81°

Atlantic
Ocean

LEGEND
* Descriptive Tracks

yy, / Simple Tracks

[J ose Boundaries A
S22 Ceitical Habitat

x NTAD Port Database:

£ Pilot Buoy

$ o $ 19 Miks
Sa

30°

34°

Figure 8. All simple and descriptive ship tracks (see text) in the southeastern U.S. system in December 1999.


MS

\

gg
= :

xe:

gg

|

seoegq2g0g8g
arSoaa Fr G

—— :

onth, between

em, by

Number of reports received by the syst

Figure 2.

m
m reports

1 July 1999 and 30 June 2000. Southeastern U.S. syste:

April 2000.

from 15 November 1999 to 15


KK QQ WA

MRK AQ Gg.

CCK

WW

BD65$DMWWHKCC\'"'W

MWK.

BK, CG

VDS)505D.,.(

WK

BCBDRBDR FCW

ERDEC'W’WCDWWXQX«Q&« (J

AWC?

WCW QQ.

MMW“W«~W'='Ww©w«@w

\

2
<

iD
i

8

oo 6}! on
@ @ 2 2 °

spodey jo J2qUINN

200 406 600 — ae a re 1600 re 2000 2200

°

TIME

Figure 12. Histogram of time of entry for ships in the northeastern U.S. system

between 1 July 1999 and 30 June 2000.


South Channel. The southeast system
operates from 15 November to 15 April and
encompasses right whale critical habitat off
Georgia and Florida. The reports from ships
entering the systems are automatically sorted
and stored in a database for subsequent
analysis. These data provide a portrait of
ship traffic in areas where right whales
aggregate and therefore useful in developing
measures ‘to reduce the threat of ships
striking whales. This report is a summary of
the incoming ship reports in both MSR
systems from July, 1999 to July 2000.
Required compliance with the MSR was
unexpectedly low (about 50%) in the first
year of operation. Therefore, not a// ships
entering the MSR boundaries are
represented in our analysis. Nonetheless,
using the ship reports received, we
characterize ship traffic volume and patterns
in right whale habitat.

Operation of the System and Data Base
Maintenance

Both MSR systems were designed to use
existing ship-to-shore communications
systems. A computer server handles and
sorts incoming reports, and sends the return
message. The systems use INMARSAT C
(International Maritime Satellite)
communications equipment that is already
required on all large commercial ships.
Incoming reports are text messages that
arrive via either internet e-mail or telex.
When the MSR server receives a report, the
server sends the ship a region-specific (i.e.,
(northeastern or southeastern system) return
message. Area coordinators provide recent
right whale sighting location information to
the server for inclusion in the outgoing
message.

The server sorts information from incoming
ship reports and stores it in a database using
ACCESS software (Microsoft Corp.,
Redmond, WA, USA). This database is
reviewed weekly to verify all ship reports
and remove duplicate messages and other
errors. Anticipating the likelihood of errors
in the incoming, text-based ship reports, the
system was designed to recognize
improperly formatted messages and store
them in a separate database. Reports in this
database are reviewed and improperly
formatted messages are manually corrected
and added to the ship report database. The
systems are operated under contract by PEC
Solutions, Fairfax, VA, USA.

Methods

Ships’ captains are required to report both
the position (latitude/longitude) of their
vessel at the point of crossing the MSR
boundary line (Fig 1) and their final
destination. Route information is reported
as either a rhumb line (a fixed compass
direction) directly to a port or a series of
waypoints along the intended route through
the system.

ACCESS software was used to compile
these positions into separate and sequential
tecords (starting with the entry position of
each ship) that includes related information
(i.e., reported date, time, and port
destination). The information is checked for
spelling, port name consistency, and correct
system name (i.e., whether the report is
properly entered in the northeastern U.S. or
southeastern U.S. system). Database fields
for the following data are converted to
formats compatible with GIS software: entry
and destination coordinates, entry date, and
time fields. Travel paths (or “tracks”)


Number of Reports

160

SJ

140

120

100

@
3S

WWD). (\
—C6@?CHOAWQ<Ciwiwcy

&

VD0WHK
DWN
CBC

|

Y
Z

Y
0 ZL Yi; Y)

4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
SPEED (kn)

xy
3

WW
~
\

Figure 9. Histogram of entry speed of ships reporting into the northeastern U.S.
system between 1 July 1999 and 30 June 2000.


Table 2. Number of ships entering the northeastern and southeastern U.S. systems in day

versus night. “Day” = 0600h-1759h; and “night” = 1800h - 0559h.

Day Night
Northeast US system 365 (54.5%) 305 (45.5%)

Southeast US system 164 (59.4%) 112 (40.6%)


Number of Reports

50

. ]
Y
: ]

WS)D.WKR KF"
M\W A

\\V.\.).)D.C.00.G
\ A CG

10 Y
"Yyyy
lh LA Yi CLLR, Vy Yyy Uber,

0 ZZ
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 266 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Speed at Night (kn) Speed at Day (kn)

Figure 11. Histogram of entry speed of ships as reported for night versus day
for the southeastern U.S. system.


ob

a3

ot?

69

OL

he

“6661 JoquI200(] UT UoYSAs *S'/) WiayseoupJoN ot UT (3x23 ses) spoen drys eandiosap pue opdums Ty '9 omsey

ak

uvaH)
oneoyy

of



actual number of ships traversing these areas
is likely to be substantially higher than our
results indicate.

A relatively small number of port
destinations accounts for the vast majority of
ships entering the system. In addition,
nearly half (48%) of the reporting ships
passing through the northeastern U.S.
system are bound for ports outside the MSR
boundaries. Of these, a relatively large
number were bound for ports in Canada, or
likely originated in Canadian maritime
province ports. Those entering the northem
system from the east and northeast likely
originated from European ports. Our data
provide no information on probable
origination ports in the southeastern system.
Proposed conservation measures to protect
tight whales from ship strikes should
consider the ship traffic features described
here. For example, ships traveling
northeast-southwest routes through the
southern system may be able to re-route
further seaward with only minor negative
economic impact. However, such a measure
might expose ships to navigational hazards
or bring ships into areas outside critical
habitat where right whales also occur.

Posting additional lookouts is often
proposed as a measure to decrease the
likelihood of ship/whale collisions, but
lookouts are of little value in periods of low
visibility. High speed, low ship
maneuverability, and poor conditions for
sighting whales can all reduce the
effectiveness of lookouts. In some cases
where the circumstances of a whale strike
are known, the whale is not seen until
immediately prior to collision, regardless of
the number of lookouts. Although posting
lookouts are certainly not a panacea that wil!

eliminate ship strikes, it is encouraging to
note that the majority of ships transiting
critical habitat enter during the “day,” when
lookouts have a better chance of detecting
whales.

Plots of ship tracks in the southern system
suggest that ships approach their port
destination from seaward approaches in an
arc ranging a full 150 degrees or more. A
vessel that approaches the shore from an
oblique angle spends greater time and
traverses a greater distance in critical habitat
than one that approaches directly (i.¢., a 90
degree approach to shore). It is important to
note that 75% of the tracks described for this
region are “simple” lines drawn from only
two points. But if this feature is real — if
vessels are approaching from oblique angles
— a measure requiring a perpendicular-to-
the-coast course might reduce the total
distance and time that vessels spend in right
whale habitat.

We found little seasonal or month-to-month
variation in the number of ships entering the
systems. The lack of seasonal variation is
informative, illustrating again the overall
high volume of shipping in these areas.

With regard to ship speed, it is unclear why
mean and median speed were higher in the
southern system than in the northern system.
The difference was small and, if real, may be
linked to the sizes and types of ships
regularly using northeast versus southeast
ports. Laist et al. (2001) examined records
of 58 ship collisions with large whales,
including 10 right whales. Although the data
set was small and largely anecdotal, the
authors concluded that ships traveling at
high speeds are more likely to strike and kill
a whale than ships traveling more slowly.


2000), and for the first season of operation
(November 15 - April 15) in the southeast.
We used monthly plots of simple and
descriptive tracks within each system to
compare ship traffic at different times of the
year. Using AV, we queried for and counted
those ship tracks that intersected right whale
critical habitat areas (Fig 1). Port of
destination information was tallied for tracks
passing through critical habitat and for all
quality-controlled tracks in each system. We
also made comparisons of the number of
reports per month within both systems and
within each system separately.

We compared the number of ships entering
the system in “day” (0600 — 1759h) versus
“night” (1800 - 0559h) periods. We used
the Levene test for homogeneity and an
analysis of variance to compare number of
ship passages in these two periods.
Reported ship speeds were described using
basic descriptive statistics. We compared
reported speeds in the two systems using a
Mann Whitney U test.

Resuits

A total of 2,890 reports were received into
the two systems between July 1999 and July
2000. Initial verification eliminated 1,027
of these reports because of errors such as
duplicate reports or incorrect formatting. Of
the remaining reports, 885 were eliminated
due to incomplete information or GIS plots
indicated the position data reported were in
error. Thus, 699 valid ship reports were
used for analysis of the northeastern system
and 279 reports were used for analysis of the
southeastern system.

Of the 699 tracks from the northeastern U.S.
system, 313 (45%) were “descriptive” (one

or more route waypoints were provided) and
the remainder were “simple” tracks (entry
location and destination only provided). Of
the 279 tracks from the southeastern U.S.
system, 67 (24%) were “descriptive” and the
remainder were “simple” tracks. Our
analysis involves only quality-controlled
data (total n for both systems = 978).

The greatest number of ships reporting into
the systems occurred in December 1999 (n =
128, 13%) when both systems were
operating; the fewest reported in July 1999
(n = 36, 4%) the first month of operation and
atime when only the northern system was
operational (Fig. 2). The mean was 80
reports per month, and there was relatively
little variation between months in the
number of ships reporting in the northem
system (Fig. 3), with the exception of July,
1999. In the northern system, the greatest
number reports were received in June 2000
and the fewest in July 1999. In the southern
system, the most reports occurred in
December (22% of the reports), and the
fewest (9%) occurred in April. The
variation observed in the southern system is
likely attributable to the timing of the
operation of this system, November 15-April
15 (Fig. 4).

Ports/Destinations

Of the 978 reports analyzed, 62 different
destinations were identified (Table 1). The
port most often reported was Boston, MA (n
= 348), representing 36% of these reports.
Combining data from both systems, the five
most commonly reported destinations were
Boston MA, Jacksonville FL, Portland ME,
Fernandina Beach FL, and Saint John, New
Brunswick, with 348, 199, 51, 48, and 40
ships reporting those ports, respectively.


between sequential positions along the
ship’s intended route (or straight line
between entry and destination locations) are
plotted using the ArcView (AV) Geographic
Information System (ESRI, Redlands, CA,
USA). Ship tracks are plotted by
customized AV programs, with the track
assumed to be the shortest route between
sequential positions.

Two types of estimated ship tracks are
generated from the programs. “Simple”
tracks are plotted from a line drawn between
the point of entry into the system and cither
the destination point or estimated destination
point, that is, an estimated line between two
points. “Descriptive” tracks are generated by
sequentially connecting more than two
points, including the entry point, the
destination point or a destination estimate,
and the reported waypoints along the route.

Tracks are coded with ancillary information,
such as ship speed, system (north or south),
and entry date, to facilitate spatial analyses
(e.g., to illustrate monthly ship patterns).
Each track or line segment is coded using
the ancillary information associated with the
starting point for that track. For instance, if
a track is created between two point
locations, the track information includes the
ancillary data associated with the first point
(entry location) rather than the second point
(destination). We adopted this procedure
because the entry record tends to have the
most complete report information.

Some ships provided the name of a
destination port (textual) without reporting
destination coordinates. The custom AV
programs queried for cases when the mariner
did not provide destination coordinates
and/or where the last route coordinate fell

within the MSR zone but did.not plot within
a 10 km radius of the pilot station for the
reported destination port. In these cases,
substitution coordinates were used to
complete the ship track. The coordinates
were based on the textual destination
description. For U.S. port destinations,
substitution coordinates for pilot stations
included positions of Morse Code Alpha
(MoA) buoys from USCG aids to navigation
databases or location estimates also provided
by the USCG. For destination ports outside
the U.S., port locations provided by the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National
Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD),
were used to estimate the terminal point of
the track when destination coordinates were
not provided.

For a variety of reasons, some reports are not
suitable for analysis and must be excluded.
(Also, as noted above, not all ships reported
into the system, as required. Therefore, we
were able to analyze only those reports
received and, as noted in this section, some
reports were rejected as being inadequate for
analysis.) Ship tracks are excluded from
analysis if (a) a ship does not report a valid
entry location (cither no entry location is
provided or the reported entry location is not
near the MSR boundary); (b) the track does
not intersect a MSR zone; (c) a ship reports
into the southeastern U.S. system outside of
the reporting season (November 15-April
15); (d) a track is outbound from a port
within the MSR zone (outbound reporting is
not a requirement of the system); or (¢) a
track has limited accuracy (for example, it
crosses over land).

We prepared plots of all quality controlled
tracks generated from the first year of MSR
operation in the northeast (July 1999 - June


bila

Atlantic
Ocean

AAV SAA .
AAS SA RRA

LEGEND
Descriptive Tracks
7. ¢ Simple Tracks y
[J asp Boundaries A
22222 Critieal Habitat
&  NTAD Port Database
2 Pilot Buoy

5 0-510 Miles
sal

81°

Figure 7. All simple and descriptive ship tracks (see text) in the southeastern U.S. system between
15 November 1999 and 15 April 2000.


(Fig.10, n = 276, mean = 15.7 knots).
Reported ship speeds in the northern system
were significantly lower than those in the
southeastern U.S. system (Mann Whitney U:
Z= -8.31, p <<0.001).

We found little difference in ship speed in
the northem system when entering during
“day” (mean = 14.1 knots) versus the speed
of those entering at “night” (mean = 13.9
knots) (n = 669, F = 0.9, p > 0.05). Using
the same periods, we did, however, find a
difference in the entry speed of ships during
the day (mean = 16.2 knots) versus those
entering at night (mean = 14.9 knots) in the
southern system (Fig, 11, n = 272, F =
12.45, p< 0.001).

Time of Day

Ships entered both systems at all hours of
day and night, but a significantly greater
number of ships entered the systems during
the day than at night (Fig 12). Of all quality-
controlled ship reports from the northeastern
system, 54% of the reports indicated entry in
hours we are calling “day” (Fig. 12, Table 2,
F =6.6, p< 0.02). Similarly, of all quality-
controlled ship reports from the southern
system, 59% of the reports indicated entry
during the “day” (Fig 13, Table 2, F = 8.3,
p< 0.01).

Discussion

The reasons why northern right whale
populations have been slow to recover are
not well understood, but mortalities caused
by human activities (ship strikes, in
particular) are likely a contributing factor.
Ship strikes are also poorly understood, but
steps to reduce ship strikes must include
efforts to characterize shipping volume and

activities in right whale habitat. It is also
important to make more mariners aware that
right whales are vulnerable to ship strikes.
The MSR is a useful tool to meet both these
needs, providing mariners with critical, real-
time information on right whale distribution
and sighting locations, while also providing
information for the first (to our knowledge}
attempt to characterize shipping pattems in
right whale critical habitat.

The information provided here — especially
the number of ships that traverse right whale
aggregation areas - demonstrates why ships
present a significant threat to the species.
Although the circumstances that align to
cause ship strikes are not completely
understood, the risk of collision is
highlighted by the sheer volume of shipping
in areas where right whales occur, coupled
with right whale behavioral patterns (the
animals spend much of their time at the
surface).

This study demonstrates that a large number
of ships enter right whale critical habitat.
We note, however, that the true number of
ships transiting right whale habitat is
certainly higher than indicated here because
some ships entering the area did not report
in, and others filed inaccurate reports that
are not included in our analysis. The
relatively low number of tracks in the Cape
Cod region, for instance, may have resulted
both from the elimination in this analysis of
tracks that appeared to cross-land and from
mariners being unaware that they are
required to report in before entering the
Cape Cod Canal. Nonetheless, since the
monthly traffic patterns did not deviate
substantially, we believe the results provide
a reasonable characterization of ship traffic
patterns, while acknowledging that the


MBMCDKiWw&«CG

MW CC
oO

WK
DRG

MM CC  };;]_]], wW

BC6CTMCW«&«W«C GK

~ K.\W\W(\WY.

YC KG
MWC G

KM

BbI}D)D6D;).

WIKWK&«C
NM Wo
MW

NK

25

i=}
a

2) ° 0 °

2 eS

syodey jo 1eqQUNN

200 ‘00 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200

0

TIME

Figure 13. Histogram of time of entry for ships in the southeastern U.S. system

between 15 November 1999 and 15 April 2000.


Ship Traffic Patterns in Right
Whale Critical Habitat:

Year One of the Mandatory
Ship Reporting System

Gregory K. Silber
Leslie I. Ward

Lt. Robert Clarke
Kristi L. Schumacher
Alexander J. Smith

s
. 7)

é
.
‘ares oF"

US. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-20
January 2002


Acknowledgments

Creation of the MSR would not have been possible without the foresight, conviction, and
expertise of Lindy Johnson, At the USCG, Admiral Emest R. Riutta and Captain Mark Thomas
provided unwavering leadership in championing development of the system. At NMFS, Rollie
Schmitten, Monica Medina, Penny Dalton, Hilda Diaz-Soltero, Michael Payne, Donna Wieting,
and especially Pat Montanio recognized the importance of creating the MSR and were steadfast
in their commitment to it. Bruce Russell and the International Fund for Animal Welfare
provided much needed technical guidance and encouragement at critical junctures. Support and
endorsement from the Marine Mammal Commission’s John Twiss and David Laist were vital to
the creation of the systems. Tanya Pulfer of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
provided GIS technical support. This manuscript was improved by George Liles and Commander
Lou Orsini.

Literature Cited

International Whaling Commission. 1999. Report of the workshop on the comprehensive
assessment of right whales worldwide. Jour. Cetacean Res. Manage. 1:119-120.

Knowlton, A.R., and §.D. Kraus. 1998. Mortality and serious injury of northern right
whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic Ocean, Unpubl. Doc.
SC/M98/RW8 submitted to the !WC Workshop on the Comprehensive
Assessment of Right Whales: A Worldwide Comparison, Cape Town, South
Afirica, May 1998.

Kraus, $.D. 1990, Rates and potential causes of mortality in North Atlantic right whales
(Eubalaena glacialis). Mar. Mamm. Sci. 6(4): 278-291.

Laist, D. W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet, and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions
between ships and whales. Marine Mammal Science. 17(1):35-75.

Waring, G.T., J.M. Quintal, and $.L. Swartz. (eds) 2000. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of

Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2000. NOAA Tech. Memo.
NMFS-NE-162, 300 pp.

10


The authors indicated that most whale
strikes occurred at 14 knots or greater and.
none below 10 knots. Our analysis indicates
that the average speed of ships in these areas
is close to the speed (14 knots) cited by Laist
et al. as being critical to collisions with right
whales, A majority of the vessels in our
study (S5%) were traveling at or above this
speed when they entered the MSR areas. If
slower speeds are considered as a right
whale protection measure, the shipping
industry may be affected economically.
More importantly, the protective benefits of
slower speed would have to be weighed
against the fact that a slower moving vessel
may spend more time in right whale habitat
and may therefore pose a threat for a longer
time.

From the standpoint of right whale
conservation, the MSR system likely is
contributing to a reduction of ship strike risk
by increasing mariner awareness of right
whale vulnerability to ship strikes, although
the extent of the contribution is not known.
While the benefits of the MSR system are
difficult to quantify, increasing mariner
awareness may be an important step in
reducing ship strikes, Several right whale
deaths possibly resulting from ship strikes
have occurred since the system began
operation, however the carcasses were first
observed outside the reporting areas with
some occurring along mid-Atlantic states.
Given this, consideration should be given to
expanding the MSR system into waters off
the mid-Atlantic states, or otherwise taking
steps to reduce the threat of ship strikes in
this region. Clearly, additional steps are
needed to protect right whales from ship
strikes throughout its range. We hope the
data from the MSR system and this analysis

will be useful to those working to identify
and develop those additional steps.


Northeastern U.S. System

In the northern system, the five destinations
reported most were Boston MA; Portland,
ME; Saint John, New Brunswick; Hantsport,
Nova Scotia; and Portsmouth, NH with 348,
51, 40, 37, and 26 ships indicating those port
destinations, respectively. About half
(n=339, 48%) of the ships entering the
northeastern system were transiting through
the zone to destinations other than in
Massachusetts; the remainder were inbound
to Massachusetts’s port destinations.

A total of 452 ships entering the reporting
system (65% of all valid reports in the
northeast) also transited the Cape Cod or
Great South Channel (GSC) right whale
critical habitat areas. Of these reports, 57
different ports were identified as final
destinations. The most frequently reported
destinations were Boston MA; Portland ME;
Saint John, New Brunswick; Hantsport,
Nova Scotia; Portsmouth NH and Stony
Point, NY.

Generally, ships in the system had used one
of five basic routes (Fig. 5). These involved
ships:

(a) using at least a portion of the
shipping lane into Boston;

(b) approaching from the east or
northeast and going directly to
Boston;

(c) approaching from the south,
traversing diagonally across the
reporting area, headed for
Portland, ME;

(d) entering the system, but only
utilizing a portion of the
southeastern comer of the
reporting area; or

(e) traveling through the system
from the south, exiting the
system toward New Hampshire,
or the converse route.

In comparing ship tracks plotted by month,
we found that monthly patterns did not
deviate substantially from that described
above from the cumulative ship tracks. By
way of example, a plot of ships tracks from
December 1999 (Fig. 6) illustrates a similar
pattern.

Southeastern U.S. System

In the southern system, destinations reported
were Jacksonville FL, Fernandina Beach FL,
Brunswick GA, and Mayport FL, with 193,
47, 35, and 3 ships indicating these ports,
respectively. All ships entering the southern
system identified one of these ports as its
final destination and intersected the fedcral
critical habitat zone for right whales (Fig. 7).

In comparing ship tracks plotted by month,
we found that monthly patterns did not
deviate substantially from that described
above from the cumulative ship tracks, By
way of example, a plot of ships tracks from
December 1999 (Fig, 8) illustrates a similar
pattern.

Speeds of Ships Entering the MSR Systems

The reported speeds of ships as they entered
the systems ranged from 5.0 to 25.0 knots (n
= 970, mean = 14.4, median =14.0) (Figs. 9
and 10). The majority (55%) traveled at
speeds greater than or equal to 14 knots. Jn
the northern system, ship speeds ranged
from 5.0 - 25.0 knots, (Fig. 9, n = 694,
mean = 13.9 knots), and in the southern
system speeds ranged from 7.7 — 23.0,


.). CC

\

-—.:

\

ADRUy

\\

\

VW 2

o w 3°

:
WW

21 22 23 24

)

D (kn

SPEE

Figure 10. Histogram of entry speed of ships reporting into the southeastern
U.S. system between 15 November 1999 and 15 April 2000.


occurred prior to the Mandatory Ship
Reporting systems (MSR) becoming
operational and the others are believed to
have occurred outside MSR boundaries after
it was established. In April 1999, an adult
female was found floating in Cape Cod Bay
off Wellfleet, Massachusetts. The carcass
was towed ashore where a necropsy revealed
blunt trauma and a broken jaw, indicative of
ship strike. A calf was found floating in
waters off the Southeastern United States
during the 2001 calving season, but the
cause of death has not been determined.
Shortly after, in March, 2001 an immature
male washed ashore on Assateague Island,
Virginia, and a calf was found dead off New
York in June 2001. Each of these carcasses
found in 2001 may have sustained pre-
mortem ship strike trauma, but investigation
into these has not been completed at the time
of this writing. Nothing is known about
where or when the strikes may have
occurred.

Developing a Mandatory Ship Reporting
System

Recognizing that ship strikes are a severe
threat to right whales, a group of
organizations began in late 1997 to develop
a proposal to the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) to create ship reporting
systems for implementation in right whale
habitats. The two proposed MSR systems
(one for northeast U.S, waters and one for
southeast) were collaborative efforts of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG), International Fund for Animal
Welfare (IFAW), and Marine Mammal
Commission.

The MSR proposal was endorsed by other
agencies and organizations, including
private shipping interests and conservation
organizations. It was presented to the IMO’s
Subcommittee on Safety of Navigation,
which approved the proposal in its July,
1998 meeting in London. The proposal was
forwarded to the subcommittee’s parent
body, the Marine Safety Committee, which
adopted the proposal in December, 1998. In
early 1999, the Office of Protected
Resources of NOAA’s National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) worked with
USCG personnel and a contractor to design
the satellite-linked communication systems
and to develop implementing regulations.
The northeast system went into operation in
July, 1999, followed by the southeast system
in November. The cost of operating the
system is shared by NMFS and the USCG.
There is no cost to the mariner.

The MSR systems require all commercial
ships 300 tons or greater to report in to a
shore-based station before entering pre-
determined reporting areas that include
federally-designated right whale critical
habitats, The ships are required to report
their location, speed, destination and other
aspects of their operation. In return, the
ships receive a message describing the
status, distribution, and behavior of right
whales. The return message also (a)
provides information about recent right
whale sighting locations; (b) advises
mariners that lookouts should be alert for
tight whales; and (c) advises mariners to
reduce speed near whales, in critical habitat,
and during conditions of poor visibility.

The northeast system operates year round
and encompasses right whale critical
habitats in Cape Cod Bay and the Great


SERVIER SISRBRRE SHS
suoday Jo Jequiny

\ CE
<a
N s
-

ortheastern U.S. system,

ived by the n
July 1999 and 30 June 2000.

. Number of reports rece
1

3
by month, between

Figure


4

Atlantic
Ocean
48

Sd

an

7

Figure 5. All simple and descriptive ship tracks (see text) in the northeastern U.S. system between 1 July 1999 and 30 June 2000.

43
ako
41


Ship Traffic Patterns in Right Whale Critical Habitat:
Year One of the Mandatory Ship Reporting System

Gregory K. Silber ', Leslie I. Ward, Lt. Robert Clarke *,
Kristi L. Schumacher *, Alexander J. Smith?

1. Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910

2. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute, 100 Eighth Avenue 8.E.,

St. Petersburg, FL 33701

3. U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant, G-OPL, 2100 Second Street, SW, Washington, DC 20593

Introduction

The northern right whale, the world’s most
endangered large cetacean, inhabits both the
North Atlantic and North Pacific oceans.
The right whale was prized by hunters
because it occurs near shore, floats when
dead, and yields large amounts of high
quality whale oil. Right whales in the North
Atlantic Ocean were hunted as early as the
1" century, and were the target of an
extensive commercial fishery in the 18" and
19" centuries. By the end of the 19%
century, northern right whale stocks were
severely depleted and commercial harvest
was no longer economically viable. In 1949,
the International Whaling Commission
banned commercial harvest of right whales.
The U.S. adopted the ban and right whales
have now been protected from hunters for
more than half a century. Despite this
protection, northern right whale populations
have remained at precariously low levels;
currently the population in the western North
Atlantic consists of approximately 300
animals.

Recovery of the population likely is being
slowed by human activities, especially
fishing and shipping. Collisions between
ships and whales are the single largest
known cause of right whale deaths. A total
of 45 right whale deaths were recorded
between 1970 and 1990 (IWC 1999;
Knowlton and Kraus 1998). Sixteen of
these (35.6%) resulted from injuries caused
by collision with a ship. Thirteen (28.9%)
were neonates believed to have died from
perinatal complications or other natural
causes. Two known deaths (4.4%) were
related to entanglement in fishing gear.
Fourteen animals (31.1%) died of unknown
causes, Because whale carcasses may drift
undetected out to sea, it is likely that some
right whale deaths are unreported and that
the actual number of animals killed by ship
strikes is higher.

The problem of ship strikes is an ongoing
one. In recent years, several right whale
deaths have resulted, or may have resulted
from, ship strikes although the cause of
death is uncertain in some cases. One death


Table 1. Port destinations (those reported more than once) for ships entering the Mandatory
Ship Reporting systems and the number of times each destination was indicated.

Port or Destination Number of
Reports

Boston,MA 348
Jacksonville, FL 199
Portland, ME 51
Fernandina Beach, FL 48
Saint John, New Brunswick 40
Hantsport, Nova Scotia 37
Brunswick GA 35
Portsmouth NH 26
Stony PT, NY 25
Baltimore, MD 20
Norfolk, VA 17
Puerto Miranda
Delaware Pilot
Savannah, GA
Little Narrows, Nova Scotia
Philadelphia, PA

Bayside, New Brunswick
Newington, NH
New York, NY
Eastport, ME
Cape Henlopen
Cape Cod Canal
Woods Hole, MA
Amuay Bay, VZ
Searsport, ME
Mayport, FL
Salem, MA
Houston, TX
Punta Palmas
Providence, RI
Halifax

Bar Harbor, ME
Ambrose Pilot
Wilmington, NC

NPN) NY) BS] NY] DI Ge) Go) BY BY) BEB] BY BY) Om! Cr! ! NI OV! ~2] 90! 09)



Ship Traffic Patterns in Right
Whale Critical Habitat:

Year One of the Mandatory Ship
Reporting System

Gregory K. Silber

Office of Protected Resources

NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service
1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Leslie I. Ward

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Florida Marine Research Institute

100 Bighth Avenue S.E.

St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Lt, Robert Clarke

U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant, G-OPL
2100 Second Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20593

Kristi L. Schumacher

Alexander J. Smith

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Florida Marine Research Tnstitute

100 Eighth Avenue S.E.

St. Petersburg, FL 33701

NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMEFS-OPR-20
January 2002

a

U.S, Department of Commerce
Donald L. Evans, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN (Ret.)
Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere

National Marine Fisheries Service
William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries


35

30

23

Cape Cod Bay

Great South Channel

Critical Habitat Critical Habitat

Boundary of Northeastern
Mandatory Ship Reporting Zone

Atlantic Ocean

Boundary of Southeastern
Mandatory Ship Reporting Zone

Southeastern
Critical Habitat

35

15

-70

Figure 1. Boundaries of the U.S. Mandatory Ship Reporting systems and areas designated as

he te coat eta,

N
2s
100 a 100 200 Miles
eS J
65


|
—
\ CE
|
= :

USS. syste

1 July 1999 and 30 June 2000.