U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–462 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

EXAMINING THE THREATS TO THE 

NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND 

WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Thursday, March 7, 2019 

Serial No. 116–7 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair 

DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

TJ Cox, CA 

Joe Neguse, CO 

Mike Levin, CA 

Debra A. Haaland, NM 

Jefferson Van Drew, NJ 

Joe Cunningham, SC 

Nydia M. Vela ́zquez, NY 

Diana DeGette, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Darren Soto, FL 

Ed Case, HI 

Steven Horsford, NV 

Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Paul Tonko, NY 

Vacancy 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Mike Johnson, LA 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

John R. Curtis, UT 

Kevin Hern, OK 

Russ Fulcher, ID 

David Watkins, Chief of Staff 

Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel 

Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director 

http://naturalresources.house.gov 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE 

JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Chair 

TOM MCCLINTOCK, CA, Ranking Republican Member 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Jefferson Van Drew, NJ 

Nydia M. Vela ́zquez, NY 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

Ed Case, HI 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

TJ Cox, CA 

Joe Neguse, CO 

Mike Levin, CA 

Joe Cunningham, SC 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Mike Johnson, LA 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

Russ Fulcher, ID 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 
(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, March 7, 2019 ............................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Burnett, Dr. H. Sterling, Senior Fellow and Managing Editor, Environment & Climate News, The Heartland Institute, Rowlett, Texas ............ 50 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 51 

Clark, Dr. Chris, Senior Scientist, Research Professor, Cornell University, 

Ithaca, New York .......................................................................................... 54 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 55 

Kraus, Dr. Scott, Vice President and Senior Science Advisor, Chief 

Scientist, Marine Mammal Conservation, Anderson Cabot Center for 

Ocean Life at the New England Aquarium, Boston, Massachusetts ........ 41 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 43 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 50 

Oliver, Chris, Assistant ASMRR, NOAA Fisheries, Silver Spring, 

Maryland ....................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 11 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 80 

Submission for the Record by Representative Lamborn 

List of Issued Incidental Harassment Authorizations for Seismic 

Activity in the U.S. Atlantic, dated 2014–2018 ................................... 23 

Submissions for the Record by Representative Lowenthal 

H.R. 3682, Bill from 115th Congress ....................................................... 66 

Partners in the Vessel Speed Reduction (VSR) Incentive Program, 

Letter dated June 19, 2018, re: 2018 voluntary vessel speed reduction incentive program for the Santa Barbara Channel and San 

Francisco Bay Area regions of California ............................................ 68 

Submissions for the Record by Representative McClintock 

International Whaling Commission, ‘‘Whale Population Estimates,’’ 

Report, March 6, 2019 ........................................................................... 69 

Offshore Fossil Fuel Exploration and Developments: A Review of 

Some Concerns, Scientific Review by John Droz, Jr., April 28, 

2018 ......................................................................................................... 72 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE 

THREATS TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT 

WHALE 

Thursday, March 7, 2019 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in 

room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jared Huffman 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Huffman, Sablan, Van Drew, 

Lowenthal, Cox, Neguse, Levin, Cunningham, Grijalva (ex officio); 

McClintock, Lamborn, Hice, Webster, Johnson, Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, 

and Fulcher. 

Also present: Representatives Beyer, Moulton, and Keating. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this hearing 

of the Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife. We will now 

come to order. Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements in this hearing are limited to the Chairman, the Ranking 

Member, the Vice Chair, and the Vice Ranking Member. This will 

allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner and help Members keep 

their schedules. 

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members’ 

opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they are 

submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today, or the close of the hearing, 

whichever comes first. 

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thanks, everyone, for joining us for this important hearing to examine the many threats facing one of the most 

endangered marine mammals in the world, the North Atlantic 

right whale. 

There are less than 420 right whales remaining. That is fewer 

right whales in existence than Members of Congress. If more is not 

done to save this iconic species, scientists predict it will go extinct 

in the next few decades. 

According to NOAA Fisheries, in order to maintain a sustainable 

right whale population, no more than one right whale per year can 

be killed by human causes. And as Dr. Kraus has pointed out in 

his written testimony, that number has been exceeded every single 

year for the last 20 years. No wonder these whales are in such dire 

straits. 

In 2017, they had a particularly bad year. There were 17 deaths 

and no new calves. While we have seen positive news recently, 
2 

including seven new calves spotted this year, there are ongoing 

threats, including fishing gear entanglements and accidental ship 

strikes. And additionally, the science shows that climate change 

may be shifting their food source northward, which means the 

whales would be moving further into areas with shipping lanes and 

lobster traps. 

Today, we will be talking about several promising solutions that 

we can act on quickly, including ropeless technology for lobster 

traps, vessel speed reductions, zooplankton monitoring, coordination with Canada, and more. In addition to this technological innovation and coordination, it is critical to move legislation like the 

bipartisan SAVE Right Whales Act, which was just reintroduced by 

my colleague Seth Moulton from Massachusetts. This bill would 

provide financial resources for research to develop and test technologies to reduce entanglements and vessel collisions to help the 

right whale. 

However, in addition to entanglements and ship strikes, a new 

issue further endangers the North Atlantic right whale. In yet 

another handout to the oil and gas industry, the Trump administration is now actively threatening the long-term survival of these 

whales by opening up the Atlantic Coast to seismic air gun blasting 

and oil and gas exploration activities. 

As we have consistently seen with other decisions from the 

Administration, this completely undermines our foundational environmental laws, like the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the 

ESA. 

Seismic air guns are harmful to many forms of marine life, ranging from plankton, the base of the ocean food web, to fish and right 

whales. For right whales and other marine mammals, sound is critical for communication, feeding, navigation, and survival. 

But just last year, NOAA Fisheries issued Incident Harassment 

Authorizations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow 

five companies to use seismic air gun blasting to survey the 

Atlantic continental shelf for oil and gas. These air gun blasts 

occur as often as every 10 seconds for months at a time, creating 

noise that is louder than all but military-grade explosives. Thanks 

to NOAA issuing these authorizations, seismic companies plan to 

fire air guns a combined 5 million times over the course of their 

testing. 

I also want to point out several major problems with these 

authorizations, considering the near-extinct status of this species. 

First, even though five different companies requested permits to 

conduct surveys within similar time frames in similar locations, 

NOAA Fisheries did not consider the cumulative impacts here, the 

fact that when combined with each other and other activities, there 

is a vast increase in ocean noise. Instead, the agency analyzed the 

impacts of each survey in isolation, ignoring the fact that the ocean 

is already a very loud place and set to become 5 million blasts 

louder under these authorizations. 

Second, NOAA Fisheries’ proposed mitigation is to prohibit blasting within 90 kilometers of the coast between November and April. 

But we know that right whales, including mothers and calves—the 

most vulnerable of the species—are present in this area nearly 

year-round, not just between November and April. We also know 
3 

that sound travels great distances underwater, and a small buffer 

like this is unlikely to shield these whales completely from the 

negative impacts of that seismic testing. 

Third, under the Obama administration, BOEM rejected the 

seismic permit applications for testing in the Atlantic because of 

the impacts on marine life, including the right whale. They stated, 

‘‘The value of obtaining the geophysical information from the new 

seismic air gun surveys in the Atlantic does not outweigh the potential risks of those surveys’ acoustic pulse impacts on marine 

life.’’ I have not seen any new science that suggests that these risks 

have changed. 

Finally, this activity could start imminently. The company can 

begin air blasts within 30 days of BOEM’s issuing of the permits. 

But seismic blasts could make the difference between recovery and 

extinction for right whales. 

Given the many threats facing this species and the efforts underway to save them, it makes no sense for NOAA Fisheries to allow 

seismic blasting to occur. 

There are some truly useful technologies and innovations that we 

can look at to help the right whale. I look forward to hearing more 

about that today. But it is also critical that we don’t add new 

threats just to make the oil industry a few more bucks. 

With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE

Good morning. Thank you for joining us today for an important hearing examining the many threats facing one of the most endangered marine mammals: the 

North Atlantic right whale. 

There are less than 420 right whales remaining—that’s fewer right whales in 

existence than Members of Congress. If more is not done to save this iconic species, 

scientists predict that the they could go extinct in the next few decades. 

According to NOAA Fisheries, in order to maintain a sustainable right whale population, no more than one right whale per year can be killed by human causes. And 

as Dr. Kraus has pointed out in his written testimony, that number has been exceeded every single year for the last 20 years. No wonder these whales are in such 

a dire situation. 

In 2017, they had a particularly bad year: there were 17 deaths and no new 

calves. While we have seen positive news recently, including seven right whale 

calves spotted this year, there are still ongoing threats, including fishing gear entanglement and accidental ship strikes. Additionally, science shows that climate 

change may be shifting their food source northward. This means right whales will 

be moving further into areas with shipping lanes and lobster traps. 

Today, we will talk about several promising solutions we can act on now, 

including ropeless technology for lobster traps, vessel speed reductions, zooplankton 

monitoring, coordination with Canada, and more. In addition to technology innovation and coordinated management, it’s critical to move legislation, like the bipartisan SAVE Right Whales Act, introduced by my colleague Congressman Moulton 

from Massachusetts last Congress. This bill would provide financial resources for research to develop and test technologies to reduce entanglements and vessel collisions to help the survival of the right whale. 

However, in addition to entanglements and ship strikes, a new issue further 

endangers the North Atlantic right whale. In yet another handout to the oil and gas 

industry, the Trump administration is now actively threatening the long-term 

survival of the North Atlantic right whale by opening the Atlantic Coast to seismic 

air gun blasting and oil and gas exploration activities. 

As we’ve consistently seen with other decisions from the Trump administration, 

this completely undermines our foundational environmental laws, like the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. 
4 

Seismic air guns are harmful to many forms of marine life ranging from plankton, 

the base of the ocean food web, to fish and whales. For right whales and other 

marine mammals, sound is critical for communication, feeding, and navigation. 

But just last year, NOAA Fisheries issued Incidental Harassment Authorizations 

under the Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow five companies to use seismic air 

gun blasting to survey the Atlantic Continental Shelf for oil and gas. These air gun 

blasts occur as often as every 10 seconds for months at a time, creating a noise that 

is louder than all but military-grade explosives. Thanks to NOAA issuing these authorizations, seismic companies plan to fire air guns a combined 5 million times over 

the course of their testing. I have my air horn here with me today, if anyone wants 

to know what it’s like to be subjected to that kind of noise. 

I also want to point out several major problems with these authorizations, 

considering the near-extinct status of the North Atlantic right whale: 

First, even though five different companies requested permits to conduct surveys 

within similar time frames and in similar locations, NOAA Fisheries did not consider the effects of the five seismic surveys when combined with each other or with 

other activities that cause ocean noise. Instead, the agency analyzed the impacts of 

each survey in isolation, ignoring the fact that the ocean is already a very loud place 

and set to become 5 million blasts louder under these authorizations. 

Second, NOAA Fisheries’ proposed mitigation is to prohibit seismic blasting within 90 kilometers of the coast between November and April. But we know that right 

whales, including mothers and calves—the most vulnerable of the species—are 

present in this area nearly year-round—not just between November and April. We 

also know that sound travels great distances underwater, and a small buffer is unlikely to shield these whales completely from the negative impacts of seismic 

testing. 

Third, under the Obama administration, BOEM rejected the seismic permit applications for seismic testing in the Atlantic because of the impacts on marine life, 

including the right whale. They stated that the ‘‘value of obtaining the geophysical 

information from the new seismic airgun surveys in the Atlantic does not outweigh 

the potential risks of those surveys’ acoustic pulse impacts on marine life.’’ I haven’t 

seen any new scientific information showing that the potential risks have changed. 

Finally, this activity could start imminently—the companies can begin air gun 

blasts within 30 days of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issuing 

the permits for exploration. But seismic blasts could make the difference between 

recovery and extinction for right whales. 

Given the many threats facing this species and the efforts underway to save each 

and every whale, it makes no sense that NOAA Fisheries would allow seismic blasting to occur. 

There are some truly useful technologies and policies that we should expand and 

implement to protect right whales, and I look forward to hearing more about what 

can be done. But it’s also critical that we don’t add any new threats just to make 

the oil industry a few bucks. 

With that, I look forward to hearing from NOAA and our panel of scientific 

experts today. I now invite the Ranking Member for his remarks. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I now invite the Ranking Member to give his 

remarks. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM MCCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The problem with 

visions of impending apocalypse is that after the initial hysteria 

passes, life goes on and the world does not end. I cannot imagine 

how disappointing that is to the prophets of doom. Chicken Little 

found that out to her embarrassment and I think many today could 

learn from her example. 

For example, at our hearing on rising oceans recently, the only 

climatologist on the panel confirmed that sea level rise has been 

steady throughout the 20th century and shows no correlation with 

atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Indeed, he noted the oceans 

have been rising about 400 feet since the last Ice Age, and could 
5 

be expected to continue to do so very gradually until temperature 

equilibrium is achieved. 

In the 1980s, climate change was blamed for the impending 

extinction of the polar bear. You may have noticed we don’t hear 

much about polar bear extinction these days because it turns out 

their populations are doing very well, thank you, and have actually 

been increasing nicely since 2005, along with carbon dioxide levels. 

Today, we adopt a new mascot, the right whale. The right whale 

got its name from the whalers who drove it nearly to extinction in 

the days when whale oil was in high demand. It was the ‘‘right’’ 

whale to hunt to supply the lucrative whale oil market. Ironically, 

it may have been saved from outright extinction by—wait for it— 

fossil fuels, which made whale oil obsolete. 

Now, however, the right whale is being repurposed as an excuse 

to discourage fossil fuel use and to impede offshore exploration. We 

hear voices accusing the dreaded Donald Trump of decimating 

marine animals by his administration’s support of Incidental 

Harassment Authorizations which allow for limited seismic testing 

in the Atlantic outer continental shelf. 

Before we all set our hair on fire, let’s confront a few inconvenient truths. It was the Obama administration’s 2015 5-year oil and 

gas leasing program that initially proposed opening the Atlantic to 

offshore energy exploration, and it was the Obama administration 

that approved multiple permits supporting seismic testing. From 

2015 through 2017, Columbia University received four permits for 

seismic activity to gather scientific data, including two permits for 

seismic testing in the Atlantic. Furthermore, the U.S. Geological 

Survey conducted seismic surveys in the Atlantic Ocean between 

2014 and 2015. 

Seismic testing is not unique to offshore oil and gas exploration, 

nor has it been found to be detrimental to marine mammal stocks. 

Under the Obama administration, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management both determined that there is no documented evidence of anything more than 

a negligible impact to marine mammals resulting from exposure to 

seismic testing on the ocean floor. It may be annoying, but it is far 

from dangerous. 

We may hear much about the ‘‘taking’’ of marine mammals under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act. To most people, ‘‘taking’’ 

sounds like a euphemism for killing. In fact, I think it is meant to 

convey this false impression. But as actually used in the Act, it 

means anything that disturbs marine animals, irrespective of the 

health of the marine mammal stock. 

Whaling excesses in the pre-fossil fuels period almost destroyed 

the right whales in the North Atlantic and the Northern Pacific. 

Their populations were driven so low that they are barely measurable today, particularly in the Northern Pacific. And sadly, they 

have shown little sign of recovery. Fortunately, they are doing very 

well in the Southern Atlantic and Pacific. According to the Marine 

Mammal Center, ‘‘the breeding populations of Argentina, Brazil, 

South Africa, and Australia have shown evidence of strong recovery, with annual increase rates of 7–8 percent, and together may 

now total over 16,000.’’ 
6 

And there is more good news. In the North Pacific and Atlantic, 

other species of whales hunted in the last century are recovering, 

including blue whales, growing about 3 percent per year, humpback whales, which have already recovered their pre-whaling populations, fin whales, growing 4 to 5 percent per year in the North 

Pacific, with their populations in the North Atlantic described as 

‘‘healthy’’—all of this according to the Marine Mammal Center. 

So, there is a lot here to celebrate. Most whale species are recovering in the Northern Hemisphere, and the right whale population 

is making a strong recovery in the Southern Hemisphere, all under 

current conditions. Happily, so too is American energy independence and the American economy, with great promise for future 

prosperity and growth from our offshore reserves. 

So, Mr. Chairman, let’s try not to screw all that up today, please. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM MCCLINTOCK, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE

The problem with visions of impending apocalypse is that after the initial hysteria 

passes, life goes on and the world doesn’t end. How disappointing that must be to 

the prophets of doom! Chicken Little found this out to her embarrassment and many 

today could learn from her example. 

At our hearing on rising oceans, the only climatologist on the panel confirmed 

that sea level rise has been steady throughout the 20th century and shows no correlation to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Indeed, the oceans have risen about 

400 feet from the last ice age and can be expected to continue to do so very gradually until temperature equilibrium is achieved. 

In the 1980s, climate change was blamed for the impending extinction of the polar 

bear. You may have noticed we don’t hear about polar bear extinction anymore because it turns out their populations are doing very well and have been increasing 

nicely along with carbon dioxide levels. So today we adopt a new mascot, the right 

whale. 

The right whale got its name from the whalers who drove it nearly to extinction 

in the 19th century. It was the ‘‘right’’ whale to hunt to supply the lucrative whale 

oil market. Ironically, it may well have been saved from outright extinction by—wait 

for it—fossil fuels, which made whale oil obsolete. 

Now, however, the right whale is being repurposed as an excuse to discourage 

fossil fuel use and to impede offshore exploration. We hear voices accusing the 

dreaded Donald Trump of decimating marine mammals by his administration’s support of Incidental Harassment Authorizations which allow for limited seismic testing 

in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. 

Before we light our hair on fire, let’s confront a few inconvenient truths. 

It was the Obama administration’s 2015 5-year oil and gas leasing program that 

initially proposed opening the Atlantic to offshore energy exploration, and it was the 

Obama administration that approved multiple permits supporting seismic testing. 

From 2015 through 2017, Columbia University received four permits for seismic activity to gather scientific data, including two permits for seismic testing in the 

Atlantic. Furthermore, the United States Geological Survey conducted seismic surveys in the Atlantic Ocean between 2014–2015. 

Seismic testing is NOT synonymous with offshore oil and gas extraction, nor has 

it been found to be detrimental to marine mammal stocks. Under the Obama administration, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management both determined that there is no documented evidence of any more 

than a ‘‘negligible impact’’ to marine mammals resulting from exposure to seismic 

testing of the ocean floor. It may be annoying, but it is far from dangerous. 

We will hear much about the ‘‘taking’’ of marine mammals under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. To most people, a ‘‘taking’’ sounds like a euphemism for 

‘‘killing.’’ I think it is meant to convey this false impression. But as actually used 

in the Act, it actually means anything that disturbs marine mammals, irrespective 

of the health of the marine mammal stock. 

Whaling excesses in the pre-fossil fuels period almost destroyed the right whales 

in the Northern Atlantic and Pacific. Their populations were driven so low that they 

are barely measurable and have shown little sign of recovery. Fortunately, according 
7 

to the International Whaling Commission, ‘‘the breeding populations of Argentina/ 

Brazil, South Africa and Australia have shown evidence of strong recovery with 

annual increase rates of 7–8 percent and together may now total over 16,000 . . .’’ 

More good news: in the North Pacific and Atlantic, other species of whales hunted 

in the last century are recovering, including blue whales, (growing about 3 percent 

per year), humpback whales (which have recovered their pre-whaling populations), 

fin whales (growing 4 to 5 percent per year in the North Pacific with their populations in the North Atlantic described as ‘‘healthy.’’ All this according to the 

International Whaling Commission. 

So there’s a lot to celebrate. Most whale species are recovering in the Northern 

Hemisphere and the right whale population is making a strong recovery in the 

Southern Hemisphere—all under current conditions. Happily, so too is American 

energy independence and the American economy, with great promise of future 

prosperity and growth from our offshore reserves. 

Let’s not screw that up today, please. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. McClintock. I feel so much better 

hearing that this is all a hoax and hysteria. Perhaps the experts 

and scientists we will hear from will confirm that, and then we can 

all just go home. Let’s find out. 

Right now, before we move to the witnesses, I ask unanimous 

consent that the gentleperson from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, and also 

the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Moulton, be allowed to sit 

on the dais and participate in today’s proceeding. 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Now, I will introduce our first witness. Welcome to Chris Oliver, 

the Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries. Welcome, Mr. 

Oliver. Mr. Oliver, under the Committee Rules, you must limit 

your oral statements to 5 minutes. But your entire statement will 

appear in the record. 

When you begin, the lights on the witness table will turn green. 

After 4 minutes, the yellow light will come on, and your time will 

have expired when you see the red light. I will ask you at that 

point to wrap up. 

The Chair now recognizes you to testify. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS OLIVER, ASSISTANT ASMRR, NOAA 

FISHERIES, SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND 

Mr. OLIVER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

opportunity to testify. Chris Oliver with NOAA Fisheries. 

North Atlantic right whale is one of the world’s most endangered 

large whale species, with an estimated, as you mentioned, 411 

individuals. In the early 1990s, the successful implementation of 

measures aimed at reducing primary threats resulted in some encouraging population growth. 

However, since 2010, the whales have experienced another period 

of decline; because the population is very small, its status can 

change quickly. Right whales have also made recent large-scale 

changes in habitat use, spending more time farther offshore and to 

the north, likely in pursuit of better foraging opportunities. 

They are protected under both the Endangered Species Act and 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and have been listed as endangered since 1970. We are currently implementing a North Atlantic 

right whale recovery plan, with the ultimate goal of recovering this 

species. 
8 

We are working to protect and recover this species on multiple 

fronts. Human interaction, such an entanglement in fishing gear 

and vessel strikes, currently present the greatest threat. Collisions 

between whales and vessels often go unnoticed and unreported. 

Research demonstrates that the probability of large whale mortality and serious injury from vessel strikes increases with vessel 

speed. 

NOAA Fisheries has taken several steps to reduce this threat, 

including requiring vessels to slow down in areas where whales 

may be present, encouraging voluntary speed reductions, recommended alternative shipping routes and international shipping 

lanes, developing right whale alert systems and vessel reporting 

systems, and improving our stranding response. 

Since 2008, we have limited vessel speeds to 10 knots for vessels 

greater than 65 feet in seasonal management areas along the U.S. 

East Coast. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce the likelihood of deaths and serious injuries to endangered whales resulting 

from collisions with ships. In the 10 years prior to implementation 

of that regulation, there were 11 confirmed right whale mortalities 

due to vessel strikes in U.S. waters. In the 10 years since, only 

three ship strike mortalities have been confirmed. Entanglements 

in fishing gear is the other primary cause of serious injury and 

death for many whales, including right whales. We require fishermen to use certain gear modifications to reduce entanglement risk 

such as sinking ground lines, weak link connections, pot limits, and 

closed areas. 

However, entanglements continue to be a source of injury and 

mortality, with at least seven mortalities occurring during the 2017 

unusual mortality event. In addition, we are working with the 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to develop management measures to further reduce the risk of entanglements in gear. 

On the international front, we recognize the transboundary 

range of this species requires international collaboration. We are 

actively working with Canada on the gaps in both science and management impeding the recovery of North Atlantic right whales. In 

March of last year, Canada adopted regulations on its commercial 

fishing and maritime shipping industries to minimize both gear entanglements and ship strikes in advance of the North Atlantic right 

whale migrations, which is now into the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. 

Continuing bilateral engagement and implementation of our respective regulatory regimes will ensure that the United States and 

Canada are fully complying with the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act and eliminating the risks to North Atlantic right whales while 

ensuring sustainable fisheries and trade. 

As we move forward, NOAA Fisheries and our partners will 

strive to make progress in rebuilding the North Atlantic right 

whale population. This year we anticipate the Atlantic States 

Marine Fisheries Commission to consider developing an addendum 

to its lobster management plan to consider measures to reduce the 

number of buoy lines used by American lobster fishermen by up to 

40 percent. This would represent a substantial reduction in gear 

and significantly reduce the probability of entanglements. 

Further, the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team will 

meet the week of April 22 to develop additional recommended 
9 

changes to the take reduction plan. These include additional 

closure areas as well as reporting, monitoring, and expanded gear 

marking requirements. 

Finally, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, NOAA Fisheries is pleased 

to report the births of several right whale calves this season, seven 

as of February 20, which is good news, given that it comes on the 

heels of virtually no calf production. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our conservation measures today, and I would be happy to try to answer any questions 

that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Oliver follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRIS OLIVER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE

Chair and members of the Subcommittee, I am Chris Oliver, Assistant 

Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the Department of Commerce. Thank you 

for inviting me to testify today on North Atlantic right whales. NMFS is responsible 

for the stewardship of the Nation’s ocean resources and their habitat. We provide 

vital services for the Nation: productive and sustainable fisheries, safe sources of 

seafood, the recovery and conservation of protected resources, and healthy 

ecosystems—all backed by sound science and an ecosystem-based approach to 

management. 

ABOUT THE SPECIES AND OUR ROLE

The North Atlantic right whale is one of the world’s most endangered large whale 

species, with an estimated 411 individuals remaining. By the early 1890s, commercial whalers had hunted right whales in the Atlantic to the brink of extinction. After 

commercial whaling stopped, right whales had several decades of slow recovery and 

by 1992, there was an estimated minimum population of 295 individuals. In the 

early 1990s, the successful implementation of measures aimed at reducing the primary threats, identified through extensive collaboration among stakeholders, resulted in further growth of the population to approximately 481 individuals in 2010. 

However, since 2010, North Atlantic right whales have experienced another period 

of decline. Because the population is very small, its status can change quickly. In 

addition, North Atlantic right whales have made recent, large-scale changes in their 

habitat use, spending more time farther offshore and to the north, likely in pursuit 

of better zooplankton foraging opportunities. 

North Atlantic right whales are protected under both the Endangered Species Act 

and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. They have been listed as endangered under 

the ESA since 1970 and as such, NMFS developed and is implementing a North 

Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Plan. The ultimate goal of the Recovery Plan is to 

recover the North Atlantic right whale, with an interim goal of down-listing its status from endangered to threatened. The major actions recommended in the Recovery 

Plan include reducing or eliminating injury and mortality caused by vessel collisions 

or by fishing gear, protecting habitats essential to the survival and recovery of the 

species, and minimizing the effects of vessel disturbance. 

NMFS and our partners are committed to conserving and rebuilding the North 

Atlantic right whale population using a variety of innovative techniques to study, 

protect, and rescue these endangered whales. We also engage our partners as we 

develop regulations and management plans that foster healthy fisheries and reduce 

the risk of entanglements, create whale-safe shipping practices, and reduce impacts 

from ocean noise. 

EFFORTS UNDERWAY

NMFS is working to protect this species on multiple fronts, with the goal that its 

population will increase. The leading causes of known mortality for North Atlantic 

right whales are vessel strikes and entanglement in fishing gear. 
10 

VESSEL STRIKES

Collisions between whales and vessels often go unnoticed and unreported. 

However, research demonstrates that the probability of large whale mortality and 

serious injury from vessel strikes increases with increasing vessel speed. Thus, 

NMFS has taken several steps to reduce the threat of vessel collisions with North 

Atlantic right whales, including requiring vessels to slow down in certain areas and 

during seasons when whales may be present, encouraging voluntary speed reductions in Dynamic Management Areas, recommending alternative shipping routes 

and areas to be avoided, modifying international shipping lanes, developing right 

whale alert systems and mandatory vessel reporting systems, increasing outreach 

and education, and improving our stranding response. 

Since 2008, NMFS has limited vessel speeds to 10 knots for vessels 65 feet or 

greater in overall length in Seasonal Management Areas along the U.S. East Coast 

at certain times of the year. In the 10 years prior to implementation of the vessel 

speed regulation, there were 11 confirmed U.S. right whale mortalities due to vessel 

strikes, but in the 10 years since the regulation has been active, only 3 were 

documented in U.S. waters. 

NMFS is currently conducting a review of its vessel speed restriction rule 

(pursuant to 50 CFR 224.105). The review will culminate in a report that will 

assess: economic impacts to the maritime community, vessel traffic compliance with 

the rule, impacts to navigational safety, conservation benefits to right whales, and 

outreach activities conducted to date. Staff and contractors are analyzing the latest 

relevant data in collaboration with other agencies and scientists. The review is well 

underway, and we hope to have a final report issued by the end of FY 19. 

ENTANGLEMENTS

Over more than two decades, NMFS has implemented management measures to 

reduce whale entanglements with the help of the Atlantic Large Whale Take 

Reduction Team—a group of stakeholders consisting of fishermen, scientists, and 

state and Federal officials. Entanglement in fishing gear is a primary cause of serious injury and death for many whale species, including the North Atlantic right 

whale. We require commercial fishermen to use certain gear modifications that are 

meant to reduce entanglement risk to North Atlantic right whales and have established areas where fishing cannot take place during certain times when North 

Atlantic right whales are present. 

However, entanglement in fishing gear continues to be a source of serious injury 

and mortality for this species; therefore, we are currently working with the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Take Reduction Team to develop management measures to further reduce the risk of entanglement in fishing gear. 

Specifically, the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team will be meeting during 

the week of April 22 to develop recommended changes to the Take Reduction Plan 

that would reduce the effects of fixed gear fisheries on North Atlantic right whales. 

NMFS expects the Take Reduction Team to consider recommendations for line reduction measures and additions or modifications to seasonal closure areas to reduce 

impacts of these fisheries on large whales as well as revised or expanded reporting, 

monitoring, and gear marking requirements which would allow NMFS to better 

evaluate the impacts of these fisheries to North Atlantic right whales. 

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

NOAA is actively collaborating with Canada on the science and management gaps 

that are impeding the recovery of North Atlantic right whales in both Canadian and 

U.S. waters through ongoing bilateral negotiations. In March 2018, Canada adopted 

regulations applicable to its commercial fishing and maritime shipping industries to 

minimize gear entanglements and ship strikes in advance of North Atlantic right 

whales migrating into Canadian waters. In early February, these measures were 

further refined as Canada identified how it intends to protect North Atlantic right 

whales during the 2019 Canadian snow crab season in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 

In 2016, NMFS issued final regulations to implement the import provisions of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act. Pursuant to these provisions, NMFS will evaluate 

Canadian fisheries from which fish and fish products are exported to the United 

States to assess the effectiveness of Canada’s regulatory program in mitigating bycatch of marine mammals. Consultations on the applicable Canadian commercial 

fisheries will continue through March 2021 per the existing regulatory timeline for 

making comparability determinations. To date, NOAA has consulted with Canada’s 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans to identify priority fisheries and elements of 

a comparable regulatory program to meet the required framework of the MMPA 
11 

import provisions. Continuing our bilateral engagement and implementation of our 

respective regulatory regimes will ensure that the United States and Canada are 

fully complying with the MMPA and eliminating the risk of North Atlantic right 

whale entanglements in fisheries while ensuring sustainable fisheries and trade 

continue. 

ATLANTIC IHAs 

Late last year, NMFS issued final authorizations under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act to incidentally, but not intentionally, harass marine mammals to 

companies proposing to conduct geophysical surveys in support of hydrocarbon exploration in the Atlantic Ocean. The authorizations require the companies to implement mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of survey activities on marine 

mammals and set forth monitoring and reporting requirements. Our actions only address the taking or harassment of marine mammals incidental to the planned 

surveys. The Department of the Interior has jurisdiction over decisions to allow the 

surveys and any future drilling, pursuant to its authority under the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act. NMFS can only issue an authorization for the incidental take (harassment) of small numbers of marine mammals if it finds that the 

taking associated with a specified activity will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s); and prescribes appropriate mitigation, as well as requirements for monitoring and reporting of such takings. After extensive analysis, NMFS 

developed rigorous mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the proposed Atlantic geophysical surveys. For North Atlantic right whales, we specified 

measures that limit activities in areas where they are expected to be present, including all designated critical habitat and additional seasonal management areas 

throughout the survey area. Specifically, the mitigation area restricts seismic operation within 90 km of the coast from November through April. Seismic operations 

are also required to be suspended if North Atlantic right whales are detected at an 

extended shutdown distance within 1.5 km of the vessel. 

NEXT STEPS

As stated above, NMFS and our partners are committed to continuing the 

progress made in rebuilding the North Atlantic right whale population. At its 

February meeting, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission voted to develop an addendum to the Lobster Management Plan to consider measures to reduce 

the number of buoy lines used by American lobster fishermen by up to 40 percent. 

Since more than 90 percent of the buoy lines in the areas frequented by right 

whales are associated with the lobster fishery, this would represent substantial line 

reduction. A vote on whether to send the Addendum out for public comment could 

occur as early as the Commission’s April 30 spring meeting, allowing final decision 

making in August 2019. 

In addition, NMFS will continue to conduct science related to assessing the current status of whales, including monitoring calf production, and decreasing the risk 

of entanglements and vessel strikes. This work occurs from the Southeast to the 

Northeast and extends into Canadian waters, working in collaboration with colleagues at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. On the topic of calves, despite 

unusually low recruitment to the population between 2012 and 2018, there has been 

some encouraging news lately with several births documented this calving season 

(7 calves as of February 20, 2019). 

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss North Atlantic right whales. I 

would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO CHRIS OLIVER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Questions Submitted by Rep. Cunningham 

Question 1. Mr. Oliver, 10 Atlantic states along with several NGOs have filed lawsuits against the issuance of these Incidental Harassment Authorizations. With all 

of this opposition, why would the Trump administration move forward with offshore 

oil exploration? 

Answer. Executive Order 13795, Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy 

Strategy, established it as the policy of the United States to encourage energy exploration and production in order to maintain our Nation’s position as a global energy 
12 

leader while ensuring that any such activity is safe and environmentally responsible. E.O. 13795 finds that energy and minerals produced from Federal lands and 

waters are important to a vibrant economy as well as national security, while also 

reducing our reliance on imported energy. As a result of these and other policies, 

in November 2018 the United States was a net exporter of energy for the first time 

in over three decades. 

Jurisdiction over decisions to allow geophysical surveys and any future drilling 

rests with the Department of the Interior pursuant to their authority under the 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. It is the role of the Department of Commerce’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), administered through the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to ensure that such activity is 

consistent with applicable statutory authorities for which NMFS is responsible. 

Considerable analysis, using the best available science, was utilized in making the 

decision to approve incidental harassment authorizations (IHAs) that fully comply 

with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NMFS made the necessary statutory findings and prescribed appropriate mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. The approved IHAs are designed to ensure that the geophysical activity 

will have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks, as required by the MMPA. Moreover, NMFS believes that the prescribed and extensive 

mitigation requirements meet the MMPA legal standard of having the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat. 

Question 2. Mr. Oliver, as of 2016, South Carolina valued coastal tourism at $8.96 

billion, and commercial fisheries at $42.4 million. A report from the American 

Petroleum Institute says that opening the Atlantic to oil and gas exploration would 

bring only $1.5 billion in state and local tax revenues over 20 years. Do you believe 

that the $1.5 billion revenue exceeds the risk of an oil spill devastating the nearly 

$9 billion tourism industry? 

Answer. The Department of the Interior (DOI) has jurisdiction over decisions to 

allow the surveys and any future drilling, pursuant to its authority under the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act. NMFS’s role is to ensure that such activity is 

consistent with applicable statutory authorities for which NMFS is responsible (e.g., 

MMPA and ESA). Thus, DOI is best suited to address your question. 

Question Submitted by Rep. Levin 

Question 1. Mr. Oliver, can you provide the Subcommittee with any internal documents held by NMFS that express scientific concern over the cumulative impacts of 

the five issued Incidental Harassment Authorizations on North Atlantic right whales 

or other marine mammals? Can you provide any internal documents from NMFS 

that voice scientific concern for marine mammals in regards to the 160-decibel level 

authorized in the Atlantic for seismic testing, which is much higher than the 120- 

decibel level previously authorized in the Gulf of Mexico? Can you provide any documents that explain the difference in these policies? Please provide any scientific 

information used in making these determinations. 

Answer. The Administrative Record for Incidental Harassment Authorizations will 

be made available to the Committee. 

Question Submitted by Rep. Sablan 

Question 1. Mr. Oliver, at the hearing you responded to my question regarding 

NOAA Fisheries supervision of WESPAC and the Fishery Councils by stating that 

you do not have direct supervision of the Councils. Section 302 of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) established the eight 

Regional Fishery Management Councils. The objectives of these councils are to develop, monitor and revise fishery management plans and data collection programs 

for domestic and foreign fishing conducted within the 200-mile U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ). This is done with the approval and implementation of the 

Secretary of Commerce, who has stewardship responsibilities under MSFCMA for living marine resources in the EEZ. The NOAA Fishery website states that ‘‘We support 

the councils by conducting the annual nomination and appointment process, training 

new members, and facilitating periodic meetings of the Council Coordination 

Committee. We also work with the councils to designate essential fish habitat for 

federally managed species. Together we research and describe habitats essential for 

each life stage of many species, create maps, and designate Habitat Areas of 

Particular Concern.’’ And doesn’t NOAA also allocate and track Federal funding to 
13 

the Councils as well and receive performance progress and financial reports? And, 

among other things, do not Fishery Council members file financial disclosure reports 

with NOAA and NOAA attorneys advise Council members and make determinations 

regarding recusal for conflicts of interest? Could you please clarify exactly what role 

NOAA plays in regards to WESPAC and the other seven Regional Fishery Management Councils? 

Answer. The role the Secretary of Commerce, NOAA, and NMFS in regard to the 

eight Regional Fishery Management Councils, is detailed in the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act (MSA) and its implementing regulations. Primarily, the Councils develop and 

amend fishery management plans for approval and implementation by NMFS on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce. NOAA allocates funding to the eight Councils, 

and Council activities are governed by grant mechanisms described in 50 CFR 

600.125. NOAA partners with the Councils on research priorities and policy implementation to achieve conservation and management of our Nation’s fisheries. 

NMFS and the Councils published Operational Guidelines that provide guiding 

principles for the partnership between NMFS and the Councils. How each Council 

and NMFS Regional Office pair implements the MSA and other requirements 

throughout the fishery management process are set forth in Regional Operating 

Agreements. These agreements are found here: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/partners/operational-guidelines. 

Congress appropriates funding for the eight Regional Fishery Management 

Councils (Councils). Funds are allocated to the Councils according to a historical formula, agreed to by all eight Councils, that has been in place for well over a decade. 

Per regulation, at 50 CFR 600.125(a), Council activities and expenditures are managed via grant and/or cooperative agreement mechanisms, with coordination via a 

Federal Program Officer. Such funding is provided consistent with the stated priorities and objectives of the grant. Funding is subject to 5-year grant parameters 

under the OMB Uniform Guidance and NOAA Administrative Standard Award 

Conditions. Both the OMB guidance and the NOAA standard conditions contain reporting requirements. The standard reporting frequency is semi-annually (every 6 

months). 

Per Section 302(j) of the MSA, ‘‘affected individuals’’ (i.e., Council nominees, 

Council members, and members of SSCs) must file Statements of Financial 

Interests. This financial information must be disclosed on the NOAA Form 88–195, 

Statement of Financial Interests. Guidance on reporting and filing procedures for 

complying with financial disclosure requirements is found at: https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/partners/financial-disclosure-statements and at 50 

CFR 600.235. 

A Council member required to disclose a financial interest under 302(j)(2) of the 

MSA may not vote on a Council decision that would have a ‘‘significant and predictable effect’’ on a financial interest disclosed on his or her Statement of Financial 

Interests. At the request of the member, or at the initiative of an appropriate designated official, the designated official shall make a determination for the record as 

to whether a Council decision would have a ‘‘significant and predictable effect’’ on 

a financial interest that would require that the member be recused from a vote on 

a Council decision. The term ‘‘designated official’’ is defined in Section 302(j)(1)(B) 

of the MSA, but typically is an attorney of the NOAA Office of General Counsel. 

Section 302(j)(9) of the MSA requires the Secretary to submit an annual report 

to Congress on actions taken by the Secretary and the Councils to implement the 

disclosure of financial interest and recusal requirements of the MSA. More information about the recusal process and these requirements can be found in that report 

at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/partners/council-reports-congress. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Oliver. 

I will begin the questioning for 5 minutes. And again, thank you 

for being here. One of the things that I hope to do in this 

Subcommittee, with many of these informational hearings, is to 

reset the factual and scientific baseline for these issues that we 

debate. 

Mr. McClintock provides us with colorful quotes from people like 

Dickens and Lewis Carroll. But there is no substitute for actual 

facts and science. So, I would like to get a few things on the record 

with you, if I could. I want to get through several questions 
14 

quickly, so if you can, I would like you to answer yes or no. And 

when I refer to ‘‘the Agency,’’ obviously I am talking about NOAA 

Fisheries. 

So, true or false: There are about 420 North Atlantic right 

whales living today. Now, Dr. Kraus may say that is a bit of an 

overcount, but is that the general range, to your understanding? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. The Agency is concerned about the survival of 

this population. True? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. The Potential Biological Removal, or PBR, is a 

term that your agency defined to quantify the number of whales 

that can be seriously injured or killed without impacting the population. Right? 

Mr. OLIVER. I believe that is the generally accepted definition. 

yes, sir. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Yes. And for the last two decades, that number 

has hovered somewhere between zero and one. Is that right? 

Mr. OLIVER. I believe that is correct. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. But the actual number of right whale deaths each 

year has been higher than that, mainly because of ship strikes and 

fishing gear entanglements. Correct? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Is the Agency proactively trying to address issues 

pertaining to entanglements and ship strikes in order to save the 

species? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. You have put a lot of work into a recovery plan, 

as you are required to do under the Endangered Species Act. 

Correct? 

Mr. OLIVER. Correct. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I hope to work with you more on that. But in the 

meantime, this year there is a little bit of good news. We have 

seven calves sighted so far. Right? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. As we will hear from our second panel of experts, 

there are fewer than a hundred breeding females in the population. 

You agree with that assessment? 

Mr. OLIVER. That is correct, yes. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. And we know that females travel to the southeast 

each year to give birth, the breeding females. Is there scientific evidence that elevated ambient noise can cause chronic stress in 

baleen whales, especially breeding females? 

Mr. OLIVER. There is evidence that the cumulative effects of 

acoustics can affect foraging behavior, calving, breeding behavior— 

basically sublethal effects relative to whale energetics, yes. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. You agree with the science that says seismic noise 

increases the probability that right whale mothers and calves could 

get separated? 

Mr. OLIVER. I am not an expert on acoustics, sir. I don’t know 

the degree to which acoustics will directly—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Do you have any reason to disagree with that 

science? 

Mr. OLIVER. No, sir. 
15 

Mr. HUFFMAN. And would you agree with the claim in Dr. Kraus’ 

testimony in the second panel that seismic noise can disrupt behavior of baleen whales at tens to hundreds of kilometers? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Can it disrupt the plankton that they depend on 

for their food? 

Mr. OLIVER. I don’t know the answer to that one, sir. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Would you also agree that right whales may be 

present in an area but not visually detected? 

Mr. OLIVER. That is correct. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. But the Agency’s mitigation requirements and the 

Incidental Harassment Authorizations only require a shutdown of 

activity if the whales are visually detected within 1,500 meters of 

the vessel, even though the science suggests there could be disruption from noise at tens to hundreds of kilometers? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, sir. But we have measures in place to hopefully 

minimize the likelihood that those whales would be in the area at 

the same time those vessels are conducting those activities. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Understood. Your authorizations also apply only 

to 90 kilometers of the coast, even though seismic noise can travel 

long distances underwater and still increase the stress level on 

these whales within that buffer zone. Correct? 

Mr. OLIVER. Correct. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. It is also true that the Agency’s mitigation 

requirement in these authorizations prohibit blasting within this 

limited buffer only between November and April. Correct? Even 

though we know that whales can be present during different time 

frames? 

Mr. OLIVER. A little more than a yes or no response, sir. The 

other times of the year, there are still closures in effect out to 30 

nautical miles. But based on the information we have, and we expanded those original closures between what we originally proposed at 47 kilometers out to 90, or nearly doubled it, based on 

some of the information you cite that the whales have expanded 

the areas they occupy seaward and northward. So, again, the likelihood of them being present in that area we feel is quite low during 

that time. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Last question, because you took a little extra time 

than I expected there. It seems to me on the one hand you are 

working to recover these animals. On the other hand, you are 

allowing very limited buffers and limited mitigations in your 

authorizations. 

Were there internal conversations where some of your scientists 

objected to these permits? 

Mr. OLIVER. No, sir. Our internal conversations focused on the 

best available science that we had. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. There were no dissenters among the scientists on 

your team? 

Mr. OLIVER. Dissenters to what? 

Mr. HUFFMAN. To your decision to allow these activities to take 

place within these very limited buffers. 

Mr. OLIVER. Our role is not to decide on issuing the permits, sir. 

It is to decide on the appropriate mitigation measures—— 
16 

Mr. HUFFMAN. My question is whether there were scientists who 

believed that the mitigation measures were inadequate to protect 

the species. 

Mr. OLIVER. I do not believe that is correct. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. Thank you. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. Mr. Oliver, in a hearing yesterday, 

Federal officials stated that there was more seismic testing under 

the Obama administration than under the Trump administration. 

Is that accurate? 

Mr. OLIVER. I apologize, sir. I do not know the answer to that 

question. I am unfamiliar with the degree of seismic activity across 

the two administrations. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I am told that was the testimony in a hearing 

yesterday. If it is true, I am shocked, just shocked, that my friends 

on the left are not shocked. 

Can you tell us, what are we observing of other whale species in 

the North Atlantic? Are they declining or increasing? 

Mr. OLIVER. I don’t know the specific statistics. We have had a 

couple of unusual mortality events with other whale species over 

the past few years in the Atlantic. But those are, I guess, disassociated in time and space, and it is not clear that there is a relationship among them. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Populations of many species are increasing, 

are they not? 

Mr. OLIVER. Either stable or increasing. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And increasing by a significant rate, 3 to 5 

percent, I read. 

Mr. OLIVER. I have no reason to disagree with that number. I 

don’t know the exact rate. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Kraus, I am told, will testify that the 

National Marine Fisheries Service’s Biological Opinion on seismic 

impacts is flawed. Specifically, he mentions the 2017 model used by 

your agency. It was not adequate. Do you agree with this 

statement? 

Mr. OLIVER. I don’t agree with that statement. I would note that 

we are in the process of reconsulting and developing a new biological opinion. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Since he is going to follow you, do you want 

to address your concerns with his interpretation of the science 

here? 

Mr. OLIVER. I don’t know that I am in a position to do that at 

this time here today, sir. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Can you tell me, has this administration, or 

the previous, found that there is anything more than a negligible 

impact on whales due to seismic activity? 

Mr. OLIVER. No, sir. I don’t believe our agency has ever not 

issued or approved a request from an applicant for an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization, in either administration. And I would 

note that the prevailing scientific information is that seismic activity does not result in mortality or even serious injury; rather, the 

prevailing science is it does not. I would acknowledge there are 

other sublethal energetic effects. 
17 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And the whale populations that are increasing 

in the North Atlantic, I presume, are also affected by the same 

seismic testing. 

Mr. OLIVER. They would be, yes, sir. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. How about the right whale population in the 

Southern Hemisphere, which is described as increasing at about 3 

percent, I believe? 

Mr. OLIVER. I believe that is correct, 3 to 5 percent in the 

Southern Hemisphere. Correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So, they are doing quite well there with 

seismic testing. Something in the North Atlantic might have to do 

with the fact that the population left in the North Atlantic was so 

small to begin with. 

As I understand it, seismic testing is already heavily regulated, 

including requirements that trained professionals be present to 

detect whales, with the power to shut down testing. Could you 

elaborate on the safeguards to seismic testing a bit? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes. As you have noted and I have noted earlier, we 

have to find a negligible impact when we are asked to review these 

authorization requests, and include mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements that result in the least practical adverse 

impact. 

And if we are able to do so and we think that we have done so 

with what we believe are significant mitigation measures, including the 90 kilometer closure as well as multiple critical habitat and 

calving area closures that remain year round, along with the provision for shutdown if whales are detected within a mile and a half. 

So, we believe collectively those satisfy the standards that we are 

authorized to evaluate under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Can you tell us what the U.S. fishing industry 

has done to prevent interactions with right whales, and for that 

matter, any whales? 

Mr. OLIVER. There is a lot of promising research, actually, and 

a lot of incentive upon the fishing industry, and particularly in the 

wake of the unusual mortality event we had in 2017, a renewed 

and redoubled effort by both our agency and Canada and the fishing industry to find ways to minimize those interactions, including 

sinking lines, reductions in the number of lines, breakaways, and 

some promising technology on the use of ropeless fishing gear. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Van Drew for 5 

minutes. 

Dr. VAN DREW. Good morning, Mr. Oliver. Seismic air gun blasting for oil and gas has ramifications for all manner of marine life. 

Scientific studies show that seismic air gun noise can disturb, injure, or kill marine life, from zooplankton at the base of the food 

web, up to the fish and marine mammals at the top. 

In a recent study, a single seismic air gun caused massive mortality in zooplankton, a viable prey species in the ecosystem, over 

a 1.5-mile swath of ocean. Air gun noise can delay growth and 

cause body abnormalities in young scallops. Sounds from seismic 

air guns can cause physical damage to fish hearing structures, and 

lead to hearing loss itself, which leaves them unable to use sound 

for communicating, feeding, or escaping predators. 
18 

Catch rates of some commercially and recreationally important 

fish species are known to decrease substantially in the wake of 

seismic air gun blasting for oil and gas. In fact, seismic air gun 

blasting can lead to declines in catch rates by as much as 80 

percent of some fish species. 

This is concerning, as healthy fish stocks are critical for our 

Nation to continue to thrive. And I believe we all know how important the fishing industry—just alone in my state of New Jersey, it 

is the third largest industry. This is concerning, as healthy fish 

stocks are critical for our Nation’s fisheries to continue. How would 

this play out for Atlantic fisheries? 

Mr. OLIVER. Congressman Van Drew, I am not certain I understand your question, whether it was relative to right whales or 

fisheries. We evaluate, as does BOEM in their issuance of permitting activities, through biological opinions, impacts on fisheries as 

well as essential fish habitat. So, that would be evaluated through 

essentially a separate process. 

Dr. VAN DREW. How do you propose protecting fishermen and 

coastal businesses if catch rates drop in the Atlantic? 

Mr. OLIVER. I am not aware of any specific evidence that indicates the proposed seismic activity that we are talking about would 

somehow directly affect catch rates. I apologize. If that information 

is there, I am not aware of it. 

Dr. VAN DREW. OK. Regarding seismic surveys for oil and gas deposits off the Atlantic Coast, I have heard people say, ‘‘Why do we 

not just see what is out there?’’ They argue that it is OK to go 

ahead with seismic air gun surveys so that public and policy makers can weigh the pros and the cons of drilling for oil and gas in 

the Atlantic Ocean off of our coast. 

Five companies have received permits from NOAA to conduct 

seismic air gun surveys in the Atlantic, and are seeking final 

authorizations from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and 

the Department of the Interior. If these five companies go ahead 

with seismic air gun blasting in the Atlantic, will we be able to see 

what is out there? 

Mr. OLIVER. I presume that if they undertake their seismic activities, the point of doing so would be to ascertain whether and to 

what extent there are resources there that would warrant actual 

oil and gas exploration, which would also be permitted by BOEM. 

Dr. VAN DREW. Will the public have access to the data collected 

by these companies on possible oil and gas deposits off of our 

shores? 

Mr. OLIVER. I believe that much of the information they collect 

is proprietary. I think, through the EIS process, the public will 

have access to whatever information we have. But I cannot speak 

to every bit of information that may be proprietary to the particular companies involved. 

Dr. VAN DREW. If that information will be available to the public, 

then why are there five different companies seeking permits to explore the same area? 

Mr. OLIVER. I am not sure I have a good answer to that, 

Congressman. I guess they each needed a permit, so they each applied for a permit. I suppose it could have been done under a more 
19 

programmatic-type single authorization request. But in this case, 

there were five separate requests. 

Dr. VAN DREW. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n for 5 minutes. 

Ms. GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 

to the witness for being here today with us. 

In the past, the National Marine Fisheries Service has concluded 

that seismic surveying poses no significant threat to marine life. In 

2014, for example, your agency concluded, and I want to quote 

here, ‘‘To date there is no evidence that serious injury, death, or 

stranding by marine mammals can occur from exposure to air gun 

pulses, even in the case of large air gun arrays.’’ Is that still the 

case? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes. I believe that is still the case. We recognize 

there are other sublethal energetic effects, but not any direct mortality or serious injury effects. 

Ms. GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. Has the National Marine Fisheries 

Service found any new evidence since 2014 to conclude that seismic 

surveying significantly threatens the North Atlantic right whale 

and other marine species? 

Mr. OLIVER. No. 

Ms. GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. Do vessel collisions, entanglement in lines 

and nets, and ingestion of plastic pose higher threats? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, Congresswoman. In fact, vessel strikes and 

even more so entanglement in fishery gear are the two by far primary sources of mortality and serious injury. 

Ms. GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. Mr. Oliver, in 2018, NOAA Fisheries 

issued final authorization under the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act to incidentally but not intentionally harass marine mammals 

to companies proposing to conduct geophysical surveys in support 

of the hydrocarbon exploration in the Atlantic Ocean. 

Can you discuss the procedures and the analyses that go into 

your agency’s decision-making process when issuing those kind of 

authorizations? 

Mr. OLIVER. I will try to be brief. It was a lengthy process that 

took place over a couple of years. It started before I came on board 

in this position, but it involved publication of proposed permits 

with attendant mitigation measures. It went through, I believe, two 

different public comment periods, where we received over 120,000 

different public comments, including many very detailed technical 

and scientific-based comments from both proponents and opponents 

of that seismic activity. 

Ultimately, following our proposed rule, we assessed those comments and made some changes to the proposed rule. In a couple 

of changes, we relaxed some protection measures, particularly with 

regard to small dolphins. In other cases, we actually expanded the 

protection measures from what was originally proposed—for 

example, for the right whale specifically, enlarging the closure area 

from 47 to 90 kilometers. 

Ms. GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. I do understand that the harassment definition between level A and level B are a little bit different. Right? 

And the one in level B is going to be a little complicated. It is going 

to be unclear on how it will be affected. 
20 

Can you give us an overview of the National Marine Fisheries 

Service effort to conserve and rebuild the North Atlantic right 

whale population, and how you understand Congress can help in 

that effort as well? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, Congresswoman. From a general perspective, 

again, we are looking at taking regulatory and non-regulatory steps 

to reduce the threat of vessel collisions. And earlier in my testimony, I went through some of the details of that—so in the interest 

of time, I will not repeat them—where we are also in the process 

of reviewing those restrictions to assess both their effectiveness, 

the enforcement of compliance with them, as well as safety in navigation and coastal economic impacts, in order to assess perhaps 

changes to those restrictions. 

And second, a lot of work going on in the area of entanglements, 

and a very heightened focus, including recent action by Canada in 

the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and increased attention on the part of 

our fishermen and our fisheries management process to look at 

additional restrictions in U.S. fishermen waters, including development of ropeless fishing gear, including requirements for limitations on the number of traps that can be run, and—I will stop 

there. Sorry. 

Ms. GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. 

I yield back the balance of the time. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the 

Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Grijalva, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member, for the courtesy. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank 

you. The hearings that this Committee has undertaken have been 

substantive, empirical information being at the center of the 

discussion. 

And that sets a very good, I think, tone for how we should be 

dealing with a lot of the questions that face the Committee as a 

whole, and that is the fact that science needs to guide us, fact 

needs to guide us, because we are dealing with elements in our 

jurisdiction that demand that. And the fact that we have ignored 

it does not make it right. So, I want to thank you for that, and for 

the tone. 

And thank you, Mr. Oliver, for your testimony and for being 

here. Let me just go into some questions on some issues that perhaps I think also need to be covered relative to your testimony. 

Mr. Oliver, some reports indicate that up to 85 percent of North 

Atlantic right whales have scars associated with interactions with 

fishing gear. And my question is: What is NOAA doing, or planning 

to do, to ensure that such fishing lines are not deployed in times 

and places where right whales are present at the time? Does 

NOAA have a strong understanding of where fishing that impacts 

right whales is occurring? And what is the process to address that 

particular question? If I may, Mr. Oliver. 

Mr. OLIVER. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. A number of areas in 

response to that question. 

The most important thing that we can do to minimize these entanglement occurrences is to better understand where and when 

right whales are occurring. And we know that through recent 
21 

scientific studies and information they are changing some of those 

patterns. For example, part of the reason we had the large mortality event in 2017 is they apparently moved into the Gulf of Saint 

Lawrence in Canadian waters where there was a concentration of 

fishing gear, which was a relatively new migration pattern. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. If I may to that point, Mr. Oliver, so right whales 

are migrating to new locations, in part due to climate change. So, 

to that point that you made, what is NOAA doing to address 

climate change shifts? And as migrating patterns shift because of 

the change, what appropriate management tools, new technologies—what is being used to deal with that ongoing reality now 

that we know that? 

Mr. OLIVER. Well, we are trying to better understand where 

these shifts in zooplankton and phytoplankton are occurring so 

that we can predict where right whales are more likely to occur so 

that we can in turn consider restrictions or fisheries closures in 

those areas. 

And again, it is a matter of us understanding where those 

whales are going to be and taking the necessary measures to reduce the juxtaposition of those whales and fishing gear. And we 

have a lot of research ongoing in that regard. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Specifically, Mr. Oliver, the regulations to reduce 

the fatal ship strikes on right whales have successfully, in that 

area, lowered the mortality. I am aware thought NOAA is currently 

in the process of analyzing that particular rule, including its effectiveness and its cost. 

First of all, is that a true statement? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And where is the status of that review at this 

point? 

Mr. OLIVER. We expect a preliminary report by this summer, 

which would then be subject to both peer review and public comment, and the issuance of a final report later this year. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And to absolutely put you on the spot, can you 

assure us that NOAA will not recommend undermining the protections currently in place under that rule for right whales through 

this review? 

Mr. OLIVER. I cannot share what the outcome of the review is 

going to be. But I am certainly hopeful that, given the current status of the species, that any relaxation in certain areas would be for 

a very, very good reason based on knowledge of either effects—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Do you believe during this rule review, given the 

urgency of the topic right now and the right whales, do you believe 

that there are opportunities that are going to exist to strengthen 

that ship strike rule? 

Mr. OLIVER. I think the opportunity is there, yes, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lamborn for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and the Ranking Member for having this hearing today. This is an 

important topic, and so it is good that we are here. 

Mr. Oliver, I want to thank you for coming today. As you know, 

we appreciate the hard work you do for the American people, even 
22 

in the face of sometimes reckless accusations or radical science 

deniers and political opportunists. As we all focus on the right 

whale today, I wanted to touch on seismic, and try to put the 

science back into this hearing. And I am glad that the Chairman 

talked about the need for science. That is always better than 

emotionalism. 

How long have we been conducting geophysical work to find 

resources in our oceans? 

Mr. OLIVER. I don’t know the exact answer, sir. But at least 50 

or 60 years. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. I am told 80 years. Does that sound correct 

to you? 

Mr. OLIVER. That is probably more accurate. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. 

Now, I am going to list a few reasons for conducting this important geophysical research. And I want you to just answer yes or no 

on my list of questions. 

Whether or not that geophysical research in the Atlantic Ocean 

would need an incident harassment authorization, if you are conducting geophysical work to dredge shipping channels, do you need 

an IHA? 

Mr. OLIVER. I think you probably do, but it might be situationspecific. 

Mr. LAMBORN. How about researching sea bottom characteristics 

for offshore wind installation? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes. I believe so. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Planning and exploring for sand resources for 

beach replenishment and rebuilding? 

Mr. OLIVER. Again, I think that is correct, but I am not certain 

on the situation. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And my understanding is that it is. 

Mr. OLIVER. I have no reason to believe that it is not. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. And how about unexploded ordnance 

surveys? 

Mr. OLIVER. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. In fact, we have seen seismic geophysical work in the Atlantic for nearly all these reasons in just 

the last 4 years. 

And Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record a list 

of these surveys that IHAs have been required for. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 
23 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Lamborn 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Mr. Oliver, knowing that all this work has been done in just the 

last 4 years, much less going back 80 years, has it decimated right 

whale populations in the Atlantic? Or has the mitigation, observer 

requirements, and strong science that lays at the foundation of 

NOAA IHA decisions proven successful in allowing us to do the 

work we need to do, while at the same time conserving the species 

we need to conserve? 

Mr. OLIVER. I believe it is the latter, sir. Yes. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And could you explain that, please? 

Mr. OLIVER. Well, I believe that, again, as far as we know, the 

primary source of mortality by far for North Atlantic right whales 

particularly is vessel strikes and vessel entanglement. And, again, 
24 

there is no evidence whatsoever of any direct mortality or serious 

injury to the right whales from seismic activity. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lowenthal for 5 

minutes. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Oliver, I want to follow up on the questions that Chair 

Grijalva asked you about the ship strike reduction rule. Maybe we 

can discuss your thoughts on how it can be strengthened, right 

now, to talk about strengthening the rules. 

In 2008, National Marine Fisheries Service published the ship 

strike reduction rule, and it imposed a mandatory speed limit of 10 

knots per hour on vessels that were 65 feet in length or greater 

along parts of the Atlantic Seaboard at certain times of the year 

to prevent these collisions between the ships and the North 

Atlantic right whales. 

They determined that 65 feet was the appropriate length, 

because that was the categorization that was used to differentiate 

between motorboats and larger vessels and commercial vessels, and 

that larger vessels were subject to certain regulatory control, where 

smaller vessels were not. 

But we all know that a vessel of 65 feet or smaller can cause 

great harm to a North Atlantic right whale. Has the Agency ever 

considered putting a speed limit in seasonal management areas for 

vessels that are smaller than 65 feet? And if not, why not? And if 

you have, where are we in that discussion? 

Mr. OLIVER. I honestly don’t know, sir, in the original process of 

establishing those speed restrictions, whether and to what extent 

we considered vessels less than 65 feet. I think it has something 

to do with not only vessel size but automated information system 

AIS tracking that typically is required of all the larger vessels, 

therefore, our ability to track and monitor compliance with the 

vessel speed restrictions. So, I think there is a monitoring and compliance aspect to it. 

I would agree with you, though, that it makes sense. If we did 

not carefully evaluate that length threshold in the original rule, it 

would make sense to me that we should be looking at that in the 

current review. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. I am glad you will be. But another question is: 

How successful have you been in terms of actually reducing speed? 

I think in studies that were prepared for NOAA December 2012, 

that voluntary speed limits in what are called ‘‘dynamic management areas’’—they are parts of these areas—have only had limited 

success in reducing vehicle speed; they are still striking these animals. 

And in another study, NOAA has previously stated that there is 

a high level of noncompliance with these voluntary speed reductions, and that, for example, 95 percent of the ships that tracked 

in the Great South Channel did not slow down even when it was 

noted to them that it was a speed advisory due to right whale 

sailing—they were not slowing down. 

If that is the case, why are these restrictions not mandatory? 

And why are we not enforcing them, then? 
25 

Mr. OLIVER. Mr. Congressman, I do think that that is one of the 

important points that will be assessed in this review, and that is 

compliance with the rule. I know that we have, in fact, our Office 

of Law Enforcement has a great deal of information on compliance 

and violations that will be brought forward in that record. 

We have issued a number of very large penalties under this. But 

I would agree with you that if we identify areas that we believe are 

critical with regard to this issue of speed restrictions, critical relative to the right whale, that we should be seriously considering 

whether to make those areas mandatory as opposed to voluntary. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. And last, we have had issues on the 

West Coast, too, off my coast, the Pacific, on whales. And we have 

a voluntary program in place that I would like to describe to you 

later or put into the record. But it is based upon recognition. 

That is, if those shipping lines and others reduce their speed to 

a significantly slower speed, we provide them with recognition. And 

they all agree to do it, and we have lowered the air pollution significantly, especially in Santa Barbara and Ventura County, which 

were out of compliance. 

So, there are ways of doing this. I would hope that we would use 

this as an opportunity to really slow down ships. Really. Because 

that is a major danger to the sea life. Thank you. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Oliver, for being here. 

As you know, the sort of incidental takings that we are talking 

about here today under the Marine Mammal Protection Act have 

to be authorized by NOAA Fisheries. One requirement for the taking authorization is that NOAA must find the activity would ‘‘have 

no more than a negligible impact on the marine mammal species,’’ 

in this case, of course, the right whale. 

What are some of the primary considerations you look at when 

issuing these permits? 

Mr. OLIVER. Well, there are a number of things that we need to 

find. And ‘‘negligible impact,’’ I do not have the definition exactly 

on the top of my head. But it has to not result in long-term 

population or productivity of the species in question. So, that is a 

primary consideration. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am interested to know about ongoing requirements once a permit-holder obtains a permit. Do they have to follow requirements, say, if they encounter a protected species while 

they are engaging in the activity authorized by the permit? 

Let’s say that the seismic study is going on, and one of the 

vessels encounters a right whale. What happens then? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, sir. There are shutdown requirements—if a 

right whale is detected within 11⁄2 kilometers of the vessel, they are 

required to immediately shut down their air guns. 

Mr. JOHNSON. How long does the shutdown take? What is the 

procedure from that point? 

Mr. OLIVER. I don’t know the exact answer of what the criteria 

is for when they can go back up. But I suspect if the right whale 

subsequently exits the area and is not detectable within 11⁄2

kilometers, that at some point the activity could resume. I 
26 

apologize, I don’t know the exact time interval. That is something 

I would be glad to look into and get back to you on. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I guess the point is that there are some very reasonable restrictions in place. And some of our friends on the activist side want to imply that operators are just out there wreaking 

havoc in the seas, and that is not the case, I think. 

Let me ask you another question. In your testimony, you talk 

about ongoing collaboration with Canada. My understanding is 

that in 2017, there were a total of 17 observed right whale deaths, 

but 14 of those occurred in Canadian waters. Can you expand on 

some of the work you are doing with Canadian regulators to minimize the harm they are causing to the right whale population? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, Mr. Congressman, I can. And following that 

2017 event, we were very pleased that Canada subsequently last 

year actually implemented some measures, both with regard to 

shipping and with regard to gear entanglement. It was very good 

progress on their part. 

We collaborate and meet monthly with representatives from the 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans as well as Transport Canada 

on the shipping side. We established a bilateral right whale working group to discuss measures that both countries could consider 

and increase our coordination. We participate in aerial surveys 

with their team in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. And they in turn 

participate on our right whale recovery implementation team. 

And those are just a few of the ways that we interact at the 

international front. And I would just add generally that following 

that event in 2017, the heat, if you will, has turned up on that collaboration and on both of our countries’ efforts to particularly seek 

ways to minimize gear entanglement. So, it has really redoubled 

our efforts in that regard. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I was looking into this, and I was struck by the 

fact that I was in the second grade the last time there was a comprehensive geological seismic study for the Atlantic Coast. It was 

over 40 years ago. Has that technology advanced from then to now, 

so that we can get more accurate information while being less intrusive to marine life? 

Mr. OLIVER. I believe it has. And I am not an expert on it, but 

that is certainly my understanding, and from the information that 

we have received from some of the seismic oil and gas companies. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I appreciate your being here, and I yield back. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Neguse for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. NEGUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Oliver, 

for appearing before us today. I represent the great state of 

Colorado, and although we are a landlocked state, we certainly care 

very deeply about our oceans and the species that call our oceans 

home. 

Also, we have a number of people in my district in particular, 

Colorado 2nd Congressional District, who are very active in this regard. The Inland Oceans Coalition, which has chapters across the 

western United States, including at the University of Colorado 

Boulder and Colorado State University in my district, was founded 

in Colorado and works to build enthusiasm around marine biology 

and acknowledgement of the direct impact on the cycles of life in 
27 

the oceans that are downstream from us. Another example is the 

Oceans First Institute in Boulder, Colorado, which promotes 

conservation in future generations by connecting youth with the 

wonders of the ocean. 

I want to talk about some of your testimony today, Mr. Oliver. 

Just taking a step back, my understanding is that new births of 

North Atlantic right whales have slowed compared to the early 

2000s, and only about 100 breeding females remain in the 

population. 

And the only known calving ground for the North Atlantic right 

whale is off the southeast U.S. coast. And, of course, as we have 

talked about in this hearing, the Federal Government has now 

granted permits for nearly 850 combined days of seismic surveys 

for oil exploration in that precise area. 

What are the potential impacts of the seismic surveys on mothers 

and calves, which are key to the population growth? 

Mr. OLIVER. There are a number of critical habitat areas, including that calving area, in which no activity would be allowed. Those 

would be closed to seismic activity under the mitigation measures 

of the authorization that we have granted. 

Mr. NEGUSE. So, you believe the permits that have been granted 

will have no impact on the ability of the right Atlantic whale? 

Mr. OLIVER. We believe they will have a negligible impact. 

Mr. NEGUSE. A negligible impact? OK. Well, let me take it this 

way. My understanding is that in 2017, these same permits were 

denied by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, by the 

BOEM. Is that right? 

Mr. OLIVER. My understanding is they put the process on hold, 

and—— 

Mr. NEGUSE. Well, I will quote, I have a quote here. Perhaps this 

will be educational. ‘‘In early 2017’’—this is according to the BOEM 

in denying similar permits—concluding that the ‘‘value of obtaining 

the geophysical and geological information from new air gun seismic surveys in the Atlantic does not outweigh the potential risks 

of those surveys’ acoustic pulse impacts on marine life.’’ Those are 

not my words, they are the BOEM. 

What has changed since 2017? The science has not changed. 

Right? 

Mr. OLIVER. Well, Congressman, I cannot speak to why BOEM 

did or did not deny the permits. Our role in this—— 

Mr. NEGUSE. They did deny the permits, just for the record. But 

I am happy to provide you with that—— 

Mr. OLIVER. I understand. I don’t know why they did that. 

Mr. NEGUSE. Well, I just explained to you. The quote, they denied the permits because ultimately, the benefits to these five oil 

and gas companies were outweighed by the risks to this endangered species. And since that time, the science certainly has not 

changed. The status of the species certainly has not changed; it is 

more threatened, not less. It seems that the only thing that has 

changed since that time is the politics of it. 

And this is why it is very frustrating, because most of the issues 

that we deal with are very partisan. But this happens to be an 

issue that has bipartisan support. Let me give you just a few of the 
28 

stakeholders in the region who have expressed concern or outright 

opposition to the granting of these permits. 

The governor of Florida, Republican. The governor of Georgia, 

Republican. The governor of South Carolina, Republican. The governor of Maryland, a Republican. The governor of Massachusetts, 

a Republican. All right? In addition to a variety, of course, of 

Democratic governors, 240 East Coast state municipalities, over 

1,500 local, state, and Federal bipartisan officials. 

There are a litany, a plethora, of experts and folks in these communities who have said that this is not a prudent thing to do. And 

I am struggling to understand why NOAA, which is obligated 

under the law to consult with the BOEM as it grants these permits, would be willing to take this risk. I guess that is my last 

question for you, Mr. Oliver. 

Mr. OLIVER. I would answer, Congressman, that our role in this, 

under the MMPA, is to not authorize the surveys themselves, but 

authorize the marine mammal take that might occur incidental to 

these surveys with the necessary mitigation, reporting, and monitoring requirements that we believe would be a negligible impact. 

But that is different than actually—— 

Mr. NEGUSE. Again, you keep on referencing the word 

‘‘negligible.’’ I think it is important—we can get lost in the technical language. These air gun blasts happen every 10 seconds for 

hours on end, for weeks on end, to a species that calls the ocean 

home. 

There are literally bombs going off for those animals every 10 

seconds of every hour of every day for prolonged periods of time. 

I do not think that is a negligible impact, and I think the science 

makes clear that is not the case. And with that, thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fulcher for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FULCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Oliver, I represent a region in the state of Idaho, also a landlocked state, and will just tell you right up front, my level of expertise on the right whale is quite negligible. I had to do a little bit 

of homework on this, and I want to share with you what I found. 

I think, for the most part, it tends to line up with what you were 

saying. 

But it appears to me that the primary habitat for this species is 

three locations. There is the Atlantic, North Atlantic, North Pacific, 

and the Bering Sea. And at least according to the information that 

I am finding, the population fluctuation, up or down, doesn’t seem 

to be different in any of those regions. And, by the way, the ocean 

traffic has been constant on both, with the highest ocean traffic, actually, in the Atlantic. 

I have been intrigued by the seismic conversation. And most of 

that activity takes place in the Gulf of Mexico, which this is not 

potentially part of that habitat, but also some in the Atlantic. Yet, 

there doesn’t appear to be any difference in the population trend. 

You did talk about this, but I just need to hear you re-edify that. 

What is the biggest impact negatively on the population of these 

animals? 
29 

Mr. OLIVER. Congressman, certainly in the case of the North 

Atlantic right whale—and there may be some differences in the 

population trajectories of the different species; as we noted earlier, 

other whales on the East Coast are increasing at a rate of 3 to 5 

percent in many cases—by far the primary sources of mortality are 

vessel gear entanglement, followed by vessel strikes. Those are the 

two sources of right whale direct mortality and serious injury. 

Mr. FULCHER. Just for the record, the data that I see is in agreement with that. Do you have anything specific in your data that 

indicates that the seismic activity is—I just don’t see it where I am 

looking. And I am wondering if you have any data on that. 

Mr. OLIVER. Well, there is certainly information, Congressman, 

that seismic activity, acoustic activity, air guns, however you want 

to characterize it, does have sublethal effects on various activities 

of marine mammals, including the North Atlantic right whale. 

It can affect their behavior, their movements, their migrations. 

It can affect their feeding behavior. It can affect their breeding behavior. And collectively, those sublethal effects are precisely why 

we prescribe what we believe are fairly significant mitigation 

requirements on that seismic activity. 

Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Oliver, then if that is the case, why wouldn’t 

there be more of a fluctuation in the population, or decline in this 

case, in areas where most of that is happening today? 

Mr. OLIVER. I can’t answer that question specifically. Again, we 

don’t believe that seismic activity is a source at all of direct mortality or serious injury. It is hard to tease apart what could be 

longer-term effects on a different species of whale. But, again, if 

your question was, does this seismic activity result in mortalities 

of whales, the answer, we believe, is it will not. 

Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Oliver, thank you for being here and for your 

testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Levin for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Chair Huffman, and thank you, Mr. 

Oliver, for joining us today. 

I think we all agree how important it is to listen to scientists 

when developing public policy, particularly in an area like this 

where certain industries may have an outsized influence. Mr. 

Oliver, your agency has been inconsistent in its approach to the 

rules on sounds in our ocean. 

First, in the Gulf, your rules say that some sounds below 160 

decibels can negatively impact whales. Yet, in the Atlantic, you 

allow all sounds up to 160 decibels, some of which would not be allowed in the Gulf. A hundred sixty decibels, as you may know, can 

rupture human eardrums. 

So, my question for you, Mr. Oliver, is: Did any career scientists 

or other career staff object to the differences in these policies? Did 

they write any memos or e-mails to voice their concern? Or did 

they express their concerns orally? 

Mr. OLIVER. Congressman Levin, if I understand your question 

correctly, this relates to the different application of measures in the 

Gulf and the Atlantic. While there is some desire for consistency 

across regions, there are very significant differences in both the 
30 

bathymetric aspects of those two oceans and very different species 

involved. 

And different whale species, I can’t cite the specific species and 

the decibel ranges that they are sensitive to, but different species 

that exist in those two different oceans are very sensitive to different bands of decibel and megahertz. So, what works with some 

species does not work with others. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Oliver, with respect, I don’t think you answered 

my question. Again, did any career scientists or other career staff 

object to the differences in these policies? 

Mr. OLIVER. I’m not certain I understand what policies you are 

referring to. But the answer is no. 

Mr. LEVIN. I find that hard to believe, seeing as it is such a significant change in policy, to allow sounds up to 160 decibels in the 

Atlantic but not in the Gulf. That is the correct policy. Right? 

Mr. OLIVER. My understanding is those differences are based on 

the scientific expertise of career staff, who recognize the appropriateness of those different applications. 

Mr. LEVIN. And can the Committee see any evidence of that disagreement with scientific backup? Can that be provided to the 

Committee? 

Mr. OLIVER. We will certainly provide you all the scientific 

information we used in making those determinations. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LEVIN. That would be helpful. And Mr. Oliver, this was not 

the only controversial decision the agency made. You also decided 

not to look at the cumulative impacts of the authorizations you 

issued. Similar question: Did any career scientists or other career 

staff object to the failure to evaluate cumulative impacts of 

multiple Incidental Harassment Authorizations, or IHAs? 

Mr. OLIVER. No, sir. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. LEVIN. I also find that very hard to believe, given the 

significance of the policy. 

Were there any other aspects of the decision to issue the 

Incidental Harassment Authorizations that caused dissent within 

the agency? And if there were, what was the nature of that 

dissent? 

Mr. OLIVER. No, sir. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about how the 

decision to endanger the right whale was made. I believe the 

Committee should insist on the production of any documents held 

by the agency that express concerns about the impact of the decision on the right whales. 

We will not be able to know the true basis for the decision unless 

we get these documents, and I find it incredibly hard to believe 

that there was not significant internal debate. 

So, I look forward to the production of those documents to the 

Committee, Mr. Oliver, and I will yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. And I believe I heard you, Mr. Oliver, 

agree to share those documents with the Committee. Did I hear 

you correctly? 

Mr. OLIVER. Sure. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hice for 5 minutes. 
31 

Dr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Oliver, I want to thank you for being here, and recognize 

your expertise in so many different groups and organizations that 

supported you being appointed to this position, and the high level 

of professionalism you bring to it. 

As we are discussing the right whale, I am from Georgia, and of 

course this is the official marine mammal of Georgia. And the right 

whale has calving grounds in the waters off the coast of our state. 

And these are beautiful mammals and draw a great deal of tourism. People going to Jekyll Island, Tybee Island, and the like go 

out looking for dolphins and whatever, but all the while keeping 

their fingers crossed that perhaps they will have an opportunity to 

see a right whale along the way. 

Why is it that the right whale is only off the coast of Georgia for 

certain months, as I understand it, between November and April? 

Mr. OLIVER. I have to admit, sir, among my expertises, I am not 

a cetacean expert. That is their typical migration pattern. As far 

as I know, it has been their pattern for hundreds if not thousands 

of years. I don’t know exactly why they are there at that time of 

year, but they seem to be there pretty much every year. I would 

be happy to—— 

Dr. HICE. Right. Because you said it, it is a migratory pattern. 

It is what they do. They come there and they leave. And it is something they have been doing for hundreds or thousands or however 

long number of years. It is the pattern. It is what they do. 

So, when there is a migratory animal such as this, it means that 

they are there certain times of the year and they are not there certain times of the year, as a general rule. Is that correct? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, sir. 

Dr. HICE. All right. So, would this be part of the explanation why 

NOAA Fisheries issued an incident authorization to the company 

Deepwater Wind to survey off the coast of Rhode Island in order 

to build Block Island Wind Farm? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, sir. 

Dr. HICE. OK, so the reason, just to be sure, is because it would 

be an incidental harassment, which means what? Can you explain 

what an Incidental Harassment Authorization is? 

Mr. OLIVER. What it essentially means is you cannot intentionally harass. But you can, incidentally to the activity being 

proposed, incidentally interact, harass, in this case the acoustic signals from the air guns, if we can find again that it has an overall 

negligible impact on the species, and we impose appropriate mitigation monitoring and enforcement standards to minimize that 

interaction. 

Dr. HICE. Right, so you are minimizing the potential problems 

because in this case you have a migratory mammal that is—and 

so you try to exercise those sounds, more than likely, when they 

are not present. Correct? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes. 

Dr. HICE. OK. That makes sense. Let me land where I am going 

here. As I understand it, there is no real unique difference between 

the needs of renewable sources and oil and gas development when 

you are coming to survey the shore, or the ocean bottom. Is that 

correct? 
32 

Mr. OLIVER. Again, I am not an expert on hydroacoustics. There 

may be some differences in the sound, the acoustic signal, between 

seismic for oil and gas versus seismic for siting a wind facility. But 

I think that essentially, they are very similar. 

Dr. HICE. If you are trying to determine the ocean floor, it does 

not matter what you are surveying the ocean floor for, the purpose, 

whether it is renewable energy, or oil and gas. If you are surveying 

the floor, it is basically the same technology for either. That is my 

understanding. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes. My understanding is they are very similar. 

Some may be shooting for a deeper signal, in the case of oil and 

gas, than siting a wind turbine, for example, which may not have 

to go down as deep to know what you want to know. But—— 

Dr. HICE. So, we should be able to pursue all of the above safely? 

Mr. OLIVER. I believe we can. And I don’t believe our agency has 

ever denied an application for that type of activity. 

Dr. HICE. OK. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hice. 

The Chair asks unanimous consent to allow the gentleman from 

Massachusetts, Mr. Keating, to sit at the dais during some of the 

testimony. 

Without objection, it is so ordered. And the Chair now recognizes 

Mr. Sablan. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing. And thank you for Mr. Oliver and the other witnesses 

for joining us and sharing. 

I have one question, Mr. Oliver. NOAA currently protects, again, 

critical habitat for right whales, which includes the feeding areas 

and calving grounds. However, the whales twice-yearly migratory 

routes through the mid-Atlantic, which connect these two habitats, 

are not protected. 

Does NOAA Fisheries have plans to ensure right whale migratory routes are officially recognized as critical habitat and establish 

the necessary protections for their migratory routes in the midAtlantic? 

Mr. OLIVER. Congressman, my understanding is that it is typically the southern region where they calve, which has not changed 

much. Some of their activity, on the other hand, up north has 

moved northward and seaward. So, there are some changes occurring in their movement patterns, and that is what is critical for us 

to understand. 

But my understanding is the migration pattern that you are referring to, at the time it occurs and at the time they are in those 

waters, is why we have the mitigation measure that we put in 

place. And there are critical habitat areas within that, including 

the calving grounds, that are always closed. 

But it is my understanding that the mitigation measures were 

intended to address that very issue of where the whales are and 

when. 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes. Let me just ask, Mr. Oliver, a yes or no answer. Do you have oversight authority over Westpac? This is not 

a right whale question. But do you have authority over Western 

Pacific Fisheries Council? 

Mr. OLIVER. I don’t know what you mean by ‘‘authority over.’’ 
33 

Mr. SABLAN. I mean do you, do they have supervisory—— 

Mr. OLIVER. We don’t have direct supervisory authority over the 

councils. They are not employees of—— 

Mr. SABLAN. OK. Just a question. Thank you. 

At this time, I yield the remainder of my time to the Chairman 

of the Subcommittee. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sablan. I will not take the full 

amount of time. 

But, Mr. Oliver, I do want to ask you this. You mention that you 

are in the middle of a reconsultation on the existing biological opinion for the North Atlantic right whale. Correct? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. You only do a reconsultation if the existing biological opinion protections are not working. Is that not fair to say? 

Mr. OLIVER. Well, there are a number—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. If everything is just fine and the species is on the 

path to recovery, you do not have to do a reconsultation. 

Mr. OLIVER. This is also the subject, sir—apologies—of ongoing 

litigation. So, I am a little bit limited in how I can respond. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. But it is fair to say that there is strong 

reason to believe that existing protections that are in place under 

the biological opinion are not putting the species on a path to recovery. Would you not agree? 

Mr. OLIVER. Well, I would agree that there were perhaps deficiencies in the biological opinion itself, which may be a little bit 

separate issue than the measures that we currently have in place. 

I think that based on the results of this biological opinion, it may 

well indicate that we need to take additional measures. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Very good. And the downward trajectory of the 

population would also suggest that this is a time for more protection, not less. Would you not agree? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, sir. Protection from the primary sources of 

mortality, certainly. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. The mission of the National Marine Fisheries 

Service is not to promote fossil fuel energy dominance, is it? 

Mr. OLIVER. That is correct. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. The prior administration under the same facts, 

under the same science, at a time when the population was actually doing better than it is today, found that the risk of extinction 

from these five companies doing seismic testing to make money on 

oil and gas development was vastly greater, outweighed the monetary interests of the companies. They said no to the oil and gas 

industry. 

I am going to ask you a question that I realize is without any 

precedent in this administration. But what if you had said no in 

this administration to the oil and gas industry, as the previous administration was prepared to do under the same facts and the 

same science? How long would you have kept your job? 

Mr. OLIVER. I don’t know, Mr. Chairman. I never contemplated 

that. I contemplated our agency—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Do you think you would be sitting here today? Do 

you think you would be sitting here today if you had said no to the 

oil and gas industry? 

Mr. OLIVER. I don’t know, sir. 
34 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Fair enough. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Cunningham from South Carolina. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Joe 

Cunningham. I represent South Carolina’s 1st District, which is a 

coastal area, from Charleston all the way down to Hilton Head. 

It is fair to say that seismic air gun blasting is extremely disruptive and loud. Correct? 

Mr. OLIVER. I didn’t hear the last—— 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is fair to say that seismic air gun blasting 

is extremely loud and disruptive. Is that correct? 

Mr. OLIVER. I don’t know exactly how loud it is. I have never 

actually directly experienced it myself. And when you say 

‘‘disruptive,’’ I cannot answer that question unless you elaborate on 

what you mean by—disruptive to what? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. OK. Let’s say, do you think the sound of a 

washing machine is loud or disruptive? 

Mr. OLIVER. Not particularly. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. OK. What about an air horn? 

Mr. OLIVER. You are getting there. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. OK. Mr. Chair, I would ask for unanimous 

consent to sound an air horn in Committee. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Is there objection to the gentleman’s 

demonstration? 

[No response.] 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Without objection, the gentleman—— 

Mr. OLIVER. Mr. Chairman, I would assume that it will annoy us, 

but it will not kill us. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Hearing no objection, the gentleman may 

demonstrate. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you. I would like to give anyone an 

opportunity to leave if they would find it bothersome. 

Mr. OLIVER. Again, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that opportunity 

exists for every whale and other little critter in the ocean. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I don’t think they receive advance notice of the 

seismic testing in cetacean language, but—— 

Mr. OLIVER. That is not correct. You told us that they get 10 

seconds’ interval between every blast. I think that would be plenty 

of time to go to the next room or section of the ocean. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. The gentleman may proceed. Thank you. 

[Mr. Cunningham sounds air horn.] 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Was that disruptive, Mr. Oliver? 

Mr. OLIVER. Sir, it was irritating, but I did not find it 

particularly disruptive. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. What about, say, every 10 seconds, like 

systematic air gun testing goes on for, for days? Weeks? Months? 

Mr. OLIVER. If I were that close to it, yes, probably. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. What if you depended on sound for hunting your food and for communication? Do you think it would be 

disruptive? 

Mr. OLIVER. At a distance of 20 feet, yes, it would be. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. How much louder do you think seismic air 

gun blasting sounds than this air horn you just heard? 

Mr. OLIVER. I honestly don’t know. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Take a guess. Ten times? 
35 

Mr. OLIVER. At a distance of how far? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, say you are within a reasonable distance. Say you are within a quarter of a mile. Is it 10 times? Is 

it 25 times? 

Mr. OLIVER. I honestly don’t know. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Can you take a guess? 

Mr. OLIVER. No. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. A hundred times? Do you think it is a 

thousand times louder? 

Mr. OLIVER. I doubt it. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You doubt it? What if I were to tell you it is 

16,000 times louder than what you just heard here? Can you see 

how that would be impactful on marine species, mammals? 

Mr. OLIVER. I do, which is why we put mitigation measures in 

place to minimize the proximity of that activity with the whales in 

question. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Do you think you can cure all of the effects that 

come from seismic air gun blasting to these species that it is 

impacting? 

Mr. OLIVER. I don’t know what the effects are that we are curing. 

Sorry. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, such as the killing of our species? 

Mr. OLIVER. I guess, Mr. Chairman, if that was a question, I will 

repeat what I said earlier. There is absolutely no evidence that 

these sounds and activities have ever killed or seriously injured a 

marine mammal, or a right whale. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You have heard earlier testimony how various 

states along the Eastern Seaboard, including South Carolina, are 

adamantly opposed to offshore drilling. Correct? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. OK. How do you feel about imposing seismic 

air gun blasting, which is impactful to marine species, in search for 

oil and gas and which the residents and citizens of South Carolina 

do not even want? 

Mr. OLIVER. Congressman, our role under the MMPA is to either 

authorize the activity or not based on a number of findings that do 

not include a popular vote. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Do you think South Carolina has a right to 

determine what happens off its shorelines? 

Mr. OLIVER. Certainly, within certain distances that perhaps 

envelop state waters. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. But outside state waters, you don’t think they 

have any decision whatsoever as to what happens off their shorelines and what could ultimately wash up on our beaches? 

Mr. OLIVER. I don’t write the laws that dictate where states’ 

rights, where states’ authorities versus Federal authorities lie. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am not asking for your legal interpretation. 

I am just asking your personal opinion about this. 

Mr. OLIVER. I don’t have an opinion on that. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You don’t have an opinion? 

Mr. OLIVER. No, sir. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. OK. Would you like to know or have an opinion about what happens within your neighborhood or your state? 
36 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I think we are going to end with that rhetorical 

question. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I appreciate your time, Mr. Oliver. Thank you. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Beyer of the great 

state of Virginia, also on the migratory route of the North Atlantic 

right whale, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for including 

me and for allowing me some time. 

This is a very important issue to me. All of our Virginia coastal 

communities are united against the oil and gas and against the 

seismic testing. And I am going to be reintroducing the Atlantic 

Seismic Air Gun Protection Act today to establish a moratorium on 

geological and geophysical activity related to oil and gas exploration and development in the Atlantic Ocean. 

If I can—will my friend from South Carolina yield for a question? 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No objection. 

Mr. BEYER. Could you tell me what the decibel level on the air 

horn was? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. On the air horn, it is 120 decibels. 

Mr. BEYER. Great. Thank you very much. 

And by the way, Mr. Oliver, on this sound traveling, we know 

that subsonic sound travels 2,500 miles in the ocean, which is 

Washington, DC all the way to San Francisco. So, you cannot escape, in 10 seconds, that 2,500 miles. 

My understanding is that your agency took the position that the 

North Atlantic right whales are not harassed by sounds unless they 

are episode to a sound at the level of 160 decibels or higher. And 

obviously, every 10 decibels, I believe, is a doubling in the sound 

volume. 

But in the Gulf of Mexico, your same agency did only 120 

decibels, which is many, many times. Why the difference? 

Mr. OLIVER. Again, a similar question came up earlier. I think, 

while there is some desire to maintain a consistency in how we 

authorize issue authorizations in different bodies of water, they are 

very different ocean conditions, bathymetry, and most importantly, 

very different species we are talking about. 

And the different whale species have different vulnerabilities or 

different typical acoustical patterns that they operate within. So, 

different decibels affect different whale species differently. 

Mr. BEYER. But we can establish that 160 decibels is incredibly 

loud. In fact, that is twice as loud as what is necessary to rupture 

the human eardrum. 

The Republican objection to this seems to hang on two things 

that happened in the Obama administration. In 2014, NMF said, 

‘‘Today there is no evidence serious injury or death or stranding by 

marine mammals can occur from exposure to air gun pulses.’’ And 

then in 2014, BOEM said, ‘‘To date there has been no documented 

scientific evidence to adversely affect marine animal populations.’’ 

Since you are not on the next panel, let me just quote from some 

of the abundance of contrary evidence. For example: ‘‘Right whales 

as well as many marine animals are highly dependent on a naturally quiet ocean for basic life functions.’’ 

‘‘Protecting right whales protects entire ocean ecosystems.’’ 
37 

‘‘Whales act as incidental farmers of the seafood, capturing food 

at depth and releasing nutrients at the surface.’’ 

‘‘Right whales, the acoustics will increase the likelihood of 

mother-calf separations, the likelihood of acoustic communication 

between whales,’’ on and on and on. 

None of these are individual right whales being killed. But they 

are all whole-population impacts that affect calving, migrations, life 

span. 

‘‘This is not about acute physical harm to an individual, rather, 

the cost to a marginally surviving population as a result of aggregate chronic noise.’’ 

‘‘I find the idea that whales are more like us than most people— 

cults or dialects, individual voices, family trees, long-term social 

structures, that we owe them more than treating them as collateral 

damage.’’ 

How do you reconcile this abundance of science—and you have 

probably seen the many, many, many references—with the NMFS 

and BOEM decisions in 2014? 

Mr. OLIVER. I am not sure I understand what specific 2014 

decisions you are referring to, Congressman. But we have, as I 

mentioned earlier, I don’t believe our agency has ever, across any 

administration, not approved an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization. 

Depending on the activity and depending on the species, there 

are different mitigation conditions attached to those authorizations. 

But—— 

Mr. BEYER. Let me ask you—can you appreciate that there is a 

significant difference between a right whale not washing up on the 

beach, being killed by a seismic blast, and the population impacts 

of chronic noise abuse over time? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes, I can, Congressman. And we have some of the 

finest marine mammal scientists, experts, in the world that work 

on these authorizations, both in the Gulf of Mexico and on the 

Atlantic Coast. And they know well more than I what the different 

whale species tolerate and what the appropriate mitigation is for 

those. And those are the same people that worked on these 

authorizations. 

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Just a note for the record. My pregnant 

committee consultant to my left noted that after Mr. Cunningham 

did his seismic air gun demonstration, her baby began kicking. So, 

perhaps a data point for you to consider, Mr. Oliver, as we go 

forward. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HUFFMAN. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Keating for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and the 

Ranking Member for allowing me a few minutes to speak. And I 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, for prioritizing this issue so early in this 

session, and for your own experience, which I know full well, even 

with Massachusetts, the studies you have done in this regard. And 

I do want to talk about that. 

And I do want to mention that in terms of Mr. Oliver’s comments 

about minimization, the minimization we are concerned with is the 
38 

minimization of the population of the right whale, the North 

Atlantic right whale, which is down to approximately 422 whales 

right now. 

This is an existential issue regarding their species. And it is that 

critical. So, where is the trade-off? The trade-off is, Number 1, trying to do something positive, as my colleague Representative 

Moulton has, which I am joining him as original co-sponsor of his 

bill, SAVE Right Whales Act of 2019, where we are marshaling 

resources to try to protect the species. 

And the trade-off on the other side is oil and gas exploration in 

our oceans, and a product that we are exporting now around the 

world, that we have plenty domestically to deal with. And the 

trade-off is not even close. And we are just dealing it through the 

lens of the right whale. There is a ‘‘canary in the coal mine’’ effect 

possible with the right whale and their diminishing species, and 

the effects on the rest of the ocean. 

And representing one of the largest coastal areas in the United 

States and an area that has dealt extensively with this issue, I 

wish I had in front of me a picture. It is a picture that I have seen 

at the Center for Coastal Studies in Provincetown, Massachusetts. 

It shows a very brave person getting in a very small vessel up 

against a whale, trying to disentangle that whale, risking their 

lives to do that. It is an extraordinary picture. 

That is what we should be about. That is what our values, in 

terms of our environment and protecting our environment, are 

about. And if we are talking about trade-offs in economic factors, 

I think I can speak all the way for my colleagues, Virginia, the 

West Coast, to here. In my district, if you want to just put this on 

economic terms, it is not even close, either. 

Endangering our coastline and its resources would have devastating impacts economically on my area in particular. This is not 

even close. We should not even be discussing this. But we should 

be marshaling our resources as SAVE Right Whales Act of 2019 in 

terms of protecting them. We should be here in Congress giving 

that same heroic effort to preserve the North Atlantic right whale 

that those people are doing on those very small vessels, where they 

can be overturned in a moment. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I will advance this anymore by 

posing questions. I think the answers are altogether too obvious. 

And I commend you for having the hearing so that we will have 

the opportunity to let Congress and let the American public realize 

that we are making these kinds of trade-offs that are not even 

close. 

I yield back. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Webster of Florida. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the 

opportunity. 

Along that line, the population of great white whale, there is also 

an increase in the population of sharks. Administrator Oliver, there 

is a movement that has been tracked, and that is headed from the 

Massachusetts area, down to Florida. And there are a lot of predators that are moving in, and prey on white whale calves, which are 

in that area. 
39 

And I am just wondering if these sharks, who are preying on 

these calves, are any concern. And is there anything being done 

about that, or is there anything we could do about that? 

Mr. OLIVER. Congressman, thank you for the question. That is a 

good question, one that I don’t know the answer to. It is an intriguing question because I know up on the North Pacific, with the 

endangered Steller sea lion, we have had a lot of issues and questions with regard to the effects on that population of killer whale 

predation. 

So, I don’t know offhand of any documented evidence of right 

whale calves being taken by sharks. But I was at South Atlantic 

Council meeting earlier this week and heard from a number of fishermen. They are seeing way more and way bigger sharks than 

ever, to the fact that they are taking fish off their lines on a 

routine basis. 

So, given that there are more and bigger sharks, apparently, out 

there, I think you raise a good question. And I would probably 

want to get back to my expert people and find out whether we have 

any documentation of shark predation. 

Mr. WEBSTER. There are several proposals out there about 

sharks, fishing, and even the finning of sharks. And one of the proposals is to just eliminate any shark fishing. And if this is true, 

and there is a lot of documentation from NOAA about the migration of these predators down into the Florida area, even around to 

the Gulf, to me I would propose an idea of trying to draw in the 

international fishing industry into taking our more conservationstyle treatment of sharks and yet still not totally prohibiting the 

fishing of sharks. 

And I am just wondering if there is a correlation between that 

and the number. And is it going to change? If these predators are 

coming to Florida, and if their prey is an infant calf, then we are 

doing great harm to the white whale population, I believe. 

Would you see a correlation between those two? 

Mr. OLIVER. Again, Congressman, I don’t know that there is any 

correlation between the two. I would say that in cases where particular shark species warrant protection, we will do our best to do 

that. But we also support sustainable harvest of shark species 

where there is a sustainable harvest level to be had. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Will the gentleman yield his final 40 seconds for 

a followup? 

Mr. WEBSTER. I will. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Oliver, you have said that seismic air blasting 

can have sublethal effects on right whales. Right? 

Mr. OLIVER. Yes. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. And that can include disrupting the communication patterns that allow a mother and a calf to be together? That 

is one of the ways in which whales communicate, through ocean 

sound. If one is concerned about shark predation that is limited to 

baby right whales, there is no shark in the ocean big enough to go 

toe to toe with a mother right whale. Correct? 

Mr. OLIVER. I believe that would be true. 
40 

Mr. HUFFMAN. So, if we are concerned about shark predation on 

right whales, we should be concerned about seismic air blasting 

that causes mothers and calves to be separated in the ocean. 

With that, I yield back. The Chair recognizes—— 

Mr. WEBSTER. Well, would the gentleman yield his—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. There is no extra time. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Moulton. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Are we operating under a 6-minute rule now, Mr. 

Chairman? 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I was using the gentleman’s—— 

Mr. WEBSTER. You accorded yourself 6 minutes. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. No. 

Mr. WEBSTER. You accorded—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. The gentleman is out of order. I was using the 

time yielded to me specifically—— 

Mr. WEBSTER. And you stopped the clock when you borrowed 

time from another Member. And that is getting a little tiresome. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. The gentleman is incorrect and out of order. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Moulton for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Chairman, by even the most generous estimates, there are fewer than 422 right whales left in the ocean. 

Humans have killed nearly every right whale in existence through 

our direct and indirect actions over the past two centuries. 

And, today, we are at a crossroads. We have a choice. We can be 

the generation that saves the right whale or the generation that allows their extinction. The right whale’s fate is literally in our 

hands, in the hands of the members of this Committee and this 

Congress. 

I want to thank the Committee for having this hearing today and 

showing their commitment to the right whale, which in turn is a 

commitment to my region’s economy and identity. Let’s not miss 

this unique moment. 

Last night with Mr. Huffman, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Keating, and 

Mr. Posey, I reintroduced the SAVE Right Whales Act. Mr. 

Chairman, few people in the history of the Earth have had the ability to help a species survive like this. 

From the passenger pigeon to the western black rhinoceros, 

humans have driven the extinction of iconic species through centuries of choices. It was a choice to hunt the right whale to near 

extinction. It was a choice to jeopardize the right whale by drilling 

off our coasts. Let’s be the generation of leaders that chooses to 

bring the right whale back from the brink. 

Massachusetts is leading the way. Our bill has the support of 

scientists like Dr. Scott Kraus from the New England Aquarium, 

a group leading the charge. He will speak with you shortly. It has 

the support of lobstermen and other members of the Cape Cod 

Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance, who know that the fate of our 

economy in Massachusetts is directly linked to the health of our 

oceans and the species that live in them. 

And the SAVE Right Whales Act has the support of the folks 

who speak for the whales and so many other iconic species, groups 

like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Defenders of 

Wildlife. 
41 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership, for your support of this bill in the past, and for prioritizing this hearing in the 

new Congress. Let’s pass the SAVE Right Whales Act, and arm us 

with the funding we need to be the generation of humans that 

saves the right whale. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I thank the gentleman. With that, we will thank 

and excuse Mr. Oliver. Thanks very much for your testimony. We 

will bring forward our second panel. 

While the panel is coming forward, I will go ahead and begin the 

introductions. 

Our first witness will be Dr. Scott Kraus, the Chief Scientist of 

Marine Mammal Conservation at the New England Aquarium. 

Next will be Dr. Sterling Burnett, a Senior Fellow and Managing 

Editor of Environment and Climate News at The Heartland 

Institute. And last we will have Dr. Chris Clark, who is a Visiting 

Senior Scientist at the Bioacoustics Research Program at Cornell 

Lab. 

Let me just remind the witnesses in the second panel that under 

Committee Rules, they must limit their oral statements to 5 

minutes. Their entire statement will, of course, appear in the hearing record. 

And, again, gentlemen, when you begin, you will see the lights 

that are displayed. As you get closer to the end of your testimony, 

you will see a yellow light. And when your time is about to run out, 

you will see a red light. I will encourage you to wrap up at that 

point. 

We will allow the entire panel to testify before questions begin. 

The Chair now recognizes Dr. Scott Kraus for 5 minutes. 

Welcome, Doctor. 

STATEMENT OF DR. SCOTT KRAUS, VICE PRESIDENT AND 

SENIOR SCIENCE ADVISOR, CHIEF SCIENTIST, MARINE 

MAMMAL CONSERVATION, ANDERSON CABOT CENTER FOR 

OCEAN LIFE AT THE NEW ENGLAND AQUARIUM, BOSTON, 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Dr. KRAUS. Thank you, Chairman Huffman and Ranking 

Member McClintock, for inviting me to testify on the status of the 

North Atlantic right whale. I have spent almost 40 years studying 

this species, publishing over 80 scientific papers on its biology, ecology, and conservation. 

In addition, my research team curates the North Atlantic right 

whale catalog, a photographic record of every individual right 

whale in the population. I am here to speak to the threats to this 

species and the need for enhanced Federal and state efforts to prevent North Atlantic right whales from going extinct. 

This species is among the most endangered whale on the planet, 

with only about 400 left. Despite almost 50 years of Federal management efforts, the stock is now declining rapidly. Why does this 

matter? 

Whales are incidental farmers of the sea. They fertilize the entire 

marine food chain, supporting ocean ecosystems and commercial 

fisheries. Whales are also the basis of a large tourist economy on 

both coasts, worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually. 
42 

North Atlantic right whales feed in waters off New England and 

Canada during the spring, summer, and fall, and pregnant females 

migrate to calving grounds off the southeast U.S. coast to give birth 

during the winter. This distribution and their migration patterns 

expose them constantly to threats from human activities, including 

entanglements in fishing gear, collisions with ships, and disturbance from underwater noise. 

Right whale deaths from ship strikes and fishery entanglements 

slow or halt population growth. Our research indicates that twice 

as many whales die annually than are documented or estimated. 

In 2017 and 2018, 20 right whales were found dead, representing 

nearly 5 percent of the population. Of the 12 whales that were examined carefully, all had died from human causes. 

On the other side of the equation, for right whales to grow in 

population size, they need to have babies. That means we must reduce the exposure of all whales, but particularly females, to 

stressors that can slow or stop reproduction. This includes underwater noise, pollutants, and sublethal fishery entanglements. 

Climate change also likely affects whale health and reproduction. 

Chronic underwater noise is a proven stressor to right whales. 

Chronic stressors are known to cause increased disease and mortality and lower reproduction rates in a variety of mammals, including humans. Right whales are already exposed to relentless 

shipping, dredging, pile driving, and other industrial noises, which 

are likely impairing their ability to communicate, to find food, and 

to find mates. 

In November 2018, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

issued five Incidental Harassment Authorizations allowing companies to take marine mammals during geophysical surveys off the 

southeastern United States, which is the only known right whale 

calving ground. This activity will create a chronic disturbance and 

raise background noise levels throughout the right whales’ habitat, 

increasing the risk of mother-calf separations. 

NMFS’ assertion that the effects of seismic surveys will be transient is not believably defensible. Air gun noise is constant, with 

explosions every 10 to 16 seconds. Combined, these authorizations 

represent about 850 ship-days of 24-hour explosions within a single 

year. 

Finally, NMFS’ plan to close, seasonally, some areas to seismic 

surveys out to 90 kilometers from shore ignores the recent changes 

in right whale distribution and the fact that air gun noise travels 

many hundreds of kilometers underwater. 

The recent population decline is partly due to deaths from entanglements in fishing gear and collisions with ships. It has been 

made worse by low calf numbers. None were born in 2018, and only 

seven have been born this year. Right whale survival is entirely dependent upon reducing human-caused mortality and eliminating 

stressors that impact reproduction. Without dedicated efforts to reduce the effects of human activities, this species is likely to go 

functionally extinct in about 20 years. 

Despite all this, the North Atlantic right whale is not doomed to 

extinction. They will adapt to changing conditions, find food in new 

places, and start having calves again. In the meantime, we need to 

stop killing them and disrupting their lives. 
43 

In my expert opinion, NOAA’s authorization of the seismic exploration near the right whale calving ground is a step backward. In 

contrast, NOAA’s existing ship speed limit rule has definitely 

reduced ship kills. And I am also pleased that NOAA is enhancing 

efforts to reduce entanglements of right whales in fishing gear. 

Minimizing the human causes of right whale deaths and reducing stresses that impact right whale health and reproduction will 

help this species move toward population recovery. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kraus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. SCOTT KRAUS, VICE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR SCIENCE

ADVISOR, ANDERSON CABOT CENTER FOR OCEAN LIFE, NEW ENGLAND AQUARIUM

Thanks to Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member McClintock for inviting me 

to testify on the critically important topic of the plight of the North Atlantic right 

whale, among the most endangered baleen whales in the world. I am Vice President 

and Senior Science Advisor in the Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life at the New 

England Aquarium. The New England Aquarium is a catalyst for global change 

through public engagement, commitment to marine animal conservation, leadership 

in education, innovative scientific research, and effective advocacy for vital and vibrant oceans. The Center’s mission is to conduct research on topics related to ocean 

health and conservation and to develop science-based solutions to marine conservation problems. Before assuming my present role, I served for 22 years as the 

Aquarium’s Vice President and Director of Research. I am Research Faculty at the 

University of Massachusetts, Boston and am a member of the Marine Technology 

Society, the Marine Mammal Society, and the American Association for the 

Advancement of Science. I have spent almost 40 years studying the North Atlantic 

right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), publishing more than 80 scientific papers on its 

distribution, ecology, and conservation. My research team curates the North Atlantic 

Right Whale Catalog, a photographic index of nearly every individual right whale 

in the population that is the cornerstone of work in the field. I am a Board Member 

and vice-Chair of the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium, a multi-sector 

collaborative research and conservation effort with partners from government, 

industry, research institutions, and conservation organizations. I am also a member 

of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team that the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) has convened since 1996 to reduce entanglements of right 

whales and other large whales in fishing gear. 

I am here to testify in support of Federal and state efforts to reduce the threats 

to the North Atlantic right whale. This is among the most endangered whales on 

the planet, with only about 400 individuals surviving. Despite almost 50 years of 

Federal management efforts, the stock is now declining rapidly. Why should we 

care? Protecting right whales protects entire ocean ecosystems, including other 

whales, sea turtles, commercial fish species, even plankton. Generally, whales are 

the basis of a large tourist economy on both coasts worth hundreds of millions of 

dollars annually. Whales act as incidental farmers of the sea, capturing food at 

depth and releasing nutrients at the surface, thereby fertilizing and supporting the 

entire marine food chain (Roman et al. 2014). This fertilizing function moderates 

climate change (Pershing et al. 2010) and supports the marine productivity that robust and economically valuable fisheries depend upon (Lavery et al. 2014; Roman 

et al. 2016). Because whales are mammals like us, they serve as an early warning 

for drastic ecosystem changes in the oceans that will damage fisheries and coastal 

human communities. Finally, whales are more like us than most people realize— 

they have culture, dialects, individual voices, family trees, and long-term social 

structures (Whitehead and Rendell 2014). For all of these characteristics, we owe 

them more than treating them as collateral damage in the industrialization of the 

oceans. 

The North Atlantic right whale’s life cycle takes it through some of the most industrialized, commercially active regions of the North Atlantic (Kraus and Rolland 

2007). These iconic whales forage largely in waters off New England and the 

Canadian Maritime provinces during the spring, summer, and fall, and pregnant 

females then migrate to calving grounds off the southeast U.S. coast during the winter. That distribution has exposed them to a suite of anthropogenic stressors, including entanglements in fishing gear, collisions with ships, disturbance and masking 

from underwater noise, and pollutants. As described further below, these stressors 

have affected the whales’ birth and death rates and have impeded their recovery 
44 

from whaling. Without concerted efforts to reduce the effects of human activities, 

this species is likely to go functionally extinct in about 20 years. 

The North Atlantic right whale is a large baleen whale that can reach 50 feet in 

length and weigh as much as 100,000 pounds. They spend the warmer months feeding on tiny zooplankton called copepods in the coastal and offshore waters of eastern 

North America. In the late fall, pregnant females head south to waters off the 

Carolinas, Georgia, and northern Florida to give birth in the winter, returning north 

with their calves in the spring. Like all large whales, the right whale was once 

hunted for its oil. The species obtained its name from early Yankee whalers as the 

‘‘right’’ whale to kill, because of its high yields of oil and baleen, its comparatively 

slow speed, and its tendency to float for some time after death, enabling easy retrieval. By the early 1700s, the North Atlantic population had been hunted nearly 

to extinction. However, whalers seeking other species in the Atlantic still hunted 

and killed any right whales encountered, right through the early 1900s. The League 

of Nations barred further killing in 1935, a protection that was extended after 

World War II by the International Whaling Commission. It is listed as endangered 

under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and is protected under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. According to the most reliable population estimate, an estimated 411 

were alive at the end of 2017 (Pace et al. 2017; Pettis et al. 2018). Based upon the 

known 2018 right whale deaths, the estimated actual deaths, and the lack of 

calving, it is likely that the population at the end of 2018 was just under 400 

animals. A total of seven calves have been born to date in 2019. 

Right whales experienced some population growth during the 2000s. During that 

decade, they produced an average of about 24 calves each year and experienced 

around 3 known deaths each year from entanglements with fishing gear and ship 

kills (Waring et al. 2006, 2011), resulting in an annual increase of about 2.8 percent 

in population abundance. This growth rate was significantly smaller than the annual growth observed in many baleen whale populations that have recovered from 

whaling, including that of the Southern right whale, a related species that lives in 

the waters of the Southern Hemisphere (Corkeron et al. 2018). This period of slow 

but positive growth for the North Atlantic right whale lasted until 2010, when the 

species entered a state of decline. Right whales have now been declining every year 

for the past 8 years (Pace et al. 2017). The decline is marked by increasing numbers 

of deaths, reduced calving rates, and poor health condition. All scientific evidence 

indicates that this decline can be attributed entirely to human activities. This type 

of rapid decline in the population has not been seen since the period of active right 

whaling prior to 1750 (Reeves et al. 2007). 

INCREASES IN DEATHS

During the 5-year period from 2010–2014, human activities killed or seriously injured right whales at more than twice the rate observed during the previous decade, 

with known mortalities rising from an average of 2.6 to 5.7 incidents per year. The 

legal threshold required to trigger management action for this species under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, called the ‘‘potential biological removal level,’’ is 

less than one serious injury or mortality per year (Waring et al. 2006, 2011, 2016). 

The term ‘‘potential biological removal level,’’ or ‘‘PBR,’’ means ‘‘the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, which may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum 

sustainable population.’’ For the last 20 years, the annual PBR established by the 

NMFS for right whales has been between 0 and 1, and that number has been exceeded every year. 

In 2017 and 2018, researchers documented the deaths of 20 right whales, nearly 

5 percent of the population. Twelve were subjected to complete or partial necropsies, 

and the deaths of all the examined whales were due to human causes. 

The actual number of right whale mortalities is likely far greater than the unprecedented amount of documented deaths. Since 1980, the right whale research 

team at the New England Aquarium has curated a photographic catalog of individuals in the North Atlantic right whale population (Hamilton et al. 2007; http:// 

rwcatalog.neaq.org). From nearly 40 years of photographic records, it is known that 

only one-third of right whales are detected when they die; the rest simply disappear 

from the photographic sightings record. Based on our limited ability to detect mortalities, the 20 right whale deaths reported during the last 2 years represent fewer 

than half of the actual losses during that time period. 

As a consequence of human-caused mortality, right whale longevity, which can 

exceed 70 years (Hamilton et al. 1998), has dropped to a mere 30 to 40 years. It 

is unlikely that right whales die of old age anymore. 
45 

CALVING DECLINES

As mortalities in the population have increased, calving rates have fallen. During 

the 1980s and 1990s, North Atlantic right whale females had calves every 3 to 5 

years. In the 2000s, however, most females began producing calves at longer intervals, which are now approaching 10 years (Pettis et al. 2018). As a consequence, calf 

numbers over the 2010–2018 period decreased by 43 percent as compared to the previous decade. No calves were born in 2018, and seven were born in 2019 to date. 

It is unlikely that the research community has failed to detect significant calving 

activity in undiscovered locations beyond the southeastern U.S. continental shelf. As 

curators of the North Atlantic Right Whale Catalog, my research team at the New 

England Aquarium collects photographic data on right whales from hundreds of 

sources, including several other major research institutions along the East Coast of 

the United States, Canada, and Iceland, fishermen, recreational boaters, the U.S. 

Coast Guard, and many others. Aerial surveys for this species are regularly flown 

off Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, and in the whales’ calving grounds off Georgia and northern 

Florida. 

Breeding females make up an unusually small percentage of the right whale population, and as of 2015, only an estimated 105 were alive (Pace et al. 2017). Female 

right whales may be especially vulnerable to human impacts because their migration to the calving ground (which males rarely make) takes them through the heavily used coastal waters of the eastern United States (Caswell et al. 1999; Fujiwara 

and Caswell 2001). Females attain sexual maturity around 10 years of age, and 

human activities are now killing them before the age of 40, leaving relatively few 

years for reproduction. Further, female body condition is dependent upon highquality habitat that includes a combination of adequate food, quiet conditions for 

communication, and low levels of extrinsic interactions with human activities. Good 

body condition is defined as good health and blubber (fat) reserves, which female 

whales require for ovulation, pregnancy, and especially lactation. Chronic stressors 

can reduce physiological resilience and lower body condition over time to the point 

where it falls below the necessary threshold for pregnancy. Health assessments 

show that many female right whales are in poor body condition, falling below the 

health indicators consistent with successful calving (Rolland et al. 2016; Pettis et 

al. 2017). 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND CHRONIC STRESSORS

The right whale is subject to a cumulative impacts problem as its survival is 

threatened by multiple anthropogenic stressors including fishing gear entanglements, ship strikes, underwater industrial noise, habitat use and climate change, 

and now also the threat of seismic exploration. 

Fishing Gear Entanglements: Right whales are increasingly subject to entanglement in fishing gear, particularly in the ropes used by lobster and crab fishermen 

to deploy, mark, and retrieve their traps at sea. From 2010–2014, entanglements 

caused more than four times as many right whale deaths and injuries likely to result in death, than during the previous 5 years (Kenney 2018; Waring et al. 2011, 

2016). Additionally, the health consequences of an entanglement can last long after 

the whale is freed. Right whales can have poor body condition and are significantly 

less likely to reproduce for at least 1 year following serious entanglement (van der 

Hoop et al. 2017). This problem is widespread. At least 83 percent of all North 

Atlantic right whales have scars from being entangled at least once in their lives, 

and 59 percent have been entangled more than once (Knowlton et al. 2012). 

Ship Strikes: Right whales are also killed by collisions with ships, as their habitat coincides with a number of major shipping routes. Overall, mortalities from ship 

strikes have decreased over the past 15 years (van der Hoop et al. 2015), likely due 

to several successful conservation efforts that included routing changes in the Bay 

of Fundy, Roseway Basin, and Boston shipping lanes that were permanently established between 2003 and 2009, and the U.S. adoption, in 2008, of a speed regulation 

for commercial ships along the U.S. East Coast. Nonetheless, vessel collisions continue to account for right whale deaths including, in 2017, one lethal strike reported 

off Massachusetts and four in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 

Habitat Use and Climate Change: Recent changes in right whale health and 

habitat changes have been associated with climate change, through changes in 

oceanographic conditions and in the distribution and abundance of their prey species 

(Record et al. in press). Since 2010, right whales have been distributed less predictably, including year-round occurrences in southeastern United States and midAtlantic coastal waters, aggregations in the winter and spring south of Cape Cod 
46 

(Leiter et al, 2018), and sightings and recordings of right whales on the continental 

shelf edge during the summer months (June and July) and as far south as Georgia 

(Hodge et al. 2015; Salisbury et al. 2015). Acoustic detections off the southeastern 

United States have documented small numbers of right whales in the area from 

August through October (Davis et al. 2017). Right whale sightings have occurred in 

Bermuda, the Azores, and the Canaries, indicating that the species occasionally 

travels into deep, warm waters well beyond the continental shelf. Further, pregnant 

right whales may give birth south of Cape Hatteras while on southward migration, 

or go offshore to give birth before returning to coastal habitat in the southeast (Zani 

et al. in prep). The historical thinking about seasonal movements of right whales 

no longer applies, as new aggregation areas are being identified and ‘‘traditional’’ 

ones are being used differently. 

Underwater Industrial Noise: Underwater noise constitutes another serious, 

demonstrated stressor on the population (see section on Seismic Exploration below). 

Due to shipping noise, right whales have lost much of their ability to communicate 

over long distances (Hatch et al. 2012). Additionally, the broadband noise produced 

by shipping traffic has been shown to induce chronic physiological stress in right 

whales (Rolland et al. 2012). That result is consistent with data on the effects of 

noise on numerous other species (Romero and Butler 2007). Chronic stress increases 

vulnerability to disease and causes increased mortality and compromised reproduction across a wide variety of mammals. Right whales are exposed to widespread 

shipping, dredging, pile-driving and other industrial noises, which are impairing 

communication, food finding, and reproduction (Hatch et al., 2012). 

Seismic Exploration: In November 2018, NMFS issued five separate incidental 

harassment authorizations (IHAs) to incidentally harass marine mammals during 

geophysical survey activities in the Atlantic Ocean. The authorized seismic surveys 

will involve multiple vessels operating simultaneously, each for periods of months, 

producing chronic noise that will propagate hundreds of kilometers and raise ambient noise levels throughout right whale habitat. Since shipping noise demonstrably 

increases the stress response in right whales (Rolland et al. 2012), it is likely that 

constant exposure to seismic airgun noise, which is much louder than ship noise, 

will increase chronic stress in this species. Chronic stress in all mammals (including 

humans) reduces immune and endocrine function, negatively affecting reproduction 

and disease resistance (Romero and Butler 2007). This is an impact that this critically endangered species cannot tolerate. Many adult female right whales now have 

health scores that are just above the threshold of reproductive success (Rolland et 

al. 2016), suggesting that any additional stressors that reduce body condition will 

push them below any ability to reproduce. Low health scores are also associated 

with lower probabilities of survival. The authorized seismic surveys would reduce 

fitness in these already health-compromised animals, reducing survival and reproduction and pushing the population increasingly toward extinction. 

NMFS Biological Opinion on Seismic Impacts to Right Whales was Flawed: 

Before issuing the IHAs, NMFS developed both a Biological Opinion and an IHA 

notice that included an impact analysis. This analysis was inadequate and contained significant flaws in both fact and interpretation as follows. 

(1) NMFS bases its impact analysis on a cetacean abundance model by Roberts 

et al. (2017). This model maps the distribution and density of whale, dolphin, and 

porpoise populations along the U.S. East Coast and in the northern Gulf of Mexico. 

While the model represents an advance over earlier efforts for many species, it does 

not incorporate much of the recent data on right whale occurrence that demonstrates their extended use of habitats in the mid-Atlantic and Southeast. Because 

of the distance sampling constraints of the data selection, the model does not take 

account of numerous opportunistic sightings and systematic acoustic detections in 

the mid-Atlantic and Southeast regions. Moreover, very little systematic distance 

sampling survey effort has occurred beyond the whales’ designated critical habitat, 

an area covering only a small portion of the continental shelf. As a result, the model 

is likely to underestimate right whale distribution beyond surveyed areas within 40 

miles from shore. 

(2) Any credible environmental analysis must consider the cumulative acoustic 

impacts of the five authorized seismic surveys in the context of the right whale’s 

current conservation status and all factors impacting the population. The addition 

of seismic exploration as another significant stressor on the most vulnerable segment of the population, reproductive females and their calves, was considered in 

isolation from all other stressors listed above. 
47 

(3) Seismic exploration is likely to increase ambient noise levels across the entire 

continental shelf, which may interfere with mother and calf communication, increasing risk for calf survival. In calving grounds off the southeastern United States and 

in the migratory corridor, seismic noise would increase the probability that right 

whale mothers and calves could get separated by disrupting their ability to hear one 

another. Recent studies show that mother-calf pairs communicate with very lowamplitude calls (Parks et al. 2018; Cusano, et al. 2018), which will be vulnerable 

to interference or masking from small increases in ambient noise (Clark et al. 2009). 

Even short-term separation is a risk for calves, primarily from shark predation 

(Taylor et al. 2012). 

(4) Seismic noise could displace right whale mothers from their primary calving 

grounds, leading them to give birth in sub-optimal habitat where newborn survival 

is compromised. It is likely that the combination of bathymetry and temperature in 

the coastal waters of the southeastern United States are critical to right whale 

calving. While NMFS asserts, in its notice supporting the present authorizations, 

that marine mammals displaced by seismic exploration may ‘‘seek temporary viable 

habitat elsewhere,’’ habitat suitable for right whale calving is limited. Given the 

hundreds of kilometer range of seismic noise propagation, it is certain that the 

authorized surveys, which combined represent about 850 ship days of active airgun 

use in a single year, would compromise large areas of right whale habitat for calving 

and other purposes. 

(5) NMFS’ assertion that the behavioral effects of the authorized surveys will be 

‘‘transient’’ is not biologically defensible. There is strong evidence that seismic 

airgun noise directly alters the behavior of baleen whales, including vocalization behavior associated with migration, feeding, and other functions, at low received 

sound pressure levels and at distances of tens to hundreds of kilometers from the 

airgun source (e.g., Blackwell et al. 2015; Castellote et al. 2012). Additionally, 

seismic airguns can mask baleen whale vocalizations, reducing the whales’ communication space and compromising their behavior, at scales of hundreds to thousands 

of kilometers (e.g., Estabrook et al. 2016; Nieukirk et al. 2012). Given the amount 

of seismic airgun activity that NMFS has authorized and its range of influence, important right whale behavioral patterns will be disrupted frequently and repeatedly. 

(6) NMFS has prescribed a seasonal closure of coastal waters out to 90 kilometers. 

This ignores recent changes in distribution as right whales are now occurring further offshore, beyond NMFS’ closure area and outside the putative migratory season 

during times of year when the closure does not apply (Davis et al. 2017) (see 

Habitat Use and Climate Change section above). This also ignores the way airgun 

noise spreads for hundreds of kilometers, making the 90 kilometer exclusion zone 

biologically meaningless. 

RIGHT WHALE STATUS AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR RECOVERY

In conclusion, the North Atlantic right whale is among the most endangered 

whales on the planet, with about 400 individuals remaining, including about 100 

breeding females. Despite almost 50 years of Federal management efforts, the stock 

is now declining rapidly. This decline is linked largely to mortality from entanglements in fishing gear and from vessel collisions. It is exacerbated by low calving 

rates, which are probably due to the sublethal effects of by entanglements, underwater noise, and food availability. These combined effects are likely to reduce body 

condition and health in all exposed right whales and will have negative effects on 

reproduction and survival. The efforts currently underway to reduce accidental 

killing of right whales by ships and fishing gear must be matched with appropriate 

protections for reproductive females and their calves off the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States. 

The recent decline in calving rates does not mean that the right whale population 

is doomed to extinction. Mammalian females of all species slow or stop reproduction 

when environmental conditions are poor and wait to have offspring when conditions 

improve. This species can adapt to changing conditions, will find food sources in new 

places, and start having calves again at rates that can maintain and grow the population. However, North Atlantic right whales do not have the capacity to sustain 

high death rates for long. For this species to recover, it is critical for managers to 

prevent human-caused mortality and eliminate those stressors in their ocean habitats that reduce individual whale health. For all of these reasons, the New England 

Aquarium is opposed to NOAA’s issuance of the five IHAs for seismic exploration. 

However, we support NOAA’s existing ship speed rule, and recommend that NOAA 

urgently enhance its efforts to reduce the entanglements of right whales in fixed 

fishing gear. We also support NOAA’s work on reducing shipping noise and other 

noise in the ocean, as well as the many Federal and state efforts to reduce pollution 
48 

of all kinds in the sea. Reducing the human causes of right whale deaths, and 

reducing sub-lethal stressors that reduce whale health, will allow this species time 

to adapt to its new environmental conditions and begin the road to population 

recovery. 

REFERENCES CITED

Blackwell, S.B., et al. 2015. Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale calling 

rates: Evidence for two behavioral thresholds. 10(6) PLoS ONE 

e0125720.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125720. 

Castellote, M., C.W. Clark, and M.O. Lammers. 2012. Acoustic and behavioural 

changes by fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in response to shipping and airgun 

noise. 147 Biol. Conserv. 115–22. 

Caswell, H., M. Fujiwara, and S. Brault. 1999. Declining survival probability threatens the North Atlantic right whale. 96 Proceedings Nat’l Acad. Sci., Population Biol. 

3308–13. 

Clark, C.W., et al. 2009. Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems: Intuitions, 

analysis, and implication. 395 Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 201–222. 

Corkeron, P., et al. 2018. The recovery of North Atlantic right whales, Eubalaena 

glacialis, has been constrained by human-caused mortality. 5 R. Soc. Open Sci. 

180892. 

Cusano, D.A., et al. 2018. Implementing conservation measures for the North 

Atlantic right whale: Considering the behavioral ontogeny of mother-calf pairs. 

Animal Conserv. __. DOI:10.1111/acv.12457. 

Davis, G.E., et al. 2017. Long-term passive acoustic recordings track the changing 

distribution of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) from 2004 to 2014. 

7 Sci. Reports 13460. DOI:10.1038/s41598-017-13359-3. 

Estabrook, B.J., et al. 2016. Widespread spatial and temporal extent of anthropogenic noise across the northeastern Gulf of Mexico shelf ecosystem. 30 Endangered 

Species Res. 267–382. 

Fujiwara, M., and H. Caswell. 2001. Demography of the endangered North Atlantic 

right whale, 414 Nature 537–541. 

Hamilton, P.K., Knowlton, A.R., and Marx, M.K. 2007. Right Whales Tell Their Own 

Stories: The Photo-Identification Catalog. In Kraus, SD and Rolland, RM (eds). The 

Urban Whale: North Atlantic Right Whales at the Crossroads. Harvard University 

Press. 514 pp. 

Hamilton, P.K., et al. 1998. Age structure and longevity in North Atlantic right 

whales (Eubalaena glacialis) and their relation to reproduction. 171 Mar. Ecol. Prog. 

Ser. 285–92. 

Hatch, L.T., et al. 2012. Quantifying loss of acoustic communication space for right 

whales in and around a U.S. National Marine Sanctuary. 26 Conserv. Biol. 983–94. 

Hodge, K.B., et al. 2015. North Atlantic right whale occurrence near wind energy 

areas along the mid-Atlantic US coast: implications for management. 28 

Endangered Species Res. 225–234. 

Kenney, R.D. 2018. What if there were no fishing? North Atlantic right whale population trajectories without entanglement mortality. 37 Endangered Species Res. 233– 

237. 

Knowlton, A.R., et al. 2012. Monitoring North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena 

glacialis entanglement rates: A 30 yr retrospective. 466 Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 293– 

302. 

Kraus, S.D., and R.M. Rolland, eds. 2007. The Urban Whale: North Atlantic Right 

Whales at the Crossroads. 

Lavery, T. J., et al. 2014. Whales sustain fisheries: Blue whales stimulate primary 

production in the Southern Ocean. Mar Mam Sci, 30:888–904. doi:10.1111/ 

mms.12108. 

Leiter, S.M., et al. 2017. North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis occurrence 

in offshore wind energy areas near Massachusetts and Rhode Island, USA. 34 

Endangered Species Res. 45–59. 
49 

New England Aquarium. 2018. North Atlantic Right Whale Catalog. http:// 

rwcatalog.neaq.org. 

Nieukirk, S.L., et al. 2012. Sounds from airguns and fin whales recorded in the midAtlantic Ocean, 1999–2009. 131 J. Acoust. Soc’y Amer. 1102–1112. 

Pace, R.M. III, P.J. Corkeron, and S.D. Kraus. 2017. State space mark-recapture 

estimates reveal a recent decline in abundance of North Atlantic right whales. Ecol. 

and Evol. 1–12. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3406. 

Parks, S.E., et al. 2018. Low amplitude acoustic communication of North Atlantic 

right whale mother-calf pairs on the calving grounds. Presentation to the North 

Atlantic Right Whale Consortium, Nov. 2018. 

Pershing A.J., et al. 2010. The Impact of Whaling on the Ocean Carbon Cycle: Why 

Bigger Was Better. PLoS ONE 5(8): e12444.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012444. 

Pettis, H.M., et al. 2018. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2018 Annual 

Report Card. Report to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium. 

Pettis, H.M., et al. 2017. Body condition changes arising from natural factors and 

fishing gear entanglements in North Atlantic right whales Eubalaena glacialis. 32 

Endangered Species Res. 237–249. 

Record, N.R., et al. Rapid climate-driven circulation changes threaten conservation 

of endangered North Atlantic right whales. Oceanography, In press. 

Reeves, R.R, Smith, T.D., and E.A. Josephson. 2007. Near annihilation of a species: 

Right whaling in the North Atlantic. In Kraus, S.D., and R.M. Rolland, eds. The 

Urban Whale: North Atlantic Right Whales at the Crossroads, at 39–74. 

Roberts, J.J., L. Mannocci, and P.N. Halpin. 2017. Final project report: Marine 

species density data gap assessments and update for the AFTT Study Area, 2016– 

2017 (Opt. Year 1). Report prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 

Atlantic. 

Rolland, R.M., et al. 2012. Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. 

279 Proceedings Royal Soc’y B 2363–68. 

Rolland, R.M., et al. 2016. Health of North Atlantic right whales Eubalaena 

glacialis over three decades: From individual health to demographic and population 

health trends. 542 Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 265–282. 

Roman J., et al. 2016. Endangered Right Whales Enhance Primary Productivity in 

the Bay of Fundy. PLoS ONE 11(6):e0156553. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0156553. 

Roman, J., et al. 2014. Whales as marine ecosystem engineers. Frontiers in Ecology 

and the Environment, 12: 377–385. doi:10.1890/130220. 

Romero, M.L., and L.K. Butler. 2007. Endocrinology of stress. 20 Int’l J. Comp. 

Psychol. 89–95. 

Salisbury, D.P., C.W. Clark, and A.N. Rice. 2015. Right whale occurrence in the 

coastal waters of Virginia, U.S.A.: Endangered species presence in a rapidly developing energy market. 32 Mar. Mammal Sci. 508–519. 

Taylor, J.K.D., et al. 2012. Shark predation on North Atlantic right whales 

(Eubalaena glacialis) in the southeastern United States calving ground. 29 Mar. 

Mamm. Sci. 204–212. 

van der Hoop, J., P. Corkeron, and M. Moore. 2017. Entanglement is a costly lifehistory stage in large whales. 7 Ecol. and Evol. 92–106. 

van der Hoop, J.M., et al. 2015. Vessel strikes to large whales before and after the 

2008 ship strike rule. 8 Conserv. Lett. 24–32. 

Waring, G.T., et al. 2006. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessments—2005. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-194. 

Waring, G.T., et al. 2011. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessments—2010. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-219. 

Waring, G.T., et al. 2016. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessments—2015. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-238. 

Whitehead, H. and Rendell, L. 2014. The cultural lives of whales and dolphins. 

University of Chicago Press. 
50 

Zani, et al. In prep. The timing and location of calving in the North Atlantic right 

whale (Eubalaena glacialis): Does their pre-calving sighting gap point to birth 

location? 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO DR. SCOTT KRAUS, VICE PRESIDENT AND

SENIOR SCIENCE ADVISOR, ANDERSON CABOT CENTER FOR OCEAN LIFE, NEW

ENGLAND AQUARIUM

Question Submitted by Rep. Lowenthal 

Question 1. Dr. Kraus, both offshore drilling and wind farm development require 

seismic surveys. Are the impacts on North Atlantic right whales the same for both 

forms of development? Do we have a reason to be more concerned about the seismic 

surveys required for offshore gas and oil development? 

Answer. There are two fundamental differences between the seismic methods used 

for oil and gas, and those used for assessing pile driving options for wind farms. 

One, airgun arrays used for oil and gas exploration produce sound with source levels 

typically between 240 and 260 db. Wind farm companies only need to know what 

is beneath the ocean floor down to a depth of perhaps 50 meters, so their systems 

use much less power, typically with source levels of 210–220 db at 1 m. This means 

the spread of the sound is orders of magnitude less than seismic for oil and gas. 

Second, wind farm companies generally lease small areas of sea floor, so a 

geotechnical survey of their area of interest is much more limited in scale and time 

than the broadscale surveys for oil and gas. Put another way, these surveys are relatively short term in duration (a couple of months at most), and their acoustic impact will be on the order of kilometers, as opposed to hundreds of kilometers for 

oil and gas exploration seismic sounds. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Dr. Kraus. 

Next is Dr. Burnett. 

STATEMENT OF DR. H. STERLING BURNETT, SENIOR FELLOW 

AND MANAGING EDITOR, ENVIRONMENT & CLIMATE NEWS, 

THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, ROWLETT, TEXAS 

Dr. BURNETT. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member 

McClintock, and the other distinguished members of the 

Committee for inviting me to speak today. 

I want to say at the outset, we all recognize that energy is a fundamental building block of modern society. And fossil fuels, it is 

just a fact, now and for the foreseeable future, will provide the 

lion’s share of that energy. The question is, where will we get that 

energy from going forward? And at what cost? 

My background—I am not a scientist. I am not an expert in right 

whales. I am a philosopher. I do philosophy of science. Environmental ethics, my training, is to follow the argument where it goes. 

But my training in applied philosophy says that your values, your 

choices you make, should be informed by facts, by data. 

Good science, good laws, good public policy, all depend on good 

data. And good data is precisely what we lack concerning how 

much oil and gas exists off the Atlantic Coast, where it is located, 

in what volumes and what formations. It has been 40 years. 

And while it is certainly true that many governors on the East 

Coast object to oil and gas drilling, they are making decisions for 

them and future governors in ignorance. They are making these decisions with their eyes blinded because we don’t have the data. 

They cannot make an informed decision because we don’t know 

how much is there, so how much they would be forgoing. 
51 

It may be the case that good data will show the Atlantic outer 

continental shelf contains so little, or so widely dispersed—not 

captured in large, appreciable volumes—that it would support their 

decisions and it would make it easy because oil companies just will 

not want to go out there. And at current prices, they probably don’t 

want to go out there. 

Alternatively, an updated, accurate assessment with the newest 

technology could show vast volumes and may change their or future governors’ minds, especially when the next recession comes, 

and we know recessions will come, and their budgets are strained, 

and they are figuring out a way to pay for their education, pay for 

their roads, pay for other things. But regardless, they should make 

these decisions not on outdated data, not on poor science, but on 

the best available science. And that requires new testing, comprehensive testing. 

Threats to whales consist of, well, nature, in part. They start 

from a low population size, even a lower fertile breeding population 

of females. They are slow to reproduce. And then they face all the 

human threats. The dominant ones—and I will not go into it but 

we all know from testimony earlier today—the dominant ones are 

vessel strikes and entanglement. I don’t know it is the case, but I 

wonder if pollution, plastics pollution in the ocean, might also be 

contributing to that. If so, tourism then is contributing to whale 

struggles. 

I keep hearing the concern about offshore seismic testing. But I 

do not hear the same concern concerning offshore seismic testing 

for wind turbines, hundreds of which will have to be located 

precisely—not a few dispersed over large areas of the ocean, but 

hundreds of which in concentrated areas of the ocean right along 

the migration routes—with the same seismic testing. 

I don’t know if the SAVE Right Whales Act—I have not had a 

chance to review it—deals with just seismic testing for oil and gas, 

or if it deals with all seismic testing. But if it doesn’t deal with all 

seismic testing, then it is dishonest. It is just against oil and gas. 

It is not about the right whales; it is about oil and gas because protecting the right whales would demand the same thing for wind 

farms. 

I note that just a month ago, you had a woman from the 

Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association testify, and she spent 

three paragraphs in her testimony talking about the threats from 

wind farms to the fishing industry and a paragraph concerning 

right whales. She spent one paragraph concerning oil spills for the 

oil industry. So, she certainly sees it as a bigger threat. But no one 

seems to be addressing that, or care. 

I will stop there. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Burnett follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF H. STERLING BURNETT, PH.D. SENIOR FELLOW, THE

HEARTLAND INSTITUTE

Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member McClintock, and other members of the 

Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify concerning the need to accurately assess the potential oil and gas deposits beneath the U.S. Atlantic Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) and the purported threat a comprehensive survey of the region might pose to the North Atlantic Right whale (hereafter called ‘‘right whale’’). 
52 

My name is Harold Sterling Burnett. I am a senior fellow with The Heartland 

Institute, where I also serve as managing editor of Environment & Climate News. I won’t bore you with my entire vitae, which you have already received, other than 

to say I have a Ph.D. in applied philosophy, with a specialization in environmental 

ethics, from Bowling Green State University. 

I have been conducting energy and environmental policy work at various think 

tanks, as well as in the field, part-time since 1987 and full-time since 1996. The 

views I express in this testimony are my own and should not be construed as 

necessarily representing any official position of The Heartland Institute. 

Energy is the fundamental building block of modern society. Fossil fuels service 

the lion’s share of the world’s energy needs, including in the United States. 

Numerous reports by the International Energy Agency and Energy Information 

Administration confirm fossil fuels will continue to make up more than 80 percent 

of the world’s primary energy base in 2050. 

With this in mind, the most important questions are: Where will the United 

States get its share of that energy, and at what cost? 

President Donald Trump has provided his answer to the former question as part 

of his America First Energy Plan. The Trump administration aims to pursue energy 

dominance by encouraging the development of all forms of domestic energy production and to minimize the United States’ dependence on foreign sources of critical 

energy supplies. 

As part of that effort, President Trump revised a 5-year energy and gas leasing 

program imposed under the Obama administration that barred oil and gas development in most, if not all, of the Atlantic OCS. Toward the end of the Obama administration, it also denied permits for seismic surveying in the Atlantic area. 

The Trump administration has proposed replacing the Obama administration’s 

2017–22 plan with a modified 2019–24 plan, including a reversal of the decision to 

prevent seismic surveying. 

While I applaud President Trump’s commitment to putting America and its 

energy needs first, it should be recognized that a survey of the Atlantic OCS is not 

necessarily a prelude to wholescale oil and gas production, but rather an 

information-gathering exercise. 

Good data and facts are critical to the development of good decision making, 

science, and public policy. I often hear lawmakers claim when advocating for a new 

policy proposal, ‘‘We should follow the science.’’ But science doesn’t fall like received 

wisdom from Heaven; it requires extensive research and effort. 

Before America’s political and private sector leaders can make informed decisions 

concerning the relative benefits and costs of oil and gas exploration or production, 

the government, taxpayers, and oil and gas companies must have a better understanding of how much oil and gas might be available and what it would cost to 

develop it. 

We currently lack reliable data for the Atlantic OCS. It’s been more than 40 years 

since the most recent comprehensive Atlantic Coast geological seismic survey was 

conducted, and seismic survey technology has improved considerably since then. It 

has become more effective and less invasive. Because it has been so long since a 

survey has been completed, we have a limited, outdated understanding of the natural gas and oil resources located off the U.S. Atlantic seaboard. An updated OCS 

survey is long overdue. 

Extensive data might, once fully gathered, show the Atlantic OCS contains so little or so widely dispersed potential oil and gas that oil companies would not find 

it worthwhile to explore the region. Perhaps it would lead policy makers to conclude 

the potential benefits are outweighed by the risks. 

Alternatively, an updated seismic survey might discover the potential for billions 

of barrels of recoverable oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. In that were 

to occur, the Trump administration, governors of potentially affected states, and 

Federal and state legislators would be able to accurately consider, with open eyes, 

the potential benefits and costs of exploration. 

Some have expressed concern seismic surveying would result in serious ecological 

damage, including harm to whales and other marine life. However, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the agency charged with, among other things, 

protecting marine species, has concluded seismic surveying poses no significant 

threat to marine life. In 2014, under the Obama administration, NMFS stated, ‘‘To 

date, there is no evidence that serious injury, death, or stranding by marine 

mammals can occur from exposure to airgun pulses, even in the case of large airgun 

arrays.’’ 

A 2014 report from the chief environmental officer of the Department of the 

Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management came to the same conclusion, stating: ‘‘To date, there has been no documented scientific evidence of noise from 
53 

airguns used in geological and geophysical seismic activities adversely affecting 

marine animal populations or coastal communities.’’ 

More recently, in 2017, the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (associated with 

Columbia University) conducted a seismic survey off the coast of North Carolina to 

map plate tectonics, using the same type of ships and equipment oil and gas mapping would require. This seismic survey went forward without any objections that 

I am aware of, even though it covered a larger area than testing for oil and gas 

off the coast of North Carolina would. Research indicates a fossil fuel survey would 

cover just 10–50 miles, compared to 2–200 miles for the Lamont-Doherty survey. 

Further, the Lamont-Doherty seismic survey sent out much stronger signals that 

traveled deeper into the ocean bed. 

Despite the larger scale of the Lamont-Doherty survey, a study by the National 

Science Foundation concluded the survey caused no consequential harm to the 

ocean’s wildlife or the ecosystem. 

It’s also worth noting many of the same people and groups objecting to an oil-andgas-related seismic survey because it would harm the right whale have not expressed similar objections to the seismic surveys that would have to be conducted 

to erect the huge, much more extensive and interconnected offshore wind farms proposed for placement in right whale migration routes and breeding grounds. 

An exception to my previous statement was included in testimony to this very 

Committee on February 7, when Beth Casoni, executive director of the 

Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association, provided a single-paragraph warning of 

the potential harms posed by offshore oil and gas development to fisheries and 

whales. She devoted three paragraphs to providing warnings of the dangers to the 

fishing industry and right whales from offshore wind turbines. If seismic surveys 

are dangerous to North Atlantic right whales, why should renewable energy companies be permitted to site offshore wind turbines? 

There are anthropogenic threats to the right whale, but offshore oil and gas production and seismic testing are not foremost among them. Shipping vessel strikes 

account for the largest percentage of human-caused right whale mortality. Entanglement in floating fishing lines also accounts for many injuries and deaths. One study 

estimated approximately 85 percent of right whales have entanglement scars. 

Further, a Canadian estimates shipping strikes and entanglement have accounted 

for nearly 50 percent of all known right whale deaths since 1970. Plastics in the 

ocean are another potential source of harm. 

Interestingly, the development of oil and gas for use as fuel might actually have 

contributed to saving the right whale and a few other whale species from extinction. 

History shows the greatest threat to whale survival ever recorded was the whaling 

conducted by humans to render blubber down to whale oil for use in lamps and for 

other uses. The right whale got its name because it was the ‘‘right’’ whale to kill 

for its blubber, which could be rendered into whale oil and other products. The advent of the fossil fuel industry saved whales from extinction, because the world 

quickly replaced whale oil with kerosene and other petroleum products. 

One final objection I wish to address is that some say because the world is awash 

with oil and gas and prices are so low, we don’t need to survey or explore new offshore areas. It’s true that it takes years from the time offshore surveys are conducted to when leases are offered, areas are explored, and production takes place. 

As much as a decade can pass from survey to production. 

In the past, I’ve debated people who said during periods of high prices, we don’t 

need to explore for new offshore oil and gas regions because it would take 10 years 

to develop, and by then, the crisis will pass. To that, I say, ‘‘Let’s get ahead of the 

curve and prepare for the next shortage.’’ One thing we can be fairly certain of is 

oil and gas supplies won’t always be so abundant and prices so low. The best hedge 

against future high prices is to know where to go to exploit future oil and gas 

reserves, as well as how much exists. 

Historically, physical and political restrictions have limited supplies of these two 

critical resources, causing price spikes that rippled throughout the U.S. economy, 

harming businesses and consumers. By conducting a comprehensive survey now, industry can hit the ground running to produce new supplies when limited supplies 

and high prices make such development economically worthwhile, and when the 

same factors incentivize political leaders to support production. 

Further, and this is just speculation, the fracking revolution that so many of the 

same people who object to offshore oil and gas exploration decry might partly have 

resulted from the absence of an up-to-date survey of OCS reserves and restrictions 

on OCS production outside the Gulf of Mexico. 

Fracking is largely responsible for the economic recovery that began late in the 

Obama administration, as the oil and gas industry was responsible for an outsized 

proportion of the growth in employment. Lower energy prices, provided in large part 
54 

by fracking, have also helped mom and pop businesses and large companies alike 

to compete with global competitors, and they have helped to bring back the chemical 

production and refining industry to America’s shores. 

Modern fracking required the development of technological innovations and new 

techniques that might not have been sought or developed had offshore oil and gas 

mapping, exploration, and production been shuttered outside the Gulf of Mexico. If 

permitted, industry might have used existing deep-water drilling technologies to 

develop OCS oil and gas reserves, rather than seeking new techniques to exploit additional reserves on land. 

In closing, thank you all once again for the opportunity to testify concerning this 

important issue. I look forward to any questions you might have regarding my 

testimony. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Dr. Clark, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. CHRIS CLARK, SENIOR SCIENTIST, 

RESEARCH PROFESSOR, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, 

NEW YORK 

Dr. CLARK. I thank Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member 

McClintock for inviting me to testify on behalf of North Atlantic 

right whales and the potential impacts of noise from seismic air 

gun surveys on this highly endangered population. 

Like Scott and Dr. Kraus, I have been studying right whales a 

long time, since 1973. And scientific studies over these last four to 

five decades have confirmed that baleen whales, including North 

Atlantic right whales, produce an extraordinary variety of sounds 

which they use for all types of critical life functions, such as communicating, navigating, mating, and maintaining social bonds such 

as those between mothers and calves. 

There is also compelling evidence that baleen whales, including 

North Atlantic right whales, have excellent low-frequency hearing. 

The low-frequency, extremely loud explosions produced by seismic 

air guns fall right on top of that frequency range in which right 

whales produce these sounds. 

Right whales are highly dependent on contact calls, a means of 

maintaining social contact and coming together in social groups. 

Mothers and calves use very soft calls to maintain close proximity 

in order for the calf to nurse and increase the chances of a mother 

protecting her calf from killer whales and sharks. 

These interactions are dependent on listening for and recognizing 

sounds under naturally quiet conditions. Research has shown that 

right whales produce contact calls and counter-calls in every location along the East Coast where we have listened. Calling whales 

are detected throughout the year in regions and at times of year 

when they were not expected to occur—in some cases, as far out 

as the continental shelf break. That is 90 to 150 kilometers offshore. 

Why am I so absolutely certain that the noise from the seismic 

air gun arrays will jeopardize and increase the risk of harm to 

North Atlantic right whales? Noise from seismic air gun explorations has been detected throughout the North Atlantic, and are 

essentially everywhere. We have heard air guns even when the 

seismic surveys were conducted far, far away from the recorders. 
55 

I am talking about recording them on the eastern U.S. coast to 

systematic explosions off Canada, 1,200 kilometers away; French 

Guiana, 3,800 kilometers away; and Western Ireland, 5,000 

kilometers away. Explosions off Virginia will propagate into the 

waters off New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and elsewhere. 

Because these surveys occur in distant places and influence the 

ocean’s acoustic environment over such enormous areas—these are 

areas of many hundreds of thousands of kilometers squared—and 

temporal scales—years on end—assessing the full scale of this 

chronic impact is challenging. But I am convinced that the most 

critical impacts are chronic, not acute. 

My deep concern about seismic impacts on right whales comes 

from responses of bowhead whales, a close relative, to seismic surveys. Susannah Blackwell and her colleagues have shown that 

bowhead whale calling rates increase as soon as air gun pulses 

were detected, then plateaued as increased received levels occurred, 

began decreasing as received levels continued to rise, and then 

ceased entirely at higher levels. In other words, the whales initially 

adapt to the noise, and then eventually just give up. 

In my opinion, this significant and consistent response by an endangered species to seismic air gun arrays is alarming given that 

none of the proposed monitoring or mitigation actions proposed for 

North Atlantic right whales can determine whether or not right 

whales modify their calling behavior from the proposed seismic activities, and the inability to observe a response is not evidence of 

no response. 

Right whales as well as many marine animals are dependent 

upon a natural quiet ocean for basic life functions. Seismic air gun 

arrays off the East Coast will significantly change that acoustic 

ecosystem. We know that the sounds from seismic air gun arrays 

propagate and change the acoustic environment through enormous 

areas. 

We know that a close relative of right whales, the bowhead 

whale, starts to react to seismic noise at extraordinarily low levels 

and continues reacting until whales stop communicating altogether. The level of seismic air gun activity authorized by NMFS 

is irresponsible and likely to cause significant impacts on right 

whale acoustic behavior. 

For right whales, such changes could likely increase mother-calf 

separations, decrease acoustic communication between whales, and 

influence acoustic behaviors that are essential for maintaining the 

population’s social cohesion and integrity. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Clark follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. CHRISTOPHER W. CLARK

Thanks to Chairman Huffman and Ranking Member McClintock for inviting me 

to testify on the critically important topic of North Atlantic right whale and the 

potential impacts of noise from seismic airgun surveys on this highly endangered 

population. I am a biologist and engineer and the founding Director of the 

Bioacoustics Research Program (BRP) at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and the 

Imogene Johnson Senior Scientist in BRP and Graduate Professor in the Department of Neurobiology & Behavior at Cornell University. I have a long history of successfully working at the interface between science, applied engineering, industry, 

and regulations; all with the specific objectives of using science to understand the 

potential impacts of human activities on marine mammals and to inspire and enable 
56 

the scientific conservation of marine wildlife and habitats. I was the Chief Marine 

Mammal Scientist for the U.S. Navy’s Whales 1993 dual-uses program, co-PI for the 

Low-Frequency Active Scientific Research Program (LFA-SRP), co-PI investigating 

the impacts of the Navy’s mid-frequency active sonar on beaked whales, and lead 

the development and application of the near-real-time, auto-detection network for 

North Atlantic right whale acoustic monitoring in Boston shipping lanes (http:// 

admin.nrwbuoys.org/, http://www.listenforwhales.org/). Up until my retirement from 

Cornell in December 2018, my research areas focus on the potential chronic influence of cumulative man-made noise sources on marine mammal distributions and 

behaviors. I remain deeply concerned about the continued loss of marine animal 

acoustic habitats as a result of multiple anthropogenic noise sources operating over 

large scales for extended periods of time. In collaboration with a small group of experts I am working to develop a new, ecologically based paradigm for evaluating and 

measuring biological risks from anthropogenic activities at individual and population levels. 

Baleen whales are known for their remarkable abilities to sing and produce a 

wide variety of sounds for basic life function including communicating, foraging, 

mating, and navigating. Humpback whales were most likely the sirens of the sea 

whose songs were first heard by ancient mariners through the hulls and masts of 

their wooden ships. World War II initiated the dramatic development of underwater 

listening systems motivated by the need to detect, track and identify enemy submarines. Those early efforts at listening to the ocean for rare, but critical acoustic 

events indicative of a lethal aggressor were accompanied by a deluge of unknown 

sounds attributed to marine life. Who and what was responsible for all these 

sounds, and how could we be sure we could know which ones were biological and 

which were not? That acoustic detection challenge existed beneath a top-secret 

mantel throughout the period known as the cold war and remains today. However, 

beginning in the early 1970s, civilian scientists also started listening to the ocean. 

Today that effort has risen to the point where people outside the military are listening throughout large areas of the world’s oceans with all types of recording systems 

throughout entire years. Furthermore, our technologies for analyzing those large 

data sets are becoming faster and more and more sophisticated. As a result, it is 

fair to say that the science of listening to the ocean has entered a period of expansive exploration of and rapid discovery in the bioacoustics of marine acoustic 

environments. 

In 1971, Roger Payne and Scott McVay published a paper first describing humpback whale song compositions based on recordings collected by the U.S. Navy off 

Bermuda (Payne and McVay 1971). Humpback songs are melodic, complex and primarily composed in a frequency range that we can hear and appreciate. Today 

scientists are beginning to describe the complex culture of whale communication 

using humpback songs and how these reveal the global nature of population interactions. In 1971, Roger Payne and Doug Webb also published a paper postulating 

that prior to the advent of modern shipping, the songs of fin whales could be heard 

across an ocean basin (Payne and Webb 1971). Fin whale songs are monotonously 

simple and so low in pitch as to be below our hearing range. The hypothesis that 

whale voices could be heard across an ocean was almost too grand to believe. 

Furthermore, the notion that noise from commercial shipping might be interfering 

with whale communication seemed far-fetched and was essentially forgotten. A point 

to be made by these recollections is that we (scientists included) can only understand the consequences of something if we can observe it. In the early years of ocean 

listening, where, when and how we listened were so limited in scope that our understandings of the complexities of sound in the living ocean were based on a few 

small, disparate pieces. We listened to bays or along short stretches of coastlines 

for the sounds we wanted to hear and understand (Clark and Clark 1980; Tyack 

1983), and usually based on what we already knew was there and what hypothesis 

we wanted to evaluate. 

In 1993, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, along with a handful of other 

scientists, I was given access to the U.S. Navy’s Sound Surveillance System 

(SOSUS). In those first days after my introduction to SOSUS, a Navy Commander 

helped me locate, track and record a singing blue whale out to distances of over a 

thousand miles. This memorable observation proved to me that the far-fetched 

Payne and Webb (1971) hypothesis was true: whales could be heard across an ocean 

basin. Commander Gagnon and I later published a paper on an extensive set of 

SOSUS observations on singing blue, fin, humpback and minke whales in the North 

Atlantic (Clark and Gagnon 2004). The SOSUS observation system that worked on 

ocean basin and decadal scales totally changed my comprehension of sound in the 

ocean. It expanded my experiential knowledge about whale acoustic behaviors from 

the traditional small scales of tens of miles and a few weeks into the much larger 
57 

scales of many thousands of miles and years. I have often remarked that my ocean 

listening experiences using old technology vs. the modern SOSUS technology, was 

like the difference between looking at the night sky with a toy telescope and the 

Hubble telescope. There were many important insights from those early SOSUS 

experiences, three of which stand out as monumental. One, I observed the immense 

distances over which sounds of different frequencies (i.e. pitches) traveled through 

the ocean’s complex, refractive medium (Jensen et al. 1994). Two, I participated in 

a nearly continuous flow of discoveries that contradicted current thinking about 

where and when whales should occur in the ocean. Three, I witnessed the ubiquitous occurrence of human noises from commercial shipping and seismic explorations throughout enormous ocean regions. These experiences clearly demonstrated 

that our limited technologies and analysis tools, had significantly limited our abilities to observe the movements and behaviors of whales throughout their actual 

ocean-scale ranges. At the same time as I was having these incredible experiences 

listening at ocean basin scales, I started working with some of the world’s best 

acoustic oceanographers as part of the Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (The 

ATOC Consortium 1998), which gave me the experience of learning about the intricacies of how, why and when low-frequency sound travels so efficiently through the 

ocean. Those expansive insights occurred in the mid 1990s. Today, there is a growing 

community of scientists recording along the East Coast of North America, from the 

Gulf of Mexico to the Grand Banks of Canada, and much of this effort is dedicated 

to documenting the acoustic occurrence of right whales (e.g. Davis et al. 2017) 

throughout a significant portion of their home range. A significant increase in this 

acoustic effort along the East Coast has come from NOAA’s scientific community 

that recognized that anthropogenic noises are affecting marine acoustic environments (Hatch et al. 2016) as well as the value of applied bioacoustics for monitoring, 

mitigation and management actions in support of the North Atlantic right whale 

population recovery. This NOAA scientific effort is complemented by a rising global 

awareness that anthropogenic noises are influencing acoustic environments, in 

general (Merchant et al. 2018) and impacting the acoustic habitats of specific populations (Williams et al. 2013), and must be included in assessments of cumulative 

impacts on marine wildlife (Williams et al. 2016, Lacy 2017). 

Why is there so much concern about the potential influences of anthropogenic 

noise on marine mammals in general and the effects of seismic airgun array surveys 

on baleen whales specifically? There are two basic reasons. First, it has been known 

since the time of Aristotle, and repeatedly confirmed by scientific study that marine 

mammals depend on sound to survive. In particular, there is compelling evidence 

that baleen whales (like right whale) have acute very-low-frequency (<100 Hz) and 

infrasonic hearing (<20 Hz; Ketten 1994). In particular, right whales are specifically 

well-adapted to and dependent upon listening to sounds in the low-frequency 

register (Ketten 1997, Parks 2007) for critical life functions such as communicating, 

navigating, mating, and maintaining social bonds (e.g. between mothers and calves). 

Second, the very-low-frequency band (10–100 Hz) used by baleen whales overlaps 

substantially with the frequency bands in which seismic airgun energy is concentrated. In short, there are significant overlaps between whale sounds and the 

explosive noise produced by seismic airguns. 

The occurrences of seismic airgun explosions from surveys throughout the North 

Atlantic have been well documented (Nieukirk et al. 2004) and are essentially unavoidable. This is true for recorders operating along the East Coast of the United 

States and Canada, even recorders on the continental shelf in relatively shallow 

water (<100m) (pers. obs). All of these seismic surveys were conducted far, far away 

from the recorders; for example, off the Scotian shelf of Canada (1200 km), on and 

off the shelf of Surinam and French Guiana (3800 km), and on and off the shelf 

of western Ireland (5000 km). The coincident occurrence of acoustically active baleen 

whales and seismic airgun surveys has been observed in multiple oceans in very remote parts of the world (e.g., Nieukirk et al. 2012). These types of surveys have 

been happening throughout the last 20 years. To my knowledge there is no complete 

and reliable inventory of the possible hundreds of surveys conducted during this 

period. 

Explosions from seismic airgun surveys have been recorded throughout the 

oceans, which is not surprising because the acoustic energy is so high and the 

frequency content so low. As scientists we are still in the process of understanding 

the long-term, large-scale, chronic, biological consequences of these surveys. Because 

these surveys occur offshore in distant places and influence the ocean’s acoustic environment over such enormous spatial areas (>200,000 km2) and temporal scales 

(>60–180 days), assessing the full scale of a sub-lethal impact is challenging. Lack 

of data is not evidence of lack of impact, especially when the space and time scales 
58 

of existing observational schemes do not match to the scales of the seismic airgun 

noise. Papers reporting responses to distant seismic airgun noise by a species closely 

related to right whales are sobering. 

This critical piece of evidence that raises my deep concern about seismic survey 

impacts on right whales comes from responses of bowhead whales (a species closely 

related to right whales) to seismic surveys (Blackwell et al. 2015). In that paper, 

the authors show that bowhead whale calling rates differ depending on the received 

level of airgun sounds from distant seismic surveys. Calling rates increased as soon 

as airgun pulses were detectable, then plateaued at increased received levels, began 

decreasing as received levels continued to rise, and then ceased entirely at levels 

that have been assumed to be approaching some sort of auditory harm. In other 

words, the whales have some capacity to first compensate for rising relative levels 

of noise exposure, but these levels are far below levels that have ever been of concern. They continue to have the significant response of decreasing calling rates at 

received levels that have only been of minor concern. In my opinion, these kinds of 

significant and consistent responses by an endangered species to seismic airgun 

sounds are alarming. Furthermore, there is nothing in any of the proposed monitoring or mitigation actions that could determine whether or not right whales modify their calling behavior in the face of noise from proposed seismic surveys. The 

inability to observe a likely response and therefore no data is not evidence of no 

response. 

What do I know about right whale acoustic communication that leads me to be 

extremely concerned about North Atlantic right whales exposures to seismic airgun 

surveys? 

For my PhD research, I conducted research on a population of southern right 

whales lived in the Golfo San Jose in southern Argentina. We simultaneously observed and listened to the whales every day for 18 months, for two full seasons in 

great detail. I designed, built and installed an array of bottom hydrophones (underwater microphones) that allowed us to know which whales made which sounds. We 

learned to associate certain types of sounds with different behaviors, and built a 

very simple form of a sound dictionary. Of particular importance, we observed that 

the whales produced a distinctive class of calls as a means of maintaining contact 

and coming together into social groups. We referred to these sounds as ‘‘contact 

calls,’’ and we validated the biological importance of contact calls by conducting experiments in which we used an underwater loudspeaker to play back different types 

of sounds. In response to play back of contact calls, distant whales called back, and 

many of those whales swam to the location of our underwater loudspeaker. I referred to this as counter-calling. From watching and listening to the whales, and 

learning the personalities of the different individuals, I determine that right whales 

are highly dependent upon sound to maintain social contact. This includes mothers 

and young calves that must maintain close proximity in order for the calf to nurse 

and increase the chances of the mother being able to protect her calf from killer 

whales. This dependence is ultimately dependent on listening for sounds under 

naturally quiet conditions. 

In 2001, I initiated an acoustic research project on North Atlantic Right Whales 

in Cape Cod Bay, MA for which our team from Cornell deployed arrays of bottom 

recorders that we could use to detect, locate and track calling whales (Urazghildiiev 

& Clark 2009). I did this in part because other right whale scientists had been 

studying right whales there for some time (e.g. Hamilton and Mayo 1990, Ganley 

et al. 2018). Early on we discovered that on days when only a few right whales were 

acoustically present in the bay, aerial surveys did not see any whales (Clark et al. 

2010). Continued research on right whale acoustics by a growing number of 

scientists has shown that North Atlantic right whales produce contact calls and 

counter call (Parks et al). In Cape Cod Bay, I have observed cessation of right whale 

calling under high noise conditions as a result of both winter storms and shipping 

traffic. Calling right whales are detected throughout the year in regions and at 

times of year when they were not expected to occur (Hodge et al. 2015). Calling 

right whales are also detected far offshore where they were not expected to occur 

(Muirhead et al. 2018). What has happened over the last several decades is that the 

level of effort for acoustically observing right whales has expanded to include places 

along the entire East Coast, many as far out as the continental shelf break. 

Consider this as evidence for concern: All right whale populations in the Southern 

Hemisphere for which there are population data are increasing, while the North 

Atlantic population is not (Corkeron et al. 2018). There are now years in which more 

calves are born into the population of right whales off the western South Atlantic 

than there are in the total population of right whales in the North Atlantic Ocean. 

One very obvious difference between the regions in which these two populations 

occur is the level of commercial activities that influence the very-low-frequency 
59 

marine acoustic environment; namely, the levels of anthropogenic noise from 

shipping traffic and seismic airgun surveys. 

Finale: Right whales, as well as many marine animals (e.g. shrimp and commercial fishes), are highly dependent upon a naturally quiet ocean for basic life functions. Seismic airgun surveys off the East Coast will significantly change the 

natural dynamics of that acoustic ecosystem. We know that the sounds from seismic 

airgun arrays propagate and change the acoustic environment throughout enormous 

areas. We know that a close species relative of the right whale, the bowhead whale 

starts to react to seismic noise at extraordinarily low received levels and continues 

reacting until it totally stops communicating. The present level of seismic airgun activity authorized by NMFS, both in terms of the area covered by a single survey 

and especially in terms of multiple surveys, is incredibly irresponsible and has a legitimate likelihood of causing significant impacts on right whale acoustic behavior. 

For right whales, such changes will increase the likelihood of mother-calf separations, decrease the likelihood of acoustic communications between whales, and impact all those acoustic behaviors that are essential for maintaining the population’s 

social cohesion and integrity. This is not about acute, physical harm to an individual. Rather, this is about the cost to a marginally surviving population as a result of aggregate chronic noise from seismic airgun surveys throughout large 

portions of the population’s range throughout significant periods of the year. 

REFERENCES CITED

Payne, R.S. and McVay, S. 1971. Songs of humpback whales. Science 173:585–597. 

(10.1126/science.173.3997.585). 

Payne, R. and Webb, D. 1971. Orientation by means of long-range acoustic signaling 

in baleen whales. Ann NY Acad Sci 188:110–141. 

Clark, C.W. and Clark, J.M. 1980. Sound playback experiments with southern right 

whales (Eubalaena australis). Science 207:663–665. (10.1126/science.207.4431.663). 

Tyack, P. 1983. Differential response of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

to playback of song or social sounds. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiology 13:49–55. (10.1007/ 

BF00295075). 

Clark, C. W. and Gagnon, G.C. 2004. Low-frequency vocal behaviors of baleen 

whales in the North Atlantic: Insights from IUSS detections, locations and tracking 

from 1992 to 1996. Journal of Underwater Acoust 52:609–640. 

Jensen, F.B., et al. 1994. Computational Ocean Acoustics. New York: American 

Institute of Physics. 

The ATOC Consortium. 1998. Ocean Climate Change: Comparison of Acoustic 

Tomography, Satellite Altimetry, and Modeling. Science 281:1327–1332. 

Davis, G.E., et al. 2017. Long-term passive acoustic recordings track the changing 

distribution of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) from 2004 to 2014. 

Scientific Reports 7, No/13460, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-13359-3. 

Hatch, L.T., et al. 2016. Can you hear me here? Managing acoustic habitat in US 

waters. Endangered Species Research 30:171–186. doi: 10.3354/esr00722. 

Williams, R., et al. 2013. Acoustic quality of critical habitats for three threatened 

whale populations. Anim. Cons., Zool. Soc. London. Pp. 12. 

Williams, R., et al. 2016. Gauging allowable harm limits to cumulative, sub-lethal 

effects of human activities on wildlife: A case-study approach using two whale 

populations. Journal of Marine Policy. Online. 

Lacy, R.C., et al. 2017. Evaluating anthropogenic threats to endangered killer 

whales to inform effective recovery plans. Scientific Reports 17, 14567, doi:10.1038/ 

s41598-017-14471-0. 

Ketten, D.R. 1994. Functional Analyses of Whale Ears: Adaptations for Underwater 

Hearing, I.E.E.E Underwater Acoustics vol. 1, pp. 264–270. 

Ketten, D.R. 1997. Structure and Function in Whale Ears. Bioacoustics 8:103–136. 

Parks, S. E., et al. 2007. Anatomical Predictions of Hearing in the North Atlantic 

Right Whale. The Anatomical Record 290:734–744. 

Nieukirk, S. L., et al. 2004. Low-frequency whale and seismic airgun sounds 

recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 115, 

1832–1843. 
60 

Nieukirk, S. L., et al. 2012. Sounds from airguns and fin whales recorded in the 

mid-Atlantic Ocean, 1999–2009. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 131, 

1102–1112. (10.1121/1.3672648). 

Blackwell, S.B., et al. 2015. Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale calling 

rates: Evidence for two behavioral thresholds. 10(6) PLoS ONE 

e0125720.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125720. 

Urazghildiiev, I.R., et al. 2009. Detection and recognition of North Atlantic right 

whale contact calls in the presence of ambient noise. IEEE J. Ocean Engineering 

34:358–368. 

Hamilton, P.K. and Mayo, C.A. (1990) Population characteristics of right whales 

(Eubalaena glacialis) observed in Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bays, 1978–1986. 

Rep Int Whal Comm Spec Issue 12:203–208. 

Ganley, L.C., Brault, S., and Mayo, C.A. 2019. What we see is not what there is: 

estimating North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis local abundance. 

Endangered Species Research 38:101–113. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00938. 

Clark, C.W., Brown, M.W. and Corkeron, P. 2010. Visual and acoustic surveys for 

North Atlantic right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts, 

2001–2005: Management implications. Marine Mammal Science 26:837–854. 

Hodge, K.B., et al. 2015. North Atlantic right whale occurrence near wind energy 

areas along the mid-Atlantic US coast: implications for management. Endangered 

Species Research 28:225–234. 

Muirhead, C.A., et al. 2018. Seasonal Acoustic Occurrence of Blue, Fin, and North 

Atlantic Right Whales in the New York Bight. Aquatic Conservation 1–10. doi.org/ 

10.1002/aqc.2874. 

Corkeron, P., et al. 2018. The recovery of North Atlantic right whales, Eubalaena 

glacialis, has been constrained by human-caused mortality. Royal Society of Open 

Science 5:180892. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Dr. Clark. 

We will now move to questions for the second panel, and I will 

begin, recognizing myself for 5 minutes. 

Dr. Clark, you are the expert on bioacoustics and the impacts of 

these things on North Atlantic right whales. Can you please address this claim we have heard, that acoustic sounds produced by 

seismic testing do not threaten the North Atlantic right whale? 

We have heard, for example, that it is merely a sublethal impact, 

the implication being that that is no big deal. I would like you to 

speak to that. 

Dr. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the disparity 

between saying that I do something that actually kills an individual—that is an acute impact—or I deafen them to the point that 

they are basically dysfunctional, versus a chronic impact. You all 

know what chronic impacts are like. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. A chronic impact could still cause the extinction 

of a struggling species. Is that fair to say? 

Dr. CLARK. A chronic impact will increase the stresses, like Dr. 

Kraus has talked about. Chronic impacts, we get chronic impacts 

from smoke, secondhand smoke, et cetera, et cetera. So, it is the 

constant, deliberate debilitation of the species. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. We have also heard that a more protective standard in the Gulf Coast is justified because the bathymetry and I guess the greater tolerance for acoustic noise in the 

Atlantic justifies a more relaxed standard. You heard that testimony. Do you agree with it? 

Dr. CLARK. I think it is nonsense. 
61 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Dr. Kraus, you have authored more than 80 

scientific publications on the right whale. Do you think the seismic 

testing poses an existential threat to this species? And why? 

Dr. KRAUS. I do, and it is not because it causes mortality. The 

only time seismic activity would actually kill a whale would be, 

one, if the whale was really dumb or deaf. Generally, the activity 

is exactly as Dr. Clark pointed out. It is a chronic, long-distance, 

widespread impact. And there have been no actual studies that 

would actually answer the question about the long-term seismic 

impacts on populations because you cannot do those studies easily. 

The short-term studies that have looked at the response of 

seismic activity by many different species of whale shows that 

nearly all of them respond. They hear it, but they just cannot do 

anything about it. So, in the case of right whales where you have 

an already stressed population with significant multiple impacts 

that are occurring at multiple levels, the addition of additional 

stressors is just a bad idea. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. Dr. Kraus, you know these whales individually better than anyone. Can you please tell us about the 

condition of the roughly 100 breeding females? 

Dr. KRAUS. Female condition is measured by a series of both photographic and physiological measurements. And it turns out that of 

the animals that we have still alive, most of them are in a steady 

state of—they have been in a relatively slow decline over the last 

30 years. 

They have stabilized, but we know exactly what the threshold of 

reproduction is. And many of them are just above it, so that additional stressors can change their physiology, change stress responses in a way that would actually reduce their fitness and their 

ability to produce calves. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. And Dr. Kraus, finally, why are the mitigation 

measures proposed by NMFS and its Incidental Harassment 

Authorizations insufficient to ensure the survival of the species? 

Dr. KRAUS. The mitigation strategies employed for all of these 

seismic activities are a little bit of a lipstick on a pig. That is to 

say, they will prevent immediate mortality if a whale gets so close 

that it is going to get blown up. They will have nothing to do with 

mitigating the long-term impacts and the chronic elevation of ambient noise levels for hundreds of kilometers around the seismic 

vessel. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. Thanks very much for your testimony, 

all of the witnesses. I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. 

McClintock, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The central issue 

in this hearing seems to be the effect of seismic testing on the 

North Atlantic right whale. The contention is that it is driving 

them to extinction. 

Now, Dr. Burnett, coincidence obviously does not prove 

causation. But causation must show coincidence. Correct? 

Dr. BURNETT. Yes. It should be, it is correlation. Yes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yet, we do not see coincidence with the population of other whale species in the North Atlantic; as we have 

heard, other whale species continue to grow in population in the 
62 

same region, several of the species having reached their prewhaling levels. 

So, if seismic activity was fatal to whales, would we not be seeing 

the same effect on other species’ populations? 

Dr. BURNETT. I cannot think of a reason why not. And you would 

find it in other right whale species in the Southern Hemisphere, 

where they are currently undertaking seismic testing. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We had a dramatic demonstration with the air 

horn, and it was annoying. The implication of this and the discussion that followed was that any fish or mammal species in the 

ocean is going to stay in the immediate proximity of this annoying 

phenomena. Is that a reasonable assumption to make? 

Dr. BURNETT. Well, many will. Of course, when they tested in 

North Carolina, tests that the National Science Foundation also 

found did not pose negligible danger to sea species, some species 

abandoned the area for the time of the testing, and then came back 

into the area after the testing. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I think our common sense tells us that any 

fish or mammal population is going to move away from such an annoying sound. I think that the reaction of every person in this 

room, had it continued, would be to leave the room. 

We learned today that seismic testing has been going on in the 

Atlantic for 80 years. Up until the last decade, we were actually 

seeing an increase in the population of the North Atlantic right 

whale, about 2.8 percent a year. What does that tell us about cause 

and effect? 

Dr. BURNETT. Well, it tells us there doesn’t seem to be a cause 

and effect on whale mortality and decline, that there are a number 

of factors. It turns out the Canadians are just now getting on board 

with some of the shipping things that we have been doing for a 

decade. 

And that should hopefully reduce right whale mortality. I see no 

evidence, however, that limiting seismic testing—I see no difference 

between the seismic testing for wind, that would evidently be allowed, but not for oil and gas. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I am going to get to that in a moment, if I can. 

But while we are on the general subject of populations, a lot has 

been said that there are only 411 right whales left in the North 

Atlantic. Certainly, they number just in the hundreds. It gets 

worse if you look at the North Pacific right whale population; I am 

told they number only in the tens. 

But in the Southern Hemisphere, they have a healthy population 

of 16,000, which is growing at about the pace that we are seeing 

of other whale species around the world. What does that tell us? 

Dr. BURNETT. I guess I cannot honestly say for sure what it tells 

us. I don’t know what the difference is—shipping lanes, fishing entanglement, and other factors that may be interfering with the 

recovery of the right whale here. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I should think so. And I again would imagine 

it may have something to do with the fact that the population in 

the North Atlantic was hunted almost to extinction. And when you 

have that small a population, it is very difficult for it to recover. 

Is that accurate? 
63 

Dr. BURNETT. I would suppose it is accurate. I would also suppose it might have implications for the genetic diversity within the 

species and perhaps genetic disorders from close interbreeding 

populations. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Point taken. We heard about inconsistency 

and politically motivated decisions. But again, as we know, the 

Obama administration issued many seismic testing permits, 

including in the Atlantic for Columbia University, USGS. Why are 

those permits good and the recent permits are bad? 

Dr. BURNETT. That is my problem, I cannot explain the difference. It seems to be that seismic testing is bad for oil and gas 

but is good for everything else. And that is curious if what you are 

really concerned about is the right whale. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So, it is a double standard, then. It is not the 

seismic testing, it is the purpose of the seismic testing? 

Dr. BURNETT. Correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And since science is based on data, and the 

purpose of seismic testing is to collect data, why would any 

scientist want to blind themselves to that, particularly as we have 

already established it has no effect on the populations of other 

whales? 

Dr. BURNETT. I can think of no good reason. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Van Drew. 

Dr. VAN DREW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Kraus, do you believe that multiple stressors and threats 

compound the impacts on the North Atlantic right whale? 

Dr. KRAUS. I do. I think that we know that they are getting affected by ships and entanglements. But what we know less about 

is the sublethal effects of those entanglements and the sublethal effects of noise. We do know that they have physiological responses 

that indicate a stress response, and that stress response, when accumulated over time, is damaging. 

Dr. VAN DREW. Let me ask you this: Did the National Marine 

Fisheries Service consider the suite of stressors already present? 

And did they assess whether the addition of seismic testing would 

further compound these stressors? 

Dr. KRAUS. In my reading of the IHAs and the Biological 

Opinion, I did not see that. 

Dr. VAN DREW. Well, then, what about the cumulative effect of 

five different companies doing systematic surveys? 

Dr. KRAUS. I did not see that, either. They did not seem to 

combine the analysis. 

Dr. VAN DREW. Dr. Kraus and Dr. Clark, both of you, the North 

Atlantic right whale population was growing as recently as the 

early 2000s, and on average, almost 25 calves were born each year. 

The population has been in decline since 2010, and now approximately less than 420 individuals remain. 

In the 2017–2018 calving season, no new calves were observed. 

This year we have seen 7 births, but after 20 deaths. Since 2017, 

the population has not seemed to grow overall. In your expert opinion, would the use of seismic air gun blasting for oil exploration in 

the Atlantic be a potential threat to the survival of the species? 

Dr. KRAUS. Who would you like? 

Dr. VAN DREW. Both of you. 
64 

Dr. KRAUS. OK. My opinion is that it does represent a threat, 

largely because of the very quiet communications between mothers 

and calves, and the fact that half of the population equation is dependent. If we are going to bring this population back, it is going 

to be dependent upon right whales having enough calves to start 

to replenish the animals that are lost from the mortalities. In order 

to do that, we need to give the mothers and their calves every 

possible chance. 

Dr. VAN DREW. OK. Thank you. 

Dr. CLARK. Yes. I believe it is a threat. I have observed what 

right whales do when noise levels go up. Their communications 

stop. Their aggregation on food resources is—they go into random 

walks. Actually, they do not aggregate appropriately on food resources. And all of that has a serious potential impact on the 

animals’ ability to gain recent fat and grow, and mothers to come 

into estrus and have calves. 

Dr. VAN DREW. OK. Thank you very much. I would just like to 

point out that I do have legislation that would disallow the permitting of the five seismic studies. It is H.R. 1149. It is a bipartisan 

piece of legislation. It is called the Atlantic Coastal Economies 

Protection Act, and I welcome anybody who is interesting in joining 

on as a co-sponsor. 

And I would like to yield the remaining time to the Chairman. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The Ranking 

Member just asked a series of questions about right whale biology 

to a witness with a philosophy degree from a conservative think 

tank. Seems like we should maybe pose some of these questions to 

our right whale experts. 

We have heard that right whales in the Southern Hemisphere 

are doing much better. We have heard that other whale species in 

the Northern Hemisphere are doing better. I am not sure what the 

implication is. Maybe our North Atlantic right whales are just defective and we should stop trying to protect them. 

Dr. Kraus, you are the expert. Would you like to speak to these 

claims? 

Dr. KRAUS. The right whales in the Southern Hemisphere tend 

to occur south of about 45 degrees south latitude, and they are 

south of most of the seismic activity in the Southern Hemisphere. 

The right whales in the Northern Hemisphere, by contrast, are actually quite in the middle of a lot of industrial activity—shipping, 

fishing, and a lot of stuff like that. 

As other people have pointed out, there has not been any seismic 

activity in the Atlantic for the last 40 years except for very short 

periods of time. There is no comparability between the seismic activity in terms of sound source levels or extent or the time period 

or, rather, the duration of that activity between wind farms, between the geophysical surveys that the Langseth did off the coast, 

compared to the kind of magnitude and the number of ship-days 

involved in the proposed activity. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. So, is it fair to say this would be a new and fundamentally different stressor at the worst possible time for this 

species? 

Dr. KRAUS. And many times more—the magnitude is out of—it 

is completely different. 
65 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. 

I want to thank the witnesses. We have reached the end of this 

hearing. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the Committee record the Status of Whales Report of the 

International Whaling Commission, and an April 2018 paper by 

John Droz regarding offshore fossil fuel exploration and development. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Without objection, those will be entered into the 

record. 

One of the courtesies that Democrats routinely granted to a Subcommittee Chair, Mr. Gosar, was to allow a final 1-minute-or-less 

question to each of the witnesses on the panel, to ask them, essentially, ‘‘What is the one thing you were not asked that you wish you 

had been asked?’’ 

I would like to request unanimous consent for my Republican colleagues to grant that same courtesy so that we could ask that final 

question to our panelists. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, Mr. Chairman, courtesy is as courtesy 

does. And unfortunately, because of your handling of my request 

for unanimous consent to borrow from accredited time to Mr. 

Webster, I am really not inclined to do that. This is outside the 

normal scope of the hearing and outside the House rules. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Well, I am disappointed that that courtesy will 

not continue under this Ranking Member. 

But with that, I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable 

testimony, and also the Members for their questions. The members 

of the Committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask that the witnesses respond to those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must 

submit witness questions within 3 business days following the 

hearing. And the hearing record will be held open for 10 business 

days for these responses. 

If there is no further business, without objection, this Committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
66 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Lowenthal 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION

H.R. 3682 

To direct the Director of the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to create a Blue Whales and Blue 

Skies Program to reduce air pollution and harmful underwater acoustic impacts 

and the risk of fatal vessel whale strikes by recognizing voluntary reductions 

in the speed of vessels transiting the Greater Santa Barbara Channel Region, 

California, and for other purposes. 

————————————— 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 

Mr. LOWENTHAL (for himself, Ms. BROWNLEY of California, Mr. CARBAJAL, and Mr. 

KHANNA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

————————————— 

A BILL 

To direct the Director of the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to create a Blue Whales and Blue Skies 

Program to reduce air pollution and harmful underwater acoustic impacts and the 

risk of fatal vessel whale strikes by recognizing voluntary reductions in the speed 

of vessels transiting the Greater Santa Barbara Channel Region, California, and 

for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 

of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Blue Whales and Blue Skies Act’’. 

SEC. 2. BLUE WHALES AND BLUE SKIES PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment 

of this Act, the Director of the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in consultation with the 

Commandant of the Coast Guard, shall establish the Blue Whales and Blue 

Skies Program, to—— 

(1) reduce air pollution and harmful underwater acoustic impacts and the 

risk of fatal whale strikes by encouraging voluntary reduction in the speed of 

eligible vessels transiting the Greater Santa Barbara Channel Region; and 

(2) annually award Blue Whales and Blue Skies Excellence Awards for 

verified successful participation in, and compliance with, the program by 

eligible vessels. 

(b) PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.—The Director shall—— 

(1) model the program after the pilot Vessel Speed Reduction Program 

administered by the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, the 

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, the Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary, the Environmental Defense Center (a non-profit corporation 

established under the laws of the State of California as in effect on the date 

of the enactment of this Act), and the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, 

except the Director may not provide a financial incentive for participation in the 

program; and 

(2) develop the program in consultation with the entities referred to in 

paragraph (1). 

(c) ANNUAL AWARDS.—— 
67 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Under the program, the Director shall annually award 

Blue Whales and Blue Skies Excellence Awards to owners of eligible vessels 

that have complied with the program during the preceding year. 

(2) AWARD CONDITIONS.—As a condition of an award under this subsection, the Director shall require, at a minimum, that each eligible vessel of 

the awardee—— 

(A) transit the Greater Santa Barbara Channel Region at speeds of 12 

knots or lower, or at a lower maximum speed as provided in guidance 

established under the program; and 

(B) participate in the Port of Los Angeles or Port of Long Beach vessel 

speed reduction program, respectively, if the vessel calls at that port in the 

transit for which the award is considered. 

(d) OFFICIAL SEAL.—The Director shall create an official seal to be recognized 

as the symbol of excellence in compliance with the program, that—— 

(1) may be used by shipping companies with eligible vessels for which a Blue 

Whales and Blue Skies Excellence Award is awarded under this section; 

(2) includes the name of the shipping company; 

(3) includes the year for which such award was made; and 

(4) includes the percentage of transits through the Greater Santa Barbara 

Channel Region by eligible vessels of the shipping company in such year that 

were in compliance with the program, calculated as—— 

(A) the number of such transits, divided by 

(B) the total number of transits through the Greater Santa Barbara 

Channel Region by all vessels of the shipping company in such year, excluding transits directed by the Coast Guard to proceed in excess of the speed 

requirements of the program. 

(e) EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.—No later than 4 years after the date of the 

enactment of this Act, the Director shall—— 

(1) consider the feasibility of extending the program to encompass all shipping channels along the United States Pacific coast between Canada and 

Mexico; and 

(2) report the findings and recommendations under paragraph (1) to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Natural 

Resources of the House of Representatives, and to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation of the Senate. 

(f) LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed—— 

(1) to require participation in the program; 

(2) to authorize appropriations for, or the provision of, any financial 

incentive for participation in the program; or 

(3) to authorize any action that affects navigation safety. 

(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) ELIGIBLE VESSEL.—The term ‘‘eligible vessel’’ means a vessel that has 

been approved by the Director to participate in the program. 

(2) PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘program’’ means the Blue Whales and Blue 

Skies Program established under this section. 

(3) GREATER SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL REGION.—The term ‘‘Greater 

Santa Barbara Channel Region’’—— 

(A) means such portion of the geographic zone used by vessels transporting goods to transit the area surrounding the Channel Islands, 

including the Santa Barbara Channel, California, as is designated by the 

Director for purposes of this section; and 

(B) includes, at a minimum, the geographic area identified in the pilot 

Vessel Speed Reduction Program referred to in subsection (b)(1). 
68 

June 19, 2018 

Re: 2018 voluntary Vessel Speed Reduction (VSR) incentive program for the Santa 

Barbara Channel and San Francisco Bay Area regions off California 

Dear Carrier Representative: 

We are implementing a 2018 VSR incentive program July 1–November 15, 2018 

to reduce air pollution and fatal ship strikes on whales. For the 2018 Program, 

financial incentives will be awarded to companies based on percent of distance traveled by their vessels through the VSR Zones at 10 knots or less, termed ‘‘percent 

cooperation,’’ during the identified time period. Average speed of a transit throughout the entire VSR Zones must not exceed 12 knots in order to receive credit for 

distance traveled at 10 knots or less. Close to $300,000 is available for incentive 

awards and amounts will scale with the percent cooperation, and will range from 

$1,000 to up to $35,000 (or greater) per company. Overall there is less funding available for awards for the Bay Area than for the Channel region. 

The California Marine Sanctuary Foundation will manage the incentive payments 

to individual shipping lines; please see the Letter of Understanding. Each vessel’s 

speed transiting the VSR Zones will be verified via Automatic Identification System 

(AIS) data. Vessels that call on the Ports of Los Angeles and/or Long Beach must 

participate in one of the ports’ VSR incentive programs. 

In addition to the financial award for companies that meet requirements, we will 

work with successful shipping companies on a positive public relations campaign to 

draw public awareness to the VSR program and your company’s participation. 

Participation is voluntary and does not commit shipping industry participants beyond the program period. If companies are enrolled in the program and unable to 

meet the minimum program criteria, there is no penalty but financial incentives will 

not be awarded. 

Advantages to shipping companies of the 2018 incentive program structure 

include the following. 

• The 10-knot target is consistent with the target speed for voluntary Whale 

Advisory Zones which overlap with VSR Zones. 

• Sign up for shipping companies is greatly streamlined. Just provide a list of 

the vessels (with IMO and MMSI numbers, including charter or alliance 

vessels under the company’s control) expected to transit one of the VSR Zones 

July 1–November 15, 2018. 

• There is no longer a requirement that the vessel must have historically 

transited the region. Vessels that are coming to the region for the first time 

can be part of the program. 

• There is no longer a requirement that previous transits must have been at 

higher speeds. The system is set up to reward companies with vessels already 

transiting at lower speeds. 

• A fleet-based approach will also be used in the 2019 program next year. 

While the scope of the program is limited to the Santa Barbara Channel and San 

Francisco Bay Area regions (see Attachment A), air pollution, greenhouse gas 

emissions, and the threat of ship strikes on whales extends beyond these regions. 

Every effort should be made by participating vessels to not increase speed over the 

registered vessel’s historic baseline speeds while outside the VSR Zones to ‘‘make 

up time.’’ Ship speed monitoring using AIS may occur between the Santa Barbara 

and San Francisco Bay Area region VSR Zones to determine if ships are speeding 

up between Zones. 

Please note this VSR incentive program complements existing seasonal whale 

advisories in effect in the Santa Barbara Channel and San Francisco Bay Area 

regions. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

strongly recommends that all vessels 300 gross registered tons or larger reduce 
69 

speeds to 10 knots or less in these vessel slow speed zones. For more information 

on the seasonal whale advisories, please consult the Eleventh Coast Guard District 

Local Notice to Mariners. 

To enroll in the program, companies will be required to sign a Letter of Understanding (see Attachment B) and provide the name and MMSI and IMO numbers 

for all vessels under the company’s control which are scheduled to transit the VSR 

Zones during the program period (see Attachment C). To enroll your company, 

please return the completed and signed Letter of Understanding (Attachment B) 

and fillable PDF Sign Up Form (Attachment C) to Lindsay Marks of NOAA Channel 

Islands National Marine Sanctuary (contact information provided below). Please 

enroll by June 30th if possible and no later than July 10, 2018. 

For more information about the VSR incentive program, watch ‘‘Protecting Blue 

Whales and Blue Skies,’’ a promotional film found at https://www.ourair.org/airpollution-marine-shipping/. Please also see Attachment D to learn how to report 

sightings of endangered whales. 

Enrollment materials, comments or questions may be directed to: 

Contact: Lindsay Marks 

Address: NOAA Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

University of California Santa Barbara 

Ocean Science Education Building 514, MC 6155 

Santa Barbara, CA, 93106–6155 

Phone: +1 (805) 893–6425 

Fax: +1 (805) 893–6438 (ATTN: Lindsay Marks) 

Email: lindsay.marks@noaa.gov 

We believe by working together we can maintain vibrant maritime commerce, 

enhance corporate responsibility, and protect human health and the marine environment. We thank you in advance for considering your company’s participation in the 

VSR incentive program. 

Sincerely, 

The Partners in the Vessel Speed Reduction Incentive Program for 2018 

in the Santa Barbara Channel and San Francisco Bay Area regions 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. McClintock 
70 

64,000 50.000-80,000 

95,000-130,000 

30 ,000 65,000-100,000 

81 ,000 

00,000 60,000-130000 

50,000 30.000-85,000 

rest Greenland 17,000 

25,000 12.800-48,600 

Ca22,000+ 

BLUE WHALES 

Southern Hemisphere(excluding pygmy 

Theeslimatedraleofincrease is8.2%(95%confidenceinterval3.8-12.5%)peryearbetween 1978179and2003J04 

FIN WHALES 

Ytar(s]towhlch 

tatlmattappllll 

Year(s)towhich 

estimate appli es 

26,000 

4,500 

ApprOlCimate 

20,0[() 

Approximate 

24,000 

18,00D 

18,000 

22,000 
71 

erlng<huktlll· 

eaufonSeas stod 

eel Greenland feeding 

Year(,) to which 

estimate applie~ 

Approximate 

10,500 8.000 - 13,000 

12,600 5,000 - 20.000 

17,000 15.700 -19,000 

'·"" The~ ~te of rncruseoflhi' population eince 1978 hn beoe es ma~n abou\3.2% per yn r (%% o:<lrlidlence rnterv<1l t.A%. 5.1%) 

outhern Hemlsphere 

W,;rst,;rrnMrica 

~lernA rica breeding 

tock(s) 

We~~;temNonhAI an!lc 

WntGr .. nland 

outhtrnHemlsphere 

Year(s)to whlch 

e,tlmateapplle, 

Year(s)towhlch 

estimate applies 

Yftar[s)towhlch 

estimate applies 

Approx imate 

34,000 -02,000 

6.200 4.600-8,500 

'·""' 2,000 - 4.200 

Approximate 

9,800 7,000- 12,000 

14 ,000 

11,600 

2,700 1,400 -5,200 

22,000 19,000 -23,000 

Approximate 

12,000 

3,300 
72 

*John Droz, Jr. is an independent physicist, an internationally known energy expert, and a 

NC resident. For a more complete bio and acknowledgements, see the end of the last page. 

Comprehensive Assessment 

When, at its 1982 meeting, the IWC agreed to a pause in commercial whaling (or 

to use popular terminology, a ‘moratorium’) from 1986, the amendment to the regulations included a clause that ‘the Commission will undertake a ‘comprehensive 

assessment’ of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification 

of this provision and the establishment of other catch limits’. 

The term ‘Comprehensive Assessment’ had not been defined by the Commission and 

eventually the Scientific Committee defined it to be: 

‘an in-depth evaluation of the status of all whale stocks in the light of management objectives and procedures . . . that . . . would include the examination of current stock size, recent population trends, carrying capacity 

and productivity’. 

To date the Committee has completed or is still undertaking such in-depth analyses 

of: 

• Antarctic minke whales—Southern Hemisphere; 

• Common minke whales—North Atlantic; western North Pacific 

• Fin whales—North Atlantic 

• Humpback whales—Southern Hemisphere and North Atlantic 

• Bryde’s whales—western North Pacific 

• Bowhead whales—Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas 

• Blue whales—Southern Hemisphere 

• Sei whales—North Pacific 

Offshore Fossil Fuel Exploration and Development: 

A Review of Some Concerns 

By John Droz, Jr.* 

April 28, 2018 

Environmental activists have expressed strong opposition to all U.S. fossil fuels— 

offshore and onshore . . . Every energy source has benefits and liabilities. The only 

sensible way to determine what our best energy choices are, is to do a comprehensive and objective assessment of ALL the pros and cons of each option. Only then 

are we able to make an informed, science-based decision. This document is a contribution toward such an assessment. 
73 

This paper presents some different perspectives about several assertions made by 

NGOs in the offshore fossil fuel debate. The focus is on North Carolina, which is 

estimated to have the largest offshore natural gas and oil reserves on the East 

Coast. We begin by outlining the main NGO concerns, and then follow that with 

a brief discussion of each item . . . 

1. Seismic surveying will result in serious ecological damage. No, similar 

seismic surveys have resulted in no consequential environmental problems. 

2. An oil spill is inevitable. For several reasons, an oil spill is extremely unlikely. 

3. Offshore drilling puts the vital coastal tourism industry at risk. Offshore 

wind energy is a much greater threat to coastal tourism. 

4. More jobs will come from offshore wind energy than from offshore fossil 

fuels. This is not likely to be true, but it is an irrelevant argument anyway. 

5. Professional NC fishermen oppose coastal fossil fuel exploration and 

development. The NC Fisheries Association has officially endorsed offshore fossil 

fuel development. 

6. There isn’t enough oil and natural gas off the NC coast to justify the risk 

and the expense. No one knows the true economics, which is why a seismic survey 

is needed. 

7. Drilling would result in some of the NC coast looking like Louisiana or 

Galveston, Texas. Considerable federal, state and local regulations mean that 

would never happen. 

8. Revenue-sharing with the coastal States has not been approved. It is very 

likely that such revenue-sharing will be approved by the Trump administration. 

9. Any oil and gas we discover will probably be exported anyway. Some 

resources will undoubtedly be exported, and that’s good for our economy and our 

national security. 

10. We have better U.S. energies available to us. If we exclude all the energy 

options the NGOs have blackballed (e.g. nuclear), there are no better choices left. 

11. We don’t need fossil fuels as we can live on 100% renewable energy 

sources. This is a 100% impossible scenario for multiple technical and economic reasons. 

12. To effectively combat climate change, fossil fuels need to stay in the 

ground. This makes little sense as the NGOs’ energy plans do not truly combat 

climate change anyway. 

Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now (and facts and 

science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time), is because 

we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we are scared. 

—Barack Obama 

SOME BACKGROUND: In January 2015, the Obama Administration’s 

Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) 

issued a proposed 5-Year (2017–2022) Oil and Gas Leasing Program that included 

waters off the coast of the Mid and South-Atlantic Region (offshore Virginia, North 

and South Carolina, and Georgia). Revenue-sharing (of potential lease-payments, 

rents and royalties) with the States was not part of the proposal for the Atlantic 

area. After public hearings, BOEM subsequently removed the Atlantic area from the 

draft leasing plan. Just before leaving office, the Obama Administration denied permits for seismic surveying in the Atlantic area. 

Rather than wait for the next 5-year plan (2023–2028), the Trump Administration 

proposed replacing the 2017–2022 plan with a modified 2019–2024 plan. On 

January 4, 2018, the DOI announced the next steps for developing the National 

OCS Leasing Program. The Draft Proposed Program ‘‘includes 47 potential lease 

sales in 25 of the 26 planning areas (19 off the coast of Alaska, 7 in the Pacific 

Region, 12 in the Gulf of Mexico, and 9 in the Atlantic Region).’’ The new Administration also reversed the decision concerning seismic surveying, putting the earlier 

applications to conduct these surveys back into play. As the National Ocean 

Industries Association’s (NOIA) statement of support conveys quite well, it is important to understand that the current process is extremely cautious . . . 

This is the second step in a multi-year process that will determine a future 

leasing schedule, NOT a future drilling schedule. The process involves several 

rounds of public participation and several layers of environmental review. Once 

the leasing program is finalized (many months from now), future decisions on 

possible drilling must undergo their own series of public and environmental 
74 

reviews. Similarly, any future efforts to actually produce offshore oil and 

natural gas will be subject to yet another round of reviews. 

Given these developments, now is a good time to step back and critique some of 

the common concerns put forward by the opponents of oil and natural gas exploration in the Atlantic (like Oceana and the Sierra Club). This paper is being prepared with the hope that a constructive, informed discussion of these issues will 

lead to better public understanding, and ultimately to better public policy outcomes. 

The following is an assessment of commonly voiced NGO themes periodically 

expressed at public hearings about Atlantic offshore oil and natural gas exploration 

and development. 

1—Seismic surveying will result in serious ecological damage. The opponents 

of offshore fossil fuel exploration try to demonize a seismic survey by calling it 

seismic ‘‘air gun blasting.’’ It’s unfortunate that this technical matter has been mispresented to the public this way, as it makes having a rational discussion about its 

pros and cons, very difficult. 

One fact is that a comprehensive Atlantic Coast geological seismic survey has not 

been done in almost 40 years. Seismic survey technology has advanced significantly 

during that time. Because it has been so long since a survey was done, we have 

little understanding of the natural gas or oil resources off the U.S. Atlantic seaboard. We need better information so that our positions and critical public policy 

decisions are based on the best available facts. 

Opponents claim seismic surveys pose grave threats to marine mammals, fish 

stocks, and especially to the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale. However, the 

current plight of the right whale and other endangered ocean species cannot be 

blamed on the fossil fuel industry, as that industry has not existed off the U.S. East 

Coast in decades. On the contrary, the Right Whale got its name because it was 

the ‘‘right’’ whale to kill for its blubber, which could be rendered into whale oil and 

other products. The advent of the fossil fuel industry actually saved whales from 

extinction by allowing substitution of kerosene and other petroleum products for 

whale oil, etc. 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) says the main threats to endangered marine species are: collisions with commercial and recreational vessels, 

entanglements in commercial and recreational fishing lines and nets, and ingestion 

or entanglement in garbage (primarily plastic). Most of these things are related to 

the tourism or fishing industries. Where are the Resolutions and public protests 

about those proven environmental impacts? 

NMFS made this 2014 statement about the environmental impact of seismic surveys: ‘‘To date, there is no evidence that serious injury, death, or stranding by 

marine mammals can occur from exposure to air-gun pulses, even in the case of 

large air-gun arrays.’’ BOEM’s chief environmental officer issued a 2014 report 

stating: ‘‘To date, there has been no documented scientific evidence of noise from airguns used in geological and geophysical seismic activities adversely affecting marine 

animal populations or coastal communities.’’ Note that both of these conclusions 

came during President Barack Obama’s environmentally friendly terms. 

The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (the top U.S. academic seismic authority) 

recently conducted a NC seismic survey (e.g. re plate tectonics, etc). It covered a 

much wider area (2± to 200± miles from the NC coast vs. 10± to 50± miles for fossil 

fuel exploration for the entire NC coast: see here, p 4–6). Both seismic surveys are 

done with the same type of ships and equipment, with minor technical differences. 

Interestingly the academic geological surveys send stronger signals deeper into the 

ocean bed, as natural gas and oil reserves are shallower. This National Science 

Foundation (NSF) study discusses the environmental impact of the Lamont-Doherty 

seismic survey. NSF concluded this seismic survey caused no consequential harm 

to the NC ocean’s eco-system . . . Lastly if seismic surveys are so environmentally 

problematic, where are the NGOs objections to the seismic surveys needed to site 

offshore wind turbines? 

2—An oil spill is inevitable. As one writer put it, ‘‘if you drill, you’re going to 

spill.’’ This perspective is a classic example of a well-known logical fallacy: if ‘‘X’’ 

happens, then ‘‘Y’’ is certain to follow. However, correlation is not the same as causation. Those who oppose offshore fossil fuels assume right from the beginning that 

the worst outcome (a BP Horizon type of accident), is inevitable. In reality, consequential oil spills resulting from drilling accidents are exceedingly rare. Offshore 

exploration and development can be done safely and is being done safely all over 

the globe. A spill is not inevitable. 
75 

The BP Horizon accident was an unfortunate anomaly. The accident cost BP $65± 

billion in fines, restitution, and compensation, making it clear that an offshore accident today could mean financial ruin, even for the largest companies. None of these 

successful businesses wants to go bankrupt, so everyone involved (companies, equipment manufacturers, regulatory agencies, academic researchers, etc.) have become 

more risk averse than ever before. Extensive and unprecedented consultation among 

all these stakeholder groups over the past six years (including NGOs) unleashed an 

extensive analysis and evaluation of the causes of the BP accident, and a comprehensive review of all dimensions of the offshore program (from industry standards and best practices to design requirements and operational procedures for 

critical equipment). 

This analysis and evaluation resulted in a relatively recent major overhaul of 

U.S. offshore drilling regulations. The Obama Administration DOI 2016 press 

release accompanying the implementation of its new well-control regulations states: 

‘‘. . . the final rule addresses the full range of systems and equipment related 

to well control operations, with a focus on blowout preventer requirements, well 

design, well control casing, cementing, real-time monitoring and subsea containment. The measures are designed to improve equipment reliability, especially 

for blowout preventers and blowout containment technologies. The rule requires 

operability of equipment through rigorous testing and provides for the continuous oversight of operations, all with the goal of improving the reliability of 

equipment and systems to protect workers’ lives and the environment from the 

potentially devastating effects of blowouts and offshore oil spills.’’ 

The Trump Administration is working with industry experts to ensure that these 

changes further increase safety (e.g. here). Life is about managing risks, as there 

are risks in every human endeavor. For example, tens of thousands of U.S. citizens 

die every year in traffic accidents, yet we still drive our vehicles. Accidents are not 

inevitable and the risks can be managed. The number of oil spills from all sources, 

and the volumes of oil involved, have fallen considerably, decade by decade in the 

past 30 years, in spite of the 40 million barrels per day increase in world oil output 

and consumption that occurred over the same time. As a result of new rules and 

regulations, and the financial penalties facing those involved, offshore drilling is unquestionably safer today than ever before, especially in the U.S. 

3—Offshore drilling puts the vital coastal tourism industry at risk. This 

claim ignores many realities: the extremely low likelihood of a consequential oil leak 

ever happening, that the rigs would be 40± miles off the coast, that the ocean currents would not be bringing any oil spill to shore, and more. Further, a recent study 

by NCSU specifically asked NC coastal visitors two questions: a) are you in favor 

of wind energy [most said YES], and b) would you do the same vacation in a NC 

coastal community where wind turbines were visible [80% ± said NO]. If drilling opponents are sincere about their concern for the NC coastal tourism business, where 

is their organized and vocal opposition to wind turbines being visible off the NC 

coast? 

4—More jobs will come from offshore wind energy than from offshore fossil 

fuels. The discussion surrounding the number of jobs, the types of jobs, and the location of jobs likely to be created by offshore fossil fuel development, ranges from 

confusing to silly. To begin with, we don’t choose our energy supplies by the number 

of jobs they create! Instead, our energy options are selected based on reliability, 

actual cost to ratepayers, true cost to taxpayers, proximity to demand 

centers, dispatchability, etc. 

Even if we did focus on jobs, we would be better off choosing the energy options 

that require the least amount of labor per BTU, because they are also likely to be 

the least expensive and most efficient. This study concluded that it takes 7± wind 

energy workers to produce the same amount of electricity that 1 fossil fuel worker 

can produce. That said, the political attraction of job creation is understandable, and 

we know that many politicians live and die by economic indicators. Kissing babies 

and promising jobs are two political tactics that never go out of style. 

Opponents of drilling have disputed fossil fuel industry employment claims as 

speculative—yet they accept the job claims of wind energy lobbyists at face value. 

Here’s how the numbers likely compare: a projection for NC jobs resulting from offshore wind energy is 20,000±. The latest projection for NC jobs from offshore fossil 

fuels is 55,000±. 

Until we have a better understanding of the reserves off our coast, we can’t be 

certain about its job creation. It all depends on where a seismic survey shows oil 
76 

and natural gas resources located, and the quantities that can be economically recovered with current technologies. 

Exploration and development of fossil fuels, if and when it goes forward, will 

create many high-paying jobs in the legal, accounting, engineering, environmental, 

and regulatory and compliance fields. NC’s solid manufacturing base, which already 

supplies many sophisticated components to the fossil fuel industry, would see more 

activity, and our world-class research institutions put us in a good position to benefit from offshore development. (Here are some videos for sample career possibilities.) A good parallel is what has happened further up the Atlantic coast, in Canada. 

See this detailed economic study about the broad and substantial economic benefits 

experienced there. For more information see ‘‘North Carolina Offshore Oil and Gas 

Roadmap,’’ prepared by the NC Energy Policy Council, December, 2016. 

5—Professional NC fishermen oppose coastal fossil fuel exploration and 

development. This is a misunderstanding. The North Carolina Fisheries Association (NCFA) recently brought this issue to their board again (as it had been discussed before). Although on most issues they almost always have dissenting votes, 

in this case the 17 member board unanimously supported NC offshore fossil fuel exploration and development. Here is their official position statement about offshore 

fossil fuels. This is a story about their position and the NC Governor’s statement. 

What is undeniable is that fishermen have been overwhelmingly opposed to offshore wind turbines (e.g. see here and here). There have been several studies (e.g. 

here and here) that have documented the environmental impact from turbine construction (e.g. significant sounds resulting from pile driving enormous bases, hundreds of feet into the ocean floor). Additionally there have been many reports of 

whale beachings and deaths that have been attributed to the infrasound generated 

by these 700± foot tall industrial structures (e.g. see here and here). 

6—There isn’t enough oil and natural gas off the NC coast to justify the risk 

and the expense. Drilling opponents say the old U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

estimates the amounts of fossil fuel reserves in the mid-Atlantic are so small that 

they won’t matter, so it’s not worth the trouble, risk and expense to go after them. 

That assertion ignores two studies, by independent academic experts (both PhDs), 

that both came to the opposite conclusion. This article says: 

‘‘Mike Walden, an economist at North Carolina State University, did a costbenefit analysis of offshore energy exploration. University of Wyoming economist Timothy Considine also did a detailed analysis. Both looked at estimates 

of offshore energy reserves, a range of estimates for future market prices, and 

the potential effects of oil spills or other problems. 

‘‘While using different methodologies, Walden and Considine came up with 

similar results, as Walden explains in his recent book (and here). The scenario 

Walden described as most likely suggested that offshore drilling would boost 

North Carolina’s gross domestic product by $1.9 billion a year, its permanent 

employment by about 17,000 jobs, and annual government revenues by $116 

million. In Considine’s mid-range scenario, his growth projections were $1 

billion in GDP, about 15,000 jobs, and $171 million in revenues. {Ed note: in 

their economic figures, Considine assumed State revenue-sharing, while Walden 

did not.} 

‘‘What about the environmental risks? Using standard assumptions and historical probabilities, the two scholars came up with projections denominated as 

dollars of GDP. Walden put the potential cost of spills at $83 million a year. 

Considine computed a broader range of potential environmental costs, including 

emissions, at $92 million a year.’’ 

The truth of the matter is we don’t know exactly what reserves are there. There 

haven’t been any NC offshore energy surveys for 40± years, and the technical advances in seismic surveying for oil and natural gas resources achieved since then 

(e.g. high resolution 3D) have never been applied in this region. Let the companies 

that take the economic risks make the economic decision whether or not to walk 

away. All indications are that the economics do make sense. This 2018 report estimates that there will be some $260 Billion in economic benefits to Atlantic Coast 

states to develop their fossil fuel reserves—and North Carolina is far and away the 

big winner. 

Given the long lead times required to lease, explore, develop and license production from new fields, it is extremely important that we have a better understanding 

of the scale of the resources off our coast. The earliest anything would be likely to 

be produced will be beyond 2030, and who knows what the market will be like then? 

If there aren’t any commercial deposits in the Atlantic OCS, policy makers and the 
77 

industry need to know that so they can focus their attention and resources on other 

options. A new seismic survey would put the uncertainty to rest. 

7—Drilling would result in some of the NC coast looking like Louisiana or 

Galveston, TX. Opponents of drilling play this card several ways. On the one hand 

they claim that we may lose our beautiful beaches, clean water, wildlife habitats, 

and pristine environment to unbridled industrialization. On the other hand, the 

very same people often argue about the job creation benefits of industrialization. 

They can’t have it both ways. As in several of the examples before, the truth is 

somewhere between these extremes. A lot depends on what resources are out there, 

how much is out there, and where it is, but there are many other forces at work 

that will also have an impact. 

For multiple reasons, Texas/Louisiana type of oil and gas infrastructure is highly 

unlikely to be constructed along the NC coast. Much of NC’s shoreline is comprised 

of state, local and national parks, wetlands, areas of environmental concern, wildlife 

sanctuaries, and critical habitats. There is also unlikely to be any suitable tracts 

of NC coastal land for this type of industrialization. Further, the land that is available is simply too expensive for this type of use. 

Additionally, we now have an exceptional amount of federal, state, and local government regulations in place addressing all aspects of development. Many of the 

commercial projects we take for granted (like the Morehead City port, marinas and 

channels, and a multitude of ocean front structures), probably could not be built 

today. Just consider the recent fight over the Titan America cement plant in 

Wilmington, or the time it took to get agreement on a replacement for the Bonner 

Bridge (OBX). Our governing bodies currently have sufficient authority to protect 

our communities from the kinds of development that a majority of residents don’t 

want to see. 

Above all, we should not be worried about over-industrialization because these 

companies aren’t stupid. Why enter a prolonged legal battle through an everchanging forest of regulations and public opposition to build something not needed? 

Our oil demand has been below 2005 levels and it is expected to remain that way 

in the coming years. Outside of a few small specialty units, the U.S. hasn’t built 

a large scale new refinery since 1977. We have more than enough refining capacity 

to meet our needs. If something changes, it’s cheaper and easier to invest in the 

modernization of our existing refineries. If we discover natural gas, it could be processed offshore and shipped as LNG to markets, or it could be brought ashore by 

pipelines that would be buried out of sight. See again, the ‘‘North Carolina Offshore 

Oil and Gas Roadmap’’. 

8—Revenue-sharing with the coastal States has not been approved. The 

basics are that the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 provides states with the rights 

to the natural resources (and associated revenues) of submerged lands within three 

nautical miles of their coasts. (For Florida’s western coast, this jurisdiction extends 

nine miles.) Beyond states’ jurisdiction, submerged lands are administered by the 

federal government for 200± nautical miles, in accordance with accepted international law. These lands are commonly referred to as the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS). BOEM is the federal agency responsible for this territory. 

Drilling opponents say that to make the potential issues with offshore drilling 

worth considering, affected states should get a ‘‘revenue-sharing’’ deal with the 

federal government. Such sharing would be of income from potential leasepayments, as well as rents and royalties for any offshore fossil fuel leases. 

In the prior administration’s plan, there was no revenue-sharing between the 

federal government and the States, as a part of the proposal for the Atlantic area. 

The issue of revenue-sharing between the Federal Government and States (outside 

of the Gulf of Mexico) remains to be decided. However, the political reality is that 

President Trump is amenable to revenue-sharing of offshore fossil fuel development 

with affected coastal states, so this is likely a non-issue. See this good discussion. 

This presentation and this article are both instructive. Note: no revenue sharing has 

been approved for offshore wind energy, so where is the NGOs’ objection? 

9—Any oil and gas we discover will probably be exported anyway. The U.S. 

became a net exporter of some petroleum products (diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, etc.) a 

few years ago, and Congress recently repealed the long-standing ban on exports of 

crude oil. However, the U.S. is still a net importer of crude oil and petroleum products taken together. Exports and imports of crude oil and petroleum products help 

us balance the changes in consumer demand for products that take place seasonally 

and over time. They also help us match different crude oil stream’s physical characteristics with various refinery configurations to maximize output of higher-value 
78 

products. Crude oil produced 50± miles off our coast probably would be pumped directly into tankers and sent to refineries here or abroad, and that is a good thing. 

The product created from a given economic activity doesn’t have to be consumed 

where it’s produced in order for it to provide benefits. This is like saying that all 

the fish caught in NC waters have to be eaten here in NC in order for us to benefit 

from fishing, or that all the phosphate mined in Aurora (NC) has to be used in 

Aurora for that community to benefit from that mining. This is a red herring, as 

it simply is not true. Oil, and natural gas (via Liquefied Natural Gas: LNG), are 

internationally traded commodities whose prices are determined in a global marketplace. An increase in supply anywhere will affect supplies and prices everywhere. 

The shale revolution has made it possible for the U.S. to become a net exporter 

of oil and natural gas, which provides many strategic benefits for us and our allies. 

U.S. exports of natural gas are lessening Europe’s dependence on Russian gas imports. This recent typical story is about severe LNG shortages in Europe. Half of 

Britain’s imported LNG now comes from Russia! 

In other words, NC offshore gas production would help our national security, as it would limit Russia’s earnings from selling LNG (to Europe and even the U.S.!). 

That income often funds Russian agendas at odds with our own objectives. This report makes clear the geo-political power of U.S. gas resources. This perspective is 

supported by this 2018 Congressional Report which documents that Russia is 

meddling in our energy markets—with the same objective as the NGOs have: to 

discourage the U.S. from developing its valuable fossil fuel resources. 

10—We have better U.S. energies available to us. We may indeed have better 

energy options available to us, however, the same NGOs that oppose offshore fossil 

fuel exploration and development, also strongly oppose: nuclear, hydroelectric, coal, 

gas fracking. What’s left? Wind and solar. Regarding electricity generation, it takes 

considerable imagination and chutzpah to call these unreliable, dilute, expensive 

options ‘‘better’’ than conventional sources (e.g. natural gas). 

To try to justify this illogical conclusion, the NGOs say that we need to include 

the external costs of fossil fuels. Of course, they never apply this criteria to wind 

and solar, as the external costs of those are significant. Additionally it only makes 

sense to consider externalities, if we are objectively and comprehensively looking at 

the benefits and liabilities of each of our energy options. Any such comparison 

would conclude that fossil fuels have a superior NET externality—which is why the 

NGOs never do such an analysis. So if the NGOs involved here are believed to have 

energy competence, then no, we do not have better U.S. energy options available. 

11—We don’t need fossil fuels as we can live on 100% renewable energy 

sources. This is one of the silliest of the arguments. This type of claim is made 

to take advantage of the fact that most citizens are technically challenged—i.e. they 

simply don’t understand electric grid realities. 

For example, there is no such thing as wind energy by itself. Due to its unrelenting, unpredictable and uncontrolled output, wind energy must be permanently 

paired with a balancing conventional fuel source, which almost always is Gas (i.e. 

natural gas). So, what actually exists in the real world is a Wind+Gas package. In 

other words, the more wind we have, the more Gas we need to balance it. A similar 

situation exists for solar power. 

The Buck Rogers claim that this renewable energy balancing will done by batteries, is too fanciful to take seriously. The discovery, development, manufacture, 

and deployment of economical large-scale batteries to bring about 100% renewables 

is not even in the foreseeable future. Even ardent supporters of renewable energy 

(like Bill Gates) recognize the limitations of today’s renewable technologies. Gates 

likened trying to run a modern economy on 100% renewable energy to ‘‘trying to 

put a man on the moon by stacking ladders one on top of another.’’ 

In addition to the intermittency of renewables, another real-world problem is their 

diluteness. In other words, it takes an enormous number of wind turbines to even 

roughly approximate the average output of a single gas well. For example (see here), 

to match the energy output of the proposed NC offshore Manteo Prospect gas facility, it would take 7700 offshore wind turbines—covering an area the size of the state 

of Rhode Island! The environmental, commercial fishing, shipping, military, etc. impacts of such an enormous wind project, would be extraordinary. (As just one example, these turbines would interfere with radar for commercial airline traffic, as well 

as for military operations: see here.) 

Another reality-check fact is that offshore wind energy is four to five times the 

cost of conventional energy. Countries with the highest percentage of renewables, 

also have the highest cost for electricity. For example, Denmark has a lot of wind 
79 

turbines (onshore and off) and the cost of residential electricity there is about 36¢/ 

KWH. The U.S. average residential cost is about 12¢/KWH. How is it good for our 

citizens or our economy—our families, farms, factories, hospitals, schools and all 

businesses—to increase our cost of electricity by three times? 

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration all renewables together 

currently provide about 5% of our country’s Total Primary Energy Requirements 

(TPER). Wind and solar alone, provide less than 3% of the U.S. TPER, and less than 

1% of global TPER. 

Speculation that expensive, uncontrolled renewable energy will completely replace 

low-cost, reliable fossil fuel energy sources, is simply wishful thinking, and without 

scientific basis. The only reason wind and solar have become even a small part of 

the energy mix, is because of the effectiveness of an intensive lobbying campaign 

to influence political policies (e.g. to get tax dollars for products that are not cost 

effective on their own). Despite their political support, wind and solar will continue 

to be relatively minor players for the foreseeable future. 

12-To effectively combat climate change, oil and gas need to stay in the 

ground. Opponents of drilling claim we can contribute to the Paris Accord’s goal 

(limiting the earth’s temperature rise to no more than 2° C), by not using the fossil 

fuel resources off our coast. However, leaving these resources in the ground that 

wouldn’t have been produced for another 15± years anyway, clearly won’t have any 

near-term effects on climate change. Additionally, leaving these resources in the 

ground will not affect the U.S. demand, so the oil and gas we consume will come 

from other sources. 

Once again, in making their anti-fossil fuel case, the drilling opponents are leaving out important information. For example, a detailed study was done at MIT to 

simulate some of the consequences of getting just 10% (a far cry from 100%) of our 

TPER from wind energy. The startling conclusion is: ‘‘using a three-dimensional 

climate model suggested that a large deployment of wind turbines over land to meet 

about 10% of predicted world energy needs in 2100 could lead to a significant 

temperature increase in the lower atmosphere over the installed regions.’’ In 

other words, large-scale deployment of industrial wind turbines could increase 

climate temperatures! 

Another claim frequently made, is that we need more wind energy so that we can 

get rid of coal. (This is primarily heard from the Sierra Club which has been paid 

$80 million to conduct its anti-coal campaign: see here and here.) The problem is 

that no quantity of wind turbines can ever replace even a single coal facility, as coal 

is typically a base-load source (i.e. one that generates a constant amount of electricity 24/7/365). Due to its unpredictable and uncontrolled output, wind energy can 

never provide base-load electricity. What can replace coal is a Wind+Gas package— 

but that means continued fossil fuel dependence. 

An eye-opening pertinent study (confirmed here and here) compared the CO2 from 

the Wind+Gas package that actually exists on the grid, to the CO2 from just Gas 

by itself. Due to some technical realities (like the fact that there are two different 

types of Gas generators), Gas by itself resulted in lower CO2 than Wind+Gas! 

In other words, if the objective is to reduce CO2 (and help with Climate Change), 

we should be using more Gas, and less Wind! 

Another consideration rarely heard from fossil fuel opponents is the use of 

Enhanced Gas Recovery (EGR). This technique amounts to injecting CO2 into the 

ocean subsurface, to force out the gas. This offshore energy CO2 sequestration 

would help with climate change. 

In another climate change perspective, keeping Atlantic oil and gas in the ground 

could raise prices and suppress demand for these fuels. The higher natural gas 

prices would inhibit the use of this clean-burning bridge fuel, and limit its ability 

to substitute for coal and reduce CO2 emissions. This would unquestionably be the 

case in Europe, where Russian supplied natural gas is priced at 5± times what we 

pay. This high cost limits Europe’s ability to substitute clean-burning natural gas 

for coal, which means that more global CO2 could be saved if we developed and exported our offshore natural gas to Europe. 

Despite the religious opposition of certain environmental organizations to fossil 

fuels, the fact is that the global percentage of fossil fuel use has NOT decreased over 

the past forty (40±) years. Additionally, the official projections for the next twentyfive (25±) years are that the global percentage of fossil fuel use will INCREASE. 

Based on this reality, and the other careful explanations provided in this document, 

it’s clear that we should embrace careful and cautious exploration and development 

of our offshore fossil fuel energy resources. 
80 

******************************************************************************* 

Some Conclusions: 

a) Offshore wind energy is a much worse choice than is offshore natural gas. 

b) When the NGO concerns about offshore fossil fuel exploration and development 

are carefully and objectively examined, the evidence indicates that they are weak. 

c) When the NGO concerns about offshore fossil fuel exploration and development 

are compared to their position on each of the same items regarding offshore wind 

energy, there are significant discrepancies. This inconsistency erodes their 

credibility. 

d) On the other hand when the NGO concerns about offshore fossil fuel exploration and development are compared to the position of the Russians regarding U.S. 

energy policy, there is almost perfect alignment. This uniformity supports the contention that the NGO offshore fossil fuel concerns are primarily political in nature. 

e) Strategically, DOI would be well-advised to change their current OCS Leasing 

Plan from Natural Gas and Oil to just Natural Gas. 

******************************************************************************* 

Some sample U.S. offshore drilling articles and reports: 

BOEM Environmental Assessment of the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program 

Offshore Resources: Digging Up The Facts 

OCS Leasing Benefits 

Sound and Marine Seismic Surveys 

Interview re Seismic Testing 

Offshore Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources 

Some sample NC offshore drilling articles and reports: 

NC DENR Presentation about Offshore Wind and Fossil Fuels (2016) 

Offshore Energy Primer (one page) 

Pine Knoll Shores Talk (Rudi Rudolph) 

Differences Between Friends and Foes of Offshore Drilling 

Drilling Opponents Pack Raleigh Meeting (also see sidebar article) 

*John Droz, Jr. is an independent physicist, an internationally known energy expert, 

and founder of Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED). For over 40 years John 

has also been an ardent environmental advocate, and had been an active member 

of multiple environmental organizations (e.g. the Sierra Club). During this period he 

has never received funding from anyone. He and his wife reside on the NC coast. The 

views expressed here are his own. 

This paper is a significant expansion of the excellent offshore energy report originally 

done by John Brodman. He was a former (retired) Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

International Energy Policy at the U.S. Department of Energy, and former member 

of the NC Energy Policy Council. Special thanks also to the many people who took 

the time to review this paper. 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

— International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW): Statement of 

Ms. Beth Allgood, U.S. Country Director. 

Æ