with the numbers of whales spotted from 

aerial surveys. (Source: SBNMS)

2) Mandatory Ship Reporting Systems, July 1, 1999-2008 

Through a coordinated effort between NOAA and the USCG (and adopted by the 

IMO), all vessels over 300 gross tons must report using INMARSAT C (a two-way 

satellite communications system used in the maritime industry) to a shore-based 

station when transiting two key right whale habitats (off Massachusetts and 

Florida/Georgia coast). Reporting vessels are sent a message containing recent 

sightings in the area, as well as information about right whales and measures that can 

be taken to avoid collisions (Figure 4) (US DOT 1999). 
5

You are entering essential habitat for North Atlantic right whales. The species is critically endangered and 

vulnerable to being hit by ships; whales may not avoid approaching ships. Collisions can damage sonar domes, 

propellers or shafts. Exercise prudent seamanship and advance planning to avoid right whales. Assume any whale 

sighted is a right whale. Monitor USCG Broadcast Notice to Mariners, NAVTEX, NOAA Weather Radio, Cape 

Cod Canal Vessel Traffic Control and Bay of Fundy Vessel Traffic Control for latest advisories and sightings. 

Consult NAVTEX, INMARSAT C SafetyNET, US Coast Pilots, and Notices to Mariners for ways to avoid hitting 

right whales and applicable regulations. Right whale critical habitats and Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary are marked on recently updated charts. Placards, videos and other material are available from 

shipping agents, port authorities, port pilots, and USCG. Please report all struck, dead or entangled whales 

immediately to USCG on VHF Channel 16. Be advised that whales may or may not remain at reported locations 

for extended periods. Surveys do not detect all whales and are not flown in poor weather. Whales, including other 

whale species, may occur at unreported locations. Whales were sighted at: 

[xxxx]N, [xxxxx]W @ [xxxx]h, [date]

[xxxx]N, [xxxxx]W @ [xxxx]h, [date]

Figure 4. Northeast Reporting Area (Sample Reply Message). (Source: US DOT)

3) Surveys of Human Use Patterns and Baleen Whale Sightings, 2001 

The SBNMS conducted a year-long survey aimed at identifying hotspots where 

mobile and fixed fishing gear-use co-occurs with larger densities of baleen whales. 

The distribution and abundance data for fishing practices and baleen whale presence 

was utilized to calculate a Relative Interaction Potential (RIP), with areas of high RIP 

indicating regions where whales might become entangled in fishing gear (Figure 5). 

This data is considered essential for small-scale management decisions within and 

beyond the Sanctuary (Wiley et al. 2003a). 

Figure 5. Relative entanglement risk within the SBNMS. (Source: Just Moller, SBNMS)
6

4) Voluntary Whale Watching Guidelines, 2003 

SBNMS initiated a study to determine the degree of compliance to NMFS voluntary 

guidelines (Figure 6) by whale watching vessels. Inconspicuous observers with handheld GPS units were placed on various whale watching vessels from August to 

October of 2003. The distance and bearing from whales was determined by military 

grade binoculars, which allowed calculation of the geographical location. GIS 

software was then used to evaluate compliance to voluntary guidelines. The results 

indicated that whale watching vessels frequently did not comply with these 

guidelines. In addition, the evidence suggested that non-compliance increases as the 

distance from the whale increases. Essentially, vessels were accelerating at moderate 

distances from whales and underestimating the safe distance for various speeds. Noncompliance rates were 63% in Zone 1 (within 300’ radius of the whale), 92% in Zone 

2 (within 600’ radius) and 94% in Zone 3, (within 1⁄2 mile radius) (see below) (Wiley

et al. 2003b). 

5) Digital Tagging, 2004-Ongoing 

In 2004, SBNMS began a research program using digital recording tags attached to 

marine mammals to increase the understanding of whale behavior and activities. The 

tags have provided important information about whale distribution, geographic 

location and depth in the water column, which, in turn, has informed management 

decisions (SBNMS 2006b). 

Figure 6. Whale watch vessel guidelines. (Source: SBNMS)
7

6) Passive Acoustic Programs, 2004-Ongoing

Passive acoustic monitoring is also used to study the underwater “noise” of 

Stellwagen Bank. This includes gauging the impacts of anthropogenic noise, such as 

shipping, sonar and other long-term, low-level noise, in the area. Current research is a 

collaboration between SBNMS, the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 

Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology’s Bioacoustics Research Program (BRP) and 

Marine Acoustics, Inc. (a private marine technology company) and is funded by an 

award from the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) (SBNMS 

2008).

7) Recommended Shipping Routes, November 2006 

Working with a long time series dataset of visual sighting records for baleen whales in 

the SBNMS, Sanctuary researchers identified recommended transit routes for 

commercial shippers that avoided whale aggregation areas. Right whale distribution 

was shown to be correlated with currents that drive copepod distribution and 

abundance in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, and other large baleen whale 

distributions were shown to be related to bottom types preferred by small schooling 

fish upon which the whales prey (Leila Hatch, SBNMS, pers. comm.). 

With collaboration from NMFS and the USCG, these routes were further fine-tuned to 

ensure safe navigation and minimizing impacts on the industry. This step was the first 

move toward officially shifting the Traffic Separation Scheme leading into Boston

Harbor (see Management Action 9). 

8) Mariner Training, 2007-Ongoing 

Educational placards, posters and videos for mariners explain how they can avoid a 

collision with a whale. Recommended actions include:

• Maintain a vigilant watch.

• Maintain a distance of 100 yards or greater from marine mammals; 500 yards 

or greater for northern right whales.

• Reduce speed to 10 knots or less when one or more large cetaceans are 

observed.

• If animal is in vessel path or close proximity, reduce vessel speed and shift 

engine to neutral.

Also, SBNMS and the NMFS maintain two websites specifically focused on right 

whale protection, and the regular update of NOAA Navigational Charts includes 

recent Right Whale Advisory Zones (see Management Action 6 for more information 

on Advisory Zones) (NOAA 2009a, NOAA 2009b).

 
8

9) Shifting the Boston Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS), July 1, 2007

Utilizing scientific data on whale density distribution near the TSS, SBNMS

determined that rotating the scheme 12 degrees north and narrowing each lane by 

half of a nautical mile (NM) each would spatially locate the TSS in an area which 

would reduce the likelihood of ship strikes by 81% for all baleen whales and 58% for 

right whales in particular (SBNMS 2006a). The predicted increase in vessel transit 

time for a one-way trip is between 9 and 22 minutes.

Data used for implementation:

• Long-term distribution of baleen whale sightings. 

• Habitat characterization. 

• Whale feeding ecology. 

• Characterization of large commercial vessel use of SBNMS. 

• Requirements for proposal to IMO.

Policy process: The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, NOAA NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources, and NOAA’s General Counsel for International Law jointly 

proposed to the International Maritime Organization shifting the current TSS 12 

degrees to the north. IMO adopted this measure (Figure 7). The process took 

roughly 7 years to accomplish due to multiple stakeholder groups involved and the 

data requirement for an IMO proposal. 
9

Figure 7. Shift in the Traffic Separation Scheme to avoid high-density areas of baleen whales in the 

SBNMS and surrounding region. (Source: SBNMS)

Automatic Identification System (AIS) data shows high compliance by vessels using 

the new TSS. Transiting within the TSS is not required of vessels by either the USCG 

or IMO, though failure to follow TSS often carries liability should a collision or other 

incident occur. Although vessel and whale monitoring indicated that the shift in the 

TSS would reduce the risk of vessel and right whale collisions by 58%, it is difficult to 

link this action, in isolation, to population-level recovery (SBNMS 2006a). SBNMS is 

working with NOAA Office of Protected Resources, NOAA NMFS Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center, the Right Whale Consortium, and other groups to monitor 

changes in right whale populations resulting from the shift in the TSS. Thus far, 

acoustic monitoring data have supported the hypothesis that large baleen whales are 

present more often in areas outside the newly-shifted TSS than they are inside the 

newly-shifted TSS (Leila Hatch, SBNMS, pers. comm.).

10) Real-time Passive Acoustic Detections and Dynamic Speed Reduction by 

 Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers, 2007-Ongoing

An array of auto-detection buoys (Figure 8) has allowed NOAA to better detect right 

whale presence by digital and expert (human) recognition of their signature upcall. 

This research shows that in some conditions, this system can be more successful in 

detecting the presence of right whales than visual observations from a ship or aerial 
10

monitoring. Surface buoys are connected to hydrophones suspended in 60-120 feet

of water, which listen for the right whale upcall. When one of these calls is detected 

by software designed to recognize the frequency, timing and several other 

characteristics of the upcall, the data is transmitted to the Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology, where analysts in the Bioacoustics Research Program confirm or 

decline the detection as a true upcall. Analysts issue updates to Liquefied Natural 

Gas (LNG) carriers transiting through or near the array (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 

2009). The reports are also available through the Right Whale Sighting Advisory 

System, operated by NOAA. These reports are available online, are sent via email to 

relevant distribution lists and are included in marine safety bulletins, such as Notice 

to Mariners. 

Figure 8. The array of real-time acoustic detection buoys and location of LNG terminals. Right whale 

sighting data for areas of interest was taken from the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium Database.

(Source: SBNMS)

In order to obtain licensing for the building of two LNG offshore ports adjacent to the 

SBNMS’s western boundary, the licensing agencies — USCG and Maritime 

Administration (MARAD) — require LNG carriers Neptune, LLC and Excelerate, 

LLC to reduce their speeds in zones where a detection buoy has indicated right whale 

presence within the last 24 hours, as well as comply with Seasonal Management 

Areas (SMA) speed zones (which had not been implemented at the time, but were 
11

being considered—see below, Management Action 11). The carriers are required, as a 

condition of licensing, to maintain the buoy network for the life of their ports (25-40 

years).

To date, Automatic Identification System (AIS) data shows 100% compliance by 

LNG carriers to these conditions, although the small number of gas shipments to the 

single operational port (two total) and short period of time since implementation (16 

months) makes it difficult to assess whether the additional risk of ship strikes 

associated with port activities has been successfully eliminated or reduced by this 

mitigation system. Furthermore, constant monitoring of the auto-detection buoys is 

very costly. Since the building of both LNG ports, however, there have been no ship 

strikes by LNG carriers (Leila Hatch, SBNMS, pers. comm.). The buoy array is 

shown in Figure 8, with each buoy indicated by an orange dot. The spatial 

arrangement is related to the propagation of right whale upcalls in the acoustic 

environment of the Sanctuary and the shipping lanes. 

11) Seasonal and Dynamic Management Areas and Area to be Avoided, 2008-Ongoing

This regulation is the culmination of roughly 12 years of work, and much of the 

preceding data and management actions directly contributed or led to the 

establishment of Seasonal and Dynamic Management Areas, or SMAs and DMAs, by 

NOAA (Figure 9). NMFS has mandated that vessels exceeding 65 feet must, during 

certain times of the year, reduce their speed below 10 knots to reduce the risk of 

collisions with right whales. Vessels may also re-route to avoid the SMAs or DMAs. 

Ships are exempt from this regulation in times of bad weather and/or poor visibility, 

in order to maintain safe maneuvering speeds. SMAs and DMAs exist along the 

entire eastern seaboard, and not solely in the SBNMS (Federal Register 2008). Figure 

9 contains three SMAs – the Great South Channel, Cape Cod Bay, and Off Race 

Point Management Areas. All regions have different, seasonal intervals where speed 

reduction or avoidance is required. DMAs move with whale presence (approximately 

every two to six weeks) and remain voluntary speed reduction zones (Tim Cole, 

NMFS, pers. comm.).

SMA managers lower speeds in Cape Cod Bay from January 1 to May 15, Off Race 

Point from March 1 to April 30, and in the Great South Channel from April 1 to July 

31. Both the Cape Cod Bay and the Off Race Point SMAs overlap with the SBNMS; 

with 8.17% of the sanctuary contained in the Cape Cod Bay SMA and 55.02% 

contained in the Off Race Point SMA. Accordingly, 36.81% of the SBNMS, 

primarily the northwestern and northeastern corners and the western boundary of the 

sanctuary, is not included in speed regulations at any time of year. From March 1 to 

April 30 (two months) when both Cape Cod Bay and Off Race Point SMAs are 

operational, 63.19% of the sanctuary is included in mandated speed reductions. 

Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs) can also be implemented outside of SMA time 

periods and areas to protect visually-sighted groups of right whales. At this time, 

speed reductions are mandatory within SMAs and voluntary within DMAs (Leila 

Hatch, SBNMS, pers. comm.).
12

Figure 9. The distribution of SMAs and DMAs in the SBNMS region. SMAs and DMAs exist throughout 

the eastern seaboard. (Source: SBNMS)

Since the implementation of SMAs and DMAs in January 2009, preliminary AIS 

monitoring by both the NMFS and SBNMS indicate that only about 50% of vessels 

have been complying with the speed reductions below 10 knots in SMAs. Further 

assessments of voluntary compliance with DMAs are ongoing. Compliance studies 

will continue to be important in the first years of implementation of the rule to assess 

the needs for further outreach and enforcement actions to improve the effectiveness 

of the regulation (Leila Hatch, SBNMS, pers. comm.).

Most recently in June 2009, the NMFS implemented the Great South Channel Area 

to be Avoided (ATBA) which establishes the feeding areas where risk of ship strikes

is greatest. The NMFS requests that in the months from April through July, ships 

greater than 300 tons reroute to avoid travelling through the ATBA. It is predicted 

that implementation of the ATBA will reduce the relative risk of right whale ship 

strikes by 63% (NOAA 2009c). Compliance with this voluntary recommendation 

has yet to be determined.

Analysis: Potential Application to the Santa Barbara Channel Region

This section analyzes the extent to which the management actions on the east coast might 

be applied in the Santa Barbara Channel region. There are multiple lessons to be learned 

from the management strategies of SBNMS. Management actions that may be 

transferable to Santa Barbara Channel region include education and outreach programs, 

improved monitoring efforts and Seasonal Management Areas.

Similarities:

• High densities of commercial shipping traffic (both SBNMS and CINMS are 

located near or in international shipping lanes).
13

• Biodiversity hotspots (both SBNMS and CINMS are located in areas with 

endangered species and valued ecosystems).

• Threat of ship strikes to endangered species (e.g., right, fin and blue whales).

• Right whales and blue whales (as well as other large cetaceans present in Santa 

Barbara Channel) appear in the sanctuaries during specific, seasonal periods, 

which can be predicted with some degree of certainty.

• Large whale “songs,” such as those made by blue and humpback whales, can be 

accurately detected through acoustic monitoring, though several factors must be 

considered for detectability, including ambient noise levels, distance, species and 

male vs. female use of vocalizations.

• Ship advisories requesting a voluntary speed reduction had low compliance levels 

in both regions, and it was unclear whether ships were not receiving advisories or 

whether they were choosing not to respond

• Research regarding the presence of right whales through visual sightings has been 

conducted in SBNMS and along the Atlantic coast for approximately 15 years. 

Sanctuary Aerial Monitoring and Spatial Analysis Program (SAMSAP)

monitoring of CINMS and the Santa Barbara Channel region has been conducted 

for over 10 years.

Differences:

• SBNMS ship strike mitigation actions have a single-species focus. CINMS has 

adopted a multi-species approach due to the several ESA-listed large whales 

present in Santa Barbara Channel region.

• Spatial area of concern: SBNMS is 638 square nautical miles and roughly 

rectangular in shape, while CINMS is 1,110 square nautical miles, elongate and 

interspersed with islands.

• Vessel traffic density: SBNMS has 3,500 large (over 300 gross tons) commercial 

ships that transit through their waters, whereas CINMS has approximately 6,500 

large commercial ships transiting per year.

• There is a greater sense of urgency regarding the right whale population, due to 

their critically low population size. Estimated abundance of northern right whales 

is approximately 350 individuals, whereas the coastal California blue whale 

population numbers is approximately 1368 and the worldwide population is 

estimated to be over 10,000 animals (NMFS 2009).

• Ship strikes of right whales in the SBNMS have been observed over the course of 

many years. Ship strikes of large whales in the Santa Barbara Channel region 

appear to be a new phenomenon. It is unknown whether these differences are due

to varying abilities to identify ship strike incidence in species other than right 

whales, or if other factors, such as shipping density may be at play.

• Acoustic monitoring has been ongoing in SBNMS for approximately five years. 

On the west coast, acoustic research is just beginning.

• Eliminating mortalities from ship strikes has been identified as a necessary action 

to protect North Atlantic right whales from extinction and reverse the downward 

trend in their population. Ship strikes have been identified as a limiting factor to 

the species recovery in the blue whale recovery plan, however this stock and the 
14

population globally does not indicate a downward population trend like that of 

right whales. 

Opportunities and Recommendations

Several mitigation tools could possibly be tailored to the Santa Barbara Channel region, 

despite the differences between the two areas. Outreach and mariner training tools 

continue to be an effective means for raising awareness and disseminating prevention 

techniques on the east coast. The CINMS Sanctuary’s Education Team (SET) is 

currently taking action to develop mariner training products. These outreach products 

and strategies will target the commercial maritime industry and other ocean-users such as 

fisherman, whale watching vessels and cruise ships. 

The utilization of a passive acoustic monitoring array in the Santa Barbara Channel 

region may be prohibitively costly. The difference in size and shape of the two areas 

(SBNMS vs. SB Channel) may make the process more complicated to implement. 

However, alternative monitoring techniques may exist which can predict the presence of 

large whales in the SB Channel at a lower cost. 

Lack of funding is hampering the implementation of monitoring programs for marine 

mammal and commercial vessel research. Without reliable data, actions such as the 

Mandatory Ship Reporting System, the Right Whale Advisory System, shifting of the 

TSS and the Final Ruling establishing SMAs and DMAs would not have been possible. 

An understanding of whale distribution within the sanctuary and the shipping lanes and 

where ship strikes are occurring is vital to the development of a ship strike avoidance 

plan.

Specifically, this case study suggests the following actions:

• Monitor annual distribution of krill, which can be affected by oceanographic 

conditions and is critical to predicting large whale spatial distribution.

• Continue and improve monitoring efforts to track large whale distribution 

(spatially and temporally) within the sanctuary and in the vicinity of the shipping 

lanes (e.g., AIS data, acoustic monitoring, aerial monitoring, etc.).

• Improve understanding of natural history, biology and behavior of large whales 

present in Santa Barbara Channel region.

• Recruit local colleges/universities to tackle research projects related to large 

whales and impacts of shipping traffic in the Santa Barbara Channel and greater 

southern California.

• Seek out additional sources of funding to continue monitoring/research efforts in 

the Channel Islands.

The most recent regulatory action by NMFS—the creation of SMAs, DMAs, and ATBAs 

along the eastern seaboard—may have some transferability to the Santa Barbara Channel 

region and CINMS. Large whale species in the Santa Barbara Channel region have 

predictable temporal behaviors (i.e. large concentrations are typically in the channel from 

June through September). Additionally, SAMSAP data suggests that there may be spatial 
15

areas of greater whale aggregations. The suitability of an SMA, DMA, or ATBA, as well 

as a possible shift in the TSS, for the Santa Barbara Channel region needs thorough 

evaluation and consideration. Additionally, NOAA should continue to engage and 

involve the maritime industry in this process.

References

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2009. Right Whale Listening Network. 

http://www.listenforwhales.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=434

“Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Final Rule To Implement Speed Restrictions to Reduce 

the Threat of Ship Collisions With North Atlantic Right Whales.” Federal Register 73 

(10 Oct 2008): 60173-60191. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/fr/fr73-60173.pdf

Fujiwara, M. and H. Caswell. 2001. Demography of endangered northern right whale. 

Nature 414(6863):493-4.

Kraus, S.D., M.W. Brown, H. Caswell, C.W. Clark, M. Fujiwara, P.K. Hamilton, R.D.

Kenney, A.R. Knowlton, S. Landry, C.A. Mayo, W.A. McLellan, J. Michael, M.J. 

Moore, D.P. Nowacek, A. Pabst, A.J. Read, R.M. Rolland. 2005. North Atlantic right 

whales in crisis. Science 309:561-562.

Moller, J.C., D.N. Wiley, T.V.N. Cole, M. Niemeyer, A. Rosner. 2005. The behavior of 

commercial ships relative to right whale advisory zones in the Great South Channel 

during May of 2005. The 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 

Society for Marine Mammalogy; San Diego, CA; December 12-16.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005. Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic 

Right Whale Revision. Office of Protected Resources. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/whale_right_northatlantic.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessments 2008. NOAA Technical Memorandum- NMFS-SWFSC-434. National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://swfsc.noaa.gov/uploadedFiles/

Divisions/PRD/Programs/Coastal_Marine_Mammal/Pacific%20SARs%202008%20Final

(1).pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009a. Download the "A 

Prudent Mariner’s Guide to Right Whale Protection CD-ROM". NOAA Northeast 

Regional Office. http://www.nero.noaa.gov/shipstrike/doc/cd.html

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009b. Right Whales: 

Guidelines for Mariners. NOAA Northeast Regional Office. 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/shipstrike/doc/guidelines%20placard_high.pdf
16

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009c. Changes in Vessel 

Operations May Reduce Risk of Endangered Whale Shipstrikes. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/shipstrike/atba_tss_pressrelease.pdf

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS). 2006a. Shifting the Boston 

Traffic Separation Scheme. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

http://stellwagen.noaa.gov/science/tss.html 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS). 2006b. Acoustic Recording 

Tags. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

http://stellwagen.noaa.gov/science/DTAG.html

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS). 2008. Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

http://stellwagen.noaa.gov/science/passive_acoustics.html

United States Department of Transportation (US DOT). 1999. Northern Right Whale 

Mandatory Ship Reporting System. USCG Commandant Instruction 16214.3. United 

States Coast Guard.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/shipstrike/msr_uscg_comdtinst162143.pdf 

Wiley, D.N, J.C. Moller, K.A. Zilinskas, M.A. Thompson. 2003a. Quantifying the 

relative spatial and temporal risk of baleen whale entanglement within the Stellwagen 

Bank National Marine Sanctuary. 15th Biennial Meeting, The Society for Marine 

Mammalogy, Greensboro, North Carolina; December 14th-19th.

Wiley, D.N., J.C. Moller, K.A. Zilinskas. 2003b. The distribution and density of 

commercial fisheries and baleen whales within the Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary: July 2001-June 2002. MTS Journal 37(1):35-53.
17

Appendix I-A

The following timeline includes management actions carried out to protect 

endangered North Atlantic right whales from 1970 to the present. Management 

actions discussed in this paper are referred to as Management Action #.

1970: North Atlantic right whales listed as endangered under the Endangered Species 

Conservation Act (the precursor to the Endangered Species Act (ESA)).

1973: North Atlantic right whales listed as endangered on the ESA and as depleted on the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act.

1991: Work on protecting North Atlantic right whales began in 1991 following 

completion of the recovery plan. Implementation team assembled and began a series of 

actions including brainstorming ways to reduce ship strikes. In 1991 there was sufficient 

data to indicate that ship strikes were a threat to right whales. 

1993: Right whale sighting network began off southeast U.S. (breeding area).

1997: 

• Right whale sighting network began off the northeast U.S. coast (foraging area).

Whale sightings began to be broadcast through Notices to Mariners, Weather 

Service, Army Corps of Engineers, traffic controllers, web pages and through 

shipping agents, pilots and port authorities. (Management Action 1)

• NMFS began providing regular updates to the Coast Pilot about right whales, 

methods to avoid them, information about mandatory reporting requirement. 

NOAA charts are updated with right whale advisories. In 2005, this material 

added the ship speed advisory of 12 knots or less. 

• Right whale minimum approach regulation prohibited vessels, including aircraft, 

from all approaches within 500 yards to minimize disturbance. 

1999: 

• Mandatory ship reporting system jointly funded by USCG and NMFS, required 

ships 300 tons or more to report location, speed, and destination. Information was 

transmitted back to ship on the location of whales. Only required in the SE and 

NE during periods of whale aggregations. This action helped NMFS collect 

information on ship traffic volume, routes, and speed to assist in analysis of 

measures to reduce ship strikes. (Management Action 2) 

• Throughout the 1990s NMFS was conducting research on right whales, along 

with the Center for Coastal Studies, Stellwagen Bank NMS, and other 

organizations. 
18

• NMFS determined that the regulations were necessary because despite 

conservation efforts, right whale deaths from ship strikes over the ten year period 

continued. 

1999-2001: Ship strike working group was established and meetings held resulting in 

over 100 recommended measures, regulatory and non-regulatory, to reduce ship strike 

mortalities. Information used included distribution and occurrence of known ship strikes, 

data on right whale distribution, aggregations and migrations along coast, vessel traffic 

patterns, input from stakeholder groups. 

2001: Surveys of human use patterns and baleen whale sightings were conducted by 

SBNMS to determine how fishing activity impacts whales in the region. (Management 

Action 3)

2003: SBNMS conducts study of compliance by whale watching vessels to voluntary 

whale approach guidelines. (Management Action 4)

2004: 

• NMFS issues an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making to inform the public 

of the agency’s plan to issue regulations for fishing and shipping within areas 

occupied by right whales in order to reduce serious injuries and mortalities of 

whales. 

• SBNMS begins monitoring right whales through tagging and passive acoustic 

monitoring devices. (Management Action 5 & 6)

2006: NMFS issues a proposed rule that would require vessels (larger than 65 ft) to slow 

to 10 knots at certain times and in areas where interactions between right whales and 

ships are considered most likely, based upon the years of ship strike observations in the 

Atlantic. (Management Action 7) 

2007: 

• NMFS creates education/outreach products for mariner training, including “A 

Prudent Mariner’s Guide to Right Whale Protection.” (Management Action 8)

• A negotiation between NOAA, USCG and International Maritime Organization 

allows a shift of the Boston Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) in order to reduce 

whale-vessel interactions. (Management Action 9)

2007-2010: Passive acoustic monitoring of the areas in and around SBNMS allows more 

accurate detection of right whale presence. LNG carriers have agreed to reduce speed in 

zones where the surface buoy has indicated right whale presence within the last 24 hours. 

(Management Action 10)

2008: Final Rule is published (went into effect January 2009) with mandatory vessel 

speeds for specific times and areas of the southeast, central, and northeast U.S. 

(Management Action 11)
19

CASE STUDY II: Vessel Management Tools to Reduce the Risk of Humpback 

Whale Harassment, Injury and Mortality in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska

Figure 10. Glacier Bay National Park. (Source: GLBA)

Introduction

The humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) was classified as an endangered species in 

1973, the same year that Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Before being 

exploited by the commercial whaling industry, the Central North Pacific humpback population 

was estimated to number between 15,000 and 20,000 individuals. When commercial whaling 

ended in 1966, the population size was estimated at approximately 1,000 animals (Rice 1978). It 

has since risen to just under 20,000 in 2008 (Calambokidis et al. 2008). The humpback whale 

remains endangered under the ESA, yet has been down-listed to a species of “Least Concern” by 

the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (Reilly et al. 2008). Current human 

threats include vessel strikes, behavioral modification from vessel traffic, disturbance from 

anthropogenic underwater noise, habitat degradation, climate change, and fishing gear 

entanglement.

The Central North Pacific stock of humpback whales migrate between winter/spring mating and 

calving areas in the Hawaiian Islands and summer/fall feeding areas in northern British 

Columbia, Southeast Alaska, and Prince William Sound west to Unimak Pass (Angliss and

Outlaw 2005). The number of whales that made up the Southeast Alaska feeding aggregation in 

2000 was approximately 961 individuals, which was calculated using mark-recapture models 

(Straley et al. 2009). The most recent population estimate is approximately 3,000-5,000 as 
20

determined by the Structure of Populations, Levels of Abundance and Status of Humpback 

Whales in the North Pacific, or SPLASH program (Calambokidis et al. 2008). Of those 3,000-

5,000 humpback whales, approximately 150 are documented in both Glacier Bay and Icy Strait. 

Approximately 90% of the humpback whales (excluding calves) documented in Glacier Bay and 

Icy Strait in 2008 have been sighted there in previous years, indicating that many of the whales 

in Southeast Alaska show a high level of fidelity to relatively small summer feeding areas 

(Neilson and Gabriele 2008). 

Glacier Bay National Park (the “Park” or “GLBA”) (Figure 10) first observed the potential 

negative impacts of vessel traffic on humpback whales as early as 1978, when researcher Charles 

Jurasz documented that a significant proportion of the whales he had been monitoring abruptly 

left Glacier Bay in the middle of the summer. This decline coincided with a significant increase 

in cruise ship, recreational vessel and fishing traffic use in the region, and therefore vessel traffic 

was thought to be the primary deterrent to whale visitation (Jurasz and Jurasz 1979). Since that 

time, the National Park Service, with consultation from the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), has been working to manage vessel traffic in the Park. 

Currently, vessels are managed in the Park through a thorough permitting process, which only 

allows a maximum of two cruise ships in Glacier Bay proper each day during the summer and 

caps the numbers of permitted tour, charter, and private vessels to a total of 34 vessels per day. 

In addition, vessel operating restrictions such as speed limits and course restrictions are enforced 

in designated “whale waters” (any area of Glacier Bay with a high probability of whale presence, 

as determined by past patterns of occurrence, or recent sightings). Finally, throughout the Park, 

humpback whale approach regulations are intended to minimize whale disturbance and lower the 

risk of whale/vessel collisions (36 CFR Part 13). Regulatory actions have been fairly effective, 

though two fatal ship strikes have occurred, one in 2001 and one in 2004. Four non-lethal ship 

strikes occurred in Glacier Bay during this time period as well (Gabriele et al. 2007).

Regional Context

Glacier Bay National Park contains 940 square nautical miles of marine waters surrounded by 

tidewater glaciers and snow-capped peaks. The Park is located in Southeast Alaska, and although

it is near to Juneau, it has no road or year-round ferry access. Sea kayaks, cruise ships and 

private boats are the three main avenues for visitation, though cruise ships account for the 

majority of the tourism traffic. 

Humpback whales migrate seasonally to the Park to feed on small schooling fish such as sand 

lance, juvenile walleye pollock, capelin, and Pacific herring, which thrive in the cold, nutrientrich waters of the Park. Humpback whales were first reported as early as 1899 in the area and 

persisted until around 1976, when tourism began to flourish in the Park, increasing 66% in only 

four years (Catton 1995).

During the summers of 1978 and 1979, many of the humpback whales being monitored by Jurasz 

appeared to have abandoned the Park, causing great concern and controversy amongst

managers, commercial operators, and environmentalists in the community. The National Park 

Service increased their monitoring efforts and sought ways to limit vessel access. NMFS was 
21

contacted for a Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act to supply a Biological 

Opinion, which would justify temporary regulations limiting vessel entry and behavior. 

In 1979, interim whale waters speed limits and a 1⁄4 mile approach regulation were implemented. 

Temporary regulations to address vessel traffic went into effect in 1980. The cruise ship industry 

reacted strongly, sparking the beginning of several years of debate between the Park, the Reagan 

administration and the cruise ship industry (Catton 1995). In 1985, after the rendering of a 

second Biological Opinion by NMFS, whale waters restrictions, vessel operating procedures and 

the vessel quota system were all codified into the GLBA Special Regulations, CFR Title 36, 

Subpart N (GLBA 2003).

In May 1996, regulations were amended to establish a new vessel quota system, boat operating 

requirements and other risk prediction measures. The quota system allowed a 20% increase in 

the number of vessels. The regulations were supported by an Environmental Assessment (EA), a 

vessel management plan and a third NMFS Biological Opinion. These documents declared a 

“Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) with this increase in vessel quotas (NPS 2009). 

In 1997, the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) filed suit against the 

Park, demanding that a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared, rather than just 

an EA. After a lengthy battle, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the regulations 

did indeed violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). By 2001, traffic levels 

returned to pre-1996 levels. A full EIS was conducted in 2003 and a revised rule allowing an 

increase of 10% in cruise ship permit issuance (at the Superintendent’s discretion) was codified 

in Final Rule Vol. 71, No. 230. 

Management Actions

There are four management actions currently in use by GLBA to mitigate the effects of vessel 

traffic on humpback whales:

1) Research and Monitoring Programs

2) Glacier Bay Special Regulations:

Whale Waters Restrictions

Vessel Operating Procedures

Vessel Permitting System

A summary of each management action follows. The Key Contacts and Reference section 

provides links to additional information.

1. Research & Monitoring Programs, 1981-Ongoing

The National Park Service (NPS) allocated $275,000 for research in fiscal year 1981, and 

$350,000 the following year. These first research contracts were awarded through the NMFS 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory. They were completed in 1983, and marked the beginning 

of significant resources going into humpback whale monitoring and research. Park-sponsored 

research in the early 1980s focused on prey species abundance, underwater acoustic monitoring 

and whale/vessel interactions (Catton 1995). 
22

One of the most definitive studies showing humpback whale behavioral changes in relation to 

vessel proximity is Baker and Herman (1989). The study showed that “changes in the whales’ 

respiratory behavior and orientation were the most sensitive indicators of vessel disturbance. 

Whales responded to the close proximity of vessels by decreasing blow intervals, increasing dive 

times, and moving away from the vessels’ path [...] Overall, whales exhibit a considerable 

degree of short-term changes in their behavior in response to vessel traffic” (Baker and Herman 

1989). This research is still the guiding science behind current policy for whale/vessel 

interactions within the park.

More recent studies of interactions between humpback whales and whale watching boats have 

resulted in various conclusions. Some studies have shown correlations with short-term behavior 

changes in humpback whales when approached by boats (Corkeron 1995, Stamation et al. 2010, 

Scheidat et al. 2004, Watkins 1986), while others have not found impacts (Au and Green 2000). 

The only study of population level impacts (i.e. long-term) showed no negative impact (Weinrich 

and Corbelli, 2009)

GLBA began systematically (as opposed to opportunistically) monitoring humpback whales in 

Glacier Bay and the adjacent waters of Icy Strait in 1985 and the program has continued every 

year since then using the same basic methods. Photographs are taken of the underside of each 

whale’s flukes to identify and document individuals, as well as their residence times, spatial and 

temporal distribution, feeding behavior, and reproductive parameters. The data from this 

program are also used to inform whale waters vessel restriction decisions (see Management 

Action 2: Whale Waters Restrictions).
23

Figure 11. Study area in Glacier Bay and Icy Strait showing distribution of humpback whale pods in 2008. Each 

symbol represents a pod containing one or more whales. (Source: GLBA)

These data show that whales tend to stay within half a mile of shore in the Park and that many 

individuals return to the area over multiple seasons. Humpback whales are primarily 

concentrated in the lower and middle parts of Glacier Bay (Figure 11), which is also where 

vessel traffic heading up and down the bay is concentrated (by the natural bottleneck of the fjord 

system - see Figure 12). The whale visitation rates from 1985-2008 have varied, with an overall 

increasing trend. In Glacier Bay the initial count in 1985 was 15 individuals, and the maximum 

number of whales seen during 13 year time period was 111 in 2004. In Icy Strait the initial count 

in 1985 was 30 individuals, and the maximum number of whales was 136 in 2008 (Neilson and

Gabriele 2008). 
24

2. Glacier Bay Special Regulations 

a. Whale Waters Restrictions, 1979-Ongoing

Whale waters areas are subject to vessel speed and course restrictions for the purpose of reducing 

impacts on feeding humpback whales. These restrictions were created in 1979 and remain similar 

in structure to current Park management regulations, though the number of designated whale 

waters areas and the dates the restrictions are in effect have changed over time (GLBA 2003). 

Whale waters are any area of Glacier Bay with a high probability of whale presence, as 

determined by past patterns of occurrence, or recent sightings. Permanent whale waters go into 

effect every summer season (see Appendix B for exact dates) and are located in lower Glacier 

Bay (Figure 12). When travelling in whale waters, vessels must operate at speeds less than 20 

knots, and the Superintendent can reduce this maximum speed when deemed necessary. In 

addition to the permanent whale waters, the Superintendent can also establish temporary whale 

waters, in which vessels are required to slow-down to 10 knots or less, specifically where whales 

are sighted in high concentrations. Furthermore, vessels 18 feet (5.5 meters) or larger must 

maintain a distance of at least one nautical mile from shore in whale waters and in narrow areas 

must remain in mid-channel (36 CFR Subpart N, 13.1174). See Appendix B for the GLBA 

Special Regulations regarding Whale Waters Restrictions.

 b. Vessel Operating Restrictions, 1985-Ongoing

As specified in the Vessel Operating Restrictions of GLBA, Code of Federal Regulations Title 

36, Subpart N, 13.1170:

(a) Operating a vessel within 1⁄4 nautical mile of a [humpback] whale is prohibited, except for a 

commercial fishing vessel authorized under this subpart that is actively trolling, setting or pulling 

long lines, or setting or pulling crab pots.

(b) The operator of a vessel inadvertently positioned within 1⁄4 nautical mile of a [humpback] 

whale must immediately slow the vessel to ten knots or less, without shifting into reverse unless 

impact is likely. The operator must direct or maintain the vessel on as steady a course as possible 

away from the whale until at least 1⁄4 nautical mile of separation is established. Failure to take 

such action is prohibited.

(c) The operator of a vessel or seaplane positioned within 1⁄2 nautical mile of a [humpback] whale 

is prohibited from altering course or speed in a manner that results in decreasing the distance 

between the whale and the vessel or seaplane.
25

Figure 12. Map indicating location of whale waters. (Source: GLBA)
26

 c. Vessel Permitting System, 1981-Ongoing

A vessel permit system was first introduced to GLBA in 1981 by the Superintendent in response 

to increasing vessel traffic and demands for whale protection by the community and 

environmental groups. The permit system established a quota of no more than 89 cruise ships 

over the season (June, July, August) and a maximum of two cruise ships per day (Catton 1995). 

See Appendix C for the GLBA Special Regulations for vessel permitting.

Today, the Park’s permitting process is designed to protect not only marine mammals, but also to 

reduce air, water and noise pollution from cruise ships within GLBA boundaries. Cruise ships 

must have a Concession Contract, Permit, or Commercial Use Authorization (CUA) in order to 

enter GLBA (Federal Register 2006). A cruise ship, according to 36 CFR 13.1102, is any motor 

vessel of at least 100 tons gross (domestic) or 2,000 tons gross (International Convention 

System) certified to carry more than 12 passengers for hire. 

New vessel regulations were created in 2007 based on the 2003 EIS. The new regulations divide 

quota periods into two separate sessions (a prime and shoulder season) and increase the quota for 

both periods by 10%. Beginning in 2007, the prime season (June, July, August) quota increased 

from 139 to 153 entries or “use days.” Shoulder season entries are at 92 use days. “These 

seasonal quotas are reviewed annually by the Superintendent and may be reduced or increased 

(to a maximum of two per day, every day) as needed to protect park values and purposes” (36 

CFR 13.1160).

There are also daily limits to the amount of cruise ships allowed in Glacier Bay at any one time. 

Currently, no more than two cruise ships per day are permitted to be inside Glacier Bay proper 

(Federal Register 2006). In addition, the permit system requires that all vessel operators attend an 

orientation with park rangers that elaborates on the need to protect whales from disturbance 

(Janet Neilson, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, pers. comm.). All cruise ships applying 

for a permit must also address underwater noise reduction, as well as vessel emissions. See 

Appendix D for relevant sections of the Cruise Ship Concession Permit Application.

Analysis: Potential Application to the Santa Barbara Channel Region 

This section analyzes the extent to which the management actions in GLBA can be applied to the 

Santa Barbara Channel region. There are multiple lessons to be learned from the management 

strategies of GLBA. Management actions transferable to Santa Barbara Channel region include 

seasonal management areas (SMAs) and regulatory action controlling vessel behavior within 

Park boundaries.

Similarities:

• Biodiversity hotspots (both GLBA and CINMS are located in areas with endangered 

species and valued ecosystems).

• Humpback whales and blue whales (as well as other ESA-listed large cetaceans in Santa 

Barbara Channel region) appear in the regions during specific seasonal periods, which 

can be predicted with some degree of certainty.

• Thriving tourism and whale watching in both locations (though traditional whale 

watching is prohibited in GLBA by the Park’s strict humpback whale approach 

regulations).
27

• All federal agencies have a mandate to protect species and habitat within their boundaries 

under the ESA.

• Seasonal overlap in vessel traffic with whale feeding areas.

Differences:

• GLBA ship strike mitigation actions have a single-species focus. CINMS has adopted a 

multi-species approach due to the several ESA-listed large whales present in Santa 

Barbara Channel region.

• GLBA has jurisdiction over its marine waters, which allows the Park to control access 

and vessel behavior within the Park. NMFS has the authority to control access and vessel 

behavior within Santa Barbara Channel.

• GLBA is not subject to commercial shipping traffic.

• Spatial area of concern: Both locations are roughly equivalent areas (CINMS is 1,110 

nm2 and GLBA is 940 nm2

). However, access is extremely limited to GLBA, whereas the 

Santa Barbara Channel is the most heavily trafficked marine highway in the nation. 

• Humpback whales tend to stay within 1⁄2 NM of shore when within GLBA. Other ESAlisted large whales have varying behaviors that are species and season dependent.

Opportunities and Recommendations

Some mitigation tools utilized by GLBA could possibly be tailored to the Santa Barbara Channel 

region, despite the differences between the two locations. As in the Stellwagen Bank Case Study, 

spatial and temporal management of vessel behavior may be appropriate for Santa Barbara

Channel region. ESA-listed species present in the Santa Barbara Channel region do not have 

regular fine-scaled spatial predictability, though they do have predictable temporal behaviors 

(e.g., blue whales are in the SB Channel from May through October). 

Cruise ships are the greatest threat to whales in GLBA, whereas commercial shipping constitutes 

the bulk of the vessel traffic in the Santa Barbara Channel. The regulation of international 

commercial traffic in federal waters is more complex than the regulation of cruise ships within 

GLBA waters. Cruise ships entering GLBA must meet all the requirements of the permit 

applications, which are handled solely by the Park Service. Glacier Bay proper has no outlet and 

only one entry point, making for simplified regulation and enforcement. Also, the geography of 

the area excludes it from functioning as a transit route. It therefore has no Traffic Separation 

Scheme (TSS) in its waters. However, the responsive and flexible nature of the GLBA 

regulations could be applied to the CINMS and Santa Barbara Channel region. 

Based on this case study, the following actions and monitoring programs may advance the goals 

of the Ship Strike Subcommittee and CINMS: 

• Continue and improve on systematic monitoring efforts to track vessel and ESA-listed 

large whale distribution (spatially and temporally) within the sanctuary and in the vicinity 

of the shipping lanes (e.g., AIS data, acoustic monitoring, aerial monitoring, etc.).

• Seek out additional sources of funding to continue monitoring/research efforts in the 

Channel Islands.

• Create education and outreach products for the maritime industry, as well as involve 

industry in policy formation.
28

• Investigate regulatory actions such as the Whale Waters Restrictions for required 

seasonal slow-downs in specific areas of the Santa Barbara Channel.

References

Angliss, R.P. and R.B. Outlaw. 2005. Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae): Central 

North Pacific Stock. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum-AFSC-161. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2005.pdf

Au, W.W.L. and M. Green. 2000. Acoustic interaction of humpback whales and whalewatching boats. Marine Environmental Research 49(5):469-481. doi:10.1016/S0141-

1136(99)00086-0

Baker, S. and L. Herman. 1989. Behavioral responses of summering humpback whales to vessel 

traffic: experimental and opportunistic observations. Final Report to the National Park Service.

Alaska Regional Office. NPS-NR-TRS-89-01. National Park Service.

Calambokidis, J., E.A. Falcone, T.J. Quinn, A.M. Burdin, P.J. Clapham, J.K.B. Ford, C.M.

Gabriele, R. LeDuc, D. Mattila, L. Rojas-Bracho, J.M. Straley, B.L. Taylor, R.J. Urbán, D.

Weller, B.H. Witteveen, M. Yamaguchi, A. Bendlin, D. Camacho, K. Flynn, A. Havron, J.

Huggins, N. Maloney, J. Barlow, P.R. Wade. 2008. SPLASH: Structure of Populations, Levels 

of Abundance and Status of Humpback Whales in the North Pacific. Final report for Contract 

AB133F-03-RP-00078. Cascadia Research. 

http://www.cascadiaresearch.org/SPLASH/SPLASH-contract-Report-May08.pdf

Catton, T. 1995. Land reborn: a history of administration and visitor use in Glacier Bay National 

Park and Preserve. Seattle, WA, University of Washington. 517 pp.

Corkeron, P.J. 1995. Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hervey Bay, Queensland:

Behaviour and responses to whale watching vessels. Can. J. Zool. 73(7):1290-1299. 

doi:10.1139/z95-153

Gabriele, C.M., A.S. Jensen, J.L. Neilson, J.M. Straley. 2007. Preliminary Summary of 

Reported Whale-Vessel Collisions in Alaskan Waters: 1978-2006. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Office of Protected Resources. http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/

protectedresources/whales/publications/gabriele_etal_2007_akshipstrikes.pdf

Glacier Bay National Park (GLBA). 2003. Vessel Quotas and Operating Requirements, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. National Park Service. 

http://ns.www.nps.gov.edgesuite.net/featurecontent/glba/vqor/feis_2003.htm

“Glacier Bay National Park, Vessel Management Plan Regulations.” Federal Register. 71 (30 

Nov 2006): 69328-69358. http://www.nps.gov/glba/parkmgmt/upload/

Fed%20Register%20volume%2071%20-%2036%20CFR%20Part%2013%20New.pdf
29

Jurasz, C.M. and V.P. Jurasz. 1979. Feeding modes of the humpback whale, Megaptera 

novaeangliae, in Southeast Alaska. Scientific Report of the Whales Resource Institute 31: 69-83.

Neilson, J.L. and C.M. Gabriele. 2008. Results of Humpback Whale Monitoring in Glacier Bay 

and Adjacent Waters. Annual Progress Report. Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. Division 

of Resource Management. National Park Service.

http://www.nps.gov/glba/naturescience/upload/Neilson_Gabriele_Whalereport_2008.pdf

Reilly, S.B., J.L. Bannister, P.B. Best, M. Brown, R.L. Brownell Jr., D.S. Butterworth, P.J.

Clapham, J. Cooke, G.P. Donovan, J. Urbán, A.N. Zerbini. 2008. Megaptera novaeangliae, 

IUCN 2009 Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/13006/0

Rice, D.W. 1978. The humpback whale in the North Pacific: distribution, exploitation and 

numbers. In K.S. Norris and R.R. Reeves, eds. Report on a workshop in problems related to 

humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaii, p. 29-44. U.S. Department of 

Commerce. NTIS PB 280-794.

Scheidat, M., C. Castro, J. Gonzalez, R. Williams. 2004. Behavioural responses of

humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to whalewatching boats near Isla de la Plata, 

Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. J. Cet. Res. Mgmt 6(1):63-68. 

http://en.mardecetaceos.net/media_files/download/pageproofjcrm2004.pdf

Stamation, K.A., D.B. Croft, P.D. Shaughnessy, K.A. Waples, S.V. Briggs. 2010. Behavioral 

responses of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to whale-watching vessels on the 

southeastern coast of Australia. Marine Mammal Science 26(1):98-122. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-

7692.2009.00320.x

Straley, J.M., T.J. Quinn II, C.M. Gabriele. 2009. Assessment of mark-recapture models to 

estimate the abundance of a humpback whale feeding aggregation in Southeast Alaska. Journal 

of Biogeography 36:427-438.

Vessel Management. 2009. National Park Service, Glacier Bay National Park. 

http://www.nps.gov/glba/parkmgmt/vessel.htm

Watkins, W. 1986. Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Marine Mammal

Science 2(4):251-262. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.1986.tb00134.x

Weinrich M. and C. Corbelli. 2009. Does whale watching in Southern New England impact 

humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) calf production or calf survival? Biological 

Conservation 142(12):2931–2940. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.07.018
30

Appendix II-A: Timeline

1973:

• Congress passes Endangered Species Act.

• North Pacific humpback whale classified as endangered.

1979: 

• Whale Management Report (Charles and Virginia Jurasz and Gregory P. Streveler).

• Humpback Whales in Glacier Bay National Monument, Alaska: Report on the 

Interagency Review Meeting, Seattle, Washington, on 12-13 October, 1979 (Marine 

Mammal Commission).

• First biological opinion rendered by NMFS (Letter, Jerry T. Leitzell to John F. Chapman, 

December 3).

• First interim whale management plan created for GLBA. Included a permitting system 

and “whale waters” policies.

1983: Second biological opinion rendered by NMFS.

1985:

• GLBA Special Regulations Codified: 36 CFR 13.65.

• GLBA begins systematically monitoring humpback whale population.

1987: Humpback Whales in Glacier Bay, Alaska: A long-term history of habitat use (Gary M. 

Vequist and C. Scott Baker).

1996: GLBA Special Regulations Amended- Regulations passed to increase quota system based 

on an Environmental Assessment.

1997: NPCA files suit against NPS.

2001: Quota returns to 1996 levels.

2003: Full EIS conducted.

2004: GLBA Special Regulations most recent re-authorization.

2007: Revised rule enacted to increase cruise ship quota in GLBA by 10%.
31

Appendix II-B: Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart N § 13.1174 Whale water 

restrictions

(a) May 15 through September 30, the following waters are designated as whale waters:

(1) Waters north of a line drawn from Point Carolus to Point Gustavus; and south of a line drawn 

from the northernmost point of Lars Island across the northernmost point of Strawberry Island to 

the point where it intersects the line that defines the Beardslee Island group, as described in 

§13.1180(a)(4), and following that line south and west to the Bartlett Cove shore (so as to 

include the Beardslee Entrance and Bartlett Cove); and

(2) Other waters designated by the superintendent as temporary whale waters.

(b) The public will be notified of other waters designated as temporary whale waters in 

accordance with §1.7 of this chapter.

(c) Violation of a whale water restriction is prohibited. The following restrictions apply in whale 

waters unless otherwise provided by the superintendent in the designation:

(1) Operating a motor vessel less than one nautical mile from shore (where the width of the water 

permits), or in narrower areas navigating outside of mid-channel is prohibited. This restriction 

does not apply to motor vessels less than 18 feet in length, or vessels actively engaged in fishing 

activities or operating solely under sail.

(2) Unless other restrictions apply, operators may perpendicularly approach or land on shore (i.e. 

, by the most direct line to shore) through designated whale waters, but they may not transit 

along the shore.

(3) Operators must follow motor vessel speed limits in §13.1176(a).

§ 13.1176 Speed restrictions.

(a) From May 15 through September 30, in designated whale waters the following are 

prohibited:

(1) Operating a motor vessel at more than 20 knots speed through the water; or

(2) Operating a motor vessel at more than 13 knots speed through the water, when the 

superintendent has designated a maximum speed of 13 knots, or at a maximum speed designated 

by the superintendent based on NOAA guidelines or new scientific information.

(b) From July 1 through August 31, operating a motor vessel on Johns Hopkins Inlet waters 

south of 58°54.2' N latitude (a line running due west from Jaw Point) at more than 10 knots 

speed through the water is prohibited.
32

Appendix II-C

§ 13.1150 Is a permit required for a vessel in Glacier Bay?

A permit from the superintendent is required for motor vessels in accordance with this subpart 

and applicable regulations in this part.

§ 13.1152 Private vessel permits and conditions

In Glacier Bay from June 1 through August 31 an individual must have a permit from the NPS 

issued for a specific vessel for a specific period of time.

(a) From June 1 through August 31, when the operator of a private vessel enters Glacier Bay for 

the first time that calendar year, the operator must go directly to the Bartlett Cove Ranger Station 

for orientation.

(b) From May 1 through September 30, the operator of a private vessel must immediately notify 

the Bartlett Cove Ranger Station of the vessel's entry to or exit from Glacier Bay.

§ 13.1154 Commercial vessel permits and conditions

Each commercially operated motor vessel must have a permit to operate in Glacier Bay National 

Park and Preserve in accordance with §5.3 of this chapter.

(a) A cruise ship must have a concession contract to operate in Glacier Bay.

(b) A tour vessel, charter vessel, and passenger ferry must have a commercial authorization to 

operate in Glacier Bay.

(c) The operator of a cruise ship, tour vessel, charter vessel, and passenger ferry must notify the 

Bartlett Cove Ranger Station of the vessel's entry into Glacier Bay within 48 hours in advance of 

entering Glacier Bay or immediately upon entry.

(d) Cruise ships and tour vessels are prohibited from operating in the Beardslee Entrance and at 

the entrance to Adams Inlet, as defined as waters within the Wilderness boundaries in those 

respective areas.

(e) Off-boat activity from a cruise ship, tour vessel, or charter vessel is prohibited, unless 

authorized by the superintendent.

(f) Off-boat activity from a passenger ferry is prohibited, except for passenger access at the 

Bartlett Cove docks.

(g) A passenger ferry must travel a direct course between the mouth of Glacier Bay and Bartlett 

Cove, except when the vessel is granted safe harbor by the Superintendent as stated in 

§13.1156(e).

§ 13.1156 Exceptions from vessel permit requirement

A vessel permit is not required in Glacier Bay when:

(a) A motor vessel is engaged in official, non-commercial business of the State or Federal 

Government.

(b) A motor vessel is operating in Bartlett Cove waters east of a line extending from the long axis 

of the fuel dock to the wilderness boundary of Lester Island.
33

(c) One motor vessel is launched from a motor vessel that has a permit and only while the 

authorized motor vessel remains at anchor or operated in accordance with a concession 

agreement from a permitted motor vessel while that vessel is not underway.

(d) A commercial fishing vessel authorized under this subpart is actually engaged in commercial 

fishing; or

(e) A vessel is granted safe harbor by the superintendent.

§ 13.1158 Prohibitions.

(a) Operating a motor vessel in Glacier Bay without a required permit is prohibited.

(b) Violating a term or condition of a permit or an operating condition or restriction issued or 

imposed pursuant to this chapter is prohibited.

(c) The superintendent may immediately suspend or revoke a permit or deny a future permit 

request as a result of a violation of a provision of this chapter.

§ 13.1160 Restrictions on vessel entry.

The superintendent will allow vessel entry in accordance with the following table:

Table 1. Vessel entry restrictions to Glacier Bay National Park

Type of vessel

Daily vessel

quotas 

(DVQ)

Period covered by 

DVQ

Seasonal 

vessel

quota (SVQ)

Period covered by 

SVQ

Cruise ship 2 Year-round Up to 184 June 1–August 31.

 Up to 122 May and September.

Tour vessel 3 Year-round N/A N/A.

Charter vessel 6 Jun 1–Aug 31 N/A N/A.

Private vessel 25 Jun 1–Aug 31 N/A N/A.

Passenger 

ferry

1 Year-round N/A N/A.

Note: Cruise ships and tour vessels are limited to the daily vessel quota year-round. Charter and 

private vessels are not subject to quotas from September through May.

(a) The Director will reduce the vessel quota levels for any or all categories of vessels in this 

subpart as required to protect the values and purposes of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. 

The director will make these reductions based on the controlling biological opinion issued by the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, applicable authority, and any other relevant information.
34

(b) The superintendent will annually determine the cruise ship quota. This determination will be 

based upon applicable authorities, appropriate public comment and available scientific and other 

information. The number will be subject to the maximum daily vessel quota of two vessels.

(c) From June 1 through August 31, the superintendent will designate one private vessel permit 

from the daily quota of 25 as a transit permit. This transit permit may be used only to directly 

exit Glacier Bay from Bartlett Cove and return directly to Bartlett Cove. The superintendent may 

establish application procedures and operating conditions. Violating operating conditions is 

prohibited. This paragraph will cease to have effect on November 30, 2011.

(d) Nothing in this section will be construed to prevent the superintendent from taking any action 

at any time to protect the values and purposes of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.
35

Appendix II-D: GLBA Cruise Ship Concession Permit - Environmental Objectives

Note to Officer: This selection factor is concerned with environmental objectives that relate 

specifically to protection of particular resources of the park area. Environmental objectives that 

promote the natural environment in general (waste reduction, fuel efficiency, recycling, etc.) are 

addressed under secondary selection factor 1. Please avoid overlap between the response here 

and the response to secondary selection factor 1.

A primary objective of the National Park Service is the protection of park resources. Some 

potential environmental issues related to cruise ship services include:

• Air quality impacts due to stack emissions;

• Water quality issues due to discharge of waste, toxicity of anti-fouling systems and petroleum 

spills; and

• Impacts due to ship generated noise.

Subfactor 1a. Air Quality

1) Describe the equipment and technology for controlling or minimizing air pollution emissions 

to be utilized by each vessel you propose to operate in the park.

2) Describe operational methods which would be employed to minimize air pollution emissions 

for each vessel you propose to operate in the park including engine, generator, and incinerator 

operations.

3) Describe the opacity monitoring mechanisms in place for each vessel you propose to operate 

in the park. Please specify how opacity data is recorded, if an opacity alarm is in place, the alarm 

level and the standard operating procedures for responding to the alarm.

4) Will you provide the park with the opacity monitoring data? If so, describe the format you will 

use (electronic, paper printouts, etc.) and how long the information will be available. A better 

proposal may commit to retaining this information for at least a year and making it available to 

the NPS on request...

5) Provide the information indicated on the following Propulsion Engine Data form for each 

propulsion engine you propose for service in Glacier Bay. For propulsion systems based on 

technology other than compression ignition diesel engines (e.g. gas turbine, steam, solar, sail, 

etc.), specify the specific emissions standards (if any) met by the alternative propulsion system or 

provide certified emissions levels for (1) THC+NOX g/kW-hr.; (2) CO g/kW-hr.; and (3) PM 

g/kW-hr. if available. A better proposal may utilize propulsion systems which minimize 

emissions of these and other pollutants. 
36

For diesel engine, please refer to 40 CFR Part 94 Sec. 8.

Ship Name:

Engine Make: 

Engine Model:

No. of Engines Installed:

EPA Engine Category:

EPA Emissions Rating:

Engine Power Rating:

Glacier Bay Usage (%):

Subfactor 1b. Water Quality

1) Will operations involve any discharge into the waters of Glacier Bay National Park (not just 

the bay proper), including, but not limited to, wastewater, treated and untreated sewage, grey 

water, ballast water, bilge water, hazardous and solid wastes? If so, describe the nature of the 

discharge(s) in detail including location(s), composition, toxicity, quantity, rate and frequency. A 

better proposal may commit to eliminating vessel discharge in all Glacier Bay National Park 

waters.

2) Will your operations involve any discharge into the waters adjacent to Glacier Bay National 

Park from Cross Sound to the entrance to Glacier Bay, including, but not limited to, wastewater, 

treated and untreated sewage, grey water, ballast water, bilge water, hazardous wastes and solid 

wastes? If so, describe the nature of the discharge(s) in detail including location(s), composition, 

toxicity, quantity, rate and frequency. A better proposal may commit to eliminating vessel 

discharge in the adjacent waters described above.

3) If the proposed operation involves any wastewater discharge into park waters, identify any 

wastewater treatment you will use which exceeds state or federal requirements. A better proposal 

(though likely not better than a commitment to eliminate discharge) may employ an advanced 

wastewater treatment system designed to remove the highest proportion of pathogens, pollutants, 

metals and organics.

4) Identify the hull anti-fouling system(s) for each of the vessels you propose for use. You must 

disclose whether you have applied organotin compounds to the hull of any of the vessels 

proposed for operation in Glacier Bay and, if so, whether you have applied a barrier coat (please 

describe the barrier coat used).

5) Describe on-board hazardous material spill response capability for each vessel proposed to 

operate in the park. Describe the type and size (length/height) of spill retention boom, quantity of 

absorbent material, etc. A better proposal may include appropriate training and supplies to enable 

ship staff to quickly and capably respond to small spills and to facilitate first response in the 

event of a major spill.
37

Subfactor 1c. Underwater Noise

1) Describe the equipment, technology or other physical plant features designed to minimize 

underwater noise for each vessel you propose to operate in the park.

2) Describe operational methods you will employ to minimize underwater noise for each vessel 

you propose to operate in the park.

3) Will you complete underwater “sound signatures” for any of the ships proposed to operate in 

Glacier Bay within two years of contract award and provide the NPS with a copy of any reports 

within sixty days of report completion? If so, provide details including ships to be tested, type of 

testing, specific ships systems to be tested and the testing entity, facility and location. A better 

proposal may include a comprehensive testing program for all ships at an established facility.
38

CASE STUDY III: Protecting Humpback Whales by Reducing the Risk of 

Mortality by Ship Strike in Hawaiian Island Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary

Figure 13. Map of Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. (Source: 

www.coralreefnetwork.com)

Introduction

The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HIHWNMS) was 

established in 1992 with the express purpose of protecting humpback whales and their habitat. 

The HIHWNMS encompasses both federal and state waters and extends from the shorelines of 

Hawai’i to the 100-fathom isobath, and is composed of five separate marine protected areas 

(MPAs). The largest contiguous portion of the sanctuary, encompassing about half of the total 

sanctuary area, is delineated around Maui, Moloka'i, and Lāna'i. (HIHWNMS 2008a) (Figure 

13).

The HIHWNMS has been aware of the threat posed by vessel traffic to humpbacks since the 

creation of the marine protected area. Current protection efforts are primarily upheld through 

state laws and mariner education programs. Additionally, the sanctuary held a Vessel Collision 

Avoidance Workshop in 2003 in order to discuss the issue and make recommendations for 

possible policy action.

In the early 2000s, plans for a Hawai’i Superferry (Figure 14) were initiated. The Superferry was 

planned to have two vessels operating during the day and night with routes among the islands 

including occasional travel through the sanctuary. In August 2007, the Superferry began 

operation but there were numerous legal challenges. Ultimately (after periods of on-again/off-
39

again operation) a Hawai’i State Supreme Court’s decision pushed the Superferry to permanently 

discontinue operations in Hawai’i. 

Figure 14. Photograph of the Hawai’i Superferry. (Source: www.gcaptain.com)

There are significant differences between the events surrounding the Hawai’i Superferry and the 

issue of ship strikes in the Santa Barbara Channel, but both do include collaboration between 

NMFS and the sanctuary to help protect impacted marine species. 

Regional Context

Every winter, as many as 10,000 humpback whales may inhabit the waters of the sanctuary

(Calambokidis et al. 2008). Humpbacks come to the warm, shallow waters of Hawai’i to mate, 

calve and raise their young. Mothers and calves are generally found in the shallow waters around 

the islands (waters shallower than 100 fathoms) although whales can be found anywhere around 

the islands and have been seen in the fall and into the spring. It is thought that the high visibility, 

calm water and lack of predators in Hawai’i make it an attractive nursery ground for humpbacks. 

The species is famous for their frequent vocalizations, and much acoustic work has been 

conducted, both in Hawai’i and other regions around the world (HIHWNMS 2008b).

Each year tons of marine debris drifts through waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands and 

washes onto its shorelines, posing a threat to humpback whales. Therefore, entanglement in 

debris (including but not limited to, ropes, cargo nets and derelict fishing gear) is a significant 

threat to humpback whales that can result in injury or mortality. There is also a thriving whale 

watching industry in the region, with the increasing number of vessels, as well as the proximity 

of vessels to humpback whales continuing to be of concern to sanctuary managers. Between 

1975 and 2007, NOAA confirmed 38 vessel strikes on humpback whales, with seven ship strikes

in 2006, followed by six in 2007 (HIHWNMS 2008c). Tour vessels, including whale watching 

operations, comprise over half of reported collisions between whale and vessel (Lyman 2010). 

Beginning in the early 2000s, there has been much controversy and concern over high speed 

vessels, such as the Hawai’i Superferry. The potential for high speed vessels in Hawaiian waters 

continues to be a concern. The Superferry transited at speeds of up to 35 knots and often passed 

through sanctuary waters when weather conditions were poor.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibit 

approaching humpbacks within 100 yards or flying less than 1,000 feet over the whales to avoid 

takes or harassment of whales. These laws apply both within and outside of sanctuary waters. 
40

Management Actions 

1) Monitoring Programs, Ongoing

Large scale studies of humpback whale population dynamics were conducted from 2002-

2006, through the SPLASH (Structures of Populations, Levels of Abundance and Status of 

Humpback Whales) project. The primary objectives of the SPLASH project are to improve 

the description of the stock structure of humpback whales in the North Pacific, to understand 

the abundance, trends, and movements of these stocks, and to assess the human impact on 

them (Cascadia Research 2009). Sanctuary scale impacts were not an aspect of SPLASH.

Passive acoustic monitoring has also begun in order to better determine the response 

abundance of humpback whales in the Sanctuary.

2) Mariner Training, Ongoing

The sanctuary has developed guidelines for vessel behavior in areas where humpback whales 

are present. The guidelines integrate both recommendations and federal requirements for 

whale viewing. They include safe speed, minimum distance specifications, keeping a sharp 

lookout, warning other vessels of whale presence, staying at the helm at all times and other 

prudent mariner behaviors (HIHWNMS 2008d). 

3) Regulations - Federal and State, Ongoing

Hawai’i Wildlife Law

State Law prohibits the possession, injury or killing of any indigenous or endangered animals 

in Hawai’i. These state laws extend endangered species protections to native species within 

the state (HIHWNMS 2008e).

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Act

The HIHWNMS Act prohibits vessels from pursuing or approaching humpback whales 

closer than 100 yards (HIHWNMS 2008e).

4) Vessel Collision Avoidance Workshop, Sept. 3-5, 2003

In 2003 the HIHWNMS Advisory Council Vessel Strike Working Group hosted a workshop 

of scientists, managers, stakeholders and maritime industries to assess ship strike risks to 

whales in Hawai’i and to identify possible actions to reduce the occurrence of vessel/whale 

collisions in Hawaiian waters. The workshop included summaries of recent research and a 

series of breakout groups who analyzed management issues particular to three vessel classes. 

Vessel categories were: 

• Large Commercial Vessels

• Commercial passenger and support vessels operating on a daily basis in nearshore 

waters of Hawaii

• Private recreation vessels

The result of the workshop was to create a list of research questions and needs, as well as to 

align participants’ understanding of the issues and possible next steps. For a summary of the 
41

workshop proceedings, please see: 

http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/documents/pdfs_workshops/vessel_whale_report.pdf

5) Whale Avoidance Policy: Superferry

Prior to beginning operations in Hawai’i, the Superferry developed a whale avoidance policy 

with measures to minimize the likelihood of hitting and injuring or killing humpback whales 

(Hawai’i Superferry 2005). Key vessel actions in the plan included:

Avoidance

• Avoiding whales and never approaching them.

• Avoid traveling in waters less than 100 fathoms.

• When within sanctuary waters or waters less than 100 fathoms, operate at a maximum 

of 25 knots.

• Specific guidance on maneuvers to track and avoid whales. 

• Ships were routed so that they would generally not travel through the sanctuary in 

order to limit interactions between humpbacks and the Superferry. 

Observers

• Two active officers and an additional two dedicated look-outs should be stationed on 

the bridge to watch for whales; these look-outs to be trained in whale sightings, 

behavior, and detection.

• Recommendations were provided for observation equipment.

• These included forward-looking collision avoidance sonar (although systems are not 

currently commercially available). X-band radar also recommended along with 

specific equipment for night time operations. 

Log keeping and reporting procedures

• Specific requirements for logging avoidance maneuvers, approaches closer than 100 

yards, or any whale strikes. 

In 2005, the HIHWNMS Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) voted to endorse the whale 

avoidance policy, although sanctuary staff did not provide their endorsement. 

While the whale avoidance policy was considered a good start, NMFS did not consider it 

sufficient to avoid take of ESA listed humpback whales during Superferry operations. Take 

under the ESA is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS and HIHWNMS staff began 

collaborating on advice to the Superferry on ways to mitigate impacts to humpbacks. 

Legal Issues

In 2005, NMFS recommended that the Superferry pursue an incidental take permit (ITP), issued 

under Section 10 of the ESA, to permit the incidental take of humpbacks. A Section 10 permit is 
42

required of non-federal actions that take ESA-listed species. The ITP process is complex, 

requiring a habitat conservation plan, National Environmental Procedures Act (NEPA) analysis, 

and a Section 7 consultation (on the issuance of the federal ITP). This process generally takes 

over a year and may take numerous years to complete.

On October 31, 2007, the Hawai’i State legislature passed a bill allowing the Superferry to 

continue operations if they applied for an ITP and requested NOAA observers on the vessel 

when it traveled through HIHWNMS waters. The Governor of Hawai’i issued an Executive 

Order allowing the ferry to continue to operate while the analyses for the ITP were being 

completed. Following passage of a State bill and Executive Order, the Superferry resumed 

operations in late 2007 and 2008 while analyses of its environmental impacts were written. 

In March 2009, the Hawai’i State Supreme Court ruled that the law allowing operations of the 

Superferry was unconstitutional due in part to its limited application (applied to only one vessel) 

and that operations must be suspended until all environmental analyses and permits were issued. 

In March 2009, the Superferry ceased operations in Hawai’i following the ruling. 

During limited operations in 2007 and through 2008, there were no whale strikes by the 

Superferry, although there were some “near misses” during the 2008 humpback season. 

Analysis: Potential Application to the Santa Barbara Channel Region 

This section analyzes the extent to which the management actions on Hawai’i might be applied 

in the Santa Barbara Channel region. There are multiple lessons to be learned from the 

management strategies of HIHWNMS. Management actions that may be transferable to Santa 

Barbara Channel region include: education and outreach programs, improved monitoring efforts 

and Seasonal Management Areas.

Similarities

• Transits by vessels include sanctuary waters, but much travel is done outside the 

Sanctuary. 

• Humpback whales and blue whales are listed as endangered on the ESA and are thus 

protected under the ESA and MMPA from take and harassment. 

Differences

• More than half of ship strikes of whales in HIHWNMS are from tour vessels, including 

whale watching operations (Lyman 2010), while in CINMS, they appear to be from 

commercial shipping vessels.

• The type, speed, and operation of the Superferry is very different from vessels in the 

Santa Barbara Channel region.

• The vessel traffic in the Santa Barbara Channel (SBC) is much more complex than in

Hawai’i. The presence of a shipping traffic, commercial fishing, as well as recreation

leads to different challenges related to communication, outreach and education, voluntary 

compliance with recommendations, enforcement, among other issues. 

• There is a much smaller economic impact of regulating one Superferry than the impacts 

to the shipping industry and other vessels using the SBC.
43

• The distribution of humpback whales is well known and predictable in time and space. 

Blue whale distribution in the summer is largely determined by prey distribution and 

abundance and is difficult to predict. 

• It is much easier to model the impact of the Superferry on humpback whales than the 

impact of vessels on blue whales and other species in the SBC. The Superferry traveled 

along set routes and schedules and there was only one vessel. Also, the distribution and 

behavior of humpback whales is well known due to long-term studies. The shipping and 

other vessel traffic in the SBC is much more complex and there are no long-term studies 

of blue whale distribution and behavior. As noted above, blues and other whales are 

distributed based upon prey availability and this can change annually or inter-annually. 

• Humpback whales are calving and mating in Hawai’i, blues and other ESA-listed whales 

are generally feeding in water off California in the summer. Calves are generally more 

vulnerable to ship strikes due to their need to breathe more often than adults and also 

because they are more difficult to sight (a newborn humpback may be 12 feet long versus 

an adult blue whale averaging 75 feet long). 

In conclusion, the events of the Hawai’i Superferry’s operation were largely driven by legal 

issues, the State legislature and the court, which is not the case in Santa Barbara Channel. While 

there are substantial differences, both situations, Hawai’i and SBC, highlight the need for 

collaboration between NMFS and NOS and the need to look broadly at the issues. 

References

Calambokidis, J., E.A. Falcone, T.J. Quinn, A.M. Burdin, P.J. Clapham, J.K.B. Ford, C.M. 

Gabriele, R. LeDuc, D. Mattila, L. Rojas-Bracho, J.M. Straley, B.L. Taylor, J. Urbán, D. Weller, 

B.H. Witteveen, M. Yamaguchi, A. Bendlin, D. Camacho, K. Flynn, A. Havron, J. Huggins, N. 

Maloney. 2008. SPLASH: structure of populations, levels of abundance and status of humpback 

whales in the North Pacific. Final report for Contract AB133F-03-RP-00078. Prepared by 

Cascadia Research for U.S. Department of Commerce, Western Administrative Center, Seattle, 

WA. 57pp. Electronic document available from: 

http://www.cascadiaresearch.org/SPLASH/splash.htm

Cascadia Research. 2009. Structure of Populations, Levels of Abundance, and Status of 

Humpbacks (SPLASH). http://www.cascadiaresearch.org/SPLASH/splash.htm

Hawai’i Superferry. 2005. Whale Avoidance Policy & Procedures. 

http://www.hawaiisuperferry.com/images/pdfs/HSFWhaleAvoidancePolicy.pdf

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HIHWNMS). 2008a. Overview. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/about/overview.html#sanctuary

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HIHWNMS). 2008b. 

Humpback Whales. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/explore/humpback_whale.html
44

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HIHWNMS). 2008c. Vessel 

Collisions. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/res/vessel_collisions.html

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HIHWNMS). 2008d. 

Guidelines and Regulations for Whale Protection and Human Safety. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 

http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/explore/whale_guidelines.html

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HIHWNMS). 2008e. 

Guidelines and Legislation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/res/guidelines_laws.html

Lyman, Ed. Personal Communication. 5 January 2010. 
45

Appendix III-A: Timeline

1992: HIHWNMS created. 

2003: HIHWNMS SAC holds Vessel Collision Avoidance Workshop to address ship strikes 

and identify possible actions to reduce ship strike occurrences

2005: 

• HIHWNMS SAC endorses Superferry whale avoidance policy, Sanctuary staff did not 

endorse the policy.

• NMFS recommends that Superferry apply for incidental take permit (ITP).

2007: 

• Superferry commences operations.

• Hawai’i State legislature passes bill allowing Superferry to continue if they applied for an 

ITP and requested NOAA observers on the vessel when it traveled through HIHWNMS 

waters. 

2009: 

• Hawai’i State Supreme Court ruled that the law allowing operations of the Superferry 

was unconstitutional.

• Superferry ceases operations in Hawai’i.
46

CASE STUDY IV: Smog, Soot, and Cetaceans? An examination of vessel speed 

reduction efforts at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach

Figure 15. Ocean going vessel transiting the Santa Barbara Channel. (Source: Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control 

District)

Introduction 

The three previous case studies examined scenarios in which agencies and stakeholders worked 

to control shipping activities expressly for the purpose of protecting whales from collisions, 

known as ship strikes. This is the fourth in a series of case studies which describes previous and 

currently utilized strategies, and then analyzes these methods in terms of applicability for the 

Santa Barbara Channel region and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary region. 

In contrast, this study examines ongoing efforts by the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach 

(the entities comprising the San Pedro Bay Ports (Ports)), in collaboration with the Marine 

Exchange of Southern California, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB), the South Coast Air Quality Management District 

(AQMD), and shipping industry representatives to reduce air pollution (Figure 15) within the 

South Coast Air Basin, a multicounty area managed by the South Coast AQMD (Figure 16). 

Two related efforts comprise this report’s focus, namely specific components of the San Pedro 

Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) from 2006, and the Port of Long Beach’s dockage 

incentive program associated with the Ports’ voluntary Vessel Speed Reduction (VSR) program, 

initiated in 2001. 
47

Regional Context

According to the CAAP, the South Coast Air Basin “has some of the worst air quality in the 

nation, which represents a major health concern for its residents” (Port of Los Angeles & Port of 

Long Beach 2006). Because the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the array of activities 

centered around them (e.g., shipping, trucking, rail lines, and other diesel-burning operations) are 

major sources of toxic air pollution within the Basin, stakeholder agencies developed the 2006 

CAAP to address and reduce pollution in a comprehensive and systematic way.

The CAAP and voluntary VSR are relevant to the issue of reducing the risk of ship strikes in the 

Santa Barbara Channel because in order to reduce pollution, the Ports have effected measurable 

slowing of vessel traffic in 20 and 40 nautical mile (nm) zones around the Ports (centered at 

Point Fermin, to the immediate southwest of the actual Ports complex), and global data indicates 

a clear nexus between the speed of commercial ship traffic and the risk of harmful and fatal 

collisions with whales.

Figure 16. Delineation of Southern California air basins and the jurisdiction of South Coast AQMD. (Source: South 

Coast Air Quality Management District.)

According to investigators of ship strike statistics, “[t]he correlation between today’s fast ships 

and the increase of whale ship-strike incidences has been firmly established... fatal ship strikes 

were rare before the 1800s, were infrequent until 1950, and have since increased steadily with 

the number of ships and the greater speeds of ship travel” (Douglas et al. 2008). More 

specifically, “most lethal or severe injuries are caused by ships 80 m or longer; whales usually 

are not seen beforehand or are seen too late to be avoided; and most lethal or severe injuries 

involve ships traveling 14 knots or faster. In areas where special caution is needed to avoid such 

events, measures to reduce the vessel speed below 14 knot may be beneficial” (Laist et al. 2001). 
48

Figure 17. Excerpted map depicting the three traffic lands (Northern, Southern, and Western), the Participation 

Zone/40 nm Arc, the 20 nm Arc, and the Precautionary Zone. As also stated by the Ports, the Participation Zone, for 

the purposes of both the Vessel Speed Reduction program and the Low Sulfur Main Engine Fuel Incentive Program 

is defined as the region from berth at the Port of Los Angeles or Port of Long Beach to the arc of a circle with radius 

40 nm and centered at Point Fermin Light. (Source: Port of Los Angeles & Port of Long Beach 2008)

The Ports’ two VSR programs target a 12 knot speed for all ship traffic in- and outbound from 

the Ports, within radial zones of 20 and 40 nm from Point Fermin (Figure 17), because 

“reduction in speed demands less power on the main engine, which in turn reduces NOx 

emission and fuel usage” (Port of Los Angeles & Port of Long Beach 2006). More specifically, 

“NOx emissions are directly correlated to the engine load and, generally speaking, load and NOx 

emissions decrease as engine load/vessel speed decreases” (Port of Los Angeles & Port of Long 

Beach 2006). Speed reductions are projected to reduce emissions of other important pollutants as 

well; according to the Ports, vessel speed reductions could also yield “a potentially significant 

reduction in DPM [diesel particulate matter, also known as soot] and SOx emissions” (Port of 

Los Angeles & Port of Long Beach 2006).

The policies and mechanisms used by the Ports to successfully effect this broad-scale change in 

mariner behavior are the focus of this case study. They are reviewed below, and then discussed 

with respect to their potential for reducing vessel speed, and thereby the risk of ship strike within 

the Santa Barbara Channel. 
49

Expansion or replication of the Ports’ VSR programs to the extent that they could be applied to 

vessel traffic in the Santa Barbara Channel could be challenging in the short term, with respect to 

logistical, financial and jurisdictional factors that are identified in the concluding discussion. 

Nevertheless, parties with a stake in reducing air pollution from ships, and those with an interest 

in reducing the risk of collisions with whales in the Santa Barbara Channel, share the common 

objective of reduced vessel traffic speeds. Therefore, the programmatic “infrastructure” and 

demonstrated success of the Ports’ efforts should be perceived as opportunities for CINMS. The 

Southern California region’s imperative to both reduce air pollution and ship strikes of protected 

and vulnerable whale populations thus warrants additional exploration of if and how this synergy 

could be leveraged to implement a VSR program for the Santa Barbara Channel. 

Management Actions

 1. San Pedro Bay Ports Voluntary VSR program

The original voluntary VSR program was initiated collectively by the Ports in 2001, for both 

inbound and outbound vessels to slow to a 12 knot speed within a 20 nm radial zone from Point 

Fermin, because “ships traveling at slower speeds reduce emissions” (Port of Long Beach 

2009a). The 12 knot goal was established because that speed already represented a regulatory 

limit within the Ports’ Precautionary Zone (Figure 17) and thus facilitated continuity of 

operations (Richard McKenna, Southern California Marine Exchange, pers. comm.). In addition, 

vessel operators were granted the ability to appeal for a finding of most efficient speed. If an 

operator could demonstrate that a higher speed would produce fewer emissions, they could be 

considered in compliance by transiting at that speed (only one shipping company has ever 

completed this appeal) (Richard McKenna, Southern California Marine Exchange, pers. comm.).

Program establishment was formalized in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) developed 

and signed by representatives of the Ports, EPA, CARB, South Coast AQMD, the Steamship 

Association of Southern California and the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (Port of Los 

Angeles 2008). The Marine Exchange of Southern California, described below, was also a 

signatory and active participant in development of the MOU and its key programmatic 

parameters (Richard McKenna, Southern California Marine Exchange, pers. comm.). The 

agreement on its own did not appear to immediately produce significant results, but instead 

represented a critical starting point for the signatories to execute various strategies to achieve the 

MOU’s goals.

In 2005 the Port of Long Beach (POLB) deployed its “Green Flag” incentive program targeting 

2007 for 100 percent “compliance” with the voluntary VSR within the 20 nm zone (Port of Long 

Beach 2009b). Specifically, the POLB “committed as much as $2.2 million a year to encourage 

participation in the voluntary [VSR] Program” (Port of Long Beach 2009a). Ships that achieve

an annual compliance of 90 percent or better with the VSR for all transits in and out of POLB 

over a 12 month period are eligible for at least a 15 percent reduction in dockage fees “otherwise 

payable to the Port in the following year” (Port of Long Beach 2009a). Vessels that achieve 100 

percent compliance for a 12 month period are presented with a publicized “Green Flag” 

achievement award (Port of Long Beach 2009b).
50

Naturally, vessel speed monitoring and data gathering for every ship entering or leaving the 20 

nm zone represents a crucial component of both the voluntary VSR and the Green Flag incentive 

program. This duty is carried out independently by the Marine Exchange of Southern California

(Marine Exchange), a non-profit organization “dedicated to the development and efficient flow 

of maritime commerce throughout the region” (Marine Exchange of Southern California 2009). 

The Marine Exchange facility in San Pedro, at the city’s topographical apogee, hosts an array of 

technological assets and advanced instrumentation to conduct comprehensive vessel traffic 

observations and monitoring, and its data is relied upon by the Ports and other Southern 

California shipping stakeholders.

While the goal of 100 percent compliance could be considered aggressive, POLB’s Green Flag

incentive system has achieved remarkable results for the voluntary VSR program. POLB 

provides an overview of their key statistics:

The original Green Flag program, which debuted in 2005, asked ships to

slow down within 20 nm of San Pedro’s Point Fermin. Participation in the 

program has climbed steadily from 60 percent in 2006 to 93 percent in 2008.

In 2007, the 20 nm Green Flag program eliminated an estimated 678 tons 

of nitrogen oxides, 453 tons of sulfur oxides and 60 tons of diesel particulate 

matter. In addition, the program reduced greenhouse gases by more than 24,000 

metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (Port of Long Beach 2009b).

The Port of Los Angeles (POLA) initiated its own Green Flag program in 2005, though in 

contrast to POLB did not establish a dockage fee incentive program to accompany achievement 

awards that are presented to participating vessels and shipping lines (Lori Kelman, Port of Los 

Angeles, pers. comm.). Nonetheless, POLA reports a measure of success of its own, including 

“486 vessels that were 100-percent compliant in the program” in 2008 (Port of Los Angeles 

2009a) (in the context of 2,370 vessel arrivals for the 2008 calendar year, indicating participation 

of approximately 20.5 percent) (Port of Los Angeles 2009b).

Finally, it should be noted that both Ports revised their process for assigning work crews to 

unload arrived vessels to further support compliance with the voluntary VSR program. 

According to the CAAP, the steadily rising rate of compliance “can be at least partially credited 

to the practice of assignment of gangs [for vessels when they arrive] at the 20-mile boundary, 

reducing the incentive for ships to move quickly through the speed reduction zone” (Port of Los 

Angeles and Port of Long Beach 2006).

 2. Clean Air Action Plan

The Clean Air Action Plan Technical Report finalized in 2006, details a broad array of objectives 

for reducing air pollution for activities associated with the San Pedro Bay Ports, and measures to 

achieve those objectives. One such measure is a vessel speed reduction plan that builds on the 

existing efforts, organization and infrastructure of the voluntary VSR program outlined above. 

The official title of the CAAP program is “Control Measure Number SPBP-OGV1: Ocean Going 

Vessel (OGV) Vessel Speed Reduction (VSR)” (Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach 

2006).
51

Like the voluntary VSR program, the CAAP VSR program primarily targets the reduction of 

NOx emissions. However, it surpasses the original voluntary VSR program in a few key areas. 

First, the CAAP VSR increases the zone for vessel slowing to 12 knots from 20 nm from Point 

Fermin, to 40 nm (see Figure 17). According to the CAAP: 

The objective of the VSR program is to reduce NOx emissions from OGVs 

by slowing their speeds as they approach or depart the Port. NOx emissions are 

directly correlated to the engine load and, generally speaking, load and NOx 

emissions decrease as engine load/vessel speed decreases. A voluntary VSR 

program currently exists under which vessels slow to 12 knots when they are 

within 20 nm of Point Fermin. This measure establishes a wider VSR zone with 

an over-water boundary of 40 nm from Point Fermin [emphasis added] (Port of 

Los Angeles & Port of Long Beach 2006).

Highlighting the potential benefits of this program, POLB states “if all vessels participate at the 

40-nm range, the amount of emissions reduced is projected to more than double. Vessels made 

nearly 5,000 trips into and out of [POLB] in 2008” (Port of Long Beach 2009b).

On one hand, the Ports appear to be working to fulfill this objective simply through the “scaling 

up” of their existing Green Flag voluntary programs, for example through the updating of work 

gang assignments to vessel arrival at the 40 nm line, and by expanding the monitoring capacity 

of the US Coast Guard and Marine Exchange (Port of Los Angeles & Port of Long Beach 2006). 

As another example, in January of 2009, POLB began offering even greater dockage fee 

discounts for (entering and departing) ships that travel at12 knots within the 40 nm zone “for 

complying with the 20-nm program, vessel operators receive a 15 percent reduction in dockage 

fees, known as the “Green Rate.” For slowing down from 40 nm, the vessels receive the “GreenPlus Rate,” which is 25 percent off” (Port of Long Beach 2009b). During the first month of the 

program, POLB reported a 63 percent compliance rate through the 40 nm zone, while “the 

existing 20 nm program is holding steady at 93 percent participation” (Port of Long Beach 

2009b).

On the other hand, however, the CAAP VSR measure also appears to create the option for new 

and more rigid controls for vessel traffic speeds within the 40 nm zone should the voluntary and 

incentive programs prove inadequate. According to the CAAP: 

Since its establishment in 2001, the compliance rate of the [voluntary]

VSR program has steadily increased... Parallel to this voluntary strategy, lease 

requirements will be established and include compliance rates with the VSR 

program. The Ports will also evaluate the potential of incorporating a 

requirement to participate in the VSR program as part of the tariff. Both the lease 

requirements and tariff strategies would be enforceable measures (Port of Los 

Angeles & Port of Long Beach 2006).

...As new leases are negotiated or existing leases come up for renewal, 

compliance with the VSR program will be a stated condition during negotiations

(Port of Los Angeles & Port of Long Beach 2006).
52

Further specifying this dual (incentive/mandate) approach, the CAAP identifies the following as 

one of seven “key elements” for its VSR control measure: “Assure compliance with the VSR 

program through tariff reduction incentives and included in lease requirements for renewed lease 

agreements as well as encouraging the continued/increased voluntary participation of those 

whose leases are not up for review” (Port of Los Angeles & Port of Long Beach 2006).

Reports indicate that the Ports have begun to employ this approach. According the POLA staff, 

the VSR parameters were recently included in a finalized “homeport” lease agreement with one 

passenger cruise line that begins in 2011, and similar negotiations are currently under way for 

“new permits with 3 cargo terminals and a[n additional] cruise line that will include the VSR 

language” (Lori Kelman, Port of Los Angeles, pers. comm.).

Analysis: Potential Application to the Santa Barbara Channel Region

 1. Incentives Work.

Perhaps the foremost lesson to be gleaned from the Ports’ VSR efforts is that incentives can 

effectively alter vessel traffic dynamics. This is demonstrated by the exemplary compliance rate 

of ships landing at POLB, where they earn graduated dockage discounts for compliance at the 20 

and 40 nm distances from Point Fermin. 

Simultaneously, the reorganization of work gang assignments for the unloading ships, from 

arrival at the Ports to their arrival at the 20 nm zone limit appears to represent another crucial 

component of the incentive structure and overall compliance rate, by eliminating a time incentive 

for non-VSR-participating ships to “speed past” complying ships. The importance of this 

component is underscored by the high compliance rate in the voluntary VSR program by ships 

landing at POLA, where no dockage discounts are provided from compliance, but where 

participation in the voluntary VSR is significant and growing. This point is also reinforced by its 

contrast with the utter failure of the voluntary speed reduction for the Santa Barbara Channel 

requested by NOAA and the US Coast Guard in 2007 during the blue whale unusual mortality 

event (McKenna 2007); one could reasonably infer that, in the absence of a monetary incentive 

for ships to slow down through the Channel, their primary incentive was to reach the Point 

Fermin 20 nm “finish line” for work gang assignment in the shortest time possible, and that 

adherence to the NOAA/US Coast Guard request was dismissed.

Given the complex jurisdictional and regulatory frameworks involved, devising a new incentive 

system for ships in the Santa Barbara Channel would be a challenging undertaking, involving 

multi-agency coordination, and the establishment of a source of funds for program 

administration, and potentially for monetary incentives (in the manner of POLB). 

Nonetheless, the remarkable effectiveness of the Ports’ voluntary VSR, as well as the precedent 

they set in multi-agency collaboration, suggest that focused investigation of possibilities and 

options for the Santa Barbara Channel would be worthwhile for CINMS and other ship strike 

stakeholders. 

Furthermore, air pollution challenges within the Santa Barbara Channel region suggest that 

Ventura and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control Districts (APCD) may be willing 
53

partners in a project that shows promise in reducing ship emissions. For example, the Santa 

Barbara County APCD projects significant, ongoing increases in the quantity of pollutants 

emitted into their area of jurisdiction by ocean going vessels as a proportion of total emissions 

for the County, potentially increasing the number of days the County exceeds California state 

ozone thresholds (Figures 18, 19). Accordingly, the agency has formally expressed a willingness 

to litigate in order to control this output (Dressler 2008).

Figure 18. NOx emissions sources in Santa Barbara County for 2000 (left), and projected for 2020 (right). Note 

Outer Continental Shelf marine shipping activity (i.e. ocean going vessel transits of the Santa Barbara Channel) in 

purple. (Source: Dressler 2008)

Figure 19. Santa Barbara County APCD forecast for total NOx emissions, delineated by mainland versus offshore 

sources. (Source: Dressler 2008)

 2. A transition from incentives to a mandate-based framework locks in positive change.
54

The CAAP conveys that dependence on voluntary compliance on vessel speed reduction from 

industry will not deliver adequate reductions in emissions. The strategy of the Ports and other 

regional air quality stakeholders appears to be to solidify the behavioral changes brought about 

by the incentive programs through application of additional, more rigid controls over time, such 

as contract negotiations for shipping lines and, potentially, the imposition of tariffs. 

Additionally, such a transition could be an important step in reducing the costs associated with 

maintaining the POLB Green Flag incentive program and other VSR efforts currently funded by 

the Ports themselves.

Essentially, it appears that the lesson to glean is that the transition to a mandate-based framework 

may ultimately be required to ensure comprehensive compliance. If an incentive-based VSR 

program was implemented or extended to the Santa Barbara Channel region, some form of 

enforceable mandate should be included in the timeline of program implementation. 

 3. Comprehensive monitoring is vital.

It appears that the Marine Exchange of Southern California, in its role as data gatherer and 

processor for the intertwined voluntary and CAAP VSR programs, is a fundamentally important 

player in achieving the gains that have been made. Meaningful incentives have probably been 

the key driver of the positive change achieved at the Ports and proper provision of those 

incentives is driven by the vessel monitoring and data handled by the Marine Exchange. 

As noted above, the Marine 

Exchange carries out this task with 

an array of complex instrumentation, 

which has been systematically 

upgraded since 2006 to handle 

monitoring to the 40 nm range 

established in the CAAP (Figure 20).

Adequate, trustworthy monitoring 

(i.e. the timely processing of vessel 

speed observations) probably 

represents a significant logistical 

challenge for systematic vessel speed 

reduction in the Santa Barbara 

Channel, and therefore another 

important focal point for future 

research. CINMS, the Marine 

Exchange, NMFS, and other shipping stakeholders should explore options and needs for 

expansion or replication of the Marine Exchange’s monitoring capabilities to the Santa Barbara 

Channel region, so that future vessel reduction efforts in the sanctuary-region are empowered 

with adequate data to provide incentives and enforce mandates.

Figure 20. Snapshot of one of several vessel tracking displays at the 

Marine Exchange of Southern California. (Source: Marine Exchange 

of Southern California)
55

References

Douglas, A.B., J. Calambokidis, S. Raverty, S.J. Jefferies, D.M. Lambourn, S.A. Norman. 2008. 

Incidence of ship strikes of large whales in Washington State. Journal of the Marine Biological 

Association of the United Kingdom 88:1121-1132.

Dressler, T., public presentation: “Santa Barbara Perspective on Marine Shipping,” Public 

Interest Environmental Law Conference, University of Oregon. March 7, 2008. 

Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet, M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions between ships 

and whales. Marine Mammal Science 17(1):35-75.

Marine Exchange of Southern California. 2009. Welcome to the Marine Exchange of Southern 

California. Organization homepage. http://www.mxsocal.org

McKenna, M.F., powerpoint presentation: “Analysis of Vessel Traffic in the Santa Barbara 

Channel, September 01 – November 30 2007.

Port of Long Beach. 2009a. Vessel Emissions. 

http://www.polb.com/environment/air/vessels/default.asp

Port of Long Beach. 2009b. Expanded clean-air program off to strong start. Press release. 

Contact: Art Wong, Port of Long Beach Public Information Officer. 

http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6195

Port of Los Angeles. 2008. Environment, Ocean Going Vessels. 

http://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment/ogv.asp

Port of Los Angeles, May 8, 2009a. Press release: “Port of Los Angeles honors shipping lines for 

reducing emissions through vessel speed reduction program.” Contact: Lori Kelman. Available 

at http://www.portoflosangeles.org/newsroom/2009_releases/news_050809_vsrp.asp (viewed 

July 7, 2009).

Port of Los Angeles. 2009b. Business: Facts and Figures. Available at 

http://www.portoflosangeles.org/newsroom/press_kit/facts.asp

Port of Los Angeles & Port of Long Beach. 2006. San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan 

Technical Report. http://www.polb.com/environment/air_quality/clean_air_action_plan.asp

Port of Los Angeles & Port of Long Beach. 2008. San Pedro Bay Ports clean air action plan lowsulfur vessel main engine fuel incentive program terms and conditions. 

http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/strategies/vessels/fuel.asp

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2009. Southern California Air Basins Map. 

http://www.aqmd.gov/map/MapAQMD1.pdf
56

Appendix A: “How Does Slowing a Ship Down Reduce Emissions?”

Excerpted from: San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan: Vessel Speed Reduction

Available at http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/strategies/vessels/vsr.asp

For main engines, the energy required for vessel propulsion varies with the vessel speed; the 

faster the speed, the greater the energy requirements to maintain that speed. In fact, the power 

needed to move a ship varies with the cube of its speed. For example, for a ship with a 70,000 

kilowatt (kW) main engine that powers the ship to 25 knots, reducing the ship’s speed to 20 

knots requires only 36,000 kW (about half); slowing further to 12 knots reduces the power 

demand even more to about 8,000 kW (just over a tenth). 

Conversely, as speed is decreased, energy requirements are also significantly reduced. Since the 

energy required to operate a ship’s main engine is directly related to emissions, actions that 

reduce energy consumption typically reduce emissions from these main engines.

Two questions are often raised about the emissions benefits of vessel speed reduction. The first is 

that main engines are somewhat less efficient at slower speeds. It is important to note that this 

reduced efficiency is more than offset by the benefits of reduced energy consumption (and 

therefore associated emissions reduction) that result from slower transit speeds. The second is 

that reducing ship speed means that the ship takes longer to move from point A to point B, and 

therefore spends more time transiting. Auxiliary engines do operate during transit, and therefore 

the auxiliary engines are operating for a longer period of time over the same distance, when the 

vessel is moving more slowly. It is true that the additional auxiliary engine operation for longer 

transit times will increase auxiliary engine energy consumption. However, the emission 

reduction benefits resulting from decreased main engine energy consumption significantly 

outweigh the increased emissions from increased auxiliary engine operation at slower speeds. 

This reduction in main engine energy consumption provides for reduced emissions overall of 

NOx, particulate matter (PM), and sulfur oxides (SOx). In addition, reduction in fossil fuel 

consumption results in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.”
57

ONMS CONSERVATION SERIES PUBLICATIONS

To date, the following reports have been published in the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series. All publications 

are available on the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries website (http://www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov/).

N-Control Seagrass Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2003-2008 Florida Keys National Marine 

SanMonroe County, Florida (ONMS-10-06)

Dynamics of Hard Substratum Communities Inside and Outside of a Fisheries Habitat Closed Area in Stellwagen 

Bank National Marine Sanctuary (Gulf of Maine, NW Atlantic) (ONMS-10-05)

Stellwagen Bank Marine Historical Ecology Final Report (ONMS-10-04)

Variation in Planning-Unit Size and Patterns of Fish Diversity: Implications for Design of Marine Protected Areas 

(ONMS-10-03)

Examples of Ecosystem-Based Management in National Marine Sanctuaries: Moving from Theory to Practice 

(ONMS-10-02)

The Application Of Observing System Data In California Current Ecosystem Assessments (ONMS-10-01)

Reconciling Ecosystem-Based Management and Focal Resource Conservation in the Papahānaumokuākea Marine 

National Monument (ONMS-09-04)

Preliminary Comparison of Natural Versus Model-predicted Recovery of Vessel-generated Seagrass Injuries in 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-09-03) 

A Comparison of Seafloor Habitats and Associated Benthic Fauna in Areas Open and Closed to Bottom Trawling 

Along the Central California Continental Shelf (ONMS-09-02) 

Chemical Contaminants, Pathogen Exposure and General Health Status of Live and Beach-Cast Washington Sea 

Otters (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) (ONMS-09-01) 

Caribbean Connectivity: Implications for Marine Protected Area Management (ONMS-08-07) 

Knowledge, Attitudes and Perceptions of Management Strategies and Regulations of FKNMS by Commercial 

Fishers, Dive Operators, and Environmental Group Members: A Baseline Characterization and 10-year Comparison 

(ONMS-08-06) 

First Biennial Ocean Climate Summit: Finding Solutions for San Francisco Bay Area's Coast and Ocean (ONMS08-05) 

A Scientific Forum on the Gulf of Mexico: The Islands in the Stream Concept (NMSP-08-04) 

M/V ELPIS Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2007 Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-08-03)

CONNECTIVITY Science, People and Policy in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (NMSP-08-02) 

M/V ALEC OWEN MAITLAND Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2007 Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-08-01) 

Automated, objective texture segmentation of multibeam echosounder data - Seafloor survey and substrate maps 

from James Island to Ozette Lake, Washington Outer Coast. (NMSP-07-05) 
58

Observations of Deep Coral and Sponge Assemblages in Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, Washington 

(NMSP-07-04) 

A Bioregional Classification of the Continental Shelf of Northeastern North America for Conservation Analysis and 

Planning Based on Representation (NMSP-07-03) 

M/V WELLWOOD Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2006 Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-07-02) 

Survey report of NOAA Ship McArthur II cruises AR-04-04, AR-05-05 and AR-06-03: Habitat classification of side 

scan sonar imagery in support of deep-sea coral/sponge explorations at the Olympic Coast National Marine 

Sanctuary (NMSP-07-01) 

2002 - 03 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Science Report: An Ecosystem Report Card After Five Years of 

Marine Zoning (NMSP-06-12) 

Habitat Mapping Effort at the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary - Current Status and Future Needs (NMSP06-11)

M/V CONNECTED Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2005 Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-06-010) 

M/V JACQUELYN L Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2005 Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-06-09) 

M/V WAVE WALKER Coral Reef Restoration Baseline Monitoring Report - 2004 Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-06-08) 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Habitat Mapping: Survey report and classification of side scan sonar data 

from surveys HMPR-114-2004-02 and HMPR-116-2005-01 (NMSP-06-07) 

A Pilot Study of Hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus Walbaum 1792) Movement in the Conch Reef Research Only 

Area (Northern Florida Keys) (NMSP-06-06) 

Comments on Hydrographic and Topographic LIDAR Acquisition and Merging with Multibeam Sounding Data 

Acquired in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-05) 

Conservation Science in NOAA's National Marine Sanctuaries: Description and Recent Accomplishments (ONMS06-04) 

Normalization and characterization of multibeam backscatter: Koitlah Point to Point of the Arches, Olympic Coast 

National Marine Sanctuary - Survey HMPR-115-2004-03 (ONMS-06-03) 

Developing Alternatives for Optimal Representation of Seafloor Habitats and Associated Communities in 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-02) 

Benthic Habitat Mapping in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-01) 

Channel Islands Deep Water Monitoring Plan Development Workshop Report (ONMS-05-05) 

Movement of yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus Block 1790) and black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci Poey 

1860) in the northern Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary as determined by acoustic telemetry (MSD-05-4) 

The Impacts of Coastal Protection Structures in California's Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MSD-05-3) 
59

An annotated bibliography of diet studies of fish of the southeast United States and Gray's Reef National Marine 

Sanctuary (MSD-05-2) 

Noise Levels and Sources in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and the St. Lawrence River Estuary 

(MSD-05-1) 

Biogeographic Analysis of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve (MSD-04-1) 

A Review of the Ecological Effectiveness of Subtidal Marine Reserves in Central California (MSD-04-2, MSD-04-

3) 

Pre-Construction Coral Survey of the M/V Wellwood Grounding Site (MSD-03-1) 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary: Proceedings of the 1998 Research Workshop, Seattle, Washington 

(MSD-01-04) 

Workshop on Marine Mammal Research & Monitoring in the National Marine Sanctuaries (MSD-01-03) 

A Review of Marine Zones in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MSD-01-2)

Distribution and Sighting Frequency of Reef Fishes in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (MSD-01-1) 

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary: A Rapid Assessment of Coral, Fish, and Algae Using the 

AGRRA Protocol (MSD-00-3) 

The Economic Contribution of Whalewatching to Regional Economies: Perspectives From Two National Marine 

Sanctuaries (MSD-00-2) 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Area to be Avoided Education and Monitoring Program (MSD-00-1) 

Multi-species and Multi-interest Management: an Ecosystem Approach to Market Squid (Loligo opalescens) 

Harvest in California (MSD-99-1)