RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE 

NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE 

(EUBALAENA GLACIALIS)

REVISION

Original Version: December 1991 

Revisions: July 2001, August 2004 

Prepared: 

The Office of Protected Resources 

National Marine Fisheries Service 
RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE 

NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE 

(EUBALAENA GLA CIALZS) 

REVISION 

Original Version: December 1 99 1 

Revisions: July 2001, August 2004 

Prepared by 

The Office of Protected Resources 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Approved : dm f 

William T. Hoaarth, P~.D. 

Assistant ~dministrator for Fisheries 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Date: z6G 
ii

PREFACE

Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1972 (16 USC 1531 et seq) to protect

species of plants and animals endangered or threatened with extinction. The National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service share responsibility for the administration of

the Act. NMFS is responsible for most marine mammal species including right whales. This Plan was

written at the request of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries to promote the conservation and

recovery of North Atlantic right whales.

The goals and objectives of the plan can be achieved only if a long-term commitment is made to

support the actions recommended here. Achievement of these goals and objectives will require the

continued cooperation of the governments of the United States and Canada. Within the United States,

the shared resources and cooperative involvement of Federal, State, and local governments, industry,

academia, non-governmental organizations, and key individuals will be required throughout the recovery

period.
iii

DISCLAIMER

Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions, which the best available science indicates are required to

recover and/or protect, listed species. Plans are published by the National Marine Fisheries Service,

sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. 

Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of any

individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the National Marine Fisheries

Service. They represent the official position of the National Marine Fisheries Service only after they

have been signed by the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. Recovery plans are guidance and

planning documents only; identification of an action to be implemented by any public or private party

does not create a legal obligation beyond existing legal requirements. Nothing in this plan should be

construed as a commitment or requirement that any federal agency obligate or pay funds in any one

fiscal year in excess of appropriations made by Congress for that fiscal year in contravention of the

Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341, or any other law or regulation. Approved recovery plans are

subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of

recovery actions.

LITERATURE CITATION SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS:

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic Right Whale

(Eubalaena glacialis). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

ADDITIONAL COPIES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM:

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Protected Resources

1315 East-West Highway, 13th Floor

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

301-713-2322 or 301-713-1401

Fees for plans vary depending upon the number of pages. Recovery plans can be downloaded from

NMFS’ website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR3/recovery.html
iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

NMFS gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following individuals in developing the

Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic Right Whale.

The primary authors of this plan are:

Phillip J. Clapham Gregory K. Silber

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Office of Protected Resources

National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Fisheries Service

Additional thanks go to the following for their technical assistance, editing, and/or for drafting many

sections of this document:

Jen Bachus (Sea Grant Fellow) Richard Merrick

Office of Protected Resources Northeast Regional Office

National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Fisheries Service

Moira Brown Michael Moore

Center for Coastal Studies Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Tom Eagle Michael Payne

Office of Protected Resources Office of Protected Resources

National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Fisheries Service

Aleria Jensen Susan Pultz

Office of Protected Resources Office of Protected Resources

National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Fisheries Service

Craig Johnson Yianna Samuel (former intern)

Office of Protected Resources Office of Protected Resources

National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Fisheries Service

Sharanya Krishna Prasad Donna Wieting

Office of Protected Resources Office of Protected Resources

National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Fisheries Service

Scott Kraus Sharon Young

New England Aquarium Humane Society of the United States
v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current Species Status: The Northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) has been listed as

endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) since its passage in 1973 (originally listed as the

northern right whale). Historically, right whale populations were severely depleted by commercial

whaling. More recently, direct and indirect impacts from human activities -- mostly in the form of vessel

collisions and entanglement in fishing gear -- have contributed to a lack of recovery. While past

population estimates were based on more limited information and may have been less accurate, the best

estimate of population size for the North Atlantic right whale in 1991, when the first recovery plan was

adopted, was 350 animals. The population is currently believed to contain only about 300 individuals

and it remains unclear whether its abundance is static, undergoing modest growth or, as recent modeling

exercises suggest, currently in decline. However, there has been no apparent sign of recovery in the

last 15 years and the species may be rarer and more endangered than previously thought. Because the

right whale is a long-lived species, extinction may not occur in the near future, but the possibility of

biological extinction in the next century is very real.

Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: The North Atlantic right whale primarily occurs in

coastal or shelf waters. Individuals in the western North Atlantic population range from winter calving

and nursery areas in coastal waters off the southeastern United States to summer feeding grounds in

New England waters and north to the Bay of Fundy and Scotian Shelf. For much of the year, their

distribution is strongly correlated with the distribution of their prey, which appears to be primarily

calanoid copepods in the Northern Hemisphere. It appears that not all reproductively active females

return to calving and nursery grounds each year; furthermore, the whereabouts of much of the

population during winter remains unknown.

Ship collisions and entanglements in fishing gear are the most common anthropogenic causes of

mortality in North Atlantic right whales. Action is urgently needed to reduce these significant threats,

and thus improve the survival of right whales. Other potential threats are habitat degradation, noise,

contaminants, and climate and ecosystem change. It is necessary to further examine such threats to

identify and modify activities that may pose risks to right whales.

Recovery Strategy: The most significant need for North Atlantic right whale recovery is to reduce or

eliminate deaths and injuries from anthropogenic activities, namely shipping and commercial fishing

operations. In addition, the development of demographically-based recovery criteria must be

completed quickly. Secondary priorities for the species’ recovery are characterization, monitoring, and

protection of important habitat; and identification and monitoring of the status, trends, distribution and

health of the species. Third priorities include conducting studies on the effects of other potential threats

and ensuring that they are addressed, and conducting genetic studies to assess population structure and

diversity. An overarching need is to work closely with State, other Federal, international and private

entities to ensure that research and recovery efforts are coordinated.

Recovery Goals and Criteria: The ultimate goal of this recovery plan is to promote the recovery of

North Atlantic right whales to a level sufficient to warrant their removal from the List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the ESA. The intermediate goal is to reclassify the species from

endangered to threatened. 

North Atlantic right whales may be considered for reclassifying to threatened when all of the

following have been met: 

1) The population ecology (range, distribution, age structure, and gender ratios, etc.) and vital rates

(age-specific survival, age-specific reproduction, and lifetime reproductive success) of right whales are
vi

indicative of an increasing population;

2) The population has increased for a period of 35 years at an average rate of increase equal to or

greater than 2% per year;

3) None of the known threats to Northern right whales (summarized in the five listing factors) are

known to limit the population’s growth rate; and

4) Given current and projected threats and environmental conditions, the right whale population has no

more than a 1% chance of quasi-extinction in 100 years.

Criteria for delisting North Atlantic right whales are not included this recovery plan because the current

abundance of North Atlantic right whales is an order of magnitude less than an abundance at which

NMFS would even consider delisting the species, and decades of population growth likely would be

required before the population could attain such an abundance. In addition, conditions related to

delisting are now too distant and hypothetical to realistically develop specific criteria. Such criteria will

be included in a future revision of the recovery plan well before the population is at a level when

delisting becomes a reasonable decision. 
vii

Estimated Cost of Five-Year Recovery Efforts (in thousands):

______________________________________________________________________

Year Action 1 Action 2* Action 3 Action 4 Action 5 Yearly Total

______________________________________________________________________

FY01 6,050 --- 735 2,365 180 9,330

FY02 6,250 --- 865 2,645 200 9,960

FY03 5,505 --- 880 2,630 250 9,265

FY04 4,675 --- 770 2,360 250 8,055

FY05 4,565 --- 595 2,235 300 7,695

______________________________________________________________________

Totals 27,045 --- 3,845 12,235 1,180 44,305

* No direct cost at present (NMFS staff time only)

Total Estimated Cost of Recovery: The total estimated cost of recovery cannot be

determined, as it will likely take numerous decades, and many management activities that are

currently impossible to predict, to bring the species to a point at which the protections of the

ESA are no longer warranted.
viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................ii

DISCLAIMER .................................................................................................................................iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..............................................................................................................iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................................viii

I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................IA-1

A. Brief Overview .................................................................................................................IA-1

B. Description and Taxonomy....................................................................................................IB

C. Distribution and Habitat Use ............................................................................................IC-1

D. Critical Habitat .....................................................................................................................ID

E. Life History ......................................................................................................................IE-1

E.1 Reproduction ............................................................................................................IE-1

E.2 Natural Mortality ......................................................................................................IE-1

E.3 Feeding and Prey Selection .......................................................................................IE-2

E.4. Competition ..............................................................................................................IE-2

F. Abundance and Trends ....................................................................................................IF-1

G. Threats ............................................................................................................................IG-1

G.1 Vessel Interactions ...................................................................................................IG-1

G.2 Entrapment and Entanglement in Fishing Gear ...........................................................IG-1

G.3 Habitat Degradation ................................................................................................ IG-2
ix

G.4 Noise ......................................................................................................................IG-3

G.5 Contaminants ...........................................................................................................IG-3

G.6 Underwater Explosives ............................................................................................IG-4

G.7 Climate and Ecosystem Change ...............................................................................IG-4

G.8 Commercial Exploitation ..........................................................................................IG-4

H. Conservation Measures ...................................................................................................IH-1

H.1 Establishment of Regional Recovery Plan Implementation Teams ..............................IH-1

H.1.1 Southeastern U.S. Implementation Team (SEIT) for the Right 

Whale Recovery Plan ................................................................................................IH-1

H.1.2 Northeastern U.S. Implementation Team (NEIT) for the Right 

Whale Recovery Plan ................................................................................................IH-2

H.2 Steps Taken to Reduce the Threat of Fishing Gear Entanglement ..............................IH-3

H.2.1 List of Fisheries ..............................................................................................IH-3

H.2.2 Take Reduction Teams ...................................................................................IH-4

H.2.2.1 Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team and Plan ............................IH-4

H.2.2.2 Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team and 

Plan ...................................................................................................................IH-5

H.3 Efforts to disentangle right whales ............................................................................ IH-5

H.4 Efforts to Reduce Mortality or Disturbance from Ship Activities ................................IH-6

H.4.1 Vessel Approach Regulations ..........................................................................IH-6

H.4.2 Aircraft Surveys in the Southeastern United States ...........................................IH-7

H.4.3 Aircraft Surveys in the Northeastern United States ..........................................IH-7
x

H.4.4 Updating Navigational Publications ..................................................................IH-9

H.4.5 Mandatory Ship Reporting System ..................................................................IH-9

H.4.6 International Safety Management Code .........................................................IH-10

H.4.7 Educational Materials and Outreach ..............................................................IH-10

H.4.8 Ship Strike Strategy Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ....................IH-10

H.4.9 Canadian Ship Routing Measures ...................................................................IH-10

H.5 Strandings and Necropsies .....................................................................................IH-10

H.6 Coordination of Federal agency recovery activities under the 

Endangered Species Act ................................................................................................IH-11

II. RECOVERY STRATEGY ........................................................................................................II

III. RECOVERY GOALS AND CRITERIA .............................................................................III-1

A. Reclassification to Threatened .........................................................................................IIIA-1

B. Delisting .............................................................................................................................IIIB

IV. RECOVERY PROGRAM ......................................................................................................IV

A. Step-down Outline .........................................................................................................IVA-1

B. Recovery Narrative ........................................................................................................IVB-1

V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE .......................................................................................V-1

VI. LITERATURE CITED .........................................................................................................VI-1

VII. APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................VIIA-1

A. CONSULTATION HISTORY ...................................................................................VIIA-1

B. GLOSSARY AND LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................VIIB-1
xi

C. THREATS ANALYSIS (THE FIVE LISTING FACTORS) ........................................VIIC-1

D. NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE CRITICAL HABITAT ...................................VIID-1

D.1 Figure 1: Northeast Critical Habitat ......................................................................VIID-1

D.2 Figure 2: Southeast Critical Habitat ......................................................................VIID-2
IA-1

I. BACKGROUND

A. Brief Overview

The Northern right whale, Eubalaena glacialis, is among the rarest of all large whales, and

among the rarest of all marine mammal species. Right whales have been listed as endangered

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) since its passage in 1973 (35 FR 8495, June 2,

1970; See I.B., Description and Taxonomy, for more discussion of the listing). Although

precise estimates of abundance are not available, it appears that the eastern North Atlantic

population is nearly extinct and the western North Atlantic population numbers approximately

300 whales.

At its 1983 right whale workshop, the IWC considered hypotheses regarding the

distinctiveness of three right whale stocks in the North Atlantic: an eastern, central, and western

population or stock. Whaling records indicate that the central stock may have existed in the

central Atlantic Ocean, and migrated from east of Greenland to the Azores or Bermuda

(Reeves and Mitchell 1986). However, given the uncertainty of a central population, the

workshop agreed to a provisional division of eastern and western stocks (IWC 1986).

The eastern North Atlantic population probably numbers only in the low tens of animals at best,

and may be functionally extinct (Best et al. 2001). The western North Atlantic population is

the largest right whale population in the Northern Hemisphere. Nonetheless, as of the writing of

this plan, the population is believed to contain only about 300 individuals and it’s unclear as to

whether its abundance is remaining static, undergoing modest growth or, as recent modeling

exercises suggest, in decline (Caswell et al. 1999). 

Rosenbaum et al. (2000) used mitochondrial DNA ( mtDNA) extracted from museum

specimens of baleen to examine historic genetic structure in right whales. This work includes

the only available analysis of eastern North Atlantic specimens, and suggests that the eastern

and western populations were not historically distinct. The analysis also suggests that little

genetic variation has been lost in the 20th century, although it is recognized that the greatest loss

of variation is likely to have occurred well prior to this, during periods of major exploitation.

From mtDNA analysis, Schaeff et al. (1993) suggested that western North Atlantic right

whales are a single breeding population that consists of three matrilines. Further work has

identified two additional matrilines (Malik et al. 1999), and the five mtDNA haplotypes vary

greatly in their present frequency within the population. Skin biopsy sampling has resulted in

compilation of a DNA library of almost 300 North Atlantic right whales, i.e., the majority of the

population. When analysis of these samples is complete, an assessment of the genetic variation

of the population will be available and identification of stock structure may be further

elucidated.

Historically, right whale populations were severely depleted by commercial whaling. More

recently, direct and indirect impacts from human activities -- mostly in the form of vessel

collisions and entanglement in fishing gear -- almost certainly have contributed to a lack of

recovery in the North Atlantic. Action is urgently needed to reduce the frequency of collisions

with ships and fishing gear entanglements, and thus to improve the survival of right whales.

There is reason for serious concern about the future of North Atlantic right whales. Because

the right whale is a long-lived species, extinction may not occur in the near future, but the

possibility of biological extinction in the next century is very real. A number of proactive steps

are needed by a variety of public and private entities.
IA-2

Much attention has focused on right whales in recent years. Efforts to protect the North

Atlantic right whale population increased significantly in 1992-1993 following completion of the

first Recovery Plan (NMFS 1991) and substantial annual increases in Federal funding allocated

toward recovery of endangered species, including the right whale, listed under the ESA. 

Scrutiny of, and the number of restrictions on, commercial fishing activities has also increased in

the last decade as efforts have been made to reduce levels of fishing gear entanglement. In

addition, NMFS has conducted a number of consultations with other Federal agencies under

the ESA, and involvement in right whale recovery by those and other agencies has increased

significantly. Regional Recovery Plan Implementation Teams have been established to review

recovery activities and recommend improvements, and Take Reduction Teams have been

established under the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to

develop and implement plans to reduce mortality and serious injury. In spite of these efforts,

recovery appears to be slow or absent.
IB

B. Description and Taxonomy

The Northern right whale, Eubalaena glacialis (Müller 1776), is a large baleen whale. Adults

are generally between 45 and 55 feet in length and can weigh up to 70 tons. Females are larger

than males. Distinguishing features for right whales include a stocky body, generally black

coloration (although some individuals have white patches on their undersides), lack of a dorsal

fin, a large head (about 1/4 of the body length), strongly bowed margin of the lower lip, and

callosities on the head region. Two rows of long (up to about eight feet in length), dark baleen

plates hang from the upper jaw, with about 225 plates on each side. The tail is broad, deeply

notched, and all black with smooth trailing edge.

For many years, the distinction between E. glacialis (the “northern” right whales, understood to

include animals in both the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans) and E. australis (the

southern right whale) was based upon a single morphological character in the orbital region of

the skull (Muller 1954). Recent genetic studies have made it possible to re-evaluate the

taxonomy of right whales, and Rosenbaum et al. (2000) reported strong evidence of separate

specific status for North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales. NMFS currently lists right

whales as Eubalaena spp. NMFS recognizes the existence of three separate species is

generally supported by the scientific community and scientific literature: Eubalaena glacialis,

E. japonica and E. australis. On April 10, 2003, NMFS published a “Notice of Technical

Revision to Right Whale Nomenclature and Taxonomy Under the U.S. Endangered Species

Act“ (68 FR 17560) to clarify that the recognized generic name is Eubalaena, and to recognize

distinct species in the North Atlantic (E. glacialis) and North Pacific (E. japonica). On

January 1, 2005, NMFS published a notice recognizing that this taxonomic revision did not

comply with the requirements of the ESA (70 FR 1830). NMFS is currently conducting a

status review and will determine whether separate listings may be appropriate. This status

review could result in a proposed listing of the North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales as

separate species, and the North Atlantic and North Pacific populations face different threats

and will generally be managed differently; therefore, separate plans are being prepared for E.

glacialis and E. japonica. 
IC-1

C. Distribution and Habitat Use

Right whales have occurred historically in all the world’s oceans from temperate to subpolar

latitudes. The pre-exploitation distribution of the North Atlantic right whale probably included

coastal and continental shelf waters in temperate to subarctic latitudes of the North Atlantic

Ocean. Post-exploitation distribution is much more limited.

Right whales are frequently found in coastal or shelf waters, although movements over abyssal

depths are known (Scarff 1986; Mate et al. 1997). For much of the year, their distribution is

strongly correlated to the distribution of their prey, which appears to be primarily calanoid

copepods in the Northern Hemisphere. During the winter in both hemispheres, many right

whales have been observed in the coastal waters of lower latitudes where calving takes place. 

These animals migrate to higher latitudes during spring and summer. In the both the North

Atlantic and the Southern Hemisphere, it appears that not all reproductively active females

return to calving grounds each year (Kraus et al. 1986; Payne 1986); furthermore, the

whereabouts of much of the population during winter remains unknown.

Western North Atlantic population

Individuals in the western North Atlantic population range from wintering and calving areas in

coastal waters off the southeastern United States to summer feeding and nursery grounds in

New England waters and north to the Bay of Fundy and Scotian Shelf. However, occurrence

of some individuals has been reported as far north as Newfoundland, the Labrador Basin, the

southeast of Greenland (Knowlton et al. 1992), and Norway, and sightings have been reported

as far south as the Gulf of Mexico (Moore and Clarke 1963; Schmidly et al. 1972). Five

areas of “high use” were identified in the previous Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale

(NMFS 1991), and they are still key habitat areas for right whales:

1) Coastal Florida and Georgia (Sebastian Inlet, Florida to the Altamaha River, Georgia) 

2) The Great South Channel (east of Cape Cod)

3) Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay

4) The Bay of Fundy, and

5) The Scotian Shelf, including Browns and Baccaro Banks, Roseway Basin and areas to the

east

The first three of these areas were designated as Northern right whale critical habitat in June

1994. Right whales occur off New England at various times, with a peak occurrence in

winter/spring (Hamilton and Mayo 1990). Peak abundance occurs in the Great South Channel

in spring (Kenney et al. 1995; Kenney 2001). In summer and fall, much of the population is

found in Canadian waters (i.e., the Bay of Fundy and Scotian Shelf, with the former area being

a major summer nursery ground) (Mitchell et al. 1986; Winn et al. 1986; Stone et al. 1990). 

Whales seen in the Roseway Basin/Browns Bank region were primarily juvenile and adult males

(Brown et al. 2001), whereas most of the summer/autumn sightings of mother/calf pairs have

been in the Bay of Fundy (Kenney et al. 2001). However, the former area appears to have

been largely abandoned in 1993, and the population composition in the Bay of Fundy has

recently been much more mixed than it was previously.

Known wintering areas for this population are along the southeastern U.S. coast, where calving

occurs from December through March (Winn 1984; Kraus et al. 1986; International Whaling

Commission (IWC) 1986), and in Cape Cod Bay where, in 1998, whales were sighted from

mid January to mid May (Brown and Marx 1998). However, a majority of the population is

unaccounted for in winter (Kraus et al. 1986). Other wintering areas have been suggested,
IC-2

based upon sparse data; these include the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Lien et al. 1989),

Newfoundland (Beamish 1981; Lien et al. 1989), New York and New Jersey coastal waters

(Mead 1986), Bermuda (Payne and McVay 1971), and the Gulf of Mexico (Mead 1986) (see

Reeves 2001 for a review). Telemetry studies have revealed movement patterns of

considerable length and duration (Mate et al. 1997; Slay et al. 1998).

Right whales have been sighted in waters off Massachusetts in most months (Watkins and

Schevill 1982; Schevill et al. 1986; Winn et al. 1986; Hamilton and Mayo 1990). Most

sightings occur between February and May, with peak abundance in late March. Schevill et al.

(1986) reported 764 sightings of right whales between 1955 and 1981 in Cape Cod waters. 

More than 70 right whales were seen in one day in 1970. Hamilton and Mayo (1990) reported

2,643 sightings of 113 individual right whales in Massachusetts waters, with a concentration in

the eastern part of Cape Cod Bay. A number of right whales, including cow/calf pairs, resided

in Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bays during the summers of 1986 and 1987, which may have

been related to shifts in abundance of prey in adjacent waters (Hamilton and Mayo 1990;

Payne et al. 1990). 

Information on residency times of individual whales at specific sites is ambiguous, especially in

light of recent satellite transmitter results indicating right whales tagged in the Bay of Fundy may

travel long distances in the few days or weeks between sightings (Mate et al. 1997). Schevill

et al. (1986) reported individual right whales residing in Cape Cod waters for no more than a

few days. In 1976 they observed a cow and calf over a 7-week period, the longest residence

time documented during observations between 1955 and 1981. Prior to 1986, Hamilton and

Mayo (1990) reported observations of individual whales up to 12 times in a year, with the

longest apparent residency being 89 days. Fifty percent of individual right whales sighted by

Hamilton and Mayo (1990) were seen in more than one year.

Waters south of Cape Cod and north of the Georgia/Florida winter calving ground, especially

waters off New York/New Jersey and the “mid-Atlantic” states, have not been considered to

include “high use” areas, yet the whales clearly move through these waters regularly (Reeves et

al. 1978; Reeves and Mitchell 1986; Winn et al. 1986; Reeves et al. 1999). Most calving

takes place off Georgia and Florida, but limited surveys recently conducted along the midAtlantic suggest some mother-calf pairs use the area from Cape Fear North Carolina to South

Carolina as a wintering/calving area as well. They may also feed, at least opportunistically,

while migrating. It may be reasonable to give priority to the protection of the whales and their

habitat in known high-use areas, although attention is also needed in the connecting waters

between such areas, including waters far offshore (e.g., Mate et al. 1997). Successful efforts

to protect the whales in areas where they linger for long periods and/or aggregate in relatively

high densities could be offset if the animals were to be exposed to serious risks, such as

collision or entanglement, while in transit between such areas.

Eastern North Atlantic Population

The eastern North Atlantic right whale population may originally have migrated along the coast

from northern Europe to the northwest coast of Africa. The population was heavily exploited

by whalers in the Bay of Biscay (off southern Europe) and Cintra Bay (off the northwestern

coast of Africa), as well as off coastal Iceland and the British Isles during the 14th through 16th

centuries. It is clear from historical records that Cintra Bay was also heavily exploited by

whalers from 1855-1880 (Reeves 2001), where right whale mothers and calves visited coastal

waters during winter months. More recently, an intense period of whaling in the eastern North

Atlantic between 1902 and 1967 (including harvest off the Shetlands, Hebrides and Ireland in

the years 1906-1910) was particularly catastrophic for the eastern North Atlantic right whale
IC-3

population. Since that time, there have only been sporadic sightings of right whales in the

eastern North Atlantic (Best et al. 2001). In two recent winter surveys of Cintra Bay, no

evidence was found to suggest that right whales still use the area; this absence of evidence also

corresponds to a lack of recent observations in northern European waters (Reeves 2001). 

Based on the paucity of sighting information, current distribution and migration patterns of the 

eastern North Atlantic right whale population, if it remains extant, are unknown. The 1998

IWC Workshop on the Comprehensive Assessment of Right Whales agreed that only animals

found in the western North Atlantic can be considered a functioning extant unit based on

current sightings information. Animals found in the eastern North Atlantic may be considered as

a ‘relict’ population or populations (Best et al. 2001). 
ID

D. Critical Habitat

As noted above, there are five well-known habitats used annually by western North Atlantic

right whales: 1) coastal Florida and Georgia, 2) the Great South Channel, east of Cape Cod, 3)

Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bays, 4) the Bay of Fundy, and 5) Browns and Baccaro Banks,

south of Nova Scotia. The first three areas occur in U.S. waters and were designated by

NMFS as critical habitat in June 1994 (59 FR 28793). See Appendix D. 

On July 11, 2002, NMFS received a petition to revise and expand the designation of critical

habitat for this species. On November 19, NMFS found this petition to present substantial

scientific information indicating that the revision may be warranted and solicited public comment

on the petition (67 FR 69708). On August 28, 2003, NMFS determined that the requested

revision, as specified by the petitioner, was not warranted at this time. However, NMFS plans

to continue to analyze the physical and biological habitat features essential to the conservation

of North Atlantic right whales, and outlined the steps it will take to further investigate those

features and to propose any revisions to designated critical habitat that might be supported by

new information and analysis (68 FR 51758). In the meantime, the critical habitat designated in

1994 remains in place.

Actions authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal agencies that may have an impact on

critical habitat must be consulted upon in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act (ESA), regardless of the presence of right whales at the time of impacts. Impacts on these

areas that may affect primary constituent elements such as prey availability and the quality of

nursery areas must be considered when analyzing whether habitat may be adversely modified.
IE-1

E. Life History

E.1 Reproduction

Most known right whale nursery areas are in shallow, coastal waters. In the western North

Atlantic, calving takes place between December and March. In both the northern and southern

hemisphere, females give birth to their first calf at an average age of nine years (Best et al.

1998; Hamilton et al. 1998a). Calves are 5.5-6.0 meters in length at birth (Best 1994). 

Gestation lasts from 357 to 396 days in southern right whales (Best 1994), and it is likely to be

similar in the northern species. Weaning seems to be variable, and has been reported as 8 to

17 months in North Atlantic right whales (Hamilton and Marx 1995).

Standard reproductive rates for the western North Atlantic population have yet to be

calculated, and this is complicated by the occurrence patterns of mature females, for whom the

probability of sighting in studied habitats is dependent upon reproductive condition. The

number of calves observed in this population since 1993 has varied from one (in 2000) to 31

(in 2001) (Knowlton et al. 1994; A. Knowlton, pers. comm.), but how these figures translate

into standard birth rates is unclear. In 2000, one new calf was observed; 31 calves, 27

believed to survive, were reported in 2001. Calf production for the last two decades has

averaged around 11 individuals per year. The calving interval for right whales is between 2 and

7 years, with means ranging from 3.12 (95% CI 3.05-3.17) to 3.67 years (95% CI 3.3-4.1)

(Knowlton et al. 1994; Best et al. 2001; Burnell 2001; Cooke et al. 2001). However, in the

western North Atlantic, there has been a recent significant increase in the calving interval from

3.67 years for the period 1980 to 1992 (Knowlton et al. 1994) to 5.8 years for the period

1990 to 1998 (Kraus et al., 2001). This longer calving interval is markedly different from that

of southern right whale populations, whose mean calving interval is between three and four

years, with modes generally around three years. The increase in the interval is of particular

concern and, together with other perplexing biological parameters, may suggest the population

is under rather unusual biological, energetic, or reproductive stress.

It is possible to calculate a theoretical maximum birth rate from knowledge of three parameters:

sex ratio, proportion of females that are sexually mature, and mean interbirth interval. The sex

ratio of the western North Atlantic population is known to be even (Brown et al. 1994), and

recent work by Hamilton et al. (1998a) has suggested that 60% of females in this population

are mature. Given a normal average interbirth interval of 3 years, the expected maximum

annual birth rate should be approximately 0.10 (1.00/2/1.67/3). A longer interbirth interval

(such as that suggested above), or a lower proportion of mature (or reproductively active)

females, would decrease this rate accordingly.

E.2 Natural Mortality

Deaths resulting from human activities account for at least one-third of all known mortalities in

the western North Atlantic right whale population (Kraus 1990). The extent to which natural

factors, such as disease and predation, affect mortality rates is not known. Kraus (1990) used

photo-identification data from the western North Atlantic population to calculate an average

mortality rate of 17 percent per year in first-year right whales, while second- through fourthyear whales had an average mortality rate of 3 percent per year. Including all sources of

mortality, both natural and anthropogenic, 27 percent of all western North Atlantic right whales

die before reaching four years of age (Kraus 1990).

An unusually high number of right whale deaths occurred off the southeast United States from

January through March 1996, when five deaths were reported. Of these, four were recovered
IE-2

and examined for cause of death. Of those recovered, one was killed by a ship strike, but the

cause of death could not be determined for the remainder.

Various species of large sharks and killer whales (Orcinus orca) may be predators of right

whales, particularly for young or sick individuals. However, no such attacks have been

observed in this species. Scars from killer whale attacks have been photographed on North

Atlantic right whales (Kraus 1990), although the level of killer whale attacks and the extent to

which they result in death is not known.

E.3 Feeding and Prey Selection

In the western North Atlantic, right whales feed primarily on copepods, with Calanus

finmarchicus believed to be the primary prey (Kraus et al. 1988; Wishner et al. 1988;

Murison and Gaskin 1989). However, other zooplankters are also taken, including

Pseudocalanus, Centropages, and even cyprids (Mayo and Marx 1990). There is no

evidence for consumption of euphausiids although, given the inclusion of this taxon in the diet of

right whales elsewhere, it would be surprising if North Atlantic right whales were different in this

regard. Unlike balaenopterid whales, right whales are skimmers; they feed by continuously

filtering prey through their baleen while moving, mouth agape, through a patch of zooplankton.

Feeding occurs from spring through fall, and also in winter in certain areas (e.g., Cape Cod

Bay; Mayo and Marx 1990). Oceanographic and bathymetric features, such as relatively

cooler water temperatures and 100-200 m depths adjacent to steeply sloping bottom

topography, also seem to be related to the utilization of certain areas for feeding (Winn et al.

1986; Clapham 1999).

E.4 Competition

It has been suggested that interspecific competition with either sei whales (Balaenoptera

borealis) or planktivorous fish may limit Northern right whale prey consumption (Mitchell

1975; Kraus et al. 1988; Payne et al. 1990). In the North Atlantic, sei whales are sympatric

with the right whales, and because both species feed on small zooplankton species, they may

compete (Mitchell 1975). There is also speculation about competition with certain species of

fish in the Gulf of Maine, including sand lance (Ammodytes spp.), herring (Clupea spp.),

Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), river herrings (shad, blueback; Alosa spp.), menhaden

(Brevoortia tyrannus), and basking sharks (Cetorhinus maximus). However, as noted by

Clapham and Brownell (1996), assertions regarding interspecific competition are rarely well

defined or ecologically based; while the potential for interference competition exists for right

whales, direct evidence is essentially absent.
IF-1

F. Abundance and Trends

The eastern North Atlantic population probably numbers only in the low tens of animals at best,

and is not considered a functioning extant unit based on current sightings information (Best et

al. 2001); see discussion under C. Distribution and Habitat Use).

Based on a census of individual whales identified using photo-identification techniques, the

western North Atlantic population size was estimated to be 295 individuals in 1992 (Knowlton

et al 1994). Kraus et al. (2001) provided population size estimates based on a multi-year

running total of catalogued animals, and based on these numbers the 1998 IWC right whale

workshop accepted an estimate of about 300 individuals for this population (IWC 1998). 

However, because of heterogeneity of capture probabilities (relating to either distribution of

individuals and/or of sighting effort), calculation of an unbiased point estimate of abundance for

this population is difficult, and population modeling approaches to estimating abundance are

considered preferable by NMFS.

The estimated rate of increase for the western North Atlantic population from 1986-1992 was

calculated at 2.5 percent (CV=0.12) using photographic identification techniques (Knowlton et

al. 1994). Estimates by Kraus et al. (2001) were used to obtain an annual rate of increase

(range -0.039 to +0.031) for each of the years 1987 to 1996. A regression estimate based on

these data is probably negatively biased (r=0.01, SD=0.0232) because of reduced sampling

effort in recent years. During the 1998 IWC right whale workshop, two alternative methods

were used to obtain estimates of the rate of increase for this population. One provided an

estimate of 1.59 percent (C.I. -0.0246, 0.0564) with the caveat that the result is for recent

years. The second suggests that 4.3 percent is an upper bound to the population growth rate. 

With regard to the latter estimate, the IWC report stated that “[a]lthough actual growth rates

are likely to be considerably less than this, this figure serves to illustrate that the growth rate of

the North Atlantic right whale is both low and substantially less than that of southern right

whale populations.” In contrast, Southern Hemisphere right whale populations (those off

Argentina, Australia and South Africa) are increasing at annual rates on the order of 7-8

percent (IWC 1998).

With regard to the western North Atlantic population, the 1998 IWC workshop report also

stated the following: 

Whereas it may have increased since protection in 1935... and may have still been

increasing at a modest rate (about 2.5 percent) in the 1980s (Knowlton et al. 1994), more

recent data (near-failure of calf production from 1993-95, increased calving interval, and a

relatively large number of human-induced mortalities) suggest that this modest recovery rate

(by comparison to the Southern Hemisphere) may not have continued in the 1990s. North

Atlantic parous females show an increase between 1985 and 1997 but with an apparent

long-term oscillation in recruitment. These features together with the lack of significant

increase in calving rates, support the need for age-structured models to account for the

complexity of this population’s dynamics. It is now unclear whether the population is

declining, stationary or increasing and the best estimate of current population size is only

300 animals.

A recent modeling exercise, which calculated crude survival probability from photographically

identified individuals (Caswell et al. 1999), found that these rates decreased from about 0.99

per year in 1980 to about 0.94 in 1994, and that population growth rate declined from about

5.3 percent in 1980 to a negative 2.4 percent in 1994. The model suggested further that, under

current conditions, the population is headed for extinction and an upper bound on the expected
IF-2

time to extinction was 191 years.
IG-1

G. Threats

Ship collisions and fishing gear entanglements are the most common anthropogenic causes of

mortality in western North Atlantic right whales, judging from observations of stranded animals. 

Other potential threats are habitat degradation, noise, contaminants, underwater bombing

activities, climate and ecosystem change, and commercial exploitation.

G.1 Vessel Interactions

The greatest known current cause of right whale mortality in the western North Atlantic is

collision with ships. Out of 27 documented deaths from 1970 through 1991, 22 percent were

caused by ship propellers severing the tail stock or spine, or causing mortal wounds on the head

region (NMFS 1991). From 1991 through the beginning of 1993, an additional 3 deaths were

reported as a result of collisions with vessels (Kenney and Kraus 1993). Of 45 confirmed

deaths of western North Atlantic right whales between 1970 and 1999, 16 are known to have

been caused by ship strikes and two additional collisions were judged as possibly fatal

(Knowlton and Kraus (2001)). There were two known ship struck right whale deaths in 2001

one in 2002 one in 2003 and two in 2004. The low incidence (7 percent) of photographically

identified whales showing scars and wounds from ship propellers compared to the high rate of

ship propeller wounds on stranded carcasses indicates that a high proportion of interactions

between ships and whales are fatal to the whale (Kraus 1990). It should be noted that with

improved reporting and more thorough necropsies in recent years, the rate of detection and

confirmation of ship-strike deaths has probably increased. This may confound efforts to

determine trends in the frequency of collisions. Laist et al. (2001) argued that ship speed was

an important factor in the frequency of occurrence of ship strikes in large whale species,

including right whales, and that strikes occurring at reduced speeds (below 10 knots) rarely

caused serious injuries.

Concern has been raised over the possible adverse effects of whale-watching activities on right

whale aggregations, particularly in the western North Atlantic (i.e., Cape Cod Bay and lower

Bay of Fundy). While adverse effects from this activity are possible, there are no data that

conclusively establish adverse effects beyond the possibility of ship strikes, and recent minimum

distance regulations (i.e., 500-yard no approach regulations for right whales) are designed to

reduce the threat of collision or harassment in U.S. Atlantic waters. That is, most effects from

whale-watching activities are likely limited to behavioral changes or perhaps relatively small

changes in distribution. Given the above-mentioned regulations on vessel approaches to right

whales, the potential for temporary, perhaps relatively minor, effects has been reduced. 

However, relatively recent collisions between whale-watching boats and a humpback (2001),

and a minke whale (1998) indicate that much more serious consequences, e.g., death or serious

injury, are also possible. In addition, the number of high-speed (capable of speeds >28 knots)

whale-watch vessels, ferries, and other craft has increased recently in areas where right whales

occur, and this means that the threat of collisions has grown. Therefore, it may be necessary to

examine the effects of whale watching in the vicinity of right whales and issue additional

regulations and/or guidelines regarding the number of vessels, and their speed, manner and

distances of approaches near whales. In January 2000 NMFS issued an Advanced Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for North Atlantic Whale Protection (65 FR 2:270–272). 

NMFS is currently working on a proposed rule which would include whale watching guidelines

for protection of North Atlantic whale species.

G.2 Entrapment and Entanglement in Fishing Gear

Kraus (1990) estimated that 57 percent of right whales in the western North Atlantic bear scars

and injuries indicating fishing gear entanglement. This figure was revised to 61.6 percent by
1

 Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level is defined under the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not

including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing the stock to reach or

maintain its optimum sustainable population. The potential biological removal level is the product of a) the minimum

population level of the stock; b) one-half the theoretical or estimated net productivity rate of the stock at a small

population size; and c) a recovery factor between 0.1 and 1.0.

IG-2

more recent analysis (Hamilton et al. 1998b). The 1998 North Atlantic Stock Assessment

Report (Waring et al. 1999) indicated NMFS-monitored fisheries showed a mean annual

mortality of 1.0 right whale from 1992 through 1996. Sources of interaction mainly lie with gillnets, lobster pots, seine nets, and fish weirs (NMFS 1991), which, with the exception of gillnet

fisheries, are largely not monitored. Gear entanglement was estimated to account for 7 percent

of the known mortality in right whales in the western North Atlantic from 1970 through early

1993 (Kenney and Kraus 1993), and there were at least two additional entanglement deaths

between late 1993 and 1999 (Knowlton and Kraus 2001). Since 2001 there has been at least

one additional mortality due to entanglement. These mortalities involved entanglements with

fixed fishing gear. Of 45 known deaths between 1970 and 1999, three were directly linked to

entanglements and eight were suspected to have been linked to entanglements. Entanglements

may be responsible for more deaths than indicated by the stranding and necropsy data. Not

only is fishing gear likely to have been implicated in some of the deaths for which a cause could

not be determined, but also some whales may have become entangled, drowned, and failed to

resurface. As a result of the 1997 NMFS review of stranding and entanglement records of

large whales from 1990-1994, NMFS changed the classification of the Gulf of Maine and U.S.

Mid-Atlantic lobster pot fisheries from Category III to Category I, based on the annual level of

incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals relative to each stock’s calculated

Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level1. Two of the examined mortality records involved

right whales. This classification has not changed to date.

Injuries and entanglements that are not initially lethal may result in a gradual weakening of

entangled individuals, making them more vulnerable to some other direct cause of mortality

(Kenney and Kraus 1993). For example, entanglement may reduce a whale’s ability to

maneuver making it more susceptible to ship strikes. Entanglement-related stress may decrease

an individual’s reproductive success or reduce its life span, which may in turn depress

population growth. 

G.3 Habitat Degradation

A continued threat to the coastal habitat of the right whale in the western North Atlantic is the

undersea exploration and development of mineral deposits, as well as the dredging of major

shipping channels. Offshore oil and gas activities have been proposed off the coast of the midand south- Atlantic U.S. (NMFS 1991), but NMFS is not aware of any current plans to

explore or develop oil resources in this region. If these activities occur, there may be

consequent adverse effects to the right whale population by vessel movements, noise, spills, or

effluents. These activities may possibly result in disturbance of the whales or their prey, and/or

disruption of the habitat and should be subject to ESA Section 7 consultations. Right whales

also frequent coastal waters where dredging and its associated disposal operations occur on a

regular basis, such as along the southeastern U.S. coast. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(ACOE) has responsibility/oversight for many of these dredging and disposal operations and

has consulted with NMFS under Section 7 of the ESA on these activities. As a result, engaging

in dredging operations and related activities requires protective measures such as posting

lookouts on dredge vessels and adherence to recommended precautionary guidelines for

operations to reduce the risk of collision.
IG-3

It is unknown to what extent these activities may disturb or otherwise affect right whales. It

appears that whale behavior and the type of activity in which they are engaged influence right

whale sensitivity to, and tendency to avoid, noise disturbance and vessel activity (Watkins

1986; NMFS 1991), but more studies are needed.

G.4 Noise

A review of impacts of noise of all types on marine mammals is provided by Richardson et al.

(1995). Although certain species of large whale have shown behavioral changes to

anthropogenic noise sources in the marine environment, there have been few studies of the

effects of anthropogenic noise on right whales specifically. In general, the impact of noise from

shipping or industrial activities on the communication, behavior and distribution of right whales

remains unknown. 

The recent development of an archival tag, called a DTAG, may yield insight into large whale

responses to noise by monitoring behavior and response to sound continuously throughout the

dive cycle. A built-in hydrophone on the DTAG records acoustics while a series of sensors

sample the orientation of the animal, its speed, and fluke strokes. The timing of sound and

motion are synchronized due to the precise audio and sensor recording. The DTAG has been

attached to right whales and sperm whales, and may contribute valuable information to measure

the response of marine mammals to sound (Johnson and Tyack 2003). In 2001, DTAG’s were

attached to 31 right whales to investigate the whales’ reactions to the presence of ships. 

Researchers conducted ten controlled sound exposures to tagged whales, and charted the

movements of 34 vessels. By comparing experimental and control situations, response is

evaluated through a detection of changes in fluke stroke rate, orientation, heading, depth, and

vocal activity. As these data are analyzed, right whale response in the presence of ships may

be better understood (Nowacek et al. 2001). However, caution should be used when

extending study results from deep water environs to shallow water environs, for example, in the

Southeast U.S. 

G.5 Contaminants

Contaminant data on right whales are restricted to data from biopsy-derived samples. These

data appear to be relevant to the whole animal given that lipid-normalized contaminant burden

is comparable between different blubber depths and locations in large whales (Gauthier et al.

1997). Data for right whales are limited to only two studies (Woodley et al. 1991; Moore et

al. 1998). These data show a range of total PCBs of 80 to 1000 ng/g wet weight i.e., in the

parts per billion range. No obvious geographic trends were evident in samples from South

Africa, South Georgia, Cape Cod Bay USA and Bay of Fundy Canada (Moore et al. 1998). 

In contrast, most odontocete (i.e., toothed whales, porpoises and dolphins) values were in the

parts per million range (Aguilar and Borrell 1996). Organic chemical contaminants have been

regarded as of less significance for mysticetes than odontocetes and are not considered primary

factors in slowing the recovery of any stocks of large whale species (O'Shea and Brownell

1994). This is especially true for planktivorous baleen whales such as right whales, given their

lower accumulated contaminant burdens as compared to other marine mammals. However,

assessment of contaminant body burden ignores toxic non-halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons

(polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons: PAH) from crude oil and combusted fossil fuels that do

not bioaccumulate. Such compounds are metabolized, induce their effects and are mostly

excreted. Contaminant impact is therefore insufficiently assayed by blubber burden analysis of

parent compounds alone. 
IG-4

G.6 Underwater Explosives

Although no evidence conclusively links military activities in the North Atlantic to impacts on

right whales, activities such as underwater explosions in this ocean basin have the potential for

disturbing, injuring, or killing these and other whales.

In early 1996, six right whale deaths were documented. Five of these (one attributed to a ship

strike) occurred in waters adjacent to Southeast U.S. (SEUS) critical habitat. Navy facilities

adjacent to the critical habitat use offshore areas for gunnery exercises. Because several of the

carcasses were found near a Navy gunnery range, it was suspected that some deaths were

related to underwater explosions, and there was concern that Navy activities may have been

involved in some deaths. However, no such link was established.

Although a link to military activities was not established, the Navy entered into consultation with

NMFS under Section 7 of the ESA on the potential effect of some of its operations on

protected species, as described in Appendix A. In addition, Navy activities that introduce loud

sounds into the marine environment are required to be reviewed to ensure compliance with

those provisions of the MMPA regarding the incidental harrassment of marine mammals. The

Navy has made a number of significant modifications to its operations to facilitate protection of

right whales in their critical habitat in the SEUS. The NMFS and Navy both understand the

need to continue to keep an open dialogue, or possible formal or informal Section 7

consultations, with regard to Navy operations and to evaluate ways to mitigate possible

environmental impacts of the operations throughout the eastern seaboard. 

G.7 Climate and Ecosystem Change 

There is a close linkage between right whale foraging and the physical forcing processes that

concentrate prey in the oceanic environment (Kenney et al. 2001). Interannual, decadal, and

longer time-scale variability in climate can alter the distribution and biomass of prey available to

right whales. For example, decade-scale climatic regime shifts have been related to changes in

zooplankton in the North Atlantic (Fromentin & Planque 1996). Decadal trends in the North

Atlantic Oscillation (Hurrell 1995) can affect the position of the Gulf Stream (Taylor et al.

1998) and other circulation patterns in the North Atlantic that may be important to right whales. 

The effects of climate-induced shifts in productivity, biomass, and species composition of

zooplankton on the foraging success of right whales has received little attention. Such shifts in

community structure and productivity may alter the distribution and occurrence of foraging right

whales in coastal habitats, as well as affecting their reproductive potential.

G.8 Commercial Exploitation

Although initially the single major cause of decline in North Atlantic Right Whales, there has

been little hunting of right whales this century; the last known catch occurred in 1951 at Trinity

Bay, Newfoundland (Mead 1986). Catches in the eastern North Atlantic in the late 19th and

early 20th centuries were made off Iceland, Scotland and Ireland (Collet 1909; Brown 1976);

these catches were made largely by Norwegian whaling operations, and it is likely that they

irreversibly damaged or extirpated this stock. Unlike in the North Pacific, there is no evidence

that illegal whaling operations occurred in the North Atlantic.
IH-1

H. Conservation Measures 

Right whales were protected by the 1931 Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which

took effect in 1935. They have been protected from commercial whaling by the IWC and its

implementing convention since 1949. In U.S. waters, right whales are protected by the MMPA

and the ESA. The Northern right whale (which included both the North Atlantic and North

Pacific species) was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act in

June 1970 (35 FR 8495), the precursor to the ESA. It was subsequently listed as endangered

under the ESA in 1973, and listed as depleted under the MMPA in the same year.

The ESA provides authority to the Secretary of Commerce for protecting most endangered

marine species, including right whales. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has

lead responsibility for developing and implementing a recovery program for this species.

H.1 Establishment of Regional Recovery Plan Implementation Teams

The ESA provides authority to the Secretary of Commerce to establish teams to, among other

things, review recovery activities and provide recommendations to NMFS on improving such

activities. Two such teams have been formed: one in the southeastern United States and one in

the northeastern United States.

H.1.1 Southeastern U.S. Implementation Team (SEIT) for the Right Whale Recovery

Plan

In August 1993, the Southeastern U.S. Right Whale Recovery Plan Implementation Team was

formed. The team consists of representatives from the Georgia Department of Natural

Resources; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (formerly the Florida

Department of Environmental Protection); NMFS/Southeast Fisheries Science Center and

Southeast Regional Office; Navy; Georgia Ports Authority; Canaveral Port Authority; Glynn

County Commission, Glynn County, GA; Georgia Environmental Policy Institute; U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Port of Fernandina,

Fernandina, Florida; and the US Coast Guard (USCG).

Since its inception, the SEIT has met regularly and has been active in a number of areas.

Among other things, the SEIT was instrumental in developing a system of aircraft surveys and

communication systems that alert mariners to the presence of right whales in the SEUS in real

time. On numerous occasions in recent years, aircraft observers were able to contact and divert

ships on direct courses for right whales.

Two agencies represented on the SEIT, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and the

USCG, implemented a local Notice to Mariners broadcast about right whale calving grounds.

Additionally, the USCG and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources have developed

and implemented procedures for broadcasting right whale locations over NAVTEX. In 1999,

the USCG extended the transmission range of NAVTEX to include the entire Southeast

U.S.coastal area by installing a NAVTEX transmission tower near Savannah, GA at the

request of the SEIT. This notice is broadcast four times daily by the USCG on VHF radio. A

slightly longer version is published in the local Weekly Notice to Mariners. This notice may also

be published daily along with the tides and weather in regional newspapers, and is carried by

the Army Corp of Engineers as a part of its annually distributed tide charts. The Annual Notice

to Mariners also provides the same information.
IH-2

The SEIT has coordinated a number of efforts to educate mariners about the threat of ship

strikes in right whale habitat. For example, the Team or its participating agencies have

developed brochures and pamphlets on whales, manatees and turtles, which are being

distributed regionally. As a group, the Port Authorities prepared a series of posters, distributed

by the harbor pilots when they board a vessel for navigation, which describe the times right

whales are in their waters.

A quarterly newsletter, Right Whale News, was developed to help increase the effectiveness of

recovery efforts. The newsletter is edited by members of the Team. Contribution to the

newsletter is open to anyone actively involved in right whale conservation efforts, and has

included ship operators, harbor pilots, port authorities, fishermen, educators, scientists,

managers, policy makers, non-governmental organizations and other concerned citizens.

Relevant information from areas other than the southeastern calving areas (e.g., Bay of Fundy

field season summaries) are also included. The first newsletter was published in August 1994

and has been published regularly since.

In addition, the Team has addressed and/or provided recommendations to NMFS regarding

right whale research in the SEUS, additional measures to reduce the possibility of ship strikes,

development of safe operating procedures for large vessels transiting right whale habitat,

minimum vessel approach distances, and restrictions of hazardous fishing gear in right whale

calving areas.

H.1.2 Northeastern U.S. Implementation Team (NEIT) for the Right Whale Recovery

Plan

The Northeast Implementation Team (NEIT) was established in 1994. The Team is

coordinated by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. The Team

was created to implement recovery tasks for both the North Atlantic right whale and the

humpback whale. In the past, composition of the Team and its committee of technical advisors

consisted of a diverse group of individuals representing major Federal and State agencies

whose activities could affect the survival of these endangered large whale species. It has

included other non-governmental organizations such as academic researchers, conservation

organizations, as well as interested private individuals. Presently, membership consists of

representatives from: Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Maine Department of

Marine Resources, Marine Mammal Commission, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management,

Massachusetts' Division of Fish and Wildlife, Massachusetts' Port Authority, NMFS, New

England Fishery Management Council, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, USCG, U.S. Navy and U.S. EPA. The Maine Department of

Marine Resources and the U.S. Navy are the latest Team members, joining the Team in 1998.

Some accomplishments of the Team include completion of a status report and plan of activities

for protecting right and humpback whales in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays in cooperation

with the EPA, and implementation of a monitoring program for one of the largest waste water

treatment plants in the United States.

The Team has had two Technical Advisory Groups, a scientific group and a shipping industry

group. The scientific group provides expertise on the biology and behavior of whales while the

shipping industry group provides guidance on vessel and port operation. 

The Team established two subcommittees, one on ship strikes and one on habitat. The Habitat

Subcommittee that was originally established at the Team inception languished and was

reestablished in March 1997. The Habitat Subcommittee placed emphases on identifying
IH-3

human impacts to right whale habitats and critical elements of those habitats to facilitate the

Team's goal of protecting areas critical to right whale recovery.

Among other things, in 1997, the Habitat Subcommittee proposed the development of a right

whale habitat model for the entire east coast. Two meetings were conducted to determine the

scope of work necessary for the task and to develop a preliminary list of the model's elements,

including one for the Great South Channel area. The predictive model could be used as a

management tool, if it were successful in identifying whale occurrence. This information would

be used to aid shipping traffic in avoiding right whales.

With regard to ship strikes, a joint effort was initiated in 1998 by resource shareholders of the

northern U.S. east coast to produce an avoidance training/education video targeted at merchant

mariners. Agency members include the USCG, U.S. Navy, Canadian Department of Fisheries

and Oceans, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Gulf of Maine Council, and Massachusetts

Environmental Trust. The video was completed in May 1999. An initial distribution plan

included vessels utilizing major ports in or adjacent to critical habitat areas along the eastern

seaboard.

A Ship Strike Subcommittee workshop was held on 11 May 1998 to discuss concerns about

increasing numbers of high-speed vessels operating off New England and potential interactions

with whales. The meeting was co-sponsored by NOAA's Stellwagen Bank National Marine

Sanctuary, New England Aquarium and the NEIT. The impetus of the meeting was the

launching of a new high-speed ferry between Bar Harbor, Maine and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia.

One outcome was the creation of a working group to determine whale concentration in the Bay

of Fundy. The owner of the high-speed vessel agreed to enter into a partnership agreement to

fund an analysis, including GIS plots, of the occurrence of endangered large whales on or near

the ferry route. Analysis will examine the times and areas of potential interactions. Likewise,

Bay Ferries (owner and operator of a high speed ferry service) agreed to have an observer on

board to record whale observations. It is important to emphasize that all right whales that visit

the Bay of Fundy must cross the track of the Bar Harbor-Yarmouth ferry when coming in and

going out; this obviously creates a risk of collisions.

Another joint effort, started in May 1999, is developing a program to identify voluntary

measures mariners could take to reduce the likelihood of ship strikes. A funding partnership

was established among the NMFS, the NEIT, Georgia Department of Natural Resources,

Marine Mammal Commission, and the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The

SEIT voted in October 2000 to have the NEIT Shipstrike Subcommittee (subsequently

elevated to a full committee) co-chairs represent the SEIT as part of the national committee to

develop options to prevent collisions between ships and right whales. The SEIT also nominated

a member to serve as co-chair on the committee. The Committee co-chair, under contract with

NMFS, International Fund for Animal Welfare and others, held a number of meetings along the

eastern seaboard with shipping industry and agency representatives, culminating in an April

2001 workshop on the issue. The contractor submitted recommendations to both

implementation teams and recommendations on specific management options were

subsequently forwarded to NMFS by the Teams.

The composition and mandate of the Team has changed in recent years and additional changes

may be made. Nonetheless, at this time, its function is regarded as valuable to recovery efforts.

H.2 Steps Taken to Reduce the Threat of Fishing Gear Entanglement

H.2.1 List of Fisheries
2

 Category I fishery means a commercial fishery determined by the Assistant Administrator to have frequent

incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. A commercial fishery that frequently causes mortality or

serious injury of marine mammals is one that is by itself responsible for the annual removal of 50 percent or more of

any stock’s potential biological removal level. Category II fishery means a commercial fishery determined by the

Assistant Administrator to have occasional incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. A 

commercial fishery that occasionally causes mortality or serious injury of marine mammals is one that, collectively

with other fisheries, is responsible for the annual removal of more than 10 percent of any marine mammal stock’s

potential biological removal level and that is by itself responsible for the annual removal of between 1 and 50

percent, exclusive, of any stock’s potential biological removal level. Category III fishery means a commercial fishery

determined by the Assistant Administrator to have a remote likelihood of, or no known incidental mortality and

serious injury of marine mammals. A commercial fishery that has a remote likelihood of causing incidental mortality

and serious injury of marine mammals is one that collectively with other fisheries is responsible for the annual

removal of: (1) Ten percent or less of any marine mammal stock’s potential biological removal level, or (2) More than

10 percent of any marine mammal stock’s potential biological removal level, yet that fishery by itself is responsible

for the annual removal of 1 percent or less of that stock’s potential biolgical removal level. 

IH-4

Under the MMPA, NMFS is required to develop a List of Fisheries that classifies all U.S.

commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on the level of marine mammal deaths

and serious injuries that occur incidental to the fishery2. The categorization of a fishery in the

List of Fisheries determines whether participants in that fishery may be required to comply with

certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction

plan requirements. A notable change made to the 1997 List was combining the New England

inshore and offshore lobster pot fisheries into one fishery, and a change in its classification from

a category III (remote likelihood of serious injury or mortality) to a category I (frequent serious

injury or mortality) status. The re-classification resulted from entanglement records indicating

that 0.2 right whales per year are seriously injured or killed incidental to the Atlantic lobster pot

fishery.

H.2.2 Take Reduction Teams

The 1994 amendments to the MMPA required NMFS to establish teams comprised of

stakeholder groups to determine ways to reduce serious injury and mortality of strategic stocks

of marine mammals, including threatened or endangered species, that interact with category I or

II fisheries. The Take Reduction Team assists NMFS in developing a Take Reduction Plan.

The immediate goal of the Take Reduction Plan is to reduce incidental mortality or serious

injury to the marine mammal stock’s potential biological removal level (PBR) within six months

of the plan’s implementation. The longer term goal is to reduce serious injuries and mortality to

an insignificant level approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate (Zero Mortality Rate

Goal, or ZMRG).

H.2.2.1 Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team and Plan

In August 1996, NMFS formed the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team to reduce the

incidental mortality and serious injury of three endangered species of whales (Northern right,

fin, and humpback) as well as to provide conservation benefits to a fourth non-endangered

species due to incidental interaction with the following fisheries: the Gulf of Maine/U.S. midAtlantic lobster trap/pot fishery, the mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery, the southeastern U.S.

Atlantic shark gillnet fishery, and the Gulf of Maine sink-gillnet fishery (the names of some of

these fisheries as listed in the List of Fisheries have changed and representatives of additional

fisheries, such as the newly-defined Atlantic mixed species trap/pot fishery, have been added to

the team). The Team prepared a plan, and although the Team reached agreement on a number

of needed actions, it failed to reach consensus on all measures. Nonetheless, the plan was

forwarded to NMFS in February 1997.
IH-5

NMFS considered the plan submitted by the team and issued a proposed rule in April 1997

and an interim final rule in July 1997 (62 FR 39157) to implement the plan. As provided in the

interim final rule, NMFS implemented the provisions of the plan, including (1) formation of a

fishing gear advisory group; (2) research on potential fishing gear modifications to determine

ways to reduce entanglement and facilitate release following entanglement; (3) a fishermen

outreach and education program; (4) expansion of the disentanglement network; (5) hiring a

large whale coordinator in Maine (a state in which much of the gear restrictions were heavily

opposed); (6) continuation and refinement of the NE aircraft survey program; (7) time/area

closures; (8) time/area – specific restrictions on gear deployment.

On February 16, 1999, NMFS published a final rule (64 FR 7529) implementing the final take

reduction plan. The final plan included minor modifications to the interim final rule. NMFS has

generally reconvened the team on an annual basis since 1997 to further revise the plan. In

2000, NMFS was sued for its failure to amend the ALWTRP to protect the North Atlantic

right whale from deaths and injuries from fishing gear. NMFS has since amended the rule

implementing the plan several times to incorporate additional measures, including an interim final

rule to provide additional gear restrictions on December 21, 2000 (65 FR 80368). In January

2002, NMFS published three rules that (1) make further modifications to commercial fishing

gear (67 FR 1300, January 10, 2002; see also 67 FR 15493, April 2, 2002; 67 FR 59471,

September 23, 2002), (2) establish restricted areas based on annual, predicatable aggregations

of right whales (67 FR 1142, January 9, 2002), and (3) establish a system for restricting fishing

in areas where unexpected aggregations of right whales are observed (67 FR 1133, January 9,

2002; see also 68 FR 51195, August 26, 2003).

NMFS is currently preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the

National Environmental Policy Act to consider alternatives for possible additional modifications

to the take reduction plan to meet the goals of the MMPA (see the notice of intent to prepare

an EIS at 68 FR 38676 (June 30, 2003)).

H.2.2.2 Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team and Plan 

In May 1996, NMFS established the Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team to

address incidental take of several marine mammal species in offshore fisheries, primarily the

offshore driftnet fishery for swordfish and the longline fishery for tunas. Marine mammals taken

in these fisheries include large whales, common dolphins (Delphinus delphis), white-sided

dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus), pilot whales (Globicephala spp.) and various species of

beaked whales. The team submitted a draft Plan to NMFS in November 1996. Among other

things, the Team proposed various measures to protect right whales that primarily involved

restrictions or modifications of the drift gillnet and longline operations.

Based on concerns about right whales, the offshore drift gillnet fishery for swordfish, sharks and

tuna was closed. Two of the three fisheries which were the focus of this Team’s efforts (the

drift gillnet and pair trawl fisheries for swordfish, tuna, and shark) no longer exist, and the third

fishery (the pelagic longline fishery targeting the same species) has been substantially altered by

a series of closures enacted for purposes of target species and bycatch species management

(such as billfish and sea turtles). In addition, the recommendations submitted by the take

reduction team regarding operation of the pelagic longline fishery were partially addressed

under a Fishery Management Plan for Highly Migratory Species (64 FR 29090, May 28,

1999). Therefore, NMFS decided to dissolve the Team until such time as sufficient data are

available on marine mammal bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery under the new management

regime. However, no right whale interactions have been documented in this fishery.

H.3 Efforts to disentangle right whales
IH-6

The 1991 recovery plan called for establishment of a marine mammal disentanglement program.

NMFS established a team of scientists from the Center for Coastal Studies and the New

England Aquarium to respond to all marine mammal entanglements, with an emphasis on right

and humpback whale entanglements. The program was purely voluntary when it originated in

1984 and remained voluntary until a contract with NMFS was established in September 1995.

The contract for 1996-1998 was restricted both by availability of NMFS resources and in

scope. In 1999 and 2000, a contract was provided by NMFS to cover all disentanglement

activities. In 2001, the activities were covered by several sources and, at the time of this

writing, attempts are being made to secure NMFS funding for the foreseeable future.

Emergency response involves (1) multi-agency and multi-organization communication to locate,

monitor, and safely disentangle marine mammals; (2) development and maintenance of an

entanglement database and provision of data to users; and (3) development of regional

protocols and plans, including outreach to the general public. When whales become entangled,

judgements must be made as to the efficacy and merits of disentanglement. Experience indicates

that disentanglement is best undertaken by trained and experienced personnel, with appropriate

protocols for the procedure as well as the associated data collection.

In the Southeast U.S., basic responders are available to assist and disentanglement equipment

caches have been established at key locations. The current disentanglement effort consists of

one primary team and basic field support in the Bay of Fundy, Gulf of Maine, the mid-Atlantic,

and Georgia/Florida. The program covers nearshore disentanglement events along the eastern

seaboard, although the team has the capability to be deployed in some offshore locations. There

are other limitations; for example, the northern Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy field stations are

operational only when biologists are conducting seasonal whale research, and even then

disentanglement response relies on the timely transfer of the team and their equipment to the

entanglement site. In the southeast U.S., trained biologists are available to assist and

disentanglement equipment caches have been established at key locations.

Over the last 15 years, an average of about four to eight right whales have been reported

entangled each year in U.S. and Bay of Fundy waters. Of these, numerous whales have been

completely or partially disentangled. On the other hand, many of the known entangled whales

are not freed from gear and these instances most likely debilitate the animal and can cause

serious injury. A number of lightly entangled whales freed themselves before intervention could

occur. However, one right whale was severely entangled and in October 1999 died as a result

of the entanglement. Another, reported in 1998, was completely disentangled but had sustained

major injuries from a prior entanglement, and is believed to have died even though all gear was

removed. Attempts were made to disentangle a severely entangled right whale in 2001. The

gear was affixed with satellite transmitters and its movements were tracked for several weeks. 

Although the actual fate of this animal is not known, signals from the transmitter suddenly

stopped and the whale has not been re-sighted. It is highly probable that it died from wounds it

received from the entanglement.

H.4 Efforts to Reduce Mortality or Disturbance from Ship Activities

H.4.1 Vessel Approach Regulations 

Disturbance to whales was identified in the 1991 recovery plan as one of the principal humanrelated factors impeding right whale recovery. Often where human activities co-occur with right

whales off the U.S. east coast, there is potential for disturbance of right whales.

 
IH-7

To minimize human-induced disturbance NMFS published a proposed rule on August 7, 1996

restricting vessel approach to right whales (61 FR 41116). These regulations proposed to

prohibit all approaches within 500 yards (460m) of any right whale, whether by vessel, aircraft

or other means. Exceptions exist for emergency situations and where certain authorizations are

provided. The regulations are consistent with Massachusetts’ approach regulations for right

whales.

Following public comment, an interim final rule (62 FR 6729) was published on February 13,

1997 codifying the regulations. With certain exceptions, 50 CFR 224.103 prohibits both boats

and aircraft from approaching any right whale closer than 500 yards. Exceptions for closer

approach are provided when (1) compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a

person, vessel, or aircraft; (2) a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver around a 500 yard

perimeter of a whale; (3) a vessel is investigating or involved in the rescue of an entangled or

injured right whale, or (4) the vessel is participating in a permitted activity, such as a research

project. If a vessel operator finds that he or she has unknowingly approached closer than 500

yards, the rules require that a course be steered away from the whale at slow safe speed.

H.4.2 Aircraft Surveys in the Southeastern United States

To help reduce the possibility of ship strikes, the Southeast Implementation Team developed a

system to alert area ship traffic to the presence of right whales. As noted earlier, the Team and

its member agencies and organizations developed advice for vessel operators on ways to detect

and avoid right whales, and distributed brochures, fliers, videos and other information on right

whales and the threat that vessel traffic poses to them. The central feature of the system has

been a jointly funded aerial survey program designed to obtain accurate, current information on

the locations of whales. Continuously updated sighting information from survey teams is

immediately relayed to area mariners for their use in avoiding whales. However, even in very

good sighting conditions not all whales are detected, therefore, whales may be present but not

always reported to mariners. 

Surveys were initiated in the waters off the SEUS in fall 1993 and have continued each year

since. East-West survey lines occur at 3 nautical mile intervals throughout, and seaward as well

as to the north and south of, critical habitat. Sighting locations are passed from the aircraft to

centralized locations operated by the USCG and Navy. These groups in turn provide the

information through a number of real time media, including USCG Broadcast Notice to

Mariners, NAVTEX (the USCG international communication system), and NOAA Weather

Radio. If a survey locates whales within a specified distance of a navigational channel, vessels

are requested to proceed at reduced speeds and communicate locations so other vessels can

avoid the whales. Design and execution of the survey program has been a cooperative effort

by a number of Federal and State agencies. Support and personnel are provided by the

USCG, the Navy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the States of Georgia and Florida, and

NMFS. In recent years, the Navy has become the central repository and dispenser of sighting

location information used for the communication network. Data are entered into a GIS and

quality-controlled by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), who are

analyzing sighting data, Mandatory Ship Reporting data, and various environmental variables in

relation to right whale distributions. The FWC is collaborating with the NMFS SEC to develop

a predictive model for right whales within the southeastern United States. These data and

models will contribute to various evaluations of risk within the region. These procedures will be

continually reviewed and improved by the SEIT.

H.4.3 Aircraft Surveys in the Northeastern United States
IH-8

Using the SEUS aircraft survey program as a model, efforts were initiated in 1997 to develop a

similar program in Cape Cod Bay (CCB) and the Great South Channel (GSC) in late winter

and early spring. The program is a cooperative effort by NMFS, the USCG, Massachusetts

Division of Marine Fisheries, the Massachusetts Environmental Trust, the Center for Coastal

Studies, the Navy and MASSPORT (the Boston port authority), the Stellwagen Bank National

Marine Sanctuary, National Weather Service, the US Army Corp of Engineers, Cape Cod

Canal, Wheelock College, and New England Aquarium. Representatives from these groups

meet regularly for coordination of the program.

In 1997-2004, surveys supported by NMFS and the State of Massachusetts were conducted

to cover peak abundance periods and were flown principally between January and March in

CCB, and in the GSC between March and early July and in several other key areas, as well. 

Sources of information for the survey network include: (1) marine mammal lookouts posted

during USCG vessel operations and from USCG pilots; (2) ship-based sightings by the Center

for Coastal Studies during their studies of right whale feeding and behavior in CCB and when

they are responding to reports of whale entanglements; and (3) research and other ships

operated by the NMFS and the State of Massachusetts. 

Sightings from aerial survey platforms, right whale researchers, and multiple sources are

reported to NMFS’ Northeast Fisheries Science Center. NMFS confirms the reports and

synthesizes them. These data are plotted using a GIS with sightings grouped and ‘circled’ with a

buffer zone. These right whale sighting advisories, or ‘alerts’, are disseminated to cooperators

via an automated facsimile system and posted to several web page locations. The USCG issues

Broadcast Notices to Mariners and via NAVTEX. NOAA Weather Radio provides

geographic and positional data on the sightings periodically; the Cape Cod Canal Traffic

Controllers contact ships and provide positions and a radius for each sighting. Each sighting

report has a 24-hour life unless it includes three or more whales, in which case the report is

included along with all subsequent reports for a two-week period. Shipping agents, pilots and

port authorities disseminate the information by voice or paper copy of the faxed advisories to

inbound and outbound shipping traffic as appropriate. Maps, positions and radii, and reporting

source information are posted to the Wheelock College, Whalenet, and the NMFS Sighting

Advisory System (SAS) websites. Historic sighting advisory reports are also maintained on

these sites. Several other web pages including NMFS’s Northeast Regional Office (NER) and

the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs port have the most current maps

and link to the more complete Whalenet and SAS sites. Notifications to individual ships,

commercial fishing and military vessels are made by voice from the aircraft when observed

vessels are transiting close to a whale. In addition, these surveys have provided sightings of

entangled and floating right whales, and provide photo identification data for numerous studies.

The NEIT Ship Strike Sub Committee initiated action to have information on right whales and

related advisory text added to the Cape Cod Canal tide tables in 1998 and 1999.

Current plans are to continue the surveys into the foreseeable future. A partnering document,

the initiation of which began with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, has been

prepared to identify cooperative efforts in support of the program with NMFS, the USCG, the

Massachusetts Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, the Center for Coastal Studies, the

National Weather Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, Wheelock College, the Stellwagen

Bank National Marine Sanctuary, the New England Aquarium, the Massachusetts

Environmental Trust, the Massachusetts Port Authority, and the Navy. The 1997 Partnering

Document included 12 partners. In 1998, several other groups such as shipping agents pilots,

whale watch vessel operators and a high-speed ferry operator were added as cooperators. The

partnering document will be prepared each year and an increasing number of cooperators is

expected each year. Also, some information on entangled whales comes from opportunistic
IH-9

sightings from the whale watching industry and other sources.

It should be noted, however, that while dedicated aircraft surveys may be the best available

means to attempt to alert mariners about the presence of right whales, these programs have a

number of limitations. For example, they are costly to implement. It is possible that these are

resources that might be better spent on other activities. Also, the surveys are limited by weather

and surveys can be conducted only in daylight and under the best of survey conditions. In

addition, it is likely that, even under good conditions, many whales are missed by observers,

especially since only those whales at or near the surface can be seen. Nonetheless, until

effective alternatives are identified, the surveys are expected to continue.

H.4.4 Updating Navigational Publications

To help ensure safe navigation in coastal waters in the United States, the National Ocean

Service publishes and periodically updates nautical charts and a series of regional books called

U.S. Coast Pilots. These are basic references on regional environmental conditions, navigation

hazards, and rules. In U.S. waters, all ship’s captains are required to carry Coast Pilots.

Efforts in 1997 and 1998 were directed at updating information contained in the Coast Pilots.

Coast Pilots covering the entire eastern United States have been or will soon be updated to

include information on the status of right whales, the times and areas that they occur, the threats

posed to whales by ships, and advice on measures mariners might take to avoid hitting right

whales. For example, it notes that mariners should not assume that whales will avoid oncoming

vessels, and suggests that lookouts be alert for right whales in critical habitats, that mariners

listen for broadcasts reporting recent right whale sightings locations, and that reduced speeds

be used when near whales or traveling in key habitats at night or during other conditions of poor

visibility. Also, updated information regarding right whale critical habitat and regulations about

approaching right whales will be published on nautical charts when they are re-printed. Efforts

to ensure that these navigational aids were updated to include information on right whales was

done cooperatively by the NEIT and SEIT, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the

Marine Mammal Commission, and NMFS.

Starting in late 1997, NMFS provided language similar to that included in the Coast Pilots

about right whale vulnerability to ship strikes to the National Imagery and Mapping Agency

(NIMA), which annually publishes a Notice to Mariners. The information appeared in the

January 1998 issue, and has been updated annually since. In addition, collaboration between

the NEIT and NMFS’ Northeast Regional Office resulted in this information being updated in

2004. NMFS also provided information to NIMA for inclusion in their international navigation

publication, Sailing Directions, which discusses and provides precautions primarily focused on

right whale habitat in Canadian waters. This publication is updated annually.

H.4.5 Mandatory Ship Reporting System

In late-1997 and early-1998, NMFS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, the USCG, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare jointly developed a

proposal for submission to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) requesting

implementation of a mandatory ship reporting system in right whale habitats. The proposal

received endorsement from the USCG, the Marine Mammal Commission, and other agencies

and organizations. It was submitted by the USCG to, and endorsed by, the IMO in December

1998 and the system became operational in July 1999. A portion of the system in the

Northeast, which encompasses right whale critical habitat in Cape Cod Bay and the Great

South Channel, operates year round. A second portion includes right whale critical habitat off
IH-10

the Southeast U.S. and operates from 15 November to 15 April each year. The system

obligates all commercial ships greater than 300 gross tons in these areas and times to call into a

shore-based station (primarily by satellite-linked communication), thereby prompting a return

message which describes right whale vulnerability to ship strikes, provides information on how

collision could be avoided, and right whale sighting locations. Information from reporting ships

is compiled in a data base. Thus, the system provides information on right whales directly to

mariners as they enter right whale habitat, and provides a means to obtain information on ship

traffic volume and routes to assist in identifying measures to reduce future ship strikes. It is

jointly funded by the USCG and NMFS, and administered primarily by the USCG.

H.4.6 International Safety Management Code

The International Fund for Animal Welfare and the NEIT identified to NMFS an opportunity to

educate mariners through routine safety inspections of domestic and foreign vessels for vessel

operation and human safety while in U.S. waters. In late 1997, NMFS and the USCG began a

dialog about the incorporation of protected marine species issues, including Northern right

whales, in required safety manual documents developed by ship owners and companies. By late

1998, the USCG had included language in policy documents regulating the implementation of

the International Safety Management Code, and was providing protected marine mammal

information in its training courses for inspectors and auditors.

H.4.7 Educational Materials and Outreach

A number of agencies and organizations have collaborated on developing brochures,

pamphlets, and informational papers to educate mariners about the vulnerability of right whales

to ship strikes. NMFS has published magazine articles directed to the shipping industry. Also,

as noted above, a video on this subject was prepared and is being distributed to the shipping

industry.

H.4.8 Ship Strike Strategy Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

NMFS developed a draft strategy to reduce mortalities of North Atlantic right whales as a

result of vessel collisions. The strategy addresses the lack of recovery of the endangered North

Atlantic right whale by reducing the likelihood and threat of ship strike mortalities to the species. 

This was the subject of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2004). NMFS expects to take further action in this

regard.

H.4.9 Canadian Ship Routing Measures

During summer and early fall, right whales aggregate to feed in the Bay of Fundy, between New

Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Canada. During this time the whales are exposed to heavy vessel

traffic in major shipping channels that pass through the area. In July 2003, with approval from

the International Maritime Organization (IMO), Canada moved shipping lanes four nautical

miles to the east to protect the feeding whales from ship collisions.

H.5 Strandings and Necropsies

Given the importance of obtaining life history data and information on the sources of human

impacts, and the limited opportunities to collect these data, gathering the maximum amount of

information from stranded whales is essential. In cooperation with local and State participants

NMFS coordinates the U.S. Marine Mammal Stranding Network which responds to hundreds
IH-11

of strandings each year. Generally, response to, and data collection from, stranded right whales

has improved substantially in recent years, although there is also room for improvement.

Standardized protocols have been developed to help ensure that the best possible information is

collected from each event. However, the protocols and the systems used to gather and analyze

data should be reviewed and steps taken to ensure that maximally useful data are obtained.

H.6 Coordination of Federal agency recovery activities under the Endangered Species

Act

Under section 7 of the ESA and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402.14, Federal agencies

are required to review their actions and consult with NMFS on any action that may affect listed

species or critical habitat for species under NMFS’ jurisdiction (including right whales). Many

of the recovery activities for all endangered and threatened species are implemented through

consultations between NMFS and other Federal agencies. As a result of these consultations,

NMFS issues either a letter of concurrence that any activity is not likely to adversely affect a

species or critical habitat, or a Biological Opinion for activities likely to adversely affect a

species or critical habitat. A Biological Opinion indicates if the activity is likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of the species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of

critical habitat and, if so, provides reasonable and prudent alternatives to the activity. In those

cases where NMFS concludes that an action (or implementation of any reasonable and prudent

alternatives) and the resultant incidental take of listed species is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of

critical habitat, NMFS specifies reasonable and prudent measures necessary and appropriate

to minimize effects of the action on the species of concern. Significant points of the most recent

consultations can be found in Appendix A. 
II

II. RECOVERY STRATEGY

In light of the low population size, possibly declining status, life history of the species, and high

rate of mortality from anthropogenic causes, the most immediate need for the North Atlantic

right whale is to reduce or eliminate human-related deaths and injuries. At present, these result

primarily from ship collisions and fishing gear entanglement. Actions taken in the past have not

significantly reduced the rate of human-related deaths and serious injury. Therefore, rigorous

and urgent action is needed to reduce these threats. Actions to reduce ship collisions include

continuation of an “early warning/sighting advisory system,” vessel traffic management,

mandatory ship reporting systems, development of alternative methods to predict right whale

occurrence and distribution, and studies of the effects of ship noise on whale behavior. Actions

regarding fishing gear interactions include modification of fishing operations and gear, reporting

requirements and followup, and disentanglement of whales from fishing gear. Effectiveness of

these protection measures for both shipping and fishing gear entanglement needs to be

monitored, education and outreach programs need to be continued and improved, and

regulations need to be stringently enforced. In addition, the development of demographic

recovery criteria is a high priority action that needs to be completed quickly.

Secondary, but still high priority, needs involve other actions of importance to the species’

management, including characterization and monitoring of important habitat, and protection of

this habitat; and identification and monitoring of the status, trends, distribution and health of the

species. Habitat-related actions include characterization and monitoring of habitat; the use of

GIS to analyze whale and vessel occurrence and distribution (including the patterns of

strandings), and to prepare predictive models of whale occurrence; analysis and revision, if

supported, of critical habitat; and studies on food requirements and resources. Monitoring

includes assessing status and trends, and distribution; maintaining a photo-identification

database; assessing demography, stock structure, and health; and maximizing responses to

strandings.

Third priority needs include studies on the effects of other potential anthropogenic mortality

(such as coastal development, anthropogenic noise, pollutants, whale watching, and potential oil

and gas exploration) and, if these are found to be threats, ensuring that they are addressed; and

genetic studies to assess population structure and diversity. 

All of the above actions require close coordination with other Federal, State, international, and

private entities to ensure that research and recovery efforts are conducted efficiently and

effectively.
3 Quasi-extinction is defined (Ginzburg et al. 1982) as a small, critical population threshold whose lower boundary

may be unacceptable for the continued survival of a species. This could be the population size at which factors

such as demographics, inbreeding depression, or behavioral constraints prohibit survival.

III-1

III. RECOVERY GOALS AND CRITERIA

The ultimate goal of this recovery plan is to promote the recovery of North Atlantic right whales

to a level sufficient to warrant their removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened

Wildlife and Plants (List) under the ESA. The intermediate goal is to reclassify the species from

endangered to threatened. 

Based on the current population size of North Atlantic right whales, which has remained at

approximately 300 animals, the continued human-caused threats to the species, and the whale’s

life history, North Atlantic right whales face a high risk of extinction into the foreseeable future. 

As a result, the criteria identified here for reclassification from endangered to threatened are not

likely to be met for decades or longer. Although the criteria included in this plan will likely not

be applicable in the near future, the agency has developed a set of rigorous recovery criteria

(for reclassifying the species as threatened) based on existing knowledge of the population and

available scientific tools. It is anticipated that the following criteria will be revisited; in addition,

delisting criteria will be incorporated when the population has begun to recover such that

conditions now distant and hypothetical (such as recovery trends and future threats) are

apparent. 

Recovery criteria must include the elimination of threats to the species as well as measures of

demographic health. Both sets of criteria serve as checks on one another — one set of criteria

requires evidence that the threats to North Atlantic right whales have been eliminated or

controlled and are not likely to recur, and the other set of criteria requires evidence that the

population status of North Atlantic right whales has improved in response to the reduction of

threats.

A Framework for Recovery Criteria

Recovery criteria in this plan are partially derived from a workshop NMFS convened in

February 2001 to develop reclassification criteria for endangered large whale species (Angliss

et al. 2002). The workshop developed, and NMFS applies here, the following guidelines for

recovery criteria:

• A probabilistic threshold is appropriate to describe the risk of extinction;

• A large cetacean species shall no longer be considered endangered when, given current and

projected conditions, the probability of quasi-extinction3 is less then 1% in 100 years;

• A large cetacean species shall no longer be considered threatened when, given current and

projected conditions, the probability of becoming endangered is less than 10% in a period

of time no shorter than 10 years and no longer than 25 years. The period depends upon

the precision of the data on population abundance and trend information, the time it takes

the agency to respond to a potential change in the status, and the time it will actually take

the species to recover. 

• Recurrence of threats that brought the species to the point that warranted listing and current

threats to the species have been addressed. The ESA requires that any determination of

the status of a species consider five potential sources of threats (or five “factors”) affecting

its continued existence: 

(a) the present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat or range;
III-2

(b) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 

(c) disease or predation; 

(d) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 

(e) other natural or manmade factors. 

Each recovery plan and any consideration to change the listing status of the species must

address these five areas.

NMFS is currently re-evaluating the risk of extinction that could be used as a threshold

between threatened and endangered status or threatened and recovered to a level that

continued protection under the ESA is no longer necessary (delisting). The evaluation is

expected to continue for at least another 2 years. The results of that evaluation may be different

than the risks of extinction identified by the large whale workshop (Angliss et al. 2002), and in

such a situation, NMFS would revise the framework criteria used in this recovery plan. 

However, the framework criteria described in Angliss et al. (2002) are used in this recovery

plan because they represent the best information currently available to characterize the status of

large whales.
IIIA-1

A. Reclassification to Threatened

North Atlantic right whales may be considered for reclassifying to threatened when all of the

following have been met:

1. The population ecology (range, distribution, age structure, and gender ratios, etc.) and vital

rates (age-specific survival, age-specific reproduction, and lifetime reproductive success) of

right whales is indicative of an increasing population. 

Although trends in population abundance are an important measure of a population’s

viability, a population can increase in abundance and still face very high risks of extinction

because other aspects of its population ecology are unstable. To avoid reaching an

erroneous conclusion based on changes in the population size of right whales, this criterion

includes multiple measures that would indicate a right whale population that is growing and

that the growth will probably be sustained.

2. The population has increased for a period of 35 years at an average rate of increase equal to

or greater than 2% per year. 

A 2% increase is generally accepted as the minimum detectable rate of growth of a longlived, slow-growing large mammal. Thirty-five years is the estimated amount of time it

would take for right whale population to double in size if the population grows at an average

of 2 percent per year. 

3. None of the known threats to Northern right whales (summarized in the five listing factors)

are known to limit the population’s growth rate (for thorough discussion, see Appendix C).

Listing/Recovery Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,

Modification or Curtailment of a Species Habitat or Range In order to ensure

the long-term recovery needs of the North Atlantic right whale and provide adequate

assurance of population stability, threats to right whale habitat or range must be reduced

or removed. Habitat degradation may occur from oil spills, noise pollution from

shipping or oil and gas development, dredging, and contaminants. 

• Habitat degradation from oil spills, noise pollution, dredging and contaminants are

not limiting the recovery of` the species.

Listing/Recovery Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,

Scientific, or Educational Purposes There are no data at this time to indicate that

these issues are limiting the recovery of the North Atlantic right whale. However, prior

to downlisting, the effects of commercial harvest, research activities, and recreational

and educational activities such as whale-watching must be considered. 

• Recreational and educational activities are adequately regulated by the permitting

process.

• No right whales are allowed to be harvested for commercial purposes.

Listing/Recovery Factor C: Disease or Predation At this time, there are no data

indicating that predation is limiting right whale recovery. However, results of body

condition analysis and the occurrence of skin lesions on North Atlantic right whales may

be indicative of health issues within the population.

• Disease is not appreciably affecting the recovery of the species and is not likely to

do so in the foreseeable future.
IIIA-2

Listing/Recovery Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory

Mechanisms Regulations may be insufficient to adequately protect the population. In

particular, it may be necessary to enhance existing regulations, or promulgate new

regulations to reduce or eliminate the threat of ship strikes and fishing gear

entanglement. 

• Adequate regulations or other means to minimize ship strikes are in place and being

implemented and the criterion set forth under Factor E is met.

• Adequate regulations, gear, or other means to minimize entanglement in fishing gear

exist and are being implemented and the criterion set forth under Factor E is met.

Listing/Recovery Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its

Continued Existence No natural factors are known to be limiting the recovery of

North Atlantic right whales at this time. The most significant threat to North Atlantic

right whale recovery remains human-related mortality, most notably, ship collisions and

entanglement in fishing gear. Additionally, other factors may be identified as direct or

indirect threats in the future, such as habitat degradation, coastal development, undersea

noise, contaminant loads (covered under Factors A-D).

• Human-caused mortality and serious injury from ship strikes and fishery interactions

result in a level of mortality considered to be biologically insignificant. 

Finally, to support and confirm a reclassification determination generated by the above criteria,

the following criteria must also be met:

4. Given current and projected threats and environmental conditions, the right whale population

has no more than a 1% chance of quasi-extinction in 100 years (see Angliss et al. 2002). 

Criteria, i.e., population numbers, structure and trends, have not yet been developed;

however, a top priority in the recovery action narrative of this plan is to conduct

analyses to derive such criteria. These analyses should expressly indicate the

assumptions, goals, uncertainties and approximations of the model used, and include

sensitivity analyses of parameters and assumptions. In addition to being useful in

examining the population viability analysis, sensitivity analyses can be useful in

management of the species, and subsequent revisions or updates of this recovery plan. 

Finally, the analysis should be peer reviewed before being accepted as criteria.
IIIB

B. Delisting

When NMFS has considered species such as large whales for delisting under the ESA, the

world-wide abundance of that species has been thousands or tens of thousands of animals. The

current abundance of North Atlantic right whales is currently an order of magnitude less than an

abundance at which NMFS would even consider delisting the species. The current population

dynamics indicate that North Atlantic right whales is in decline rather than recovering, and

decades of population growth (at growth rates considered typical for large whales) would be

required before the population could attain such an abundance. As previously provided in this

section, conditions related to delisting (such as recovery trends and future threats) are now too

distant and hypothetical to realistically develop specific criteria. Thus, specific criteria for

delisting North Atlantic right whales are not included in this recovery plan but will be included in

a future revision of the recovery plan well before the population is at a level when delisting

becomes a reasonable decision. 
IV

IV. RECOVERY PROGRAM

NMFS believes that the plan should be a dynamic document and thus has focused the actions

largely on those that are needed in the relative short-term. As new information is obtained, new

actions will be identified and incorporated into the plan. As is the case for all plans, this plan

will be reviewed periodically and the relative success of these actions in protecting right whales

assessed, adjustments made or additional actions added. 

All actions are to be conducted in a manner consistent with international law and the

international law of the sea. In particular, all provisions of this Plan shall be applied consistently

with the 1983 Presidential Proclamation on the Exclusive Economic Zone, the 1988

Presidential Proclamation on the Territorial Sea, and the 1999 Presidential Proclamation on the

Contiguous Zone, and in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law,

and with the treaties, conventions, and other agreements to which the United States is a party.

Although this is a national recovery plan, it is recognized that recovery actions (including

research and monitoring activities) involve actions by Federal, State, and local agencies, other

nations, and private organizations. For instance, many fishing regulations are regionally specific

and fisheries need to be managed and regulations enforced regionally or locally. Likewise,

some coast-wide activities require site-specific actions. Many of these need to be coordinated

nationally, but will be conducted, or responded to, locally. 

As discussed in the Conservation Accomplishment section of this plan, the Northeast and

Southeast Right Whale Recovery Plan Implementation Teams recommend and help organize

recovery activities at the regional level and coordinate a number of state efforts. Among these

activities are coordinating aircraft surveys and the relaying of whale sighting locations to

mariners, helping to coordinate the storing of regional equipment caches for disentanglement,

and coordinating responses to right whale strandings and carcass recovery.

The objectives of the North Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Plan are as follows:

Objective 1: Significantly reduce sources of human-caused death, injury and disturbance.

Objective 2: Develop demographically-based recovery criteria.

Objective 3: Identify, characterize, protect and monitor important habitats.

Objective 4: Monitor the status and trends of abundance and distribution of the western

North Atlantic right whale population.

Objective 5: Coordinate Federal, State, local, international and private efforts to

implement the Recovery Plan.
IVA-1

A. Step-down Outline

1. Significantly reduce sources of human-caused death, injury and disturbance.

1.1 Reduce ship collisions with right whales.

1.1.1 Develop and implement a ship strike reduction strategy.

“Early Warning/Sighting Advisory System”

1.1.2 Continue and improve seasonal aircraft surveillance of right whale habitats

and other elements of the "early warning/sighting advisory system" program.

1.1.3 Provide right whale sighting locations to mariners through broadcasts and

other appropriate media.

1.1.4 When possible, notify individual ships directly when their course is likely to

bring them to or near a location where a whale was sighted by the aircraft.

1.1.5 Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the survey programs in attaining the

primary goal of reducing ship strikes. 

1.1.6 While continuing to conduct surveys, standardize surveys and data collection

to ensure data obtained from the surveys are of maximum use for subsequent

analysis of whale distribution and abundance.

1.1.7 Establish a program for regular and timely analysis of aircraft survey data to

determine seasonal whale distribution and abundance and to contribute to

predictive modeling exercises of environmental correlates relative to whale

distribution, whale distribution relative to ship traffic, and use in subsequent risk

analysis.

Vessel Traffic Management

1.1.8 Use acoustic detection technology (e.g., “pop-up” buoys), surveys, and

other technologies as available to monitor right whale occurrence and distribution in

waters off the mid-Atlantic states. 

1.1.9 Develop a system to encourage, collect, and appropriately analyze

opportunistic sightings from fishing vessels, whale-watching vessels, charter vessels,

etc.

1.1.10 Collect standardized data during aerial surveys on “close calls” between

ships and whales.

1.1.11 Assess the utility and feasibility of ship routing changes in right whale

habitat.

1.1.12 Assess the utility and feasibility of speed restrictions in right whale habitat.

1.1.13 Using existing data on whale sightings and vessel locations, conduct risk

assessment analyses of various ship routing or speed options to assess the best set
IVA-2

of vessel traffic management options by area.

1.1.14 Assess the potential economic impact of vessel management options.

1.1.15 Work with mariners, the shipping industry, and appropriate State and

Federal agencies to develop and implement a regionally-based set of measures to

reduce the threat of ship strikes.

1.1.16 Assess the effectiveness of ship strike measures and adjust, as necessary. 

1.1.17 Explore possible mechanisms for encouraging vessels that have struck a

whale to report the incident.

Education and Outreach

1.1.18 Establish and/or maintain regionally-based liaison positions to work directly,

and maintain a dialog, with the shipping industry, discuss feasibility of various

management measures, foster industry cooperation, and conduct related activities.

1.1.19 Develop programs and update materials to educate mariners about right

whales, to provide recommended practices for avoiding ship strikes, and to educate

the shipping industry about steps being taken to reduce ship strikes. Make

provisions for ongoing distribution of materials.

1.1.20 Routinely review and update information about right whale habitat and highuse areas, right whale vulnerability to ship strikes, and related ship collision

reduction measures on nautical charts, Coast Pilots, published Notice to

Mariners, and other appropriate navigational aids.

Mandatory Ship Reporting Systems

1.1.21 Continue to implement mandatory ship reporting systems along the east

coast of the United States.

1.1.22 To the extent possible, use incoming information from the reporting system

for analysis of ship volume and routing studies with a view to assessing possible

measures to reduce ship/whale interactions.

1.1.23 Periodically assess the effectiveness of existing ship reporting systems and

reporting areas -- both with regard to their operation and capacity to reduce ship

strikes -- and consider implementing others or expanding the existing ones, as

necessary.

1.1.24 Monitor compliance with the mandatory ship reporting system and take

steps to improve compliance as necessary.

1.1.25 Continue and improve outreach efforts to educate the shipping community

about the mandatory ship reporting system.

Whale Detection Technology

1.1.26 Conduct studies of active acoustic (e.g., SONAR) and passive acoustic
IVA-3

devices (e.g., “pop-up buoys”), and other underwater acoustic technologies on

southern right whales to determine their feasibility and efficiency in detecting

submerged whales.

1.1.27 If SONAR devices, passive listening, or other technologies are capable of

detecting submerged whales, implement systems to use the devices to reduce

ship/whale interactions. 

1.1.28 Assess the utility and effects of such devices on relatively large scales: high

whale-use areas and times, or high ship-use areas and times, or perhaps on regional

scales.

1.1.29 Consider conducting studies of whale behavior relative to various types of

“alerting” sounds that may warn sleeping, feeding, or courting whales to the

presence of oncoming ships, and assess the desirability of deploying such devices in

an environment already heavily polluted by noise.

1.1.30 Assess the feasibility of improved visual detection technologies.

1.1.31 Assess the feasibility and utility of remote sensing to characterize right whale

distribution patterns and to develop predictive models of right whale distribution

patterns near high ship-traffic areas.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

1.1.32 Incorporate data from “whale alert” aircraft surveys, scientific survey data,

other confirmed right whale sightings and ship traffic data obtained from the

mandatory ship reporting system, in GIS for analysis of whale/ship interactions. 

1.1.33 Establish or use existing GIS to (a) conduct analysis of environmental

correlates for right whale occurrence and distribution, (b) prepare predictive

models of where and when right whales are likely to occur, (c) determine times and

areas in which right whales and heavy ship traffic are likely to occur, (d) analyze

patterns of strandings, documented whale/vessel interactions, and “near-miss

incidents”; and (e) assess ways to minimize ship/whale interactions.

1.1.34 Identify and obtain data from additional sources (e.g., biological and

physical oceanographic data, human activities) for GIS application and analysis. 

Studies of the Effects of Ship Noise on Whale Behavior

1.1.35 Using techniques that have no adverse biological or environmental effects to

conduct studies of whale responses to ship noise and to ships of various types and

speeds.

Monitoring

1.1.36 Continue to review and evaluate stranding and photo-identification data for

evidence of collision between ships and whales.

1.2 Reduce injury and mortality caused by fisheries and fishing equipment.
IVA-4

Operations

1.2.1 Develop and implement strategies to modify fishing operations and gear in

order to reduce the likelihood of entanglement, mitigate the effects of

entanglements, enhance the possibility of disentanglement, and assess the

effectiveness of such strategies. 

1.2.2 Conduct research on alternative fishing methods. Implement methods that

offer entanglement risk reduction.

1.2.3 Work with Canadian officials to develop means to reduce entanglement

levels in Canadian waters. 

Gear

1.2.4 Conduct studies of gear modifications that reduce the likelihood of

entanglement, mitigate the effects of entanglements, and enhance the possibility of

disentanglement. 

1.2.5 Design and implement programs to incorporate above gear modifications into

the fisheries operations.

1.2.6 Develop and implement schemes to reduce the rate at which gear is lost, and

improve the reporting of lost gear.

Reporting

1.2.7 Continue to prepare and distribute information on whale entanglement to

fishermen and other mariners, encourage reporting of entanglements to the

disentanglement network, and periodically assess the effectiveness of such

programs.

1.2.8 Continue, expand, and improve procedures for responding to reports of

entangled whales.

1.2.9 Expand fisheries observer programs.

1.2.10 Continue to review, evaluate, and act upon reports from fishermen and

fishery observers of fishery interactions with right whales.

1.2.11 If evaluations indicate that reporting can be improved, implement improved

systems for such reporting.

Disentanglement

1.2.12 When possible and practicable in terms of safety, disentangle whales caught

in fishing gear.

1.2.13 Create and maintain regional disentanglement equipment caches and make

appropriate arrangements to get disentanglement response teams and equipment to

entangled whales.
IVA-5

1.2.14 Develop and train additional disentanglement response teams.

1.2.15 Explore means of encouraging vessels to stand by entangled whales.

1.2.16 Design and conduct studies on advanced disentanglement gear.

1.2.17 Identify and implement ways to improve disentanglement efforts.

Monitoring of Entanglement Rates and Evaluation of Protective Measures

1.2.18 Monitor entanglement-related injury and mortality rates.

1.2.19 Determine whether measures to reduce entanglement are effective.

1.2.20 Identify and implement steps to improve protective measures.

Photo-identification Data Analysis

1.2.21 Review and evaluate stranding data and photo-identification data to monitor

rates and effects of interactions with fishing gear, and assess effectiveness of

mitigation measures.

1.3 Continue and Improve Education and Outreach Programs

Provide Relevant and Timely Information

1.3.1 Continue and expand efforts to inform mariners and the shipping industry,

and fishermen and the fishing industry, by providing updated and timely information

on right whale vulnerability to ship strikes and fishing gear entanglement and on

regulatory requirements.

1.3.2 Ensure that right whale protective measures are incorporated into maritime

policy guidance documents of the International Safety Management Code and

curricula of the USCG and maritime academies.

1.3.3 Raise awareness on regulatory requirements of right whale conservation 

efforts via voyage planning and merchant mariner qualification and licensing

programs (in the U.S., British Admiralty, and industry). 

1.4 Enforcement of fishing and shipping regulations.

1.4.1 Continue and improve programs to ensure that fishing and shipping

regulations are enforced.

1.4.2 Review and assess the implementation and efficacy of the enforcement

programs, and take steps to improve the enforcement measures if deficiencies are

identified. 

2.0 Develop demographically-based recovery criteria.

3.0 Identify, characterize, protect and monitor important right whale habitats.
IVA-6

3.1 Characterize and Monitor Right Whale Habitat

3.1.1 Compile or collect relevant physical, chemical, biological, meteorological,

fishery, and other data to characterize features of important habitats and potential

sources of human-caused destruction and degradation of critical habitats.

3.1.2 Monitor human activities to assess potential right whale habitat degradation.

3.1.3 Monitor essential habitat features to assess potentially detrimental shifts in

these features.

3.1.4 Develop, implement, and monitor habitat protection strategies.

3.1.5 Monitor right whale habitat use patterns to assess shifts that might reflect

disturbance or degradation of habitat.

3.1.6 Conduct comparative studies to more accurately characterize critical

habitats, using known shifts in habitat use as opportunities to test distribution

hypotheses.

3.1.7 Collaborate with Canadian authorities to protect important habitats and

essential habitat features in Canadian waters.

3.1.8 Support Canadian right whale conservation areas.

3.1.9 Support efforts to collect and compile data on habitat use patterns (breeding,

foraging, and migratory areas) for the eastern North Atlantic right whale population. 

3.1.10 Collaborate with international authorities to protect important habitats (when

and if identified) for the eastern North Atlantic right whale population. 

3.2 Assess the need for modifying critical habitat boundaries.

3.2.1 Analyze available data and collect additional whale sighting data as necessary

to assess expanding or modifying the critical habitat boundaries. 

3.2.2 If warranted, revise critical habitat boundaries.

3.3 Reduce Human Impact to Habitat

Coastal Development

3.3.1 Conduct studies to determine the direct and indirect effects of activities and

impacts associated with coastal development on the distribution, behavior, and

productivity of right whales. 

3.3.2 As feasible, take steps to minimize identified adverse effects from coastal

development.

Anthropogenic Noise

3.3.3 Consultations under ESA Section 7. 
IVA-7

3.3.4 Conduct studies to assess the direct and indirect effects of anthropogenic

noise on the distribution, behavior, and productivity of right whales. 

3.3.5 Take steps to minimize identified adverse effects to right whales from

anthropogenic noise.

Pollutants

3.3.6 Conduct studies to assess the sources and levels of anthropogenic pollutants

and assess their possible adverse effects on right whales and their habitats. 

3.3.7 Take steps to minimize identified adverse effects from anthropogenic

pollutants.

3.3.8 Conduct studies of individual health and body condition as they may be

related to accumulated contaminants.

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development and other Industrial Activities

3.3.9 Conduct studies to assess possible adverse effects of oil, gas, and hard

mineral exploration and development and other industrial activities.

3.3.10 Take steps to minimize identified adverse effects from oil, gas, and hard

mineral exploration and development.

3.3.11 Monitor efforts to implement right whale-related protection measures in

approved oil and gas exploration and development plans.

3.3.12 Assess and update, as necessary, existing contingency plans for oil and

chemical spills in waters where right whales occur. Local, regional, and national

authorities should all participate in the development of integrated plans.

Whale-Watching

3.3.13 Conduct studies to assess the short- and long-term effects of whalewatching on right whales, notably with regard to high-speed vessels.

3.3.14 Assess the effectiveness of existing restrictions on whale watching activities

to determine whether more restrictive measures are necessary or less restrictive

measures could be permitted. If found to be detrimental, take steps (e.g.,

promulgate regulations) to address the adverse impacts.

3.3.15 Continue and expand education/public awareness programs to ensure that

commercial and recreational vessel operators are aware of applicable regulations

and guidelines.

Right Whale Research

3.3.16 Assess possible negative impacts of studies on right whale biology.

Federal Activities
IVA-8

3.3.17 Conduct ESA Section 7 consultations on Federal activities with the

potential to affect right whales. 

3.4 Conduct studies to improve knowledge of the diet, food requirements, feeding habits,

and food resources of right whales.

3.4.1 Compile and evaluate information on the known types, amounts, locations,

and availability of right whale prey.

3.4.2 Review and refine energetic models to better understand right whale food

requirements and feeding strategies.

4. Monitor the status and trends of abundance and distribution of the western North Atlantic

right whale.

Status

4.1 Develop quantitative recovery criteria population models to determine extinction risk,

and parameters to validate the model predictions.

4.2 Conduct a study or convene a workshop to determine the best methods for assessing

western North Atlantic right whale status and trends, and to establish the optimal level of

effort required.

4.3 Assess population size, survival rate and trends on a regular basis.

4.3.1 At least once every three years, review and evaluate data on western North

Atlantic right whale status. Continue to review stock assessment at least annually in

accordance with the MMPA. If needed, improve data collection and analysis

methods.

4.3.2 As necessary, develop and implement other programs necessary for

population monitoring.

Distribution

4.4 Monitor right whale occurrence and habitat use pattern in known high-use areas.

4.4.1 Continue to conduct annual right whale surveys off the southeastern U.S.

coast.

4.4.2. Continue to conduct annual right whale surveys in the lower Bay of Fundy.

4.4.3. Continue to conduct annual right whale surveys in the Great South Channel.

4.4.4 Continue to conduct annual right whale surveys in Cape Cod and

Massachusetts bays.

4.4.5 Continue to conduct annual right whale surveys on the Scotian Shelf.

4.4.6 Conduct annual right whale surveys in waters off the U.S. mid-Atlantic

states.
IVA-9

4.4.7 As often as possible and where feasible, photo-identification photographs

should be obtained at each sighting.

4.4.8 Conduct studies to locate unknown high-use areas for the western North

Atlantic right whale population.

4.4.9 Further assess Cape Fear North Carolina to South Carolina as possible 

calving areas.

4.4.10 Design and conduct surveys of likely wintering areas based on results of

habitat and tracking studies, review of historical data, and results of predictive

models.

4.4.11 Conduct surveys and/or support efforts to determine eastern North Atlantic

right whale occurrence in coastal waters off Europe and northwestern Africa.

4.4.12 Continue to maintain a database of right whale sightings.

4.5 Maintain a Photo-identification Database

4.5.1 Maintain and routinely update the right whale photo-identification catalog.

4.5.2 Require, as a condition of permits provided under the ESA or MMPA, that

researchers conducting field work on right whales provide at the earliest

convenience photographs (and ancillary information) obtained from their studies to

the curators of the photo-identification catalog.

4.5.3 Regularly and consistently review, evaluate, and update analyses of data in

the right whale photo-identification catalog.

4.5.4 Conduct studies to determine population structure using photo-identification

data.

4.6 Respond to Strandings

4.6.1 Continue and improve program for necropsy of right whale carcasses.

4.6.2 Review and, if needed, improve procedures for responding to reports of

dead right whales and conducting necropsies to ensure that the most effective

means are being used to extract scientific information from dead, stranded, and

entangled right whales.

4.6.3 Improve or, as necessary, develop and implement protocols for securing and

retrieving stranded or floating right whale carcasses.

4.6.4 To the extent possible, use necropsies to determine the cause of death and

use such data to reduce the susceptibility to death from these causes.

4.6.5 Analyze tissue collected from stranded right whales to determine and monitor

contaminant levels.

4.6.6 Analyze tissue collected from necropsies to improve knowledge about life
IVA-10

history and reproductive parameters of right whales.

4.6.7 Review, analyze, and summarize data on stranded right whales on a regular

(at least annual) basis.

4.6.8 Develop and implement a program for handling live-stranded right whales.

4.6.9 Develop protocols for handling live-stranded right whales, including

identification and securing of appropriate sites to effect rehabilitation.

4.6.10 Establish reliable source(s) of funding for rescue, rehabilitation, necropsy,

and tissue collection and analysis efforts.

4.7 Conduct Habitat Use Studies (using telemetry)

4.7.1 Where feasible, effective, and minimally intrusive, conduct radio and satellite

tagging studies to increase knowledge of right whale habitat use, distribution, and

behavior.

4.7.2 Conduct studies to assess the most effective and least intrusive means of

tagging right whales, including the possibility of using other species as models.

4.7.3. Conduct studies by veterinary experts to assess short- and long-term

physiological impacts of tagging.

4.7.4 Continue and expand satellite-linked radio-tagging and tracking to identify

right whale movements and habitat use patterns more effectively.

4.7.5 Conduct satellite tagging studies to determine routes and timing of migration

between known high-use habitats.

4.7.6 When satellite tags are transmitting, conduct monitoring surveys to check for

other right whales in the area of the tagged whale.

4.7.7 Continue and expand VHF radio-tagging studies to better assess daily and

seasonal movements in high-use areas.

4.8 Assess Demography and Stock Structure

4.8.1 Conduct genetic studies to assess population structure, effective population

size, current and historic genetic diversity and possible impacts on health and

reproductive success.

4.8.2 Conduct genetics workshop.

4.8.3 Conduct studies of population demographics, including but not limited to

such features as calf production, survivability, and age structure.

4.9 Reproduction and Health Assessment

4.9.1 Conduct studies to determine the cause(s) of anomalous or fluctuating

reproductive rates.
IVA-11

4.9.2 If cause(s) of reproductive anomalies are linked to human activities, establish

programs to mitigate or eliminate the sources of the impact.

4.9.3 Conduct studies to assess health at the individual and population level.

4.9.4 If studies indicate that poor individual or population health is linked to human

activities, establish programs to mitigate or eliminate the sources of the impact.

5. Coordinate Federal, State, international and private efforts to implement the Recovery Plan.

5.1 Continue international ban on hunting and other directed takes of right whales.

5.2 Enforce right whale protection laws.

5.3 Evaluate the effectiveness of the Northeast and Southeast Implementation Teams and

implement improvements as warranted.

5.4 Coordinate with States involved in right whale activities to maximize protection

measures.

5.5 Promote bi-lateral cooperative efforts with Canada to maximize protection for right

whales, reduce human-related mortality and injury, report mortality events, promote

protection of habitat, and take other measures to enhance the recovery of right whales.

5.5.1 Convene regular meetings with Canadian officials to facilitate bi-lateral

cooperation on protective measures.

5.5.2 Promote actions to enhance protection for known areas of importance,

especially vessel and fishery interaction issues in Canadian waters.

5.6 Periodically review and update the North Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Plan.

5.7 Prepare delisting monitoring plan for species before delisting occurs.
IVB-1

B. Recovery Narrative

1. Significantly reduce sources of human-caused death, injury and disturbance.

Ship Strikes

Collisions with ships are a known major source of serious injury and death in western North

Atlantic right whales. A total of 20 known right whale deaths are attributable to ship strikes in

the last 30 years, and about 7% of all living North Atlantic right whales bear scars of

interactions with ships. 

5-year period Known ship strike deaths

 1972-1976 3

1977-1981 1

1982-1986 3

1987-1991 2

1992-1996 6

1997-2002 5

The actual number is likely higher since not all strikes or ship struck carcasses are detected or

reported. Reducing the frequency of these events is a major focus of this plan.

1.1 Reduce ship collisions with right whales.

1.1.1 Develop and implement a ship strike reduction strategy.

An overall strategy for reducing ship strikes must be developed. Such a strategy

should include, but not be limited to, outreach and education programs for mariners,

and means to implement ship strike reduction measures for all vessel classes. It

will, at a minimum, incorporate the actions identified in this plan, and it should be a

dynamic strategy that reflects the emergence of new information, any significant and

unforeseen increase in ship strikes, and monitoring programs that assess the

effectiveness of protective actions taken.

“Early Warning/Sighting Advisory System”

1.1.2 Continue and improve seasonal aircraft surveillance of right whale habitats

and other elements of the "early warning/sighting advisory system" program.

The whale alert program or so called "Early Warning/Sighting Advisory System "

(SAS) is a network of aircraft surveys to detect the locations of right whales, but is

far from perfect in detecting right whales. Even in good weather and daylight, only

an estimated 25-30% of the whales in a given area are actually detected by the

surveys. In addition, the surveys are expensive to conduct. Nonetheless, they have

been demonstrated to prevent collisions, at least to some degree, and they also lay

important groundwork in mariner awareness of the issue. Programs such as these

that raise industry awareness are necessary steps to implementation and acceptance

of potential future protective measures. The program also provides sighting

locations for other studies of right whale occurrence, distribution, relative

abundance, and shifts in distribution. In addition, these surveys provide important

data relative to calving. Consequently, some level of SAS survey effort should be
IVB-2

continued until viable alternatives are found. 

1.1.3 Provide right whale sighting locations to mariners through broadcasts and

other appropriate media.

The system now provides whale sighting location information to mariners through

USCG Broadcast Notice to Mariners (VHF and single side-band), NAVTEX

(telex updates), and NOAA Weather Radio (VHF). This practice should be

continued. The program should be evaluated to determine if other, more effective

media would also be appropriate for relaying sighting location information. If

additional media are identified, they should be used.

1.1.4 When possible, notify individual ships directly when their course is likely to

bring them to or near a location where a whale was sighted by the aircraft.

On a number of occasions, aircraft survey crews have notified ships that are on a

course to intersect a whale’s location and have suggested course alterations for the

ship. This practice should continue. Because of difficulties in communicating with

some foreign captains in the past, an effort should be made to address this problem

through outreach programs and other means of reaching the non-English speaking

maritime community.

1.1.5 Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the survey programs in attaining the

primary goal of reducing ship strikes.

The early warning/sighting advisory system provides sighting data for subsequent

analysis of right whale occurrence and is believed to be the best existing system for

notifying mariners about the risk of ship strikes. However, the effectiveness of the

program in achieving this latter goal must be assessed in the near future. 

Specifically, such a review should address three major questions: (i) Do mariners

receive the broadcast information and is it received in a timely fashion? (ii) Do they

act upon it in some manner (i.e., does it cause them to take action that they would

not have taken in the absence of the information)? and (iii) How effective are these

mariner actions in preventing collisions with right whales? Data on “close calls”

between ships and whales should be incorporated in the review. If such a review

finds value to the program, it should be continued. However, the structure and

methods of the program should be reviewed periodically to ensure that it is as

effective as possible. Periodic reviews should include, but not be limited to, an

evaluation of the location of survey lines, and an assessment of the most effective

ways to provide timely and accurate reporting to mariners of the sighting

information.

Because the program is expensive and relatively inefficient in locating whales,

alternatives to the program should be sought. If viable and effective programs are

found, the "early warning/sighting advisory system" should be replaced.

1.1.6 While continuing to conduct surveys, standardize surveys and data collection

to ensure data obtained from the surveys are of maximum use for subsequent

analysis of whale distribution and abundance.

In conjunction with periodic reviews of the early warning/sighting advisory system,

the survey program should be evaluated to ensure that data collection is
IVB-3

standardized, including standardization between years, and between surveys

(spatially and temporally) such that the data obtained are of maximum use to

subsequent analysis of right whale distribution and population assessment. A

standardization will facilitate data analysis, however, any such effort must always

focus on the primary purpose of the surveys: the reduction of ship strikes.

1.1.7 Establish a program for regular and timely analysis of aircraft survey data to

determine seasonal whale distribution and abundance and to contribute to

predictive modeling exercises of environmental correlates relative to whale

distribution, whale distribution relative to ship traffic, and use in subsequent risk

analysis.

As survey methods and routes are standardized, the data derived should be used in

analysis of right whale distribution and abundance. Also, as indicated elsewhere in

this outline, these data also represent useful contributions to studies of

oceanographic and environmental features that influence right whale distribution and

identification of ways to reduce the occurrence of ship strikes. The data should

also be made available to those maintaining right whale-related GIS; and the

transfer of these data for analysis should be made immediately after the conclusion

of the field season, or as soon thereafter as possible.

Vessel Traffic Management

It is clear that every feasible action should be taken to reduce the likelihood of 

ship strikes. Coordinated effort is needed to explore all possibilities of reducing the

risk. Some actions, such as requiring reductions in ship speed in certain areas or

modifying ship routing patterns, may cause economic hardship. While such 

measures may be burdensome or contentious, they will be necessary to consider

because ship strikes continue to occur.

1.1.8 Use acoustic detection technology (e.g., “pop-up” buoys), surveys, and

other technologies as available to monitor right whale occurrence and distribution in

waters off the mid-Atlantic states. 

Waters off the mid-Atlantic states are likely important migration corridors for right

whales moving from feeding and nursery areas. Likewise, these are areas in which

human impact also occurs, ship strikes in particular. Surveys, using aircraft/visual

and/or acoustic technologies, should be done to assess the relative importance of

this area for right whales and whale distribution within the area. 

If human impacts are occurring – as it currently appears they are – then steps

should be taken to establish protective measures in waters off the mid-Atlantic

states.

1.1.9 Develop a system to encourage, collect, and appropriately analyze

opportunistic sightings from fishing vessels, whale-watching vessels, charter vessels,

etc.

Right whale sightings from opportunistic sources would complement data collected

through standardized ship and aerial surveys, and add valuable information to the

existing body of knowledge on distribution and abundance. A system to collect,

compile, and analyze these reports should be developed and implemented
IVB-4

throughout right whale habitat usage areas. 

1.1.10 Collect standardized data during aerial surveys on “close calls” between

ships and whales.

Little information currently exists to provide detail on specific interactions between

ships and whales. “Close calls” data are collected from aircraft surveys and

overflights. Whenever possible, ships are notified if whales are in their travel path.

By collecting data on “close calls,” potential ship strike incidents can be analyzed to

better understand how, when, and where ship strikes to right whales are most likely

to occur. Such a database will provide insight into both whale and mariner

behavior during a potential ship strike event, and thus inform management efforts to

reduce or eliminate this severe threat to the species.

1.1.11 Assess the utility and feasibility of ship routing changes in right whale

habitat.

Studies are needed of the advantages and disadvantages of mandatory routing

changes to reduce the threat of ship strikes. NMFS is currently evaluating various

regulatory options. A workshop on management options was held in April 2001

and recommendations for ship strike reduction management options were provided

by the Northeast and Southeast teams for implementation of the right whale

recovery plan based on a contracted study. Risk assessment analyses are

underway.

Whereas a variety of shipping industry management options in all areas should be

assessed, ship activities in the Southeast U.S. (SEUS) critical habitat warrant

particular consideration given the high level of traffic and the aggregation of mothers

and calves that occur there. Hundreds of ship passages occur annually through

SEUS right whale critical habitat in the entering ports of Jacksonville, Kings Bay,

Mayport, Brunswick, Cape Canaveral, and Fernandina. One measure, among

others, under consideration is to minimize the transit time and distance through the

habitat by requiring ships to approach and depart the coast on east-west headings

through critical habitat, rather than at more oblique angles. Studies should be

conducted to determine whether such a modification of ship traffic patterns into all

major SEUS ports is likely to decrease the probability of ship strikes. At the time

of this writing, these assessments are underway.

The Navy requires that all U.S. Navy ships transiting between port and offshore

waters use such courses, and the Navy is to be commended for those efforts. If

such changes in routing are made for commercial ships, an added advantage is the

need to only closely survey and monitor smaller and more finite areas than being

surveyed under the existing early warning/sighting advisory system.

Specific routing measures should be required in all areas along the eastern seaboard

where such measures are determined to provide ship strike reduction.

1.1.12 Assess the utility and feasibility of speed restrictions in right whale habitat.

Ships moving at slow speeds may reduce the likelihood of right whale ship strikes

and/or the likelihood of fatal interactions, and risk reduction assessment studies of

such measures are needed. As noted above, these studies are underway. Also,
IVB-5

reduced ship speed measures may be used in conjunction with ship routing

measures.

1.1.13 Using existing data on whale sightings and vessel locations, conduct risk

assessment analyses of various ship routing or speed options to assess the best set

of vessel traffic management options by area.

Risk assessment analysis – involving whale sighting locations to ship traffic patterns

– can be an important tool in assessing the set of ship management options to

reduce ship strikes. Such analyses should be specific to each region.

1.1.14 Assess the potential economic impact of vessel management options.

As noted above, it is possible that some adjustments to ship operations will result in

relatively minor economic impacts; and studies are needed to determine economic

burden of certain options. At the time of this writing, some preliminary economic

analyses have been conducted; others are underway.

1.1.15 Work with mariners, the shipping industry, and appropriate State and

Federal agencies to develop and implement a regionally-based set of measures to

reduce the threat of ship strikes.

Given the expertise it offers, the shipping industry should be involved in developing

and implementing ship strike reduction protection measures.

1.1.16 Assess effectiveness of ship strike measures and adjust, as necessary. 

Programs should be established to monitor the effectiveness of steps taken to

reduce ship strikes. If ship strikes continue at the same or an increased rate,

increasingly stringent measures (i.e. including all steps taken) should be

implemented.

1.1.17 Explore possible mechanisms for encouraging vessels that have struck a

whale to report the incident.

Although in many instances of ship strikes involving large vessels, mariners are not

aware of the strike, there is currently no requirement for vessel operators to report

ship collisions with right whales. Having such information is vital to devising means

to reduce ship strikes. Steps should be taken to develop mechanisms to encourage

or require vessels to report such information.

Education and Outreach

Each ship traversing or planning to traverse areas where right whales occur should

be provided with as much information as possible on the vulnerability of right

whales to ship strikes and precautions about avoiding right whales. Therefore,

programs should be developed, or maintained and improved if they exist, to

improve mariner awareness about this problem. Liaison and dialog with the

shipping industry should be established to ensure the industry is aware of protective

measures and to explore ways to further reduce the risk of ship strikes. In addition,

navigational aids should include such information. Ships' captains in U.S. waters

are required to carry and consult U.S. Coast Pilots and all mariners consult
IVB-6

NOAA marine charts. These aids to the mariner should contain accurate and

current information on the occurrence of right whales, the 500-yard no approach

rule, critical habitat, precautionary measures on avoiding ship strikes, and other

relevant information.

1.1.18 Establish and/or maintain regionally-based liaison positions to work directly,

and maintain a dialog, with the shipping industry, discuss feasibility of various

management measures, foster industry cooperation, and conduct related activities.

Communication between appropriate entities is a key element to addressing the

problem of ship strikes. Positions should be established and filled (existing

positions maintained) with people with knowledge of, and contacts within, the

industry to serve as liaison and be a conduit of information to and from the industry

and management agencies. Further, this role will be critical to working with

representatives of the industry and management agencies to assess the effectiveness

of existing programs and explore new protective measures.

1.1.19 Develop programs and update materials to educate mariners about right

whales, to provide recommended practices for avoiding ship strikes, and to educate

the shipping industry about steps being taken to reduce ship strikes. Make

provisions for ongoing distribution of materials.

Providing current, readily understood, and high-quality information to mariners

about ship strikes is critical. Some materials are already provided. Efforts should

be made to ensure these are current and to have programs in place for their

distribution.

1.1.20 Routinely review and update information about right whale habitat and highuse areas, right whale vulnerability to ship strikes, and related ship collision

reduction measures on nautical charts, Coast Pilots, published Notice to

Mariners, and other appropriate navigational aids.

Recent efforts have ensured that Coast Pilots, nautical charts, Notices to Mariners,

and Sailing Directions contain information on critical habitat and the 500-yard no

approach rule, and related information on right whale occurrence and precautionary

measures that can be taken to avoid striking right whales. These documents should

be reviewed annually to ensure that the information is accurate and current. If

possible, other similar documents should be identified and similarly updated

annually.

Mandatory Ship Reporting Systems

1.1.21 Continue to implement mandatory ship reporting systems along the east

coast of the United States.

A Mandatory Ship Reporting (MSR) system proposed by NOAA and the USCG

was adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in December 1998. 

It became operational in July 1999. The systems operate in two areas: the Great

South Channel and Cape Cod Bay off Massachusetts year round, and in the major

calving ground off the Georgia/Florida coast (November – March). They require

all commercial ships over 300 tons to report to a shore station when entering right

whale habitat. In return, ships receive an automated message about right whales,
IVB-7

precautionary measures for avoiding ship strikes, and locations of right whale

sightings. The system is also expected to provide information about the movements

of ships through right whale critical habitats; these data are essential to the planning

of future mitigation measures.

1.1.22 To the extent possible, use incoming information from the reporting system

for analysis of ship volume and routing studies with a view to assessing possible

measures to reduce ship/whale interactions.

Incoming data from ships passing through right whale critical habitat should be

assessed relative to right whale occurrence in the particular habitat, in order to aid

in identifying additional steps that can be taken to reduce ship strikes.

1.1.23 Periodically assess the effectiveness of existing ship reporting systems and

reporting areas -- both with regard to their operation and capacity to reduce ship

strikes -- and consider implementing others or expanding the existing ones, as

necessary.

While it is generally believed that the reporting systems help reduce the risk of ship

strikes, the effectiveness of the systems in doing so needs to be assessed at least

once every two years. In addition, assessments should be done to determine ways

to improve the systems. For example, if effective in reducing the likelihood of ship

strikes, consideration should be given to expanding the reporting areas or perhaps

creating new reporting areas elsewhere.

1.1.24 Monitor compliance with the mandatory ship reporting system and take

steps to improve compliance as necessary.

Early indications are that not all ships entering right whale critical habitat have

reported to the systems, although doing so is mandatory under U.S. law. Lower

than expected compliance rates may be linked to the fact the program is relatively

new. Compliance rates will likely improve, but mariners may also not be aware of

the program, do not understand its significance, or do not know how to report. It is

possible that ships entering U.S. ports for the first time or ships that do not frequent

U.S. ports near right whale critical habitat (e.g., foreign flag ships) are not aware of

the reporting systems. Regardless, steps should be taken to continue to monitor

and to improve compliance by improving the outreach program and by considering

issuing fines for ships that do not report. In spring 2001, the USCG began issuing

letters to non-reporting ships explaining that fines may be levied for ships that do

not report. The USCG has also issued citations for non-compliance.

1.1.25 Continue and improve outreach efforts to educate the shipping community

about the mandatory ship reporting system.

A number of steps have been taken to “advertise” and explain the use of the

system. For example, educational placards and other materials have been

developed and are routinely distributed by the USCG, and are made available at

numerous shipping related venues. A web site has been created. In addition, ships

that do not report are contacted by the USCG to explain MSR requirements and

provide information on how and when to report. Nonetheless, relatively low

compliance rates suggest more needs to be done.
IVB-8

Whale Detection Technology

Existing or not-yet-developed technologies may be useful in reducing ship strikes by

locating whales and using the information to alert mariners to whale locations. 

Promising technologies should be identified and experiments should be conducted

to determine their effectiveness. If deemed effective in field trials, and if the

technologies meet legal requirements (e.g. do not adversely affect endangered or

threatened species, can be permitted for use), such technologies should be put into

use as soon as possible. At the time of this writing, the most promising technologies

are active acoustic (e.g., SONAR) devices, and passive listening systems to detect

whales. More work is needed to explore the use of enhanced visual detection. 

Remote sensing systems may be useful in locating whales at the surface and

“alerting” devices affixed to ships should be considered.

1.1.26 Conduct studies of active acoustic (e.g., SONAR) and passive acoustic

devices (e.g., “pop-up buoys”), and other underwater acoustic technologies on

southern right whales to determine their feasibility and efficiency in detecting

submerged whales.

Existing SONAR devices, or ones under development, might be capable of

detecting submerged whales. They may be particularly useful in areas where ship

traffic routes are finite and clearly delineated to relatively small areas, such as

shipping channels off the southeast United States. Severe limitations include cost

and the capacity to differentiate whales from other biological features (e.g., fish

schools) or oceanographic features (e.g., certain types of water masses). 

However, use of such devices should be done carefully given possible adverse

effects to other marine taxa and of increasing exposure of whales to noise. 

Therefore, studies should be conducted to assess the impact on marine mammals of

acoustic pollution from proliferation of SONAR devices, and determine whether

potential cost exceeds potential benefit to right whales. If SONAR devices,

passive listening, or other technologies are capable of detecting submerged whales,

and are shown to be environmentally benign, steps should be taken to use the

devices to reduce ship/whale interactions. Tests of such technologies might best be

carried out on southern right whales so that no unintended and unforeseen harm is

caused to North Atlantic right whales during this developmental phase.

It should also be clarified that “pop-ups” (archival recording units) are useful for

recording the presence or absence of right whales, but not in “real time.” Therefore,

they are unlikely to be useful in monitoring programs intended to separate whales

and ships in “real time”. 

Large-scale passive listening systems, such as the Navy's "Sound Surveillance

System" (SOSUS) hydrophone arrays, have been used successfully to detect and

track several large whale species over great distances by localizing their

vocalizations. Smaller scale arrays may be useful in localizing right whales. “Popup buoys”, now being studied for detecting whales, and other passive listening

systems may have promise. However, there are limitations. For example,

preliminary indications are that right whales do not vocalize frequently in some

settings and while engaged in some behavior. An assessment of any such system

should be mindful that “real-time” capabilities to relay sighting information to

mariners is essential. Also, right whales are distributed largely over the continental

shelf where systems such as the SOSUS array are ineffective (for reasons related to
IVB-9

bathymetry) in detecting right whales.

1.1.27 If SONAR devices, passive listening, or other technologies are capable of

detecting submerged whales, implement systems to use the devices to reduce

ship/whale interactions.

As indicated above, if such devices are successful at detecting whales, meet legal

requirements, and potential benefit exceeds potential cost, they should be deployed

as soon as possible. Information on detected whales should be promptly

transmitted to transiting ships using existing procedures. However, they should be

chosen and used judiciously as their use may have adverse effects on other species.

1.1.28 Assess the utility and effects of such devices on relatively large scales: high

whale-use areas and times, or high ship-use areas and times, or perhaps on regional

scales.

If underwater acoustic devices effectively detect submerged whales with some

relatively high level of probability, they should be assessed for wide-scale use to

reduce the risk of ship strikes. It may be possible to deploy passive listening

systems on fairly wide scales such as primary shipping lanes, or whale aggregation

areas. It may be possible to deploy them seasonally in certain areas.

The use of SONAR devices, however, is likely to be problematic as (a) there may

be potential for adverse effects to other taxa, (b) they increase the level of noise in

the ocean, whereas a reduction is preferable, (c) the sound source may need to be

substantial to increase the range of detection, and (d) deploying devices on ships

may be difficult and expensive. Studies should be conducted to assess the impact

on marine mammals of acoustic pollution from proliferation of such SONAR

devices, and determine whether potential cost exceeds potential benefit to right

whales.

1.1.29 Consider conducting studies of whale behavior relative to various types of

“alerting” sounds that may warn sleeping, feeding, or courting whales to the

presence of oncoming ships, and assess the desirability of deploying such devices in

an environment already heavily polluted by noise.

Three factors that likely contribute to the occurrence of ship strikes are that right

whales (a) spend considerable time at the surface, (b) apparently spend relatively

long periods of lowered sensory awareness while "rafting" at the surface, and (c)

apparently can be so focused on vital activities (e.g., feeding, nursing, or courtship)

that they do not notice or react to an oncoming ship. It may be possible to alert or

warn the animals that a ship is approaching by activating an alarm or acoustically

offensive or painful warning device on the vessel. However, use of such devices

should be done with extreme caution. The underwater world is already a very

noisy place for animals that rely on sound for vital functions and the introduction of

more noise should be considered very carefully. In addition, the idea of repeatedly

deterring whales from a preferred habitat needs to be carefully considered. Also,

equipping scores of ships with such devices would not only be costly and logistically

complicated, but also might confuse or stress right whales. Therefore, if pursued,

carefully designed experiments to assess right whale responses to such devices,

possibly using a less endangered species as a model should be considered.
IVB-10

1.1.30 Assess the feasibility of improved visual detection technologies.

Enhanced visual detection of whales at the surface from ships may reduce the risk

of ship strikes. If feasible, enhanced visual detection technologies may be a

relatively economical way to improve detection, and may be particularly useful in

low light or poor visibility situations. Some technologies, such as night vision

scopes and infrared cameras, have been studied for some whale species, but their

utility has not been fully explored. Studies should be done to determine if improved

visual detection technologies are plausible and, if so, programs should be

established to deploy such devices.

1.1.31 Assess the feasibility and utility of remote sensing to characterize right whale

distribution patterns and to develop predictive models of right whale distribution

patterns near high ship-traffic areas.

A number of remote sensing technologies, such as various types of satellite-based

imagery, may have the capability to detect right whales, and such technologies that

might be promising in this regard should be evaluated. If these techniques are able

to detect right whales remotely, it may be possible to collect considerable quantities

of such data in relatively short amounts of time. If so, right whale location data

should be used in developing predictive models of right whale occurrence and

distribution relative to oceanographic features and relative to shipping lanes. Also,

sighting locations could then be transmitted in real time to mariners as areas to be

avoided.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

1.1.32 Incorporate data from “whale alert” aircraft surveys, scientific survey data,

other confirmed right whale sightings and ship traffic data obtained from the

mandatory ship reporting system, in GIS for analysis of whale/ship interactions. 

A GIS is most powerful when appropriate questions are asked and tested, and

when the best available information is used. Seasonal surveys (both for the whale

alert program and scientific assessment purposes) generate considerable data on

right whale locations and ship traffic distribution in certain areas. These data should

be made available to GIS analysts as soon as possible and analyzed using GIS or

other appropriate systems; analysts should be prepared to provide periodic results

of analysis of whale distribution relative to ship distribution in a timely manner. Such

analyses may in turn lead to protective measures for right whales relative to ship

traffic. Several right whale databases currently exist, but it is not clear if the systems

are compatible. Efforts should be made to create a centralized right whale GIS

database, or at minimum, steps should be taken to ensure that independent

databases (e.g., format, structure, software) are compatible to foster exchange of

information and to facilitate collaborative analyses.

1.1.33 Establish or use existing GIS to (a) conduct analysis of environmental

correlates for right whale occurrence and distribution, (b) prepare predictive

models of where and when right whales are likely to occur, (c) determine times and

areas in which right whales and heavy ship traffic are likely to occur, (d) analyze

patterns of strandings, documented whale/vessel interactions, and “near-miss

incidents”; and (e) assess ways to minimize ship/whale interactions (see 1.e, above).
IVB-11

When used to their full potential, GIS can be powerful tools for storing, displaying,

and analyzing diverse data sets. In recent years, GIS have been used for

sophisticated analysis in many disciplines. Establishing and maintaining a GIS, or a

set of GIS, devoted wholly or largely to right whale and right whale related data

would be useful in addressing specific biological questions and helping to identify

protection measures. Individuals and entities with interest in creating such a system

should be identified and efforts made to identify and secure databases relevant to

right whale management.

Steps should be taken to ensure that appropriate data "coverages" are derived (or

obtained) and verified. Among the most important of these are coverages of right

whale sighting locations, both historic and recent. These data should be updated

periodically – at least once every two years. Analysis of such data and trends in the

data may provide information on local or large-scale shifts in right whale

distribution. When combined with information on features that characterize right

whale habitat, predictors about right whale habitat use and occurrence are likely to

emerge. In addition, coverages of ship traffic patterns and distribution should be

created and compared to whale sighting locations. When possible statistical

analyses should be used; however, visual analysis alone may also reveal patterns

worthy of further consideration.

1.1.34 Identify and obtain data from additional sources (e.g., biological and

physical oceanographic data, human activities) for GIS application and analysis. 

As noted above, the most current and complete data sets should be incorporated

into GIS and GIS-related analyses. Therefore, relevant databases on physical and

oceanographic data should be identified, and when possible, made available to GIS

analysts. These should include, but may not be limited to, data on salinity; sea

surface temperature; bathymetry indicators of basin-scale and smaller oceanic

fronts; indicators of internal waves and other relatively localized fronts; chlorophyll

or other indicators of primary productivity; right whale prey occurrence, abundance

and density; and distribution of various marine vertebrate (e.g., sea birds) and

invertebrate (e.g., copepods) species. In this regard, attempts should be made to

link right whale distribution to environmental correlates.

Studies of the Effects of Ship Noise on Whale Behavior

1.1.35 Using techniques that have no adverse biological or environmental effects to

conduct studies of whale responses to ship noise and to ships of various types and

speeds.

A series of studies should be designed and conducted to examine whale response

relative to approaching ships (e.g., Terhune and Verboom 1999). Similar studies

should be conducted on whale response to ships of various sizes and while traveling

at various speeds. Such studies should consider, but not be limited to,

quantification of noise levels fore, aft, and abeam of vessels of various size, class,

and hull-design, and at various depths. There may be "acoustic shadows" directly

in front of a ship and other noise magnification or nulling nodes at various distances

from ships or at various depths. Assessments should be made about whether

whales can detect ships and their interactions to the vessels. Modeling studies of

ship hydrodynamics and ships transiting through right whale habitat (employing

assumptions about whale behavior and ships size and speed) should also be
IVB-12

considered.

Monitoring

1.1.36 Continue to review and evaluate stranding and photo-identification data for

evidence of collision between ships and whales.

1.2 Reduce injury and mortality caused by fisheries and fishing equipment.

Entanglement in fishing gear is a known major source of injury and death in right whales. 

While entanglement is not always fatal, it can seriously disable a whale; and death can result

from lengthy entanglements.

All reasonable efforts should be made to reduce the rate of entanglement and to free or

facilitate the freeing of whales caught in fishing gear. Activities being undertaken by the

NMFS, under the auspices of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (e.g.,

time/area closures, gear modification research), should be continued and closely monitored

to evaluate their effectiveness. Options considered should include, but not be limited to,

time/area closures, alternative gear, and gear modifications. These measures should be

altered if they are found to be ineffective in attaining their objectives.

As long as right whales continue to die or receive serious injury from entanglement in fishing

gear (given that the Potential Biological Removal for this population under the MMPA is

zero), increasingly stringent measures will be needed to eliminate such impacts. As noted

above, gear modification research should continue and promising modifications should be

used in fisheries. Moreover, consideration should be given, for example, to increasing the

temporal and spatial scopes of time/area fishery closures, as well as other measures to

reduce entanglement. It may become necessary to strongly curtail some fisheries in some

areas.

Operations

1.2.1 Develop and implement strategies to modify fishing operations and gear to

reduce the likelihood of entanglement, mitigate the effect of entanglements and

enhance the possibility of disentanglement, and assess the effectiveness of such

strategies. 

If entanglements continue or increase, increasingly stringent steps should be taken to

reduce entanglement rates. Steps should be taken, for example, to assess and, if

necessary, implement additional time/area fishery closures or universal gear

restrictions.

1.2.2 Conduct research on alternative fishing methods. Implement methods that

offer entanglement risk reduction.

The gear types most involved in the entanglement of right whales are lobster pots

(and their accompanying lines) and set nets (and their accompanying lines). Studies

should be conducted on means to catch target species using alternative gear.

1.2.3 Work with Canadian officials to develop means to reduce entanglement

levels in Canadian waters. 
IVB-13

Some right whale entanglements occur in Canadian waters. Therefore, Canada and

the United States should ensure that all reasonable actions are taken to minimize

right whale entanglement and to ensure that protective measures complement each

other. Bi-lateral meetings should be held periodically to assess the effectiveness of

efforts to reduce entanglement and to exchange information on ways to improve

protective measures. 

Gear

1.2.4 Conduct studies of gear modifications that reduce the likelihood of

entanglement, mitigate the effects of entanglements, and enhance the possibility of

disentanglement. 

Current and ongoing research on possible modifications to fishing gear that facilitate

an entangled whale to free itself once entangled should be continued and

accelerated. These studies might include, but should not be limited to, assessment

of bio-degradable lines, ways to reduce the number and length of vertical lines,

increasing the visibility of vertical lines, designing breakaway links for heavy gear,

and acoustic deterrents. The most effective and promising modifications should be

implemented as soon as possible. The degree to which modifications allow

entangled whales to free themselves should be closely monitored. Modifications

that seem promising should be the subject of further research and implemented if

deemed effective.

1.2.5 Design and implement programs to incorporate gear modifications that

reduce entanglement into the fisheries operations.

When modifications are found to be effective in reducing entanglement, they should

be implemented into fishing operations immediately.

1.2.6 Develop and implement schemes to reduce the rate at which gear is lost, and

improve the reporting of lost gear.

Some lost gear, e.g., from trawling in areas where gillnets and lobster pots are

already set, may be avoidable. Strategies for doing so should be investigated and

implemented, if feasible. Reporting of lost gear and perhaps marking of gear so that

it can be “tracked” are additional approaches that should be considered.

Reporting

When an entanglement occurs or when an entangled whale is seen, it is vital that

such information is relayed to the proper authorities in a timely manner. Therefore,

programs directed at obtaining information about the location and circumstances of

entangled whales should be continued and expanded. Maintaining contact with the

entangled whale until help arrives can be key to a successful response, and

therefore should be emphasized.

1.2.7 Continue to prepare and distribute information on whale entanglement to

fishermen and other mariners and encourage reporting of entanglements to the

disentanglement network, and periodically assess the effectiveness of such

programs.
IVB-14

Fishermen themselves are essential to the process of reducing entanglements and

freeing entangled whales; and their continued involvement should be encouraged. 

In this regard, ongoing efforts to inform fishermen about disentanglement efforts and

the need to report entangled whales should be continued. This information

dissemination program should also be evaluated periodically to ensure that it is as

effective as it can be in reaching all relevant fishermen and that information on

entangled whales is being obtained as efficiently as possible. For example, it may

become apparent that reports of entangled whales come from sources other than

fishermen and, if so, efforts directed at encouraging reports by mariners other than

fishermen many be more cost-effective.

1.2.8 Continue, expand, and improve procedures for responding to reports of

entangled whales.

Prompt response to reports of entangled whales is essential. Procedures need to

be in place to ensure that response is swift. Efforts to increase the scope and

improve the efficiency of the system should be ongoing.

1.2.9 Expand fisheries observer programs.

Observer programs are a good source of information on entangled right whales, but

they can be exceedingly costly. Where feasible, such programs should be

expanded to include more fisheries and to provide increased coverage of fisheries

that have observer programs. For some fisheries it may be necessary to develop

alternative means of observing. In addition, programs aimed at educating fishermen

and observers about disentanglement efforts and needed follow-up actions should

be expanded.

1.2.10 Continue to review, evaluate, and act upon reports from fishermen and

fishery observers of fishery interactions with right whales.

As noted above, observer programs and programs designed to encourage

involvement of fishermen should be evaluated to improve their effectiveness. Such

evaluation should be ongoing. If deficiencies are identified, they should be

addressed immediately.

1.2.11 If evaluations indicate that reporting/response can/should be improved,

implement improved systems for reporting.

Ways to improve reporting and/or responding may be identified. If so, they should

be implemented immediately.

Disentanglement

As long as fisheries are allowed to continue and remain economically viable, some

level of entanglement is likely to occur. Therefore, disentanglement readiness,

contingencies, and programs are essential, and should always be a high priority,

since prevention of even a single mortality may be significant to recovery.
IVB-15

1.2.12 When possible and practicable in terms of safety, disentangle whales caught

in fishing gear.

Whenever feasible, and with maximum regard for human safety, efforts should be

made to free every entangled whale. Therefore, clearly defined contingencies and

strategies should always be in place.

1.2.13 Create and maintain regional disentanglement equipment caches and make

appropriate arrangements to get disentangling teams and equipment to entangled

whales.

An essential component of disentanglement plans is possession of and rapid access

to the proper equipment. Therefore, additional key sites where such equipment

caches are needed should be identified so that equipment used in disentanglement

efforts can be prepared and stored in these additional locations and made readily

accessible to respond to an entangled whale anywhere along the U.S. eastern

seaboard. It is essential to ensure all elements of each cache are well maintained

and replaced as needed and that any newly identified equipment which proves

useful (e.g., newly developed tools or newly discovered uses for existing products)

is added to each cache. Also, plans should be designed for getting qualified and

well-equipped disentanglement teams to any entangled whale along the entire U.S.

eastern seaboard.

1.2.14 Develop and train additional disentanglement response teams.

Disentangling whales can be dangerous. Experienced, well-trained teams should be

the only responders. Responding teams should be well-versed and experienced in

disentanglement procedures. To better respond to entanglements and remote

locations, additional disentanglement teams and personnel should be trained. 

Having several teams trained and prepared to respond would allow multiple teams

to respond, if entanglements occurred simultaneously or in separate locations, and

perhaps allow for a more prompt response to remote locations. Efforts to expand

disentanglement response to the entire U.S. east coast should be reviewed and

upgraded if necessary to ensure coverage is adequate.

1.2.15 Explore means of encouraging vessels to stand by entangled whales.

NMFS should explore means to encourage groups to stand by entangled whales

until disentanglement teams can arrive. These groups could include fishing vessels,

whale watching boats, tuna spotters, and private citizens. Efforts should be made

to educate these groups and others on the importance of standing by and the

incentives for doing so.

1.2.16 Design and conduct studies on advanced disentanglement gear.

Existing disentanglement gear typically is "low-tech." However, it is possible that

some methods or gear not currently used in such events may be useful in freeing a

whale. Studies of possible advances in gear used for disentanglement should be

done. If promising new advances are identified, they should be made available and
IVB-16

used. They should be added to equipment caches.

1.2.17 Identify and implement ways to improve disentanglement efforts.

In the course of conducting disentanglements, ways to improve the chances of

freeing a whale may become clear. If so, such improvements should be used in

future events. Also, the principals in the disentanglement effort should meet

periodically (at least annually), and in particular after each event, to discuss ways of

improving the procedures used. Discussions should be held regarding the possible

development of new, or refinement of existing, equipment, and ways to reduce

response times.

Monitoring of Entanglement Rates and Evaluation of Protective Measures

It is imperative that any programs used to reduce fishing gear entanglement be

monitored to determine their relative success. If monitoring studies indicate that

scarring rates are not decreasing or other factors indicate that entanglement rates

are not decreasing, additional and increasingly stringent protective measures should

be identified and implemented.

1.2.18 Monitor entanglement-related injury and mortality rates.

Data on the number of observed or reported entangled whales should be routinely

compiled and regularly (at least annually) analyzed to assess patterns or trends in

entanglement rates and entanglement related mortality. In addition, to the extent

practicable, studies should be done of the severity of each entanglement event.

1.2.19 Determine whether measures to reduce entanglement are effective.

Steps should be taken to evaluate the effectiveness of measures to reduce the risk

of entanglement. Clearly, deaths caused by entanglement are an indication that

adequate protective measures are not being used. However, a large number of

right whales carry scars from previous entanglement events. Therefore, scarring

rates and trends in scarring rates – from photo-identification data -- are a means

(albeit perhaps not particularly precise) of assessing the relative effectiveness of

protective measures. In addition, to the extent possible, gear removed from

entangled whales should be analyzed to determine the fishing industry component

and the technique used. These and other techniques should be used to routinely

assess the effectiveness of measures used.

1.2.20 Identify and implement steps to improve protective measures.

If entanglement rates are not decreasing in spite of protective actions taken, those

actions should be re-assessed and revised to reduce entanglement rates. The goal

is to reduce the rate to a number as low as possible; and if the rate is not dropping,

the various approaches to reduce fishery interactions should be re-evaluated and

subsequently changed to include new or modified protective measures.

Photo-identification Data Analysis
IVB-17

1.2.21 Review and evaluate stranding data and photo-identification data to monitor

rates and effects of interactions with fishing gear, and assess effectiveness of

mitigation measures.

One way to monitor the success of protective measures is through analysis of the

individual photo-identification database for trends in scarring rates or evidence of

new scars. Photo-identification studies can also provide indices of the relative

health of individual whales. Other sources of such information are dead and

stranded whales, which should be examined for evidence of entanglement, as well

as identified to individual where possible, to allow for comparison with animals in

the scarification catalogue.

1.3 Continue and Improve Education and Outreach Programs

Educating ship operators, the fishing community and other mariners (including recreational

users) about the occurrence and distribution of right whales, their vulnerability to ship

strikes and entanglement, and the steps that mariners can take to avoid right whales may be

one of the simplest and most cost-effective ways of reducing the likelihood of these threats. 

Therefore, programs should be developed which describe a comprehensive outreach and

education program. These programs should identify and describe the types of material,

information and medium to be used, the expected target and expected outcome, and the

expected number of people reached. They should also involve follow-up to determine if the

expected effectiveness is being attained. Programs should be evaluated and improved

periodically.

Provide Relevant and Timely Information

1.3.1 Continue and expand efforts to inform mariners and the shipping industry,

and fishermen and the fishing industry, by providing updated and timely information

on right whale vulnerability to ship strikes and fishing gear entanglement and on

regulatory requirements.

Use all reasonable avenues to inform mariners and fishermen about the occurrence

of right whales and their vulnerability to ship strikes and fishing gear entanglement. 

Such efforts should include, but not be limited to, development and distribution of

brochures, placards, fliers, videos, articles in industry journals, trade associations,

professional conferences, and through direct liaison with the industry.

1.3.2 Ensure that right whale protective measures are incorporated into maritime

policy guidance documents of the International Safety Management Code and

curricula of the USCG and maritime academies.

The USCG has an important role in helping to educate ship operators about the

vulnerability of right whales to ship strikes, inasmuch as USCG personnel are in

frequent contact with vessel operators. The USCG-implemented International

Safety Management Code is a useful vehicle through which mariners can be

educated about right whales. Implementation of the code involves regular portside

boardings of selected ships, and the exchange of vessel- and human-safety related

issues. A large number of mariners can be reached by including information on
IVB-18

guidelines for avoiding ship strikes in material that is distributed. In this regard, the

information that is distributed, and materials used to train inspectors and auditors

should be periodically updated and steps should be made to ensure that current and

appropriate information is being distributed. This information should be updated at

least once every two years, and the program for disseminating such information

should be assessed and, if necessary, improved on the same schedule.

Education of mariners about right whale conservation issues should begin in school. 

The curricula at maritime academies, including NOAA, U.S. Naval, and USCG

academies, and other marine related schools, should include information on the

status of right whales, their vulnerability to ship strikes, and measures in place or

being contemplated to protect the species.

1.3.3 Raise awareness on regulatory requirements of right whale conservation

efforts via voyage planning and merchant mariner qualification and licensing

programs (in the U.S., British Admiralty, and industry). 

Programs are needed for recreational vessels and vessels engaged in domestic

commerce as these are not necessarily covered by the ISM Code.

1.4 Enforcement of fishing and shipping regulations.

1.4.1 Continue and improve programs to ensure that fishing and shipping

regulations are enforced.

A number of fishing and shipping regulations have been instituted in recent years

and a number of additional regulations are being contemplated at the time of this

writing. These include, but are not limited to, vessel approach regulations, fishing

gear and time/area restrictions as implemented through the Atlantic Large Whale

Take Reduction Plan, and the Mandatory Ship Reporting system. Without

adequate enforcement systems, some regulations may be ignored or violated

1.4.2 Review and assess the implementation and efficacy of the enforcement

programs, and take steps to improve the enforcement measures if deficiencies are

identified. 

Regulations are only effective if they are adhered to. Steps should be taken to

periodically summarize and analyze available information on rates of compliance

with regulations adopted to protect North Atlantic right whales. Rates of

compliance with these regulations are not routinely quantified at present and, while

compliance is believed to be good, it can likely be improved. Steps need to be

taken, and resources provided, to ensure that these and future regulations are

enforced.

2.0 Develop demographically-based recovery criteria.

Guidelines for large whale recovery criteria were developed at a workshop convened by

NMFS in February 2001 and are reflected in the criteria found in this plan. The first of these
IVB-19

criteria reflects the probabilistic thresholds for risk of extinction arrived at in the workshop. 

Specifically, according to the workshop, a large cetacean species shall no longer be considered

endangered when, given current and projected conditions, the probability of extinction is less

then 1% in 100 years; and a large cetacean species shall no longer be considered threatened

when, given current and projected conditions, the probability of becoming endangered is less

than 10% in a period of time no shorter than 10 years and no longer than 25 years, with the

period depending on the volatility of the dynamics of the population, the power of the

monitoring to detect changes and the expected response time of the management agency

(Angliss et al. 2002). However, in order to ensure that criteria meets the standards of

“objective and measurable” as called for in the ESA, NMFS believes that it is incumbent upon

us to translate this guidance into demographic criteria, such as population numbers, structure,

and trends, that allow the public to recognize clearly if they have or have not been met. Having

said that, NMFS also recognizes that this species is currently in dire straights as reflected in

consistently low population numbers, and that whatever criteria are arrived at under this action

are subject to change as more is known about the species and as the species’ status improves. 

Analyses used to develop recovery criteria will be peer reviewed before accepted, will

expressly indicate the assumptions, goals, uncertainties and approximations of the models used,

and will include sensitivity analyses of parameters and assumptions. In addition to being useful

in examining the population viability analysis, sensitivity analyses can be useful in management of

the species, and subsequent revisions or updates of this recovery plan. 

3.0 Identify, characterize, protect and monitor important right whale habitats.

3.1 Characterize and Monitor Right Whale Habitat

Reducing direct and indirect threats to right whale habitat is integral to recovery. 

Information is needed on environmental factors that influence right whale occurrence and

distribution. In addition, adequate protective measures are needed to reduce or eliminate

human-related impacts to right whale habitat.

3.1.1 Compile or collect relevant physical, chemical, biological, meteorological,

fishery, and other data to characterize features of important habitats and potential

sources of human-caused destruction and degradation of critical habitats.

Features of right whale habitat and environmental correlates of right whale

distribution should be identified. Therefore, studies should be done to identify

physical and biological determinants of right whale occurrence. That is, baseline

data are needed on important components of the habitats. These should include,

but should not be limited to, studies of relevant physical, chemical, biological,

meteorological, prey species, fishery, marine vertebrate, and other data to

characterize essential features of right whale habitats. Such information might be

obtained through compilation and analysis (especially GIS-based analysis) of

existing databases and through directed field studies. In addition, studies should be

done of potential adverse effects of human activities on right whales and their

habitat.

3.1.2 Monitor human activities to assess potential right whale habitat degradation.
IVB-20

A number of human activities may affect right whale recovery through direct or

indirect adverse effects on right whale habitat. These include, but are not limited to,

fishing, commercial shipping and other vessel traffic, oil exploration and

development and other industrial activities, oil spills, release of organochlorines,

heavy metals and other contaminants into the marine environment, municipal

effluents, noise pollution, and dredging. Such activities may involve direct and

indirect disturbance of key prey species, disturb right whale use of a particular

habitat, or otherwise degrade the habitat. Therefore, studies are needed to assess

the potential adverse effects of these activities on right whale habitat.

3.1.3 Monitor essential habitat features to assess potentially detrimental shifts in

these features.

After baseline data are obtained and analyzed, ongoing studies should be done to

determine if shifts are occurring in critical habitat components. Again, if shifts are

detected and they are linked to human activities, actions should be taken to modify

the activity to reduce or eliminate the causative agent.

3.1.4 Develop, implement, and monitor habitat protection strategies.

If studies reveal that important right whale habitats are affected by human activities,

steps should be taken to mitigate the effects or reduce or eliminate the source of the

impacts. In addition, monitoring studies should be done to assess the effectiveness

of protective measures that are put into place.

3.1.5 Monitor right whale habitat use patterns to assess shifts that might reflect

disturbance or degradation of habitat.

Right whale distribution and habitat use should be assessed periodically through

surveys and, among other things, GIS analysis. Shifts in distribution or habitat use

should be flagged as potentially resulting from anthropogenic sources of habitat

degradation or disturbance. If studies reveal that changes to right whale habitat use

are directly or indirectly linked to human activities, steps should be taken to limit or

modify the activities.

3.1.6 Conduct comparative studies to more accurately characterize critical

habitats, using known shifts in habitat use as opportunities to test distribution

hypotheses.

Hypotheses should be formulated and tested regarding right whale habitat use and

shifts in habitat use. Such testing should involve studies comparing current habitat

use to past use, thereby providing an assessment of human-related shifts in

distribution or habitat use.

3.1.7 Collaborate with Canadian authorities to protect important habitats and

essential habitat features in Canadian waters.

Right whale range is transboundary. Protective measures should dove-tail with

measures being taken by the government of Canada. To the extent possible, such
IVB-21

measures should include, but not be limited to, efforts to mitigate or reduce adverse

effects from fishing activities, commercial shipping and other boat transits, the

release of contaminants into the marine environment, oil spills, oil and gas

exploration and development and other industrial activities, and activities that

introduce loud noises into the marine environment. Bi-lateral cooperation should be

mediated by regular contact and information exchange between appropriate

government officials and periodic meetings. Periodic high-level bilateral meetings

should be conducted.

3.1.8 Support Canadian right whale conservation areas.

Canada has established several conservation areas to protect right whales. To the

extent that the protection of additional areas is sought, the United States should

support and endorse such efforts. 

3.1.9 Support efforts to collect and compile data on habitat use patterns (breeding,

foraging, and migratory areas) for the eastern North Atlantic right whale population. 

3.1.10 Collaborate with international authorities to protect important habitats (when

and if identified) for the eastern North Atlantic right whale population. 

3.2 Assess the need for modifying critical habitat boundaries.

3.2.1 Analyze available data and collect additional whale sighting data as necessary

to assess expanding or modifying the critical habitat boundaries. 

Sighting data indicate that right whales occur with some regularity, outside

designated right whale critical habitat. These data and historic data should be

analyzed to assess whether whales occur outside the critical habitat in sufficient

number to warrant expansion of the size of the critical habitat. In this regard,

NMFS was petitioned in 2002 to revise the boundaries of the right whale critical

habitat (see Critical Habitat section). The agency response to the petition (68 FR

51758, August 28, 2003) lists seven steps necessary to investigate those physical

or biological features essential to the conservation of the North Atlantic right whale,

and to propose any revisions to designated critical habitat that might be supported

by new information and analysis. Thus, NMFS would have to complete at least the

following steps to determine if revision is warranted:

(1) In the waters off of the Southeast U.S., continue analysis of right whale

distribution data in relation to bathymetry and sea surface temperature

derived from Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR)

imagery;

(2) In the waters off of the Northeast U.S., continue its own efforts, as well

as collaborate with others working in the Gulf of Maine Ecosystem, to

characterize the spatial and temporal distribution of zooplankton;

(3) Examine the available scientific information to assess whether other

physical or biological features of the environment are essential to the

conservation of the species;

(4) Identify those “specific areas within the geographical area occupied by
IVB-22

the species, at the time it is listed..., on which are found'' one or more of the

physical or biological features determined to be essential for conservation;

(5) Evaluate the current or future special management considerations or

protections relevant to the habitat features determined to be essential for

conservation;

(6) Evaluate the economic and other relevant impacts of including any

particular area in the designation of critical habitat, weigh these benefits and

negative impacts, and determine whether exclusion of any area would lead

to the extinction of the North Atlantic right whale; and

(7) Identify specific areas outside the geographical areas occupied by the

North Atlantic right whale at the time it was listed, that are essential to the

conservation of the species, and evaluate the impacts of designating any of

these areas as critical habitat.

3.2.2 If warranted, revise critical habitat boundaries.

If the historic and sighting data analysis indicate that a modification of the critical

habitat boundaries is beneficial, then the boundaries should be revised.

3.3 Reduce Human Impact to Habitat 

A number of human activities other than shipping and fishing may adversely affect right

whale habitat. These include (in order of severity of potential impact) (a) coastal

development (e.g., dredging); (b) anthropogenic noise; (c) contaminants; and (d) oil and

gas exploration, development, and other energy-related development.

There are few data regarding the possible indirect adverse effects of these types of human

activities on right whales. However, it is possible that certain activities that degrade right

whale habitat may be slowing population recovery. Studies are needed to determine if

various activities are impacting right whales and right whale productivity.

Coastal Development

3.3.1 Conduct studies to determine the direct and indirect effects of activities and

impacts associated with coastal development on the distribution, behavior, and

productivity of right whales. 

The activities and impacts studied should include, but not be limited to, sewage

outfall, dredging activities (and associated plumes), dredge spoils, dumping, habitat

alteration, noise, oil and gas exploration and development, and aquaculture

activities, including effects on prey species as well as on right whales directly.

3.3.2 As feasible, take steps to minimize identified adverse effects from coastal

development.

Anthropogenic Noise

Human activities result in the introduction of substantial amounts of noise into the

sea. No ocean basin is free of noise from human activities. Among the various
IVB-23

sources, noise from ships may be the greatest and most ubiquitous. The level of

sound from ships, virtually non-existent 100 years ago, has gradually but

significantly increased in recent decades.

Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of some types of noise on

marine mammals. The results are equivocal. That is, the effects may be more

dependent on the species and activity of the individuals than on the type, character,

or amplitude of the sound. When engaged in vital behavior, such as feeding or

courtship, whales may be relatively unresponsive to loud sounds. For example, in

several studies bowhead whales showed little overt reaction when exposed to

industrial noise (Richardson et al. 1995). However, many, perhaps all marine

mammal species, are highly dependent on sound for such things as locating

conspecifics, perhaps locating prey, and sensing their environment.

3.3.3 Consultations under ESA Section 7.

Consultations under the ESA Section 7 should be used to assess the potential

adverse impacts of anthropogenic noise that may affect right whales, and to provide

recommendations to mitigate those impacts.

3.3.4 Conduct studies to assess the direct and indirect effects of anthropogenic

noise on the distribution, behavior, and productivity of right whales. 

Studies are needed to assess potential adverse effects of underwater noise

(including ship noise) on right whales, including, but not limited to, disturbance of

intraspecific communication, disruption of vital functions that are mediated by

sound, distributional shifts, and stress from chronic or frequent exposure to loud

sound. Noise sources studied should include, but not be limited to, industrial and

shipping activities, oceanographic experiments, military related activities, and other

human activities. Studies of the impacts of noise that themselves involve adding

noise to the marine environment should be conducted with surrogate species and in

areas well away from habitat occupied by North Atlantic right whales.

3.3.5 Take steps to minimize identified adverse effects to right whales from

anthropogenic noise.

If studies demonstrate that right whale productivity or behavior is significantly

affected by anthropogenic sounds, steps should be taken to reduce or eliminate the

loud sound sources.

As indicated above, noise from ships may be a significant, but largely overlooked,

sound source adversely affecting whales. Although a logistically and economically

difficult issue to address, strategies to reduce ship noise should be designed if the

studies indicate that ship noise significantly affects right whale productivity or

behavior.

Pollutants

3.3.6 Conduct studies to assess the sources and levels of anthropogenic pollutants
IVB-24

and assess their possible adverse effects on right whales and their habitats. 

Anthropogenic contaminants may affect reproductive functions, suppress immune

systems, or otherwise affect the health or productivity of right whales. Although

there are no studies making such links in large whales, there is a possibility that such

relationships exist. Therefore, studies should be conducted to determine if uptake

and assimilation of contaminants are inhibiting the reproduction or productivity of

right whales. Such studies should focus on, but not be limited to, heavy metals,

endocrine disrupters, immune suppressors, pathogens, and their exposure levels,

pathways, and effects.

Where possible, actions should be taken and studies planned in the near-term to

assess contaminant levels. For example, right whale tissue should be routinely

provided to the National Marine Mammal Tissue bank for subsequent analysis of

contaminant loads. In addition, to the extent possible, comparative studies should

be conducted with other systems (e.g., Southern Ocean) and whale species (e.g.,

bowhead and southern right whales) in which contaminant levels might be 

particularly high or low, and where the adverse effects of high contaminant levels

might be implicated in health or reproductive anomalies. Right whale researchers

globally should be encouraged to assume a unified approach to conducting and

reporting necropsies, and tissue sample collection, with regard to sampling for

contaminant analysis in particular.

Blubber and other tissue samples have been archived from at least nine recent

necropsies and are currently stored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. These tissues should be reviewed for

suitability, and selected samples analyzed for PCBs, pesticides, and dioxins. Such

samples should be analyzed in a way that allows estimation of systemic (body)

burden in right whales and assessment of how this may differ from other mysticete

species. Such analyses will also allow better interpretation of data on cytochrome

P450 1A (a “biomarker” that may be indicative of physiological response to

contaminant exposure) that could be generated from available fixed tissue samples

from necropsies conducted in recent years.

In addition, right whale prey aggregations in the Gulf of Maine, Bay of Fundy, and

Cape Cod Bay should be sampled and analyzed for PAH compounds and other

contaminants, as compared to reference samples from Georges Bank (offshore

New England). Further, copepod samples should be analyzed from these three

regions, and compared with similar analyses conducted on krill and copepod

samples from selected southern right whale feeding habitat, such as South Georgia. 

Such samples could be obtained in collaboration with the British Antarctic Survey

annual krill survey. 

3.3.7 Take steps to minimize identified adverse effects from anthropogenic

pollutants.

If studies indicate that contaminants in the marine environment are adversely

affecting right whales, steps should be taken to reduce the sources of such

contaminants.
IVB-25

3.3.8 Conduct studies of individual health and body condition as they may be

related to accumulated contaminants.

It is possible that frequent or chronic exposure to adverse effects of human

activities, or accumulation of contaminants results in stress or reduced "health" of

individuals. Also, reduced habitat quality could be affecting the health of individuals

or the productivity of the population. In studies of land mammals and humans,

fertility was shown to be affected by an insufficiency or excess of body fat. 

Measurement of body fat thickness is becoming practical at sea. It appears that

there may be little seasonal variation in blubber thickness in individual right whales,

however there may be variation in blubber thickness between those that are and are

not reproductively successful. Further research on this question is needed. In

addition, studies should be done to better understand reproductive and systemic

health in right whales. Such research should focus on both biopsy and necropsy

samples.

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development and other Industrial Activities

3.3.9 Conduct studies to assess possible adverse effects of oil, gas, and hard

mineral exploration and development and other industrial activities.

A number of studies have been conducted on the effects of oil and gas exploration

and development, and associated seismic surveys and ship and aircraft disturbance

on some large whale species, notably bowhead whales. There are data on gray

whale response to seismic sounds. However, no such studies have been conducted

on the potential adverse effects on right whales. Additionally, seismic survey

equipment has undergone recent developmental changes which alter many aspects

of the sound characteristics and scope of their projection, making comparisons

between the new and old systems difficult, if not impossible. While there are no

known plans to lease areas for oil and gas exploration and development where

western North Atlantic right whales occur, the demand for oil may drive a future

need. Therefore, before such plans are implemented, studies should be conducted

on the potential adverse effects of these activities. As needed, studies should also

be conducted on the potential effects of hard mineral exploration, and other

industrial activities on right whales. If pursued, such Federally authorized or funded

activities should be subject to ESA Section 7 consultations

3.3.10 Take steps to minimize identified adverse effects from oil, gas, and hard

mineral exploration and development.

If the studies reveal that adverse effects are likely, steps should be taken to restrict

or prohibit such activities.

3.3.11 Monitor efforts to implement right whale-related protection measures in

approved oil and gas exploration and development plans.

If areas where right whales occur are leased for mineral exploration and

development, and mitigative or prohibitive measures are implemented, monitoring

studies should be conducted to determine if the protective measures are effectively
IVB-26

protecting right whales from adverse effects.

3.3.12 Assess and update, as necessary, existing contingency plans for oil and

chemical spills in waters where right whales occur. Local, regional, and national

authorities should all participate in the development of integrated plans.

Considerable quantities of oil and gas are moved by tanker in and near right whale

habitat. The possibility of a spill is significant. While the overall effects of spilled oil

on cetaceans is equivocal, it is likely that the direct or indirect (e.g., prey) effects

would be substantial. Therefore, local, regional, State, and Federal authorities

should work cooperatively to, as needed, update existing contingency plans already

developed under the National Contingency Plan and to assess existing plans for

effectiveness in protecting right whales and their habitats. Authorities need to

ensure the plans are integrated at various levels and that communication channels

and spill response chains of command are clearly understood. Contingency plans

should include, but not be limited to, strategies for containing and collecting spilled

oil, monitoring the effects on whales in the area, stepped-up programs to detect oil

and oil derivative uptake levels by sampling living and dead whales, and monitoring

the effects on the distribution, abundance, and behavior of whales in the vicinity of

the spill. NMFS is the lead agency in establishing appropriate guidelines for

monitoring the effects on whales. It should also include clear specifications for

which agencies, organizations, and personnel are responsible for responding to a

spill.

Whale-Watching

While the close approach of any boat has the potential to disturb a marine mammal

and may result in a collision, there are few data or indications that whale-watching

activities affect whale behavior. However, the industry is expanding and increased

boat activities may affect whales in ways not presently apparent. Many, but not all,

commercial whale-watch boat operators are among the most careful boaters with

respect to whales and whale behavior. Some individuals of some large whale

species are attracted to whale-watch vessels. In addition, there is the added

advantage of whale-watching of exposing the general public to whales, especially if

there is a conservation message contained in the information provided by naturalists. 

The 500-yard no approach regulation has greatly curtailed whale-watching of right

whales. Nonetheless, there is potential for adverse effects of whale-watching

including the disturbance of vital behavior such as feeding and courtship inasmuch

as boats may still watch from distances greater than 500 yards, whale watching may

still occur in Canadian waters, and whale watch vessels pass into and through right

whale habitat. Also, there are numerous records of whale watch boat collisions

with whales. At the time of this writing, NMFS is preparing regional guidelines with

regard to whale watch, thrill craft and other vessels for certain areas and will

propose developing regionally specific guidelines for operating these craft

There are good indications that circling or low-altitude aircraft change the behavior

of some large whale species, such as bowhead whales (Richardson et al., 1995). 

This is particularly true of repeated passes. Therefore, prohibitions (under the

MMPA) of circling, low altitude flight, and repeated passes by aircraft near right
IVB-27

whales should be enforced.

3.3.13 Conduct studies to assess the short- and long-term effects of whalewatching on right whales, notably with regard to high-speed vessels.

Studies should be conducted on the potential adverse effects of whale-watching. 

The studies should be carefully designed with appropriate controls, and caution

should be used in conducting studies from boats inasmuch as the study vessel itself

may cause disturbance. If the studies demonstrate that whale-watch vessels have

adverse behavioral effects, steps should be taken to limit or eliminate watching of

right whales. In addition, recent collisions between whale-watch boats and a

humpback and a minke whale have raised concern about the impact of whalewatching activities on large whales. Regulations should be considered, and

guidelines developed regarding vessel speed near whales, and manner and

distances of approaches.

The recent proliferation of high-speed whale-watch ships and ferries, particularly in

the waters off the northeast U.S., represents a threat to right whales. The use of

such craft should be closely monitored and if likely adverse effects are detected,

use of the craft should be curtailed.

3.3.14 Assess the effectiveness of existing restrictions on whale watching activities

to determine whether more restrictive measures are necessary or less restrictive

measures could be permitted. If found to be detrimental, take steps (e.g.,

promulgate regulations) to address the adverse impacts

If regulations are issued to limit whale-watching, the effectiveness of the restrictions

should be closely monitored. If monitoring studies indicate that the measures are

not effective in deterring disturbance of whales, further restrictions should be

considered.

3.3.15 Continue and expand education/public awareness programs to ensure that

commercial and recreational vessel operators are aware of applicable regulations

and guidelines.

Every feasible effort should be made to educate whale-watch vessel operators

about safe distances and maneuvering relative to whales. In addition, efforts should

be made to educate recreational vessel operators about approach regulations and

guidelines. Trained naturalists should accompany each commercial whale watch

trip and programs should be established to train naturalists. Conservation messages

should be an essential component of information provided to whale-watchers by

naturalists and whale-watch boat operators. Information about right whales and

relevant protective measures should also be conveyed to people who, for reasons

other than whale-watching, visit the coast and go out onto the Atlantic Ocean. In

some areas, the National Park Service and National Marine Sanctuary Program

interpretive staff could provide valuable assistance in this regard.

Right Whale Research
IVB-28

3.3.16 Assess possible negative impacts of studies on right whale biology.

Some types of research, particularly, for example, involving multiple boat

approaches, frequent overflights, or attaching transmitting devices, may have

adverse effects on individual right whales or cumulatively on the population. The

research should be assessed and, if found to be detrimental, means should be

explored to curb the research or to mitigate its effects. At the time of this writing,

NMFS is making this assessment though preparation of an Environmental Impact

Statement.

Federal Activities

3.3.17 Conduct ESA Section 7 consultations on Federal activities with potential to

affect right whales. 

Certain maritime operations and activities including, but not limited to, vessel

operations, dredging, fisheries, and military operations, may adversely impact right

whales. These activities should be subject to consultation under Section 7 of the

ESA.

3.4 Conduct studies to improve knowledge of the diet, food requirements, feeding habits,

and food resources of right whales.

Like most animals, right whale distribution and habitat use is highly correlated to prey

abundance and availability. However, studies are needed to better understand the

relationship between right whale occurrence and prey abundance, density and distribution. 

Models and relevant field testing should be used to predict right whale occurrence relative

to prey occurrence and density. This work may be tied to broader-scale modeling to

predict right whale distribution from environmental variables (see Clapham 1999).

3.4.1 Compile and evaluate information on the known types, amounts, locations,

and availability of right whale prey.

Efforts to recover right whale populations will be closely linked to efforts to ensure

that prey stocks are not adversely affected. In addition, an ability to predict prey

occurrence will likely aid in predicting right whale occurrence; and shifts in prey

abundance and density will likely lead to shifts in right whales’ occurrence. If prey

abundance or distribution is adversely affected by human activities, right whales will

likely be affected as well. Therefore studies are needed (or expand on existing or

past studies) to identify right whale prey species, occurrence, abundance, density,

and availability. Such information may be derived from existing data or complement

past or ongoing studies. However, it may also be necessary to conduct additional

directed studies to address such questions.

3.4.2 Review and refine energetic models to better understand right whale food

requirements and feeding strategies.

Models of right whale energetics have been devised, but they are somewhat crude

and do not include the latest information. Existing models should be revised or new
IVB-29

ones developed to predict and better understand energy requirements (i.e., levels of

energy intake required to sustain individuals and populations) of right whales. Such

information will help to determine if right whales are at carrying capacity and

whether the existing environment (including possible human influences) can sustain

right whales.

4.0 Monitor the status and trends of abundance and distribution of the western North Atlantic

right whale.

Accurate and periodic assessments of western North Atlantic right whale abundance and trends

in abundance are essential to any right whale recovery efforts and assessing the relative

effectiveness of protective measures. Monitoring studies should be conducted periodically (at

least once every three years). Additional protective measures should be implemented if studies

indicate that the population size is static or decreasing.

Status

4.1 Develop quantitative recovery criteria population models to determine extinction risk,

and parameters to validate the model predictions

Analyses will be developed to minimize the risk of down-listing or de-listing the North

Atlantic right whale under the ESA. Therefore, multiple demographic models incorporating

population abundance and trends, as well as natality/survival estimates and any threat

specific mortality estimates, will be developed to inform the Recovery Criteria. These

models will be additional to the analysis of extinction probability and consideration of the

five listing factors currently included in the Recovery Criteria. Models will be validated

through comparisons with independent indices of population status, such has population age

structure, gender ratios, etc.

4.2 Conduct a study or convene a workshop to determine the best methods for assessing

western North Atlantic right whale status and trends, and to establish the optimal level of

effort required.

Considerable effort has been expended on gathering data on right whales, and this

information represents a vital foundation for continued assessment of the population. 

Nonetheless, there is a need to review assessment methods in light of recent developments

in the fields of biology and statistics. In addition, an assessment of the level and distribution

of survey effort required to achieve optimal assessment results is essential to ensure that

field work is as efficient and as cost-effective as possible. Whereas such status reviews

have been conducted (e.g. IWC 2001b), they should also be done periodically.

4.3 Assess population size, survival rate and trends on a regular basis.

Western North Atlantic right whale abundance should be estimated at least once every

three years (depending on the results of the study or workshop recommended above). The

individual photo-identification database is perhaps the best source of information by which

abundance can be estimated, but analytical methods and field effort should be designed for

optimal results. Also, the techniques themselves used to determine abundance, status and
IVB-30

trends need to be evaluated and, if needed, new or preferable techniques proposed. 

Population modeling should be conducted to assess status, trends, abundance, and vital

rates (including reproduction and survivorship), but all such models must be biologically

realistic.

4.3.1 At least once every three years, review and evaluate data on western North

Atlantic right whale status. Continue to review stock assessment at least annually in

accordance with the MMPA. If needed, improve data collection and analysis

methods.

Periodically, at least once every three years, the data should be evaluated to

determine if they are as accurate and comprehensive as possible. If the evaluation

indicates that the quality of the data, or the methods used for data storage or

analysis could be improved, steps must be taken to improve data quality.

4.3.2 As necessary, develop and implement other programs necessary for

population monitoring.

As noted above, the photo-identification database contains data best-suited for

assessments of population size and trends in abundance. However, if superior

assessment techniques are identified, or if alternative methods of analysis are

identified, they should be used. The goal is to use the best possible and most

accurate means of assessment.

Distribution

4.4 Monitor right whale occurrence and habitat use pattern in known high-use areas.

To obtain the best possible information on right whale occurrence, abundance, and

distribution, surveys in the following geographic areas should be conducted at appropriate

intervals. Methods for surveys in the areas should be standardized and consistent.

4.4.1 Continue to conduct annual right whale surveys off the southeastern U.S.

coast.

Right whale surveys off the coasts of Georgia and Florida provide important

information on occurrence, abundance, and distribution during the breeding and

calving season.

4.4.2. Continue to conduct annual right whale surveys in the lower Bay of Fundy.

Right whale surveys in Canada’s Bay of Fundy provide important information on

occurrence, abundance, and distribution during the foraging season. Information

collected through survey efforts on right whale distribution in these waters

contributed significantly to Canada’s 2002 conservation action to shift commercial

shipping lanes in the Bay of Fundy toward areas of lower right whale density. 

4.4.3. Continue to conduct annual right whale surveys in the Great South Channel.
IVB-31

Right whale surveys in the Great South Channel not only provide important

information on occurrence, abundance, and distribution during the foraging season,

but contribute to a better understanding of how right whales use designated critical

habitat. In addition, surveys in these waters, as opposed to coastal habitat areas,

generate data on right whale offshore behavior and distribution.

4.4.4 Continue to conduct annual right whale surveys in Cape Cod and

Massachusetts bays.

Right whale surveys in Cape Cod and Massachusetts bays provide important

information on occurrence, abundance, and distribution, and contribute to a better

understanding of how right whales use designated critical habitat.

4.4.5 Continue to conduct annual right whale surveys on the Scotian Shelf.

Surveys on the Scotian Shelf, extending from Browns Bank in the west to the

Laurentian Channel in the east, are important to determine right whale occurrence,

abundance and distribution in Canadian coastal waters. Right whales occur

regularly in Roseway Basin at the western margin of the Scotian Shelf, but little is

known about their occurrence and distribution east of Roseway. This area has

historically been the subject of little or no survey effort; however, recent surveys

initiated in these waters yielded numerous right whale sightings and identification of

individuals. Data collected from the NMFS 2002 Scotian Shelf survey were

submitted to Canada to support a campaign to create an International Maritime

Organization mandated “Area To Be Avoided” in Roseway Basin. These data

were particularly useful given the lack of information from this area in recent years;

results from the survey demonstrate that the Scotian Shelf continues to be an

important right whale habitat.

4.4.6 Conduct annual right whale surveys in waters off the U.S. mid-Atlantic states.

Survey effort historically has been meager in waters off the mid-Atlantic states. To

enhance distribution information, surveys in these areas should be expanded.

4.4.7 As often as possible and where feasible, photo-identification photographs

should be obtained at each sighting.

Photo-identification is used for the purpose of identifying individual animals and

clarifying population structure. Characteristics such as callosity patterns, scarring,

body condition and shape, coloration, fluke structure, and lesions contribute to the

visual identification of individual right whales. Photo-identification should be used

as a standard data-collection tool during right whale surveys whenever possible.

4.4.8 Conduct studies to locate unknown high-use areas for this population.

The location of the majority of right whales in winter is unknown, and substantial

portions of the population are unaccounted for at other times. In addition, a

significant number of mothers observed in the southeastern U.S. do not take their

calves to the Bay of Fundy during summer; whether they migrate to a second,
IVB-32

unknown nursery area, or simply have a more scattered distribution in shelf or other

waters, is unclear. In these various unidentified locations, right whales may be

exposed to threats from human activities. Therefore, identifying and studying such

areas would be very valuable, and studies should be conducted to determine the

location of such areas. For example, historical data indicate and recent data

confirm that right whales use waters off mid-Atlantic states to some extent at least in

some years. Surveys should be conducted for a number of years to determine the

extent of right whale occurrence in these areas of high vessel traffic and fishing

effort. Satellite tracking studies may be useful in determining where these areas

occur, but other methods should also be considered as appropriate. These include

review of historical records, and the use of predictive models based on

environmental data.

4.4.9 Further assess Cape Fear North Carolina to South Carolina as possible

calving areas.

There are some indications that calving/nursery grounds may occur along the Cape

Fear North Carolina to South Carolina area off the U.S. coast. These areas should

be further assessed to determine their importance to right whale reproduction and

distribution.

4.4.10 Des gn and conduct surveys of likely wintering areas based on results of

habitat and tracking studies, review of historical data, and results of predictive

models.

When currently unknown habitats are identified, studies should be conducted to

learn more about residency times, migration routes, and the demographics of the

whales using these locations. Such studies should be based on ship or aircraft

surveys or through satellite tracking studies. The habitats should be characterized

and any human activities likely to adversely affect the whales identified and

addressed appropriately.

4.4.11 Conduct surveys and/or support efforts to determine eastern North Atlantic

right whale occurrence in coastal waters off northern Europe and northwestern

Africa.

Current abundance, distribution and migration patterns are unknown for eastern

North Atlantic right whales based on a lack of sighting information. Following

intensive periods of historical whaling in the Bay of Biscay, Cintra Bay, coastal

Iceland, and the British Isles, right whales have only been sighted sporadically in

eastern North Atlantic coastal waters. Ship or aircraft surveys should be

conducted to determine the status of this population; in particular, coastal waters off

the Hebrides, Shetlands, and Ireland may warrant investigation as important habitat

usage areas. 

4.4.12 Continue to maintain a database of right whale sightings.

Any assessment of right whale abundance and distribution is dependent upon

reliable and current information about sighting locations. Therefore, the existing
IVB-33

(and historic) sighting database should be maintained. As feasible, efforts should be

made to ensure that all right whale sighting information is included in the database. 

Because “negative data” (i.e., data indicating that despite search effort, right whales

were not found to be present) are also important in defining distribution patterns,

the database should include data from surveys in which right whales were not the

target species.

4.5 Maintain a Photo-identification Database

As indicated elsewhere in this plan, the individual photo-identification database is one of the

most valuable sources of information by which status and trends in abundance can be

estimated. Whereas, violation of certain assumptions may complicate the use of “markrecapture” types of analyses, photo-identification data provide minimum population values,

trends in such values, survivorship, and other information. The database and its resulting

catalog should be maintained and routinely updated with new photographs. The ways in

which data are stored, analyzed, and made available to researchers should be assessed

periodically (at least every three years) to identify ways to improve these processes.

4.5.1 Maintain and routinely update the right whale photo-identification catalog.

The catalog of individually identified whales should be maintained and kept current,

new additions processed as quickly as is feasible, and all researchers or other field

workers encouraged to make timely submissions of all photographs of right whales.

4.5.2 Require, as a condition of permits provided under the ESA or MMPA, that

researchers conducting field work on right whales provide at the earliest

convenience photographs (and ancillary information) obtained from their studies to

the curators of the photo-identification catalog.

Rather than relying on voluntary submissions from permitted researchers, 

photographs should be required as a condition of permits to ensure that the right

whale photo-identification catalog is as comprehensive and accurate as possible.

4.5.3 Regularly and consistently review, evaluate, and update analyses of data in

the right whale photo-identification catalog.

The photo-identification catalog is an important tool for study of western North

Atlantic right whale demographics. It is essential that the database be mined for

specific types of analyses and to address specific questions. Neither a backlog of

processing photographs for cataloging nor delays in providing photographs to the

database should be factors in limiting critical analysis. For these reasons, the

process for handling photographs, maintaining the database, the types and quality of

analyses should be assessed, and improved as needed, at least once every three

years.

NMFS should require that all photographs of right whales that are suitable for

photo-identification of individuals be provided as soon as possible to those

maintaining the catalog for inclusion in the data base.
IVB-34

4.5.4 Conduct studies to determine population structure using photo-identification

data.

Additional information on population structure will aid management efforts to

recover the species and provide necessary information to monitor right whale

status, abundance, and distribution. Field studies assessing population structure

should continue to use the tool of photo-identification; information from the existing

catalog should also inform these studies.

4.6 Respond to Strandings

4.6.1 Continue and improve program for necropsy of right whale carcasses.

The existing program supported by NMFS and, in general, carried out by

contractor and a dedicated group of volunteers – the Marine Mammal Stranding

Network – is quite good and should be continued. Response to a stranding is

generally quick and sampling thorough. However, there may be ways to improve

the system. For example, it may be possible to identify steps to increase response

or improve coordination of tissue sampling and disseminating data. Reliable

sources of funding need to be established to ensure that every carcass is necropsied

and that correct procedures are used.

4.6.2 Review and, if needed, improve procedures for responding to reports of

dead right whales and conducting necropsies to ensure that the most effective

means are being used to extract scientific information from dead, stranded, and

entangled right whales.

Each right whale carcass represents an important opportunity for scientific

investigation of the cause of death, and for addressing questions on life history, and

such matters as contaminant loads. Delays in attempts to secure or examine a

carcass can result in the loss of valuable data, or even of the carcass itself. Every

possible effort should be made to respond to and recover as much data as possible

from each right whale carcass. The Stranding Network coordinator should work

with appropriate agencies, organizations, and individuals to ensure that, when a right

whale carcass is reported it is rapidly secured and: (i) a necropsy is performed as

rapidly and as thoroughly as possible by qualified individuals selected to gather

information regarding the cause of death; (ii) samples are taken and properly

preserved for studies of genetics, toxicology, and pathology; and (iii) funding is

available to notify and transport appropriate experts to the site rapidly and to

distribute tissue samples to appropriate locations for analysis or storage. In

addition, the coordinator should work with stranding networks and the scientific

community to develop and maintain a database for tissue samples requested by

qualified individuals and agencies, and ensure that these samples are collected

routinely from each carcass and stored in appropriate locations or distributed to

appropriate researchers.

4.6.3 Improve or, as necessary, develop and implement protocols for securing and

retrieving stranded or floating right whale carcasses.
IVB-35

The detection and reporting of dead right whales, whether stranded or floating at

sea, need to be encouraged in every way possible. The Large Whale Recovery

Program coordinator and the National Marine Mammal Stranding Network

coordinator should continue working with representatives of local, State, and

Federal agencies, private organizations, academic institutions, and regional and

national stranding networks to facilitate efficient coverage and information

exchange. In areas where protocols do not exist, they should be developed. The

responsibilities of all relevant agencies, organizations, and individuals should be

clearly defined. Contingency plans should be developed for retrieval of right whale

carcasses along the entire U.S. east coast, including the identification and securing

of sites to bring carcasses ashore, conduct necropsies, and dispose of waste.

Right whales may die at sea, but not be detected or reported. Mariners, including

Navy and Coast Guard personnel, commercial and recreational boaters, and

fishermen might observe carcasses at sea but not recognize the importance of their

observation. This was highlighted by a recent (2001) incident in which a South

Carolina mariner observed and photographed the carcass of a right whale calf

floating off the coast of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The incident was not

reported until nearly a month later, too late to retrieve the carcass. Mariners must

be educated about the importance of retrieving such carcasses so that as much

information as possible can be gleaned from them.

4.6.4 To the extent possible, use necropsies to determine the cause of death and

use such data to reduce the susceptibility to death from these causes.

Assessment of the causes and frequency of mortality (either natural or humancaused) is important to understanding population dynamics and the threats that may

impede the recovery of western North Atlantic right whales. For example, it may

be possible to employ certain types of forensics to characterize propeller wounds,

identify and the types of ships responsible for ship strikes, and perhaps even

extrapolate to describe a whale’s behavior at the time of a collision. Accordingly,

the efficiency of efforts to detect and investigate right whale deaths should be

maximized.

4.6.5 Analyze tissue collected from stranded right whales to determine and monitor

contaminant levels.

As noted earlier, certain contaminants if found in particularly high levels, may lower

productivity in right whales by inhibiting reproductive functions, increasing

susceptibility to disease, or through other mechanisms. To monitor contaminant

levels and possible changes in levels and to possibly assess likely effects on the

population, programs should be developed to collect appropriate tissues from dead

and stranded individuals. Also, all existing samples need to be located and

analyzed. Proper and standardized techniques should be used to store and analyze

the tissue for various anthropogenic contaminants. The program (i.e., the tissue to

be collected, the storage and data analysis methods) should be designed and

carefully implemented in conjunction with the National Marine Mammal Stranding

Network Coordinator and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network..
IVB-36

If contaminant levels are found or suspected that may result in inhibiting

reproductive functions or productivity, a program should be developed immediately

to identify the origins of the contaminants and to eliminate or reduce the sources.

4.6.6 Analyze tissue collected from necropsies to improve knowledge about life

history and reproductive parameters of right whales.

The types of reproductive and life history information that can usefully be obtained

from such examinations include age at death, reproductive status such as maturity,

indicators of recent pregnancies, diet analysis, and causes of morbidity.

4.6.7 Review, analyze, and summarize data on stranded right whales on a regular

(at least annual) basis.

Current and complete data on stranding events and the data derived from them is

essential to ongoing protective measures. Summaries should include, but not be

limited to, timely assessments of the cause of death and, where applicable, the

type(s) of fishing gear involved if fishing operations resulted in the death of the

animal.

4.6.8 Develop and implement a program for handling live-stranded right whales.

Rehabilitation of live-stranded right whales will likely be feasible in very limited

circumstances. For example, rehabilitating a fully mature adult is probably nearly

impossible given the size of the animal and difficulties involved in transporting and

caring for it. It may be possible to rehabilitate and release a live-stranded calf if it

were in sufficiently good shape at the time of the stranding. In some cases,

euthanasia may be more appropriate.

4.6.9 Develop protocols for handling live-stranded right whales, including

identification and securing of appropriate sites to effect rehabilitation.

Attempting and effecting a rehabilitation requires advance planning including

decisions regarding, but not limited to, appropriate facilities, logistics, and

equipment to be used. These are likely to be regionally specific. Such matters

should be worked out in advance, with responsibilities clearly understood.

4.6.10 Establish reliable source(s) of funding for rescue, rehabilitation, necropsy,

and tissue collection and analysis efforts.

As noted above, collection of information from right whale carcasses is essential to

recovery efforts. Therefore, identifying and committing to predictable sources of

funding for completing these tasks is also critical.

4.7 Conduct Habitat Use Studies (using telemetry)

4.7.1 Where feasible, effective, and minimally intrusive, conduct radio and satellite

tagging studies to increase knowledge of right whale habitat use, distribution, and

behavior.
IVB-37

Telemetry studies are among the most useful tools available for answering questions

about right whale ecology, habitat use, movements, and migrations. For example,

telemetry is probably the quickest way to identify and delineate previously

unrecognized high-use areas where protective measures should be implemented. 

Also, real-time information on whale locations can be key to reducing right whale

interactions with fishing and shipping activity. However, there are legitimate

concerns about the potential risks to the whales, e.g., infections at the site of tag

attachment. Such risks are not well understood and need to be assessed. It needs

to be clear that the benefits of tagging and telemetry studies outweigh any potentially

negative impacts. If such a cost-benefit evaluation indicates that the tagging and

telemetry work is justified, carefully designed and executed, minimally intrusive

studies should be conducted to address uncertainties with regard to patterns of right

whale habitat use, movement, migration, and areas of aggregation.

4.7.2 Conduct studies to assess the most effective and least intrusive means of

tagging right whales, including the possibility of using other species as models.

Whereas there are no known risks to telemetry studies of large whales, as noted

above, implanted tags have the potential to cause infection or have other adverse

effects. Telemetry studies have the potential to provide important, perhaps vital,

information for the protection of right whales, and should be regarded as an

important tool in doing so. However, the benefits must outweigh any possible

negative impact. Studies should be conducted to determine if adverse effects result

from tagging studies. Other closely related but more abundant large whale species

(e.g., the southern right whale) may serve as valuable surrogate subjects for such

study.

4.7.3. Conduct studies by veterinary experts to assess short- and long-term

physiological impacts of tagging.

See narrative above (4.7.2). Given their specialized background, health or

veterinary science experts should be sought to conduct or participate in studies to

determine right whale physiological response to tagging and potential associated

negative impacts.

4.7.4 Continue and expand satellite-linked radio-tagging and tracking to identify

right whale movements and habitat use patterns more effectively.

Improved knowledge of right whale locations, movements, and habitat use

provided through telemetry studies may provide important information in the effort

to reduce human impacts. Such studies should be conducted assuming individual

health risks are deemed to be insignificant or non-existent.

4.7.5 Conduct satellite tagging studies to determine routes and timing of migration

between known high-use habitats

Comments under 4.7.1 and 4.7.2 apply here as well.

4.7.6 When satellite tags are transmitting, conduct monitoring surveys to check for
IVB-38

other right whales in the area of the tagged whale.

Other right whales may be present in the area of a tagged whale (when engaged in

socializing, mating, or foraging in a dense prey patch, for example, more than one

individual may be found in association). Surveys should be carried out to monitor

areas in the vicinity of tagged whal s; if additional whales are found, real-time

information should be collected to identify individuals, record behavior, and note

habitat usage. 

4.7.7 Continue and expand VHF radio-tagging studies to better assess daily and

seasonal movements in high-use areas

Comments under 4.7.1 and 4.7.2 apply here as well.

4.8 Assess Demography and Stock Structure

4.8.1 Conduct genetic studies to assess population structure, effective population

size, current and historic genetic diversity and possible impacts on health and

reproductive success. 

Genetic studies have the potential to provide extremely valuable information on

population structure, abundance, genetic variability, effective population size and

social structure. In the case of the western North Atlantic right whale, since much

of the population has been biopsy sampled, it should be possible to obtain a level of

detail which is unthinkable for most mammalian populations. Past and ongoing

work has used mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA to investigate the genetics of

this population. This work should be continued and expanded to include additional

microsatellite loci in order to provide a detailed characterization of the population,

and to assess effective population size and the degree of inbreeding. In addition,

genetic information from any members of the vestigial eastern North Atlantic right

whale population, if possible to obtain, would be of immense interest is establishing

the relationship between the populations.

4.8.2 Conduct genetics workshop.

A workshop should be convened to discuss genetic data needed for recovery of

the species, and optimal methods for analysis of genetic data.

4.8.3 Conduct studies of population demographics, including but not limited to

such features as calf production, survivability, and age structure.

Indicators of the status and overall health of the population can be derived from a

number of indices, including such things as calf production rates, and adult and calf

survivability. Studies of population demographics should be conducted to help

assess biological features that may be (or may not be) contributing to recovery.

4.9 Reproduction and Health Assessment

As noted above, calf production in the western North Atlantic right whale DPS has
IVB-39

fluctuated rather widely in the last two decades (a range of one calf in 2000 to 31 calves in

2001). In addition, the mean calving interval is apparently increasing. The variation and

relatively low overall reproductive output of this population may be directly or indirectly

linked to human activities.

4.9.1 Conduct studies to determine the cause(s) of anomalous or fluctuating

reproductive rates.

There are no known reasons for the variation in productivity, however, contributing

factors may include ecosystemic fluctuations (e.g., prey density or availability),

individual health, habitat degradation, or disturbance from human activities. Studies

need to be conducted to investigate the causes of this variation and to identify

possible explanations for anomalies.

4.9.2 If cause(s) of reproductive anomalies are linked to human activities, establish

programs to mitigate or eliminate the sources of the impact.

Low productivity may be directly or indirectly linked to contaminants, disturbance,

habitat degradation or other factors resulting from human activities. If such factors

are related to low right whale productivity or reproductive anomalies, programs

should be established to reduce or eliminate the impact to right whales.

4.9.3 Conduct studies to assess health at the individual and population level.

As noted above, reproductive anomalies may be linked to poor individual health,

which may in turn be linked to poor nutrition, disturbance or disruption of vital

activities by human activities, or other factors. In addition, recently reported skin

lesions in some individuals may be linked to poor health and caused by some

heretofore unidentified etiological agent. In addition, entanglement in fishing gear

may reduce an individual’s general or reproductive fitness and such impacts to the

population should be examined. Therefore, studies need to be conducted to assess

right whale health both at the individual level and the population level, particularly as

they pertain to reproduction.

4.9.4 If studies indicate that poor individual or population health is linked to human

activities, establish programs to mitigate or eliminate the sources of the impact.

Human activities such as the release of toxic effluents, disturbance from vessels or

whale watching activities, alteration of habitat or food webs may directly or

indirectly cause lowered health and productivity in right whales. If poor health is

linked to human activities, programs need to be established to reduce or eliminate

their impact to right whales.

5. Coordinate Federal, State, international and private efforts to implement the Recovery Plan.

5.1 Continue international ban on hunting and other directed takes of right whales.

Directed hunting in the past is the reason for the current dismal status of right whales. 

Although western North Atlantic right whales are no longer a target of whaling, the hunting
IVB-40

of western North Atlantic right whales should not be permitted to resume under any

circumstances. The population is too small to sustain any type of directed take. Also, even

if a sustained growth and apparent recovery were to occur, hunting should not be

permitted, as this population is clearly vulnerable to extirpation and has not demonstrated an

ability to sustain commercial levels of take in addition to all the other sources of right whale

mortality present in the environment.

5.2 Enforce right whale protection laws.

Existing legislation and its implementing regulations that protect right whales should be

enforced by the appropriate agencies. It is necessary to establish and conduct monitoring

programs to determine the level of compliance with these laws. If there are indications that

regulations are not being enforced, enforcement regimes need to be improved. Appropriate

agencies should be encouraged to obtain and provide adequate resources needed to ensure

regulations are adequately enforced. In addition, NMFS needs to continue to request and

conduct consultations under Section 7 of the ESA with all Federal agencies and on any

Federal action that may jeopardize right whales or adversely modify critical habitat.

5.3 Evaluate the effectiveness of the Northeast and Southeast Implementation Teams and

implement improvements as warranted.

The recovery plan implementation teams are charged with providing advice to, and support

of, recovery activities, particularly those undertaken by NMFS. The mandate, goals,

responsibilities, membership, and effectiveness of these teams should be evaluated, and

ways to make them more effective should be identified. Specific terms of reference and

objectives should be identified for each team, together with tasks, priorities and a timetable

for their completion. Team membership and activities should subsequently be revised

accordingly.

5.4 Coordinate with States involved in right whale activities to maximize protection

measures.

A number of State programs include significant and rigorous right whale protective

measures. Such programs need to be supported and steps taken to ensure they dovetail

with other State and Federal programs. Although some inter-agency coordination takes

place in right whale recovery plan implementation teams and to some extent through the

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team, increased efforts need to go into, for example,

meeting regularly with State representatives and seeking to develop cooperative research

and management programs. In addition, NMFS should negotiate and conclude cooperative

agreements, under Section 6 of the ESA, with States agencies involved in right whale

protective programs.

5.5 Promote bi-lateral cooperative efforts with Canada to maximize protection for right

whales, reduce human-related mortality and injury, report mortality events, promote

protection of habitat, and take other measures to enhance the recovery of right whales.

5.5.1 Convene regular meetings with Canadian officials to facilitate bi-lateral

cooperation on protective measures.
IVB-41

Western North Atlantic right whale distribution is transboundary. Successful

protective measures involve cooperative bilateral efforts between NMFS, the

Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans and other responsible and interested

entities. Canada has prepared a right whale recovery plan and efforts should be

made to ensure that the Canadian and U.S. plans dove-tail, and that efforts are

being taken cooperatively. One way to achieve this goal is to convene regular

meetings between the two nations and develop follow-up actions.

5.5.2 Promote actions to enhance protection for known areas of importance,

especially vessel and fishery interaction issues in Canadian waters.

Bi-lateral protection measures and cooperative steps identified in periodic bi-lateral

meetings should be acted upon.

5.6 Periodically review and update the North Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Plan.

The effectiveness of this plan should be reviewed in conjunction with the five year status

review of the species, and revised as necessary. The activities identified in this plan should

be reviewed to determine if they are being successfully implemented and whether they are

still the most effective means of achieving recovery. If high priority actions are not being

pursued, steps need to be taken to remedy this. If appropriate, new actions and priorities

should be identified and implemented.

5.7 Prepare post-delisting monitoring plan for species before delisting occurs.

As delisting of the species approaches, a plan should be in place for monitoring the status of

the species after de-listing occurs, as specified in the ESA. The plan should monitor the

status of the species itself, the threats to the species (to ensure they aren’t recurring),

implementation of regulatory mechanisms, and the existence upon which the delisting relied.

Monitoring required after delisting is likely to be a subset of studies conducted when the

species was listed. As such, protocols should anticipate that pre-delisting monitoring sets a

baseline for post-delisting monitoring, and a post-delisting monitoring plan should be in

place well before delisting to ensure the adequacy of baseline information. A post-delisting

monitoring plan should be developed several years before achieving delisting criteria is

anticipated. 
V-1

V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

An implementation schedule is used to direct and monitor implementation and completion of

recovery tasks. Priorities in column 2 of the following implementation schedule are assigned as

follows:

Priority 1 – An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species

from declining irreversibly.

Priority 2 – An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in population

numbers or habitat quality, or to prevent other significant negative impacts short of

extinction.

Priority 3 – All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species.

 

Funding is estimated according to the number of years necessary to complete the task once

implementation has begun. Estimates are based on information available at the time this plan is

issued; the amount needed to actually complete the task may change as specific actions are

pursued. The provision of cost estimates is not meant to imply that appropriate levels of funding

will necessarily be available for all right whale recovery tasks. Parties with authority,

responsibility, or expressed interest to implement a specific recovery action are identified in the

implementation schedule. The listing of a party in the implementation schedule does not require

the identified party to implement the action(s) or to secure funding for implementing the

action(s). The costs associated with the various recovery tasks listed below are for those to be

implemented in U.S. waters only. Costs associated with promotion of international action have

not been estimated. 

DISCLAIMER

As noted earlier, recovery plans delineate reasonable actions, which the best available science

indicates are required to recover and/or protect, listed species. Plans are published by the

National Marine Fisheries Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams,

contractors, State agencies, and others. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views

or the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan

formulation, other than the National Marine Fisheries Service. They represent the official

position of the National Marine Fisheries Service only after they have been signed by the

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. Recovery plans are guidance and planning documents

only; identification of an action to be implemented by any public or private party does not

create a legal obligation beyond existing legal requirements. Nothing in this plan should be

construed as a commitment or requirement that any federal agency obligate or pay funds in any

one fiscal year in excess of appropriations made by Congress for that fiscal year in

contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341, or any other law or regulation. 

Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in

species status, and the completion of recovery actions.
V-2

 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

* No direct cost associated with this task (NMFS staff time)

+ Task already completed

# Task already underway

Action

Number

Action Description Priority Duration

(yrs)

Agencies/

Organizations

Involved/ Potentially

Involved

Fiscal Year Cost Estimates

(thousands of dollars)

FY 1 FY 2 FY 3 FY 4 FY 5

Objective 1 Significantly reduce sources of

human-caused death, injury and

disturbance

1.1 Reduce ship collisions with right

whales

1.1.1 Develop and implement a ship strike

reduction strategy

1 Ongoing NMFS, USCG 2000 2000 2000 1500 1500

Early Warning/Sighting Advisory

System

1.1.2 Continue seasonal aircraft

surveillance of right whale habitats

and other elements of the “early

warning system” program. 

1 Ongoing ACOE, NMFS,

States, USCG, USN 600/# 600 600 600 600

1.1.3 Provide right whale sighting

locations to mariners.

1 Ongoing ACOE, NMFS,

States, USCG, USN * * * * *

1.1.4 Notify individual ships directly when

their course is likely to bring them to

or near a location where a whale was

sighted by the aircraft.

1 Ongoing NMFS, States, USCG,

USN * * * * *
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-3

1.1.5 Assess the effectiveness and

efficiency of the survey programs in

attaining the primary goal of

reducing ship strikes. 

2 Annual

Ongoing

NEIT, NMFS, SEIT,

States * * * * *

1.1.6 Standardize surveys and data

collection to ensure data obtained

from the surveys are of maximum use. 

2 1 NEIT, NMFS, SEIT,

States *

1.1.7 Establish a program for regular and

timely analysis of aircraft survey data.

2 3 NMFS, States * * *

1.1.8 Use acoustic detection technology,

surveys, and other technologies to

monitor right whale occurrence and

distribution in the mid-Atlantic

United States.

1 5 NMFS, States

100 150 80 80 80

1.1.9 Develop a system to encourage,

collect, and appropriately analyze

opportunistic sightings from fishing

vessels, whalewatching vessels,

charter vessels, etc.

2 ongoing NMFS, States

30 30 40 40 50

1.1.10 Collect standardized data during

aerial surveys on “close calls”

between ships and whales

1 ongoing NMFS, States

20 20 25 25 30

Vessel Traffic Management

1.1.11 Assess the utility and feasibility of

ship routing changes in right whale

habitat.

1 2 DFO, MMC, NEIT, 

NMFS, SEIT, States,

USCG

60 25 - - -

1.1.12 Assess the utility and feasibility of

speed restrictions in right whale

habitat.

1 1 DFO, MMC, NEIT,

NMFS, SEIT, USCG - 15 - - -
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-4

1.1.13 Conduct risk assessment analyses of

various ship routing or speed options

to assess best set of vessel traffic

management options by area.

2 2 DFO, MMC, NEIT,

NMFS, SEIT, USCG 40 25 - - -

1.1.14 Assess the potential economic impact

of vessel management options.

3 3 DFO, NEIT, NMFS,

SEIT, USCG 50# 25 10 - -

1.1.15 Work with mariners, the shipping

industry, and appropriate State and

Federal agencies to develop and

implement a regionally-based set of

measures to reduce the threat of ship

strikes.

1 5 NMFS, NEIT, SEIT,

USCG

40 40 30 20 20

1.1.16 Assess the effectiveness of ship strike

measures and adjust, as necessary.

 1 5 NEIT, NMFS, SEIT,

USCG 40 30 20 20 20

1.1.17 Explore possible mechanisms for

encouraging vessels that have struck

a whale to report the incident.

1 ongoing NMFS, NEIT, SEIT,

States, USCG 40 30 20 20 20

Education and Outreach

1.1.18 Establish and/or maintain regionallybased liaison positions to work

directly with the shipping industry.

2 5 NMFS, NEIT, SEIT,

States, USCG 200 200 200 200 200

1.1.19 Develop programs and update

materials to educate mariners about

right whales and recommended

practices for avoiding ship strikes,

Make provisions for ongoing

distribution of materials.

2 ongoing ACOE, NMFS, NEIT,

SEIT, States, USCG

50 30 25 20 20
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-5

1.1.20 Review and update information about

right whale habitat and high-use

areas, vulnerability to ship strikes,

and ship collision reduction measures

on nautical charts, Coast Pilots,

Notice to Mariners, and other

navigational aids.

2 ongoing DFO, NIMA, NMFS,

NOS, USCG

* * * * *

Mandatory Ship Reporting System

1.1.21 Continue to implement mandatory

ship reporting systems along the east

coast of the United States.

1 ongoing NMFS, USCG

+ 200 180 150 150

1.1.22 Use incoming information from the

reporting system for analysis of ship

volume and routing studies to assess

measures to reduce ship/whale

interactions.

2 ongoing NMFS

75 60 60 60 60

1.1.23 Assess the effectiveness of existing

ship reporting systems and reporting

areas.

2 ongoing NMFS, USCG

25/# 25 20 20 20

1.1.24 Monitor compliance with the

mandatory ship reporting system and

take steps to improve compliance as

necessary.

2 ongoing NMFS, USCG, NEIT,

SEIT 20 20 20 10 10

1.1.25 Continue and improve outreach

efforts to educate the shipping

community about the mandatory ship

reporting system.

2 ongoing NMFS, USCG, SEIT

30 20 15 10 10

Whale Detection Technology

1.1.26 Conduct studies of active and passive

acoustic devices to determine their

feasibility and efficiency in detecting

submerged whales.

1 4 NMFS, USN

80 100 100 80 -
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-6

1.1.27 Implement systems to use

technological devices to reduce

ship/whale interactions if they are

capable of detecting submerged

whales, Conduct studies to assess

acoustic pollution impact on marine

mammals. 

1 5 NMFS, USN

100 150 200 150 150

1.1.28 Assess the utility of such devices on

large scales.

2 3 NMFS, NOS, USN 80 100 80 - -

1.1.29 Consider conducting studies of whale

behavior relative to various types of

“alerting” sounds that may warn

sleeping, feeding, or courting whales

to the presence of oncoming ships.

3 3 NMFS, USN

30 30 25 - -

1.1.30 Assess the feasibility of improved

visual detection technologies.

2 3 NMFS, USN 30 30 20 - -

1.1.31 Assess the feasibility and utility of

using remote sensing to characterize

right whale distribution patterns.

2 2 NESDIS, NMFS,

NOS, USN 80 80 - - -

Geographic Information Systems

1.1.32 Conduct GIS analysis of whale/ship

interactions.

2 ongoing NEIT, NESDIS,

NMFS, SEIT, States * * 50 50 50

1.1.33 Establish or use existing GIS to (a)

conduct analysis of right whale

occurrence and distribution, (b)

prepare predictive models of

occurrence, (c) determine right whale

and ship traffic overlap, (d) analyze

patterns of strandings, whale/vessel

interactions, and “near-miss

incidents”; and (e) assess ways to

minimize ship/whale interactions.

2 5 NESDIS, NMFS,

NOAA, USN, States

100 100 80 80 80
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-7

1.1.34 Identify, and obtain data from,

additional sources for GIS application

and analysis.

3 3 NEIT, NESDIS,

NMFS, NOAA, SEIT,

States

40 15 10 - -

Ship Noise and Whale Behavior

1.1.35 Conduct studies of whale responses

to ship noise and to ships of various

types and speeds using techniques

that have no adverse biological or

environmental effects.

1 3 NMFS, USN

60 80 50 - -

Monitoring

1.1.36 Continue to review and evaluate

stranding and photo-identification

data for evidence of collision

between ships and whales.

2 ongoing NMFS, States

40/# 40 40 40 40

1.2 Reducing Fishing Gear

Entanglement

Operations

1.2.1 Develop and implement strategies to

modify fishing operations and gear to

reduce the likelihood of

entanglement, mitigate the effects of

entanglements, and enhance the

possibility of disentanglement, and

assess the effectiveness of such

strategies. 

1 ongoing ALWTRT, NMFS,

States, USCG 

* * * * *

1.2.2 Conduct research on alternative

fishing methods. Implement methods

that offer entanglement risk

reduction.

1 4 ALWTRT, NMFS,

States 80 70 50 20 *
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-8

1.2.3 Work with Canadian officials to

develop means to reduce

entanglement levels in Canadian

waters.

1 ongoing DOS, NMFS

* * * * *

Gear

1.2.4 Conduct studies of gear

modifications that reduce the

likelihood of entanglement.

1 5 ALWTRT, NMFS,

States 350/# 250 220 100 85

1.2.5 Design and implement programs to

incorporate gear modifications that

reduce entanglement into the

fisheries operations.

1 ongoing NMFS, States

100/# 80 60 30 30

1.2.6 Develop and implement schemes to

reduce the rate at which gear is lost.

2 3 NMFS, States 80 80 50 - -

Reporting

1.2.7 Continue to prepare and distribute

information on whale entanglement

to fishermen and other mariners.

1 ongoing ALWTRT, NMFS,

States, USCG 15/# 20 15 5 5

1.2.8 Continue, expand, and improve,

procedures for responding to reports

of entangled whales.

1 ongoing ALWTRT, NMFS,

States, USCG */# * * * *

1.2.9 Expand fisheries observer programs. 3 5 ALWRT, NMFS, 180 250 300 350 350

1.2.10 Continue to review, evaluate, and act

upon reports from fishermen and

fishery observers of fishery

interactions with right whales.

2 ongoing NMFS, States, USCG

*/# * * * *

1.2.11 If evaluations indicate that reporting

can/should be improved, implement

improved systems for reporting.

2 5 ALWTRT, NMFS,

States 15 15 10 10 10
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-9

Disentanglement

1.2.12 When possible and practicable in

terms of safety, disentangle whales

caught in fishing gear. 

1 ongoing NMFS, USCG

400/# 400 300 200 200

1.2.13 Create and maintain regional

disentanglement equipment caches

and make appropriate arrangements

to get disentangling teams and

equipment to entangled whales.

1 ongoing NMFS, USCG

35/# 20 15 15 10

1.2.14 Develop and train additional

disentanglement response teams.

1 5 ALWTRT, NMFS 60/# 60 50 50 30

1.2.15 Explore means of encouraging

vessels to stand by entangled whales.

1 ongoing NMFS 80 30 20 20 20

1.2.16 Design and conduct studies on

advanced disentanglement gear.

1 3 NMFS 15 10 5 - -

1.2.17 Identify and implement ways to

improve disentanglement efforts.

1 5 NMFS, States 15 20 20 15 15

Monitoring of Entanglement Rates

and Evaluation of Protective

Measures

1.2.18 Monitor entanglement-related

survival and mortality rates.

1 ongoing NMFS, States 15 15 15 10 10

1.2.19 Determine whether measures to

reduce entanglement are effective.

1 5 NMFS 50/# 50 30 30 30

1.2.20 Identify and implement steps to

improve protective measures.

1 5 NMFS 50 80 100 100 100

Photo-identification Data Analysis
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-10

1.2.21 Review and evaluate stranding and

photo-identification data to monitor

interactions with fishing gear and 

effectiveness of mitigation measures.

2 ongoing NMFS

200 210 220 230 240

1.3 Continue and Improve Education

and Outreach Programs

Provide Relevant and Timely

Information

1.3. Continue and expand efforts to

educate shipping and fishing

industries by providing updated and

timely information on right whale

vulnerability to ship strikes and

fishing gear entanglement and on

regulatory requirements

1 ongoing NEIT, NMFS, NOS, 

SEIT, States, USCG,

USN

80 70 60 50 50

1.3.2 Ensure that right whale protective

measures are incorporated and

updated in the international Safety

Management Code and Coast Guard

training course for vessel auditors and

inspectors.

1 ongoing NMFS, USCG

* * * * 0

1.3.3 Use voyage planning and merchant

mariner qualification and licensing

programs to raise awareness on

regulatory programs regarding right

whale conservation efforts

2 ongoing NMFS, USCG, NEIT

30 30 25 25 25

1.4 Enforcement

1.4.1 Continue and improve programs to

ensure that fishing and shipping

regulations are enforced.

1 ongoing NMFS, States, USCG

200 200 200 200 200
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-11

1.4.2 Review and assess the efficacy of the

enforcement programs and take steps

to improve the enforcement measures

if deficiencies are identified.

2 ongoing NMFS, USCG

60 80 80 80 85

Objective 2 Develop demographically-based

recovery criteria

1 2 NMFS * *

Objective 3 Identify, characterize, protect and

monitor important right whale

habitats

3.1 Characterize and Monitor Right

Whale Habitat

3.1.1 Compile or collect data to

characterize important habitat

features and potential sources of

human-caused destruction and

degradation of critical habitats.

 2 ongoing NESDIS, NMFS, NOS

10 15 20 25 20

3.1.2 Monitor human activities to assess

potential right whale habitat

degradation.

2 ongoing ACOE, MMS, NEIT,

NMFS, SEIT, States 10 20 15 10 10

3.1.3 Monitor essential habitat features to

assess potentially detrimental shifts

in these features.

2 ongoing NMFS, States

15 20 15 15 15

3.1.4 Develop, implement, and monitor

habitat protection strategies.

1 ongoing ACOE, EPA, MMS,

NMFS, States 15 25 30 30 20

3.1.5 Monitor right whale habitat use

patterns to assess shifts that might

reflect disturbance or degradation of

habitat.

2 ongoing NMFS, NOS, States

25 25 25 25 25
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-12

3.1.6 Conduct comparative studies to more

accurately characterize critical

habitats.

2 5 NMFS

15 15 15 15 15

3.1.7 Collaborate with Canadian

authorities to protect important

habitats and essential habitat features

in Canadian waters.

2 ongoing DFO, DOS, NMFS

 * * * * *

3.1.8 Support Canadian efforts to protect

known right whale habitat in Canada.

2 ongoing DFO, NMFS 20 20 25 25 30

3.1.9 Support efforts to collect and compile

data on habitat use patterns for the

eastern North Atlantic right whale

population.

3 ongoing NMFS

10 10 10 10 10

3.1.10 Collaborate with international

authorities to protect habitat (when

and if identified) for the eastern North

Atlantic right whale population

3 ongoing NMFS

 * * * * *

3.2 Assess the need for modifying

critical habitat boundaries.

3.2.1 Analyze available data and collect

additonal whale sighting data to

assess the modification of critical

habitat boundaries.

2 2 NEIT, NMFS, SEIT,

States 70/# 50 * * *

3.2.2 Revise critical habitat boundaries, if

warranted.

2 3 NMFS, States * * * * *

Coastal Development

3.3.1 Conduct studies to determine the

effects of coastal development

activities on the distribution,

behavior, and productivity of right

whales.

2 5 ACOE, NEIT, NMFS,

SEIT, States

140 140 140 100 100
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-13

3.3.2 Minimize identified adverse effects

from coastal development, as feasible.

2 5 ACOE, NMFS * * * * *

Anthropogenic Noise

3.3.3 Consultations under ESA Section 7. 2 ongoing NMFS * * * * *

 3.3.4 Conduct studies to assess the effects

of anthropogenic noise on the

distribution, behavior, and

productivity of right whales.

3 5 NMFS, USN

80 120 120 100 60

3.3.5 Take steps to minimize identified

adverse effects to right whales from

anthropogenic noise.

2 5 ACOE, MMS, NMFS,

USN, USCG * * * * *

Pollutants

3.3.6 Conduct studies to assess possible

adverse effects of anthropogenic

pollutants on right whales and their

habitats.

2 5 EPA, NEIT, NIST,

NMFS 35 50 80 80 80

3.3.7 Take steps to minimize identified

adverse effects from anthropogenic

pollutants.

2 ongoing EPA, NMFS

30 20 20 15 10

3.3.8 Conduct studies of individual health

and body condition.

2 ongoing NMFS 120 200 200 180 150

Oil and Gas Exploration and other

Industrial Activities

3.3.9 Conduct studies to assess possible

adverse effects of oil, gas, hard

mineral exploration, and other

industrial activities.

3 4 EPA, MMS, NMFS

* * 60 80 -
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-14

3.3.10 Minimize identified adverse effects

from oil, gas, and hard mineral

exploration and development.

2 5 MMS, NMFS

* * * * *

3.3.11 Monitor efforts to implement right

whale-related protection measures in

approved oil and gas exploration and

development plans.

3 5 MMS, NMFS

* 5 15 15 15

3.3.12 Assess and update existing

contingency plans for oil and

chemical spills in waters in which

right whales occur.

2 5 MMS, NMFS, NOS,

States, USCG 80 60 30 20 15

Whale Watching

3.3.13 Conduct studies to assess the shortand long-term effects of whalewatching on right whales, notably

with regard to high-speed vessels

3 4 NMFS, States

15 25 25 5 -

3.3.14 Assess the effectiveness of existing

restrictions on whale watching

activities. If applicable, take steps to

address adverse impacts.

3 5 NMFS, States

* 80 50 50

3.3.15 Continue and expand

education/public awareness programs

to ensure that commercial and

recreational vessel operators are

aware of applicable regulations and

guidelines.

2 ongoing NEIT, NMFS, SEIT,

States, USCG, NOS

10/# 5 5 5 5

Right Whale Research

3.3.16 Assess possible negative impacts of

studies on right whale biology.

2 ongoing NMFS 150 100 50 - -

Federal Activities
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-15

3.3.17 Conduct ESA Section 7 consultations

on Federal activities with potential to

affect right whales.

1 ongoing NMFS, USN, USCG,

ACOE, NOS * * * * *

3.4 Conduct studies to improve

knowledge of the diet, food

requirements, feeding habits, and

food resources of right whales.

2 5 NMFS

25 20 20 15 15

3.4.1 Compile and evaluate information on

the known types, amounts, locations,

and availability of right whale prey.

2 3 NMFS

5 10 5 - -

3.4.2 Review and refine energetic models

to better understand right whale food

requirements and feeding strategies.

2 3 NMFS

5 5 5 - -

Objective 4 Monitor the status and trends of

abundance and distribution of the 

North Atlantic right whale stock

Status

4.1 Develop quantitative recovery

criteria population models to

determine extinction risk.

1 2 NMFS

- 10 10 - -

4.2 Conduct a study or a workshop to

determine the best methods for

assessing right whale status and

trends.

2 1 NMFS

- 15 - - -

4.3 Assess population size, survival rate

and trends on a regular basis.

2 ongoing NEIT, NMFS, SEIT 10 10 10 10 10
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-16

4.3.1 Review and evaluate the status of the 

North Atlantic right whale at least

once every three years. Continue to

review stock assessment at least

annually in accordance with the

MMPA. If needed, improve data

collection and analysis methods.

2 ongoing NMFS

10 - - 20 -

4.3.2 Develop and implement other

population monitoring.programs, as

necessary. 

2 ongoing NMFS

10 10 10 10 10

Distribution

4.4 Monitor right whale occurrence and

habitat use patterns in known highuse areas.

4.4.1 Continue to conduct annual right

whales surveys off the southeast U.S.

coast.

1 ongoing ACOE, NMFS,

States, USCG, USN 350 350 370 400 400

4.4.2 Continue to conduct annual right

whales surveys in the lower Bay of

Fundy.

1 ongoing DFO, NMFS

80/# 100 100 120 150

4.4.3 Continue annual right whales surveys

 in the Great South Channel.

1 ongoing NMFS, USCG, States 180/# 180 180 200 200

4.4.4 Continue to conduct annual right

whales surveys in Cape Cod and

Massachusetts bays.

1 ongoing NMFS, USCG, States

180/# 180 180 200 200

4.4.5 Continue to conduct annual right

whales surveys on the Scotian Shelf.

1 ongoing NMFS 50/# 70 70 90 100

4.4.6 Conduct annual right whale surveys

in waters off the U.S. mid-Atlantic

states.

1 ongoing NMFS, USCG, States

150 150 180 200 200
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-17

4.4.7 As often as possible and where

feasible, photo-identification

photographs should be obtained at

each sighting.

2 ongoing NMFS, States,

Contractors * * * * *

4.4.8 Conduct studies to locate heretofore

unknown high-use areas for this

population.

1 3 NMFS

80 170 170 - -

4.4.9 Further assess Cape Fear North

Carolina to South Carolina as

possible calving areas.

1 ongoing NMFS, USCG, States

 180 180 180 200 200

4.4.10 Design and conduct surveys of likely

wintering areas based on results of

habitat and tracking studies,

historical data, and predictive

models.

2 4 NMFS

30 50 50 20 -

4.4.11 Conduct surveys and/or support

efforts to determine eastern North

Atlantic right whale occurrence in 

European and North African waters

3 3 NMFS

15 15 15 - -

4.4.12 Continue to maintain a database of

right whale sightings.

2 ongoing NMFS 100/# 100 100 110 110

4.5 Maintain a Photo-Identification

Database

4.5.1 Maintain and routinely update the

right whale photo-identification

catalog.

2 ongoing NMFS

80 80 80 80 80

4.5.2 Require that right whale researchers 

provide photographs obtained from

their studies to the curators of the

photo-identification catalog.

2 ongoing NMFS

* * * * *
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-18

4.5.3 Regularly review, evaluate, and

update analyses of data in the right

whale photo-identification catalog.

2 ongoing

every 2 yrs

NMFS

20 20 20 25 20

4.5.4 Conduct studies to determine

population structure using photoidentification data.

2 3 NMFS

 20 50 60 - -

4.6 Respond to Strandings

4.6.1 Continue and improve program for

necropsy of right whale carcasses

1 ongoing NMFS, NOS, SEIT,

States 100 80 80 60 50

4.6.2 Review and improve procedures for

responding to reports of dead right

whales and conducting necropsies.

 1 5 NMFS, NOS, SEIT,

States 50 40 * * *

4.6.3 Improve, develop and implement

protocols for securing and retrieving

stranded or floating right whale

carcasses.

2 5 NMFS, NOS, SEIT,

States 40 30 20 * *

4.6.4 Use necropsies to determine the cause

of death, and use such data to reduce

mortalities.

2 ongoing NMFS, NOS, SEIT,

States 5 5 10 10 10

4.6.5 Analyze tissue collected from

stranded right whales to determine

and monitor contaminant levels.

2 ongoing EPA, NIST, NMFS

10 20 15 10 10

4.6.6 Analyze tissue collected from

necropsies to improve knowledge

about life history and reproductive

parameters of right whales.

2 ongoing NMFS

10 10 10 10 10

4.6.7 Review, analyze, and summarize data

on stranded right whales on a regular

basis.

2 ongoing NMFS

5 5 10 10 15
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-19

4.6.8 Develop and implement a program for

handling live-stranded right whales.

1 ongoing NMFS 50 50 50 50 50

4.6.9 Develop protocols for handling livestranded right whales, including

identification of appropriate

rehabilitation sites.

2 5 NMFS

25 10 * * *

4.6.10 Establish reliable source(s) of funding

for rescue, rehabilitation, necropsy,

and tissue collection and analysis

efforts.

2 5 NMFS

* * * * *

4.7 Conduct Habitat Use Studies (using

telemetry)

4.7.1 Conduct radio and satellite tagging

studies to increase knowledge of right

whale habitat use, distribution, and

habits.

1 5 NMFS

100 100 100 120 140

4.7.2 Conduct studies to assess the most

effective and least intrusive means of

tagging right whales.

1 5 NMFS, USN

100 80 70 20 *

4.7.3 Conduct studies by veterinary experts

to assess short- and long-term

physiological impacts of tagging.

2 3 NMFS

20 15 15 - -

4.7.4 Continue and expand satellite-linked

radio-tagging and tracking to better

identify right whale movements and

habitat use patterns

2 5 NMFS, USN

150 150 150 80 45

4.7.5 Conduct satellite tagging studies to

determine routes and timing of

migration between known high-use

habitats

2 5 NMFS, USN

90 80 80 80 70
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-20

4.7.6 Conduct monitoring surveys to check

for other right whales in the area of

the tagged whale.

2 5 NMFS, Contractors

50 50 50 50 50

4.7.7 Continue and expand VHF radiotagging studies to better assess daily

and seasonal movements in high-use

areas

2 5 NMFS, USN

25 35 50 30 30

4.8 Assess Demography and Stock

Structure

4.8.1 Conduct genetic studies to assess

population structure, effective

population size, current and historic

genetic diversity and possible

impacts on health and reproductive

success.

3 3 NMFS

15 20 15

4.8.2 Conduct genetics workshop. 3 1 NMFS 5

4.8.3 Conduct studies of population

demographics.

2 3 NMFS 15 15 15

4.9 Reproduction and Health

Assessment

4.9.1 Conduct studies to determine the

causes(s) of anomalous or fluctuating

reproductive rates.

2 5 EPA, NMFS, States,

USDA 100 120 120 150 100

4.9.2 If cause(s) of reproductive anomalies

are linked to human activities,

establish programs to mitigate or

eliminate the sources of the impact.

1 5 EPA, MMS, NMFS,

NOS, States, USCG,

USDA 50 80 80 80 80

4.9.3 Conduct studies to assess health at

the individual and population level.

2 5 EPA, NMFS, States,

USDA 120 180 180 200 200
 North Atlantic Right Whale Population Implementation Schedule

V-21

4.9.4 4.9.4 Establish programs to mitigate or

eliminate sources of the impact if

studies indicate that poor individual

or population health is linked to

human activities.

1 5 EPA, MMS, NMFS,

NOS, States, USCG,

USDA 50 80 80 80 80

Objective 5 Coordinate Federal, State,

international and private efforts to

implement the Recovery Plan

5.1 Continue international ban on

hunting and other directed takes of

right whales.

1 ongoing IWC, NMFS, DOS

*/# * * * *

5.2 Enforce right whale protection laws. 1 ongoing NMFS, USCG 180/# 200 250 250 300

5.3 Evaluate the effectiveness of the

Northeast and Southeast

Implementation Teams.

3 1 NEIT, NMFS, SEIT

* - - - -

5.4 Coordinate with States involved in

right whale activities to maximize

protection measures

1 ongoing NEIT, NMFS, SEIT,

States * * * * *

5.5 Promote bi-lateral cooperative

efforts with Canada to maximize

protection for right whales. 

1 ongoing DFO, DOS, NMFS,

USCG * * * * *

5.5.1 Convene regular meetings with

Canadian officials to facilitate bilateral cooperation on protective

measures.

2 ongoing DFO, DOS, NMFS,

USCG * * * * *

5.5.2 Promote actions to enhance

protection for areas of importance,

especially vessel and fishery

interaction issues in Canadian waters.

1 ongoing DFO, DOS, NMFS,

USCG * * * **
V-22

5.6 Periodically review and update the 

North Atlantic Right Whale

Recovery Plan

1 ongoing NMFS, NEIT, SEIT

*

* * * *

5.7 Prepare delisting monitoring plan

for species before delisting occurs.

3 ongoing NMFS * * * * *

* No direct cost associated with this task (NMFS staff time)

+ Task already completed

# Task already underway
VI-1

VI. LITERATURE CITED

Aguilar, A. 1987. Using organochlorine pollutants to discriminate marine mammals populations: A review and

critique of the methods. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 3: 242-262.

Aguilar, A., and A. Borrell. 1996. Marine Mammals and pollutants: An annotated bibliography. Barcelona,

Fundacio pel Desenvolupament Sostenible.

Angliss, R.P., G.K. Silber, R. Merrick. 2002. Report of a workshop on developing recovery criteria for large

whale species. U. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/OPR-21. 36p.

Beamish, P. 1981. Rare sighting of a right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 2:2.

Belovsky, G.E. 1987. Extinction models and mammalian persistence. In M.E. Soule (ed.), Viable populations for

conservation, p. 35-57. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

Best, P.B. 1993. Increase rates in severely depleted stocks of baleen whales. ICES J. of Marine Science 50: 169-

186.

Best, P. 1994. Seasonality of reproduction and the length of gestation in southern right whales Eubalaena

australis. J. Zool., London 232(2): 175-189.

Best, P.B., A. Branadâo, and D.S. Butterworth. 2001. Demographic parameters of southern right whales off South

Africa. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Special issue) 2: 161-169.

Best, P.B. 2001. Report of the workshop on the comprehensive assessment of right whales: a worldwide

comparison. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Special issue) 2: 1- 60.

Brown, M.W., S. Brault, P.K. Hamilton, R.D. Kenney, A.R. Knowlton, M.K. Marx, C.A. Mayo, C.K. Slay, and S.D.

Kraus. 2001. Sighting heterogeneity of right whales in the western North Atlantic: 1980-1992. J.

Cetacean Res. Manage. (Special issue) 2: 245-250.

Brown, M.W., S.D. Kraus, D.E. Gaskin, and B.N. White. 1994. Sexual composition and analysis of reproductive

females in the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) population. Mar Mamm. Sci. 10: 253-

265.

Brown, M.W., and M.K. Marx. 1998. Surveillance, monitoring and management of North Atlantic right whales,

Eubalaena glacialis, in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts: January to mid-May, 1998. Final report

submitted to the Division of Marine Fisheries, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, October 1999,

Contract No. SCFWE3000-8365027.

Brown, S.G. 1976. Modern whaling in Britain and the Northeast Atlantic Ocean. Mammal Rev. 6(1): 25-36.

Brownell, R.L. Jr., P.J. Clapham, T. Miyashita, and T. Kasuya. 2001. Conservation status of North Pacific right

whales. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Special issue) 2: 269-286.

Burnell, S.R. 2001. Aspects of the reproductive biology, movements and site fidelity of right whales off

Australia. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Special issue) 2: 89-102.

Caswell, H., M. Fujiwara, and S. Brault. 1999. Declining survival probability threatens the North Atlantic right

whale. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 96: 3308-3313.

Clapham, P.J. (ed.) 1999. Predicting right whale distribution. Report of the workshop held on October 1st and

2

nd, 1999, in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.

Clapham, P.J., and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1996. Potential for interspecific competition in baleen whales. Rep. Int. Whal.

Comm. 46: 361-367.

Clapham, P.J., S.B. Young, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1999. Baleen whales: conservation issues and the status of the

most endangered populations. Mammal Review 29: 35-60.
VI-2

Colborn, T., and M. Smolen. 1996. An epidemiological analysis of persistent organochlorine contaminants in

cetaceans. Reviews of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology 146: 91-172.

Collet, R. 1909. A few notes on the whale Balaena glacialis and its capture in recent years in the North Atlantic

by Norwegian whalers. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1909: 91-98.

Cooke, J.G., V.J. Rowntree, and R. Payne. 2001. Estimates of demographic parameters for southern right whales

(Eubalaena australis) observed off Península Valdés, Argentina. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Special

issue) 2: 125-132.

Desmoulins. 1822. Eubalaena australis. In Boryde St. Vincent. Dict. Class. Hist. Nat. 2: 161+ plates.

Fromentin, J.M., and B. Planque. 1996. Calanus and environment in the eastern North Atlantic. II. Influence of

the North Atlantic Oscillation on C. finmarchicus and C. helgolandicus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 134: 111-

118.

Gauthier, J.M., C.D. Metcalfe, and R. Sears (1997). Validation of the blubber biopsy technique for monitoring of

organochlorine contaminants in balaenopterid whales. Mar. Env. Res. 43: 157-179.

Geraci, J.R. 1990. Physiologic and toxic effects of oil on cetaceans. In Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St Aubin (ed.) Sea

mammals and oil: Confronting the risks, pp. 167-197. Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Geraci, J.R., D.M. Anderson, R.J. Timperi, D.J. St. Aubin, G.A. Early, J.H. Prescott, and C.A. Mayo. 1989.

Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) fatally poisoned by dinoflagellate toxins. Can. J. of

Fisheries & Aquatic Science 46: 1895-1898.

Geraci, J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin. 1980. Offshore petroleum resource development and marine mammals: a review

and research recommendations. Mar. Fish. Rev. 42: 1-12.

Glockner-Ferrari, D.A., and M.J. Ferrari. 1990. Reproduction in the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)

in Hawaiian waters, 1975-1988: the life history, reproductive rates and behaviour of known individuals

identified through surface and underwater photography. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. (Special issue) 12: 161-

169.

Hamilton, P.K., and C.A Mayo. 1990. Population characteristics of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) observed

in Cape Cod and Massachusetts bays, 1978-1986. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. (Special issue) 12: 203-208.

Hamilton, P.K., and M.K. Marx. 1995. Weaning in North Atlantic right whales. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 11(3): 386-390.

Hamilton, P.K., A.R. Knowlton, M.K. Marx, and S.D. Kraus. 1998a. Age structure and longevity in North Atlantic

right whales Eubalaena glacialis and their relation to reproduction. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 171: 285-292.

Hamilton, P.K., M.K. Marx, and S.D. Kraus. 1998b. Scarification analysis of North Atlantic right whales

(Eubalaena glacialis) as a method of assessing human impacts. Final report to NMFS Northeast

Fisheries Science Center, contract No. 4EANF-6-0004.

Hurrell, J.W. 1995. Decadal trends in the North Atlantic Oscillation: regional temperatures and precipitation.

Science 269: 676-679.

(IWC) International Whaling Commission. 1986. Report of the workshop on the status of right whales. Rep. Int.

Whal. Comm. (Special issue) 10: 1-33.

(IWC) International Whaling Commission. 1998. Report of the workshop on the comprehensive assessment of

right whales: A worldwide comparison. SC/50/REP 4.

(IWC) International Whaling Commission. 2001a. Report of the workshop on the comprehensive assessment of

right whales: A worldwide comparison. J. Cet. Res. Manage (Special issue) 2: 1-60. 

(IWC) International Whaling Commission. 2001b. Report of the Workshop on Status and Trends of Western

North Atlantic Right Whales. J. Cet. Res. Manage. (Special issue) 2: 61-87.
VI-3

Johnson, M.P., and P.L. Tyack. 2003. A digital acoustic recording tag for measuring the response of wild marine

mammals to sound. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 28(1): 3-12.

Kenney, R.D. 2001. Anomalous 1992 spring and summer right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) distributions in the

Gulf of Maine. J. Cet. Res. Manage. (Special issue) 2: 209-223. 

Kenney, R.D. and S.D. Kraus, 1993. Right whale mortality – a correction and an update. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 9: 445-

446.

Kenney, R.D., C.A. Mayo, and H.E. Winn. 2001. Migration and foraging strategies at varying spatial scales in

western North Atlantic right whales: a review of hypotheses. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Special issue)

2: 251-260.

Kenney, R.D, H.E. Winn, and M.C. MacAulay. 1995. Cetaceans in the Great South Channel, 1979-1989: Right

whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Continental Shelf Research Vol. 15(4-5): 385-414.

Kihlström, J.E., M. Olsson, S. Jensen, A. Johansson, J. Ahlbom, and A. Bergman. 1992. Effects of PCB and

different fractions of PCB on the reproduction of the mink (Mustela vison). Ambio 21: 563-569.

Knowlton, A.R., J. Sigurjónsson, J.N. Ciano, and S.D. Kraus. 1992. Long-distance movements of North Atlantic

right whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Mar. Mamm. Sci. 8: 397-405.

Knowlton, A.R., S.D. Kraus, and R.D. Kenney. 1994. Reproduction in North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena

glacialis). Can. J. Zool. 72: 1297-1305.

Knowlton, A.R., and S.D. Kraus. 2001. Mortality and serious injury of northern right whales (Eubalaena

glacialis) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. J. Cet. Res. Manage (Special issue) 2: 193-208.

Kraus, S.D., J.H. Prescott, A.R. Knowlton, and G.S. Stone. 1986. Migration and calving of right whales

(Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. (Special issue) 10: 139-151.

Kraus, S.D., M.J. Crone, and A.R. Knowlton. 1988. The north Atlantic right whale. In W. J. Chandler (ed.)

Audubon Wildlife Report 1988/1989. p.685-698. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA.

Kraus, S.D. 1990. Rates and potential causes of mortality in North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis).

Mar. Mamm. Sci. 6(4): 278-291.

Kraus, S.D., R.D. Kenney, A.R. Knowlton, and J.N. Ciano. 1993. Endangered right whales of the southwestern

North Atlantic. Contract Report No. 14-35-0001-30486 for Minerals Management Service, March 1993.

Kraus, S.D., P.K. Hamilton, R.D. Kenney, A.R. Knowlton, and C.K. Slay. 2001. Reproductive parameters of the

North Atlantic right whale. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Special issue) 2: 231-236.

Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet, and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions between ships and whales.

Mar. Mamm. Sci. 17(1): 35-75.

Lien, J., W. Ledwell, and J. Huntington. 1989. Whale and shark entrapments in inshore fishing gear in

Newfoundland and Labrador during 1989. Report to the Newfoundland and Labrador Dept. of

Fisheries and the Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, 30 pp.

Loughlin, T.R. 1994. Tissue hydrocarbon levels and the number of cetaceans found dead after the spill. In

Loughlin T.R., ed. Marine mammals and the Exxon Valdez, pp. 359-370. Academic Press, New York.

Mace, G.M., and R. Lande. 1991. Assessing extinction threats: toward a reevaluation of IUCN threatened species

categories. Cons. Biol. 5: 148-157.

Malik, S., M.W. Brown, S.D. Kraus, A.R. Knowlton, P.K. Hamilton, and B.N. White. 1999. Assessment of

mitochondrial DNA structuring and nursery use in the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis).

Can. J. Zool. 77: 1-6.
VI-4

Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird. 1983. Investigations of the potential effects of

underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating gray whale behavior. Bolt, Beranek

and Newman report number 5366 submitted to Minerals Management Service, U.S. Dept. of Interior.

Marx, M.K., P.K. Hamilton, and S.D. Kraus. 1999. Skin lesions on North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena

glacialis): 1980-1996. Page 116 in Proceedings of the 13th Biennial Conference on the Biology of

Marine Mammals Lawrence, KS: Society for Marine Mammalogy.

Mate, B.R., S.L. Nieukirk, and S.D. Kraus. 1997. Satellite-monitored movements of the northern right whale. J.

Wildlife Manage. 61(4): 1393-1405.

Mayo C.A., and Marx, M.K. 1990. Surface foraging behavior of the North Atlantic right whale, Eubalaena

glacialis, and associated zooplankton characteristics. Can. J. Zool. 68: 2214-2220.

Mead, J.G. 1986. Twentieth-century records of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the northwestern Atlantic

Ocean. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. (Special issue) 10: 109-120.

Meffe, G.K. and C.R. Carroll. 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology. Second Edition. 729p.

Mitchell, E. 1975. Trophic relationships and competition for food in northwest Atlantic whales. Proc. Can. Soc.

Zool. Annual Meeting 1974: 123-133.

Mitchell, E., V.M. Kozicki, and R.R. Reeves. 1986. Sightings of right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, on the Scotian

Shelf, 1966-1972. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. (Special issue) 10: 83-107.

Moore, S., and J. Clarke. 1963. Discovery of right whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Science 141: 269.

Moore, M., C. Miller, A. Weisbrod, D. Shea, P. Hamilton, S. Kraus, V. Rowntree, N. Patenaude, and J. Stegeman.

1998. Cytochrome P450 1A and chemical contaminants in dermal biopsies of northern and southern

right whales. Unpubl. Doc. SC/M98/RW24. Submitted to the IWC Workshop on the Comprehensive

Assessment of Right Whales: A Worldwide Comparison, Cape Town, South Africa, May 1998.

Muller, J. 1954. Observations on the orbital region of the skull of the Mystacoceti. Zoologische Mededelingen

32(23): 279-290.

Müller. 1776. B[alaena] glacialis. Zool. Danicae prodr., 7 pp.

Murison, L.D., and D.E. Gaskin. 1989. The distribution of right whales and zooplankton in the Bay of Fundy,

Canada. Can. J. Zool. 67: 1411-1420.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991. Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale, Eubalaena

glacialis. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. 86 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2004. Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Advanced notice of

proposed rulemaking (ANPR) for right whale ship strike reduction. Federal Register, 1 June 2004, 69

(105): 30857-30864.

Nowacek, D., K.A. Shorter, J. Partan, C. Carson, S. Parks, M. Johnson, P. Tyack, D. Allen, S. Nowacek, and A.

Bocconcelli. 2001. Assessing ship strike risk factors: An update on the DTAG project. Abstracts from

the Right Whale Consortium Meeting, October 2001. In North Atlantic Right Whale Biology and

Management: A Compilation of Recent Reports by NMFS Biologists and Contractors 1999-2001,

National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, February 2002.

O'Shea, T.J., and R.L. Brownell. 1994. Organochlorine and metal contaminants in baleen whales: a review and

evaluation of conservation implications. Science of the Total Env. 154: 179-200.

Payne, R.S., and S. McVay. 1971. Songs of humpback whales. Science 173 (3997): 585-597.

Payne, R. 1986. Age at sexual maturity and calf mortality as determined from identified calves. Rep. Int. Whal.

Comm. (Special issue) 10: 31-32.
VI-5

Payne, P.M., D.N. Wiley, S.B. Young, S. Pittman, P.J. Clapham, and J.W. Jossi. 1990. Recent fluctuations in the

abundance of baleen whales in the southern Gulf of Maine in relation to changes in selected prey. Fish.

Bull. 88 (4): 687-696.

Reeves, R.R. 2001. Overview of catch history, historic abundance and distribution of right whales in the western

North Atlantic and in Cintra Bay, West Africa. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Special issue) 2: 187-192.

Reeves, R.R., J.M. Breiwick, and E.D. Mitchell. 1999. History of whaling and estimated kill of right whales,

Balaena glacialis, in the northeastern United States, 1860-1924. Mar. Fish. Rev. 61 (3): 1-36.

Reeves, R.R., J.G. Mead, and S. Katona. 1978. The right whale, Eubalaena glacialis, in the western North

Atlantic. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 28: 303-312.

Reeves, R.R., and E. Mitchell. 1986. The Long Island, NY right whale fishery: 1650-1924. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm.

(Special issue) 10: 201-220.

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic

Press, San Diego. 576 pp.

Rosenbaum, H.C., M.G. Egan, P.J. Clapham, R.L. Brownell, Jr., M.W. Brown, B.N. White, S. Malik, P.D. Walsh,

and R. DeSalle. 2000. Utility of North Atlantic right whale museum specimens in assessing changes in

genetic diversity. Cons. Biol. 14 (6): 1837-1842.

Scarff, J.E. 1986. Historic and present distribution of the right whale, Eubalaena glacialis, in the eastern North

Pacific south of 50N and east of 180W. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. (Special issue) 10: 43-63.

Schaeff, C.M, S.D. Kraus, M.W. Brown, and B.N. White. 1993. Assessment of the population structure of

western North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) based on sighting and mtDNA data. Can. J.

Zool. 71: 339-445.

Schaeff, C.M, S.D. Kraus, M.W. Brown, J.S. Perkins, R. Payne, and B. White. 1997. Comparison of genetic

variability of North and South Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena), using DNA fingerprinting. Can. J.

Zool. 75: 1073-1080.

Schevill, W.E., W.A. Watkins, and K.E. Moore. 1986. Status of Eubalaena glacialis off Cape Cod. Rep. Int.

Whal. Comm. (Special issue) 10: 79-82.

Schmidly, D.J., C.O. Martin, and G.F. Collins. 1972. First occurrence of a black right whale (Balaena glacialis)

along the Texas coast. Southwestern Nat. 17 (2): 214-215.

Shaffer, M.L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 31: 131-134.

Shaffer, M.L. 1987. Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty. In M.E. Soule (ed.) Viable

populations for conservation, p. 69-86. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

Slay, C.K., S.D. Kraus, P.K. Hamilton, A.R. Knowlton, and L.A. Conger. 1998. Early warning system 1994-1997.

Aerial surveys to reduce ship/whale collisions in the North Atlantic right whale calving ground.

Unpubl. Doc. SC/M98/RW6 submitted to the IWC Workshop on the Comprehensive Assessment of

Right Whales: A Worldwide Comparison, Cape Town, South Africa, May 1998.

Soule, M.E. 1987. Where do we go from here? In M. E. Soule (ed.) Viable populations for conservation, p. 175-

183. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

Stone, G.S., L. Flores-Gonzalez, and S. Cotton. 1990. Whale migration record. Nature London. 346: 705.

Taylor, A.H., M.B. Jordan, and J.A. Stephens. 1998. Gulf Stream shifts following ENSO events. Nature 393: 638.

Terhune, J.M. and W.C. Verboom. 1999. Right whales and ship noises. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 15: 256-258.

Thompson, G.G. 1991. Determining minimum viable populations under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dep.

Commer, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-198. 78 p.
VI-6

United State Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service (USFWS-NMFS). 1996. Policy

regarding the recognition of distinct vertebrate population segments under the Endangered Species

Act. Federal Register, 7 February 1996, 61(26):4722-4725.

Waring, G.T., D.L. Palka, P.J. Clapham, S. Swartz, M.C. Rossman, T.V.N. Cole, K.B. Bisack, and L.J. Hansen. 1999.

U.S. Atlantic marine mammal stock assessments–1998. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-114, 250 pp.

Waring, G.T., J.M. Quintal, and S.L. Swartz. (eds) 2000. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock

Assessments -- 2000. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-162, 300 pp.

Watkins, W.A., and W.E. Schevill. 1982. Observations of right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, in Cape Cod

waters. Fish. Bull. 80(4): 875-880.

Watkins, W.A. 1986. Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 2(4): 251-262.

Winn, H.E. 1984. Development of a right whale sighting network in the Southeast U.S. Report to the U.S.

Marine Mammal Commission, MMC – 82/05. National Technical Information Service. PB84-240548,

v+12pp.

Winn, H.E., C.A. Price, and P.W. Sorensen. 1986. The distributional biology of the right whale (Eubalaena

glacialis) in the western North Atlantic. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. (Special issue) 10: 129-138.

Wishner, K., E. Durbin, A. Durbin, M. Macaulay, H. Winn, and R. Kenney. 1988. Copepod patches and right

whales in the Great South Channel off New England. Bull. Mar. Sci. 43 (3): 825-844.

Woodley, T.H., M.W. Brown, S.D. Kraus, and D.E. Gaskin. 1991. Organochlorine levels in North Atlantic right

whale (Eubalaena glacialis) blubber. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 21 (1): 141-145.

Yablokov, A.V. 1994. Validity of whaling data. Nature 367: 108.
VIIA-1

VII. APPENDICES

A. CONSULTATION HISTORY 

Under section 7 of the ESA and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402.14, Federal agencies are required to

review their actions and consult with NMFS on any action that may affect listed species or critical habitat for

species under NMFS’ jurisdiction (including right whales). Many of the recovery activities for all endangered

and threatened species are implemented through consultations between NMFS and other Federal agencies. As a

result of these consultations, NMFS issues either a letter of concurrence that any activity is not likely to

adversely affect a species or critical habitat, or a Biological Opinion for activities likely to adversely affect a

species or critical habitat. A Biological Opinion indicates if the activity is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of the species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat and, if so, provides

reasonable and prudent alternatives to the activity. In those cases where NMFS concludes that an action (or

implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternatives) and the resultant incidental take of listed species is

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat, NMFS specifies reasonable and prudent measures necessary and appropriate to

minimize effects of the action on the species of concern.

Consultations between NMFS and the USCG and the U.S. Navy follow. Additional consultations between

NMFS's Office of Protected Resources and NMFS's Office of Sustainable Fisheries (on the issuance of fishery

management plans) are also discussed in the following section.

Consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard

The USCG and NMFS have cooperated informally for many years. For example, since 1993, USCG ship and

aircraft operators have provided reports of numerous "floaters", carcasses adrift at sea. Also, USCG vessels have

been available to transport researchers and disentanglement teams to stranded and entangled whales, and

vessels and aircraft have been deployed to photo-document or when possible, recover floaters. As noted

elsewhere in this document, the USCG has been an active participant in regional recovery plan implementation

teams and has contributed to aircraft surveillance and sighting location communication systems. This effort also

involves NMFS staff providing training and materials to USCG vessel and aircraft personnel. In addition, as

noted above, the USCG is working jointly with NMFS to administer the Mandatory Ship Reporting system.

In 1991 and in 1993, USCG vessels collided with and killed right whales. In addition, a USCG vessel struck a

humpback whale in 1995 and another potentially had an interaction with a humpback whale in 1997. These events

triggered ESA Section 7 consultations with NMFS.

On 15 September 1995, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion on USCG vessel activities which concluded that the

programs implemented since the 1993 incident were adequate to reduce the probability of another ship strike.

That factor, combined with available information indicating a small but steady 2.5 percent population growth rate,

resulted in a determination that continued vessel activities may adversely affect, but would not jeopardize the

continued existence of the right whale population. However, on 7 November 1995, the USCG reinitiated

consultation. The new Biological Opinion, issued in June 1996, rendered a different (jeopardy) conclusion. This

conclusion was based on the increased level of known mortality and the potential magnitude of those impacts to

the population, including the possibility that the northern right whale might have been experiencing a population

decline; the potential biological removal figure for the northern right whale and its small population size; the lack

of any measurable recovery progress for the northern right whale; and the cumulative sources of human-induced

mortality.

The June 1996 Biological Opinion provided the USCG with reasonable and prudent alternatives, stating that the

USCG must significantly reduce the possibility of vessel collisions with right whales, including those by nonUSCG vessels where the agency has the authority to act. If implemented fully and in a timely manner, the

alternatives would significantly reduce the USCG's potential to cause injury or mortality to a right whale and,

therefore, would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of right whales. The following are

significant measures put forth by both the 1995 and 1996 opinions, considered necessary to ensure that USCG

vessel operations were not likely to jeopardize the north Atlantic right whale:

When and where possible, routine transits should avoid right whale habitats when whales are aggregated

there. During standard operations, USCG vessels should maintain minimum distances of 500 yards from right

whales and 100 yards from other large whale species.
VIIA-2

All USCG vessels must post dedicated lookouts during all transits, both emergency and non-emergency, that

occur within 20nm of shore in addition to posting lookouts during transits in all right whale high-use areas.

Vessel operators should also take necessary precautions to avoid whales.

All dedicated lookouts must have completed a marine mammal training program. This requirement should be

standardized and made part of USCG qualification criteria for bridge watch standers. The training should

also increase the effectiveness of the agency in whale watch enforcement actions and in providing

disentanglement assistance.

From mid-December through March in the SEUS, broadcasts reporting right whale sightings should be

transmitted as quickly as possible over all practicable means to as wide a distribution of vessels possible. The

message should advise mariners within 15 nautical miles (nm) of the sighting to operate at the slowest safe

speed, exercise caution, and keep a watch for right whales.

The USCG should continue its active participation in regional recovery plan implementation teams, and

provide support for aerial surveys during periods of high use in the different regions.

The USCG must provide information to commercial and recreational vessel operators that is geared to

avoiding collisions with endangered whales. It should include information to identify whales, what the

operator can do to avoid causing them harm, critical habitat and high-use areas, and regulations applicable

to the protection of right whales. Operators must be instructed to report all collisions or sightings of dead

right whales immediately. Also, the USCG will work with appropriate agencies to ensure that publications

commonly used by U.S. mariners for voyage planning purposes (i.e., the Coast Pilot and Sailing Directions)

include information useful to avoiding vessel collisions with endangered whales. In addition, the USCG must

continue to provide timely information on endangered whale sighting locations to commercial vessels coming

into major ports in both the New England and Georgia/Florida critical habitats. The USCG must develop, in

cooperation with NMFS, a plan to alert commercial traffic through port pilots, Captain's of the Port, Vessel

Traffic Service, and others who are aware of the expected arrival time of ships in the various ports, and request

them to relay this information to shippers.

The USCG once again entered into consultation following the July 1997 interaction with a humpback whale.

NMFS issued a Biological Opinion on 18 May 1998, which provided a non-jeopardy decision (contingent upon

implementation of all previous requirements of the 1995 and 1996 Biological Opinions) and provided a number of

conservation recommendations. Among other things, NMFS recommended that the USCG:

• evaluate all its authorities to identify opportunities to take affirmative actions to conserve threatened and

endangered species in fulfillment of section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act;

• assess mission requirements such as full power trials so that they can be scheduled during times of year and

in areas where/when they present the least hazard to endangered and threatened species;

• periodically review compliance with the speed guidance it has issued, including interviews and surveys of

Commanding Officers as part of a monitoring program to evaluate their knowledge or understanding of the

speed guidance;

• provide assistance in identifying, reporting, marking and towing right whale carcasses to a location for

necropsy;

• initiate the Gulf of Mexico operations and “marine event” consultations within 6 months of issuance of the

Biological Opinion;

• continue training courses for USCG lookouts; develop information on critical habitats, marine 

sanctuaries, and endangered species migration routes, feeding areas, and breeding areas for use by 

mariners and boaters; distribute information geared toward cautioning commercial and recreational vessel

traffic about collisions with right whales as part of the USCG Vessel Documentation and Inspection

Program; educate mariners about right whales and other protected marine species through International

Safety Management code policy documents; modify training courses for safety auditors and inspectors and
VIIA-3

USCG personnel responsible for safety inspections and ensure that these courses are being modified to

include information on right whales and other protected marine species; and

• assist in development and implementation of the mandatory ship reporting system.

In general, the USCG has made a strong and active effort to implement the reasonable and prudent alternatives

and conservation recommendations identified in the Biological Opinions.

Consultation with the U.S. Navy: 

In the first three months of 1996, six right whale deaths were documented. Five of these occurred in waters

adjacent to SEUS critical habitat. Navy facilities are adjacent to the critical habitat and use offshore areas for

gunnery exercises. Because several of the carcasses were found near a Navy gunnery range, it is possible that

some deaths may have been related to underwater explosions and there was concern that Navy activities may

have been involved in some deaths. Given the serious concern over the status of right whales, the Navy and

NMFS began convening meetings in mid-February 1996. Although there was no clear evidence linking the right

whale deaths to the Navy's activities, the Navy formally initiated consultation with NMFS in March 1996 on the

potential impacts of their gunnery and air-dropped ordnance operations in waters off the SEUS. The purpose of

this consultation was to ensure that the Navy was taking all appropriate measures to protect right whales and to

determine, if possible, the cause(s) of death of the whales. The scope of the consultation was expanded to

include all Navy vessel and aircraft activities related to training in the consultation area. NMFS issued a (nonjeopardy) Biological Opinion on these specific Navy activities in May 1997.

Among the protective or mitigative measures considered prior to issuance of the Biological Opinion were: moving

gunnery and ordnance activities well outside critical habitat and contiguous high-density areas; limiting the

scope of naval activities in critical habitat and adjoining areas to those that occur at a slow, safe speed; moving

other activities that require higher vessel speeds away from the critical habitat and adjoining areas; limiting

vessel traffic in these areas to the extent possible; and providing dedicated lookouts for surface ships while

operating in critical habitat.

By early-1996 (prior to issuance of the Biological Opinion) the Navy had already taken steps to alter its

operations to minimize potential impact to right whales. These measures included (a) instructing all Navy ships

entering or leaving port to follow an east-west course (i.e., the shortest route) through critical habitat; (b) altering

most Navy ship operations to use moderate speed (10-15 knots) in the critical habitat when no right whales were

present and slower speeds when whales were near the ship; (c) providing special training in whale identification

for lookout and bridge watch personnel and directing ship officers to stay well clear of whales; (d) committing to

continued participation in regional early warning/sighting advisory systems; and (e) moving gunnery and aircraft

bombing training sessions at least 50nm from shore. These and other protective measures remain in effect.

Consultations on Various Fisheries:

American Lobster Fishery: In December 1996 a Biological Opinion was issued following a consultation on fishing

conducted under the American Lobster Fishery Management Plan. The opinion concluded that operations under

the current Fishery Management Plan (FMP), including anticipated management actions over the next six months,

were likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the northern right whale, but were not likely to jeopardize any

other endangered or threatened species under NMFS jurisdiction. The reasonable and prudent alternatives

identified in the opinion led to the publication of an emergency interim regulation under the authority of the

MMPA (62 FR 16108, 4 April 1997) that restricted the use of lobster pot gear in CCB critical habitat from 1 April 

to 15 May, and in the GSC critical habitat from 1 April to 30 June. The State of Massachusetts implemented a

similar closure in CCB critical habitat in state waters. These closures remain in effect until gear modifications or

alternative fishing practices are approved that minimize the risk of entanglement or reduce the likelihood that an

entanglement will result in serious injury or mortality.

The opinion also tasked NMFS with analyzing fishing effort in relation to whale distribution. NMFS analysis, in

coordination with the states, has begun to assess fishing effort, but models to predict shifts in effort have not yet

been developed. This alternative is a long-term measure, which, in combination with the closures as short-term

measures, and in combination with an expanded disentanglement response network capability, brought the

impact of the fishery to below the jeopardy threshold for right whales.

Under the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Fishery Conservation and Management Act, NMFS worked with the

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to develop a new management strategy for the lobster fishery. A
VIIA-4

multi-state plan was developed and is being implemented.

Northeast Multispecies Groundfish Fishery: Consultation was undertaken on fishing conducted under the

Multispecies FMP. A Biological Opinion, issued in December 1996, concluded that actions under this FMP were

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the northern right whale, but were not likely to jeopardize any other

endangered species under NMFS jurisdiction. The alternatives included short-term measures to prevent

jeopardizing right whales, with longer term solutions expected later. As a result of the alternatives identified in the

opinion, NMFS worked with the New England Fishery Management Council to develop regulations under the

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (62 FR 15425, 1 April 1997). The

regulations closed Federal waters to multispecies gillnet gear in parts of the following right whale critical habitat

areas: CCB from 27 March 1997 to 15 May 1997, and from 1 January to 15 May in subsequent years; and the GSC

from 1 April to 30 June, annually. Concurrently, the State of Massachusetts prohibited gillnets from critical

habitat in CCB within state waters from 1 January to 15 May. In addition, other closures are in effect under the

multispecies plan for purely fishery management reasons and for protection of harbor porpoises (Phocoena

phocoena).

Atlantic Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species: The Atlantic Pelagic Fishery for swordfish, tuna and shark was

reviewed under an intra-agency consultation to address the potential for right whale entanglement in gear used in

these fisheries. The resulting Biological Opinion concluded that continued operation of the southeastern Atlantic

gillnet fishery for shark which occurs when right whales are present in SEUS critical habitat was likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of the right whale. One report potentially linking a right whale mortality to the

shark driftnet fishery occurred off Florida. The marks on a freshly wounded right whale calf were consistent with

gillnet gear; and the shark fishery was the only gillnet fishery operating in the area at the time. Therefore, one of

the primary alternatives was closure of shark driftnet operations in SEUS critical habitat and adjacent waters from

15 November – 31 March, consistent with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. In another incident, a

right whale was observed entangled in a swordfish driftnet in the northeast. However, the Biological Opinion

concluded that the probability of an interaction with this fishery in the offshore area, where the northeast

segment of this fishery generally operates, is remote since right whale occurrence in these areas is infrequent.

Also, the whale involved in the incident had already been compromised by a previous entanglement in lobster

gear. However, it was noted that the winter/spring, mid-Atlantic component of this fishery had the greatest

potential of the northern components to entangle right whales because the fishery was operating on the shelf

edge which is much closer to shore in the mid-Atlantic. Therefore, the opinion also recommended closure of the

winter pelagic driftnet fishery for swordfish, tuna, and sharks to protect right whales. Other recommendations

included educational workshops for fishermen, implementation of a limited access system, and 100 percent

observer coverage (an observed take would close the fishery). The conclusions of this opinion led to an

emergency closure of the fishery from December 1996 to June 1997; the closure was subsequently extended for

six months. NMFS issued an amended opinion in August 1997 to evaluate the impacts of this fishery on

endangered and threatened species. This amended opinion again recommended closure of the mid-Atlantic

(winter) pelagic driftnet fishery for swordfish, tuna, and shark. NMFS issued a rule extending the closure, under

authority of the ESA, to August 1998. 

In January 1999, NMFS published a final rule to prohibit the use of driftnets in the pelagic swordfish and tuna

fishery. NMFS expressed concern about the high marine mammal bycatch level in this fishery and the difficulty in

managing such a limited fishery under bycatch reduction constraints. In October 1998, NMFS issued a proposed

rule to prohibit pelagic driftnets in the Atlantic tuna fishery and the final rule was published in 1999.

American Lobster Fishery, Multi-species Groundfish Fishery, Monkfish Fishery, and Spiny Dogfish Fishery: In

May 2000, NMFS requested consultation on Fisheries Management Plans for the (a) American Lobster Fishery,

(b) Multi-species Groundfish Fishery, (c) Monkfish Fishery, and (d) Spiny Dogfish Fishery. The requests for

consultation were made because of several right whale entanglements in 1999, one resulting in the death of a

right whale; two additional right whale deaths in the recent years, one in which fishing gear was implicated as a

contributing factor; and new information provided by the International Whaling Commission regarding modeling

results indicating that the North Atlantic right whale population may be declining. In the Biological Opinions

resulting from the consultations, NMFS concluded that the prosecution of the fisheries under the management

plans was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the North Atlantic right whale, but not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of humpback, fin, sei, blue, and sperm whales. The Opinions, issued on 14

June 2001, identified reasonable and prudent alternatives for execution by NMFS, which included:

• developing and implementing annual restrictions to fishing operations aimed at minimizing interactions

between fisheries and right whales, with a management strategy to be implemented by a final rule no later than

December 31, 2001;
VIIA-5

• implementing a “dynamic area management” program to supplement annual restrictions with temporary

closures at times and in places where right whales aggregate, with the final strategy to be implemented with a

rule no later than 31 December 2001;

• expanding gillnet gear modification research program and extension of gear modification requirements to

include waters off mid-Atlantic and southeast states and

monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the measures identified in the reasonable and prudent

alternatives

NMFS implemented the fishery restrictions provided under the reasonable and prudent alternatives through three

rules that (1) make further modifications to commercial fishing gear (67 FR 1300, January 10, 2002; see also 67 FR

15493, April 2, 2002; 67 FR 59471, September 23, 2002), (2) establish restricted areas based on annual, predictable

aggregations of right whales (67 FR 1142, January 9, 2002), and (3) establish a system for restricting fishing in

areas where unexpected aggregations of right whales are observed (67 FR 1133, January 9, 2002; see also 68 FR

51195, August 26, 2003).
VIIB-1

B. GLOSSARY AND LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACOE – Army Corps of Engineers

ALWTRT – Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team

CCB – Cape Cod Bay 

CCS – Center for Coastal Studies

DFO – Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada)

DPS – Distinct Population Segment

DOS – Department of State

EEZ – Exclusive Economic Zone

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

ESA – Endangered Species Act

EWS – Early Warning System

FMP – Fishery Management Plan 

GIS – Geographic Information Systems

GSC – Great South Channel

IFAW – International Fund for Animal Welfare

IMO – International Maritime Organization

IWC – International Whaling Commission 

MA – Massachusetts 

MET – Massachusetts Environmental Trust

MMC – Marine Mammal Commission 

MMPA – Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMS – Minerals Management Service

MSR – Mandatory Ship Reporting

NEA – New England Aquarium

NEC – Northeast Fisheries Science Center

NEIT – Northeastern Implementation Team

NER – Northeast Region Office

NESDIS – National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service

NIMA – National Imagery and Mapping Agency

NIST – National Institute of Standards and Technology

NMFS – National Marine and Fisheries Service

NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOS – National Ocean Service

PAH – Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PCB – Polychlorinated Biphenyls

SBNMS – Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

SEIT – Southeastern Implementation Team

SEUS – Southeast United States

SOSUS – Sound Surveillance System

USDA – U.S. Department of Agriculture
VIIB-2

USCG – U.S. Coast Guard

USN – U.S. Navy
VIIC-1

C. THREATS ANALYSIS (THE FIVE LISTING FACTORS)

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires that any determination of the status of a species consider possible threats (or

reduction of threats) to a species in five areas (i.e., the five factors for listing). That is, threats to a species

resulting from activities in one or more of the five areas is sufficient justification to add a species to the List. 50

CFR 424.11(d) provides that the same five factors must be considered in any de- or down-listing action. Thus,

reasonable justification and data need to be provided indicating that significant threats, or inadequate protection,

are not still posed in any one these areas. In this regard, addressing the five factors is a necessary component of

the criteria identified here when considering reclassification of North Atlantic right whales.

(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range

In any reclassification action, reasonable justification and data need to be provided that habitat destruction or

degradation is not a factor in continued recovery of the population.

Unlike many terrestrial species, right whales and other cetaceans do not directly compete with a burgeoning

human population for space (Clapham et al. 1999). Since humans do not permanently colonize marine

environments, habitat loss (in the strict sense of the term) is not, at this time, believed to be a serious issue for

most large whales. However, since right whales are often dependent on restricted waters adjacent to highly

developed coastline, habitat degradation may not be a trivial matter for this species, and in fact threats can

certainly arise from onshore and near shore activities.

Probably the most tangible source of habitat degradation for baleen whales is spilled oil. Data on the effects of

oil pollution on cetaceans are inconclusive, and the large baleen whales appear to be generally unaffected by oil

per se (Geraci 1990, Loughlin 1994b). General concerns with regard to oil pollution are ingestion of contaminated

prey, potential irritation of skin and eyes, inhalation of toxic fumes, and abandonment of polluted feeding habitat

(Geraci and St. Aubin 1980, Geraci 1990). Currently, there are no known plans for oil exploration in the major

habitats of the North Atlantic right whale, but the possibility remains for the future.

The potential for additional habitat degradation comes from a variety of sources. The effect on critical behavior

(foraging, mating, nursing etc.) of noise pollution from shipping or oil and gas development is unclear, although

various observations suggest that marine mammals can habituate well to even quite high levels of sound (Geraci

and St. Aubin, 1980, Richardson et al. 1995). Playback experiments on gray and bowhead whales indicate that

whales will actively avoid a very loud sound source (Malme et al. 1983), but whether real-life sources (such as

drilling platforms) negatively impact behavior to the point that it diminishes reproductive success and population

productivity is unclear.

There are some suggestions that increased pleasure boat traffic disrupts behavior (e.g., in humpback whales,

(Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari 1990)). Such craft as parasails, jet skis and fast power boats can pose a threat to

whales even if their operators are not intentionally focusing their attention on the animal itself. Pleasure boat

traffic exists in various coastal areas, with little regulation or enforcement; however, its impact on right whales is

unknown.

Dredging of harbors and port channels occurs in a number of locations in or near areas where right whales

aggregate. Noise, ship traffic, disposal of dredge material and related activities may all serve to degrade right

whale habitat. The overall effect is unknown. At present, efforts are made to reduce adverse effect on right

whales, primarily by posting observers on ships transporting dredge spoils to reduce the risk of ship strikes. 

More information is needed to determine specific impacts, if any, from these activities.

A final source of possible habitat degradation for right whales is contaminants. The impact of pollutants on right

whales is debatable. The subject is reviewed by O’Shea and Brownell (1994), who conclude that there is

currently no evidence for significant contaminant-related problems in baleen whales. Although much more

research needs to be conducted, existing data on mysticetes support the view that the lower trophic levels at

which these animals feed should result in smaller contaminant burdens than would be expected in many

odontocetes, which typically show burdens that differ from those of baleen whales by an order of magnitude

(O'Shea and Brownell, 1994). There is currently no persuasive evidence for any of the problems that have been

linked to excessive contaminant burdens in some terrestrial mammals, such as reproductive failure or immune

system suppression (e.g., mink, Mustela vison; Kihlström et al., 1992). However, the manner in which pollutants

negatively impact animals is complex and difficult to study, particularly in taxa (such as large whales) for which

many of the key variables and pathways are unknown (Aguilar, 1987; O'Shea and Brownell, 1994). A more

plausible potential problem is that of transgenerational accumulation (Colborn and Smolen 1996), but this remains
VIIC-2

unstudied in right whales or any other cetacean.

As noted above, if a change in North Atlantic right whale listing status is proposed, these issues need to be

carefully assessed and determinations made that they no longer adversely affect right whales and are not likely to

do so in the foreseeable future.

(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes

Right whales have not been the target of commercial hunting in the North Atlantic since 1935, and relatively few

catches were made in the 20th century prior to that date. As noted elsewhere in this plan, there is no evidence

that the illegal harvest of whales by the USSR included any North Atlantic right whales.

With regard to recreational and educational use, problems may arise from boats whose operations are directed at

the whales themselves, i.e., whalewatching from either commercial or private vessels. It is likely that large-scale,

unregulated whalewatching, involving numerous boats circling and pursuing a whale, will temporarily disrupt

vital behavior such as feeding, courtship, and nursing. The impact of such harassment on the reproductive

success of individuals has not been studied and is unknown, but continued exposure of any individual whale to

such activity is probably relatively low. Currently, close approach by vessels within 500 yards of North Atlantic

right whales (if in U.S. waters) is not permitted, although this activity is allowed in Canada.

Scientific activities on right whales frequently involve close approaches to the animals for the purpose of

photographic, genetic, or behavioral sampling. These activities are controlled by permits in both U.S. and

Canadian waters, and potential negative impact on the animals is considered in the permitting process. At

present, there is little restriction to the number of scientific permits or the types of scientific activities undertaken,

and efforts are needed to ensure coordination of research activities between U.S. and Canada and among

researchers.

If reclassification is considered for the north Atlantic right whale, absolute assurances are needed that right

whales are not being taken for commercial purposes. In addition, assurances are needed that whalewatching and

scientific research activities are not affecting population ecology of right whales and are not likely to do so in the

foreseeable future.

(C) Disease or predation

Unlike in some dolphin and pinniped (i.e., seals and sea lions) species, there have been no recorded epizootics in

baleen whales. The only known case of a mass mortality was that of humpback whales in the southern Gulf of

Maine in 1987/88. Geraci et al. (1989) provide strong evidence that these deaths resulted from consumption of

mackerel whose livers contained high levels of saxitoxin, a naturally occurring red-tide toxin, the origin of which

remains unknown. It has been suggested that red tide phenomena are somehow related to increased freshwater

runoff from coastal development, a link that has led some observers to suggest that such events may become

more common among marine mammals. However, there is currently no evidence linking red tide toxins to deaths

or chronic health problems in right whales.

The occurrence of skin lesions on North Atlantic right whales has been documented in recent years, with an

apparent increase in frequency culminating in a peak in 1995 when they were observed on 24% of photographed

individuals (Marx et al. 1999). The origins and significance of these lesions are unknown, and further research is

required to determine whether they represent a topical or systemic health problem for the affected animals. 

Current knowledge of natural predation on right whales is discussed elsewhere in this plan. Predation of right

whales likely occurs by killer whales and large shark species, but the level is not documented. Neither assessing

the level of predation, nor attempting to alter the level is likely feasible or recommended in any de-listing action. 

However, evidence of disease in right whales, particularly those that may be directly or indirectly linked to human

activities, should be assessed. Any proposal to reclassify right whales needs to provide assurances that disease

does not affect the population ecology of the species and is not likely to do so in the foreseeable future.

(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

Right whales are protected under both U.S. and Canadian law, and internationally by the International Whaling

Commission, so the overall legal framework and mechanisms appear to be adequate for protecting right whales at

this time. However, the rules and regulations put in place under these laws may be insufficient to adequately

protect the population. Prior to any proposed change in listing status, such regulations need to be assessed to
VIIC-3

ensure that they provide adequate protection.

As noted above, death and serious injury resulting from ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear are

significant factors in slowing recovery of this population. A total of 16 known North Atlantic right whale deaths

between 1970 and 1999 were attributed to collisions with ships and three to entanglement in fishing gear

(Knowlton and Kraus 2001). The actual number of deaths from both sources may be much higher as not all

carcasses are detected, reported, and recovered. Injuries and entanglements that are not initially lethal may result

in a gradual weakening of entangled individuals, making them more vulnerable to some other direct cause(s) of

mortality. An estimated 60 percent of the North Atlantic right whale population bears scars from fishing gear

entanglement. (The level and extent of impact from these human activities are discussed more fully in the section

on Effects of Human Activities, above, and steps needed to reduce or eliminate these threats are discussed in the

Recovery Actions and Implementation section, below.) Therefore, it may be necessary to continue or enhance

existing regulations, or promulgate new regulations to reduce or eliminate these threats. Prior to any

reclassification action, regulations and regulatory mechanisms and the protection they provide need to be

assessed, and a determination needs to be made that regulations are adequate to protect North Atlantic right

whales from the threats of ship strikes and fishing gear entanglement.

(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence

Aside from the factors discussed here and elsewhere in this plan, no other natural factors are known to be

impairing the recovery of North Atlantic right whales at this time. Among anthropogenic factors, ship collisions

and entanglement in fishing gear are clearly inhibiting the recovery of this species. However, other factors may

be identified later that directly or indirectly threaten the population, such as reduced productivity from

contaminant loads, habitat degradation, including activities that disrupt food webs, or that disrupt vital activities

through coastal development, ship traffic, or undersea noise. Although it is unclear if these or any other factors

are currently adversely affecting this right whale population, in any contemplated reclassification action, the best

available information (data) must be used, and justification provided, to ensure that these or any other factors will

not inhibit the population ecology of North Atlantic right whales.

Conclusion

If reclassification of North Atlantic right whales is contemplated, threats represented in each of the five listing

areas (factors) need to be addressed to ensure such threats are non-existent or insignificant and that existing

legal structures are adequate to ensure continued recovery. At the time of this writing, there is currently no

evidence that factors (A) through (D) are negatively impacting the reproductive success and productivity (and

therefore the recovery potential) of North Atlantic right whales, but further research is clearly warranted in many

of the areas identified above to make that assessment with some level of certainty. In contrast, other

anthropogenic factors identified under (E), notably ship strike and entanglements, are clearly threatening the

recovery of this species.
VIID-1

D. NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE CRITICAL HABITAT

Figure 1: Northeast Critical Habitat
VIID-2

Figure 2: Southeast Critical Habitat