Marine Mammal 

Commission

Survey of Federally-Funded Marine 

Mammal Research and Conservation

April 20, 2016

An independent agency of the U.S. Government

Fiscal Year 2014
Photo Credit (front and back cover page): Guillaume Bauch

Marine Mammal Commission

Daryl J. Boness, Ph.D.

Chairman

University of New England

c/o Hartford, Maine

Frances M. D. Gulland, Vet. 

M.B., Ph.D.

The Marine Mammal Center

Sausalito, California

Michael F. Tillman, Ph.D.

Encinitas, California

Committee of Scientific Advisors 

on Marine Mammals

Randall R. Reeves, Ph.D., Chairman

Okapi Wildlife Associates

Hudson, Quebec, Canada

Robin W. Baird, Ph.D.

Cascadia Research Collective

Olympia, Washington

Jason Baker, Ph.D.

National Marine Fisheries Service

Seattle, Washington

Tim Gerrodette, Ph.D.

National Marine Fisheries Service

La Jolla, California

Sue E. Moore, Ph.D.

National Marine Fisheries Service

Seattle, Washington

Patricia E. Rosel, Ph.D.

National Marine Fisheries Service

Lafayette, Louisiana

Robert Suydam, Ph.D.

North Slope Borough

Barrow, Alaska

Aaron M. Thode, Ph.D.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

San Diego, California

Randall Wells, Ph.D.

Chicago Zoological Society

Sarasota Dolphin Research Program

Sarasota, Florida

Commission 

Staff

Rebecca J. Lent, Ph.D.

Executive Director

Dee Allen

Research Program Officer

Tiffini J. Brookens

Biologist (Authorizations and Permits) 

Victoria R. C. Cornish

Energy Policy Analyst

Michael L. Gosliner, Esq.

General Counsel 

Dennis Heinemann, Ph.D.

Director of Science

Darel E. Jordan

Staff Assistant

David W. Laist

Policy and Program Analyst

Luis F. Leandro

Director of Communications and External Affairs

Jennafer C. Malek, Ph.D.

Knauss Marine Policy Fellow

Phyllis P. Malloy

Administrative Support Assistant

Catherine Shrestha

Administrative Officer

Samantha E. Simmons, Ph.D.

Assistant Scientific Program Director

Peter O. Thomas, Ph.D.

International and Policy Program Director

Special Advisor on Native Affairs 

Vera Metcalf

Alaska Walrus Commision

Nome, Alaska
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission i

Executive Summary 

Title II of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) created the Marine Mammal Commission and 

directed it to undertake a continuing review of “research programs conducted or proposed to be conducted 

under the authority of the Act.” In 2010 the Commission initiated an online survey to assess funding for 

marine mammal research and conservation activities conducted or funded by federal agencies in fiscal year 

2009. Following the fiscal year 2009 survey the Commission concentrated on revisions to the survey and 

web-based survey tool.1

 In the spring of 2015, the Commission requested that federal agencies provide

data on marine mammal activities from fiscal year 2014 using the new online survey. The survey collected 

information on the agencies’ marine mammal-related programs, projects, and grants, including the nature 

of the research, the species and geographic areas studied, the threats and issues addressed, and the 

funding amounts obligated during that fiscal year. Agencies reported their fiscal data to the survey in two 

ways: 1) total funding for marine mammals, including direct expenditures for projects and miscellaneous 

marine mammal activities, as well as the indirect expenditures to support the projects and other activities; 

2) direct project expenditures. 

Agencies within the Departments of Commerce, Interior, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, and Health 

and Human Services, and the National Science Foundation and Marine Mammal Commission reported a 

combined total of $134.3 million (M) (Figure 1). Those funds included $91.7 M in direct expenditures

associated with 504 projects, and $42.7M associated with direct expenditures for other marine mammal 

activities and support and the indirect costs with the project and other direct expenditures. The 

Department of Commerce’s NOAA Fisheries, which has lead responsibility for research and management of 

cetaceans, seals, fur seals, and sea lions, accounted for 49 percent of all federal funding for marine 

mammals ($66.M). The Department of the Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, which have lead responsibility for research and management (respectively) of the West Indian 

manatee, polar bear, sea otter, and walrus, provided an additional five percent each ($6.7M and $6.5M, 

respectively). Together, these three agencies, which have lead responsibility for the conservation of all 

marine mammals, accounted for 59 percent ($79.4M) of the total funding reported. The Department of 

Defense (Navy, Army Corps of Engineers), Department of Energy, Department of Interior (Bureaus of Ocean 

Energy Management, and Safety and Environmental Enforcement), and Department of Homeland Security 

(U.S. Coast Guard), all of which are responsible for mitigating the impact of their activities and policies

affecting marine mammals, accounted for 32 percent ($42.6M) for research and mitigation efforts. Other 

sources of funds included NOAA’s National Ocean Service (3 percent, $4.2M), the Marine Mammal 

Commission (2 percent, $3.3M), the Department of Defense’s Environmental Research Programs (2 

percent, $2.1M), the National Science Foundation (1 percent, $1.1M), NOAA Research (<1 percent, $0.8M), 

the National Institutes of Health (<1 percent, $0.6M), and the National Park Service (<1 percent, <$0.1M). 

Funding differed substantially by region. NOAA Fisheries allocated 43 percent ($24.3M) of its regionspecific funding to the Alaska Region, 18 percent ($10.1M) to the West Coast Region, 16 percent ($9.2M) to 

the Greater Atlantic Region, 12 percent ($6.5M) to the Pacific Islands Region, and 11 percent ($6.2M) to the

Southeast Region. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey distributed their funds 

 

1 A survey was run in 2012 for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, but due to personnel and budgetary shortages the survey was not 

published.
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission ii

largely in proportion to the marine mammal species they manage and study: 57 percent ($7.4M) went to 

the Alaska Region for the polar bear, walrus, and northern sea otter; 21 percent ($2.9M) to the Southeast 

Region for the West Indian manatee; and eight percent ($1.0M) to the West Coast Region for the southern 

sea otter. Although regional boundaries used by NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service / 

U.S. Geological Survey differ somewhat, and 15 percent of their combined funding ($11.6M) was provided 

to programs not tied to specific regions, these agencies allocated approximately 40 percent ($31.8M) of 

their combined $79.4M in funding for work based in Alaska, 14 percent ($11.1M) in the contiguous Pacific 

coast states (i.e., Washington, Oregon and California), 12 percent ($9.3M) in northeastern and mid-Atlantic

coastal states, 11 percent ($9.1M) in the southeastern and Gulf of Mexico states, and eight percent ($6.5M) 

in the Pacific Islands Region. The dispersal of funds by the Department of Defense and Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management also varied by region, reflecting the distribution of their activities or leasing programs. 

However, percentages by region were less clear-cut. 

Figure 1. Fiscal year 2014 total funding reported by agencies. 

NOAA Fisheries 

($66.2M)

Department of the 

Navy ($29.6M)

Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management 

($7.1M)

U.S. Geological 

Survey ($6.7M)

U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service ($6.5M)

National Ocean 

Service ($4.3M)

Marine Mammal 

Commission ($3.3M)

Office of Energy 

Efficiency & 

Renewable Energy 

($2.6M)

Environmental 

Research Programs 

($2.1M)

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers ($1.8M)

U.S. Coast Guard 

($1.2M)

National Science 

Foundation ($1.1M)

Office of Oceanic 

and Atmospheric 

Research ($0.78M)

National Institutes 

of Health ($0.59M) Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental 

Enforcement 

($0.32M)

National Park 

Service ($0.09M)
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission iii

Of the $92.5M in direct expenditures reported by all agencies combined for 504 projects, 25 percent 

($22.9M) was focused on population dynamics and stock assessment, 25 percent ($23.1M) on studies of 

marine mammal biology and ecology, 15 percent ($13.9M) on conservation and policy, and 13 percent 

($11.6M) on technology development. Federal agencies also directed 11 percent ($9.9M) of the total direct 

project expenditures toward projects related to the impact of human activities such as sound, military 

activities, fishing, pollution, and tourism. They also directed eight percent ($7.2M) to animal health, and

four percent ($3.9M) to communications, outreach and meetings.

Among the 504 projects ($92.5M in direct project expenditures), agencies directed approximately $86.8M 

in direct expenditures to projects focused on one or more of 110 individual marine mammal species 

reported in the survey. The remaining $5.8M in direct project expenditures were of general benefit to all 

marine mammals (e.g., technology development, or general conferences). Nearly 44% of the $86.8M,

($38.1M) was spent on nine species (humpback whale, Steller sea lion, North Atlantic right whale, walrus, 

Hawaiian monk seal, Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, polar bear, fin whale, and bowhead whale), which

received amounts varying from approximately $6.7M to $3.3M each. Expenditures for an additional 20 

species that exceeded $1.0M accounted for another 37 percent ($32.3M) of the $86.8M. 

When the projects are broken down according to broad taxonomic or ecological groups, 11 species of 

pinnipeds

2 received $500 thousand (K) or more in direct expenditures (Steller and California sea lions; 

northern fur seals; Hawaiian monk, harbor, bearded, northern elephant, ribbon, ringed, and spotted seals; 

and walrus) for a total of 29 percent ($24.8M) of the $86.8M. Using the same funding cut-off, nine species 

of large whales (humpback, North Atlantic right, fin, bowhead, blue, gray, minke, sperm and sei) accounted 

for 30 percent ($26.1M) of the expenditures. Direct expenditures for more than 16 species of toothed 

cetaceans3

 (Cuvier’s, Baird’s and Blainville’s beaked whales, Northern bottlenose whales, Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphins; killer, beluga, sperm whales4

; pilot whales,

5 several species of small ocean dolphins, 

and harbor porpoise) exceeded the cut-off and accounted for another 22 percent ($19.1M). 

Of the direct project expenditures associated with particular species ($86.8M), agencies directed 66 

percent ($57.3M) toward 30 species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), or designated as depleted or categorized strategic under the MMPA. Of the $57.3M, agencies 

directed 67 percent ($38.6M) toward 20 endangered species, 16 percent ($9.3M) toward seven threatened 

species, 11 percent ($7.7M) toward two strategic species,6 and 2 percent ($1.8M) toward the single species

designated as depleted.7

 Of the 27 species listed as endangered or threatened, expenditures averaged 

$1.8M (range: $893K to $6.7M) for the 18 species with the highest expenditures, all of which occur in U.S. 

waters. Expenditures for the other nine species averaged $65K (range: $460K - $242K). Just two of the

nine species, North Pacific right whale ($228K) and Guadalupe fur seal ($65K), occur in U.S. waters. 

 

2 Seals, sea lions, fur seals, and walrus are all pinnipeds

3 Toothed whales, dolphins and porpoises – the odontocetes 4 Sperm whale, pygmy sperm whale and dwarf sperm whale 5 Long-finned and short-finned pilot whales 6 Designated strategic under the MMPA, but not listed under the ESA

7 Designated as depleted under the MMPA, but not listed under the ESA or designated as strategic under the MMPA
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission iv

Survey respondents identified the geographic regions (coastal Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) and large 

open ocean areas) within which each project operated or was relevant to the project. The U.S. Arctic LMEs8

and adjacent areas accounted for 31 percent ($25.4M) of the total direct project expenditures associated 

with one or more particular regions ($83.3M). Expenditures in the Pacific Ocean LMEs9 made up 43% of the 

total. Expenditures in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME and its adjacent open ocean area 

accounted for another 15 percent ($12.8M). The Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico and 

Caribbean LMEs combined accounted for 11 percent ($9.2M) of the direct project expenditures.

The Marine Mammal Commission gratefully appreciates the time and effort contributed by respondents 

from all federal agencies participating in the survey. The Commission acknowledges comments from 

respondents, which have improved the survey and its usefulness substantially. Additional comments on 

this report are welcome and should be submitted to the Commission at surveyffr@mmc.gov.

 

8 Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, East Bering Sea and West Bering Sea LMEs

9 Northeast and northwest Pacific Ocean, California Current, Gulf of Alaska, and Insular Pacific – Hawaiian LMEs 
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. i

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

Methods ............................................................................................................................................................ 3

Results ............................................................................................................................................................... 6

Funding by Federal Departments, Agencies and Offices................................................................................... 6

Departments............................................................................................................................................... 6

Agencies...................................................................................................................................................... 7

Department of Commerce ...................................................................................................................... 7

NOAA Fisheries................................................................................................................................... 8

National Ocean Service.....................................................................................................................10

NOAA Research................................................................................................................................. 11

Department of Defense ........................................................................................................................12

Department of the Navy...................................................................................................................12

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers...........................................................................................................14

Environmental Research Programs..................................................................................................14

Department of the Interior...................................................................................................................15

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety 

& Environmental Enforcement.........................................................................................................15

U.S. Geological Survey ......................................................................................................................15

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service............................................................................................................17

National Park Service........................................................................................................................18

Independent Agencies ..........................................................................................................................18

National Science Foundation............................................................................................................18

Marine Mammal Commission ..........................................................................................................18

Department of Energy...........................................................................................................................19

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy .............................................................................19

Department of Health and Human Services.........................................................................................19

National Institutes of Health ............................................................................................................19

Department of Homeland Security.......................................................................................................19

U.S. Coast Guard...............................................................................................................................19
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission

Project Expenditures ....................................................................................................................................... 20

Project Objectives.....................................................................................................................................20

Species and Species Groupings.................................................................................................................25

Conservation Status..................................................................................................................................28

Geographic Region ...................................................................................................................................31

Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................ 33

Next Steps.................................................................................................................................................33

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix A....................................................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix B....................................................................................................................................................... 39

Appendix C....................................................................................................................................................... 43

Tables

Table 1. Project fields in the fiscal year 2014 online survey.............................................................................. 3

Table 2. The project objectives field in the fiscal year 2014 online survey....................................................... 5

Table 3. Fiscal year 2014 total funding reported by federal departments........................................................ 6

Table 4. Fiscal year 2014 total funding reported by federal agencies. ............................................................. 7

Table 5. Fiscal year 2014 total funding reported by various headquarters programs, 

regional offices, and science centers, and by region, within NOAA Fisheries..................................... 9

Table 6. Fiscal year 2014 total funding reported by the Navy.........................................................................14

Table 7. Fiscal year 2014 total funding reported by agencies, centers, and offices, 

and by region, within the Department of the Interior. .....................................................................16

Table 8. Fiscal year 2014 direct expenditures reported by categories of project objectives..........................22

Table 9. Fiscal year 2014 direct project expenditures by reported objective (all agencies combined)..........23

Table 10. Marine mammal species with a minimum of $200K in direct project expenditures 

reported in fiscal year 2014. ............................................................................................................27
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission

Figures

Figure 1. Fiscal year 2014 total funding reported by agencies..........................................................................ii

Figure 2. Fiscal year 2014 total funding reported by NOAA Fisheries offices, regional offices, 

and science centers..........................................................................................................................10

Figure 3. Fiscal year 2014 total funding reported by the Navy. ......................................................................13

Figure 4. Fiscal year 2014 project expenditures reported by project objective..............................................21

Figure 5. Species with more than $2.0M in direct project expenditures reported in fiscal year 2014...........28

Figure 6. Fiscal year 2014 direct project expenditures reported by taxonomic or ecological grouping........29

Figure 7. Fiscal year 2014 direct project expenditures reported by species’ ESA and 

MMPA conservation status..............................................................................................................30

Figure 8. Fiscal year 2014 direct project expenditures reported by geographic location 

– Large Marine Ecosystems and open-ocean areas.........................................................................32
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 1

Introduction

Title II of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) directs the Marine Mammal Commission to 

conduct a continuing review of “...research programs conducted or proposed to be conducted under the 

authority of the Act....” From 1974 to 2000, the Commission fulfilled that duty, in part, by conducting an 

annual “Survey of Federally Funded Marine Mammal Research and Studies.”10 The Commission 

discontinued the survey in 2000 because of uncertainties as to whether the results were being used. In 

2010 the Commission re-initiated the survey – now entitled the “Survey of Federally Funded Marine 

Mammal Research and Conservation” – to analyze data for fiscal year 2009.

11 

Following the fiscal year 2009 survey the Commission undertook a large-scale revision of the survey and the 

web-based survey tool.12 The redesign has enabled the collection of high quality data, and the new webbased survey tool has allowed participating agencies to enter their data quickly and efficiently. The 

Commission considers the survey an important source of information to inform decision-makers charged 

with evaluating and prioritizing resources needed to meet marine mammal research and conservation

obligations. 

The survey was designed to gather funding information from federal agencies13 regarding their marine 

mammal research and conservation activities. Research may occur in the field, in a laboratory, or at a 

captive facility and may involve the surveying of wild populations, collection of biological samples, data 

analyses, computer simulations, or integration of traditional Native American knowledge. Topics may 

include anatomy, morphology, physiology, nutrition, metabolism, energetics, genetics, neurology, hearing, 

sound production, echolocation, dive physiology, cognition, parasitology, disease/health, and individual 

animal condition. Research may focus on species’ natural history traits such as breeding systems, foraging 

patterns and diet, diving patterns, movements and home range, or time budgets and seasonality of various 

behavioral activities. At the population level, it may focus on such things as distribution, stock structure 

and genetic exchange, abundance, trends, status, social structure, migration, demographics including vital 

rates (growth, birth, and death rates), life history traits, evolution, or taxonomy. At the ecosystem level it 

may focus on such things as prey abundance, distribution, and availability; competition; predator 

avoidance, and habitat selection or use. For conservation purposes, it often focuses on marine 

mammal/human conflicts such as fishery interactions, ship strikes, disturbance, entanglement in marine 

debris, direct taking, and habitat degradation. Finally, research can involve the development, testing, and 

deployment of a wide range of scientific methods and technologies, such as line-transect, mark-recapture, 

 

10 Scanned versions of those reports are available on the Commission web site (www.mmc.gov). 11 The report on the fiscal year 2009 survey also is available on the Commission web site. 12 Following the fiscal year 2009 survey the Commission revised the survey to capture more information, and in 2012 the 

Commission requested data from fiscal years 2010 and 2011. Following that survey the loss of the survey program manager and 

severe financial constraints associated with sequestration significantly delayed the processing and analysis of the data. At the 

same time, in response to strong feedback received from agencies on the FY2010-11 and FY2009 surveys, the Commission 

decided to redesign the survey and develop a new online survey app. The changes in the survey design mean that the FY2010-11 

data could not be compared with data collected with the new survey. Because of this limitation and because the FY2010-11 data 

were by then out of date, the Commission decided not to report on those data, but instead to focus on the new application and

collection of higher quality data from this point forward. 13 In this report, the term “agency” refers generically to federal departments, administrations, bureaus, services, offices, programs, 

institutions, commissions, etc.
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 2

and photo-identification methods, the development and refinement of various types of tags, tracking 

devices, acoustic devices, tissue-sampling devices, analytical software, assessment models, and simulation 

software, and social science and economic studies of human interactions with marine mammals and their 

importance to society. 

Conservation activities are primarily aimed at risks to marine mammals arising from human-related 

activities. They may involve the development of conservation regulations, policies, permits to mitigate

activities that may take14 marine mammals incidentally, development of mitigation and monitoring 

measures, enforcement, education and outreach, status reviews and listing decisions, recovery planning, 

section-7 consultations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), co-management of subsistence hunting, 

stranding and entanglement response, rehabilitation, the application of new technologies/equipment (e.g., 

fishing gear), and evaluation of management. Supporting activities such as administration, infrastructure 

development and maintenance, capital investment, information/database development and maintenance, 

and communications (e.g. workshops, conferences) also are essential for marine mammal conservation.

This report describes the results of a survey of such activities by federal agencies for fiscal year 2014. It 

does not include related marine mammal studies funded by state agencies or funds dispersed from the 

Deepwater Horizon settlement funds. The results include funding levels and associated information 

reported by agencies and basic analyses of that information, such as funding by agency, region, project 

objective, taxonomic family, and conservation status of the focal species. A companion document, “Survey 

of Federally Funded Marine Mammal Research and Conservation – Fiscal Year 2014 – Project Details,”15

contains detailed information16 on each of the 504 projects submitted to the survey.

 

14 “Take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal (MMPA Sec. 3 

(13)). 15 The companion document is available on request from the Marine Mammal Commission (SurveyFFR@mmc.gov). 16 Sponsoring Department, Agency and Office; Project Title; Performing Organization; Type of Organization, Direct Expenditures, 

Data Disposition, Project Objectives; Focal Species; and Project Locations (LMEs) 
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 3

Methods

In the spring of 2015, the Commission made an online data-entry application available to federal agencies

to survey fiscal year 2014 data on their marine mammal activities. Federal agencies known to have funded, 

or that might have funded, research or conservation efforts for marine mammals in fiscal year 2014 were 

asked to participate. 

The Commission identified all of the administrative ‘units’ within federal departments that were known to, 

or thought to, conduct or fund marine mammal activities. These ‘units’ were part of agencies – 

• with lead responsibility for marine mammal research and management (NOAA Fisheries, US Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and US Geological Survey); 

• conducting or managing activities that affect marine mammals (e.g., the Department of Navy, and 

the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management); 

• with missions explicitly related to marine mammal conservation (e.g., NOAA Fisheries, NOAA’s 

National Ocean Service, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service); or 

• that conduct/fund research involving marine mammals (e.g., National Institutes of Health, and the

National Science Foundation). 

Table 1. Project fields in the fiscal year 2014 online survey.

Project fields

• Title and description

• Fiscal year

• Principal investigator(s) name(s)

• Sponsoring agency

• Performing organization name/type

• Direct expenditures

• Objective(s) and allocation

• Species/stock(s) and allocation 

• Location(s) (LMEs)17 and allocation

• Data disposition and products

The Commission recognized three sources of expenditures toward marine mammals: 1) discrete projects, 2) 

miscellaneous activities, and 3) support. Information on projects with the associated direct expenditures 

were collected and linked to the ‘unit’ within which the project operated, or received support or funding. 

For each ‘unit’ that conducted or funded projects or miscellaneous activities, the survey asked for an 

estimate of the total marine mammal funding for that unit, which included the direct expenditures for 

projects and miscellaneous activities and the associated support costs. 

 

17 Large marine ecosystems
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 4

For each project, the survey requested data that would indicate the effort and resources (i.e., number of 

projects and amount of funding) dedicated to marine mammal research and conservation relative to factors 

of interest (e.g., agency, objectives, region, species, and species conservation status; data fields are listed in 

Table 1). The survey asked respondents to specify 1) the objectives of each project (Table 2), 2) the species 

that were the focus of each project (for the full list of species that were reported on in the survey see

Appendix B), and 3) locations in which the projects operated or where the work would be relevant. 

Locations were specified quite broadly as large marine ecosystems or open ocean areas (Appendix C). In 

addition, the survey asked that the respondent specify if the data/information generated by the project 

would be archived in a public database, and, if so, which types of data would be archived and which 

database(s) would be the recipient(s).

The Commission processed the survey data entered, and worked with respondents to resolve any 

discrepancies revealed during a quality assurance/control process. The Commission then completed a 

report that summarized the survey data, submitted the report in draft form to the agencies for their review, 

modified the draft as appropriate based on agency feedback, and finalized the report.
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 5

Table 2. The project objectives field in the fiscal year 2014 online survey. 

Project Objectives

1) Biology

a) Anatomy / Morphology

b) Behavior – social / 

 reproductive

c) Behavior – diving / foraging / 

 feeding

d) Behavior – kinematics / 

 activity/energy budgets

e) Bioacoustics – sound 

 production

f) Bioacoustics – sound 

 reception

g) Genetics/taxonomy

h) Paleontological studies

i) Physiology /endocrinology / 

 neurology / biochemistry

j) Reproduction / growth / 

 aging

2) Ecology

a) Habitat characterization

b) Habitat use

c) Trophic interactions / diet / 

 foraging ecology

d) Behavioral ecology

e) Population ecology

f) Ecosystem / environmental

 studies

g) Traditional ecological 

 knowledge

3) Population Dynamics

a) Vital rates

b) Age structure / sex ratio 

c) Size / abundance

d) Distribution / movements

e) Population dynamics

f) Population genetics / stock 

 delineation

g) Stock assessment

4) Animal Health

a) Stranding response

b) Care / rehabilitation

c) Necropsy

d) Sample collection

e) Diagnostics

f) Monitoring / assessment

g) Contaminants

h) Biotoxins

i) Disease

j) Body condition

5) Fishery Interactions

a) Bycatch – gill net / pot gear 

 entanglement

b) Bycatch – other gear

c) Bycatch – mitigation

d) Entanglement response

e) Depredation

f) Indirect / Competitive

 interactions 

6) Anthropogenic Sound Impacts

a) Characterization / analysis of 

 sound budges / soundscapes

b) Military activities – sonar

c) Military activities - 

 explosions

d) Energy development – 

 seismic surveys

e) Energy development – 

 high-res geophysical surveys

f) Energy development – 

 drilling

g) Energy development – 

 platform removal

d) Industrial activities - 

 shipping

e) Industrial activities - 

 pile driving

7) Pollution Impacts

a) Hydrocarbon spills / leaks

b) Persistent toxins

c) Nutrient runoff / HABs

d) Marine debris - plastics

e) Marine debris – derelict 

 fishing gear

8) Other Anthropogenic Impacts

a) Vessel strikes

b) Tourism - observing

c) Tourism – swim-with / 

 feeding

d) Disturbance

e) Coastal development / 

 dredging

9) Human Dimensions

a) Whaling / subsistence

 harvesting

b) Marine mammals and 

 coastal communities

c) Social science

d) Economics

10) Conservation, Management and 

Policy

a) Conservation

b) Population protection / 

 recovery

c) Monitoring

d) Surveillance / enforcement

e) Regulatory compliance

11) Communication, Outreach, and 

Meetings

a) Publications

b) Outreach

c) Education

d) Meetings / workshops,

 symposia / conferences

12) Technology development

a) Photo ID

b) Tag / telemetry devices

c) Acoustic devices

d) Biological sampling devices

e) Oceanographic sampling 

 devices

f) Sampling platforms

g) Cameras

h) Imaging / image analysis

i) GIS

j) Acoustic detection, 

 classification and 

 localization algorithms / 

 models / software

k) Acoustic density estimation 

 models / software

l) Line transect methodology

m) Habitat mapping / modeling

n) Mathematical / statistical / 

 simulation models

o) Database design / 

 development / maintenance / 

 archiving
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 6

Results

Funding by Federal Departments, Agencies and Offices

This section describes patterns in total funding by departments, agencies and offices, where total funding 

includes 1) direct project expenditures, 2) direct expenditures for miscellaneous marine mammal activities, 

and 3) the indirect or support costs associated with the two categories of direct expenditures.

Departments

Respondents from five federal departments (Commerce, Defense, Interior, Energy, Homeland Security, and 

Health and Human Services), and two independent agencies (National Science Foundation, and Marine 

Mammal Commission) provided data through the survey. Just over $134M in total funding for marine 

mammal activities in fiscal year 2014 was reported across the federal government (Table 3). The bulk of 

that funding (94 percent) was accounted for by the Departments of Commerce, Defense and Interior.

Within each department, one or more agencies or offices responded to the survey; the number of projects 

and total funding they reported is provided in Appendix A. The National Ocean Service’s Offices of Coastal

Management and Response & Restoration, and the Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency all indicated that they did not conduct or fund any marine mammal activities in fiscal year 

2014. The Air Force, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Smithsonian Institution did 

not provide data to the survey. The Department of State did not respond to the Commission’s request for 

data.

Table 3. Fiscal year 2014 total funding reported by federal departments. 

Department Funding

(millions)

Percent

of total

Commerce 71.3 53

Defense 33.6 25

Interior 20.8 16

Independent agencies 4.4 3

Energy 2.6 2

Homeland Security 1.2 1

Health and Human Services 0.59 <1

Total 134.3 100 
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 7

Agencies

Responding agencies reported 504 marine mammal projects, miscellaneous activities and support costs

totaling $134.3M (Figure 1, Table 4).18 The following is a summary of funding by agency, in order of each

agency’s total funding for marine mammal research and conservation in fiscal year 2014. 

Table 4. Fiscal year 2014 total funding reported by federal agencies. 

Agency Funding

(millions)

Percent

of total

NOAA Fisheries (Commerce) 66.2 49

Department of the Navy (Defense) 29.6 22

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (Interior) 7.1 5 

U.S. Geological Survey (Interior) 6.7 5 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Interior) 6.5 5 

National Ocean Service (Commerce) 4.3 3 

Marine Mammal Commission (Independent) 3.3 2 

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (Energy) 2.6 2 

Environmental Research Programs (Defense) 2.1 2 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Defense) 1.8 1 

U.S. Coast Guard (Homeland Security 1.2 1 

National Science Foundation (Independent) 1.1 1 

NOAA Research (Commerce) 0.78 1 

National Institutes of Health (Health & Human Services) 0.59 <1

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (Interior) 0.32 <1

National Park Service (Interior) 0.09 <1

Total 134.3 100 

Department of Commerce

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with its mission of “Science, Service, and 

Stewardship,” is responsible for researching, monitoring and managing our ocean. Marine mammal 

activities take place within three of its ‘line offices’ – NOAA Fisheries,19 the National Ocean Service and 

NOAA Research.20

 

18 The project details are provided in a “Project Details” companion document. 19 Also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service 20 Also known as the Office of Ocean and Atmospheric Research
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 8

NOAA Fisheries

In U.S. waters, NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service, is the primary agency 

responsible for research and conservation of most marine living resources, including the majority of marine 

mammal species. NOAA Fisheries’ research and conservation efforts focus generally on stock identification 

and assessment, management of human interactions with marine mammals (e.g., fisheries), health and 

stranding, and planning and implementation of recovery measures for species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the ESA or designated as depleted or categorized as strategic under the MMPA. The 

research activities of each regional science center focus on the marine mammals in that region and are 

intended to support the management needs of the corresponding regional office. Within each regional 

office, the Protected Resources Division assumes primary responsibility for marine mammal management, 

protection, and conservation activities.

At NOAA Fisheries headquarters, the Office of Science and Technology and the Office of Protected 

Resources play important roles in marine mammal research and conservation. The Office of Science and 

Technology provides broad oversight of scientific activities, including many of those aimed at marine 

mammals and the ecosystems of which they are a part. The Office of Protected Resources develops policies 

and regulations to implement provisions of the MMPA and ESA. It issues permits and authorizations for 

activities that take marine mammals, and it manages the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response 

Program and the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program. The Office also is 

responsible for, or oversees, listing decisions and recovery activities such as developing recovery plans, 

designating critical habitat, managing a grants program under section 6 of the ESA, and conducting 

consultations under section 7 of the ESA.

In fiscal year 2014, NOAA Fisheries allocated $66.2M (49 percent of the total federal funding reported; 

Table 5, Figure 2) to 129 marine mammal research and conservation projects, and other marine mammal 

activities. Within NOAA Fisheries funding was split between regional offices ($23.2M, 35 percent of the 

$68.8M), regional science centers ($33.1M, 50 percent), and national programs ($9.9M, 15 percent) (Figure 

2, Table 5). On a regional basis, there were in effect three tiers of funding by NOAA Fisheries for marine 

mammal research and conservation (Table 5). The Alaska region reported 43 percent ($24.3M) of the 

combined funding reported by all regional offices and science centers ($56.3M). In the next tier, the West 

Coast and Greater Atlantic Regions reported significantly less funding: 18 percent ($10.1M) and 16 percent

($9.2M), respectively. And, in the third tier, the Pacific Islands and Southeast Regions reported even less: 

11 percent each ($6.5M and $6.2M, respectively). Most of the funding expended by national programs (92 

percent; $9.1M) was reported by the Office of Protected Resources at NOAA Fisheries’ headquarters in 

Silver Spring, Maryland. 
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 9

 

21 For regional totals (offices and science centers combined), the far right column lists the percent of the combined 

funding directed toward the regions ($58.8M). 22 Includes the Northeast Regional Office and Northeast Fisheries Science Center 23 Includes the West Coast Regional Office, and the Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers

Table 5. Fiscal year 2014 total funding reported by various headquarters programs, 

regional offices, and science centers, and by region, within NOAA Fisheries.21

NOAA Fisheries Funding 

(millions)

Percent of

sub-total

Percent of

agency total

Regional offices

Alaska 11.1 48 17

Greater Atlantic 3.6 16 5

West Coast 3.3 14 5 

Southeast 3.1 13 5 

Pacific Islands 2.2 9 3

Sub-total 23.2 100 35

Fisheries science centers

Alaska 13.2 40 20

Southwest 5.6 17 8

Northeast 5.3 16 8

Pacific Islands 4.3 13 7

Southeast 3.1 9 5

Northwest 1.6 5 2

Sub-total 33.1 100 50

Programs

Office of Protected Resources 9.1 92 14

Office of International Affairs 0.51 5 <1

Office of Science and Technology 0.35 3 <1

Sub-total 9.9 100 15

Total 66.2 100

By regions (regional offices and science centers combined)

Alaska 24.3 43

Greater Atlantic22 10.1 18

West Coast23 9.2 16

Pacific Islands 6.5 12

Southeast 6.2 11

Total 56.3 100
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 10

Figure 2. Fiscal year 2014 total funding reported by NOAA Fisheries offices, regional offices, 

and science centers.

National Ocean Service

The National Ocean Service is comprised of nine centers, programs, and offices, five of which have 

conducted or supported activities relevant to marine mammal research or conservation in the past: 

• The National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) provide local and national coastal 

managers with the science, information and tools they need to support research, 

monitoring and assessment and to address coastal issues, especially harmful algal blooms, 

pollution, climate change, and ecosystem management;

Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center 

($13.2M)

Alaska Regional 

Office ($11.1M)

Office of Protected

Resources ($9.1M)

Northeast Fisheries

Science Center 

($5.6M)

Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center 

($5.3M)

Pacific Islands 

Fisheries Science 

Center ($4.3M)

Greater Atlantic 

Regional Fisheries 

Office ($3.6M)

West Coast Regional 

Office ($3.3M)

Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center 

($3.1M)

Southeast Regional 

Office ($3.1M)

Pacific Islands 

Regional Office 

($2.2M)

Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center 

($1.6M)

Office of 

International Affairs 

($0.5M) Office of Science and 

Technology ($0.3M)
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 11

• The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries supports marine mammal research and 

conservation activities at most of its 13 marine sanctuaries and one marine national 

monument; the sanctuaries and monument exist to protect, conserve, and enhance the 

ecological integrity of special marine ecosystems and the organisms that live within them, 

including marine mammals; 

• The Office for Coastal Management (OCM) unifies private sector, nonprofit, scientific and

governmental efforts to make coastal communities more resilient; OCM delivers a wide 

variety of coastal data, tools and training to coastal communities to address environmental 

challenges such as protecting endangered species, and protecting coastal communities 

from hurricanes and sea-level rise; 

• The Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) provides scientific information for 

responding to coastal hazards, such as oil and chemical spills, and restoring affected 

ecosystems; OR&R provides the science and information needed to support the U.S. Coast 

Guard during spills and in coordinating with federal, state, and tribal natural resource 

trustees to restore coastal resources damaged by those spills; and

• The Integrated Ocean Observing System Program (IOOSP); part of the larger interagency 

Integrated Ocean Observing System, it provides ocean-related information, investigative 

tools, and forecasts to ocean users, managers, and emergency responders.

For fiscal year 2014, the National Ocean Service reported a total of 22 projects and $4.3M in funding for 

those projects and other marine mammal activities. Eight National Marine Sanctuaries24 reported $3.5M in 

funding, and NCCOS reported the remaining $0.8M. The other offices (OCM and OR&R) and the IOOSP did 

not have any marine mammal activities to report for fiscal year 2014.

NOAA Research

NOAA Research, also known as the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, conducts or supports 

research on environmental phenomena such as ocean currents, El Niño and La Niña events, fisheries 

productivity, deep sea thermal vents, climate variability, and coastal ecosystem health – all topics indirectly 

related, but highly relevant, to marine mammals. The Office’s research network includes the following:

• NOAA Research Laboratories collaborate with universities and non-profit organizations to 

conduct a broad range of ocean research. The Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 

(PMEL) has been involved in research on acoustics, the Arctic, and Arctic climate disruption, 

much of which is highly relevant to the conservation and management of Arctic marine 

mammals; 

• The Office of Ocean Exploration and Research is dedicated to increasing ocean knowledge 

through the exploration, research, and the use of undersea technologies. Research 

activities conducted by, or with the support of, this office promote understanding of the 

marine environment and often provide insights into the natural history of marine mammals 

and their use of specific marine environments; 

 

24 Channel Islands, Cordell Bank, Gray’s Reef, Greater Farallones, Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale, 

Monterey Bay, Papahānaumokuākea, and Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuaries
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 12

• The Climate Program Office provides strategic guidance and oversight for NOAA's climate 

science and services programs. This office funds programs that focus on understanding the 

climate system, predicting climate variability and change, and improving society’s ability to 

adapt to such change. Studies conducted or supported by this Office also provide insights 

into the potential effects of climate disruption on marine mammals; and

• The National Sea Grant College Program works with universities and research institutions to 

support scientific studies of ocean resources. State Sea Grant organizations occasionally 

fund marine mammal studies. In fiscal year 2014, NOAA Research’s National Sea Grant 

Program reported 11 projects related to marine mammals totaling $0.78M. 

None of the other units reported funding or supporting marine mammal activities, although the PMEL did 

conduct four marine mammal projects that were funded by and reported to the survey by other federal 

agencies or offices.

Department of Defense

The Mission of the Department of Defense is “to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to 

protect the security of our country.” Preparations and training to fulfill this mission can have impacts on 

the environment and marine mammals. Several components of the Department of Defense are focused on 

understanding, monitoring and mitigating those impacts.

Department of the Navy

The Navy funds marine mammal research and conservation activities to meet its environmental compliance 

obligations under the MMPA, ESA, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and to fulfill its 

responsibilities as a steward of the marine environment. A review of the research and conservation 

activities undertaken by the Navy indicates that these activities are aimed largely at three particular needs. 

The first is to conduct studies related to the abundance, distribution, foraging, reproduction, physiology, 

hearing and sound production, behavior, and ecology of marine mammals. The second is to understand the 

potential effects on marine mammals from Navy training and testing activities, particularly from the use of 

mid-frequency active sonar and underwater detonations, in order to improve impact analysis. The third is 

to monitor and report on Navy training and testing activities involving the use of active sonar and 

underwater detonations. Overall, the Navy reported allocating $29.6M (22 percent of all federal funding

reported) for 180 marine mammal research and conservation projects, and other activities, in fiscal year 

2014 (Figure 2, Table 4). Within the Navy, research and conservation of marine mammals is funded 

primarily by the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the Living Marine Resources (LMR) program, the Navy’s 

Atlantic and Pacific Fleets, and its Systems Commands25 (Figure 3, Table 6).

 

25 Naval Air Systems Command and Naval Sea Systems Command
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 13

Figure 3. Fiscal year 2014 total funding reported by the Navy.

ONR supports a wide range of basic and early-stage applied research and technology development related 

to understanding the physiological, behavioral, ecological, and demographic effects of sound on marine 

mammals. In fiscal year 2014, ONR reported directing $12.6M to 140 marine mammal research and 

conservation projects (Figure 3, Table 6). Under the Chief of Naval Operations, the Fleets and System 

Commands reported allocating $10.4M for 26 projects aimed at mitigating and monitoring their activities to 

avoid, minimize, and/or document the potential effects on marine mammals during training and testing 

activities. Also under the Chief of Naval Operations, the Living Marine Resources (LMR) Program, which 

supports applied research and technology development to improve understanding of the consequences for 

marine species occurring near Navy at-sea training and testing activities, reported allocations of $6.6M for 

14 projects, many of which focused on new passive acoustic monitoring technologies and methods, hearing 

studies, and the SOCAL behavioral response study. 

Office of Naval 

Research ($12.6M)

Living Marine 

Resources 

Program ($6.6M)

Pacific Fleet - West 

Coast ($3.6M)

Atlantic Fleet 

($3.4M)

Pacific Fleet - 

Hawaii & 

Marianas ($2.3M)

Naval Air Systems 

Command 

($0.63M)

Naval Sea Systems 

Command 

($0.49M)
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 14

Table 6. Fiscal year 2014 total funding reported by the Navy.

Office Funding

(millions)

Percent

of total

Office of Naval Research (ONR) 12.6 43

Living Marine Resources (LMR) 6.6 23

Pacific Fleet – West Coast 3.6 12

Atlantic Fleet 3.4 11

Pacific Fleet – Hawaii and Marianas 2.3 8

Naval Air Systems Command 0.6 2

Naval Sea Systems Command 0.5 2

Total 29.0 100 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers serves as the nation’s engineers, working with other federal agencies, 

state agencies, non-governmental organizations, and academic institutions. It builds, supports, and 

manages dams, levees, and waterways; supports military activities with construction and infrastructure 

needs; assists in various ways with natural resource management and restoration; assists with disaster 

response; and undertakes various development projects to support the national economy. In fiscal year 

2014 the Corps reported $1.8M in funding for two projects and numerous other activities related to marine 

mammal research and conservation in 15 of their districts.

26 Almost all of those funds were to protect 

specific marine mammal species during Corps navigation projects.

Environmental Research Programs 

The Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) is the Department of Defense’s 

science and technology program for assessing the impact of military activities on the environment, 

including marine mammals. In addition, SERDP manages and protects the natural resources, including 

threatened and endangered species, on Department of Defense lands and ocean training ranges. SERDP 

achieves its goals by working with the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and 

other relevant federal agencies. The Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) 

identifies cost-effective technologies that address the Department of Defense’s highest environmental 

priorities. The program promotes the transfer of innovative technologies that have successfully established 

proof of concept to field or production use. The combined funding by the Department of Defense for two 

ESTCP projects, four SERDP projects and other activities during fiscal year 2014 was $2.1M. 

 

26 Alaska, Charleston, Galveston, Honolulu, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Mobile, New England, New Orleans, New York, Norfolk, 

Philadelphia, Savannah, Seattle, and Wilmington
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 15

Department of the Interior

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage, 

provides scientific and other information about those resources, and honors the nation’s trust 

responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island 

communities. The Department has a diverse set of agencies that conduct or fund marine mammal projects 

and activities. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is responsible for managing polar bears, walrus, sea 

otters and West Indian manatees, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides much of the scientific 

research necessary to support that management. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and 

the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) working cooperatively manage the impact of 

the energy sector on the ocean, including that on marine mammals, in U.S. federal waters. The National 

Park Service manages a large number of National Seashores and coastal National Parks, and similarly the 

FWS manages numerous coastal National Wildlife Refuges. In fiscal year 2014, the Department of the 

Interior, through these agencies, reported allocations of $20.8M for 120 marine mammal projects and 

other activities (Table 7). 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety & Environmental Enforcement

The safe development of the nation’s offshore energy and mineral resources is under the purview of BOEM. 

BOEM’s Office of Environmental Programs, three regional offices (Alaska, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico), and 

its Office of Renewable Energy Programs (currently focused on the Atlantic outer continental shelf, OCS, 

region) plan and initiate research needed to comply with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, MMPA, 

ESA, NEPA, and other legislation. The research is organizationally divided into regions of the U. S. outer 

continental shelf: the Alaska, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and Atlantic OSC regions. During fiscal year 2014 

BOEM allocated $7.1M (Table 7) for 22 projects and other activities, most of which were designed to assess 

the distribution, movements, relative abundance, and ecology of marine mammals in areas where oil and 

gas activities were scheduled to occur, were in development, or already underway. The regional 

distribution of funds within BOEM was extremely uneven in fiscal year 2014. The Gulf of Mexico reported

just 0.1 percent ($15K) of the funds that the agency directed toward marine mammals. In contrast, the 

Alaskan region reported 94 percent ($6.7M) of the agency’s marine mammal budget. Those funds were

focused on Arctic marine mammals (e.g., bowhead and gray whales, the “ice” seals, and walrus). BSEE 

reported $322K in funding for research associated with environmental enforcement activities. 

U.S. Geological Survey

The USGS works with the FWS, other federal and state agencies, and conservation and academic 

organizations to study the biology, population dynamics, and ecology of polar bears, walruses, sea otters, 

and West Indian manatees. The Survey is strictly a research organization and has no management or 

regulatory authority over these species. The agency conducts marine mammal research under the Wildlife 

Program within its Ecosystems Mission Area. The USGS makes the results of its research available to 

management agencies, such as the FWS, to inform management decisions. In fiscal year 2014 the USGS

reported allocations of $6.7M (Table 7) for 26 projects and other activities to assess the status and health 

of the polar bear, walrus, sea otter, and West Indian manatee, to ascertain their vulnerability to natural and 

human-related risk factors, and to advise on management measures needed to protect and conserve them.
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 16

Table 7. Fiscal year 2014 total funding reported by agencies, centers, and offices, and by region, 

within the Department of the Interior.

Department of the Interior Funding 

(millions)

Percent of

sub-total

Percent 

of total

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office 6.7 94 32

Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Office 0.42 6 2

Other Offices27 <0.10 <1 <1

Sub-total 7.1 100 34

U.S. Geological Survey

Alaska Science Center 3.6 53 17

Southeast Ecological Science Center 1.1 17 5

Headquarters 1.0 15 5

Ecological Research Centers28 0.83 12 4

Other Science Centers

29 0.20 3 1 

National Wildlife Health Center <0.10 <1 <1

Sub-total 6.7 100 32

Fish and Wildlife Service

Marine Mammals Management Office, Alaska 3.9 60 19

Ecological Services Program30 1.6 25 8

Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge, Florida 0.88 14 4

International Affairs Office – Permits <0.10 1 <1

Other National Wildlife Refuges31 <0.10 <1 <1

Sub-total 6.5 100 31

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

Environmental Enforcement Division 0.32 2

National Park Service

National Seashores32 <0.10 <1

Total 20.8 100

By region (agencies, centers, and offices combined)

Alaska 14.1 73

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 4.0 21

Pacific 1.3 6

Total 19.4 100

 

27 ‘Headquarters,’ and the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific OCS Offices; ‘Headquarters’ refers to projects covering more than one OCS 

region. 28 Western and Patuxent Ecological Research Centers 29 Leetown and Fort Collins Science Centers

30 Headquarters, six regional and field offices (Regions 4 and 8, North Florida, Ventura, Caribbean, Washington, and Texas Coast) 31 Farallon, Oregon Coast, and Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuges 32 Point Reyes, Cape Hatteras, Cape Cod National Seashores
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 17

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The FWS has primary responsibility for the conservation and management of the polar bear, West Indian 

manatee, Pacific walrus, and sea otter populations that occur within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. The 

Service also supports the protection and conservation of these species and others33 in foreign and 

international waters. The FWS includes a number of offices or programs that have a role in marine 

mammal research or management:

• The National Marine Mammal Coordinator at FWS headquarters provides national 

consistency for marine mammal-related activities; 

• The Division of Management Authority reviews applications and issues permits for scientific 

research, enhancement, public display, and import/export of marine mammal parts and 

products; 

• The Division of International Conservation coordinates international activities for the 

marine mammal species the FWS is responsible for and that occur in foreign or 

international waters;

• The Endangered Species staff at FWS headquarters coordinate activities for species under the ESA, 

including listing, down-listing or delisting, critical habitat determination, and recovery planning; 

• The National Wildlife Refuge System has 180 coastal and marine refuges, most having at 

least some marine mammal presence. Refuge personnel are responsible for managing 

marine mammal populations and habitat. Refuge staff assists during stranding and 

entanglement events, marine mammal surveys and assessments, and other aspects of 

marine mammal conservation.

• The Marine Mammal Management office in Anchorage, Alaska, has the responsibility to 

manage and conserve polar bears, Pacific walruses, and northern sea otters in Alaska; 

• The Washington Fish and Wildlife Office manages northern sea otters in Washington state; 

• The Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office manages southern sea otters in California; 

• The North Florida Ecological Services Field Office manages the Florida subspecies of the 

West Indian manatee; 

• The Caribbean Field Office manages the Antillean subspecies of the West Indian manatee in 

Puerto Rico; and

• The FWS regional offices provide support to these field offices for their work with partners 

to census populations, assess population health, develop and implement conservation 

plans, promulgate regulations, and create cooperative relationships.

In fiscal year 2014 FWS reported allocating $6.5M (Table 7) to 40 projects and other activities related to the 

marine mammals under its purview. Most of those funds ($3.9M) were reported by the Marine Mammals 

Management office for the management of polar bears, walruses and sea otters in Alaska (Table 7). By 

contrast to FWS’s Alaska region with three species to manage, FWS allocated $1.8M in the Atlantic, Gulf of 

Mexico and Caribbean on manatees, and $259K on sea otters along the Pacific Coast.34 

 

33 West African manatee, Amazonian manatee, dugong, Atlantic walrus, Western sea otter, and marine otter 34 Washington and California
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 18

National Park Service

The National Park Service contributes to research and management of marine mammals in waters and on 

lands under its authority. Its activities include conducting section 7 consultations under the ESA, ensuring 

compliance with NEPA, and undertaking marine mammal conservation efforts. The Park Service is a leader 

in marine mammal conservation and education at sites such as the Channel Islands and Kenai Fjords

National Parks, Point Reyes and Cape Cod National Seashores, and Golden Gate and Gateway National 

Recreational Areas. Park Service Research and Learning Centers, like the Ocean Alaska Science and 

Learning Center, conduct marine mammal research in collaboration with other federal agencies, state 

partners, and universities. The Park Service also supports capacity building and training of its resource 

managers, who participate in marine mammal stranding networks, participate in marine mammal health 

and disease monitoring, and conduct marine mammal necropsies. Additionally, the Park Service functions 

in a critical junction between marine mammal science and public education. Educational displays, such as

the skeletal articulation project of the humpback whale known as "Snow" at Glacier Bay National Park and 

Preserve, connect students and volunteers to marine mammal conservation through hands-on science. The 

Park Service considers marine mammals to be a focal point of its Migratory Species Program, which was

established in 2009. In fiscal year 2014 the National Park Service allocated $89K for 15 studies of marine 

mammal ecology and status, and other activities, in three of its National Seashores (Table 7). 

Independent Agencies

National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports research projects that examine aspects of marine mammal 

habitats such as large marine ecosystems, including in the Antarctic and Arctic ecosystems, and provides

support for a number of basic studies on marine mammal physiology, behavior, and ecology. In addition, 

NSF supports ocean research in disciplines considered important to marine mammals as well as research on 

methods to mitigate, monitor, and assess the potential effects of certain human activities and natural 

environmental factors on marine mammals and their habitats. 

In fiscal year 2014, NSF reported $1.1M (Figure 1, Table 4) in funding for nine projects focused largely on 

basic biology and ecology, population dynamics and anthropogenic sound impacts. 

Marine Mammal Commission

The Marine Mammal Commission (the Commission) supports research and studies pertaining to the 

conservation and protection of marine mammals in accordance with the provisions of the MMPA, ESA, and 

NEPA. The Commission manages its research program to avoid redundancy with studies conducted by 

other agencies and to fill information gaps. Through its support of research and conservation projects, it 

seeks to develop pro-active solutions to emerging human/marine mammal issues before they become 

crises requiring more costly solutions. The Commission fills an important role in the marine mammal 

community, funding small-scale but important projects, of which some are innovative studies looking for 

seed money and others support low budget but vital research and conservation activities in developing 

countries. In fiscal year 2014 the Commission was allocated a total $3.3M to carry out its duties (Figure 1, 
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 19

Table 4), including $248K in expenditures for 15 projects covering a wide range of marine mammal species 

and related topics.

Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

The Department of Energy occasionally supports marine mammal research. Studies have focused primarily 

on sustainable energy development in aquatic ecosystems, and on problems related to monitoring marine 

mammals. For fiscal year 2014 survey the Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy’s Wind and 

Water Power Technologies Office reported the allocation of just over $2.5M for eight research projects and 

other activities related to marine mammals (Figure 1, Table 4). Research was focused on the development 

of tools needed to measure and monitor impacts of renewable energy systems on marine mammals, and 

gather baseline information off the U.S. East Coast and Oregon. 

Department of Health and Human Services

National Institutes of Health

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the Department of Health and Human Services is the nation’s 

medical research agency and consists of 27 Institutes and Centers. It supports basic research on a wide 

range of topics, some of which are relevant to marine mammal health. Similarly, the health of marine 

mammals is considered a potential factor in disease processes that may affect humans and/or domestic 

animals. In fiscal year 2014, NIH reported four projects pertinent to marine mammal physiology and toxin 

exposure totaling approximately $594K (Figure 1, Table 4). 

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Coast Guard

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is the only agency within the Department of Homeland Security that expends 

resources on issues related to marine mammals. The USCG focuses primarily on compliance with and 

enforcement of the nation’s maritime laws and regulations and on emergency response to both natural 

(e.g., hurricanes) and human-related crises (e.g., distressed vessels). The Coast Guard supports some 

marine mammal research and conservation activities through its Marine Protected Species Program, which 

aligns its goals and objectives closely with those of the National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and 

Wildlife Service. In fiscal year 2014, the USCG reported two projects pertinent to marine mammal 

physiology and toxin exposure, totaling approximately $1.2M (Figure 1, Table 4). 
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 20

Project Expenditures

Total funding by departments, agencies and offices was described in the previous sections, where total 

funding included direct project expenditures, direct expenditures for miscellaneous marine mammal 

activities and the indirect or support costs associated with these two categories of expenditures. This 

section summarizes the projects reported to the survey in terms of their objectives, focal species, and 

geographical coverage, using the number of projects and direct expenditures as measures of importance. 

Project Objectives

The survey asked respondents to specify the objectives for each project and the allocation of the project 

funding among objectives. Of the 504 projects reported to the survey, 202 listed a single objective, and 

another 211 listed two to five objectives. Fifty-five projects listed 6-10 objectives, and 36 projects listed 

more than 10 objectives.

Categories representing activities focused on assessing and understanding the status of marine mammals

(Population Dynamics and Stock Assessment; Conservation, Management and Policy; Ecology; Technology 

Development; Biology; and Animal Health) were associated with the largest expenditures ($22.9M to $7.2M 

per category; Figure 4; Table 8). In contrast, expenditures for projects that focused on the impacts of 

human activities on marine mammals were much lower. The largest expenditures within this group were 

for objectives associated with the impacts of anthropogenic sound ($5.2M), which reflects the Navy’s 

concern regarding sonar, and BOEM’s with seismic surveys. Expenditures for Fishery Impacts were $2.4M, 

which is somewhat surprising given that fisheries bycatch is widely acknowledged as the largest source of 

direct mortality and serious injury for marine mammals. 

With regard to the objective categories, Population Dynamics and Stock Assessment ranked first with direct 

expenditures of 22.9M, which accounted for 23 percent of the $92.5M in direct project expenditures 

(Figure 4, Table 8). Within this category, 55 percent of expenditures were directed toward Distribution and 

Movements, Population Size/Abundance, and Trends (Table 9). Another 35 percent was directed toward 

Vital Rates, Population Dynamics, and Stock Assessment. The last 10 percent was devoted to studies of 

Population Structure, Genetics and Stock Delineation. 

The second ranked category was Conservation, Management and Policy, with direct expenditures of 

$13.9M. Within this category, expenditures were spread widely, with Monitoring accounting for 27 

percent, Conservation and Population Protection/Recovery 31 percent, and several management objectives 

accounting for 37 percent (Table 9).

The Ecology objectives category garnered $14.0M in direct expenditures with two objectives, Habitat Use 

and Habitat Characterization, amounting to 38 percent of the total, with a wide range of other ecological 

studies accounting for most of the rest of the expenditures. Expenditures for Traditional Ecological 

Knowledge amounted to just $270K (Table 9). 
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 21

Figure 4. Fiscal year 2014 project expenditures reported by project objective.

Technology Development accounted for $11.6M in direct expenditures, which were spread fairly evenly 

across several objectives (Table 9). The development of algorithms for the Detection, Classification and 

Location of marine mammal vocalizations, and models/analyses for a variety of purposes received 45 

percent of the $11.6M. The development of various types of devices (e.g., tags, sampling platforms, 

acoustic devices, cameras, etc.) accounted for another 47 percent of direct expenditures. 

General Biology, a traditional and important area of marine mammal research, accounted for $9.1M in 

direct expenditures. Diving, Foraging and Feeding Behavior was the largest focus of general biology 

research, 27 percent of the total, while other behavioral studies accounted for another 15 percent. 

Physiology, Endocrinology, Neurology research received 20 percent, while Genetics and Taxonomy 

accounted for another 18 percent (Table 9). Studies of the production and reception of sound by cetaceans 

accounted for another 17 percent.

Population 

Dynamics and 

Stock Assessment 

($22.9M)

Ecology ($14.0M)

Ecology

($14.0M)

Technology 

Development 

($11.6M)

Biology

($9.1M)

Animal Health 

($7.2M)

Anthropogenic 

Sound Impacts 

($5.2M)

Communication, 

Outreach, and 

Meetings ($3.9M)

Fishery 

Interactions 

($2.4M)

Other 

Anthropogenic 

Impacts ($0.9M)

Pollution Impacts 

($0.7M) Human Dimensions 

($0.7M)
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 22

Table 8. Fiscal year 2014 direct expenditures reported by categories of project objectives.

Objective Category Funding

(millions)

Percent

of total

Populations Dynamics and Stock Assessment 22.9 25

Conservation, Management and Policy 13.9 15

Ecology 14.0 15

Technology Development 11.6 13 

Biology 9.1 10

Animal Health 7.2 8

Anthropogenic Sound Impacts 5.2 6

Communication, Outreach, and Meetings 3.9 4

Fishery Interactions 2.4 3

Other Anthropogenic Impacts 0.88 1

Pollution Impacts 0.73 1

Human Dimensions 0.69 1

Total 92.5 100 

Expenditures for Animal Health totaled $7.2M. Marine Mammal Stranding Response, including necropsies 

of dead animals and the care and rehabilitation of live strandings received 40 percent of the Animal Health 

expenditures (Table 9). Various activities involved with assessing and monitoring the condition and health 

of wild marine mammals accounted for another 44 percent, and studies of Contaminants, Disease and 

Biotoxins accounted for an additional 16 percent. 

Anthropogenic sounds from a variety of sources, such as seismic surveys, military activities and shipping, 

impact marine mammals directly and affect the suitability of their environments. Projects that addressed 

Anthropogenic Sound Impacts accounted for $5.2M in direct project expenditures (Table 9). Studies related 

to the use of Military Sonar accounted for over half of the total expenditures (54 percent). Studies related 

to Shipping Noise accounted for another 15 percent, and the impact of Military Explosions accounted for 

approximately 12 percent. The characterization and analysis of sound budgets accounted for 8% of the 

total. No other category accounted for more than five percent of the expenditures.

Projects addressing Communication, Outreach and Meeting accounted for $3.9M in expenditures, with 

Outreach, Education and Publications receiving 79% of the total, and the remaining expenditures going 

toward Meetings, Workshops, and Conferences (Table 9). 

The impacts of fishing are recognized to be the single largest source of human-related marine mammal

mortality and injury. The objectives category, Fisheries Interactions, however, accounted for just $2.4M in 

direct expenditures (Table 9), with bycatch projects accounting for most of that amount (76 percent). 

A variety of other anthropogenic impacts ($0.88M) were the subject of other projects (Table 9). Tourism 

took for 40 percent of the expenditures, Vessel Strikes for 31 percent, and Disturbance for 24 percent.
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 23

Projects within the Pollution Impacts category accounted for approximately $726K, with the bulk of those 

funds (75 percent) being allocated to studies on Marine Debris and Hydrocarbon Spills and Leaks (Table 9). 

Projects in the Human Dimensions category35 accounted for approximately $726K in direct expenditures

(Table 9). Studies of historic whaling and contemporary subsistence harvesting accounted for 

approximately 67 percent of those expenditures, while projects focused on the interactions between 

growing populations of Marine Mammals and Coastal Communities accounted for another 22 percent. 

Social Science and Economics studies garnered 12 percent of the total project expenditures in this category.

Table 9. Fiscal year 2014 direct project expenditures by reported objective (all agencies combined).

Project objective Funding 

(millions)

Percent of

sub-total

Population 

Dynamics 

and Stock 

Assessment

Distribution and movements 5.6 24

Size / abundance 4.7 21

Vital rates 3.4 15

Population dynamics 2.6 12

Trends 2.3 10

Stock assessment 1.9 8

Population delineation 1.2 5

Population structure 1.1 5

Sub-total 22.9 100

Conservation, 

Management, and 

Policy

Monitoring 3.8 27

Conservation 2.6 18

Population protection / recovery 1.8 13

Management 1.6 11

Co-management 1.2 9

Regulatory compliance 0.94 7

Surveillance / enforcement 0.78 6

Others 1.3 9

Sub-total 13.9 100

Ecology

Habitat use 4.0 29

Trophic interactions 2.7 20

Behavioral ecology 2.4 17

Ecosystems 2.0 14

Population ecology 1.3 10

Habitat characterization 1.2 9

Traditional knowledge 0.27 2

Sub-total 14.0 100

 

35 Whaling and subsistence harvesting, marine mammals and coastal communities, social science, and economics
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 24

Table 9 (continued)

Project objective Funding 

(millions)

Percent of

sub-total

Technology 

Development

Acoustic detection, classification & location 2.5 22

Models 1.5 13

Sampling platforms 1.5 13

Acoustic devices 1.5 13

Tags/telemetry devices 1.1 9

Database design / maintenance / archiving 0.79 7

Cameras 0.71 6

Others 2.0 17

Sub-total 11.6 100

General Biology

Behavior – diving / foraging / feeding 2.5 27

Physiology / endocrinology / neurology / etc. 1.8 20

Genetics / taxonomy 1.6 18

Bioacoustics – sound production 1.0 11

Behavior – kinematics 0.72 8

Behavior – Social / Reproductive 0.62 7

Bioacoustics – sound reception 0.47 5

Others 0.36 4

Sub-total 9.1 100

Animal Health

Stranding response 2.0 27

Monitoring/assessment 1.1 16

Body condition 0.93 13

Care and rehabilitation 0.73 10

Sample collection 0.72 10

Contaminants 0.51 7

Others 1.3 17

Sub-total 7.2 100

Anthropogenic 

Sound Impacts

Military activities – sonar 2.8 54

Industrial activity – shipping 0.75 15

Military activities – explosions 0.62 12

Characterization/Analysis of sound budgets 0.40 8

Others 0.58 11

Sub-total 5.2 100
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 25

Table 9 (continued).

Project objective Funding 

(millions)

Percent of

sub-total

Communication, 

Outreach and 

Meeting

Outreach 1.5 38

Education 0.86 22

Meetings/workshops/conferences 0.84 21

Publications 0.76 19

Sub-total 3.9 100

Fishery 

Interactions

Bycatch36 1.9 76 

Depredation 0.39 16

Indirect fishery interactions 0.18 8

Sub-total 2.4 100

Other 

Anthropogenic 

Impacts

Tourism37 0.41 40

Vessel strikes 0.35 31

Disturbance 0.21 24

Others <0.10 5

Sub-total 0.88 100

Pollution Impacts 

Marine debris 0.27 38

Hydrocarbon spills/leaks 0.27 38

Others 0.18 24

Sub-total 0.73 100

Human 

Dimensions

Whaling / subsistence harvesting 0.67 67

Marine mammals and coastal communities 0.22 22

Others <0.10 11

Sub-total 0.69 100

Total 92.5 

Species and Species Groupings

One hundred and ten species were listed as at least the partial focus of one or more projects. Roughly half 

of all projects (263) focused on just one species, and another 25 percent listed two to five species as the 

targets of the project. Thirty projects listed 6-10 species, and 25 listed 11-20. In contrast, because surveys 

of the distribution and abundance of marine mammals and stranding programs are a standard part of the 

activities of several agencies, sixty projects (12 percent of the total) listed over 20 species.

 

36 Four objectives combined: Bycatch – Mitigation, Bycatch – Gill Net / Pot Gear entanglement, Bycatch – Other Fishing Gear, and 

Entanglement Response 37 Two objectives combined: Tourism – Observing (e.g., whale watching), and Tourism – Swim-With/Feeding
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 26

Almost all species were listed as the focus of multiple projects. Only five species38 were listed on three or 

fewer projects. At the other end of the spectrum, five species – humpback, fin, blue and sperm whale, and 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphin – were at least a partial focus of more than 20 percent of the projects.

The 53 projects that were not focused on any particular species and were potentially applicable to all 

species accounted for $5.8M in direct expenditures by federal agencies in fiscal year 2014. Examples of 

such projects are: 

• A literature review of the effects of noise on marine mammals; 

• Development of an acoustic recorder; 

• Establishing a data portal and visualization tool for telemetry data; 

• A review of stress in marine mammals; 

• Diagnostic methods and tools for assessing the effects of contaminants and pathogens; 

• Development of guidelines for marine mammal natural resource damage assessments; 

• Support for a conference of the International Association of Aquatic Animal Medicine; and

• Support for a workshop on the current status and future of underwater hearing research. 

Fifty-seven species received over $200K in direct expenditures (Table 10), and 14 of those species had 

expenditures of over $2.0M each (Figure 5), including six baleen whale species (humpback, North Atlantic 

right, bowhead, fin, blue and gray), three pinniped species (Steller sea lion, walrus, and Hawaiian monk 

seal), Atlantic bottlenose dolphins, polar bears, West Indian manatees, Cuvier’s beaked whales and killer 

whales. 

Fiscal year 2014 funding by various taxonomic or ecological groups is presented in Figure 6. Of the $86.8M 

that was directed at, or associated with, particular species or species groups, $28.1M (32 percent) went to 

odontocetes (dolphins, beaked whales, sperm whales,39 monodontids,40 and porpoises), $25.7M (30 

percent) to the pinnipeds (true and eared seals, and walrus), $25.6M (29 percent) to baleen whales 

(rorquals,41 right whales,42 and the gray whale), $5.0M (6 percent) to the polar bear and sea otter 

combined, and $2.4M (3 percent) to sirenians (manatees and dugongs). Within the odontocete group, 

ocean dolphins (delphinids) received $15.0M (53 percent of total funding for odontocetes), beaked whales 

$7.9M (28 percent), sperm whales $2.8M (10 percent), monodontids (beluga whale and narwhal) $1.5M (5 

percent), porpoises $0.95M (3 percent, and river dolphins <$100K (<1 percent). Within the baleen whales, 

rorquals received $15.4M (60 percent of the baleen whale total), right whales received $8.2M (32 percent), 

and the gray whale $2.0M (8 percent) (Table 10).

 

38 Dugong, South African fur seal, Amazonian manatee, West African manatee, and Weddell seal 39 Sperm whale, pygmy sperm whale and dwarf sperm whale 40 Beluga and narwhal 41 Humpback, blue, fin, sei, minke, and Brydes whales 42 North Atlantic, North Pacific, Southern and pygmy right whale
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 27

Table 10. Marine mammal species with a minimum of $200K in direct project 

expenditures reported in fiscal year 2014.

Species Funding

(millions) Species Funding(millions)

Humpback whale 6.7 Short-finned pilot whale 0.95

Steller sea lion 5.4 Sei whale 0.89

North Atlantic right whale 4.5 Northern elephant seal 0.71

Walrus 4.1 Northern bottlenose whale 0.70

Hawaiian monk seal 3.8 Pygmy sperm whale 0.69

Atlantic bottlenose dolphin 3.6 Dwarf sperm whale 0.67

Polar bear 3.4 Short-beaked common dolphin 0.62

Fin whale 3.3 Spinner dolphin 0.57

Bowhead whale 3.3 Long-finned pilot whale 0.57

West Indian manatee 2.4 Harbor porpoise 0.51

Blue whale 2.3 Bryde’s whale 0.49

Cuvier’s beaked whale 2.3 Melon-headed whale 0.48

Gray whale 2.0 Pantropical spotted dolphin 0.47

Killer whale 2.0 Narwhal 0.47

Harbor seal 1.9 Striped dolphin 0.42

Northern fur seal 1.8 Rough-toothed dolphin 0.39

Ribbon seal 1.6 Pygmy killer whale 0.38

Spotted seal 1.6 Weddell seal 0.37

Blainville’s beaked whale 1.6 Gervais’ beaked whale 0.35

Minke whale 1.6 Long-beaked common dolphin 0.34

Sea otter 1.6 Pacific white-sided dolphin 0.30

Sperm whale 1.5 Fraser’s dolphin 0.28

Ringed seal 1.3 Gray seal 0.26

Bearded seal 1.3 Vaquita 0.24

California sea lion 1.2 Atlantic spotted dolphin 0.24

Baird’s beaked whale 1.2 White-beaked dolphin 0.24

Risso’s dolphin 1.1 North Pacific right whale 0.23

Beluga whale 1.0 Longman’s beaked whale 0.22

False killer whale 1.0 Remaining 53 species 3.3

Total 86.8
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 28

Figure 5. Species with more than $2.0M in direct project expenditures reported in fiscal year 2014.

Conservation Status

Marine mammal conservation status is designated by NOAA Fisheries and the FWS in accordance with the 

provisions of the ESA and MMPA. The ESA defines a species as endangered if it is “in danger of extinction 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” or threatened if it is “likely

to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range.” The MMPA defines a marine mammal “species or population stock [that] is below its optimal 

sustainable population level” as depleted. It defines a strategic marine mammal stock as one: 

(A) “for which the level of direct human caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level;

(B) “which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ... within the foreseeable future; or

(C) “which is listed as a threatened species or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 ... or is designated as depleted... .”

Humpback whale 

($6.7M)

Steller sea lion 

($5.4M)

North Atlantic right 

whale ($4.5M)

Walrus 

($4.1M) Hawaiian 

monk seal 

($3.8M)

Atlantic 

bottlenose 

dolphin 

($3.6M)

Polar Bear

($3.4M)

Fin whale 

($3.3M)

Bowhead whale

($3.3M)

West Indian 

Manatee ($2.4M)

Blue whale

($2.3M)

Cuvier's beaked 

whale ($2.3M)

Gray whale

($2.0M)

Killer whale

($2.0M)
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 29

Thus, any species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA also will be designated as depleted and 

categorized as strategic under the MMPA, and any species designated as depleted will be categorized as 

strategic. However, not every species with one or more strategic stocks will necessarily be designated as 

depleted or listed as threatened or endangered. 

Figure 6. Fiscal year 2014 direct project expenditures reported 

by taxonomic or ecological grouping.

43

 

43 Ocean dolphins are dolphins and small toothed whales of the family Delphinidae. The rorquals belong to the family 

Balaenopteridae. The true and eared seals are members of the families Phocidae and Otariidae, respectively. The beaked 

whales are members of the family Ziphiidae. The right whales include the members of the families Balaenidae and 

Neobalaenidae. The walrus is the sole member of the family Odobenidae. The polar bear is the only member of the family 

Ursidae that is considered a marine species. The sperm whales include the sperm whale, which is the sole member of the family 

Physeteridae, and the dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, which are members of Kogiidae, a closely related family. The manatees 

are members of the family Trichechidae within the order Sirenia; included in this grouping is the dugong, which is the sole living 

member of the other family within the Sirenia, Dugongidae. The gray whale is the sole species in the family Eschrichtiidae. The 

sea otter is the sole marine member of the family Mustelidae, for which any data were reported. The monodontids, narwhal and

beluga whale, are members of the family Monodontidae. The porpoises are members of the family Phocoenidae. The river 

dolphins, which are linked by the habitat they occupy, belong to one of four families: Iniidae, Lipotidae, Pontoporiidae, and

Platanistidae.

Rorquals

($17.4M)

Ocean Dolphins

($14.9M)

True Seals

($13.2M)

Eared

Seals

($8.5M)

Right Whales 

($8.2M)

Beaked Whales 

($7.9M)

Walrus

($4.1M)

Polar Bear 

($3.4M)

Sperm Whales 

($2.8M)

Manatees

($2.4M)

Gray Whale 

($2.0M)

Sea Otter 

($1.6M)

Monodontids 

($1.5M) Porpoises

($1.0M) River Dolphins 

($0.03M)
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 30

In fiscal year 2014, federal agencies allocated $86.8M in direct expenditures for research and/or 

conservation projects focused on particular species. Of this total, 66 percent ($57.3M) was directed 

toward, or associated with, species listed as endangered or threatened, or designated as depleted or 

categorized as strategic (Figure 7). Species or stocks in this grouping included several that are at small 

population sizes and/or declining, such as Steller sea lion ($5.4M), North Atlantic right whale ($4.5M), 

Hawaiian monk seal ($3.8M), killer whale ($2.0M), Northern fur seal ($1.7M), and sea otter ($1.6M). 

Figure 7. Fiscal year 2014 direct project expenditures reported 

by species’ ESA and MMPA conservation status.44

Funding ranged from about $0.89M to $6.7M dollars for each of the 18 most highly funded species listed as 

endangered or threatened under the ESA, or designated as depleted or strategic under the MMPA. Funding 

for those 18 species totaled $47.3M (average $2.4M) compared to $585K (average $65K) for the remaining 

nine listed/designated species. The other 34 percent ($29.4M) of direct expenditures that was focused on 

particular species was directed toward, or associated with, species not listed or designated in one of these 

 

44 The Strategic category does not include those stocks that are categorized as strategic automatically because they are listed as 

endangered or threatened under the ESA, only those not listed but categorized as strategic under the MMPA because the stock is 

declining and its rate of direct human-caused mortality exceeds its PBR.

Endangered 

($38.6M)

Not Listed 

($29.4M)

Threatened 

($9.3M)

Strategic

($7.7M)

Depleted

($1.8M)
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 31

categories. The species in this grouping that had substantial expenditures, typically because of their 

importance to coastal communities or susceptibility to human impacts, included the bottlenose dolphin 

$3.6M, Cuvier’s beaked whale $2.3M, gray whale $2.0, harbor seal $1.9M, Blainville’s beaked whale $1.6M, 

California sea lion $1.2M, and beluga whale $1.0M. However, not all species of importance to coastal 

communities or susceptible to human impacts received expenditures as substantial as these. For example, 

direct expenditures of $510K were directed toward harbor porpoises, and $257K toward harbor porpoises. 

Expenditures for several Arctic species, which are important to Native communities and very susceptible to 

climate change impacts, were substantial (e.g., walrus $4.1M, bowhead whale $3.3M, spotted seal $1.6M, 

bearded seal $1.3M, and ringed seal $1.3M). 

To further illustrate the variation in expenditures, for endangered large whales the combined funding for 

humpback, North Atlantic right, bowhead, fin, blue and sperm whales averaged $3.6M per species ($21.6M 

in total; individual funding ranged from $1.5M to $6.7M), whereas that for the two remaining U.S. species – 

sei and North Pacific right whales –averaged $0.56M per species ($1.1 in total; individually $893K and 

$228K, respectively).

Geographic Region

Survey respondents identified the geographic regions within which each project operated or was relevant

to the project. The options for geographic regions included the coastal Large Marine Ecosystems and large 

open ocean areas (Appendix C). Forty-nine Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) or open ocean areas were 

selected by respondents across the whole survey, amounting to $84.2M in direct project expenditures. The 

14 LMEs and open ocean areas with the greatest funding accounted for 94 percent of the total 

expenditures (Figure 8). The combined total for the U.S. Arctic LMEs45 captured the largest portion of the 

funding (31 percent, $25.4M). Two adjacent areas – the Gulf of Alaska LME and the Northwest Pacific 

Ocean – accounted for another seven percent ($5.5M). The single LME with the largest expenditures was 

the California Current (16% of the total; $13.4M); the adjacent Northeast Pacific Ocean area accounted for 

another nine percent ($7.4M) of the expenditures. Further to the west and south, the Insular Pacific – 

Hawaiian LME accounted for an additional 11 percent ($9.5M) of the expenditures. Expenditures in the 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME accounted for 13 percent ($10.7M) of the total, and the adjacent 

Northwest Atlantic Ocean area another two percent ($2.0M). The Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico and Caribbean LMEs accounted for 11 percent ($9.2) combined in direct project expenditures. 

 

45 Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, East Bering Sea and West Bering Sea LMEs
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 32

Figure 8. Fiscal year 2014 direct project expenditures reported by geographic

location – Large Marine Ecosystems and open-ocean areas.

California Current 

($13.4M) 

Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf 

($10.7M) 

Chukchi Sea 

($10.6M) 

East Bering Sea 

($9.7M) 

Insular PacificHawaiian ($9.5M) 

Northeast Pacific 

Ocean ($7.4M) 

Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf 

($5.2M) 

Gulf of Alaska 

($4.7M) 

Beaufort Sea 

($4.0M) 

Gulf of Mexico 

($2.9M) 

Northwest Atlantic 

Ocean ($2.0M) 

Caribbean Sea 

($1.3M) 

West Bering Sea 

($1.2M) 
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 33

Discussion

The main purpose of this survey and report is to provide information to federal agencies, individually and as 

a community, to help ensure the wisest use of limited resources for marine mammal research and 

conservation. The Commission intends that this report, and those that follow, assist agencies in 1) 

matching their resources to their needs and responsibilities (i.e., setting priorities and distributing funds 

accordingly), and 2) identifying areas where they may better coordinate within and among agencies. The 

Commission also believes that this and subsequent reports will provide a useful long-term record of federal 

resources allocated to marine mammal research and conservation.

The survey results provide an informative overview of the total amount of federal funding being used for 

marine mammal research and conservation. The results also provide a useful overview of the agencies 

contributing to that funding, their objectives, the distribution of the funding by region within agencies, the 

target species and species groups, and the conservation status of those species. The general information in 

the body of the report can be examined in more detail in the companion document,

46 which lists the 

individual projects reported. That information should be useful for representatives of federal and state 

agencies, Congress, academic organizations, non-governmental conservation organizations, industries, 

American Natives, and the public who wish to learn more about the resources being directed toward 

marine mammal research and conservation. The detailed information in the companion document also 

should give interested parties insights into how federal agencies might work together or form partnerships 

with other organizations (e.g., academia, industries) to address important research and conservation 

challenges.

The results will undoubtedly prompt the question of whether the total resources being directed toward 

marine mammal research and conservation are sufficient and are being used in the best possible way. By 

itself, this survey was not designed to address those questions. Indeed, answering those questions will 

require considerably more information about the threats to species and their habitat; their risks of decline, 

extirpation, or extinction; and the types of action needed to resolve research and conservation challenges. 

Next Steps

Although the Commission has made important changes and improvements to the design of the survey and 

the online survey tool, additional effort is needed to improve agencies’ and respondents’ understanding of

the survey and to improve the consistency of data gathering and completeness. Doing so means learning 

more about the various ways agencies use and account for their resources. 

Some issues to be addressed include—

• Consistency in defining projects — The number of projects supported or conducted by an agency is 

an imprecise measure of research and conservation effort because projects vary from the activities 

of a single person with few resources, to much larger projects involving multiple personnel and 

 

46 “Survey of Federally Funded Marine Mammal Research and Conservation – Fiscal Year 2014 – Project Details” (available at 

http://www.mmc.gov/letters-and-reports/reports/project-and-workshop-reports/)
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 34

disciplines and requiring substantial resources such as vessels, aircraft, or extensive laboratory 

facilities. In several cases, and in more than one agency, respondents entered entire programs as a 

single project when the survey design called for those activities to be entered as a series of 

projects. 

• Making up the program — Such disparities should not have affected the overall funding estimates, 

but do affect the amount and resolution of information available, and its resolution for

apportioning funds among species, taxonomic groups, species’ status, regions, and project 

objectives. 

• Apportioning funds among objectives, species and locations — The survey asks respondents who 

select more than one objective, species/stock or location for a project to apportion the funding for 

that project among the choices they made. The Commission will be gathering feedback from 

respondents to assess which methods for estimating apportionment were the most useful. 

• Overlap in objectives — For the first time, with the fiscal year 2014 survey, the Commission asked 

agencies to estimate their total marine mammal funding for each of the administrative units that 

conducted or funded such work. In the absence of difficult and time-consuming accounting to 

estimate indirect costs, estimates of unit funding were often back-of-the envelope calculations

made by the agencies. The Commission will be seeking feedback from the agencies on which 

methods worked the best, and will use that information to refine future surveys.

• Incomplete reporting — The lack of responses from a small set of agencies adds a source of bias to 

the amounts reported here as well as to the overall analyses and results. For instance, the lack of 

response from the Department of State means that funding for international marine mammal 

research and conservation is under-reported. Some agencies were able to report on work from

some, but not all, of their units, and there is no doubt that some projects related to marine 

mammals were overlooked. The Commission will be working with agencies to improve the 

coverage of the survey in coming years. 
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 35

Acknowledgements

The Marine Mammal Commission greatly appreciates the efforts of participating federal agencies to 

provide accurate information on their marine mammal activities and funding. The Commission also 

gratefully acknowledges the time and effort contributed to the survey by the coordinators and respondents 

from those agencies. In addition, the Commission is thankful for agency comments on this and previous 

surveys, which have improved the survey and its usefulness substantially. Comments on this report are 

welcome and should be submitted to the Commission at surveyffr@mmc.gov.
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 36

Appendix A 

Departments, Agencies and Offices 

This table lists the federal departments, agencies within departments, and offices within agencies that 

responded to the survey, along with their total funding and the number of projects they reported. 

Department

Agency

Office

Number 

of Projects Total Funding

Department of Commerce 162 $71,215,173

National Ocean Service 22 $4,272,200 

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 3 $330,000 

Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary 2 $162,000 

Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary 1 $1,500 

Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary 2 $223,806 

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary 1 $1,612,200 

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 2 $8,000 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 5 $826,669 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 0 $534,025 

Papahānaumokuākea National Marine Sanctuary 2 $300,000 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 4 $274,000 

NOAA Fisheries 129 $66,197,169 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center 7 $13,241,217 

Alaska Regional Office 19 $11,055,471 

Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office 5 $3,591,254 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 8 $5,576,569 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center 4 $1,562,089 

Office of International Affairs 0 $513,755 

Office of Protected Resources 41 $9,056,992 

Office of Science and Technology 2 $349,217 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 4 $4,274,229 

Pacific Islands Regional Office 11 $2,196,728 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center 4 $3,106,519 

Southeast Regional Office 12 $3,096,303 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center 6 $5,315,774

West Coast Regional Office 6 $3,261,052 

NOAA Research 11 $781,804 

Sea Grant Program Office 11 $781,804 

Department of Defense 188 $32,972,417 

Department of the Navy 180 $29,016,230 

Atlantic Fleet 7 $3,350,000 

Living Marine Resources Program 14 $6,598,000 

Naval Air Systems Command 1 $625,000 
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 37

Department

Agency

Office

Number 

of Projects Total Funding

Department of Defense (continued)

Department of the Navy (continued)

Naval Sea Systems Command 2 $490,000 

Office of Naval Research 140 $12,628,735 

Pacific Fleet - Hawaii & Marianas 5 $2,063,782 

Pacific Fleet - West Coast 11 $3,260,713 

Environmental Research Programs 6 $2,115,499 

Environmental Security Technology Certification Program 2 $367,600 

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program 4 $1,747,899 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2 $1,840,688 

Alaska District 0 $307,366 

Charleston District 0 $48,505 

Galveston District 0 $6,111 

Honolulu District 0 $34,740 

Jacksonville District 1 $1,043,833 

Los Angeles District 0 $2,020 

Mobile District 0 $40,069 

New England District 0 $33,655 

New Orleans District 0 $2,914 

New York District 0 $136,000 

Norfolk District 0 $3,420 

Philadelphia District 0 $1,800 

Savannah District 1 $97,399 

Seattle District 0 $49,256 

Wilmington District 0 $33,600 

Department of Energy 8 $2,554,190 

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy 8 $2,554,190 

Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 8 $2,554,190 

Department of Health & Human Services 4 $594,298 

National Institutes of Health 4 $594,298 

National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders 2 $349,607 

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 2 $244,691 

Department of Homeland Security 2 $1,176,093 

U.S. Coast Guard 2 $1,176,093 

Living Marine Resources - Atlantic Area 1 $342,948 

Living Marine Resources - Pacific Area 1 $833,145 

Department of the Interior 116 $20,778,926

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 22 $7,130,310 

Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region 11 $6,671,301 

Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Region 3 $419,009 

Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region 3 $15,000 
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 38

Department

Agency

Office

Number 

of Projects Total Funding

Department of the Interior (continued)

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (continued)

‘Headquarters’ (multiple OCS regions) 3 $15,000 

Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region 2 $10,000 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement 2 $322,422 

Environmental Enforcement Division 2 $322,422 

National Park Service 6 $89,400 

Cape Cod National Seashore 3 $0 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore 1 $4,400 

Point Reyes National Seashore 2 $85,000 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 36 $6,508,718

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge 1 $2,500 

Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge 1 $880,000 

Ecological Services Program - Caribbean Office 3 $135,300 

Ecological Services Program - Headquarters 0 $383,694 

Ecological Services Program - North Florida Office 2 $668,000 

Ecological Services Program - Region 4 (Southeast and Gulf of Mexico) 2 $55,000 

Ecological Services Program - Region 8 (California) 1 $34,542 

Ecological Services Program - Texas Coast Office 2 $30,600 

Ecological Services Program - Ventura Office 2 $220,000 

Ecological Services Program - Washington Office 1 $78,092 

Farallon National Wildlife Refuge 1 $33,263 

International Affairs Program - Permits 1 $94,000 

Marine Mammals Management Office 17 $3,887,782 

Oregon Coast National Wildlife Refuge 2 $5,945 

U.S. Geological Survey 50 $6,728,076 

Alaska Science Center 17 $3,559,188 

Fort Collins Science Center 4 $58,404 

Headquarters 4 $1,013,403 

Leetown Science Center 1 $145,600 

National Wildlife Health Center 1 $3,936 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center 5 $153,500 

Southeast Ecological Science Center 13 $1,121,262 

Western Ecological Science Center 5 $672,783 

Independent Agencies 24 $4,383,292 

Marine Mammal Commission 15 $3,250,000 

National Science Foundation 9 $1,133,292

Geosciences Directorate 8 $1,128,222 

Office of the Director 1 $5,070 

Total 504 $134,310,389 
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 39

Appendix B 

Common and scientific names

Common and scientific names for marine mammals are included in this report. The list is based on the 

Society for Marine Mammology’s “List of Marine Mammal Species and Subspecies.”47 The codes in 

parentheses are used to indicate that the species does not occur in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

around the continental U.S., Alaska, or Hawaii, but rather occurs in foreign (F) or international waters (I), or 

in the waters of U.S. territories (T).

Common name Scientific name

Amazon river dolphin (F) Inia geoffrensis

Amazonian manatee (F) Trichechus inunguis

Andrew’s beaked whale (F) Mesoplodon bowdoini

Antarctic minke whale (F, I) Balaenoptera bonaerensis

Arnoux’s beaked whale (F, I) Berardius arnuxii

Atlantic humpback dolphin (F) Sousa teuszii

Atlantic spotted dolphin Stenella frontalis

Atlantic white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus acutus

Australian snubfin dolphin (F) Orcaella heinsohni

Baird’s beaked whale Berardius bairdii

Bearded seal Erignathus barbatus

Beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas

Blainville’s beaked whale Mesoplodon densirostris

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus

Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus

Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera edeni

Burmeister’s porpoise (F) Phocoena spinipinnis

California sea lion Zalophus californianus/wollebaeki

Chilean dolphin (F) Cephalorhynchus eutropia

Chinese river dolphin (F) Lipotes vexillifer

Clymene dolphin Stenella clymene

Commission’s dolphin Cephalorynchus commersonii

Common bottlenose dolphin (F) Tursiops truncatus

Costero (F) Sotalia guianensis

 

47 Available at https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/list-of-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 40

Common name Scientific name

Cuvier’s beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris

Dall’s porpoise Phocoenoides dalli

Dugong (F) Dugong dugon

Dwarf sperm whale Kogia sima

False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus

Finless porpoise (F) Neophocaena phocaenoides

Franciscana (F) Pontoporia blainvillei

Fraser’s dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei

Gervais’ beaked whale Mesoplodon europaeus

Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale Mesoplodon ginkgodens

Gray seal Halichoerus grypus

Gray whale Eschrichtius robustus

Gray’s beaked whale (F, I) Mesoplodon grayi

Guadalupe fur seal Arctocephalus townsendi

Harbor seal Phoca vitulina

Harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena 

Harp seal Pagophilus groenlandicus

Hawaiian monk seal Monachus schauinslandi

Heaviside’s dolphin (F) Cephalorhyncus heavisidii

Hector’s beaked whale (F, I) Mesoplodon hectori

Hector’s dolphin (F) Cephalorhynchus hectori

Hooded seal Cystophora cristata

Hourglass dolphin (F, I) Lagenorhynchus cristata

Hubb’s beaked whale Mesoplodon carlhubbsi

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae

Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin (F) Tursiops aduncus

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (F) Sousa chinensis

Irrawaddy dolphin (F) Orcaella brevirostris

Killer whale Orcinus orca

Long-beaked common dolphin Delphinus capensis

Long-finned pilot whale Globicephala melas

Longman’s beaked whale Indopacetus pacificus

Melon-headed whale Peponocephala electra

Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 41

Common name Scientific name

Narwhal Monodon monoceros

North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis

North Pacific right whale Eubalaena japonica

Northern bottlenose whale Hyperoodon ampullatus

Northern elephant seal Mirounga angustirostris

Northern fur seal Callorhinus ursinus

Northern right whale dolphin Lissodelphis borealis

Omura’s whale (F, I) Balaenoptera omurai

Pacific white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus obliquidens

Pantropical spotted dolphin Stenella attenuata

Peale’s dolphin (F, I) Lagenorhynchus australis

Perrin’s beaked whale Mesoplodon perrini

Polar bear Ursus maritimus

Pygmy beaked whale Mesoplodon peruvianus

Pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata

Pygmy right whale (F, I) Caperea marginata

Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps

Ribbon seal Histriophoca fasciata

Ringed seal Pusa hispida

Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus

Rough-toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis

Sea otter Enhydra lutris

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis

Shepherd’s beaked whale (F, I) Tasmacetus shepherdi

Short-beaked common dolphin Delphinus delphis

Short-finned pilot whale Globicephala macrorhynchus

South African fur seal (F, I) Arctocephalus pusillus

South Asian river dolphin (F) Platanista gangetica

Southern bottlenose whale (F, I) Hyperoodon planifrons

Southern elephant seal (F, I) Mirounga leonina

Southern right whale (F, I) Eubalaena australis

Southern right whale dolphin (F, I) Lissodelphis peronii

Sowerby’s beaked whale Mesoplodon bidens

Spade-toothed beaked whale (F, I) Mesoplodon traversii
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 42

Common name Scientific name

Spectacled porpoise (F, I) Phocoena dioptrica

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus

Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris

Spotted seal Phoca largha

Stejneger’s beaked whale Mesoplodon stejnegeri

Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus

Strap-toothed beaked whale (F, I) Mesoplodon layardii

Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba

True’s beaked whale Mesoplodon mirus

Tucuxi (F) Sotalia fluviatilis

Vaquita (F) Phocoena sinus

Walrus Odobenus rosmarus

Weddell seal Leptonychotes weddellii

West African manatee (F) Trichechus senegalensis

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus

White-beaked dolphin Lagenorhynchus albirostris
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 43

Appendix C 

Large Marine Ecosystems and Open-Ocean Areas

LMEs / Open Ocean Areas

Selected in the Survey

Number of 

Projects

01. East Bering Sea 44

02. Gulf of Alaska 47

03. California Current 128

04. Gulf of California 5

05. Gulf of Mexico 42

06. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf 72

07. Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf 68

08. Scotian Shelf 15

09. Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf 5

10. Insular Pacific-Hawaiian 45

12. Caribbean Sea 22

17. North Brazil Shelf 1

18. West Greenland Shelf 5

19. East Greenland Shelf 4

20. Barents Sea 2
Federal funding for marine mammal research and conservation Fiscal year 2014

Marine Mammal Commission 44

LMEs / Open Ocean Areas

Selected in the Survey

Number of 

Projects

21. Norwegian Sea 9

25. Iberian Coastal 3

26. Mediterranean 4

27. Canary Current 2

28. Guinea Current 2

32. Arabian Sea 1

34. Bay of Bengal 1

39. North Australia 1

40. Northeast Australia 3

41. East-Central Australia 1

42. Southeast Australia 1

44. West-Central Australia 2

45. Northwest Australia 2

46. New Zealand Shelf 3

51. Oyashio Current 1

52. Sea of Okhotsk 2

53. West Bering Sea 11

54. Chukchi Sea 47

55. Beaufort Sea 30

56. East Siberian Sea 2

57. Laptev Sea 2

58. Kara Sea 2

59. Iceland Shelf 3

60. Faroe Plateau 1

61. Antarctic 8

63. Hudson Bay 3

64. Arctic Ocean 2

Northeast Atlantic Ocean 5

Northeast Pacific Ocean 16

Northwest Atlantic Ocean 19

Northwest Pacific Ocean 8

Southeast Atlantic Ocean 5

Southwest Pacific Ocean 4

Western Indian Ocean 2

N/A (e.g., all or any areas, or unknown) 76
4340 East-West Highway | Room 700 | Bethesda, MD 20814 

www.mmc.gov

Marine Mammal Commission 

An independent agency of the U.S. Government