Report of a Workshop to Identify 

and Assess Technologies to Reduce 

Ship Strikes of Large Whales 

Providence, Rhode Island 

8-10 July 2008 

Gregory K. Silber, Shannon Bettridge, and David Cottingham 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-42 

May 2009
Report of a Workshop to Identify and Assess 

Technologies to Reduce Ship Strikes of Large Whales 

Providence, Rhode Island 

8-10 July 2008 

Gregory K. Silber, Shannon Bettridge, and David Cottingham 

Office of Protected Resources 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

1315 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-42 

May 2009

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Gary Locke, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

James W. Balsiger, Ph.D., Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
ii 

Suggested citation: 

Silber, G.K., S. Bettridge, and D. Cottingham. 2009. Report of a workshop to identify 

and assess technologies to reduce ship strikes of large whales, 8-10 July, 2008, 

Providence, Rhode Island. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-42. 55 

p. 

A copy of this report may be obtained from: 

Office of Protected Resources 

NOAA, NMFS, F/PR2 

1315 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Or online at:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr 
iii 

Acknowledgements 

 We are grateful to the workshop participants for their time and contributions. We 

appreciate the efforts of the steering committee, which developed the agenda, objectives, 

and breakout group tasks, selected participants, and assembled background documents. 

We benefited by the preparation of workshop presentations and background papers by 

Shannon Bettridge, Robert Becker, Olaf Boebel, Jeff Condiotty, Peter Corkeron, Gary 

Donoher, Charles Forsyth, Robert Gisiner, Leila Hatch, Richard Merrick, Andrew 

Pershing, Gregory Silber, Sofie-Marie Van Parijs, and Cheryl M. Zimmerman. The 

workshop was ably facilitated by Carleton Hunt. The report benefited from critical 

reviews by Brian Bloodworth, Robert Gisiner, and David Laist. 
iv 

Executive Summary 

Vessel collisions (or “ship strikes”) are a threat to a number of marine vertebrate 

species world wide, particularly endangered large whale species. Various modifications 

to vessel and water craft operations have been used in an attempt to reduce the threat of 

ship strikes. Seeking ways to reduce the magnitude of the threat through technological 

solutions has been proposed by maritime industries, resource managers, and government 

agencies alike. Use of remote sensing technologies may provide means to reduce ship 

strikes while simultaneously allowing certain maritime commerce and other activities to 

proceed with limited biological and economic impact. However, low whale detection 

rates and constraints on the effective range of some devices to provide ample warning 

and response times for mariners may limit their utility in this context. In addition, 

development, installation, maintenance, and/or operation may be cost prohibitive in some 

cases. 

This workshop was convened 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. We discussed and, in directed small groups, 

assessed a number of remote sensing technologies, including visual surveys; tagging and 

telemetry; passive acoustics; active acoustics; thermal imaging (e.g., infrared); radar; and 

predictive modeling. 

The workshop concluded that the problem of ship strikes is a complex one; there 

are no easy technological “fixes”; that no technology exists, or is expected to be 

developed in the foreseeable future that will completely ameliorate, or reduce to zero the 

chances of, ship strikes of large whales; and no single technology will fit all situations. 

Reducing the co-occurrence of whales and vessels is likely the only sure means of 

reducing ship strikes, but it is not possible in many locations. A variation, advanced 

voyage planning to avoid certain areas, is relatively more feasible. Technologies 

applicable to reducing ship strikes are limited almost entirely to those that enhance whale 

detection. Several technologies used in concert would increase the chances of detection 

both at a distance from, and in close proximity to, a vessel; and improve the likelihood of 

providing warnings to mariners. However, detection and relaying information about a 

whale’s location represents only part of the equation: the mariner must possess 

capabilities (e.g., adequate communication systems, adequate response time) to take 

evasive action to a detected whale. Responses to such information may vary among 

individual mariners and vessels, and substantial distances can be required for vessels 

underway to avoid, alter course, or even react to an object directly in their path 

particularly as higher speeds are considered. 

All technologies assessed had certain advantages and disadvantages when 

considered relative to this problem. Visual surveys can be expensive, logistically 

complex, and are limited by low detection probabilities, poor weather, low-light 

conditions, and may be constrained to certain times of the year. Tagging devices are 
v 

useful for studies of whale natural history and movement; and developments in power 

supply capabilities and reducing data transmission costs are resulting in growth of this 

field. However, difficulties associated with tag attachment and attempts to attach devices 

to a sufficiently large portion of a population are proverbial challenges to this approach. 

Passive acoustic technologies are becoming a useful tool for studying whale occurrence 

and distribution, and the amount of data returned for cost investment makes this approach 

one of the most promising for detecting whale presence. However, this approach is 

constrained by only being able to detect whales that are vocalizing and determining 

specific location is not always possible. Some sonar devices appear effective in detecting 

whales within hundreds of meters of a vessel, although this range may be extended as 

technology improves. Depending on systems used, costs can be relatively high and false 

positives could be problematic. Radar devices can be used from ship or shore and have 

the advantage of operating in poor weather, but false positives are a potential problem. 

Thermal imaging (e.g., infrared) devices have proved promising in detecting whale blows 

at significant ranges in experimental studies. Models using remotely-sensed 

oceanographic features provide means to predict where whales may occur over large 

areas. As models, they are prone to uncertainty (i.e., predictive only), but some can be 

applied now. In all cases, studies are needed to confirm that any technology developed 

and used for this purpose are clearly capable of reducing strikes and to ensure that added 

environmental impacts are not introduced.
vi

List of Definitions 

Active acoustics: A means of measuring the range to an object and its size. It involves 

the production of a sound and analysis of the returning echo. 

Infrared: Imaging that is essentially a “heat photograph”. It is a diagnostic 

imaging procedure that is sometimes known as “thermography”. The 

image is produced via an infrared scanner that photographs the heat 

being spontaneously emitted from the body’s surface, giving rise to the 

alternative name “thermal imaging”. The diagnostic analysis of the 

image is known as “thermography”. 

Passive acoustics: The action of listening for sounds. Passive acoustics methods do not 

produce sounds, but instead gather information about the environment 

by capturing sounds from it. Sensors (hydrophones) may be deployed 

from ships or affixed in the ocean for extended periods. 

RADAR: An acronym for Radio Detection and Ranging. This is a system that 

uses electromagnetic waves in air to identify the range, direction, or 

speed of distant objects. A system consists of a transmitter that emits 

either microwaves or radio waves that are reflected by the target and 

detected by a receiver, typically in the same location as the transmitter. 

SONAR: Originally an acronym for Sound Navigation and Ranging, sonar is an 

acoustic location technique that uses sound movement (usually 

underwater) to navigate, communicate, or to detect other vessels or 

objects in the water. Marine mammals use sonar to navigate, 

communicate, and locate food.
vii 

List of Acronyms 

AIS Automatic Identification System 

ARU Acoustic Recording Units 

ATBA Area To Be Avoided 

CRH Calibrated Reference Hydrophone 

CTD Conductivity (salinity), Temperature and Pressure 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

GPS Global Positioning System 

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas 

NAVTEX Navigational Telex 

Nm Nautical mile 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

PTT Pressure-Time-Temperature (tags) 

R&D Research and Development 

RACON Radar Beacon 

RTB Real Time passive acoustic Buoys 

TSS Traffic Separation Scheme 

VLCC Very Large Crude Carrier 

ix

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................iii

Executive Summary........................................................................................................... iv 

List of Definitions.............................................................................................................. vi 

List of Acronyms .............................................................................................................. vii 

Table of Contents............................................................................................................... ix 

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

The Threat of Ship Strikes .............................................................................................. 1 

Use of Technological Advances to Reduce the Threat................................................... 3 

Workshop Goals and Logistics ....................................................................................... 4 

Workshop Results ............................................................................................................... 5 

Workshop Presentations and Discussions........................................................................... 5 

Overviews ....................................................................................................................... 5 

Challenges and Limitations; and Alarm Technologies............................................... 5 

Vessel Maneuvering.................................................................................................... 7 

Role of Technologies in Voyage Planning ................................................................. 8 

Summaries and Assessments of Technologies ............................................................... 9 

Visual detection (e.g., surveys and ship-based lookouts) ........................................... 9 

Tagging and telemetry .............................................................................................. 10 

Acoustic Technologies.............................................................................................. 12 

Passive acoustics................................................................................................... 12 

Active acoustics (e.g., SONAR) ........................................................................... 14 

Remote Sensing ........................................................................................................ 16 

Radar..................................................................................................................... 16 

Infrared.................................................................................................................. 17 

Predictive modeling .................................................................................................. 18 

Workshop Discussions.................................................................................................. 18 

General Points to Consider Applicable To Multiple Technologies.......................... 18 

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................... 20 

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................. 23 

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... 27 

List of Figures................................................................................................................... 27 

Appendix 1. Workshop terms of reference and agenda................................................ 33 

Appendix 2. Workshop Steering Committee................................................................ 37 

Appendix 3. List of Participants ................................................................................... 39 

Appendix 4. High speed vessels ................................................................................... 44 

 Appendix 5. Technological assessments......................................................45 

1 

Report of a Workshop to Identify and Assess Technologies to 

Reduce Ship Strikes of Large Whales 

Introduction 

The Threat of Ship Strikes 

Vessel collisions are a threat to a number of marine species worldwide. Vessel 

collisions (“ship strikes”) occur with large whale species (Best et al., 2001; Knowlton 

and Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001; Jensen and Silber, 2003; Vanderlaan and Taggart, 

2007), small cetaceans (Van Waerebeek et al., 2006), marine turtles (Hazel et al., 2007), 

and sirenians (i.e., manatees and dugongs) (Greenland and Limpus, 2006; Calleson and 

Frolich, 2007). Records indicate that nearly all large whale species are vulnerable to ship 

strikes (Laist et al., 2001; Jensen and Silber, 2003; Van Waerebeek and Leaper, 2008) 

including, but not limited to, blue (Balaenoptera musculus), fin (Balaenoptera physalus), 

humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), right (Eubalaena spp.), sei (Balaenoptera 

borealis), and sperm (Physeter catodon) whales. Van Waerebeek and Leaper (2008) 

reported that a number of small and mid-sized cetaceans occurring in the Southern 

Hemisphere are involved in vessel collisions. Strikes involving sirenians and small water 

craft are an ongoing problem in locations where these species occur (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2001; Greenland and Limpus, 2006). 

Ship strikes of large whales are a growing problem internationally (Van 

Waerebeek and Leaper, 2008), particularly where endangered or depleted species are 

involved. A contributing factor is the increase in maritime commerce, which is expected 

to nearly double over the next 15 years in U.S. ports (U.S. Department of Transportation, 

2008). 

Laist et al. (2001) provided the first attempt to summarize a large collection of 

whale/ship strike records. Building on that collection, Jensen and Silber (2003) described 

nearly 300 observations of large whale ship strikes, and Van Waerebeek and Leaper 

(2008) compiled over 750 cetacean vessel strike records worldwide. Virtually all 

motorized vessel types, sizes, and classes are represented in these data bases (Laist et al., 

2001; Jensen and Silber, 2003). Because a number, likely a substantial number, of deaths 

go undetected or unreported, the records provided in this literature are a minimum. In 

some cases, carcasses are found but because injuries are internal (e.g., hemorrhaging), or 

due to advanced decomposition, it is not always possible to determine if a ship strike was 

the cause of death. Additionally, when large vessels are involved, the mariner may not be 

aware a strike has occurred. 

 Vessel collisions with marine mammals can result in death by massive trauma, 

hemorrhaging, broken bones and propeller wounds (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; 

Campbell-Malone, 2007). When large whale species and large vessels are involved, the 
2 

stricken whales can occasionally be found draped across the ship’s bulbous bow when it 

arrives in port. Massive propeller wounds can be immediately fatal. However, if 

relatively superficial, some individuals can recover from seemingly serious collisions, as 

evidenced by photographic time series of deep lacerations healing on individual animals. 

In one well-documented incident, one entire fluke of a right whale was removed by the 

propeller of a fast-moving, 42-foot pleasure craft off Florida; the fate of this animal is not 

known (Marine Mammal Commission, 2006). 

Numerous reports have proposed modifications to vessel and watercraft 

operations to avoid ship strikes (US Coast Guard, 2006; Kite-Powell, et al., 2007; Elvin 

and Taggart, 2008; Fonnesbeck et al., in prep). Steps have been taken by some countries, 

primarily government agencies, to reduce ship strike potential to endangered whale 

species through modifications to vessel operations. Those include changing shipping 

routes. In Canadian waters, shipping lanes have been shifted in the Bay of Fundy to 

reduce the proximity of ships to predictable aggregations of North Atlantic right whales. 

Canada also submitted a proposal to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to 

establish a vessel “Area to be Avoided” (ATBA) in Roseway Basin for the same purpose. 

The IMO approved a U.S. proposal to establish an ATBA in waters off New England for 

right whales, becoming effective 1 June, 2009. In 2006 the U.S. established 

recommended shipping routes outside key U.S. ports and in Cape Cod Bay 

(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/shipstrike/routes.htm) around North Atlantic right whale 

aggregation areas. In addition, the U.S. modified a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) that 

services Boston to reduce the co-occurrence of vessel traffic and large whales. Reducing 

this co-occurrence, if possible, is almost certainly the most effective means to reduce the 

likelihood of ship strikes. However, this is not feasible in many locations due to 

navigational or human safety concerns, restrictions to commerce, or other reasons. 

Vessel speed has been implicated as a key factor in the frequency and severity of 

vessel strikes to large whales (Laist et al., 2001; Pace and Silber, 2007; Vanderlaan and 

Taggart, 2007; Van Waerebeek and Leaper, 2008). Therefore, vessel speed restrictions or 

advisories are widely employed in U.S. waters to reduce the likelihood and severity of 

large whale ship strikes. For example, the U.S. National Park Service limits the number 

of cruise ships entering Glacier Bay National Park and requires that ships travel at 13 

knots or less in areas and times when humpback whales are present (National Park 

Service, 2003). In response to blue whale ship strikes off of Southern California, the 

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), and the U.S. Coast Guard advised ships to travel at 10 knots or less in shipping 

lanes to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach when blue whales are present 

(Bettridge and Silber, 2008). The NMFS has issued a vessel speed regulation in key port 

entrances and North Atlantic right whale aggregation locations along the U.S. east coast 

(National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2008). Furthermore, Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary and NMFS require vessels carrying Liquefied Natural Gas 

(LNG) to travel at 10 knots or less when right whales are detected in or near passages to 

offshore LNG terminals (Bettridge and Silber, 2008). Vessel speed restrictions have been 

suggested to reduce the likelihood of collisions with fin whales in the Mediterranean Sea 

(Panigada, et al., 2006) and manatees in Florida (Laist and Shaw, 2006). 
3 

Use of Technological Advances to Reduce the Threat 

Seeking a technological solution to ship strikes (e.g., sonar, radar, enhanced 

remote visual detection), in addition to or in lieu of changes to vessel operations, has 

been proposed by maritime industries, resource managers, and government agencies 

alike. Some authors, corporations, or inventors indicate a particular technology has direct 

application to addressing the problem, but not all claims are supported by significant or 

empirical test results. Further, relatively few studies have attempted to compile 

information on applicable technologies or assess the effectiveness of their use 

(Anonymous, 1999; NMFS, 2002). 

One attempt to assess ship strike reduction technologies, particularly sonar 

devices, was an interagency workshop convened in 1999 by the U.S. Navy, Marine 

Mammal Commission, and NMFS (Anonymous, 1999). Among the conclusions, 

workshop participants found (a) there was no reason to believe [at the time of that 

writing] hull-mounted sonar devices could provide a safe and economically feasible 

means to prevent or significantly reduce ship strikes; (b) although technically feasible, 

fixed [i.e., sea-floor mounted] sonar arrays were unlikely to provide a practical means for 

preventing or reducing ship strikes, even in restricted areas such as shipping channels; 

and (c) projecting low-level, non-averse sounds in front of ships transiting areas where 

whales are likely encountered could conceivably reduce the risk of ship strikes and 

merited further investigation. Since that workshop, some technological developments 

such as sonar devices (see Miller and Potter, 2001, for example) and passive acoustic 

detection (see, Moore et al., 2006; Urazghildiiev and Clark, 2006, for example) have 

shown promise in the detection of large whales at navigationally useful ranges. 

In 2002, the NMFS produced a summary of technologies available to reduce ship 

strikes, their status and feasibility, and cost-benefit analyses of each (NMFS, 2002). It, 

too, concluded that, while economically feasible and environmentally benign 

technologies to reduce the likelihood of ship strikes were desirable, and some were more 

promising than others, no existing or developing technology offered a high probability of 

eliminating or substantially reducing collisions in the near future. 

There is continuing interest, however, in emerging technologies that may 

effectively reduce ship strikes while allowing certain maritime commerce and other 

activities to proceed with limited biological and economic impact. Obstacles to overcome 

include low detection rates and a limited effective range of some devices. In addition, 

development, installation, and/or operation may be cost prohibitive in some cases 

(Anonymous, 1999). In all cases, studies are needed to confirm that any such 

technologies are clearly capable of reducing strikes and to ensure that additional 

environmental impacts are not introduced. 

The focus of this workshop was to identify and assess promising ship strike 

reduction technologies. The workshop also addressed limitations in the physical 

maneuvering of vessels and the importance of advanced voyage planning to maritime 

trade. Workshop participants recognized there is a human component related to the 
4 

efficacy of any new technology – both with regard to the willingness of mariners to rely 

on the technology, and the lead time necessary to react to whale detections. The 

workshop did not address mariner acquiring, utilizing, or responding to information about 

the detection of a whale in the vessel’s path or vicinity. For example, there may be 

difficulties with how additional information provided by various detection technologies 

could be integrated into the information processing and analysis procedures already in 

place on the bridge of a ship relating to safe navigation. This includes the human factor 

issues associated with processing of this information, from receipt by the bridge team to 

the point at which a decision is taken to alter the track of the vessel, taking into account 

presence of whales as well as nearby traffic and navigational hazards. Therefore, given 

other constraints it is not possible to know hoe the information will be used regardless of 

its reliability. 

Workshop Goals and Logistics 

 Identified goals of this workshop were to (a) identify existing or emerging 

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

each technology in reducing ship strikes, and (c) identify research and development 

(R&D) and timelines needed to make a given technology useful in reducing the threat, 

along with estimated time needed to bring the technology into a useful form. Objectives 

to meet those goals included (a) updating a 2002 NMFS summary paper on technologies, 

(b) identifying emerging technologies by hearing from inventors or companies with 

candidate technologies, and (c) evaluating and ranking technologies with regard to (i) 

R&D needs, (ii) costs, and therefore (iii) overall feasibility (see workshop terms of 

reference and agenda, Appendix 1). 

 The workshop was attended by 30 participants (Appendices 2 and 3) from 8-10 

July 2008 in Providence, RI. Of these, nine were experts in shipping or represented 

commercial maritime companies or interests; 10 had expertise in technologies or 

represented companies with available or applicable technologies; and 11 were biologists. 

Eight government agencies were represented including the Marine Mammal Commission, 

Maritime Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Ocean Service, 

National Park Service, Office of Ocean Exploration, US Coast Guard, and US Navy. 

Three participants represented independent academic or research organizations. 

Summary presentations and discussions of relevant technologies occurred on the 

first day and part of the second day. The second day included a “brainstorming session” 

in which participants identified additional technologies not previously identified during 

or prior to the workshop. In facilitated discussion groups, participants were asked to 

discuss and make assessments of each type of technology. Specifically, small working 

groups were convened to assess the advantages and disadvantages of each technology by 

considering immediate applicability to the problem of ship strikes, time to 

implementation, costs, probability of detecting whales, and further R&D needs. After 

reviewing available information on each technology, the workshop assessed each 

technology’s capacity to reduce the threat of collision through facilitated discussions.
5 

Workshop Results

Detailed presentations were provided on seven different technologies, either with 

direct application or having the potential to be modified for application to, reducing ship 

strikes of large whales. These were: 

o visual surveys; 

o tagging and telemetry; 

o passive acoustics; 

o active acoustics; 

o thermal imaging (i.e., infrared); 

o radar; and 

o predictive modeling. 

Workshop Presentations and Discussions 

Overviews 

Challenges and Limitations; and Alarm Technologies

 Shannon Bettridge, Ph.D., provided a framework for discussion of efforts to 

reduce large whale ship strikes and the associated challenges. Dr. Bettridge noted that the 

NMFS is required to recover endangered species under the Endangered Species and 

Marine Mammal Protection Acts and that further, reducing the threat of ship strikes is 

likely to enhance the probability of recovery of certain of those species, particularly of 

North Atlantic right whales. The goal is to do so in a manner that does not jeopardize 

human safety and has minimal economic and operational impact on ocean users. In 

addition, Dr. Bettridge identified a number of environmental, biological, technical, 

economic, and human safety challenges to reducing ship strikes. 

Environmental challenges include inherent difficulty in locating whales due to sea 

state/weather, darkness, and the time whales spend underwater. Physical ocean properties 

affecting sound propagation and background “ocean noise” also can interfere with 

whales’ ability to detect, locate, and avoid oncoming vessels. 

Biological factors complicating effective ship strike reduction measures include: 

• Whale behavior 

– Social, foraging, nursing/calving, diving and surface aggregating, etc.; 

• Inconsistent and poorly known whale responses to ships; and 

• Incomplete knowledge of whale life histories (particularly their distribution). 

There are technical and practical challenges that we must consider, including: 

• Challenges to getting tags on animals; 

• Experimentation on marine mammals is not possible without research permits; 

• Difficulties in sighting surfaced animals; 
6 

• Impacts of sound introduction into water (for warning signals or active acoustic 

sensors); 

• Rates of false positives and missed detections inherent in some detection devices; 

• Need for trained operators; 

• Infrastructure needs (e.g., research vessels, aircraft, acoustic data processing); and 

• Research and logistic limitations (e.g., availability of funds, availability of 

research vessels, challenges of a salt water environment with fouling organisms). 

Economic factors must also be considered when developing ship strike reduction 

measures. These include: the importance of commercial and recreational ocean use and 

potential impacts on these activities; survey costs; cost of installing and maintaining 

detection or alarm devices; direct and indirect costs associated with operational measures; 

and research and development costs. 

Human safety is a concern when conducting aerial and ship-board surveys (e.g., 

inherent risk associated with flying and boating), and when conducting at-sea research 

activities (e.g., tagging, carcass recovery, and buoy deployment and maintenance). There 

are also concerns for ship handling and mariner safety inherent in certain ship strike 

reduction measures. 

 Dr. Bettridge also discussed the use of alarm devices as a means to reduce the 

threat of ship strikes. She identified some of the significant disadvantages to this 

approach, including: 

• Whale responses are unknown and likely inconsistent by species, location, and 

behavior; 

• Whales engaged in vital behavior (e.g., feeding and socializing) may not respond 

to strong sound stimuli (Richardson, et al., 1995, Southall et al., 2007). However, 

frequent or chronic disruption of vital behavior (e.g., foraging, mating, 

communication) can have strong negative impacts to some species, particularly 

endangered species; 

• Whales may not respond. Habituation to the signal may occur resulting in 

diminished overall response, especially if the sound is repeatedly encountered 

without any associated negative consequences, e.g., sounds of predators without 

any actual predator presence (Reeves, et al., 1996); 

• Right whales may surface in response to alarms, making them not only more 

susceptible to collision but potentially prone to physiological dangers (e.g., the 

“bends”) or excess energy expenditure issues for some species associated with a 

rapid ascent (Nowacek et al., 2003); and 

• Political and biological implications of harassment to an endangered species need 

to be considered and may be insurmountable. 

 Given these significant obstacles, the workshop focused instead on technologies 

that did not involve alarm devices.
7 

Vessel Maneuvering

 As noted, whale avoidance requires several significant actions following 

detection: alerting the vessel operator, determining whether to initiate, and initiating, an 

evasive reaction (e.g., changing course or speed), and time for the vessel to respond to 

bridge maneuvers. Workshop participants considered vessel maneuvering capabilities, 

particularly vessel responsiveness to an object at the surface in advance of a ship. 

Intrinsic (length, mass) and extrinsic (sea state, weather, etc.) vessel maneuvering and 

response capabilities were considered. 

Vessel characteristics that were discussed included differences in maneuverability 

among vessel types (hull forms), vessel speed, load characteristics (e.g., loaded versus 

ballast condition), deadweight, pivot point, type of propulsion and hydrodynamic forces 

exerted by moving vessels. Characteristics extrinsic to the vessel included hydrographic 

criteria (e.g., water depth and currents), weather conditions (e.g., wind and sea state), and 

situational criteria including traffic densities, presence of recommended or mandatory 

routing systems/traffic separation schemes and spatial and temporal proximity to critical 

vessel actions (e.g., approach to sea buoys and pick-up of pilot) (Table 1). Crew 

experience and local knowledge of an area can also affect vessel maneuvering. The 

workshop participants noted that ship handling is a combination of art and science which 

in sum requires the vessel Master to exercise a situational awareness specific to the 

characteristics in a given event, which gets more complex as extrinsic criteria increase in 

both number and magnitude (e.g., traffic density and weather/wind conditions). The 

ability of a vessel to implement avoidance actions in a given set of spatial and temporal 

circumstances, therefore, is a function of the interaction of both the intrinsic and extrinsic 

features. 

In contrast to the 1999 workshop that produced several hypothetical vessel 

reaction and stop time scenarios (Anonymous, 1999), this workshop concluded that it is 

difficult to make generalizations about the effectiveness and feasibility of avoidance 

maneuvers for all vessels. The inability to generalize is based on wide variation in vessel 

characteristics (e.g., hull type, speed, draft and propulsion systems), which change for 

classes of vessels as well as for an individual vessel over time. Furthermore, integrating 

the wide variation in situational criteria (e.g., traffic density and weather/wind) into the 

maneuvering equation makes generalizations, even on a per vessel basis, nearly 

impossible. The workshop considered examples of these variations (Fig. 1). The 

examples were: 

• representations of variations in rate of turn or turning radius as a function of 

engine rpm, and engine and helm commands; 

• the relative efficiency of rudder commands as a function of vessel speed, 

deadweight, and pivot point; and 

• impacts of current and wind as affected by vessel size, draft and sail area. 

These are examples, and it is difficult to account for all vessels in all conditions. 

Participants in the 2008 workshop also considered variations in avoidance actions 

relative to vessel position at the time the bridge team is informed of the presence of an 
8 

object in the water. A vessel traveling at normal speeds will have far fewer opportunities 

to take effective avoidance actions in the near field (< 1nm) than in the medium to long 

field. Higher speeds will provide more efficient rudder response than with lower speeds. 

With regard to avoidance actions, some workshop participants contended that course 

changing with as much advance notice as possible (the more notice provided, the less 

course alteration required) provides a much wider safety margin overall than an 

emergency action such as an emergency full astern or round turn maneuver. 

Finally, the workshop participants noted that extrinsic characteristics including 

traffic density, obligations placed on vessels by the “Collision Regulations” or 

COLREGS (aka, “Rules of the Road”) have impacts on vessel maneuverability in the 

event of an alert. In addition, requirements imposed by mandatory vessel routing and 

traffic separation schemes, as well as shoaling or other navigational hazards, further limit 

the ability of a vessel to take evasive action. In some cases, evasive maneuvers may be 

physically possible, but if taken, would cause the vessel to violate safety or other legal 

requirements and obligations. 

The workshop participants also considered high speed vessels (i.e., 30 to 40 knots 

operating speed in open water). High speed mono-hull vessels are usually so classified 

because of their speed relative to their length, or speed-length ratio, also referred to as 

hull-speed. (Additional information about high speed vessels appears in Appendix 4.) 

Because of their propulsion systems and other features, these hulls are regarded as highly 

maneuverable and can have very short stop distances, characteristics that may give them 

certain advantages over conventional hulls in avoiding whale strikes. However, 

regardless of vessel speed or maneuvering capabilities, such vessels are typically 

traveling at high speeds thereby providing less operator- or whale-reaction time. A 

number of observed ship strikes occurred when whales surfaced unexpectedly directly in 

front of a vessel or were unseen prior to the collision (Laist, et al., 2001). There are 

numerous reports of collisions between fast ferries and whales worldwide (Tregenza, et 

al., 2002; Weinrich, 2004). Finally, there are reports of human injury as a result of such 

vessels attempting rapid at sea maneuvers high-speed to avoid water borne objects. 

Role of Technologies in Voyage Planning

 The 2008 workshop participants discussed the importance of advanced voyage 

planning in avoiding ship strikes. Specifically, they addressed timing of vessel voyages 

relative to whale migration and movement, and the anticipation of possible delays or 

small changes in course. Workshop participants concluded that, considering available and 

developing technologies and procedures, as well as vessel maneuvering capabilities, 

advance voyage planning that results in avoiding known whale aggregation areas is the 

most prudent way to avoid ship strikes as it diminishes the likelihood of vessels being in 

the vicinity of whales. In this regard, participants developed a table to illustrate relative 

time frames for various types of avoidance scenarios and the general technologies needed 

(Table 2). 
9 

Summaries and Assessments of Technologies 

Visual detection (e.g., surveys and ship-based lookouts)1

Richard Merrick, Ph.D., provided a presentation on visual sighting of whales. He 

discussed visual (with and without binoculars) detection of marine mammals from ship, 

aircraft, and other platforms. He stated that, given the amount of time whales spend 

underwater and the small body size of some species, visual detection can never account 

for all individuals in a particular area. Detection rate can often be less than 20-30% even 

in good sighting conditions, and as low as 0% at night. The speed of the survey platform 

(e.g., ~10 knots for ships; ~100 knots in aircraft) is also an important factor, as are the 

number and experience of observers, and observing conditions. He pointed out that a 

stationary platform in an area for an extended period has near 100% chance of detecting 

individuals during optimum sighting conditions with expert observers. The chances of 

detections decreases drastically as transit speed increases, sighting conditions deteriorate, 

and observer experience declines (Fig. 2). 

 Peter Corkeron, Ph.D., discussed the differences between visual detections from 

aircraft surveys and detections from passive listening devices for right whales. 

Specifically, comparisons were made of aerial survey sightings over Cape Cod Bay, 

Massachusetts with a simple pop-up array (i.e., acoustic detectors) between 2001 and 

2005 (Clark et al., in prep), as well as during 2006 (Fig. 3) and 2008 . Aerial surveys had 

almost complete coverage of the study area on days flown, whereas acoustic detectors 

provided more-or-less complete coverage when whales were likely to occur. On 58 days 

over five years there was overlapping coverage of both systems. There were nine days 

when whales were neither seen nor heard, 30 days during which whales were seen and 

heard, 19 days when whales were heard but not seen, and no days on which whales were 

seen but not heard. Acoustic monitoring indicates that for every five days when whales 

were present, aerial surveys found whales on three. The study concluded that passive 

acoustics methods are more reliable for monitoring than aerial surveys (Clark et al., in 

prep). However, aircraft and other visual surveys are needed to provide context to 

acoustic monitoring, spatiotemporal management measures, and/or photo identification 

information, although there are safety risks in performing surveys. 

 Some participants commented that like anything else, this should be treated as 

cost-benefit. In this regard, visual surveys are needed to calibrate the acoustic system’s 

performance against historical data generated by visual surveys. After that, it is a matter 

of how much value is added by doing both types of data collection, versus the cost of 

doing both, and doing one but not the other. 

 

1

 Although the subject of posting lookouts on transiting vessels was not specifically discussed as a feasible 

technology at the workshop, it warrants comment. Dedicated lookouts stationed on a vessel’s bow or 

wheelhouse and tasked with searching for cues of whales ahead of a vessel are more likely to detect a 

whale than a crew engaged in shipboard operations. In addition, there are operational challenges, such as 

availability of crew to stand this extra watch and personnel safety issues inherent in posting a person on the 

bow of a vessel in rough seas. However, for the reasons described above (e.g., observations are limited to 

daylight hours and favorable weather conditions, effective detection range is limited), they may be of 

limited overall value in reducing ship strikes. 
10 

Tagging and telemetry

Robert Gisiner, Ph.D., discussed the state of the technology and recent advances 

in marine mammal archival and telemetry tagging studies (Gisiner, 2008). Tagging 

studies rely on subjects carrying devices capable of logging various data that are relayed 

back to the user, either by underwater sound (acoustic telemetry), radio (e.g., FM, line of 

sight), or satellite (e.g., ARGOS); or by archiving the data until the tag is retrieved. In 

addition to locating and tracking animals for collision avoidance or other applications, 

tags are also useful as a study tool, providing insights into the behavior and natural 

history of marine mammals. Tags may indicate individual identity, location, biological, 

and behavioral data (e.g., diving behavior, swim speed, and sound production), and 

environmental data (e.g., water temperature, salinity, and fluorescence). Critical elements 

to evaluating the application of a tag technology include: 

• sensor capabilities; 

• onboard data processing and storage; 

• data transmission/telemetry; 

• reliability, cost, and availability; 

• power supply; 

• delivery, attachment, and release; and 

• animal and operator safety. 

Relatively recent advances in miniaturization, battery life, and data storage have rendered 

many telemetry devices highly adaptable. 

Much of Dr. Gisiner’s presentation and subsequent workshop discussion focused 

on the difficulties associated with attaching telemetry devices to a subject. Dr. Gisiner 

noted that delivery, attachment, and release are the most critical remaining technical 

challenges for potential users. Because of the challenge of attachment and release, tags 

often remain on whales for only limited periods (e.g., Mate et al., 2007), preventing longterm study, although tag life of months or even a year or more has been obtained for 

some large whales (Mate et al., 2007). Some observations of scarring at the site of the tag 

indicate that caution should be exercised in determining the type and number of tags one 

might deploy, relative to possible risk to animals. 

Tagging programs can entail significant costs, in the form of ship time to locate 

and tag animals, for example, and the safety risks inherent to at-sea research. For these 

reasons, tagging a significant portion of a population for reducing ship strikes, for 

example, is not feasible. 

Dr. Gisiner offered the following observations regarding this technology: 

 Data transmission. Following challenges associated with attachment, data 

transmission is generally considered the most limiting factor in this technology. Two 

types of data transmission have been used: (a) acoustic (underwater coded sound pulses) 

and (b) electromagnetic (FM radio, satellite radio, cell phone band). Acoustic telemetry 

requires more power than electromagnetic transmission, it provides less range (generally 

1-2 miles, versus 10-20 or more), and has less bandwidth (although this technology is 
11 

advancing rapidly). Electromagnetic telemetry has longer range (typically line-of-sight 

for MHz FM signals; 10-60 miles, depending on atmospheric conditions and the height of 

the sender and receiver). This method has the advantage of providing greater potential 

bandwidth; up to real-time video and audio. However, the animal must be at the surface 

for data transmission, and the animals are seldom at the surface long enough for 

transmissions requiring minutes of uninterrupted connection. And available satellite 

communications capability has cost, coverage, and bandwidth limits (e.g., ARGOS 

satellite systems). 

 Availability. The majority of commonly used tags, including those providing 

Pressure-Time-Temperature (PTT); conductivity (salinity), temperature and pressure 

(CTD); FastLok Global Positioning System (GPS); and acoustic dataloggers are now 

commercially produced. 

 Power Supply. Relatively recent energy savings developments in hardware and 

software have brought power needs largely within current battery power capabilities. 

Batteries account for most of the weight and volume of all but a few tag types, but drag, 

not weight, is usually the primary limiting factor. Some high-tech, power-dense batteries 

(e.g., lithium cells) offer problems when operated at depth, or pose hazards of fire or 

explosion, although this is rare. For long duration attachments, power management 

strategies are employed, such as limited sampling to discrete, intermittent periods or 

trying to establish telemetry uplink only when conditions are favorable. Next-generation 

energy harvesting technologies, such as biofuel cells may offer breakthroughs in the next 

decade or so. 

 Cost. Commercial tags tend to offer reduced cost, improved reliability and 

availability. PTT and CTD type tags cost in the range of $500-3,000/unit, while more 

complex tags (acoustic B-probe) cost over $10K/unit. Greater demand would likely 

reduce the cost. Exploration of new technical options, such as new attachment or sensor 

technology, typically requires a minimum of 3-5 years and $1-2 M before a reliable 

product can be expected, due to the costs and challenges of at-sea testing and small 

sample sizes. Other commercial applications must be relied on to drive technical 

progress, cost, and availability. New satellite technology (e.g., mini-satellites), new cell 

phone and computer technology, and new battery and power supply technology are all 

serving to reduce costs. 

 Sensors and Memory. The past decade has seen a revolution in the variety of 

sensor capabilities. Environmental dataloggers (e.g., CTD tags) offer indirect benefits by 

feeding dynamic ocean models to predict marine mammal habitat use and movements 

(“whalecasting”). Multi-gigabyte memory is now available in very small packages with 

low power consumption. Such systems also provide programmable sampling and various 

levels of on-board data analysis to reduce the amount of memory needed. 

In sum, cost, availability, reliability, sensors, power, and memory are all currently 

capable of supporting developing telemetry applications. However, attachment remains 

the greatest technical challenge. Although telemetry is a highly useful tool for studying 
12 

whale behavior, natural history and movements, its utility in mitigating ship strikes is 

severely limited by the logistics, risks, and limited lifespan of the attachments and the 

cost of getting tags on the animals and keeping them tagged. Timeliness of contact is also 

an issue. FM line-of-sight tags and acoustically transmitting tags that communicate by 

satellite do so infrequently, usually one to three times per day or less, because the animals 

must be at the surface for sufficient time and calculation of the position of the whales is 

not very accurate for systems like ARGOS (ARGOS tags with FASTLOC GPS provide 

localizations within tens of meters, but are limited by the need to relay the GPS position 

via ARGOS). 

Acoustic Technologies

 As noted, marine mammal visual surveys are capable of detecting only a portion 

of the animals actually present. Detections can only occur at the surface during daylight 

and in relatively good weather. In addition, the coverage provided by visual surveys are 

non-concurrent snapshots of a very tiny area of the animals’ habitats. The number of 

observers and platforms are usually limited to one or two at a time, and then only cover a 

few days or weeks of the year, and are very expensive. Survey data from winter months, 

for example, is much less common than data from summer. However, acoustic 

observation can be undertaken continuously regardless of time of day, weather, location, 

or other limitations to visual surveys. Acoustic observation may be “passive” (listening 

only) or “active” (emitting a sound and listening for echoes reflected from the animals). 

Passive acoustics 

Passive acoustics methods do not produce sounds, but capture sounds from the 

environment to gather information about it. Passive acoustic sensors (hydrophones) may 

be deployed from or towed behind a ship, or from a stationary receiver anchored on the 

ocean floor for extended periods. Use of passive acoustic methods is becoming 

commonplace in the study of marine mammals (see, for example, Moore et al., 2006; 

Mellinger et al., 2007). However, passive acoustic detection requires acoustically active 

subjects; silent animals (e.g., some killer whales in some situations) will not be detected. 

At least initially, passive acoustic methods need to be “ground truthed” to determine the 

corresponding number of animals for a given incidence of sounds received, i.e., there 

may be a small number of animals calling frequently or a large number vocalizing 

infrequently. Gender differences in the type and rate of calling, seasonal variance in call 

rates as for mating calls, or differences associated with group size or other social 

variables may also confound the correlation between number of sounds received and 

number of animals actually present. Determining the distance of vocalizing whales from 

detectors can also be problematic. 

Passive acoustic devices are typically deployed in one of two forms: cabled 

hydrophones and autonomous recorders. Large-scale, cabled hydrophone systems can be 

very expensive to install and maintain. Historically most, if not all, such large arrays have 

been built for national security and military training purposes. Some of these systems 
13 

have at times been made available for research and other non-military uses. Autonomous 

recorders consist of hydrophones and battery-powered data-recording systems, 

sometimes with onboard pre-processing capability to minimize memory usage. These 

instruments are moored on the seafloor, sometimes with flotation that stations the sensor 

up in the water column. Unmanned autonomous vehicles, or “gliders”, are increasingly 

being used as platforms for transporting acoustic recording devices. Three or more 

hydrophones are typically deployed in arrays both to ensure coverage of a particular area 

and to provide information on the location of sound sources through triangulation from 

more than two sensors, although accurate distance information is not always available.2

 

Sampling can be continuous or through another more limited sampling regime. Data 

transmission (via radio or satellite links) must occur when the device is brought to the 

surface either on a pre-determined surfacing schedule or can be down-loaded by acoustic 

telemetry without being retrieved. Most often, data are retrieved during scheduled battery 

changes. Algorithms have been developed to discriminate marine mammal calls from 

other ambient underwater sound sources (fish, ships, industrial activities, etc.), and, in 

many cases, can be used to automatically detect species specific calls. As noted earlier for 

calibration of acoustic surveys with visual surveys, automated signal detection and 

classification programs first need to be calibrated against the current “best available” 

acoustic signal processor, the human brain. In some cases, automated processors may 

perform better in noise or for faint signals than a human, but that can only be established 

through testing with artificial data sets of by knowing the location and source 

characteristics of test sources in the detection field. 

Two presentations were made on passive acoustics. Sofie Van Parijs, Ph.D., led a 

discussion of a study that used a passive array system to monitor fin, humpback, and right 

whale presence in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and involving vessel 

Automatic Identification System (AIS) data to track ship traffic. Here, two passive 

acoustic detection technologies, marine acoustic recording units (ARUs) and real-time 

passive acoustic buoys (RTB), are being used to understand the vocalization patterns and 

distribution of North Atlantic right whales. RTBs are also used to alert mariners to right 

whale presence. ARUs are bottom-mounted archival buoys that enable long-term (months 

to years) collection of large whale vocalization data. The acoustic data from these 

recorders are processed for right whale up calls using a custom made automated detector 

(Urazghildiiev and Clark, 2006). Studies have demonstrated seasonal and diurnal 

variation in calling behavior. To estimate detection distances for right whale up calls, 

propagation loss has been modeled using a source level of 150dB, with the whale and 

ARU at water depths of 5 and 30 m, respectively. The model incorporated average 

ambient noise of 80 to 90dB, using a measured winter average for Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary waters. The calculated range from the buoy was 2.0 to 5.5nm 

(S. Van Parijs, pers. comm.). Varying ambient noise levels will affect this detection range 

and a more comprehensive set of measurements over multiple seasons is underway for 

both Stellwagen and Cape Cod Bay, as is analysis of a large sample of whale up call 

source level measurements. An acoustic clip of up calls is collected and transmitted to 

 

2

 Comprehensive and detailed descriptions of specific instruments and their use and capabilities in various 

geometric configurations are beyond the scope of this report. More complete discussions appear in 

Richardson et al. (1995), Moore et al. (2005), and elsewhere. 
14 

Cornell University where it is checked by a trained person for accuracy. Once confirmed 

by visual inspection of call audiograms, the presence of a whale is posted on a map on a 

web site (www.listenforwhales.org) and reports are sent twice daily to NOAA’s sightings 

advisory system. Some ARUs and RTBs record/monitor continuously, are robust and 

capable of data collection in all weather conditions and at night. However, ARUs have 

been lost to trawling in heavily fished areas. Currently, RTB detections are an effective 

means for reporting right whale presence. Improvements need to be made in certain 

aspects of the acoustic detector. An increased understanding of how RTBs perform in 

different habitats and a better understanding of right whale calling behavior is still needed 

to improve the efficacy of both technologies. 

Gary Donoher, of Analysis, Design, & Diagnostics, described a system involving 

a ship-based passive acoustic detection and classification system. The system has been 

subjected to limited testing by the U.S. Navy to detect marine mammals during active 

sonar operations that could potentially affect marine mammals. The intent is to provide a 

system that can operate continuously and is capable of providing automated detection 

with minimal involvement by a watch stander. Mr. Donoher reported that detection 

probabilities were high. This system uses the calibrated reference hydrophone (CRH), 

which is onboard all Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers and Ticonderoga Class Guided 

Missile Cruisers. These sensors have an effective bandwidth of 100 kHz. 

Mr. Donoher reported that his company is developing a multi-channel automated 

detection and classification system that will support the processing of a wide variety of 

sensors including the CRH onboard ships, fixed sensors used at Navy Undersea Warfare 

Ranges, towed array sensors, sonobuoys deployed by aircraft as well as other specialized 

sensors. He also indicated that this same technology can be readily modified to support 

commercial shipping and port operations. However, some workshop participants 

commented that much work is needed to make such a system functionally able to 

determine range or bearing to a vocalizing marine mammal – data essential to reducing 

collision risk – although detections are certainly possible. At present, the Navy’s Marine 

Mammal Monitoring on Ranges (M3R) is developing an automated classifier for two 

species of beaked whales. There are significant issues to be faced before this capability 

can be applied to the vast majority of marine mammal species, and making such a system 

fully functional (e.g., species recognition, bearing, and range data) may take years of 

research. 

Active acoustics (e.g., SONAR) 

Active acoustic techniques (e.g., active sonar) involve the production of a sound 

and analysis of the returning echo. Active sonar is widely used in a number of marine 

research fields, such as fisheries sciences. 

The workshop included two presentations on active acoustics. Ms. Cheryl M. 

Zimmerman, of FarSounder Corporation, presented information on a 3D navigation and 

obstacle avoidance sonar for whales that provided an overview of the technology and 

compares 3D processing with traditional 1D and 2D sonar devices. FarSounder is 
15 

currently using these systems for detection of submerged hazards, shallow water 

navigation, port disaster operations, and marine mammal ship strike avoidance. The 

systems have been deployed in a number of locations and have previously been used in 

proof of concept studies with regard to fin whales in waters off Virginia (2001), right 

whales in Cape Cod Bay (1999), and humpback whales on Stellwagen Bank (1998). Ms. 

Zimmerman said the systems have been used by a number of vessels including cruise 

ships, yachts, and ferries for the purpose of avoiding whales. Incentives for ships to avoid 

whales with these systems could help justify the cost. 

Ms. Zimmerman indicated that her company’s product produces a signal at 60kHz 

with a source level of <204dB, has a one-quarter mile (0.463 km) range, and is capable of 

operating from a ship moving at 10 to 20 knots. The two msec signal is transmitted at a 

pulse rate of one per second at maximum power of 0.56kW rms. She stated that it emits 

less energy than commonly accepted commercial echosounders and provides a full 

volume field of view of 90 degree/60 degree wide and to water depths of 50 m with a 

single ping. She said her company expects to launch a device in the coming year that has 

a detection range to 1⁄2 mile and discussed planned next generation systems with expected 

ranges of 1-2 nm. Her company expects devices under development to enable localization 

of the whales as well as advanced classification of various species. She expects the 

systems to have automated detection and low false detection rate capabilities. 

Mr. Jeff Condiotty, of Kongsberg Underwater Technology, Inc., discussed a 

fisheries sonar device potentially adaptable to detecting marine mammals. Mr. Condiotty 

described various underwater scanning devices that his company manufactures, including 

scanning sonar, single- and split-beam echo sounders, multi-beam sonar, and omnidirectional sonar devices capable of detecting objects ahead of and below a ship. Mr. 

Condiotty reported that these acoustic systems are used on government research and 

commercial fishing vessels. He noted that sonar signals can vary in frequency, from <30 - 

>120 kHz. Wide-swath, multi-beam echosounder devices, in frequencies from 70kHz -

120kHz, are designed to acoustically sample a fish school with one ping. Mr. Condiotty 

also described several applications used in certain locations including: sonar coverage at 

port entrances for national security purposes, and bottom-mounted moored systems 

(using a signal at 38 kHz) to sample biological entities in the water column. 

Mr. Condiotty described pilot trials in waters off Norway involving whale 

detections during seismic surveys. Omni-directional sonar devices detected humpback, 

minke, and killer whales with pulsed frequency modulated signals at 26 kHz up to 64 ms, 

and source levels of <180dB. Detection ranges, confirmed by visual observation, were 

around 2000 m under good conditions. Fast swimming (9-12 knots) whales were detected 

at ranges of 1500 - 2000 m. Groups of about 10 killer whales, as well as mackerel schools 

on which they were feeding, produced return echoes from distances of several hundred 

meters. Mr. Condiotty reported that during trials, whales showed no observable 

behavioral change indicative of avoidance from sonar exposure. He indicated such 

devices are used on commercial fishing vessels. 
16 

Remote Sensing

Radar 

Charles Forsyth, Ph.D., of Areté Associates, Inc., discussed application of radar 

systems to detect marine mammals. Commercial ship-borne radars can be used to detect 

marine mammals if the signal is processed differently than customarily processed for 

navigational purposes. These devices share characteristics with visual and infrared 

methods in using electromagnetic waves that travel well in air (but not water). It has the 

advantages of potentially greater range than either visual or infrared sensors and can be 

subjected to automated signal detection and tracking rather than relying on constant 

visual monitoring. Radar works equally well at day or night and is less affected by fog 

and light rain than visual or infrared sensors. Although radar can only detect animals at 

the surface, it can continually operate during reduced visibility conditions and at night. 

Systems can be either land-based or aircraft- or ship-mounted. The basic hardware is 

available commercially and generally is easy to install. Processing software requires 

modification and is being developed. Data are processed in real-time. 

Both commercial grade and custom radar setups have been considered, but 

custom or military grade radars provide significant advantages over commercial radars. 

However, they have greater cost and limited availability. Therefore, greater potential lies 

with larger commercial navigation radars (such as Furuno) that are widely installed. 

While these have been at the upper end of available power, utilize large antenna, and 

require speed upgrades, all of these are standard options. Data processing uses 

customized software. Additional processing hardware required can be as small as one or 

two workstations with appropriate displays. 

Radar detects marine mammals at the surface by the reflection of the radar pulse 

off the exposed back of the animal, or in the case of schools of small dolphins, by the 

unusual amount of splashing. The radar signature of a marine mammal differs from a 

surface ship in several ways. First, its radar cross section is much smaller than a typical 

surface ship. Also, marine mammal signals usually occupy a smaller piece of the ocean 

than ships and they are intermittent as the animal dives and resurfaces. Standard radar 

processors, designed to detect surface ships, are ill-suited for finding the animals, because 

marine mammals present only a temporary reflective surface. However, custom data 

processing software can extract their signatures from cluttered data. In addition to whales, 

detections of similar objects such as seabirds, logs, and whitecaps hamper interpretation, 

but the expert operator can discriminate them because birds, logs, and whitecaps do not 

move like whales and dolphins. Similar to visual methods, radars are limited by high sea 

conditions (especially severe white capping). 

In the course of three separate experiments, the Areté radar processor successfully 

detected and tracked marine mammals including humpback whales in waters off Hawaii 

(land-based), fin whales in the Mediterranean (ship-mounted), and gray whales off the 

southern California coast (ship-mounted). Visual observation confirmed detection to six 

km in moderate sea conditions. The next steps are to establish real false alarm rates to go 
17 

along with the detections, characterize performance in various sea conditions, and make 

the capability real-time. 

Infrared 

 Olaf Boebel, Ph.D., discussed the development and use of several infrared 

cameras for cetacean detection in Antarctic waters. Infrared devices are used to detect 

“thermal signatures” of animals against backgrounds of different ambient temperatures. 

Devices can be land- or ship-based. Dr. Boebel used several devices to determine if 

whale blows were detectable. (The whale itself may not be detectable due to thick 

insulating blubber layers.) He also evaluated methods to overcome technical challenges, 

such as ship vibration, the effects of ambient and light and reflections, various kinds of 

thermal noise, and damage to the instrument by direct sunlight. 

In a pilot study in 2003, Dr. Boebel’s team used a hand-held infrared camera, 

successfully detecting blows from humpback whales at distances of 300-400m. In a 

subsequent study in 2004, two fixed infrared cameras were mounted on the ship’s flying 

bridge with 24° field of view and each capturing about a dozen encounters of various 

species. In 2006, a system mounted and passively gimbaled in the crow’s nest involved a 

visual camera (24° field) and two infrared cameras (7° and 12° fields). With these, minke 

whale blows were detected in the infrared images for 0.56 sec, and at distances of 1,164+

m. 

However, the fields of view for single cameras are limited. While this is less a 

concern for the application discussed in this workshop (i.e., collision avoidance), the 

detection of marine mammals for mitigation measures when using air guns (i.e., the goal 

of the study) requires a continuous monitoring of the ship’s entire perimeter. To this end, 

in early 2009 an infrared device with 360° scanning capabilities will be tested. This 

system will also be actively stabilized and use a cooled detector, which is expected to 

greatly improve image quality and facilitate automatic pattern recognition. Automated 

recognition algorithms are needed to minimize watch stander requirements. While basic 

versions of these have been developed and successfully tested, significant improvements 

are needed to filter out false positives (e.g., reflections off breaking waves), which is part 

of an ongoing research project. Based on this work, Dr. Boebel concluded that whale 

blows are detectable, at least in Antarctic waters, up to ranges of at least 1,000 m. Gyrostabilized systems are expected to reduce ship vibration while thermal noise can be 

reduced using cooled units (although these are expensive), resulting in higher image 

quality. Direct sunlight did not damage the devices, addressing one concern, but ambient 

light and reflections can result in false positives, which need to be addressed using 

advanced automated pattern recognition systems. He estimated commercially available 

systems could be available within three to four years.
18 

Predictive modeling

Andrew Pershing, Ph.D., assessed methods he and colleagues are developing to 

predict right whale distribution using oceanographic information from satellites. In 

particular, satellites provide data on sea surface temperature, sea surface height and 

reflectance at certain wavelengths of light indicative of the concentration of chlorophyll, 

and thus primary productivity. These data can be used to project likely copepod (Calanus 

spp.) (i.e., primary right whale prey) location, abundance, and growth, based upon what is 

known about the ecological dynamics between copepods and primary production. The 

goal is to provide mariners those locations where right whales are likely to aggregate, 

based on model predictions, to minimize whale-vessel interaction. In addition, the models 

can contribute to aerial survey planning, shipping lane evaluation, and characterization of 

zooplankton resources in various habitats. Dr. Pershing indicated that the first generation 

forecasting system provides information on (a) copepods and whales, (b) conditions in 

late-winter that determine copepod abundance in summer, and (c) how this is linked to 

when and how many right whales arrive in the Great South Channel (Pershing et al., 

2009). His group is working on the next generation of models that will have finer spatial 

and temporal scales and assimilate zooplankton observations in Cape Cod Bay. The 

output from the copepod models will be used to drive right whale distribution models, 

and they are currently developing techniques to assimilate whale localizations from 

passive acoustics or surveys into the distribution models. Participants discussed possible 

limitations to the technique, including that the system is predictive, is limited by the 

availability of satellite data (which can be reduced by weather), does not provide 

definitive, real-time information on right whale aggregation locations, and the fact that 

development of models is still underway. Nonetheless, it is a very cost-effective means to 

provide information on ocean conditions relevant to whales. 

Workshop Discussions 

 Discussions of various technologies were expanded to include specific features of 

each in break-out groups, which resulted in an overall summary of the following general 

points and tables of “pros” and “cons” (Appendix 5). 

General Points to Consider Applicable To Multiple Technologies

• If the United States were to require use of any of the ship-board technologies 

discussed at this meeting as a condition of port entry for foreign or domestic 

vessels, the United States would likely face impediments and challenges based on 

international maritime law. 

o The United States would have to develop operational standards for any of 

the technologies. 

o The United States would likely have to phase in any such requirements for 

ship-based technologies. 
19 

• The United States would have to develop key metrics for determining the 

standards of any technologies and the way they would be used, including 

feedback loops of the information gathered and communication systems to assure 

that information collected was widely disseminated. 

• All passive acoustic listening systems only detect whales when they are 

vocalizing. Vocalization rates vary by species, gender, and season. 

• Any tagging of large whales would require MMPA and possibly ESA permits. 

• Active acoustics research would require MMPA and ESA permits. 

• Some of the technologies discussed at this meeting require considerable training 

for the operators and could involve significant costs (including maintenance). 

• Technologies that can be incorporated with existing systems are more likely to be 

accepted by maritime industry than those that require autonomous equipment and 

dedicated staff to use them effectively. 

• Ensonifying large areas of ocean would require significant power. Power 

requirements of some moored systems present technological challenges. Power 

requirement are not a limiting factor for ship-mounted forward-looking sonars. 

• The issue of underwater noise is an international concern (ship noise, sonar noise, 

etc.). Active acoustic technologies would involve increasing noise levels in the 

ocean. 

• Any technology employed should introduce no, or minimal, co-occurring negative 

effects to marine organisms or habitat. 

• Ideally, applicable technologies can be situation or context specific, e.g., can be 

fine-tuned to area or vessel type. 

• Ideally, can be dovetailed with multiple detection systems. 

• Ideally, a viable technology operates in real-time, but with sufficient time to react. 

• Involves minimal impact to normal bridge operations, i.e., least amount time 

involvement from the mariner while underway. 

• Important to be able to communicate information to the mariner, through existing 

and standard vehicles such as AIS, NAVTEX,3

 RACON,4 etc. 

• The United States may be able to implement some measures through conditions of 

port entry. 

• Finding technological solutions is a multi-part process; there is no one measure to 

fit all situations. 

• Other communities are thinking about similar problems (e.g., detection of 

submarines), and we should tap into their work. 

• Large vessels pay about $700/ton of fuel. Any hull changes or other devices 

added will increase fuel consumption. Environmental footprint will increase with 

physical solutions. It is highly undesirable to transfer one biological problem for 

another environmental problem. 

 

3

 NAVTEX is an international automated medium frequency direct-printing service for delivery of urgent 

marine safety information and navigational and meteorological warnings and forecasts to ships. NAVTEX 

is an acronym for Navigational Telex. 

4

 RACON is a type of radar transponder that is used to mark maritime navigational hazards. RACON is an 

acronym for RAdar beaCON. 
20 

• Smaller craft, not much considered in the workshop, may have different operating 

characteristics than the vessels primarily considered, however they also hit 

whales. 

• Of all the technologies considered during the workshop, the one that seems to be 

most cost-effective is passive acoustics. Active acoustics, for example, have 

relatively more technical drawbacks and potential negative impacts. 

In the course of discussions and during a “brainstorming” session, the workshop 

participants also identified several other potentially applicable technologies to address 

ship strikes. These were briefly discussed, but were not assessed in facilitated working 

groups. Technologies identified were: 

• tactile alarm in front of ships, e.g., water cannons; 

• satellite- or unmanned aircraft-based hyperspectral imaging (i.e., detection of 

electromagnetic spectra, such as ultraviolet); 

• tomographic profiling of the water column; 

• physical technologies such as prop guards and hull designs; and 

• wake detection and other indicators of whale presence as detected from the air. 

 Some participants advocated integrating multiple systems and technologies to best 

mitigate ship strikes. They envisioned, for example, predictive modeling of regional 

whale occurrence, refined use of passive acoustics to determine local (10s to 100s of km 

out) occurrence, with yet further detail on whales in the vessel’s immediate vicinity 

provided by active acoustics. This hypothetically provides better basis for voyage 

planning and relatively near-field evasive actions, leaving mariners with the freedom to 

determine the best means of avoiding whales. However, such systems might be costly to 

maintain and would still rely on potentially hurried last minute evasive action by a large 

vessel. 

Summary and Conclusions 

 The workshop participants weighed the advantages and limitations of a number of 

technologies applicable to reducing ship strikes. The participants concluded that the 

problem of ship strikes is complex one, with no obvious, simple technological “fixes” 

immediately available for wide scale use. Thus, no single technology now exists, or will 

be developed in the foreseeable future that will eliminate, or reduce to zero the chances 

of, ships striking large whales. Reducing the spatial overlap of both whales and vessels is 

likely to remain the best means of reducing ship strikes, although not feasible in many 

locations. 

Technologies applicable for reducing ship strikes are largely focused on 

enhancing whale detection. Enhanced detection capabilities can and should be pursued; 

however, reaction times of both whales and mariners remain important and challenging 

components of the problem. Several technologies used together would increase the 
21 

chances of detection at ranges both near and far from a vessel, improving the likelihood 

of providing early warnings to mariners. However, this only partly addresses the 

problem: the mariner must have the capabilities (e.g., adequate communication systems 

and adequate response times) to take evasive action to avoid a detected whale. Responses 

to such information may vary amongst mariners and vessel types. Substantial distances 

may be necessary for vessels underway to avoid, alter course, slow down, or even react to 

an object directly in their path, particularly at higher speeds. 

Of the technologies considered, alarm devices that scare or deter an animal from a 

particular location were rejected early in the workshop because it would be highly 

undesirable to repeatedly or chronically inhibit an endangered species from a preferred 

habitat, feeding site, or migration route. In addition, Nowacek et al. (2003) showed that at 

least a couple of typical alarm sounds either elicited little response, no response, or 

resulted in right whales exposed to the sound to rise to the surface where collision risks 

were greater. Even if the whales initially responded in a desirable way, workshop 

participants noted that whales may become habituated to such alarm signals. 

Because most large, traditional hull vessels have very long reaction times and 

distances, workshop participants concluded that thousands of meters are needed to 

significantly alter the course of a large vessel in most conditions. While executing such a 

maneuver, the vessel has limited options for evasive actions, is vulnerable to reduced 

maneuverability throughout the action, and may inadvertently veer toward unseen whales 

in avoiding an observed one. 

High-speed vessels (e.g., some passenger ferries) represent exceptions to general 

maneuverability rules. Many possess unique hull configurations, propulsion systems, 

better maneuvering capabilities, and shorter stopping distances. However, even with 

greater maneuverability than conventional hulls, such vessels may not be able to react to 

an observed whale in less time due to their faster speeds. 

Workshop participants concluded that carefully considered voyage planning that 

anticipates the potential for whale interaction is more desirable than attempting to react to 

the presence of whales in the near field. Several technologies (e.g., predictive modeling, 

passive acoustics, and active acoustics) employed together could provide far- and nearfield detection capabilities to aid voyage planning, as well as immediate avoidance 

response. 

Small directed group discussions resulted in specific information on the “pros” 

and “cons” of each technological approach. Some conclusions can be made from these 

discussions. Visual surveys can be expensive, logistically complex, and are limited by 

poor weather, low-light conditions that vary by time of the year. Even in the best of 

conditions, only a fraction of the whales actually present may be detected. (Most of these 

points can generally be applied to the posting of dedicated lookouts, as well.) Telemetry 

is highly useful for studies of whale natural history and movement, and the field is 

advancing rapidly, particularly in regard to increasing power supplies and decreasing 

costs to transmit data. However, this approach faces challenges in attaching devices to 
22 

whales and in the logistics of deploying devices to a sufficient number of individuals to 

make it a viable means to reduce ship strikes. 

Passive acoustic technologies are becoming commonplace in many locations for 

studying whale occurrence and distribution. Due to the amount of data returned for cost 

investment, this approach may be one of the most promising for addressing ship strikes. 

However, these devices will only detect vocalizing whales and determining specific 

location is not always possible unless multi-unit arrays are used. Active sonar devices can 

be effective in detecting whales within hundreds of meters (perhaps up to one thousand in 

certain cases and circumstances) of a vessel, although this range may be extended as 

technology improves. Wavelengths of sound that work best for detecting whales are also 

audible to other marine mammals and fish, and may produce undesirable effects on other 

organisms and parts of the ecosystem while reducing risks for large whales. Depending 

on the eventual system designs used, costs can be relatively high and false positives could 

be problematic. Radar devices can be used from ship or shore and have the advantage of 

operating in poor weather. False positives are a potential problem, though, and more 

performance data will be needed before commercialization can be contemplated. Ranges 

are also limited to line-of-sight, which for a small vessel might be 5-8 km (about the 

same or slightly better than ideal visual detection ranges). The higher the antenna above 

the water’s surface, the farther a radar can detect objects, with shore-based systems 

providing detections at ranges exceeding 10 km. Thermal imaging devices have proved 

promising in detecting whale blows in Antarctic waters, at ranges greater than one km but 

are less effective in warmer climates where blows and ambient temperature differences 

are less. Predictive models using oceanographic data from satellites or other sources are a 

relatively low-cost means to predict where whales may occur. Like all models, including 

weather forecasts, there is an inherent amount of uncertainty in the predicted outcome, 

but fairly reliable models can be applied now to provide information on large scales. 

Coverage potentially can be regional in scale, but resolution (and therefore utility) is 

greatest at scales on the order of 100s of meters. 

In all cases, efficient and reliable means to provide information to mariners, 

which they can use to effectively respond is the best course to avoid whale strikes. 

Therefore, some technologies hold promise and may have application to this problem in 

the relatively near term, perhaps when used in combination. Others will require continued 

research and development before wide scale application is feasible. Whereas mariners are 

expected to avoid whales when forewarned, most technologies have limitations in 

providing detection ranges adequate to allow mariners sufficient time to respond. Given 

the severity of the problem for a number of endangered species and the relative paucity of 

foolproof solutions, technological approaches are worthy of, and should be the subject of, 

ongoing pursuit. 
23 

Literature Cited 

Anonymous. 1999. Assessment of the possible use of active acoustics (sonar) to reduce 

right whale mortalities and injuries from ship strikes: proceedings of an interagency 

workshop, 28 July 1999. 12 pp. Available from the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission. 

Best, P.B., J.L. Bannister, R.L. Brownell, Jr., and G.P. Donovan (eds.). 2001. Right 

whales: worldwide status. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. (Special 

Issue) 2. 309 pp. 

Bettridge, S., and G.K. Silber. 2008. Update on the United States’ actions to reduce the 

threat of ship collisions with large whales. Prepared for the International Whaling 

Commission’s Working Group on Ship Strikes and Presented at the International 

Whaling Commission’s Conservation Committee, Santiago, Chile, June 16, 2008. 

Calleson, C.S., and R.K. Frolich. 2007. Slower boat speeds reduce risks to manatees. 

Endangered Species Research 3(3):295-304. 

Campbell-Malone, R. 2007. Biomechanics of North Atlantic right whale bone: 

mandibular fracture as a fatal endpoint for blunt vessel-whale collision modeling. Ph.D. 

dissertation, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA. 

Elvin, S.S., and C.T. Taggart. 2008. Right whales and vessels in Canadian waters. Marine 

Policy 32: 379-386. 

Fonnesbeck, C.J., L. Garrison, L. Ward, and R. Baumstark. In prep. A Bayesian 

hierarchical model for evaluating the risk of vessel strikes on North Atlantic right whales 

in the southeastern United States. 

Greenland, J.A., and C.J. Limpus. 2006. Marine wildlife stranding and mortality 

database. II. Cetacean and pinniped. The State of Queensland. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Freshwater and Marine Sciences Unit, Environmental Sciences Division 

Conservation technical and data report. Vol. 2005. No. 2. 

Gisiner, R. 2008. Review of marine mammal remote datalogging technology (“TAGS”). 

Draft paper presented to a workshop to identify and assess technologies to reduce ship 

strikes of large whales. Providence, Rhode Island, 8-10 July 2008. 12 pp. 

Hazel J., I.R. Lawler, H. Marsh, and S. Robson. 2007. Vessel speed increases collision 

risk for the green turtle Chelonia mydas. Endangered Species Research 3:105-113. 

Jensen, A.S., and G.K. Silber. 2003. Large whale ship strike database. U.S. Department 

of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/OPR 25, 37 pp. 
24 

Kite-Powell, H.K., A. Knowlton, and M. Brown. 2007. Modeling the effect of vessel 

speed on right whale ship strike risk. Project report for NOAA/NMFS Project 

NA04NMF47202394, April 2007. 

Knowlton, A.R., and S.D. Kraus. 2001. Mortality and serious injury of northern right 

whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Journal of Cetacean 

Research and Management (Special Issue) 2: 193-208. 

Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet, and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions 

between ships and whales. Marine Mammal Science 17(1): 35-75. 

Laist, D.W., and C. Shaw. 2006. Preliminary evidence that boat speed restrictions reduce 

deaths of Florida manatees. Marine Mammal Science 22(2): 472-479. 

Marine Mammal Commission. 2006. Annual report to Congress 2005. Marine Mammal 

Commission, Bethesda, Maryland. 204 pp. 

Mate, B., R. Mesecar, and B. Lagerquist. 2007. The evolution of satellite-monitored radio 

tags for large whales: one laboratory’s experience. Deep-Sea Research II 54: 224-247. 

Mellinger, D.K., K.M. Stafford, S.E. Moore, R.P. Dziak, and H. Matsumoto. 2007. 

Overview of fixed passive acoustic observation methods for cetaceans. Oceanography 20: 

37-45. 

Mille, J.H., and D.C. Potter. 2001. Active high frequency phased-array sonar for whale 

shipstrike avoidance: Target strength measurements. Abstract. Proceedings of the 

IEE/MTS Oceans 2001: 2104-2107. 

Moore, S.E., K.M. Stafford, D.K. Mellinger, and J.A. Hildebrand. 2006. Listening for 

large whales in offshore waters of Alaska. BioScience 56:49-55. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2002. Technological alternatives to the problem of 

North Atlantic right whale ship strikes. Unpublished white paper. 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/shipstrike/ss_techalt.pdf. 29 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Final rule to implement speed restrictions to 

reduce the threat of ship collisions with North Atlantic right whales. 73 FR 60173; 10 

October 2008. 

National Park Service. 2003. Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska. Vessel 

Quotas and Operating Requirements. Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. 

Department of Interior. 

Nowacek, D.P., M.P. Johnson, and P.L. Tyack. 2003. North Atlantic right whales 

(Eubalaena glacialis) ignore ships but respond to alerting stimuli. Proceedings of the 

Royal Society of London [Biol]. Vol 271 (1536): 227-231. 
25 

Pace, R.M., and G.K. Silber. 2005. Simple analyses of ship and large whale collisions: 

Does speed kill? Abstract. Sixteenth Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, San Diego, December 2005. 

 

Panigada, S., G. Pesante, M. Zanardelli, F. Capoulade, A. Gannier, and M.T. Weinrich. 

2006. Mediterranean fin whales at risk from fatal ship strikes. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 

52:1287-1298. 

Pendelton, D.E., A.J. Pershing, M.W. Brown, C.A. Mayo, R.D. Kenney, N.R. Record, 

and T.V.N. Cole. 2009. Regional-scale mean copepod concentration indicates relative 

abundance of North Atlantic right whales. Marine Ecology Progress Series 378:211-225. 

Pershing, A.J., N.R. Record, B.C. Monger, C.A. Mayo, M.W. Brown, T.V.N. Cole, R.D. 

Kenney, D.E. Pendelton, and L.A. Woodward. 2009. Model-based estimates of right 

whale habitat use in the Gulf of Maine. Marine Ecology Progress Series 378: 245-257. 

Reeves, R.R., R. J. Hofman, G.K. Silber, and D. Wilkinson. 1996. Acoustic deterrence of 

harmful marine mammal-fishery interactions. Proceedings of a workshop held in 

Seattle, Washington, 20-22 March 1996. U..S Dept. Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-OPR-10. 70 pp. 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine 

Mammals and Noise. Academic Press. San Diego. 

Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene Jr., 

D. Kastak, D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and 

P.L. Tyack. 2007. Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific 

Recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 33(4): 122 pp. 

Tregenza, N., N. Aguilar, M. Carrillo, I. Delgado, and F. Diaz. 2002. Collisions between 

fast ferries and whales in the Canary Islands: observational data and theoretical limits. 

Paper SC/54/BC4 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, May 2002 (unpublished). 

7pp. 

Urazghildiiev, I.R., and C.W. Clark. 2006. Acoustic detection of North Atlantic right 

whale contact calls using the generalized likelihood ratio test. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America. 120:1956-1963. 

U.S. Coast Guard. 2006. Port access route study to analyze potential vessel routing 

measures for reducing vessel (ship) strikes of North Atlantic right whales. Office of 

Navigation Systems, Waterways Management Directorate, U.S. Coast Guard. 31 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Florida manatee recovery plan (Trichechus 

manatus latirostris), Third revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 
26 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration. 2008. Interim final rule on 

America’s Marine Highway Program. 73 FR 59530; 9 October 2008. 

Van Waerebeek, K., A.N. Baker, F. Félix, M. Iñiguez, G.P. Sanino, E. Secchi, G. 

Slocum, D. Sutaria, A. Van Helden, and Y. Wang, Y. 2006. Vessel collisions with small 

cetaceans worldwide and with large whales in the Southern Hemisphere. Scientific 

Committee of the International Whaling Commission, St. Kitts, St Kitts and Nevis. Paper 

SC/58/BC6. 

Van Waerebeek, K., and R. Leaper. 2008. Second Report of the IWC Vessel Strike Data 

Standardisation Working Group. Report to the International Whaling Commission’s 

Scientific Committee at the IWC’s 60th Annual Meeting, Santiago, Chile, June 2008. 

Report No. SC/60/BC5. 

Vanderlaan, A.S.M., and C.T. Taggart. 2007. Vessel collisions with whales: the 

probability of lethal injury based on vessel speed. Marine Mammal Science. 23(1):144-

156. 

Weinrich, M.T. 2004. A review of worldwide collisions between whales and fast ferries. 

Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission, Sorrento, Italy. Paper 

SC/56/BC9. 
27 

List of Tables

Table 1. List of variables involved in vessel handling. Includes variables intrinsic to the 

vessel itself and external situational characteristics. 

Table 2. The role of various technologies in advance voyage planning and options 

presented in avoiding detected whales. 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Comparison of calculated “crash astern” maneuvers with full-scale trial results 

(Exxon 191,000 dwt tankers, loaded condition). 

 

Figure 2. Hypothetical depiction of whales seen as a function of observational quality, 

going from zero sightability at night or in fog through sightability approaching 100% 

from a stationary platform using expert observers 

Figure 3. Comparison of days in which aircraft surveys detected right whales versus 

those days in which they were detected acoustically in 2006. 
28 

Table 1. List of variables involved in vessel handling. Includes variables intrinsic to the 

vessel itself and external situational characteristics. 

1. Vessel Type (Hull Forms) 

• Tanker (VLCC and product) 

• Bulk carrier 

• Containership 

• Passenger vessels 

• Tugs/barges (towing, pushing) 

• Smaller commercial vessels (fishing, ferries) 

2. Vessel Speed 

• Sea speed 

• Full maneuvering speed 

• Lower speeds below optimum steerage 

3. Vessel Load 

• Fully laden 

• Partial load 

• Light 

4. Vessel Propulsion 

• Single screw 

• Twin screw 

• Other (bow thrusters, Kort nozzles, etc.) 

5. Hydrographic Criteria 

• Depth of water 

• Current 

6. Weather 

• Sea state 

• Wind (esp. re: sail area above water line) 

7. Situational Criteria (including Rules of the road impacts on maneuvering) 

• Open sea (no or minimal traffic) 

• Coastal (minimal to moderate traffic) 

• Limited maneuvering scenarios (approach to sea buoys, entrances to port) 

• Traffic separation schemes (moderate to heavy traffic)
29 

Table 2. The role of various technologies in advance voyage planning and options 

presented in avoiding detected whales. 

TIME 

SCALE 

DISTANCE ACTIONS 

NEEDED 

POTENTIAL 

TECHNOLOGY

Voyage 

planning 

1 week + 1,000 miles * General course 

planning 

* Increase 

awareness and 

crew training 

* Historical 

records 

* Forecasts 

* Predictive 

models 

Voyage 

adjustments 

1 day – 

1 week 

200 – 1,000 

miles 

* Adjust route 

or speeds 

* Post observers 

* Obtain whale 

alerts 

* Notices of 

whales in area of 

travel 

 

Precautionary 

and evasive 

actions 

During transit 

to and from 

high-density 

whale areas 

0 to 20-30 miles * Slow down 

* Post observers 

* Obtain whale 

alerts 

* Establish 

anticipatory 

communications 

on ship 

* Contact nearby 

mariners 

* Change course 

* NAVTEX 

* Buoy or other 

whale alerts 

* Visual 

observation aids 

* Electronic 

observation aids 

(sonar, radar, 

passive acoustics) 

 
30 

Figure 1. Comparison of calculated “crash astern” maneuvers with full-scale trial results 

(Exxon 191,000 dwt tankers, loaded condition). Please note, these comparisons are 

hypothetical and are intended for illustrative purposes only given the variables for any 

given situation such as wind and current forces, vessel size, weight and windage play 

significant roles in the curves presented here. It may not be possible to generalize them to 

other situations, hull types, etc. Graphic courtesy of Maritime Institute of Technology and 

Graduate Studies (MITAGS), provided by Robert Becker. 
31 

Figure 2. Hypothetical depiction of whales seen as a function of observational quality, 

going from zero sightability at night or in fog through sightability approaching 100% 

from a stationary platform using expert observers. Graphic provided by Richard Merrick, 

Ph.D. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Observational quality (1 = Worst, 10 = Best)

Percent of Whales Seen

Rapidly moving platform, impaired 

visibility, inexperienced observers

Stationary platform, expert 

observers

Night/Fog
32 

Figure 3. Comparison of days in which aircraft surveys detected right whales versus 

those days in which they were detected acoustically in 2006. Graphic provided by Peter 

Corkeron, Ph.D. (RWSAS = Right Whale Sightings Advisory System.) 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Days with RWSAS reports

Days with popup detections
33 

Appendix 1. Workshop terms of reference and agenda 

Terms of Reference and Agenda for 

Workshop to Identify and Assess Technologies to 

Reduce Ship Strikes of Large Whales 

Providence, Rhode Island 

8-10 July 2008 

Background

 A major threat to endangered large whales species, the North Atlantic right whale 

in particular, is collisions with ships. NOAA is addressing this threat through, for 

example, modifications of vessel operations, providing whale sightings advisories, and 

proposed vessel speed regulations. However, there may also be current or emerging 

technologies not currently in wide use that may also be used to reduce the threat. NOAA 

is committed to identifying and developing technologies that will reduce ship strikes. 

 The goals of this workshop are 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 R&D and timelines needed to make a given technology 

useful in reducing the threat. Specifically, we will (a) update a 2002 NMFS summary 

paper on technologies, (b) identify emerging technologies by hearing from inventors or 

companies with candidate technologies, and (c) evaluate and rank technologies 

considering (i) R&D needs, (ii) costs, and therefore (iii) overall feasibility. 

 The workshop will be a 2 1⁄2 day meeting, 8-10 July 2008 at the Biltmore 

Providence Hotel in Providence, RI. Summary presentations and discussions of relevant 

technologies will be provided on the first day. We will generate a report of the workshop 

that, ultimately, lists potential technologies with an assessment, and ranking, of each with 

regard to advantages and disadvantages of developing each and an overall “feasibility 

ranking”. 

Prepare a final report describing workshop findings. 
34 

Workshop to Identify and Assess Technologies to

Reduce Ship Strikes of Large Whales 

Providence, Rhode Island 

8-10 July 2008 

Agenda

Tuesday, July 8 

Morning (8:30 AM-10:30 AM)

Call to order (Hunt) 

Welcome and purpose (Cottingham) 

Introductions, presentation of agenda, and housekeeping (Hunt) 

Workshop objectives, context, charge, and outcome(s) (Silber) 

Ship and shipping characteristics (e.g., dimensions/drafts, speeds, slowing and 

maneuvering capabilities, vessel & wheelhouse operations) (Becker) 

Limitations on use of technologies; brief summary of alarm research (Bettridge) 

Break (10:30 AM-10:45 AM)

Morning (10:45 AM-12:00 PM)

Presentation and discussion of technology evaluation criteria and tools; and the goals of 

the technology (e.g., detection capabilities) (Hunt) 

Technical Presentations on: 

a. Visual detection (Merrick, Corkeron) (15 min) 

b. Telemetry and Tagging (Gisiner) (20 min) 

c. Passive Acoustics (Van Parijs, Hatch) (30 min) 

d. Passive Acoustics (Donoher) (15 min) 
35 

Q&A and discussion of morning presentations 

Lunch (12:00 PM-1:00 PM)

Afternoon (1:00 PM – 3:30 PM)

Continuation of Technical Presentations on: 

e. Active Acoustics (Zimmerman) (15 min) 

f. Active Acoustics (Condiotty) (15 min) 

g. Infrared (Boebel) (30 min) 

h. Radar (Forsyth) (15 min) 

i. Predictive modeling (Pershing) (15 min) 

Q&A and discussion of afternoon presentations 

Break (3:30 PM – 3:45 PM)

Afternoon (3:45 PM – 5:00 PM)

Brainstorm session: identify new technologies not already discussed (Hunt) 

Evening - Optional

Drafting group(s). Work on descriptions and evaluations of technologies. Consider 

forming breakout groups. 

Consider holding open session to hear additional technology presentations (e.g., poster 

displays, demonstrations). 

Wednesday, July 9 (8:30 AM-5:00 PM; lunch, two breaks)

Complete any presentations not completed in Day 1. Additional brainstorming of 

heretofore not discussed technologies. 

Begin to assess each technology and populate the criteria template. Breakout groups. 

Begin to rank technologies by most feasible and easily developed. 

Continue drafting group assignments 
36 

Thursday, July 10 (8:30-12:30; one break)

Continue working on technology evaluations 

Discuss proposed workshop conclusions and recommendations; work on drafting 

assignments; assemble drafting completed to date; to the extent possible, assemble draft 

final report 

Synthesis and Conclusions 

Next steps 

Adjourn 
37 

Appendix 2. Workshop Steering Committee 

Shannon Bettridge, Ph.D. 

Endangered Large Whale Recovery Program 

Office of Protected Resources 

National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA 

1315 East-West Highway, SSMC III 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

David Cottingham 

Chief, Marine Turtle and Mammal Conservation Division 

Office of Protected Resources 

National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA 

1315 East-West Highway, SSMC III 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Robert Gisiner, Ph. D. 

Scientific Program Director 

Marine Mammal Commission 

4340 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20814-4447 

Carlton Hunt, Ph.D. 

Facilitator 

Batelle 

397 Washington Street 

Duxbury, MA 02332 

Kathy Metcalf 

Director, Maritime Affairs 

Chamber of Shipping of America 

1730 M. Street, NW, Suite 407 

Washington, DC 20036-4517

Douglas Nowacek, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor of Conservation Technology 

Marine Science and Conservation 

Duke University Marine Lab 

Box 90328 

Duke University 

Durham, NC 27708 
38 

Don O'Hare 

Vice President 

World Shipping Council 

1156 15th Street, NW, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 

Gregory Silber, Ph.D. 

Endangered Large Whale Recovery Program 

Office of Protected Resources 

National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA 

1315 East-West Highway, SSMC III 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 
39 

Appendix 3. List of Participants 

Captain William Barrere 

Maersk Line, Ltd. 

One Commercial Place 

20th Floor 

Norfolk, VA 23510 

Shannon Bettridge, Ph.D. 

Endangered Large Whale Recovery Program 

Office of Protected Resources 

National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA 

1315 East-West Highway, SSMC III 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

LCDR Chris Barrows 

Chief, Fisheries & Marine Protected Species Law Enforcement 

US Coast Guard 

2100 2nd Street S.W., Room 3110 

Washington, DC 20593 

Captain Robert Becker 

Maritime Institute of Technology 

692 Maritime Boulevard 

Linthicum, MD 21090 

Olaf Boebel, Ph.D. 

Head, Marine Observing Systems 

Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar & Marine Research 

Bussestr. 24 

27570 Bremerhaven, Germany 

Jeff Condiotty 

Fisheries Research Manager 

Kongsberg Underwater Technology, Inc. 

19210 33rd Avenue West, Suite A 

Lynnwood, WA 98036-4707 
40 

Peter Corkeron, Ph.D. 

Visiting Fellow 

Bioacoustics Research Program 

Laboratory of Ornithology 

Cornell University 

159 Sapsucker Woods Road 

Ithaca, NY 14850 

Richard Corley 

Office of Environment & Compliance 

U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

David Cottingham 

Chief, Marine Turtle and Mammal Conservation Division 

Office of Protected Resources 

National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA 

1315 East-West Highway, SSMC III 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

George Detweiler 

US Coast Guard 

2100 2nd Street S.W., Room 1407 

Washington, DC 20593 

Nancy DiMarzio 

Electrical Engineer 

Naval Undersea Warfare Center 

US Navy 

Division Newport 

1176 Howell St. 

Newport, RI 02841 

Gary Donoher 

President 

Analysis, Design, & Diagnostics 

317 West Forsyth St. 

Jacksonville, FL 32202-4307 

Tom Fetherston 

Marine Biologist 

Naval Undersea Warfare Center 

Division Newport US Navy 

1176 Howell St. 

Newport, RI 02841 
41 

Charles Forsyth, Ph.D. 

Director, Special Projects Group 

Areté Associates, Inc. 

1550 Crystal Drive 

Suite 703 

Arlington, VA 22207 

Beth Gedney 

Director of Safety, Security and Risk Management

Passenger Vessel Association 

901 N. Pitt Street, Suite 100 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

Scott Gende, Ph.D. 

Research Ecologist 

National Park Service 

Glacier Bay Field Station 

3100 National Park Road 

Juneau, AK 99801 

David L. Giles 

Fast Ship, Inc. 

1250 South Washington Street 

Alexandria, Virginia, 22314 

Robert Gisiner, Ph. D. 

Scientific Program Director 

Marine Mammal Commission 

4340 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20814-4447 

Leila Hatch, Ph.D. 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sactuary 

National Ocean Service, NOAA 

175 Edward Foster Road 

Scituate, MA 02066 

Carlton Hunt, Ph.D. 

Batelle 

397 Washington Street 

Duxbury, MA 02332 
42 

David Laist 

Policy Analyst 

Marine Mammal Commssion 

4340 East-West Highway 

Bethesda, MD 20814-4447 

Justin Manley 

Office of Ocean Exploration/NOAA 

1315 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Richard Merrick, Ph.D. 

Northeast Fisheries Scinece Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA 

Chief, Protected Resources Branch 

166 Water Street 

Woods Hole, MA 02543 

Kathy Metcalf 

Director, Maritime Affairs 

Chamber of Shipping of America 

1730 M. Street, NW, Suite 407 

Washington, DC 20036-4517 

Dave Moretti 

Electrical Engineer 

Naval Undersea Warfare Center 

US Navy 

Division Newport 

1176 Howell St. 

Newport, RI 02841

Don O'Hare 

Vice President 

World Shipping Council 

1156 15th Street, NW, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 

Andrew J. Pershing, Ph.D. 

Assistant Research Professor 

School of Marine Sciences and 

Gulf of Maine Research Institute

University of Maine 

350 Commercial Street 

Portland, ME 04101 
43 

Captain Robert Shinn 

SEARIVER Maritime 

800 Bell Street 

Houston, TX 77002-7427 

Gregory Silber, Ph.D. 

Endangered Large Whale Recovery Program 

Office of Protected Resources 

National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA 

1315 East-West Highway, SSMC III 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Sofie-Marie Van Parijs, Ph.D. 

Zoologist 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA 

166 Water Street 

Woods Hole, MA 02543 

Captain F. Bradley Wellock 

Manager, Maritime Regulatory Affairs 

MASSPORT 

One Harborside Drive, 

Suite 200S 

East Boston, MA 02128-2909 

Michelle Yuen, Ph.D. 

Biologist 

Pacific Islands Regional Office 

National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA 

1601 Kapiolani Blvd 

Honolulu, HI 96814-4700 

Cheryl M. Zimmerman 

Chief Executive Officer 

MS Mechinical Engineering 

FarSounder, Inc. 

43 Jefferson Boulevard 

Warwick, RI 02888 

Barbara Zoodsma 

Fishery Biologist 

Southeast Regional Office 

National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA 

2382 Sadler Road 

Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 
44 

 Appendix 4. High speed vessels 

High speed mono-hull vessels are usually so classified because of their speed 

relative to their length, or speed-length ratio (speed in knots/square root of the waterline 

length in feet, or V/√L), also referred to as hull-speed. In general, at a speed-length ratio 

of 1.0 to 1.3, the wave, or induced drag, of the hull becomes dominant over frictional 

drag and rises at a greater rate. The displacement relative to length is also much less than 

a conventional low (e.g., Very Large Crude Carrier, VLCC) or medium speed (e.g., 

container ship) hull, to lessen induced drag. Conversely, any increase by a conventional 

hull above its hull-speed excites an exponential and, therefore, prohibitive drag-rise. 

Although constant rather than exponential, the drag-rise above V/√L=1.0-1.3 in a 

high-speed mono-hull is much greater than its frictional drag-rise. High speed is therefore 

sustained by much greater relative power. Displacement, or mass, and thereby forward 

momentum is also less than in a conventional vessel. Thus when power is suddenly 

reduced, the drag is such that the vessel slows down very quickly - as shown in an 

exaggerated way by a speedboat coming off the plane. Furthermore, because of its greater 

power relative to its mass, it also has greater astern power, which can be applied almost 

immediately. This means that it can stop in a relatively short distance. 

Because of the greater relative power of a high-speed mono-hull, maneuvering is 

usually superior to conventional hulls -- although this may not apply generally as in the 

case of stopping. This can depend upon the number and design of rudders, propellers, or 

water jet nozzles equipped with steering or reversing “buckets”. Various performance 

features, based on maneuvering tank measurements for a particular high-speed semiplaning mono-hull vessel, the “FastShip”, operating at typical approach speeds used near 

the Delaware Bay, were compared to those of VLCCs (see table below). 

Comparison of various features of a Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) and the 

“FastShip” high speed vessel5

. 

Vessel Length 

Overall 

(ft) 

Displacement

(tons) 

Available

Astern 

(hp) 

Speed 

(knots)

Stop 

Time

(min)

Stop 

Distance 

(ft) 

Stop 

Dist. 

x Ship 

Length 

Tactical 

Diameter

(ft) 

 

VLCC 1,500 200,000 100,000 16 19.2 15,000 10 4.000 

FastShip 870 36,500 118,000 25 3.2 2,750 3.1 2,158 

Note: In the case of FastShip, the speed for traversing the Outer Delaware Bay would not 

exceed 20 knots. 

 

5

 Tank measurements were conducted on a 770-foot/32,000-ton FastShip vessel under Dr. Hans Liljenber at 

the Chalmers University SSPA maneuvering basin in Gothenburg, Sweden. 
Appendix 5. Technological assessments 

45 

Active Acoustics: General 

PROS CO

Summary Generally, relatively high levels of detection and 

precision in localization capabilities. 

Some concern about oeffectiveness, dependioverall context and opPossible impact to beh

Probability of detection Nearly all objects in the water column of sufficient target 

strength; whales should theoretically be detectable in the water column. 

Target strength varies conditions (i.e., at dephow source level may whales, (i.e., acoustic care should be taken in 

Probability of detecting behavior Likely good during variety of behaviors. Expected to be 

able to detect whether whales are traveling, milling, etc. 

None identified. 

Operational status May have application to specific areas, e.g., bottommounted; perhaps a key component to a multi-tiered 

approach. Numerous sonar devices commercially available. May have application to smaller-vessel types in some situations, e.g., while entering port, or after a “general” (e.g., passive) detection is made. Accurate position characterization (range-bearing, position, depth, tracking). Range envelope out to several thousand meters. Real-time detections. Works effectively in fog. Whales do not need to vocalize. Can collect ancillary biological data. 

Some questions about effectiveness. Ranges within several thousanmay be limited at the sdeath. Sonar is for nebehavior and distributas well; may need perm

Availability Side-scan, multi-beam, and bow-mounted devices 

commercially available 

Bow-mounted device target at 2.0 miles undyears hence 

Communication rate Very rapid, e.g., ethernet protocol. None identified. Detection to notification to response time Immediate. None identified. Cost $100,000s/unit. May have some extens

and maintenance costscomplicated by differeissues, specific requireR&D: improve classif
46 

ACTIVE ACOUSTICS: VESSEL MOUNTED 

PROS C

Summary Relatively high level of detection and precision in 

localization capabilities (within meters) using high frequency signals (>40 kHz); can detect nonvocalizing animals; 3D forward-looking sonars can provide avoidance cues for other obstacles including rocks, sailboats, shipping containers, etc. 

May affect marine mammbehavior as sound source for toothed whales and otvocalizing. Returning sig

difficulties differentiating objects) and requires intetrained personnel. 

Probability of detection (See “Active Acoustics, General”) Possible on a 

coarse level (e.g., group size, swimming direction) and requires repeated detections. Expected high probability of detection inside ca. 500m of vessel (less probability at 500+m). Some detections are expected at depth. Other large submerged navigation hazards are also detectable. 

See “Active Acoustics, Gmay not be able to take evwithin 1000 m given time with master, deciding on maneuver, and vessel respmake an informed decisioaction, a track of the animtime to build during whic100s of yards. Once an anit may change course. 

Probability of detecting behavior Possible on a coarse level (e.g., group size, swimming 

direction) and requires repeated detections. 

Ranges limited to <1000 detection decreases beyon50% at 1000m. 

Operational Status Various devices being developed and deployed with 

ranges of 100s of meters. Ongoing R&D anticipates extending the range. 

Requires watchstander an

personnel to interpret retua whale image from other retrofitting vessels. 

Availability Various devices being develop and marketed. None identified. Communication rate Whale positions updated frequently. None identified. Detection to notification response time Immediate. None identified. Cost 3D Forward looking sonar units available for less then 

$100k. Maintenance for 3D forward looking sonar straightforward with underwater connectors. 

Retrofitting can be compldocking. 
47 

ACTIVE ACOUSTICS: FIXED 

PROS 

Summary Relatively high levels of detection and precision in 

localization capabilities (within meters). 

Some concern about Possible impact to bpower supply and coissues. 

Probability of detection Whales should theoretically be detectable in the water 

column. 

Target strength varie(i.e., at depth). Sourof whales, (i.e., acou

Probability of detecting behavior Likely to be quite good. During multiple behaviors. None identified. Operational status (See Active Acoustics General) Ranges may be limi

thousand meters. Thdramatically if used Detections may be lgreat death. May adistribution of other porpoises); may nee

Availability Multi-beam and 3-D. Some power supply 

issues need to be res

Communication rate Very rapid. None identified. Detection to notification to response time Immediate. None identified. Cost Total number of units is less than vessel mounted approach. 

On the order of hundreds of $100,000s/unit. Possible costsharing opportunities with public and private stakeholders. Can piggyback with multi-sensor ladened buoys; multisensors (e.g., active and passive acoustics are paired) can feed into a tiered whale detection system. 

Installation and maiIntegration expensesNeeds improved clasupply requirement resolved. Getting sigcommunication and 
48 

INFRARED 

PROS 

Summary Training can occur in a day. Can use in ice areas for ice 

detection. 

Probability of detection Blow dependent and species specific. Capable of detecting 

multiple species. Detection range within 1 mile. Works well at night. Low false positive rates. Observer alerted by sound and can watch replay to verify blow. Images can be processed. 

Dependent upon wedependent. Doesn’t the whale shouldn’t detection. 

Probability of detecting behavior Possible. Low for behavior unOperational status Immediately available but must be configured to ship. Auto detection softwAvailability Now. Software for autode

available in next sev

Communication rate Real time. After alert human va

making. 

Detection to notification to response time Immediate. None identified. Cost 50,000-100,000 Euro None identified. Research and Development Feasible to track bearing. System online continuously. 

Shipping industry could move into infrared technology in future; high potential especially with application to other regions. Infrared would detect small craft which would be 360 degree system. 

Specific developmen
49 

PASSIVE ACOUSTICS: ANCHORED SURFACE BUOYS 

PROS 

Summary Semi Permanent. Installation costs less than installing sea 

bed cables. Real time detection, classification and localization capability. Detection of multiple species possible. Mobile – adaptable in deployment configuration Regional to local scales. Dual use – single buoys can support multiple tasks, e.g. oceanographic sensors 

Continuous. Non-ship based. Able to be integrated into existing vessel systems. Low false positive rates. 

Maintenance once insSusceptible to trawlinLocalization requires Moderate permitting Onboard buoy processpecies detection restcapabilities and bandwissues. Integration of based systems for all 

Probability of detection Less sensitive to environmental conditions than other 

technologies (wind, night etc.). 

Animals need to vocaof callers is a function noise (high vessel noi

Probability of detecting behavior Can support animal tracking. Requires relatively hiOperational status Real time detection and localization capability exists. 

Shown to work for several species. 

Needs more field testconditions. 

Availability Commercial availability: 12 - 24 month lead time. Research and develop

fishing needed. Wide development required 

Communication rate Real time. Possibility of wide bandwidth : 10Hz - 60kHz 

i.e. multi species capability. 

Requires research and for multiple species. 

Detection to notification to response time See software matrix. See software matrix. Cost Non-localization capabilities costs less. Single system with 

multiple users and advantage. 

Localization capabilitspecies require more Increased accuracy re
50 

PASSIVE ACOUSTICS: SEA BED MOUNTED ARRAY 

PROS 

Summary Permanent. Low maintenance once installed. When buried 

partially protected from trawling. Caller localization capability. Real time. Capable of detecting multiple species. Continuous data stream. Can work at all scales (e.g., regional to local). Continuous. Non-ship based. Able 

to be integrated into existing vessel systems. 

Initial installation on length of cableneeded (NEPA anbottom trawling if flexible in design. issues. Integration into ship based syneeds. 

Probability of detection Less sensitive to environmental conditions than other 

technologies (wind, night, etc.). 

Animals need to vLocalization a funAmbient noise (e.

limit detection ran

Probability of detecting behavior Potentially can support tracking of animals. High cost driven b

density needed for 

Operational status Currently used by the Navy. Not used/availablAvailability Gold standard. Sensors not comm

this technology is Would take 4 – 5 development for cResearch and devvulnerability to fi

Communication rate Real time. Possibility of wide bandwidth: 10Hz - 60kHz, 

therefore multi-species capability. 

Lower frequenciebandwidth increas

Detection to notification to response time See software matrix. See software matrCost Non localization capabilities costs less. $1 million/sensor. 

Single system with multiple users. 

Localization capaSome species requthan others. Incresensors. 
51 

PASSIVE ACOUSTICS: VESSEL BASED SENSORS 

PROS 

Summary Provides local vessel situational awareness. Good detection 

capability. Localization possible with multiple sensors onboard vessel. Real time. Multiple species may be detected. Able to be integrated into existing vessel systems. Continuous. Non-ship based. Able to be integrated into existing vessel systems. Less sensitive to environmental conditions (wind, night etc.). 

Extremely difficult tforeign flag vessels port entry). MaintenOnboard vessel procspecies detection resRequires informed emake informed deciprocessing required. issues. Integration oship based systems f

Probability of detection Less sensitive to environmental conditions than other 

technologies (wind, night etc.). 

Flow noise a problespeeds). Near field applications limitedspacing. Animals ndetected. 

Probability of detecting behavior Potential to support animal localization. Additional capabilit

development needed high speed applicati

Operational status Real time detection possible. Additional capabilit

development needed capability. Near fiellimited. 

Availability Single sensor commercially available. Omni-directional 

sensor available. 

Vessel level arrays nat the moment. Dire(research and develo

Communication rate Real time. Possibility of wide bandwidth: 10Hz-60kHz, 

therefore multi-species capability. 

Requires research anapplicable for multip

Detection to notification to response time See software matrix. See software matrixCost Widely variable in cost. Widely variable in c

single user. 
52 

PASSIVE ACOUSTIC SOFTWARE 

PROS 

Summary Detection, classification and localization capabilities 

available for some species. 

Expertise needs to bTechniques need to Certification and staestablished. Density (enumeration). 

Probability of detection Not identified. Not identified. Probability of detecting behavior Not identified. Not identified. Operational status Little training needed to determine marine mammal call 

(dependant on software used). Potential for automation in some management contexts (highly possible for right whales, longer research and development needed for other species). 

Acoustic experts neefew on land for entirsingle vessel). 

Availability Many products available and evolving. Require experts to u

Detection priorities be examined. 

Communication rate Possibility of wide bandwidth: 10Hz - 60kHz multi-species 

capability. 

Requires research anapplicable for multipdevelopment needed and standardization. 

Detection to notification to response time Can be rapid. None identified. Cost Widely variable in cost. Open source (no cost) applications 

available. 

Widely variable in c
53 

RADAR 

PROS 

Summary Familiar to shipboard personnel. Many false positiv

waves. 

Probability of detection Will vary depending upon conditions; probability of 

detection is high within 4 km range. Can use at night and in fog. Potential to increase capability to see 6-8 km out, can see other objects in addition to whales so co-benefits. 

Many false positivget much sea cluttOrientation of aniprobability. 

Probability of detecting behavior Low. Could be good at tracking bearing under good 

conditions. 

Subject to detectioissues. Cannot ge

Operational status Immediate. Some work needeAvailability Immediate. None identified. Communication rate Immediate. Humans watching 

something that is off as false positivautomated messagofficer watching osacrificing other d

Detection to notification to response time Immediate. None identified. Cost Low hardware costs; 1-2 workstations for filtering. None identified. Research and development Could reduce need for constant watch by filtering and 

classification; extend range, real reduce operational clutter. 

None identified. 
54 

TAGGING/TELEMETRY 

PROS C

Summary Tags have low per-unit cost. Potential for a 

variety of data. Value in ground-truthing other research methods. Indirect value in providing data for other research (ancillary data collection). 

Need to find the whales ton some whales. AttachAltering behavior of whain some cases. Safety of attaching. Permitting iss

Probability of detection High probability of detection (90-100%). 

Acoustics – do not need to surface to transmit. Inair telemetry/electronic tags have a longer range. 

Electronic tags – need to must surface). Acousticbe heard underwater. Piunderwater. 

Probability of detecting behavior DTAG and critter cam capable of following whale 

movements (large tags can get a variety of data types). 

DTAG: Cost. Archival, nDon’t stay on long (tag l

Operational status Has been developed and used in the field; proofs 

of concept have been done. Some have been tested on right whales already. Some infrastructure in place already for retrieving data (satellites). 

Attachment problems: doon some whales. Power Not yet providing real-ticustom built. No tag for needs is presently availabtags, receive networks wdeployed and maintained

Availability Many tag types are commercially available. Can 

be off-the-shelf or easily prepared. Some arrays are already in place that could be modified and used (piggy-back). 

Perfect tag is not developwould need to be custom development and testing

Communication rate Daily (satellite) to real-time, depending on type. Attachment. Power sourcDetection to notification to response time (Function of communication rate.) Attachment. Power sourcCost Fairly low cost per unit. Infrastructure costs low 

compared to some other technologies. 

Costly to attach to all whmaintain an array (a few million a year to maintaidata. Potential impact of non-target species? Biolo
55 

VISUAL: POSTED LOOKOUTS 

PROS 

Summary Seasonal information about habitat known in advance; can 

then allocate people to bridge in known areas. 

Would need warningtechnologies to allocbridge assuming perincreased awareness 

Probability of detection Will vary depending upon conditions of ship, whale, and 

environmental conditions. 

Sea conditions. Limbinoculars. ObserveFor large whales depDepends upon speed and orientation of an

Probability of detecting behavior High if whale is detected. Low if behavior occOperational status Can be implemented immediately. If personnel are avai

available on the shiptraining/experience whales. Cannot alwRecommended to puas possible, but bow weather. 

Availability Immediate. If personnel are avai

available on the ship

Communication rate Immediate. Can get direct communications with the bridge. None identified. Detection to notification to response time Immediate. None identified. Cost Inexpensive if personnel available to monitor but expensive 

if person dedicated although person would be cheaper than installing technology (ships often have image stabilizing 

binoculars). 

Mariner training req

Research and development Improved automatio

the bow would have where other things a