REPORT OF THE 

NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE 

PROGRAM REVIEW 

13–17 March 2006, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 

Report prepared for the 

Marine Mammal Commission by 

Randall R. Reeves 

Andrew J. Read 

Lloyd Lowry 

Steven K. Katona 

Daryl J. Boness 

2007 

This is one of five reports prepared in response to a directive from Congress 

to the Marine Mammal Commission to assess the effectiveness of protection programs 

for the most endangered marine mammals in U.S. waters. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview Statement by the Review Panel ...........................................................1 

II. Introduction and Project Background.................................................................3 

A. Evaluating Effectiveness..............................................................................4 

B. Evaluating Cost-effectiveness......................................................................5 

III. Findings of the Panel: Research on North Atlantic Right Whales 

and Monitoring the Whale Population ................................................................9 

A. Range and Distribution ................................................................................9

Costs of actions to study range and distribution, FY2003/FY2005.....12

Contribution to recovery program .......................................................12 

Cost-effectiveness of actions ...............................................................13 

Recommendations................................................................................13 

B. Abundance and Trends ..............................................................................14 

Costs of actions to study abundance and trends, FY2003/FY2005 .....16

Contribution to recovery program .......................................................16 

Cost-effectiveness of actions ...............................................................17 

Recommendations................................................................................17 

C. Mortality ....................................................................................................18 

Costs of actions to study mortality, FY2003/FY2005 .........................19 

Contribution to recovery program .......................................................19 

Cost-effectiveness of actions ...............................................................20 

Recommendations...............................................................................20 

D. Assessment of Health and Reproduction ...................................................20 

Costs of actions to assess health and reproduction, FY2003/FY2005.21

Contribution to recovery program .......................................................22 

Cost-effectiveness of actions ...............................................................22 

Recommendations................................................................................22 

E. Habitat........................................................................................................23 

Costs of actions to study habitat, FY2003/FY2005 .............................24 

Contribution to recovery program .......................................................24 

Cost-effectiveness of actions ...............................................................24 

Recommendations................................................................................25 

F. Genetics......................................................................................................25 

Costs of actions to study genetics, FY2003/F2005..............................26 

Contribution to recovery program .......................................................26 

Cost-effectiveness of actions ...............................................................26 

Recommendations................................................................................26 

H. Permits .......................................................................................................26 

iii 
IV. Findings of the Panel: Protection and Recovery ..............................................29

 A. Ship Strike Reduction ................................................................................29 

Costs of actions to reduce ship strikes, FY2003/FY2005....................35 

Contribution to recovery program .......................................................36 

Cost-effectiveness of actions ...............................................................36 

Recommendations................................................................................38 

B. Fishery Bycatch Reduction ........................................................................40 

Costs of actions to reduce fishery bycatch, FY2003/FY2005 .............48 

Contribution to recovery program .......................................................48 

Cost-effectiveness of actions ...............................................................50 

Recommendations................................................................................51 

V. Findings of the Panel: Cross-cutting and General...........................................53 

Coordination .................................................................................................53 

Implications of mitigation measures.............................................................53 

Feasibility of enforcement ............................................................................53 

Fundamental importance of certain core program elements.........................54 

Where and with whom does responsibility for right whale recovery lie? ....54 

Relations with Canada ..................................................................................55 

Funding .........................................................................................................56 

Costs of actions to promote recovery of western North Atlantic 

right whales, FY2003/FY2005..........................................................56 

Overall strategy and implementation ............................................................57 

VI. Acknowledgments ................................................................................................58

VII. References.............................................................................................................59 

Appendix I. Panel Members.........................................................................................61 

Appendix II. Agenda ......................................................................................................62 

Appendix III. Program Review Participants................................................................65

iv 
I. OVERVIEW STATEMENT BY THE REVIEW PANEL 

The approximately 350 North Atlantic right whales alive today constitute a biologically viable 

population with potential for recovery. Although calf production has been variable and appears 

to be lower than in some populations of southern right whales, we believe that reproduction and 

recruitment in the North Atlantic population are adequate to support a recovery but only if the 

number of whales killed by ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear is significantly reduced. 

In fact, much of the potential recruitment to the population is being lost to such removals, 

seriously inhibiting population growth. With such a small population, any progress toward 

recovery could be offset by random processes and events (e.g., inbreeding, a natural catastrophe, 

or a disease outbreak). The longer the population remains mired in its present state of low 

numbers because of regularly occurring ship strikes and entanglement, the greater is the danger 

that such processes and events will drive the population to a level from which it cannot recover. 

The last 100 years have seen an unbroken chain of human impact on right whales, marked by a 

shift in the mid-1930s (when international legal protection, albeit incomplete, was conferred on 

the whales) from deliberate to non-deliberate “whaling.” From a demographic and biological 

standpoint, “whaling” on this population has continued uninterrupted and may have intensified in 

recent decades as its habitat has become increasingly hazardous. 

In terms of public investment to remedy this situation, the most cost-effective approach to 

protection and recovery of North Atlantic right whales would be to eliminate high-speed (>10 

knots) vessel traffic and risk-conferring fishing gear (e.g., traps with vertical lines and set or drift 

gillnets) from the whales’ environment, or at least from areas where the whales occur most 

frequently. In fact, one way to assess the cost-effectiveness of these measures would be to 

calculate the public expenditures that would have been saved (i.e., available for reallocation to 

other priorities) if the mortality from ship strikes and entanglement had been significantly 

reduced in the 1970s or 1980s when the whale population apparently was increasing. To the best 

of our knowledge, no such calculation has previously been contemplated, much less undertaken. 

From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, comprehensive, science-based management actions that 

can be scaled back as conditions improve would be greatly preferable to the piecemeal and 

prolonged process of incremental regulatory expansion that has been pursued over the past 15 

years. In effect, many of the accumulated program costs (to say nothing of the costs of legal 

actions brought against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] and 

other agencies) can be properly viewed as the costs of past inaction. Protection of right whales 

has been subjugated to the social and economic expectations of an ever-expanding, increasingly 

urban human society with which the whale population must co-exist. The compatibility of the 

two—a healthy, recovered right whale population on one hand and expansive coastal 

development on the other—cannot be taken for granted. 

1 

II. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND 

As part of the 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed 

the Marine Mammal Commission to “review the biological viability of the most endangered 

marine mammal populations and make recommendations regarding the cost-effectiveness of 

current protection programs.” One of the Commission’s activities in response to that directive 

was to organize and conduct, in close consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), a review of the federal recovery program for the endangered North Atlantic right whale 

and the federal and non-federal research in support of it. This species was chosen for a case study 

because of its degree of endangerment, the large scale of research and recovery efforts related to 

it, and Congress’s particular awareness of and interest in the species. It was understood from the 

outset that the review would need to include a workshop where a panel would have opportunities 

to engage in discussions with relevant experts. 

The present report, together with other background papers and the report of a workshop on 

population viability analysis, was prepared for use by the Commission in developing a report that 

it will submit to Congress as a response to the congressional directive. The workshop on 

population viability analysis was held in September 2005 and, among other things, considered 

natural factors affecting the population dynamics and recovery of very small populations of 

marine mammals. Workshop participants noted that small populations are particularly vulnerable 

to demographic and environmental stochasticity and to the loss of genetic variability. As 

population size is reduced, populations become increasingly vulnerable to such chance factors 

and, as a result, can be driven to smaller and smaller size in what conservation biologists refer to 

as an “extinction vortex.” It was also noted, however, that population viability is a vague term 

that is best stated in terms of the probability of extinction within a specified time frame. The 

September 2005 workshop concluded that, with possibly one or two exceptions, all marine 

mammal populations in U.S. waters, including North Atlantic right whales, are viable. In other 

words, with effective management, even populations that are greatly reduced should be capable 

of recovery. 

The right whale review involved the following steps: 

• A steering group, including members of the review panel (Attachment 1), the 

Commission staff, and SRA International (a consulting firm contracted by 

the Commission to help organize meetings and draft reports in response to the 

congressional directive), prepared a draft workshop agenda and a series of questions to 

be directed at agency representatives, contractors, and others involved in right whale 

research and management. 

• After considering the draft agenda and list of questions, NMFS representatives offered to 

help organize the workshop and requested that the scope of the review be modified 

somewhat to meet the agency’s own need for external (independent) review of its right 

whale science program. 

3 
• In January and February 2006 the steering group met several times with NMFS 

representatives to develop the workshop format and logistics. 

• In advance of the workshop, and with assistance from NMFS and Commission staff, 

SRA International prepared extensive background reading materials for the panel. These 

included explicit written responses to the steering group’s list of questions. 

• The workshop was held at the Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, 

Massachusetts, on 14–17 March. The agenda and list of participants are provided in 

Attachments 2 and 3. 

The panel prepared this report after the workshop. It consists of two main parts: a review and 

evaluation of the federal government’s North Atlantic right whale research and monitoring 

program (including university and nongovernmental organization-sponsored research) and a 

review and evaluation of the federal government’s North Atlantic right whale protection and 

recovery program. 

A. EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS 

Any evaluation of cost-effectiveness implicitly assumes that information is available to assess 

effectiveness, preferably quantitatively but at least qualitatively. To judge effectiveness 

throughout its report, the panel sought to use the downlisting criteria (i.e., from endangered to 

threatened status) specified in the 2005 version of the Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic Right 

Whale (National Marine Fisheries Service 2005). The criteria, paraphrased from the plan, are— 

(1) “Population ecology” (range, distribution, age structure, sex ratios, etc.) and vital rates 

(age-specific survival, age-specific reproduction, and lifetime reproductive success) 

indicate an increasing population. 

(2) The population has increased at an annual rate of 2 percent or greater for 35 years. 

(3) None of the five listing factors—habitat degradation, deliberate use, disease or predation, 

inadequate regulations, and mortality/serious injury from ship strikes and fishery 

interactions—is known to be limiting the population’s growth rate. 

(4) The estimated probability of quasi-extinction in 100 years is no more than 1 percent. 

The panel attempted to evaluate the relevance and importance of research and monitoring efforts 

according to the extent to which they either had addressed these criteria or could be expected to 

address them in the future. Similarly, it tried to evaluate protection and recovery programs 

according to whether they had brought the population closer to meeting the downlisting criteria 

or could reasonably be expected to do so in the future. 

Judging effectiveness with reference to the criteria in the recovery plan was complicated by the 

following: 

• Unless it is known whether the population is increasing, decreasing, or at an equilibrium, 

it is difficult to know whether any particular intervention, or for that matter the entire 

package of interventions as a whole, is having any positive effect. Because the 

4 
population’s rate of increase is not estimated on a regular basis, and indeed because we 

cannot even assess whether the population is currently increasing or decreasing, there is 

little or no basis for confirming effectiveness. 

• For effectiveness to be assessed in relation to specific management measures, causal 

connections need to be established between such measures and the desired outcome or 

outcomes. In other words, it has to be shown, for example, that a reduction in the rate of 

serious injuries or deaths of right whales (and its concomitant effect on status) was due to 

a particular fishery management measure or change in shipping traffic. Without a means 

of associating cause and effect in this way, any judgment about the effectiveness of 

individual protective measures is highly speculative. 

• Compliance with management measures needs to be verified. It has to be shown that 

prescribed changes in human activities or behavior (e.g., in the types of fishing gear 

deployed or the speeds and routes of vessel traffic in specified areas or seasons) are 

actually being made. Otherwise, there is danger that apparent correlations between 

regulatory actions and trends in the whale population will be misleading. 

• Data on the whale population’s “performance” in response to management measures, as 

well as data on compliance by regulated parties, need to be gathered at very large spatial 

and temporal scales (tens of thousands of square miles and decades). Given the expense 

and logistics involved, this means that datasets are often incomplete or have low 

statistical power. 

In the view of some NMFS representatives, the effectiveness of the right whale program cannot 

be judged solely on the basis of the delisting criteria because the agency is bound to adhere to 

several other relevant mandates. Specifically, Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 

consultations require that any alternatives to a proposed activity be “reasonable and prudent,” 

and section 118(f) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) specifies that NMFS must 

take into account the economics of the fishery and the availability of existing technology when 

seeking to reduce incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals. The inadequacy of 

specific information concerning the dynamics of entanglement, right whale foraging ecology, 

and right whale behavior, in general, makes it difficult for NMFS to develop measures that are 

not only effective in protecting right whales but that also meet the “reasonable and prudent 

alternative” requirement of the ESA and give due consideration to fishery economics and 

technology as required under the MMPA. The panel acknowledges that these competing 

components of the ESA and MMPA further complicate the agency’s position and hinder 

progress toward achieving some of the downlisting criteria. Nonetheless, when evaluating the 

effectiveness of past actions and identifying future actions that might be more effective, the 

panel did not feel constrained to consider those other mandates. Its conclusions and 

recommendations are based solely on judgments about what actions are most likely to be 

effective in achieving the recovery of North Atlantic right whales. 

B. EVALUATING COST-EFFECTIVENESS 

To aid it in evaluating cost-effectiveness, the panel benefited from a detailed compilation of 

expenditures on right whale recovery and research by federal and state government agencies and 

5 
nongovernmental organizations over the past three fiscal years (FY2003/04 to FY2005/06). That 

information was compiled by Jeff Benoit of SRA International, who contacted agencies and 

organizations directly. It was supplemented by workshop presentations in which representatives 

of federal agencies and certain major contractors attempted to place the expenditures in context. 

Determining how to measure and assess cost-effectiveness proved a major challenge for several 

reasons, including the following: 

• Assessing cost-effectiveness depends on the ability to assess effectiveness. As discussed 

above, that can be very difficult. 

• Reliable information on the actual costs of implementing management measures is 

needed, but such information is seldom available for individual program components. 

Moreover, because some program components (e.g., aerial surveys) simultaneously serve 

multiple research and management functions, it can be difficult to partition costs for 

specific activities or purposes within the overall recovery program. 

• A metric of cost-effectiveness is needed that is conceptually coherent and feasible to 

apply. For example, cost-effectiveness might be measured in terms of right whale deaths 

prevented per unit of federal funds invested in a given type of intervention. Thus, if a 50 

percent reduction in adult female mortality could be achieved with a $1 million 

investment in a certain management action, while a $10 million investment would be 

required to achieve a similar reduction in mortality with a different management action, 

the relative cost-effectiveness of the two measures could easily be assessed and 

compared. However, uncertainty regarding the magnitude and causes of right whale 

deaths, together with frequent changes in regulations, makes it virtually impossible to 

devise a practical and appropriate metric for cost-effectiveness in the present context. 

Systemic constraints also exist and deserve mention. Among these are the following: 

• Inadequacy and uncertainty of funding for critical activities make it difficult for agencies 

to develop cost-effective programs, which require the ability to plan, introduce measures 

in a stepwise fashion, monitor and evaluate outcomes, and adapt if necessary. 

• The conflicting mandates within and between government agencies inevitably reduce 

effectiveness of many kinds—biological, economic, and political. For example, the Coast 

Guard must respond, first and foremost, to demands related to human safety and 

homeland security, even if in the process it means putting right whales at greater risk of 

ship strikes. Similarly, the Department of Commerce is responsible for protecting and 

enhancing the economic interests of U.S. business, industry, and individuals, yet it also is 

expected to protect right whales from shipping and fishing gear. 

Such constraints are to be expected in a modern nation with a large bureaucracy and frequently 

changing government administrations. What is important here, however, is to acknowledge that 

cost-effectiveness alone may not be an appropriate guide to the public interest. 

6 
The panel was at once mindful of the intrinsic difficulties and limitations summarized above and 

the desire expressed by Congress for information concerning the effectiveness and costeffectiveness of the right whale protection program. In the complete absence of rigorous, 

conclusive studies evaluating the effectiveness of specific measures, the best that the panel can 

offer is a series of judgments based on the information provided to it. Given their subjective 

nature, some of these judgments are bound to be controversial. Where doubt has been expressed 

concerning the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of a given aspect of the program, the panel 

would like nothing better than to be proven wrong by an appropriate study. 

7 

III. FINDINGS OF THE PANEL: 

RESEARCH ON NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALES AND 

MONITORING THE WHALE POPULATION 

As noted above, the downlisting criteria are framed around the demography of the North Atlantic 

right whale population. Any assessment of status must provide basic information on the rate of 

population increase or decrease, parameters controlling that rate (births and deaths), and the 

ecological factors affecting those parameters. This section of the report reviews the NMFS right 

whale science program. Research and monitoring efforts related to recovery management are 

discussed in sections IV and V. 

A. RANGE AND DISTRIBUTION 

A great deal has been learned over the past 25 years about the distribution of right whales in the 

western North Atlantic, yet surprisingly large gaps in knowledge remain. The winter distribution 

of a significant portion of the population is unknown. The routes taken by whales moving 

between the southeastern U.S. calving grounds and northern feeding areas have been only 

partially documented. In particular, the extent to which migrating whales remain in coastal 

waters or travel offshore as they pass the mid-Atlantic states (between the Carolinas and New 

England) is uncertain. A significant fraction of adult females take their dependent calves 

somewhere other than to the main summer nursery area in the Bay of Fundy. Paternity analyses 

of DNA from biopsy samples suggest that the number of males in the population is 16 to 21 

percent greater than the number documented through photo-identification and genotyping. 

Opportunistic sightings of right whales in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, south of Greenland, around 

Iceland, and in northern Norway show that some individuals occur far beyond the well-known 

high-use areas in the Gulf of Maine, Bay of Fundy, and Scotian Shelf regions during summer. 

The boundaries of designated critical habitat do not appear to define all of the areas used 

intensively by right whales. Improved understanding of right whale distribution and movement 

patterns should, therefore, remain a research priority, both for better assessing the status of the 

population and for designing a comprehensive protection regime. 

Seasonal (winter and spring) aerial surveys in the Southeast, Cape Cod Bay, and Great South 

Channel and year-round surveys in the Gulf of Maine have provided some useful information on 

distribution patterns, although these surveys are not designed solely for that purpose. Instead, the 

surveys are conducted, in part, to provide information necessary for management (e.g., providing 

warnings to mariners) and are therefore flown more frequently than would be necessary for 

population monitoring purposes alone (e.g., annual calf counts). Since 2001 federally funded 

studies of right whale distribution also have been expanded to include broadscale aerial surveys 

beyond the well-described habitats in New England, Bay of Fundy, and the calving grounds. For 

example, these expanded surveys were expected to cover the entire coasts of North and South 

Carolina in winter/spring of 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. 

9 
There is a clear desire on the part of NMFS to reduce the frequency of aerial survey flights in 

critical habitats and to phase out broadscale aerial surveys for detecting locations where whales 

occur and to replace them with another method, such as passive acoustic monitoring. The 

impetus for such a shift is rooted in at least three factors: (1) the emergence of the requisite 

technology to conduct real-time acoustic monitoring, (2) concerns about human safety in 

offshore aerial surveys, and (3) the high and rising costs of aircraft use (due, in part, to measures 

to address safety). The review panel regards all three factors as worthy of consideration and 

agrees that the Service should continue to support efforts to develop and refine alternative 

monitoring capabilities. However, any shift away from aerial surveys needs to proceed with due 

recognition of the potential benefits and drawbacks of new approaches. The panel’s thoughts in 

regard to passive acoustic monitoring are presented here. 

Benefits: Once an acoustic monitoring system has been deployed and a system for processing 

data from it has been set up, this approach offers the potential for continuous, long-term 

monitoring of an area to detect vocalizing right whales—regardless of visibility, sea conditions, 

or time of day—at relatively low cost and with little risk to human safety. Preliminary results of 

studies in Cape Cod Bay, as reported to the workshop by Chris Clark of Cornell University, 

indicate that when whale densities are low, acoustic detection is more efficient than visual 

detection. It should be possible to establish acoustic monitoring stations at remote locations 

where right whales are known or suspected to have occurred in the past but have yet to be 

adequately surveyed (e.g., the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the eastern margins of the Grand Bank). 

The availability of real-time acoustic data also offers the possibility of improving the costeffectiveness of certain aerial (and shipboard) survey efforts by allowing flights (or cruises) to go 

directly to areas where at least some right whales are known to be present. Finally, the recent 

inclusion of passive acoustics as part of NOAA’s Integrated Ocean Observing System is a 

welcome development that can be expected to contribute new information on right whale range 

and distribution. 

Drawbacks: Although listening can establish the presence of calling right whales (within a 

radius of about 5 to 10 nautical miles [nmi] of a buoy in optimal listening conditions using 

current technology), a lack of detections cannot establish their absence from an area. A failure to 

detect calls may occur because the whales are not vocalizing or because of acoustic masking by 

noise from ship traffic or other sources. Further work is required before we understand the 

factors responsible for variation in calling rates, such as behavioral and reproductive state, time 

of day, and location, and the effect of this variation on detection probabilities using passive 

acoustic methods. Call characteristics and rates cannot be used to determine numbers of right 

whales present or to detect and assess entangled or injured whales, and it is not yet possible to 

identify individual right whales acoustically. Further development is needed to improve 

techniques for transmitting detections in real time and for analyzing and interpreting the acoustic 

data. Another drawback is that reduction or cessation of large-scale aerial surveys will lead to a 

loss of information critical to population assessment and monitoring. For example, calf counts 

are obtained from aerial surveys, and many of the detections of whales entangled in fishing gear 

are made during aerial surveys. Also, a reduction in aerial survey effort will mean fewer 

photographic records and therefore a loss of data for use in population analyses that involve 

10 
photo-identification (e.g., abundance estimation and assessments of individual health). For this 

reason, aerial surveys cannot be eliminated, but rather the current broadscale surveys should be 

replaced by a system of focused surveys designed to provide information necessary for 

demographic assessment. Such focused surveys could be conducted at much less cost (and risk to 

human life) than the current broadscale system of surveys. The utility of such surveys could be 

improved by incorporating knowledge gained from predictive modeling based on environmental 

correlates of right whale presence and absence. There will also be a continuing need for followup visual documentation of at least some of the acoustic detections (e.g., for periodic groundtruthing), which can be accomplished from aircraft or boats. 

A balance is needed to ensure that, during the transition from aerial surveys to passive acoustic 

monitoring (or some other monitoring method), data critical to population monitoring continue to 

be collected and well-justified aerial survey programs are not terminated prematurely. Moreover, 

there continues to be a need for other tools that will improve knowledge of distribution patterns, 

perhaps including analyses of isotopic signatures from tissue samples and the deployment of 

satellite tags on a carefully selected sample of right whales. The panel was not able to reach 

consensus on the important question of whether satellite-tagging technology has been adequately 

developed and field-tested to ensure that it can be safely and effectively used on North Atlantic 

right whales. It does agree, however, that if any such program is initiated, it should include a 

follow-up monitoring component to assess the health and condition of tagged animals. 

Development of less invasive, long-term tags also should be encouraged and supported, and 

close consideration given to the potential of shipboard surveys to provide additional information 

on range and distribution. 

The value of shipboard surveys deserves special consideration. Although not generally as costeffective as aerial surveys for obtaining large-scale, synoptic views, shipboard surveys have 

fewer safety issues and provide a much wider array of opportunities for data collection (e.g., 

photography, biopsy sampling, fecal sampling, visual health assessments, observations of 

behavior, group size determination, acoustic recording, and measurements of environmental 

conditions). The photographs from shipboard surveys are the only ones that provide sufficient 

detail and are of high enough quality to support visual health assessment and, importantly, 

analyses of wounds and scars from interactions with fisheries. These latter analyses are, at 

present, the only means available for assessing the effectiveness of management actions to 

reduce entanglement risk. In part because of those advantages, shipboard surveys can be highly 

cost-effective in comparison to aerial surveys in some circumstances. For example, the 

designated right whale critical habitat in Cape Cod Bay was undetected as such during the 

broadscale aerial surveys conducted by the University of Rhode Island in 1979–1981. The 

significance of the area as habitat for right whales was, however, recognized from shipboard 

observations during the late 1970s and 1980s. In Cape Cod Bay, as in some other parts of their 

range, right whales in scattered groups or individuals making prolonged dives (18 to 25 minutes) 

are much more likely to be detected by shipboard surveys than by broadscale aerial surveys. 

Some of the data on right whale distribution have come from aerial surveys in support 

of management programs. There has not always been a clear and consistent distinction between 

11 
research/monitoring and management functions of the surveys. Although integration can enhance 

cost-effectiveness, it also can create the potential for data collection and analyses that serve 

management but are not optimal for addressing key research questions. Therefore, the types of 

data needed for research and for management (mitigation) should be distinguished when 

designing and implementing aerial survey programs. 

Table 1: Costs of actions to study range and distribution, FY2003/FY2005 

Activity/Source FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Aerial Surveys $2,017,000 $2,906,544 $2,984,470 

NMFS 1,484,000 1,854,000 2,345,000 

Navy 155,000 155,000 155,000 

U.S. Coast Guard 237,000 370,544 299,470 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 141,000 174,000 185,000 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 0 353,000 0 

Massachusetts Environmental Trust 0 0 36,475 

Shipboard Surveys 66,815 39,048 32,500 

NMFS N/A* N/A* N/A* 

New England Aquarium 64,315 36,548 31,000 

Provincetown Center for Coastal 

Studies 

2,500 2,500 2,500 

Acoustic Monitoring 642,552 416,170 345,324 

NMFS 627,552 416,170 285,324 

International Fund for Animal Welfare 0 0 60,000 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary 

15,000 0 0 

TOTAL $2,726,367 $3,361,762 $3,362,294 

Note: The costs for aerial surveys and acoustic monitoring summarized in the table represent investments in both 

management and research, i.e., in both ship strike mitigation (early warning and avoidance systems; see section 

IV.A) and investigations of right whale range and distribution. 

* Costs of ship time provided in-kind by NMFS (i.e., by making NMFS vessels available for dedicated right whale 

work) were not provided to the panel but were significant in all three years. 

Contribution to recovery program 

Reliable information on range and distribution is needed to identify critical habitat, facilitate the 

monitoring of right whales within high-use areas, plan research activities, and trigger or tune 

management actions. Knowing the entire range and distribution is important to ensure that 

animals have adequate protection throughout the year and that no large groups of individuals are 

unaccounted for. 

12 
Cost-effectiveness of actions 

During FY03/05, a total of $9.45 million was spent on activities that contributed relevant data. 

Of that total, $7.91 million was spent on aerial surveys. The challenge of obtaining detailed 

information on the range, distribution, and movements of this whale population is formidable. 

There is no quick, simple, or inexpensive way to do it. The current state of knowledge represents 

an accumulation of data over many decades and from many different sources, some of it from 

activities carried out for other purposes. These factors make it impossible to quantify the true 

cost of studying the species’ range and distribution. Clearly, aerial surveys have absorbed a large 

proportion of the total funding for studying this topic, and the fraction has increased steadily 

from 74 percent in FY03 to 89 percent in FY05. Although the majority of the funds (72 percent) 

expended on surveys came from NMFS, other agencies and organizations provided $2.23 million 

over the three years. 

The review panel accepts the judgment of NMFS scientists that alternative methods (passive 

acoustic monitoring, satellite tracking, shipboard surveys in unstudied areas, etc.) will ultimately 

prove more cost-effective and safer than aerial surveys. At the same time, the panel recognizes 

that some recent aerial surveys have fulfilled multiple, and important, research and management 

purposes. For example, photo-identification data have been obtained, and many of the detections 

of entangled right whales have been made during aerial surveys. 

Shipboard surveys, in addition to providing data on range and distribution, offer opportunities to 

collect samples and data of many kinds. Actual expenditures for shipboard surveys during 

FY03/05 are greatly underrepresented in the foregoing table of costs, which includes only the 

amounts raised from non-NMFS sources to supplement the support provided in-kind by NMFS. 

More realistic estimates of the total amounts invested in shipboard surveys are approximately 

$300,000 in FY03, $286,000 in FY04, and $281,000 in FY05 (S. Kraus, pers. comm., October 

2006). 

Passive acoustic monitoring is a promising but still not fully developed tool and therefore is at 

present only potentially cost-effective for improving knowledge of range and distribution. 

Moreover, its eventual effectiveness might be restricted to areas that are readily accessible and 

known to be used by right whales. A significant investment has been made in development of 

passive acoustics methods, with $1.4 million spent on this topic during FY03/05, the vast 

majority by NMFS. Although controversial and not without some risk to the health of right 

whales, satellite tracking is a potentially cost-effective means of completing the inventory of 

habitat used by North Atlantic right whales. No expenditures to support satellite-tracking studies 

during FY03/05 were identified. 

Recommendations 

The apparent intent of NMFS to move away from aerial surveys and toward passive acoustic 

methods for assessing right whale range and distribution is both prudent and desirable. It is 

important, however, that the transition occurs gradually and with due regard to the need for 

13 
continuity in collecting photo-identification data, especially in the southeast region and in Great 

South Channel. In the short term, the panel recommends that aerial surveys be continued as 

needed to supply critical management information, while development, testing, and deployment 

of passive acoustic technology proceeds. A combined program of focused aerial surveys in areas 

where small survey vessels are unable to work easily (e.g., offshore in the Great South Channel 

or on the Northeast Peak of Georges Bank) and dedicated shipboard surveys in predictably used 

seasonal habitat of right whales would likely be the most cost-effective approach. It would 

address multiple management and science needs while allowing flexibility to respond to changes 

in whale distribution as well as the emergence of enhanced acoustic monitoring capabilities. 

Other approaches, including satellite tagging and isotope analyses, should be explored to 

determine what role they might play in refining our understanding of right whale range and 

distribution. In the medium to long term, aerial surveys explicitly for determining range and 

distribution should be used only in a carefully focused manner as needed to complement 

alternative methods. A major purpose of range and distribution studies should be to provide data 

needed to reassess the current designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. 

B. ABUNDANCE AND TRENDS 

Databases 

Two separate but related databases are supported by NMFS: the North Atlantic Right Whale 

Identification Catalog (hereafter, the Catalog), maintained at the New England Aquarium and the 

Right Whale Sightings Database (hereafter, the Sightings Database), maintained at the 

University of Rhode Island (URI). Both databases play critical roles in right whale conservation. 

The Catalog is the cornerstone of right whale research and monitoring. It provides records of 

individual whale sightings that are used to estimate reproductive parameters, mortality rates, and 

other input to demographic models. In addition, the Catalog serves to link many other types of 

samples (e.g., biopsies) and information (e.g., health assessments) to individual whales. Among 

other services provided by the Catalog team are the provision of real-time data on individual 

whale identities for researchers engaged in biopsy darting or tagging; information on identity and 

health assessment of stranded, injured, or entangled right whales; and responses to requests for 

data to be used in many types of scientific and management analyses. 

Ongoing maintenance of the Catalog has two essential aspects: (1) field collection of 

photographic images and associated data, and (2) photographic analysis, matching, confirmation, 

integration, and cataloguing previously unidentified individuals. Each year, approximately 3,000 

sighting records are added to the Catalog. Somewhat paradoxically, the advent of digital 

photography has increased the workload of the New England Aquarium team as field researchers 

now contribute many more images every year, creating a backlog in processing and archiving the 

information. In addition, the rich database of genetic information obtained from biopsy sampling 

has not yet been fully integrated into the Catalog. Ongoing curation and maintenance of the 

Catalog requires 4.7 person-years annually. The panel notes that the cost of the Catalog would 

rise substantially if there were a need to train new personnel for its curation and maintenance. 

14 
Maintenance of the Sightings Database involves processing, validating, and integrating survey 

and sightings datasets. This database, which includes records of species other than right whales 

(e.g., sea turtles and other marine mammals), serves NMFS and individual researchers by 

providing tailored subsets of data—e.g., for analyses used in stock assessment reports, 

environmental impact assessments, plans and designs of protected areas, and analyses of habitat. 

Like the Catalog, it has experienced rapid growth, doubling in the past three years to more than 

two million records. Much of the increase is due to expanded aerial survey effort. 

The manager of the Sightings Database at URI (R. D. Kenney) has prepared a detailed manual 

explaining the procedures involved in its upkeep, but the panel is concerned about the extent to 

which the continuity and function of this database depend on Kenney’s continued availability. 

Trends in Abundance 

Despite the fact that the four primary criteria for downlisting this population pertain directly to 

its demography, there is no current or recent statistically derived estimate of the number of North 

Atlantic right whales. The most recent (2005) NMFS Stock Assessment Report notes “...no 

estimate of abundance with an associated coefficient of variation has been calculated for this 

population.” The primary factor responsible for this situation is not lack of data, as the Catalog 

provides a rich source of information on individual histories. Instead, the limiting factor is 

variation in the probability of sighting individual whales. That is, not all whales occur in specific 

study areas (and are thus available to be photographed) each year. 

Mark-recapture and matrix population models applied to the Catalog data by Caswell et al. 

(1999) and Fujiwara and Caswell (2001) suggest that the population began to decline around 

1992 after a period of modest growth. The models incorporated variation in sighting probabilities 

because estimates of survival and population growth that do not take into account such variation 

may give spurious and misleading results. The published model results incorporate sightings data 

only up to 1996. 

NMFS scientists suggested at the workshop that the “minimum number of individuals known to 

be alive” is a potentially useful metric for tracking the population’s status, but the panel 

disagrees. Instead, the panel believes that, as called for in the Recovery Plan, a true estimate of 

population growth rate, or a reasonable proxy, should be generated on a regular basis, perhaps as 

part of the NMFS Stock Assessment Report process. Such estimates will become particularly 

important as specific management measures are implemented to reduce anthropogenic sources of 

mortality. Without a statistically appropriate demographic metric, it will be difficult or 

impossible to gauge the success or failure of management measures, let alone their costeffectiveness. 

Demographic metrics other than population growth rate may prove effective for monitoring 

population status. For example, this population’s growth rate is particularly sensitive to changes 

in the survival rate of adult females. Furthermore, adult females have consistently higher sighting 

probabilities than other age and sex classes. It might be possible, therefore, to monitor the status 

15 
of the North Atlantic right whale population by tracking changes in the survival rate of adult 

females. Further effort should be put toward the development of such a metric that would allow 

authoritative assessment on a regular and timely basis (e.g., annually). This would require 

identifying the data requirements and ensuring that they are met in a timely fashion. To achieve 

this, maintenance and more frequent updating of the Catalog will be necessary to ensure 

availability of the data for modeling purposes in a reasonable time frame. 

Table 2: Costs of actions to study abundance and trends, FY2003/FY2005 

Activity/Source FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Right Whale Identification 

Catalog 

$219,000 $579,206 $363,000 

NMFS 207,000 215,000 223,848 

New England Aquarium 7,000 0 139,152 

National Science Foundation 0 359,206 0 

International Fund for Animal 

 Welfare 

5,000 5,000 0 

Right Whale Sightings Database 98,962 117,815 124,949 

NMFS 98,962 117,815 124,949 

Population Modeling/ 

Abundance Estimates 

238,300 256,919 317,035 

NMFS 228,300 229,483 296,128 

Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution 

0 17,436 10,907 

International Fund for Animal 

 Welfare 

10,000 10,000 10,000 

TOTAL $556,262 $953,940 $804,984 

Note: Also see cost table on page 11; survey and monitoring work carried out for multiple purposes has contributed 

much of the data used in analyses of abundance and trends. 

Contribution to recovery program 

(a) Databases. Both principal databases—the Catalog and the Sightings Database—are essential 

to right whale recovery efforts. Many aspects of both research and management depend directly 

on access to up-to-date information that they contain. This information can be and often is 

provided very quickly (e.g., in the case of identifying an entangled whale). 

(b) Trends in Abundance. Demographic analyses of the right whale population should be a high 

priority for NMFS. Any future assessment of the effectiveness of right whale recovery efforts 

will depend on an ability to determine whether the population is growing and, if it is, which 

specific actions are responsible. Also, given continued uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of 

various management actions, further investigations are warranted into the contribution of 

demographic processes (e.g., survival of the different age and sex classes, and birth rates) to 

16 
population growth rates. Some may argue that the current situation is so dire that detailed 

demographic analyses are superfluous. The panel rejects such an argument and believes that, 

given the significant investment of public funds in efforts to promote the recovery of this 

population, it is essential for managers, stakeholders, and the public to know whether the North 

Atlantic right whale population is increasing, decreasing, or stable. 

Cost-effectiveness of actions 

(a) Databases. During FY03/05, a total of $1.5 million was spent on maintenance of the two 

primary right whale databases ($1.16 million on the Catalog and $0.34 million on the Sightings 

Database). Both databases are essential for right whale recovery and have been diligently 

maintained in a cost-effective manner. Furthermore, the Sightings Database includes important 

information on other protected species that is being curated and made available to NMFS and 

others at no cost to those programs. 

(b) Trends in Abundance. During FY03/05 a total of $0.81 million was spent on population 

monitoring and abundance estimates. The current lack of statistically derived estimates of either 

abundance or trend means that further investment in this task will be necessary to provide 

fundamental information needed for effective management. 

Recommendations 

(a) Databases. The Catalog and the Sightings Database are both essential elements of the right 

whale recovery program and, as such, they should be fully funded on a stable basis. Each 

database has particular needs that must be met during the next few years to place data processing 

and analyses in support of the recovery program on a sound footing over the medium to long 

term. Therefore, in addition to continuation of base support for the Catalog at a level of 

approximately $360,000 (actual operating costs in FY 2005), the panel recommends that NMFS 

provide a one-time funding supplement to the New England Aquarium to cover the costs of 

clearing the data backlog and integrating genotype information with the photo-identifications. 

The panel further recommends that NMFS continue to support the Sightings Database at a level 

adequate to cope with the growing rate of data input. Because much of the effort being expended 

on the database is due to sightings of sea turtles and other marine mammals, it would be 

appropriate for some support to come from programs focused on those species. 

The panel also recommends that NMFS consider the need to broaden administrative support, and 

thus increase funding, for both databases to ensure the long-term continuity of these invaluable 

resources. 

(b) Trends in Abundance. The panel recommends that NMFS develop a system for regular 

assessment of right whale numbers so that trends in abundance can be determined. As noted 

above, such a system could either estimate a rate of increase directly, or use a surrogate 

parameter, such as adult female survival, to determine the likely trend of the population. The 

17 
panel further recommends that NMFS take advantage of the considerable expertise in 

demographic modeling in academic institutions to develop the methods for this assessment. 

C. MORTALITY 

Estimating mortality rates and determining causes of death are both critical components of the 

right whale research program. Estimates of mortality (or survival) rates are required to 

understand the demography of the population, as noted earlier. It is essential to know the causes 

of death in order to understand which, and to what extent, anthropogenic factors are affecting the 

population. 

Estimating mortality rates is not straightforward because perhaps only half, or less than half, of 

all deaths are discovered and reported (Knowlton and Kraus 2001, Kraus et al. 2005). To account 

for deaths that are not observed, the Catalog assumes that any whale not resighted within six 

years has died. Sighting records suggest that this assumption is reasonable in most but not all 

cases. For example, right whale #1035 was seen 10 times between 1978 and 1986 in waters off 

New England but was not resighted again until 2002, an interval of 16 years. Conversely, right 

whale #1102 was the subject of an intensive disentanglement operation in 2001 before 

disappearing in very poor condition. Although this whale almost certainly died, it is still 

considered a living animal in the Catalog because no carcass has been found. With a longer time 

series of observations, it may be possible to reevaluate the probability of mortality having 

occurred after a given period of absence from the Catalog. 

The necropsy program ranks alongside the Catalog and the Sightings Database as an 

indispensable aspect of right whale recovery efforts. Evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation 

and protection measures will depend ultimately on an ability to demonstrate a reduction in 

mortality from ship strikes and entanglements. Therefore, the capability to determine cause of 

death, which begins with carcass detection and ends only with a definitive necropsy diagnosis, 

needs to be maintained and enhanced. 

During the period from 2000 to 2005, causes of death were determined for about half of the right 

whales known to have died (12 of 23). Concerted efforts by NMFS, the Coast Guard, and the 

Navy have been responsible for substantial improvements in the detection, reporting, and 

recovery of carcasses. Likewise, NMFS, the U.S. Geological Survey, and a few exceptionally 

committed researchers have greatly improved the quality and standardization of necropsy 

protocols so that more information is obtained from each carcass. In particular, there have been 

improvements in the diagnosis of blunt trauma associated with ship strikes. All of these efforts, 

however, require sustained funding. Appropriate levels of support (salaries and adequate funds 

for logistical expenses) are needed to keep necropsy team leaders engaged (only three teams are 

currently in place). Arrangements for sites to perform necropsies are essential, so agreements 

with the relevant state agencies for access to necropsy sites should be updated and expanded. In 

addition, further standardization of necropsy protocols and the training of a broader pool of 

necropsy team leaders are necessary. 

18 
The difficulty and complexity of obtaining conclusive results from necropsies and associated 

pathology and forensic investigations should not be underestimated. Difficult, uncomfortable, 

and stressful work by a small but dedicated cadre of individuals has provided the critical data 

presently available on causes of death for right whales. Although the panel recognizes and 

appreciates that work, it also believes that more effort is needed to investigate causes of death 

and, importantly, to trace those causes to precise times, localities, and circumstances. As 

explained by representatives of NMFS, determination of the exact type of fishing gear that was 

responsible for a given entanglement, and where the entanglement occurred, requires 

painstaking, careful documentation and can involve substantial logistical and legal 

complications. Nevertheless, the current long delays between carcass discovery and reporting 

with regard to the type of entangling gear (many months and, sometimes, years) are 

unacceptable. Mandatory gear marking (not only buoys, but also line and net material) as a 

condition for permission to fish with high-risk gear and methods (e.g., lobster traps and gillnets) 

is certainly desirable, and its feasibility should be evaluated. (For more discussion, see section 

IV.B. Also, note that much of the gear removed from right whales is obtained during attempts at 

disentanglement of live animals rather than during necropsies.) 

The panel is well aware of how difficult it often is to determine, even approximately, where an 

entanglement took place or a ship strike occurred without observing the event. Nevertheless, 

knowing something about the proportions of lethal events that occur inside or outside areas 

designated as critical habitat, in shipping lanes, or on known migratory routes is essential for 

assessing effectiveness and improving management measures. This will require continued 

support for efforts to detect and examine carcasses, investigate the etiology of wounding and 

scarring on live animals, and determine where whales were killed, injured, or entangled. 

Table 3: Costs of actions to study mortality, FY2003/FY2005 

Activity/Source FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Necropsy Teams $0 $65,000 $65,000 

NMFS 0 65,000 65,000 

Logistics 91,596 150,169 231,259 

NMFS 70,000 70,000 70,000 

U.S. Coast Guard 21,596 80,169 161,259 

Diagnostics 11,000 11,000 11,000 

NMFS 11,000 11,000 11,000 

TOTAL $102,596 $226,169 $307,259 

Contribution to recovery program 

Increased efficiency in detecting dead right whales at sea, better coordination among cooperating 

agencies in responding to carcasses, more consistent necropsy protocols, and new postmortem 

techniques have allowed the stranding program to play an increasingly important role over the 

19 
past decade. The response to stranding events is now an integral part of the right whale recovery 

program, contributing information on the rates and causes of death that is vital to understanding 

the population’s status and the anthropogenic threats affecting it. 

Cost-effectiveness of actions 

About $636,000 was spent during FY03/05 to secure right whale carcasses and examine them. 

Although NMFS expenditures over that three-year period remained relatively stable, Coast 

Guard assistance with logistics (principally retrieving floating carcasses) increased substantially. 

Coast Guard expenditures for logistics accounted for 38 percent of the total amount spent on 

mortality studies. 

The investments by NMFS and the Coast Guard, together with the many hours of volunteer labor 

contributed by necropsy teams, have yielded significant information on the causes of right whale 

deaths. Such information is essential to the development of management and conservation 

actions that will assist in right whale recovery. Considering travel expenses, equipment needs 

(including rental of heavy construction equipment for moving carcasses), costs for laboratory 

analyses, volunteer help, and the difficulty of retrieving floating carcasses, this component of the 

recovery program is judged to have been very cost-effective. 

Recommendations 

Stranding response is a core responsibility of the recovery program and requires an adequate, 

ongoing funding base. This funding should be used principally to cover the recurrent but 

unpredictable costs of travel for necropsy teams. Funds should be made available each year to 

ensure that these teams are adequately equipped, stranded animals are moved to suitable sites for 

necropsy, heavy equipment is available for moving carcasses at necropsy sites, and essential 

laboratory analyses are conducted in a timely manner. The process of establishing cooperative 

agreements with the Navy, Coast Guard, and others for assistance in towing carcasses and 

securing shore areas to conduct necropsies appears well under way. Existing agreements should 

be maintained and others pursued to completion as needed. Finally, although recognizing the 

need for thoroughness and quality control, the panel believes that the analyses of gear removed 

from right whale carcasses (and entangled live animals) can and should be completed in a more 

timely and efficient manner. 

D. ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH AND REPRODUCTION 

Fecundity rates in the North Atlantic right whale population have shown significantly more interannual variation than expected by chance alone, and there have been two multi-year periods of 

very low calf production in the past two decades. In addition, there have been increases in the 

inter-birth intervals of individual females during the past two decades, suggesting that 

reproductive output has declined. Multiple hypotheses have been proposed to explain this 

variation and the possible decline in births, including long-term fluctuations in ocean conditions 

that affect copepod production, exposure to toxins and pathogens, and genetic factors. Whether 

20 
the observed variation is intrinsic to the species, caused by fluctuations in the environment, a 

result of human activities, or an artifact of sampling heterogeneity (e.g., caused by annual 

differences in behavior and habitat choices by individual whales) remains uncertain. It is possible 

that multiple factors are responsible, acting either additively or synergistically. 

The above hypotheses have been examined to some extent, but, regardless of what is causing the 

variability, it is difficult to conceive of ways to substantially improve the health status of right 

whales and, in turn, increase their fecundity, by modifying human activities. It is possible that 

exposure to pathogens would be reduced through elimination (or at least improved management) 

of sources of contamination (e.g., sewage). Also, to the extent that human activities are 

responsible for the increased frequency and geographic expansion of harmful algal blooms, and 

if these are a health threat to right whales, it may be possible to take some kind of preventive 

action. Removal of entangling debris from adult females could improve their health and increase 

the likelihood that they will produce a calf. Otherwise, the health of right whales, and therefore 

their reproductive output, appears largely beyond human influence. 

Investigations of right whale health nevertheless may be useful for understanding why this 

population is not recovering. Poor health of individual right whales could help explain why 

fecundity in this population is lower than the rates observed in some Southern Hemisphere right 

whale populations. Refinement of techniques that improve knowledge of animal health can play 

an important role in risk identification and assessment. 

An impressive array of methods for assessing right whale health has been developed, including a 

visual health assessment protocol (Pettis et al. 2004) and an analysis of skin lesions (Hamilton 

and Marx 2005) using photographic images; fecal sampling and analyses of reproductive and 

stress hormones, lipid metabolism, parasites, etc. (e.g., Rolland et al. 2005); measuring blubber 

thickness with ultrasound (Moore et al. 2001); and efforts to carry out standard necropsies and 

associated histopathology on dead right whales (Moore et al. 2004). Application of such tools, 

and the development of new tools for health assessment, will continue through integration with 

(and at least limited support from) programs other than the NMFS right whale recovery program. 

It is important to recognize that health assessment, like many other parts of the overall right 

whale research and monitoring program, is subsidized by these other programs and that, 

conversely, core elements of the NMFS right whale program (photographic and genetic 

sampling, database management and maintenance, stranding response, surveys, etc.) provide the 

foundation that facilitates, and provides a necessary context for, such assessment. Further, the 

interest, initiative, and inventiveness of individual researchers are what drive much of this work. 

Table 4: Costs of actions to assess health and reproduction, FY2003/FY2005 

Source 

NMFS 

Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution/Ocean Life Institute 

TOTAL 

FY 03 

$561,000 

0 

$561,000 

FY 04 

$425,000 

88,044 

$513,044 

FY 05 

$321,000 

92,444 

$413,444 

21 
Contribution to recovery program 

Although various hypotheses have been formulated to explain the observed inter-annual 

variation in calf production of this population, there is no evidence that the variation is due to 

any human action. Nor is there evidence that the population’s failure to recover is due to poor 

health or reproductive impairment. More knowledge about individual animal health and 

reproductive condition will contribute to interpretations of observed trends and inform 

management planning, but it may not be possible to apply this knowledge directly to improve the 

population’s fecundity or status. Understanding how right whale reproduction might be coupled 

with broad ocean trends or cycles in productivity would provide an important context for 

evaluating the effectiveness of actions under human control. 

Compromises to health and reproduction can, in some instances, be the result of injuries 

sustained from ship strikes or encounters with fishing gear. Therefore, in that sense, assessment 

of health and reproduction is, like the necropsy program, an integral part of the recovery 

program’s effort to improve understanding of threat factors. 

Cost-effectiveness of actions 

During FY03/05, a total of $1.49 million was spent on reproduction and health studies, with a 

steady decline in the level of support over that period. With the exception of support from the 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s Ocean Life Institute in FY04 and 05, all of the 

identified funding has been provided by NMFS. However, research on right whale health and 

reproduction has been funded in diverse and creative ways, making it difficult to assess its true 

costs. Moreover, some of the most important insights have come from efforts by individual 

scientists who have, by their own initiative and resources, pursued studies with relatively modest 

levels of federal funding. Much of what is known about right whale health and reproduction is a 

direct or indirect product of the Catalog, costs of which were included in Section III.B above. 

Overall, excellent scientific value has been realized from the federal funds invested in studies of 

right whale health and reproduction in recent years. 

Recommendations 

It is important that investigations of health and reproduction continue at some scale and that 

particular attention (and funding) be directed toward determining how serious injuries from ship 

strikes and entanglement are affecting the health and reproductive capabilities of individual right 

whales. Therefore, the panel encourages individual scientists to maintain their investigations in 

these areas ancillary to other programs and also encourages NMFS to provide them both direct 

and in-kind support. The panel recommends specifically that NMFS continue to support visual 

health assessment, which is relatively inexpensive and provides information potentially useful 

for predicting and explaining inter-annual variation in calf production and for monitoring injuries 

caused by ship collisions and entanglements. 

22 
E. HABITAT 

Major advances have been made over the past decade toward understanding habitat features that 

are important to right whales, especially in the calving and feeding areas off eastern North 

America. Management can benefit directly from improved understanding of (a) why right whales 

go where they go, (b) the cues that prompt them to move into or leave a given area, and (c) how 

they use the different types of habitat that they occupy. 

In the southeastern United States, time series of right whale sightings from aerial surveys have 

been used to develop predictive models and characterize calving habitat for right whales. Among 

the more significant findings are that warm Gulf Stream waters represent a thermal limit and 

help define right whale offshore distribution within the calving grounds and that most sightings 

are in water depths of 10 to 20 m. This work, as well as analyses of sightings per unit of effort 

and predictive modeling, has led NMFS scientists to conclude that right whale habitat may 

extend outside the area designated as critical habitat for right whales in the Southeast. The aerial 

surveys discussed earlier (section III.A), designed to sample all nearshore waters off North and 

South Carolina, are expected to provide relevant data for further habitat analyses, including 

reevaluation of critical habitat designations. 

In the Northeast, studies of right whale habitat in Cape Cod Bay have been ongoing for the past 

two decades, led by the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies and supported by NMFS 

through contracts with the Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries. The studies have 

shown a tight coupling between high zooplankton abundance at the surface and relatively highdensity occurrences of right whales. Right whales apparently come into the bay following an 

ecological signal of some kind that leads them to encounter large zooplankton concentrations. 

Why they leave the bay when they do is less clear and may have to do with memory of large 

copepod concentrations in other feeding areas to the north and east of Cape Cod Bay. 

In the lower Bay of Fundy, a major summer feeding area, right whales appear to be closely 

associated spatially and temporally with dense patches of the copepod Calanus finmarchicus that 

often form just above the bottom-mixed layer in response to tidal movements. Evidence from 

digital archival tags (D-tags) indicates that the whales typically change their orientation while 

diving to feed near the bottom so that the dorsal surface of the head sometimes comes into 

contact with the seafloor. This research seems well justified because of its scientific value and 

clear relevance in addressing conservation concerns, particularly with regard to why and how 

right whales become entangled in fishing gear set over sandy bottom habitat. Similar D-tag 

studies in other types of habitat (e.g., rocky bottom) would likely provide information useful to 

management. 

Major existing gaps in knowledge include (1) factors that determine the timing and routing of 

right whale movements between the Southeast and the Northeast (essentially as they go from 

North Carolina to Cape Cod); (2) factors that influence the presence of individuals other than 

reproductive females on the calving ground (e.g., is there a social component driving habitat 

selection in winter?); and (3) the large-scale physical processes that determine where and when 

23 
concentrations of right whale prey (especially C. finmarchicus) will become available. The work 

mentioned in III.A should provide data to address these knowledge gaps through modeling and 

other types of analysis. 

Table 5: Costs of actions to study habitat, FY2003/FY2005 

Activity/Source FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Habitat Studies in the Northeast 

NMFS $0 $161,200 $100,100 

Predictive Modeling in the Northeast 

NMFS 119,100 198,100 196,100 

Modeling in the Southeast 

NMFS 56,000 56,000 56,000 

Florida Wildlife Research Institute GIS 

Analysis 

NMFS 125,000 125,000 125,000 

D-TAG Studies 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 0 123,924 0 

TOTAL $300,100 $664,224 $477,200 

Contribution to recovery program 

Understanding the habitat requirements of right whales and the ecological factors driving those 

requirements is vital for effective management. Such information is necessary for informed 

decision-making concerning critical habitat designations and to allow prediction of where and 

when concentrations of whales will occur (e.g., by linking them to prey concentrations) and 

therefore where and when protective measures should be applied. 

Cost-effectiveness of actions 

During FY03/05, a total of $1.44 million was spent on habitat studies. A large portion of the 

funding for aircraft surveys came directly from NMFS, was directed toward states for the 

purpose of flying surveys, or, in some instances, was provided through the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation on the advice of NMFS. In addition, many of the analyses of this 

population’s habitat have relied on data from the multi-purpose field and data management 

activities, costs of which are discussed in sections III.A and III.B. There was no straightforward 

way for the panel to determine what portion of the costs of multi-purpose data collection and 

data management should be apportioned to habitat studies. Therefore, the panel was unable to 

determine the true costs, or the cost-effectiveness, of recent habitat assessment work. 

The finescale studies of right whale diving and habitat use (e.g., using D-tags) have delivered 

high value in relation to the scale of funding (a one-time grant of $123,924). Importantly, such 

fine-scale studies often have numerous applications, only one of which is to improve 

24 
understanding of habitat requirements and habitat use. Understanding the population’s habitat 

requirements can help focus survey and other research efforts and thereby minimize cost and 

maximize effectiveness. 

Recommendations 

Most activities proposed in areas designated as critical habitat are automatically subject to 

increased scrutiny by ESA section 7 requirements. Also, the boundaries of critical habitat may be 

used as a basis for various regulatory actions (e.g., some of those currently in place under the 

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan). Longstanding designations of right whale critical 

habitat have proven well justified, but the panel believes that a reanalysis is needed. It should 

include reconsideration of the boundaries of currently designated critical habitat areas and 

evaluation of new areas for possible designation. 

The panel also recommends the continuation of localized studies of factors determining habitat 

use (e.g., triggers for arrival and departure of whales in a given area, threshold plankton 

concentrations to support right whale feeding, and multivariate predictive modeling of habitat). 

F. GENETICS 

Genetic analyses of North Atlantic right whales provide important information on the identity, 

sex, and relatedness of individual whales, the current and historic genetic diversity of this 

population, the relationship of these right whales to other populations and species, and insight 

into the potential effects of small population size on vital parameters and health. NMFS has not 

funded any genetics research on North Atlantic right whales during the last three years. 

However, genetic analyses have been conducted during this period using biopsy material 

obtained through NMFS-supported field programs and with the support of sighting histories 

documented in the Catalog. One of the important findings of this research is that the photoidentification procedures are extremely robust with a very low (less than 1 percent) error rate. 

Another important finding from genetic studies is that a significant portion (16 to –21 percent) of 

the reproductively active males in this population has not been sampled; their existence is known 

only indirectly by excluding all other males in a paternity analysis. This finding suggests that the 

population is larger than currently believed, particularly if an equivalent number of females also 

have not been sampled (although there is no a priori reason to believe that this would hold for 

females). 

About 40 percent of the calves born each year are not taken by their mothers to the Bay of Fundy 

feeding ground. Since callosity patterns on neonates are not sufficiently developed for reliable 

photo-identification, genetic sampling of calves produced by “non-Fundy” females on the 

southeastern U.S. calving ground is an important component of population monitoring. This 

work requires real-time coordination with the New England Aquarium staff to direct biopsy 

sampling toward new calves that have not yet been sampled. The resulting information helps to 

refine understanding of the total number of calves produced each year. 

25 
The research by scientists at Trent University on mating incompatibility and fetal loss due to 

genetic characteristics (“inbreeding”) may prove relevant in helping to explain this population’s 

apparently low fecundity compared to that of some southern right whale populations. 

Table 6: Costs of actions to study genetics, FY2003/FY2005 

Source FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

NMFS $0 $0 $0 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 0 0 45,135 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 0 21,233 78,766 

New England Aquarium 3,007 3,869 12,911 

TOTAL $3,007 $25,002 $136,812 

Note: The costs involved in collecting tissue samples for genetic analyses (e.g., costs of shipboard surveys, 

necropsies, and disentanglement attempts) are not reflected in this table. (For such costs, see sections III.A, 

III.C, and IV.B, respectively.) 

Contribution to recovery program 

Genetic research adds to understanding of the demography of this population and is interesting 

scientifically. Like the research on reproduction and health assessment, however, it should not 

detract from support for surveys of right whales, maintenance of the key databases, studies to 

document causes of mortality, and habitat assessment. 

Cost-effectiveness of actions 

During FY03/05 a total of $164,821, all of it from sources other than federal agencies, was 

invested in studies of genetics. The panel did not consider it appropriate to make a judgment 

about cost-effectiveness. Nevertheless, the finding that up to one-fifth of the males in this 

population has never been sampled is certainly a high-value result. 

Recommendations 

Further genetics studies should be supported according to the merits of individual proposals (in 

terms of both conservation relevance and scientific quality) and the availability of funds. This 

research component is a core element of the recovery program that, from a budgetary and 

practical standpoint, should be incorporated largely into the activities described in Section III.B. 

H. PERMITS 

The panel’s review of the right whale research program did not address research permits as a 

separate issue or in detail. However, this issue was raised by some of the involved scientists 

during the course of the workshop. It was clear that, as a strategy for litigation avoidance, NMFS 

has been seeking to comply fully with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 

26 
Act (NEPA) with respect to issuance of research permits. Because North Atlantic right whales 

are endangered, concerns about the potentially negative effects of research on them (e.g., 

disturbance from repeated close approaches and physical harm or health impairment associated 

with tagging) go beyond animal welfare and humane treatment alone; they extend to the potential 

for effects at the population level that would run counter to the goals of conservation. Without 

discussing individual cases, the panel is convinced that extremely long delays in permit issuance 

have sometimes seriously impeded progress on both population monitoring (e.g., biopsy 

sampling of calves in the Southeast) and the development of effective mitigation (e.g., field 

experiments with new types of rope to reduce entanglement risks and D-tagging to improve 

understanding of whale behavior). The process has created serious inefficiencies, increased costs, 

and delayed research that could guide recovery actions. NMFS has prepared an environmental 

impact statement to address NEPA-related issues specifically with regard to scientific research. 

The environmental assessment was intended, in part, to speed up the permit issuance process 

while at the same time ensuring that NMFS would be in full compliance with its NEPA 

obligations. The panel nevertheless concludes that the problem of having critical monitoring and 

mitigation work delayed by the permitting process needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency 

and not folded into a prolonged, comprehensive process of systemic reform. 

27 

IV. FINDINGS OF THE PANEL: 

PROTECTION AND RECOVERY 

The vast majority of the federal government’s effort with regard to protection and recovery has 

revolved around the twin goals of reducing deaths or serious injury from ship strikes and 

entanglement in fishing gear (bycatch). That emphasis is entirely appropriate. 

A. SHIP STRIKE REDUCTION 

On average, one or two ship strike deaths of right whales are documented annually along the 

East Coast of North America. Given that not all events are reported and not all right whale 

carcasses are recovered and subjected to a definitive necropsy, these numbers almost certainly 

underestimate the true mortality caused by ship strikes. The potential biological removal (PBR) 

level (the number of deaths and serious injuries that the population can withstand in addition to 

natural mortality as defined in the Marine Mammal Protection Act) has been set at zero for this 

population, meaning that any ship strike-related mortality or serious injury is unsustainable and 

should not be permitted. 

To date, measures to reduce collision risks have consisted primarily of providing advice to vessel 

operators and urging them to exercise caution and seek to avoid hitting right whales. The main 

elements of NOAA’s ship strike reduction strategy can be summarized as follows: 

• The use of aerial surveys, known as Early Warning System (EWS) flights in the 

Southeast and Sighting Advisory System (SAS) flights in the Northeast. The surveys 

have been conducted annually in the Southeast during winter (1 December to 31 March) 

since 1993 and year-round in New England since 1997. Once right whales have been 

detected, mariners are alerted via NAVTEX, Notices to Mariners, the Mandatory Ship 

Reporting (MSR) outgoing message, NOAA weather radio, and other routes, and advised 

(at least through the “NOAA-mediated” outlets) to reduce speeds (to no more than 10 

knots) and increase vigilance in the area(s) of the sighting(s). 

• Since 1997 enforcement of a “500-yard no-approach” regulation for all vessels (including 

whale-watching boats) and aircraft in the vicinity of any right whale. 

• MSR systems, jointly funded by NOAA and the Coast Guard, in place since 1999, to 

provide information, including that obtained from the early warning and advisory system 

surveys, to mariners entering areas where right whales occur in New England and 

Florida/Georgia. These systems apply to vessels larger than 300 gross tons. 

• Since mid-2005 NOAA advisories specifying that speeds of 10 to 12 knots or less should 

be maintained in areas of known or expected right whale presence, communicated to 

mariners via NOAA weather radio and other NOAA outreach mechanisms. 

• Consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act that have led the Army 

Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, and the Navy to modify their operating procedures 

29 
in areas where, or at times when, the risks of ship strikes on right whales are considered 

especially high. 

• Interagency collaboration, especially with the Coast Guard, Navy, and Canada’s 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, on right whale conservation measures. 

• Extensive outreach and mariner education efforts. 

These measures have not brought an end to ship strikes, nor is there any evidence that they have 

reduced the incidence of such events. Between September 2001 and February 2006 at least seven 

right whales, including four adult females, a juvenile female, and a female calf, have died from 

ship strikes. Those losses to the reproductive potential of the population are alarming by any 

standard, and even more so considering the likely negative bias in the number of deaths 

observed. It must be concluded, therefore, that although the ship strike reduction strategy may 

have prevented some collisions, it has not been successful in addressing this threat to North 

Atlantic right whales. 

Recognizing the need for stronger measures, NMFS has been developing and evaluating a 

number of initiatives since the late 1990s. The options being considered consist primarily of (a) 

regulating vessel speeds, (b) changing vessel routing, (c) expanding mariner awareness and 

education efforts, and (d) developing and testing collision avoidance technology. The primary 

approach is to separate whales and vessels to the maximum extent feasible. Where such 

separation cannot be assured, a secondary approach is to reduce vessel speeds. This order of 

priority is well justified given what is known and not known about ship/whale interactions. 

Regulation of vessel speeds 

A proposed rule that would establish speed limits of 10 or 12 knots for large vessels (>65 ft) in 

specified areas is currently working its way through the rulemaking process, with the expectation 

that final regulations could take effect by mid-2007. Two types of areas would be designated: 

seasonal management areas (SMAs), where right whales are regularly expected to occur in 

relatively high densities, and dynamic management areas (DMAs), where right whales occur 

unpredictably. The first would impose speed restrictions during specified periods each year; the 

latter would involve temporary (15-day) imposition of speed restrictions. 

Although this was not made explicit during the review, DMAs presumably would involve 

triggering criteria similar, if not identical, to those used for dynamic area management of 

fisheries (see IV.B). In other words, some threshold density (e.g., 0.4 whales per nmi2

) 

documented by direct observation (aerial or shipboard, but possibly in the future by passive 

listening devices) would trigger the DMA designation process. 

Information presented by NMFS representatives at the workshop indicated that the cost 

implications of reducing vessel speeds as suggested in the proposed rule are small relative to the 

total value of East Coast shipping ($325.1 billion). The direct costs of a 10-knot limit are 

estimated at $66.4 million and the overall costs at $116.1 million (including direct and secondary 

costs). Corresponding costs of a 12-knot limit are estimated to be $44.1 million and $62.4 

30 
million. Difficulties of monitoring and enforcing speeds of vessels at sea need to be addressed, 

bearing in mind evidence that suggests relatively small differences (a few knots) in vessel speed 

can make a crucial difference in whether a lethal strike on a whale does or does not occur. 

NMFS can expect to be challenged to demonstrate quantitatively the conservation benefits of 

vessel speed regulation. For example, how many fewer ship strike deaths of right whales can be 

expected if the limit is set at 10 knots rather than 12? There should be no illusions about the 

feasibility of producing robust calculations of that kind, given the many uncertainties and biases 

in the data on numbers, locations, and causes of ship strikes, as well as the small sample sizes in 

the available database (ship strikes on right whales are rare events in absolute terms). 

Nevertheless, the panel shares the opinion of many other scientists, based on the best data 

available, that a significant reduction in lethal ship strikes would be achieved if vessel traffic 

were limited to 10 knots or slower within areas of high right whale density. 

The Automated Identification System (AIS) currently used on vessels larger than 300 gross tons 

provides mariners with information on the location of other similarly equipped vessels within a 

range of about 60 nmi. Although not intended for such a purpose, AIS transmissions have the 

potential to monitor point-to-point ship speeds and could be used for enforcement of ship speed 

limits. To do so, however, would require a shore-based receiving system, which the system is 

apparently designed to accommodate. The review panel believes that such a system offers 

considerable promise for future monitoring and enforcement systems. 

Regulation of vessel routing 

Frequently when a right whale carcass is initially sighted near a shipping lane off a major port, 

the death proves to have been the result of a collision. (It must be borne in mind, however, that 

the precise locations of most ship strikes are unknown, and strikes may happen anywhere within 

the species’ range.) Therefore, steps have been taken to adjust some shipping lanes in both 

Canada and the United States to reduce the risks to right whales. 

According to a Canadian official at the workshop, an analysis of data on whale distribution and 

shipping traffic indicated that shifting the western boundary of the traffic lanes in the Bay of 

Fundy westward by 3.9 nmi would reduce the probability of ship strikes by 80 to 90 percent. As 

a result, the traffic separation scheme (or shipping lanes) in the Bay of Fundy was altered in 2003 

specifically to achieve such a reduction in risk. This required a formal procedure in which 

Canadian officials prepared a proposal for submission to, and acceptance by, the International 

Maritime Organization (IMO). 

In the United States, NMFS submitted a proposed change to the port of Boston’s shipping lanes 

to the IMO in April 2006. If approved, this change could be implemented by mid-2007. The 

proposal includes a 12-degree shift in orientation of the northern leg and a narrowing of the two 

traffic lanes by approximately one-half mile each. These changes are expected to result in a 58 

percent reduction in the risk of ship strikes on right whales and an 81 percent reduction in the 

risk of strikes on other large whales. Although it is not mandatory that vessels entering and 

31 
leaving Boston follow identified traffic lanes, most vessels do adhere to them. The panel 

commends the Service and the staff of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary for the 

painstaking work involved in bringing this measure to its present stage. 

NMFS also is considering non-regulatory measures to establish recommended routes for ships in 

Cape Cod Bay and the Southeast, developed collaboratively with the Coast Guard (e.g., using 

Port Access Route Studies). Such recommended routes would be communicated via navigation 

charts and other means. The intention of the measures would be to reduce the overlap between 

whales and ships by minimizing ship transit distances through the highest-use whale habitat and 

encouraging ships to avoid specific whale aggregation areas. NMFS has indicated that it will 

monitor adherence to the designated shipping lanes and assess the need for making them 

mandatory. 

The panel was advised by a representative of the Coast Guard that, although shipping lanes are 

generally non-mandatory, IMO rules do allow them to be made mandatory. Moreover, it was 

noted that the main purpose of a traffic separation scheme normally is to reduce the risks of 

collisions between ships or with fixed objects, and of groundings. The panel welcomes and 

commends the evident willingness of both NOAA and the Coast Guard to proceed with measures 

involving traffic separation schemes for the unorthodox purpose of reducing risks to right 

whales. 

Finally, NMFS is considering establishment of an Area To Be Avoided in the Great South 

Channel where right whales congregate to feed in the spring. Such a designation would require 

IMO approval, and it is anticipated that a formal proposal will be ready for submission by April 

2007. There is adequate evidence of this area’s importance to right whales to justify at least 

seasonal regulation of vessel traffic there. In the panel’s view, serious consideration should be 

given to the possibility of complete closure to large vessel traffic during part or all of May and 

June each year. Regardless of how the area is configured or managed, it will be important to 

anticipate and allow for unintended consequences, such as the displacement of high-speed traffic 

and exposure of whales to greater risks in another part of their range (e.g., while they are moving 

into or out of the restricted area). Although approximately 90 percent of existing Areas To Be 

Avoided are voluntary, the panel strongly encourages a mandatory approach in this instance for 

two reasons: (1) the fact that such a high proportion of the population uses the area on a regular 

basis, and (2) the whales’ intensive use of the area is strongly seasonal, so closure could be 

confined to a relatively small part of the year. 

Awareness, outreach, and education 

The Service has invested significantly in a campaign to make mariners aware of the ship strike 

problem and to encourage steps on their part to prevent collisions with right whales. Brochures, 

pamphlets, placards, magazine articles, and videos have been distributed widely; navigational 

and regulatory charts pertaining to U.S. East Coast shipping are annotated with cautionary 

notices; and information on right whale collision risks and advice on how to avoid them is posted 

on relevant Web sites. The campaign has wisely extended beyond the shipping industry to 

32 
include enforcement agencies (marine police, Coast Guard, etc.), the military, the cruise ship 

industry, and the recreational boating community. 

Research and development 

Representatives of NMFS expressed their intention to continue the search for technologies that 

would either allow vessel operators to detect whales in advance so that they could steer to avoid 

collisions or that would alert whales to oncoming vessels and allow them to take evasive action. 

They regard passive acoustics as a particularly attractive avenue of investigation, hoping that 

improvements in detecting right whales (in real time) will allow regulations to be fine-tuned with 

minimal economic impacts. Also, as indicated earlier, it is hoped that passive acoustics will, in 

time, reduce the need for costly aerial surveys. 

There is also a strong impetus within NMFS to improve understanding of the physical dynamics 

of vessel/whale interactions. Some of this work involves tests in flow tanks using right whale 

models. Although such tests are potentially informative, the panel was skeptical whether static 

models and laboratory conditions would provide useful insights justifying the relatively high 

costs of such studies. That said, it is important to acknowledge the insights gained in the past 

from laboratory studies of hydrodynamic effects of large vessels (Knowlton et al. 1995) and field 

studies of right whale behavior and responsiveness (e.g., Nowacek et al. 2001, 2004), both 

supported by NMFS funding. Both types of studies have revealed specific problems that need to 

be taken into consideration for a ship strike reduction strategy to be successful. 

A pilot project currently underway in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (with 

active involvement by NMFS in its design and implementation and with partial funding from 

NMFS) holds promise for combining data from passive acoustic monitoring with vessel traffic 

data from AIS transmissions to manage ship/whale interactions on a real-time basis. Ideally, such 

an approach could facilitate the designation of dynamic management areas (see earlier discussion 

and section IV.B) and provide a means of monitoring vessel responses to advisories concerning 

the locations of right whale sightings. Although the panel recognizes the potential value of this 

approach, it is concerned about possible limitations, both practical and fiscal. For example, a 

large amount of computing capacity will be required to manage, process, and integrate the 

massive flow of data coming from both passive acoustic monitoring and the AIS. There also will 

always be a risk that right whales are present but not heard in a given area, whether because they 

are not vocalizing or because their sounds are being masked by ship or ambient noise. Although 

it was pointed out that buoys are already in place for the pilot acoustic monitoring project and 

therefore the costs of deployment on Stellwagen Bank should be modest, extending the buoy 

network to cover known or suspected high-use areas throughout the entire range of right whales 

along the U.S. East Coast will require a huge amount of infrastructure with significant associated 

cost implications. 

33 
Compliance with advisories 

Studies of the extent to which vessel operators use EWS/SAS advisories and recommendations 

are notably lacking, as are studies of how information provided through other awareness and 

education programs has been used to reduce the risk of ship strikes. Results of a pilot project 

using AIS to assess voluntary compliance with speed and routing advice in the Great South 

Channel were not encouraging. Only 2 of 40 monitored ships changed course to avoid right 

whale aggregations and only 1 reduced its speed measurably (Moller et al. 2005). 

Representatives of the Navy and Coast Guard offered the panel assurances that they have 

protocols onboard their vessels for observing and avoiding right whales. However, no data were 

provided on, for example, when and where observations had led to avoidance maneuvers or near 

misses had been noted by the onboard observers. Without such data, it is difficult to judge 

effectiveness and impossible to generate ideas on how to improve effectiveness. Although data 

on near misses have been collected opportunistically in a standardized manner since 2001 as part 

of the EWS aerial survey program in the Southeast, it was unclear if those data had been 

analyzed and used to refine mitigation measures. Moreover, the panel questioned how 

meaningful such reports would be, given that they come from surveys that provide no coverage 

at night or during inclement weather. For enforcement as well as scientific purposes, a priority 

should be placed on obtaining high-quality photographs or video of vessel interactions with right 

whales. 

NMFS and the Coast Guard appear to be assessing compliance with the MSR systems with rigor 

and transparency, noting increased compliance rates over time following the initiation of steps to 

issue citations for non-compliance. Ongoing problems are recognized and efforts are being made 

to address them. With regard to the EWS program’s effectiveness, however, the panel was 

puzzled to learn that mariners are advised of right whale sightings only as they approach ports 

and not as they leave. The reason for this asymmetry was said to be that, under the existing IMOapproved arrangement, the Coast Guard is empowered to board vessels and enforce measures as 

a condition of port entry but not necessarily once a vessel leaves port. 

NMFS representatives stated their belief that outgoing mariners almost certainly would receive 

information about right whales in the normal course of checking NOAA radio and other sources 

before or as they leave port, although that apparently has not been verified. In the Southeast, 

harbor pilots are issued pagers that receive real-time information on sightings for their use as 

they pilot vessels both into and out of port. A NOAA e-mail address is also available for vessel 

operators to send messages and to receive automated responses giving information on whale 

locations. In the panel’s view, it is important to verify that mariners are aware of right whale 

locations both when entering and leaving port. If that is not occurring, steps should be taken to 

correct this deficiency. It is equally important to ensure that individuals who receive right whale 

advisories respond appropriately. In other words, more studies of the kind mentioned earlier for 

Great South Channel are needed to assess the extent to which such advisories are heeded by 

mariners. 

34 
The panel also notes that MSR messages sent to vessels by the Coast Guard do not include speed 

advisories because the Coast Guard considers specification of a speed that is “safe” for whales to 

be premature. This is despite the fact that NOAA-mediated outlets have begun advising vessels 

to reduce speeds to 10 to 12 knots or slower in high-risk areas or circumstances. The panel 

believes that it is very important for specific ship speed advisory information to be included in 

the MSR and other Coast Guard-generated messages. 

Table 7: Costs of actions to reduce ship strikes, FY2003/FY2005 

Activity/Source FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Development of speed regulations $100,000 $450,000 $450,000 

NMFS $100,000 $450,000 $450,000 

Development of routing measures 269,400 264,400 291,000 

NMFS 149,700 204,700 219,000 

U.S. Coast Guard 35,000 35,000 35,000 

International Fund for Animal Welfare 60,000 0 0 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary 24,700 24,700 37,000 

Public outreach 9,000 80,000 97,000 

NMFS 0 71,000 71,000 

International Fund for Animal Welfare 9,000 9,000 26,000 

Research on whale avoidance technologies 1,897,800 2,657,713 1,753,825 

NMFS 1,874,047 2,611,699 1,685,332 

New England Aquarium 23,753 46,014 68,493 

Compliance studies 0 0 0 

Enforcement 64,668 67,512 87,592 

NMFS 0 0 0 

U.S. Coast Guard 64,668 67,512 87,592 

Whale sighting/advisory systems (i.e., 

 EWS/SAS aerial surveys) 1,114,649 1,124,788 1,607,200 

NMFS 617,000 558,000 988,000 

U.S. Coast Guard 201,649 237,788 279,200 

U.S. Navy 155,000 155,000 155,000 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 141,000 174,000 185,000 

Mandatory ship reporting systems 266,876 284,379 296,353 

NMFS 110,000 110,000 110,000 

U.S. Coast Guard 156,876 174,379 186,353 

TOTAL $3,722,393 $4,928,792 $4,582,970 

Note: The values shown for “whale sighting/advisory systems” are redundant with (for Navy and Army Corps of 

Engineers) or subsumed within (for NOAA and Coast Guard) those given for aerial surveys in section III.A. 

35 
Contribution to recovery program 

Rulemaking 

Management of vessel traffic to reduce the frequency and severity of ship strikes is vital to the 

recovery of North Atlantic right whales. The panel questions the effectiveness of the mitigation 

program currently in place, which consists primarily of encouraging voluntary action on the part 

of vessel operators to avoid collisions with whales. Ship strikes have continued to occur with no 

evidence of a reduction in their frequency or severity. The recent strategy proposed by NMFS, 

which includes mandatory speed restrictions and new routing measures, however, offers 

considerable promise. 

Awareness, Outreach, and Education 

The belief that these efforts will contribute to recovery qualifies as common sense, but there is 

no evidence that complete reliance on them to encourage voluntary action has made a significant 

difference with regard to reducing ship collisions thus far. Little information was provided to the 

panel that could be used to evaluate whether the work carried out to date has contributed to 

recovery or has been well directed. Further, there is little basis for determining the relative value 

of the different types of awareness, outreach, and education products. 

Research and Development 

Valuable insights have been gained from studies of ship hydrodynamics and the behavior and 

responsiveness of right whales when approached by ships. Overall, the results point to two major 

conclusions: (1) it is unrealistic to expect a technological solution to this problem in the near 

term, and probably even the medium term; and (2) the only available solution is to separate ships 

from right whales in space and time. Although data are limited, the best evidence available 

confirms that ship speed affects the risk of collisions with whales and therefore that the 

imposition of speed limits is an appropriate measure. 

Cost-effectiveness of actions 

During FY03/05 a total of $13.23 million was spent on actions to reduce ship strikes on right 

whales. Of that total, NMFS provided $10.38 million. 

Rulemaking 

The total cost during FY03/05 to develop speed regulations and routing measures as part of ship 

strike reduction strategies was $1.82 million. The large investment in this aspect of the recovery 

program is consistent with its importance. Although the new ship strike reduction strategy 

currently being proposed appears carefully developed and sensible, the biological costs of the 

slow pace of development, in terms of dead right whales, have been substantial. Such high 

financial costs and the long development time must be evaluated in the context of procedural 

36 
rulemaking requirements—environmental impact statement preparation, economic impact 

analyses, scoping processes, port access route studies, etc. Assuming that the various elements of 

the strategy are implemented during the coming months as anticipated, the program may well be 

judged cost-effective. However, this will depend on the specific provisions of the various 

elements, particularly those related to speed limits and routing measures, and the extent to which 

vessel operators comply with them. 

The slowness of rulemaking is largely systemic and therefore not necessarily a reflection of 

inattention on the part of NMFS. Although not rapid, the work of NMFS scientists and managers 

in this regard appears to have been thorough and conscientious. 

The present early warning system consists of detection of right whales via dedicated aerial 

surveys and platforms of opportunity (e.g., Coast Guard aircraft and vessels, research vessels, 

and whale-watching vessels), followed by notification of vessel operators, with the expectation 

that they will respond appropriately to avoid collisions with right whales. During FY03/05 a total 

of $4.7 million was spent to gather data and operate the system. The effectiveness (and thus costeffectiveness) of the system, in terms of preventing ship strikes, is difficult to evaluate with the 

information available. The panel acknowledges that useful data on whale distribution, 

entanglements, and individual identification have been gathered by the aerial surveys. 

Studies of ship traffic volume and routing have been accomplished in a rigorous, thorough 

manner and have been effective in providing support for rulemaking. A great deal of valuable 

information on traffic volumes and patterns has been obtained and is being analyzed through the 

MSR system. The continued collection and analysis of such data are warranted, particularly for 

assessing compliance with, and cost-effectiveness of, new vessel routing measures. 

Awareness, Outreach, and Education 

During FY03/05, $187,000 was spent specifically on public awareness, outreach, and education, 

with $142,000 allocated by NMFS and the remainder by the International Fund for Animal 

Welfare. Without an empirical analysis of some kind to evaluate the effectiveness of different 

mechanisms or media (e.g., brochures, posters, radio broadcasts, training films, etc.) for bringing 

about changes in vessel operations in right whale high-use habitat (e.g., posting watches, 

adjusting speeds, or changing routes), it is impossible to determine whether this program has 

been cost-effective. 

Research and Development 

During FY03/05, $6.31 million was spent on research related to whale avoidance technology 

(e.g., whale detection devices, acoustic alarms, ship hydrodynamics, and the behavior and 

responsiveness of right whales when approached by ships). This accounted for 48 percent of the 

total amount spent during that period for ship strike reduction. As indicated earlier, those 

expenditures have failed to produce a technological solution that would allow ship traffic to 

operate without restraint (e.g., a vessel-mounted acoustic device that would detect whales or 

37 
cause them to move away as the vessel approached). Further investment of federal funds in 

efforts to develop or test such devices is not likely to be cost-effective. 

Recommendations 

Rulemaking 

The situation with ship strikes of right whales is well past the point at which precautionary action 

became justified; such action is long overdue. Therefore, regulatory action should be taken with 

all possible haste. If further delays arise in the rulemaking schedule presented at the workshop 

(i.e., final action by early 2007), the panel recommends that emergency rulemaking authority be 

used. Ongoing research will improve our understanding of whale behavior, ship hydrodynamics, 

the role of speed, and other factors potentially relevant to incidence and severity of ship strikes, 

and it may be possible to revise or scale back regulations accordingly. The panel recommends 

that NMFS proceed as rapidly as possible to implement a speed limit of 10 knots for seasonal 

and dynamic management areas, with the understanding that this precautionary approach (i.e., 10 

knots rather than some faster speed) is appropriate for addressing one of the two most serious 

threats to North Atlantic right whales. In addition, the panel recommends that the proposed 

changes in the Boston shipping lanes and in the recommended routes for Cape Cod Bay and 

ports in the Southeast, as outlined during the review, be implemented without delay, 

accompanied in each case by rigorous monitoring to assess the extent to which the new routes 

are being used. Finally, in view of the Great South Channel’s clear, consistent importance as a 

seasonal feeding ground for right whales, the panel urges establishing this area as a mandatory 

Area To Be Avoided for periods when right whales are present. 

The panel urges NMFS to consider using the presence of a single mother/calf pair as a sufficient 

basis for triggering the dynamic management process because of (a) their exceptional 

vulnerability as they spend more time at the surface than other whales, (b) the mother’s relatively 

high reproductive value to the population, and (c) the fact that six of the seven right whales 

known to have been killed by ship strikes between 2001 and 2006 were females. Depending on 

expert judgment with regard to the animals’ likely mobility in a given context (e.g., whether they 

are likely to be passing through or instead remain for a long period), dynamic management areas 

triggered by this criterion may be designated for a shorter or longer period than is usual. 

The panel also recommends that MSR messages be sent to vessels on their reported departure 

dates so that right whale advisories are available to ships when leaving port, as well as when 

entering. 

Awareness, Outreach, and Education 

It may be true that more public awareness, outreach, and education will always be useful. 

However, the panel has two specific recommendations in this regard. First, there needs to be a 

sharper focus on mechanisms to ensure that accurate, relevant messages reach specific target 

audiences (e.g., the people responsible for bridge operations of ships). The effectiveness of 

38 
measures taken, whether they are mandatory or voluntary, ultimately depends on their 

comprehension and acceptance by vessel operators. Therefore, it is important that NMFS solicit 

the views of vessel operators, harbor pilots, and ship captains concerning the types of 

information they would find useful and how that information would be most effectively 

communicated. Second, evaluation is needed of the effectiveness of the awareness, outreach, and 

education efforts to justify continuation, much less expansion, of this program. To date, there 

appears to have been no effort to evaluate effectiveness, despite the availability of simple 

techniques for doing so (e.g., interviews with harbor pilots and ship captains). 

There will always be a need to educate new generations of vessel operators and reinforce 

messages with seasoned mariners, which means that ship strike avoidance procedures and 

awareness of right whales and their plight must be institutionalized as part of ongoing training 

and certification processes. Although doing so may be straightforward in the North American 

context, there is an increasing need to extend such awareness and training to foreign operators. 

Therefore, more attention should be given to the non-U.S. component of the shipping industry, 

i.e., mariners from foreign countries who operate in the international maritime trade and 

regularly call at U.S. East Coast ports. The panel believes that NMFS should increase its work 

with other agencies and organizations (e.g., the Department of State and the IMO) to make 

foreign mariners aware of the ship strike problem and of the applicable U.S. guidelines and 

regulations. This will become even more important as new rules are adopted and implemented. 

The panel recognizes and accepts that the contents of brochures and other materials might need 

to include certain types of information that are somewhat peripheral to mitigation, per se. For 

example, providing basic information on how to identify right whales and on their natural history 

and conservation status is justified simply because of the inherent value of raising awareness of 

the animals’ existence and basic traits. However, the panel is concerned that certain other key 

messages that are directly relevant to mitigation may not be being communicated effectively at 

present. For example, advice on specific speeds that are “safe” for whales generally have not 

been included in outreach materials in the past, although some steps have been taken recently to 

correct this deficiency. In particular, given the responses received from representatives of the 

various agencies at the workshop, it is unclear what, if any, penalties would apply for deviations 

from designated ship channels. If there are consequences, it is essential that these be clearly 

stated and that the relevant mariners be made aware of them. Similarly, if there are incentives for 

voluntary compliance with guidelines or advisories, these should be explained clearly and 

disseminated widely. 

Research and Development 

The panel reiterates its recommendation to continue development of passive acoustic monitoring 

as an alternative or supplement to other types of monitoring, especially aerial surveys. 

Further studies of compliance should be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of voluntary 

approaches to mitigation. Such studies must remain a high priority even as new measures are 

taken, whether they are voluntary or mandatory (recognizing that, in the latter case, evaluation 

39 
may be tantamount to enforcement). AIS seems to offer an excellent tool for these kinds of 

studies as well as for monitoring and research. Therefore, infrastructure needed to make AIS 

useful for these purposes should be developed. 

The panel recommends that carefully planned field studies to investigate right whale behavior in 

relation to vessel approaches should be accorded higher priority for funding than work in flow 

tanks with right whale models. Both types of studies should be considered for funding on their 

merits and as discretionary funds become available. 

All available information on ship strikes of right whales along the East Coast of North America 

needs to be compiled and analyzed in the context of proposed ship routing changes. For example, 

it would be useful to know what proportion of the strikes occurred, or might have occurred, 

within the 30 nmi radii of the nine U.S. ports planned for speed restrictions under the current 

ship strike reduction strategy. Also, further analyses to compare ship traffic to right whale 

distribution, including predictive modeling, should continue as needed to support refinement and 

reevaluation of the ship strike avoidance strategy. 

A major data gap is knowing where, when, and under what circumstances (e.g., vessel speed, 

visibility conditions) ship strikes occur. The most obvious source of such data is the vessel 

operators themselves. The panel therefore recommends that a regulatory mechanism be devised 

that would require operators of vessels that strike whales to report the incident and describe the 

circumstances. Only by increasing the size and quality of the ship strike database will it become 

feasible to design cost-effective measures that both reduce whale mortality and minimize 

disruption to shipping. 

B. FISHERY BYCATCH REDUCTION 

Entanglement in fishing gear (bycatch) is the second primary anthropogenic source of mortality 

for North Atlantic right whales. There have been 61 confirmed cases of right whales carrying 

fishing gear since 1986 (Kraus et al. 2005). It is often difficult to determine which fishery is 

responsible for an entanglement, but when the entangling gear on right and humpback whales in 

the western North Atlantic has been identified, it has usually (89 percent of the time) been either 

sink gillnet gear or trap (pot) gear set for lobsters (Johnson et al. 2005). Both types of gear are set 

on the sea bottom, with vertical lines that extend to floats at the surface to mark the location of 

the gear. Right whales can become entangled in any part of the gear, but most entanglements in 

which the part of the gear could be identified involved the buoy lines or the ground lines used to 

connect adjacent traps or nets (Johnson et al. 2005). At least five recent right whale 

entanglements have been linked to Canadian lobster or gillnet gear. 

Entanglement is seldom immediately lethal to right whales. Instead, entangled whales usually 

swim off with part or all of the gear, which they may carry for periods of months or years. It can 

take some time before a whale is sighted and reported as carrying gear, a factor that frustrates 

most efforts to determine exactly where the entanglement occurred. Depending on the severity of 

the entanglement, the animal may become emaciated and weakened as a result of an inability to 

40 
feed, or it may succumb to infections or other trauma. Death may occur months or even years 

after the initial entanglement. Entanglements also may reduce the reproductive success of 

affected animals, which may, in turn, have an effect on the population’s recruitment rate. 

The NMFS strategy to reduce and eliminate entanglement is two-tiered: a long-term program to 

develop gear modifications that will reduce the risk of entanglement in these fisheries, and, in the 

meantime, restricting the use of potentially dangerous fishing gear in times and areas where right 

whales occur. The ultimate goal is to design “whale-safe” fishing gear that will not entangle right 

whales and to require that this gear be used throughout areas where right whales occur. This goal 

is to be achieved by working cooperatively with the fishing industry and other stakeholders to 

design and test gear modifications that will reduce the risk of entanglement at reasonable cost to 

the fishing industry. In the meantime, while whale-safe gear is being developed (implicitly 

recognizing that this may take considerable time), NMFS is identifying times and areas where 

whales co-occur with high-risk fisheries and restricting the use of potentially risky gears through 

the dynamic area management (DAM) and seasonal area management (SAM) programs as well 

as in designated critical habitat. In most cases, conservation actions within DAM and SAM areas 

require, or encourage, the use of fishing gear that has been modified to reduce the likelihood of 

life-threatening entanglement. 

While working toward the eventual reduction or elimination of entanglements, NMFS also is 

supporting efforts to disentangle whales observed carrying fishing gear. As explained below, 

those efforts do not contribute to a solution of the entanglement problem, and they carry a unique 

set of inherent risks, but they do at least prevent the deaths of a few entangled whales. The 

disentanglement program is reviewed in this section of the report. 

As noted earlier, the PBR level for this whale population has been set at zero, meaning that any 

fishing-related mortality or serious injury is unsustainable and should not be permitted. 

Nevertheless, it will be extremely difficult to eliminate entanglement as a source of mortality for 

right whales without significant changes (and economic costs) to affected fisheries. These 

fisheries are important to the economies of coastal states. For example, the panel was informed 

that, under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP), NMFS currently 

manages about 6,000 lobster fishermen who set more than 2 million traps. 

Complicating efforts to resolve the entanglement issue is the fact that NMFS has a dual charge— 

on one hand to promote and manage fisheries and on the other to protect right whales and 

encourage their recovery. These often-conflicting mandates are administered by separate 

programs within the agency. The role of the federal regional fishery management councils and 

the various state fishery management agencies in developing management plans complicates 

matters further. To overcome these complications, the entanglement problem needs to be 

recognized as a fishery management crisis that requires decisive action at the highest levels of 

government. The extinction of North Atlantic right whales would represent a fundamental failure 

in both fishery management and the conservation of protected resources in the United States. 

41 
Modifications to fishing gear and practices 

Since its establishment in 1996 the ALWTRT has been working with NMFS to reduce mortality 

and serious injury of right whales in commercial fishing gear through the large whale plan. The 

major focus has been to develop modifications to existing fishing gear and practices to make it 

less likely that right whales will become entangled. The plan has been amended several times to 

reflect new modifications or to extend modifications to new times, areas, or fisheries. It also 

includes seasonal and temporal restrictions under the SAM and DAM programs. 

The following provisions currently apply to lobster trap and anchored gillnet fisheries managed 

under the ALWTRP throughout the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (out to 200 nmi from shore): 

• No buoy lines floating at the surface; 

• All gear must be hauled from the water at least once every 30 days; and 

• Fishermen are encouraged, but not required, to maintain knot-free buoy lines. 

Specific requirements for lobster trap and gillnet fisheries (e.g. sinking groundlines, net panel 

and buoy line weak links, gear marking) vary by management area. In addition, a number of 

specific modifications are required for lobster trap and anchored gillnet fisheries in areas 

managed under the SAM and DAM programs, including the following: 

• Prohibition on the use of floating ground lines and/or buoy lines; 

• Weak links required at buoys and net panels; and 

• Limits on the number of buoy lines per trap (pot) trawl or net string. 

Despite a decade-long period of development, the suite of regulations implemented to date has 

not been successful in reducing the observed entanglement rate of right whales in commercial 

fishing gear. There is good evidence that in some circumstances (e.g., when the line is wrapped 

around the tail stock) weak links do not work. For example, two lines with intact weak links have 

been recovered from entangled right whales since 2002. Knowlton et al. (2005) noted that 

“Entanglements are frequent and the annual rate has remained high and is increasing.” Thus, it is 

clear that the management program to date has failed to eliminate entanglements. The situation is 

dire, and more effective actions are urgently required. 

In June 2003 NMFS published a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) to analyze alternatives for further amending the ALWTRP to increase its effectiveness in 

reducing the entanglement rates of right and other large whales. The draft EIS was issued in 

February 2005, followed by a proposed rule and request for comment in June of that year. The 

two preferred alternatives (and all other alternatives) in the amended plan focus on further 

modification and extension of current techniques, including, but not limited to, the following: 

• Expansion of the use of weak links; 

• Requirement to use neutrally buoyant or sinking ground line; and 

• Inclusion of several other fisheries under the plan. 

42 
It is difficult to imagine any scenario in which the limited suite of modifications described in the 

draft EIS will significantly reduce the frequency with which right whales become entangled in 

fixed fishing gear. For example, a large proportion of well-documented entanglements have 

involved buoy and surface lines (although in many cases, just pieces of line are found on whales, 

and these cannot be attributed to a particular part of the gear), which would not be changed by 

the proposed regulations. The panel learned that some individuals within the fishing industry 

oppose efforts to address the problem of buoy lines, citing technical, economic, and safety issues 

associated with any modification of end lines. Further, according to NMFS, it has proven 

extremely difficult to modify vertical lines in a way that makes them less risky for whales but 

still feasible for use by the fishermen. This is plainly evident from the detailed information 

provided in the NMFS Working Draft of a Strategy to Reduce Large Whale Entanglement Risk 

Associated with Vertical Line. Nevertheless, without addressing the risk of entanglement in 

vertical lines, it will not be possible to solve the entanglement problem. It is critical to remember 

that the goal of this program is not simply to reduce current rates of entanglement but to 

eliminate serious injury and mortality due to entanglement altogether. 

The panel acknowledges that some modifications to fishing practices are currently in place under 

the ALWTRP, and others are being considered. Nevertheless, the panel concludes that the 

measures implemented to date, as well as those in the proposed modifications to the ALWTRP, 

are inadequate. They also may prove more costly than necessary in the long run. The provisions 

may result in greater long-term economic costs to the fisheries involved than would be the case if 

effective regulations were implemented immediately to eliminate the risk of entanglement. In 

particular, regulations should be put into place as quickly as possible to prohibit the use of 

vertical lines in all areas where right whale aggregations may be expected (i.e., critical habitat 

and DAM and SAM areas). This prohibition should remain in place until gear modifications are 

developed that can provide reasonable assurance that entanglement will not occur. Such a 

prohibition would do two things: (1) place the burden of proof on the fishing industry to 

demonstrate that it has developed whale-safe gear, and (2) harness the vast creative energy of 

fishermen to develop ways to catch lobsters and finfish without using gear that has the potential 

to entangle whales. 

Finally, there is a pressing need for improvement in the processes for developing, evaluating, and 

testing potential gear modifications. NMFS has implemented a competitive grants program, 

administered through a cooperative agreement with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

(NFWF) and designed to provide funding opportunities to fishermen, academic researchers, and 

other interested parties. Once a gear research project has been completed, the researcher may 

request that NMFS consider the gear modification as a potential management tool for 

incorporation into the ALWTRP. The panel is concerned that this arrangement has not delivered 

innovative, effective gear modifications in a timely manner. As noted by participants at the 2004 

Workshop on Modification of Fishing Gear to Reduce Large Whale Entanglements, there is an 

urgent need for a dedicated, coordinated research program that combines gear research with 

research on whale behavior. For such a program to be effective, there also needs to be a change 

in the process of issuing scientific research permits to make it easier to evaluate and field-test 

promising approaches. 

43 
Area management 

Since 2002 NMFS has employed spatially explicit SAM and DAM approaches to reduce right 

whale interactions with commercial fishing gear. The SAM program was intended to protect 

right whales in two areas where predictable seasonal aggregations occur in and adjacent to the 

currently designated critical habitat areas of Cape Cod Bay and the Great South Channel. The 

DAM program allows NMFS to impose temporary gear specifications or restrictions on the 

deployment of lobster trap and anchored gillnet fishing gear in areas north of 40o N where 

aggregations of right whales are reported. A DAM action is triggered by a reliable report of right 

whales that meets a certain density threshold (0.04 whales per nmi2

). Once a DAM action has 

been triggered, NMFS may temporarily restrict or request the use of certain types of gear within 

an area buffered around the original sighting location. 

As is the case with the other components of the NMFS fishery interactions strategy, no evidence 

is available to evaluate effectiveness of the area management approach in reducing right whale 

entanglements. The panel recognizes the rationale behind the SAM and DAM measures (i.e., to 

encourage wider use of gear thought to be safer for whales) but concludes that area management, 

as conceived and implemented to date, is unlikely to enhance right whale conservation unless 

more stringent restrictions are placed on fisheries operating within prescribed areas. 

NMFS has been unwilling to implement conservation actions in either DAM or SAM areas that 

would eliminate the risk of entanglement. Currently, a series of regulatory measures (e.g., 

required use of weak links, limits on the number of buoy lines) apply to each SAM area, but 

these have not eliminated entanglements. NMFS can take several actions in DAM zones, 

including the following: 

• require removal of gear for a 15-day period; 

• request voluntary removal of gear in the area for a 15-day period; and/or 

• require gear modifications for a 15-day period. 

Before implementing a DAM zone, NMFS is required to follow certain steps, including intraagency documentation and public notification through the Federal Register. DAM zones can be 

extended beyond 15 days if warranted. 

With very few exceptions, NMFS has not required the removal of fishing gear in DAM areas. 

Instead, DAM designations have consistently recommended or required that fishermen 

incorporate certain modifications in their gear. In addition, internal processing, approval, and 

publication procedures result in a two-week (or longer) delay in implementing DAM measures 

after the initial sighting triggers for management action have been met. Obviously, some whales 

may become entangled and many or all of them may leave the area during this delay interval. 

Until truly whale-safe fishing gear is developed, the DAM approach likely will be effective only 

if fishermen are required to remove lobster and gillnet gear quickly from areas with aggregations 

of right whales. This poses a potential safety problem for fishermen, who could be required to 

44 
remove large quantities of fixed gear on short notice in poor weather. This, together with the 

frequency and unpredictability of DAM events, hampers the approach’s effectiveness. 

The DAM approach also requires ongoing aerial surveys to ensure that aggregations of whales 

are detected outside SAM and critical habitat areas. As noted elsewhere in this report, those 

surveys are useful for analysis of habitat use, provide important sighting information to the 

Catalog and Sightings Database and give valuable support to the disentanglement program. 

However, there are questions about their cost-effectiveness as a management measure, 

particularly given the delays in implementation, and concerns about their safety. 

In addition to the problems outlined earlier, effective implementation of DAM and SAM 

programs requires enforcement. (Note that if the measures were voluntary, as they sometimes 

have been, the issue of enforcement would be moot.) Enforcement of fishery management 

regulations in these areas is primarily the responsibility of the Coast Guard working with the 

NMFS Office for Law Enforcement. The cost of this enforcement is difficult to estimate due to 

the multiple tasks addressed in most Coast Guard missions. Relatively few patrols are dedicated 

to enforcing provisions of the ALWTRP or other right whale conservation measures although 

such work may be performed while addressing other primary tasks. The panel was advised that 

enforcement patrols do not remove gear from the water for inspection, which means that an 

assessment of compliance with gear modification rules or recommendations is possible only if 

fishermen are encountered while actively hauling their gear. 

NOAA holds joint enforcement agreements with the states of Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island, and Virginia. The panel was informed that 22 cases of alleged violations of ALWTRP 

gear requirements had been investigated, resulting in five cases being forwarded for further 

action to the NOAA Office of General Counsel. Overall, however, no information was readily 

available on the level of enforcement effort or the proportion of the total deployed gear that had 

been inspected. 

Finally, the panel is concerned about the evident inability of NMFS to prevent the continuation 

and even proliferation of fisheries that pose risks to right whales within existing management 

areas. For example, a right whale calf was entangled and killed in a gillnet set in the Southeast 

Restricted Area in January 2006. The use of gillnets in this Restricted Area is managed under 

provisions of the ALWTRP. A new gillnet fishery for whiting (southern kingfish) recently 

emerged inside the Restricted Area, evidently without having been preceded by a determination 

that it was “safe” for right whales. The panel notes that failures to anticipate and mitigate the 

potential impact of allowing new fisheries to develop in right whale habitat can worsen the 

problem of entanglement, as happened in this case. 

Disentanglement 

The disentanglement program involves dangerous, costly work that is only marginally effective. 

People involved in the program risk their lives to help compensate for the fact that the 

entanglement problem has not been solved. Demographic models suggest that preventing the 

45 
deaths of even a few females could shift the population trend from a slow decline to a slow 

increase, which makes abandonment of the disentanglement program unthinkable. From another 

perspective, a response of some kind to alleviate the suffering imposed on entangled animals is 

also an important consideration. Almost three-quarters of living right whales in the western 

North Atlantic show evidence of past entanglements (e.g., scars, wounds, or bits of gear still 

attached), and perhaps 10 to 30 percent of the population interacts with fishing gear each year. 

During the period from January 2000 through the end of 2005 the disentanglement network 

received 25 reports of entangled North Atlantic right whales (Marine Mammal Commission 

2006). Network responders were able to remove some of the gear from seven of those animals 

and all or most of the gear from four others. A few of those 11 animals likely died or were 

seriously injured. For the other 14 animals, either there was no opportunity to remove the gear or 

attempts to do so were unsuccessful. The panel commends the people involved in the 

disentanglement effort for their dedication and commitment. 

The following elements of the disentanglement effort are germane to this review: 

• At present, only three individuals on the U.S. East Coast are authorized by NMFS (based 

on training and experience levels) to lead disentanglement attempts on right whales; two 

others are authorized to lead attempts involving other whale species. 

• Aerial surveys have been responsible for many of the detections of entangled right 

whales, and aircraft have also been used to direct the disentanglement teams to whale 

locations and provide images helpful for planning disentanglement strategies. 

• The success rate for disentangling right whales is much lower than for other species 

because right whales are comparatively difficult to deal with. For example, it typically 

takes one attempt to disentangle a humpback whale whereas it can take as many as six or 

eight attempts to remove the gear from a right whale. 

• Outcomes of disentanglement attempts are difficult to predict. Some whales that experts 

believed would survive after disentanglement have not while others with a poor prognosis 

have survived and reproduced. 

• A major frustration for the disentanglement teams is that entanglements posing the 

greatest danger to the animal, such as those involving line wrapped around the head, 

mouth, or flipper, are the most difficult to resolve successfully. 

• To date, no attempt to disentangle a right whale has been stopped on the basis of poor 

survival prospects, nor has any attempt been made to euthanize a right whale because of 

its condition. It is not clear how humane euthanasia could be accomplished with this 

species. 

• The disentanglement program responds to events involving humpback and minke whales 

as well as right whales, although the entire federal contribution to funding comes directly 

out of the right whale program’s budget. 

Further investment in the disentanglement program is clearly needed to make it safer and more 

effective. Among the immediate priorities are the following: 

46 
• development of a method to chemically sedate or restrain entangled whales; 

• development of a more effective telemetry system that can be securely attached to trailing 

gear and provide real-time monitoring data; and 

• establishment of reliable, long-term cooperative agreements with state agencies and the 

Coast Guard, especially in the Southeast, to ensure that vessels and aircraft are available 

when and as needed to support disentanglement efforts. 

Consideration also should be given to novel approaches that would facilitate disentanglement 

and reduce the risks to human health and safety. These might include some unusual ideas, for 

example, the employment of remotely operated robotic devices or trained marine mammals (e.g., 

sea lions). 

Finally, the panel stresses that the costs of disentanglement, including the personal risks faced by 

members of the disentanglement network, should be incorporated explicitly into fishery 

management decisions and cost-benefit assessments. In other words, rather than these costs being 

accounted against the right whale recovery program and borne quietly by a few dedicated 

individuals, they should be considered a responsibility and a funding obligation of fishery 

management. Requirements to modify fishing methods or equipment are matters of concern not 

only for the purpose of right whale conservation but also for the purpose of human safety. The 

highest priority should be given to methods, such as those described earlier, that will eliminate 

entanglement and thus eliminate the need for the disentanglement program. 

Take reduction process 

The ALWTRT has been ineffective as a mechanism for developing mitigation strategies to deal 

with right whale entanglement. A number of presenters at the workshop described the ALWTRT 

as unique in several respects. It is the longest serving take reduction team, having existed for 

more than a decade. The team is very large, with 58 members (including three from NMFS) 

divided into two regional sub-teams. It is by far the largest take reduction team to date. Not 

surprisingly, the ALWTRT has been unable to reach consensus on most important issues and, 

instead, has usually delivered majority and minority opinions to NMFS. Management options 

leading to the proposed rule currently under consideration were discussed by the ALWTRT in 

2003. In the panel’s view, the take reduction team process was never intended to operate in such 

a prolonged, open-ended fashion. In fact, it appears that those who crafted the 1994 amendments 

to the Marine Mammal Protection Act intended exactly the opposite. 

The panel believes that other mechanisms would be more effective for developing mitigation 

strategies and for combining those strategies with other conservation approaches. For example, a 

small recovery team, consisting of individuals with direct experience in addressing right whale 

biology and whale bycatch issues, itself advised on technical aspects of gear modification by a 

group of gear specialists and fishing industry experts, might be much more effective than the 

current take reduction team approach (see section V later in this report). Such a team also might 

be able to interact in a more efficient manner with regional fishery management councils and 

other bodies. 

47 
Table 8: Costs of actions to reduce fishery bycatch, FY2003/FY2005 

Activity FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Administration (e.g., public hearings, 

convening TRTs, preparing EIS, labor, etc) $168,000 $1,057,000 $729,000 

NMFS 168,000 1,057,000 729,000 

Development of gear modifications and 

buyback 1,129,400 1,713,605 1,839,405 

NMFS 1,129,400 1,713,605 1,614,405 

New England Aquarium 0 0 200,000 

Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies 0 0 25,000 

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan 2,101,714 2,648,400 2,216,586 

NMFS 2,101,714 2,648,400 2,216,586 

Disentanglement 1,175,933 808,691 836,438 

NMFS 1,088,000 613,400 608,000 

U.S. Coast Guard 37,933 95,291 153,438 

Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies 50,000 100,000 75,000 

Enforcement 394,034 1,456,770 595,966 

NMFS (Joint Enforcement Agreements with 

Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and 

Virginia) 

60,000 162,000 200,000 

U.S. Coast Guard 334,034 1,294,770 395,966 

TOTAL $4,969,078 $7,684,466 $ 6,217,395 

Note: Coast Guard costs do not include staff time dedicated to policy development, drafting regulations, training, 

and providing enforcement guidance to personnel in the field. 

Contribution to Recovery 

Modifications to fishing gear and practices

 The current suite of gear modifications has not succeeded in eliminating entanglements, nor is 

there any evidence that it has reduced the frequency with which right whales become entangled 

in fixed gear. Further, the panel was given no reason to believe that the gear modifications in 

recently proposed amendments to the ALWTRP will meet take reduction goals, given the 

insufficiency of attention to resolving entanglement risks from vertical (i.e., buoy) lines. In some 

areas of Massachusetts, NMFS has funded a buyback program to encourage fishermen to switch 

from sinking to neutrally buoyant ground lines. However, participation has been voluntary and 

limited in geographic scope. The panel commends the agency’s efforts to reduce the profile of 

ground lines and to include some measures addressing vertical line, as described and discussed in 

the Working Draft of a Strategy to Reduce Large Whale Entanglement Risk Associated with 

Vertical Line, and included in the currently proposed rulemaking. Nonetheless, it concludes that 

past and planned efforts at gear modification are unlikely to be adequate for solving the right 

whale entanglement problem. 

48 
Area Management 

No evidence was presented during the review to indicate that the DAM and SAM programs have 

been effective in reducing serious injury and mortality of right whales in fixed fishing gear. A 

fundamental problem with both approaches is that critical aspects of the fishing gear (especially 

vertical lines) have not been addressed adequately in either past or currently proposed 

regulations. In addition, the DAM approach takes too long to implement due to the bureaucratic 

requirements of the current regulatory process. The panel concludes, therefore, that neither 

program, in its present form, is likely to contribute significantly to population recovery. 

Disentanglement 

With numbers so low, even a few successful disentanglements of right whales are potentially 

significant. The panel emphasizes, however, that the same could be said of other measures (e.g., 

gear modifications, fishery closures) where it is likely that one or more whales have been 

“saved” even though there is no direct evidence to prove it. The important point is that 

disentanglement and the other measures, taken together, have not solved the bycatch problem. 

Also, it is necessary to acknowledge the possibility that the very existence of the 

disentanglement program makes the prevention of entanglement seem less urgent. Such a 

perception could deflect resources away from necessary restrictions on fisheries and allow public 

officials to delay difficult but necessary measures to eliminate the use of fishing gear that 

entangles whales. In other words, there is a danger that the program could function as an indirect 

subsidy to fisheries by compensating (or attempting to compensate) for a major flaw in how they 

operate. At the same time, the panel recognizes that removal of gear from entangled right whales 

has been a primary source of information for the identification of gear types and fisheries that 

pose a risk to right whales; this information is critical to the development of appropriate 

mitigation measures. 

Take reduction process 

The take reduction process has been ineffective at providing solutions to the entanglement 

problem. The process is slow, cumbersome, and often divisive. Even when incremental steps 

have been agreed to by the ALWTRT, very long delays have ensued in the rulemaking process 

required for implementation. This slow pace of change has resulted in frequent and costly 

litigation and rulemaking actions. As noted earlier with regard to ship strike reduction (section 

IV.A), much of the slow pace of rulemaking is systemic and unavoidable. Despite the agency’s 

continuing failure to resolve this critical issue, many individual NMFS scientists and managers 

have been working diligently and conscientiously to do so. 

Many members of the ALWTRT have expressed skepticism that the take reduction process will 

be able to deliver meaningful conservation recommendations. Decisive actions are required to 

conserve right whales, and the take reduction process is not the vehicle to deliver them. 

49 
Cost-effectiveness of actions 

Expenditures to develop and implement actions that address the entanglement problem totaled 

$18.87 million during FY03/05. Of that amount, NMFS provided $16.10 million. 

Modifications to fishing gear and practices 

During FY03/05 a total of $4.67 million was spent on gear modifications and buybacks. Much of 

the funding for gear development has focused on gear modifications with questionable prospects 

for reducing entanglement risks (e.g., weak links, line cutters, and new buoy designs) although 

some investment has been made in more promising approaches involving the elimination of line 

from the water column (e.g., pop-up buoys). Funding to reimburse fishermen willing to switch 

from floating to sinking or neutrally buoyant ground lines (buyback programs) may have been 

helpful. According to NMFS, state and industry representatives report that the buyback programs 

funded by NMFS and administered through various state agencies, together with the DAM 

program, have raised awareness and encouraged fishermen to switch over their lines prior to any 

implementation of requirements mandating such change. The panel is concerned, however, that 

the use of presumably safer types of line has not yet become sufficiently widespread. The current 

suite of modifications in the ALWTRP apparently has not succeeded in significantly reducing or 

eliminating entanglement of right whales in fishing gear. Those proposed in the latest 

amendments to the plan appear to have the potential to reduce entanglement, but on present 

evidence it is difficult to assess how significant such a reduction might be. The panel contends 

that more stringent measures, such as the elimination of all fixed gear with vertical lines in areas 

of right whale aggregations, would be more cost-effective in the long term. Such measures would 

have immediate economic consequences for affected fisheries, but the panel believes that those 

costs would be overcome by the ingenuity of fishermen if they had the needed incentive to 

develop whale-safe gear rapidly. Furthermore, the longer the delay in implementing such 

effective measures, the greater will the need become for even more draconian action. 

Area Management 

It is difficult to estimate the total cost of the area management approach. Cost accounting is 

confounded by the fact that aerial surveys have multiple purposes, only one of which is to detect 

concentrations of right whales for establishing DAMs (see section III.A). Much has been learned 

about the distribution of right whales, and the surveys have been important to the 

disentanglement program. However, the primary goal of reducing or eliminating the 

entanglement of right whales in fishing gear has not been achieved. As noted, protection 

measures in the DAM and SAM areas, as implemented to date, have not been adequate. 

Disentanglement 

During FY03/05 the investment in disentanglement efforts totaled $2.82 million, not including 

some expenditure by the Coast Guard. As a protection measure, per se, disentanglement is not 

cost-effective. Moreover, it entails considerable risks to human safety for the small returns in 

50 
terms of numbers of right whales saved from serious injury or death. In assessing costeffectiveness, it is necessary to recognize that a substantial part of the disentanglement effort, 

and therefore its cost, has been devoted to species other than right whales. This confounds any 

analysis of the cost-effectiveness of right whale disentanglement efforts. Although disentangling 

other whales may provide training opportunities and lead to improved techniques, such efforts do 

not contribute directly to right whale conservation. The panel did not attempt to evaluate costeffectiveness from the perspective of all disentanglement efforts for all whale species. 

Take reduction process 

During FY03/05 expenditures by NMFS related to the ALWTRP totaled $6.96 million, which 

represents 37 percent of all funds spent on the bycatch issue. (The ALWTRP and ALWTRT 

address humpback and fin whales, as well as right whales.) The take reduction process has been 

neither efficient nor cost-effective in reducing or eliminating the entanglement of right whales in 

fishing gear. Costs specifically for support of ALWTRT meetings were not provided for this 

review, but considering travel by members, the number of members, meeting facilitation, 

printing of background documents, etc., the total cost of each meeting of the full team likely 

exceeds $200,000. The funds used to convene the current TRT and its regional subteams to 

discuss and develop management advice that has proven to be ineffective could have been, and 

should have been, invested in better means of dealing with this pressing problem. 

Recommendations 

Modifications to fishing gear and practices 

The panel recommends that all fisheries using fixed gear in areas where right whale aggregations 

occur be required to demonstrate that the gear is whale-safe before its use is approved. At 

present, this would require a prohibition on the use of vertical lines, in addition to the measures 

currently required or being contemplated as part of the ALWTRP. Such restrictive measures 

could be relaxed once gear modifications are developed, tested, and shown to be whale-safe. The 

panel is confident that the East Coast fishing community could meet the challenge posed by such 

a restriction. Without such measures, right whales will continue to die in lobster and gillnet gear, 

leading to more lawsuits, additional costs to fishermen, and expensive rulemaking and 

administrative expenses. The panel also recommends modification to the scientific research 

permit system to allow more expeditious testing of whale-safe fishing gear and associated 

concepts. 

Area management 

The current approach to area management has not reduced the frequency of right whale 

entanglements. In its stead, the panel recommends a reevaluation of right whale critical habitat, 

guided by a recovery team (see section V). Critical habitat should include all areas in which 

right whales occur frequently in both the feeding and breeding grounds. In those areas, 

management measures should include elimination of the use of fishing gear that could entangle 

51 
right whales. To be clear, the panel recommends that all designated critical habitat should be 

closed to the use of fishing gear that poses a risk to right whales. Trap fisheries should be limited 

to gear with no fixed vertical lines and no floating ground lines. It should be possible to 

implement such measures within critical habitat through a combination of ESA section 7 

provisions and the take reduction and recovery mandates that apply to right whales under both 

the ESA and MMPA. 

At present, the panel cannot envision a whale-safe gillnet. No new fisheries should be authorized 

in right whale critical habitat until the gear to be used has been demonstrated to be whale-safe. 

Disentanglement 

The occasional success of disentanglement in saving a right whale justifies continuation of this 

program until actions are taken to reduce entanglements to close to zero or eliminate them 

entirely. The panel recommends that the right whale recovery program’s budget not be used to 

support efforts to disentangle other species or to expand such efforts outside eastern North 

America, even though it agrees that such expansion may be desirable for conservation generally. 

The panel also recommends that an independent review be conducted to assess the risks and 

benefits of the disentanglement program. The review should explicitly consider (1) the 

probability of serious injury or death to humans involved; (2) the record of success and failure in 

attempts to disentangle right whales; (3) the merits of, and alternatives to, disentangling some 

right whales, particularly those individuals in such poor condition that they are likely to die and 

whales that are entangled in such a way that the probability of safe or successful disentanglement 

is very low; and (4) the indirect benefits of disentanglement, including knowledge gained 

concerning which fisheries are involved, increased public awareness, and research opportunities 

to sample, track, and study the behavior and movements of entangled (and disentangled) 

individuals. 

Take reduction process 

The panel recommends that the current ALWTRT, including the two regional sub-teams, be 

disbanded. The take reduction team should be replaced by a recovery team (see section V) that 

would guide NMFS in the development and implementation of management strategies to 

eliminate the entanglement of right whales in fishing gear. Such a team would be able to act in a 

more efficient, cost-effective manner, without the constraints and dysfunctional history of the 

ALWTRT. A group of gear specialists and fishing industry experts could advise the team in 

technical aspects of gear modification. The current approach simply will not result in effective 

conservation and represents a waste of limited resources that should be invested in more 

productive ways. In reaching this conclusion, the panel was mindful of the fact that disbanding 

the ALWTRT would have implications for humpback whales and fin whales as well as right 

whales. However, reducing the mortality of right whales is of transcendent importance as a 

conservation priority, and therefore the panel considers the implications for the other two species 

to be far less critical. Furthermore, it is not clear that the efforts of the ALWTRT are reducing 

the frequency or severity of entanglements for these other two species. 

52 
V. FINDINGS OF THE PANEL: CROSS-CUTTING AND GENERAL 

Coordination 

The panel recommends that NMFS create a North Atlantic right whale recovery team as 

provided for in the Endangered Species Act. The team should be constituted for the purpose of 

helping NMFS promote recovery of this whale population to the point where it satisfies the 

downlisting criteria in the current recovery plan. Two immediate functions of the team would be 

to assist with a reevaluation of critical habitat designations and an evaluation of management 

options for eliminating right whale entanglement. 

In addition, there is a need to bring regional fisheries management councils into the takereduction process to a much greater extent than has been the case to date. This may require 

amendment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and/or the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries 

Conservation and Management Act to mandate a direct link between right whale bycatch 

reduction measures and the fishery management process. It may also require an additional 

oversight mechanism to ensure that councils do not veto, alter, or override essential protection 

measures. 

Implications of mitigation measures 

Two important aspects of mitigation need to be considered at all stages. First, some of the 

measures may offer ancillary benefits in addition to preventing harm to right whales. For 

example, slowing ship traffic may reduce the risks of collisions with other whales or between 

vessels. Restrictions on the use of gillnets and traps could be part of management plans designed 

to reduce fishing pressure on target and other non-target species, leading to better overall fishery 

management. Also, the process of developing whale-safe measures to harvest lobsters and finfish 

could lead to the development of safer or more efficient methods for capturing the target species. 

Second, proposed measures should be evaluated for unintended negative consequences, whether 

direct or indirect. For example, a fishery closure in a right whale feeding area could lead to a 

shift of fishing effort into a migration path. Similarly, a change in traffic routing could lead to a 

higher incidence of collisions with another valued species (e.g., humpback whales). Even though 

such a change might be tolerable from a conservation standpoint, it would be important to 

anticipate it and be prepared to respond. 

Feasibility of enforcement 

A great deal of momentum has developed in the direction of using passive acoustic monitoring to 

track the presence of right whales in different areas. The scientific approach is appealing, and the 

idea of dependence on remote sensing is attractive because it promises to be more cost-effective 

and safer. A premise of investing in and pursuing such an approach is that it will facilitate realtime measures to reduce risks to right whales (principally via dynamic management). Although 

53 
the panel is not opposed to the concept, it is concerned about the ability of enforcement agencies 

to deliver such protective measures in a timely and effective way. The poor record to date in this 

regard must be considered the best guide to what can be expected in the future. Total closures of 

sensitive areas to high-speed ship traffic, risk-prone fishing gear, or both, on a seasonal or 

permanent basis, may be the only truly enforceable (and thus effective) approach to protecting 

right whales from the two most important risk factors impeding their recovery. 

Fundamental importance of certain core program elements 

A commitment to predictable, long-term funding for core recovery-related work, including 

development and implementation of take reduction and threat mitigation measures, maintaining 

and updating key databases, and investigating causes of right whale deaths and serious injuries, 

is of paramount importance. In particular, the Catalog is indispensable. Any major change in 

how the photo-identification data are collected and managed could have serious implications for 

population monitoring and, in turn, the ability to assess the effectiveness of recovery efforts. For 

example, if funding cuts were to limit field efforts and allow sampling at only two- or three-year 

intervals instead of annually, this would affect the ability to monitor critical demographic 

parameters, such as survival and fecundity. Given the present state of North Atlantic right 

whales, it is essential to continue collecting the field data needed to monitor the population with 

maximum possible resolution. 

Where and with whom does responsibility for right whale recovery lie? 

The Secretary of Commerce has ultimate responsibility to ensure that the goals of the Recovery 

Plan for the North Atlantic Right Whale are met. Pursuit of those goals can be driven by one of 

three approaches: (1) develop and implement ineffective measures that will likely result in 

lawsuits and judicial decisions to direct actions by federal agencies; (2) rely on public awareness 

and education efforts to motivate and guide voluntary actions by fishermen, vessel operators, 

etc.; or (3) take the initiative to restrict activities known to be harmful to right whales and cope 

with the negative response from some stakeholders. All three options promise to be costly. 

However, from the standpoint of meeting recovery plan goals, the third is most likely to be 

effective on an acceptable time scale. 

The language in the recovery plan does not adequately reflect that human-caused mortality for 

this whale population should be reduced to zero. Rather, the plan refers to significant reductions 

as the most that can be expected. The panel believes that NMFS should be pursuing the goal of 

zero human-caused mortality and serious injury of right whales, as clearly expressed by the 

setting of a PBR level of zero and as stated in the required goals of take reduction plans. The 

same goal appears not to have been carried forward with regard to ship strikes and general 

recovery planning. Obviously, working toward such a goal will require a number of different 

steps that are not likely to be taken simultaneously. Nevertheless, recovery planning needs to be 

geared toward elimination, not just reduction, of anthropogenic mortality and serious injury. 

With regard to reducing the number of right whales killed by fishing gear, the panel believes that 

responsibility for addressing this issue has been misplaced and a major change is needed. The 

54 
little progress that has been made to date has been due to efforts of conservationists, scientists, 

and Office of Protected Species staff in NMFS who have tried to use legislation, such as the 

Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, to force fishery managers to 

take action to reduce whale entanglements. Unlike some other interactions between marine 

mammals and fisheries, right whales are not attempting to depredate catches or competing with 

fishermen for resources. Rather, they are simply using their habitat as they have for hundreds of 

thousands of years. From the whales’ perspective, fisheries have developed in some of the same 

areas very recently, and some of those fisheries are now taking whales as a bycatch. The 

Department of Commerce, acting through NMFS, is required by law to regulate bycatch as part 

of fishery management plans developed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. They do this routinely for non-target species of shellfish, finfish, sea birds, sea 

turtles, and other taxa. NMFS has clearly recognized that there should be no fishery bycatch of 

North Atlantic right whales as it has set the PBR level for this population at zero. Therefore, 

fishery managers have the responsibility to modify management plans as necessary to eliminate 

right whale bycatch, and the panel strongly recommends that they be instructed to recognize and 

meet this responsibility. 

Relations with Canada 

A significant proportion of the known present-day feeding habitat of North Atlantic right whales 

lies in Canadian waters. Also, some of the deaths from ship strikes and entanglements occur in 

Canada. Therefore, bilateral efforts are essential to achieve coordination and consistency in 

measures to protect right whales and their critical habitat. Also, conducting research and 

monitoring to assess the population’s status, investigating factors limiting population recovery, 

and developing and testing mitigation methods cannot be carried out efficiently without the 

cooperation of Canadian authorities. 

The panel was pleased to learn that cabinet-level discussions are underway to negotiate a 

bilateral right whale conservation agreement between Canada and the United States. Although 

Canada’s reconfiguration of the Bay of Fundy shipping lanes is deservedly regarded as a signal 

achievement, the Canadian government’s approach to right whale conservation has been 

otherwise passive in comparison to that of the U.S. government. The whale-watching industry in 

Canada is unregulated, there is no Canadian equivalent to the critical habitat designations for 

right whales under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, and no substantive measures have been 

taken in Canada to address the right whale entanglement problem. Entanglement is one area 

where bilateral dialogue is essential, but it is important to avoid letting U.S. fishing interests 

transfer responsibility for the entanglement problem to Canadian fisheries. Fisheries in both 

countries need to be managed to address this problem. 

Another issue that should be high on the bilateral agenda concerns U.S. plans to construct a 

liquid natural gas (LNG) tanker terminal in Maine. Such a development will create a major new 

threat to the right whale population. A proposal for an oil tanker terminal at Eastport in the late 

1970s provided the impetus for surveys of right whales in the lower Bay of Fundy and Quoddy 

region. Those surveys led directly to the right whale research and monitoring program in this 

55 
area by the New England Aquarium. Impact assessment and site selection for the LNG tanker 

terminal need to be addressed immediately by authorities in both countries. Also, the high-speed 

ferry that operates between Yarmouth, N.S., and Bar Harbor, ME, making two trips per day 

(including one at night), represents a potentially serious hazard for right whales. Its operations 

are currently not regulated to avoid whale collisions and it is exempt from the traffic separation 

scheme in the Bay of Fundy. Moreover, plans are underway for the ferry to serve additional sites 

in Maine, which would almost certainly imply additional risks to right whales. 

Funding 

Although the data available for this review are not comprehensive, they indicate that a total of 

$45.6 million was spent by all U.S. agencies and groups involved in implementing the right 

whale recovery program during the three fiscal years 2003/04 through 2005/06. Of that amount, 

95.5 percent came from federal agencies, 3.8 percent from nongovernmental organizations, and 

less than 1 percent from state agencies. The National Marine Fisheries Service was the greatest 

single source of funding ($35.3 million). 

Table 9: Costs of all actions to promote recovery of western North Atlantic right 

whales, FY2003/FY2005 

Source FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

Federal Agencies $12,639,287 $16,200,810 $14,707,144 

NMFS 10,127,897 12,798,559 12,353,725 

NOS (National Marine Sanctuaries) 67,000 89,900 124,300 

Navy 165,267 218,427 399,216 

Coast Guard 809,525 2,075,569 1,208,268 

Army Corps of Engineers 147,000 180,000 191,000 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 1,322,598 497,149 192,953 

State Agencies 102,600 72,800 134,442 

Florida 76,000 72,800 73,250 

Massachusetts 21,600 0 61,292 

Rhode Island 5,000 0 0 

Nongovernmental Organizations 379,678 456,227 907,926 

International Fund for Animal Welfare 140,000 104,000 257,418 

New England Aquarium 98,075 86,431 312,404 

Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies 62,500 112,500 92,500 

Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution/Ocean Life Institute 

54,103 127,296 220,604 

Whale Center of New England 25,000 25,000 25,000 

TOTAL ALL SOURCES $13,121,565 $16,729,837 $15,749,512 

56 
The objective of this review was not simply to document how much money had been invested in 

right whale recovery efforts or to project how much should be spent in the future. Rather, the 

objective was to evaluate whether the funds invested had been used in a cost-effective manner. 

The panel’s conclusions in that regard are explained in sections III and IV of this report. After a 

surge in federal funding for right whale research and conservation beginning in 2000, the trend 

of financial support has reversed direction and is now on a downward trajectory. Overall funding 

peaked in FY04 at more than $16.7 million but declined by almost $1 million in FY05, due 

largely to a reduction of support from NMFS. During the review, the panel was advised that 

NMFS funding for FY06 was expected to decline to $7.8 million, a reduction of 53 percent from 

the FY2004 level. 

The panel has concluded that some parts of the recovery program do not appear to have been 

cost-effective and that significant improvements in cost-effectiveness may be possible in some 

areas (e.g., aerial surveys, bycatch reduction). However, the panel also has identified a number of 

essential tasks that are currently underfunded or that should be expanded (e.g., catalog and 

database management, passive acoustic monitoring, studies of effectiveness of management 

actions, compliance assessment). Overall, the needs for additional funding appear much greater 

than any savings that might be realized by paring down program elements that currently are not 

considered cost-effective. Therefore, any reduction in the overall federal commitment to right 

whale protection will mean that some high-priority work is not carried out. This, in turn, is likely 

to increase the risk that recovery of this population will never be achieved. 

Overall strategy and implementation 

Although the objectives of the North Atlantic right whale recovery program are appropriate, 

overall strategy and implementation are not adequately accountable. Federal actions have not 

reflected a sense of urgency about reducing right whale mortality that is consistent with the 

gravity of the species’ peril. The current approach is not precautionary but rather is one of 

waiting for conclusive evidence and/or industry acceptance before moving ahead with protective 

actions. This is particularly true of attempts to reduce interactions between right whales and 

fishing gear. Therefore, the panel recommends that NMFS and other agencies act more 

aggressively to prevent right whale mortality. In general, they should set higher standards of 

protection and place greater reliance on the ability of industry to adapt to those standards, rather 

than continuing to depend on a complex, shifting, inefficient, and ineffective network of 

regulatory measures to protect the whales. The guiding principle should be to separate high-risk 

human activities from right whales, in both space and time, to the maximum extent feasible. 

57 
VI. Acknowledgments 

The panel acknowledges the support and cooperation of everyone who contributed to the 

planning and execution of the review. This includes staff at SRA International, the Marine 

Mammal Commission, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (headquarters and regional 

offices). Two individuals deserve special mention. Wilhelmina Innes at the Commission 

provided a remarkably clear, detailed set of meeting minutes that facilitated report preparation. 

David Laist, also at the Commission, contributed in many ways. Most importantly, the panel 

benefited from his longstanding involvement with right whale conservation and his attention to 

details that otherwise would have escaped notice. Finally, the panel acknowledges the 

constructive, detailed reviews of a draft of this report provided by NMFS staff at its headquarters 

office, the Northeast and Southeast Fisheries Science Centers, and the Northeast and Southeast 

Regional Offices. The collegial spirit they maintained while watching their programs undergo 

detailed scrutiny was exemplary. Also, the panel appreciates the helpful review received from 

Scott Kraus of the New England Aquarium. 

58 
VII. References 

Caswell, H., M. Fujiwara, and S. Brault. 1999. Declining survival probability threatens the North 

Atlantic right whale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 

96:3308–3313. 

Fujiwara, M., and H. Caswell. 2001. Demography of the North Atlantic right whale. Nature 

414:537–541. 

Hamilton, P. K., and M. K. Marx. 2005. Skin lesions on North Atlantic right whales: categories, 

prevalence and change in occurrence in the 1990s. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 

68:71–82. 

Johnson, A., G. Salvador, J. Kenney, J. Robbins, S. Kraus, S. Landry, and P. Clapham. 2005. 

Fishing gear involved in entanglements of right and humpback whales. Marine Mammal 

Science 21:635–645. 

Knowlton, A. R., F. T. Korsmeyer, J. E. Kerwin, H. Wu, and B. Hynes. 1995. The hydrodynamic 

effects of large vessels on right whales. Final report to National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Contract No. 40EANFF400534. 

Knowlton, A. R., and S. D. Kraus. 2001. Mortality and serious injury of northern right whales 

(Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic. Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management (Special Issue) 2:193–208. 

Knowlton, A. R., M. K. Marx, H. Pettis, P. K. Hamilton, and S. D. Kraus. 2005. Analysis of 

scarring on North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis): monitoring rates of 

entanglement interaction: 1980–2002. Final Report to National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Contract #43EANF030107. 

Kraus, S. D., M. Brown, H. Caswell, C. Clark, M. Fujiwara, P. Hamilton, R. Kenney, A. 

Knowlton, S. Landry, C. Mayo, W. McLellan, M. Moore, D. Nowacek, D. Pabst, A. J. 

Read, and R. Rolland. 2005. North Atlantic right whales in crisis. Science 309:561–562. 

Marine Mammal Commission. 2006. The Marine Mammal Commission annual report to 

Congress 2005. Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, MD. 

Moller, J. C., D. N. Wiley, T. V. N. Cole, M. Niemeyer, and A. Rosner. 2005. The behavior of 

commercial ships relative to right whale advisory zones in the Great South Channel 

during May of 2005. Page 195 in Abstracts, 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of 

Marine Mammals, San Diego, CA, December 12–16, 2005. 

Moore, M. J., A. R. Knowlton, S. D. Kraus, W. A. McLellan, and R. K. Bonde. 2004. 

Morphometry, gross morphology and available histopathology in North Atlantic right 

whale (Eubalaena glacialis) mortalities (1970–2002). Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management 6:199–214. 

Moore, M. J., C. A. Miller, M. S. Morss, R. Arthur, W. A. Lange, K. G. Prada, M. K. Marx, and 

E. A. Frey. 2001. Ultrasonic measurement of blubber thickness in right whales. Journal of 

Cetacean Research and Management (Special Issue) 2:301–309. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Recovery plan for the North Atlantic right whale 

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

59 
Nowacek, D. P., M. P. Johnson, and P. L. Tyack. 2004. North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena 

glacialis) ignore ships but respond to alerting stimuli. Proceedings of the Royal Society 

of London B 271:227–231. 

Nowacek, D. P., M. P. Johnson, P. L. Tyack, K. A. Shorter, W. A. McLellan, and D. A. Pabst. 

2001. Buoyant balaenids: the ups and downs of buoyancy in right whales. Proceedings of 

the Royal Society of London B 268:1811–1816. 

Pettis, H. M., R. M. Rolland, P. K. Hamilton, S. Brault, A. R. Knowlton, and S. D. Kraus. 2004. 

Visual health assessment of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) using 

photographs. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:8–19. 

Rolland, R. M., K. E. Hunt, S. D. Kraus, and S. K. Wasser. 2005. Assessing reproductive status 

of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) using fecal hormone metabolites. General and 

Comparative Endocrinology 142:308–317. 

60 
APPENDIX I 

PANEL MEMBERS 

North Atlantic Right Whale Program Review 

Daryl J. Boness 

Senior Scientist Emeritus 

Smithsonian Institution 

Washington, DC 20008 

Steven K. Katona 

President (retired) 

College of the Atlantic 

Bar Harbor, Maine 04609 

Lloyd F. Lowry (Workshop Chairman) 

Affiliate Associate Professor 

University of Alaska 

School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences 

1550 Coyote Trail 

Fairbanks, AK 99709 

Andrew J. Read 

Rachel Carson Associate Professor of Marine Conservation Biology 

Nicholas School of the Environment & Earth Sciences 

Duke University Marine Laboratory 

135 Duke Marine Lab Road 

Beaufort, NC 28516 

Randall R. Reeves 

Okapi Wildlife Associates 

27 Chandler Lane 

Hudson, Quebec, Canada J0P 1H0 

61
APPENDIX II 

AGENDA 

NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE PROGRAM REVIEW 

Marine Biological Laboratory 

Woods Hole, MA 

14–17 March 2006 

TUESDAY, 14 MARCH 

8:00 – 8:30 COFFEE AND DANISH 

8:30 – 8:45 OPENING REMARKS 

David Laist, Marine Mammal Commission 

Linda Manning, SRA International 

Lloyd Lowry, Marine Mammal Commission 

8:45 – 9:45 OVERVIEW OF RECOVERY PROGRAM 

Michael Payne, NOAA 

Richard Merrick, NOAA 

Jerry Conway, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada 

9:45 – 10:45 MONITOR STATUS AND TRENDS OF ABUNDANCE 

Richard Pace, NOAA 

10:45 – 11:00 BREAK 

11:00 – 12:00 RIGHT WHALE DISTRIBUTIONAL STUDIES 

Lance Garrison, NOAA 

12:00 – 1:15 LUNCH 

1:15 – 2:15 MAJOR RIGHT WHALE DATABASES 

Philip Hamilton, New England Aquarium 

Robert Kenney, University of Rhode Island 

2:15 – 3:15 STOCK STRUCTURE AND INDIVIDUAL IDENTIFICATION – GENETICS 

Richard Pace, NOAA 

3:15 – 3:30 BREAK 

3:30 – 4:30 REPRODUCTION AND HEALTH ASSESSMENTS 

Teri Rowles, NOAA 

4:30 – 5:30 RESPONSE TO STRANDINGS 

Teri Rowles, NOAA 

62 
WEDNESDAY, 15 MARCH

8:30 – 9:15 HABITAT STUDIES AND ASSESSMENTS 

Lance Garrison, NOAA 

9:15 – 10:30 OVERVIEW OF FISHERY INTERACTIONS 

David Gouveia, NOAA 

10:30 – 10:45 BREAK 

10:45 – 11:45 OVERVIEW OF TAKE REDUCTION EFFORT 

David Gouveia, NOAA 

11:45 – 1:00 LUNCH 

1:00 – 3:00 IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS 

David Gouveia, NOAA 

3:00 – 3:15 BREAK 

3:15 – 5:15 IMPLEMENTATION OF GEAR MODIFICATIONS AND GEAR RESEARCH 

Diane Borggaard, NOAA 

Glen Salvador, NOAA 

THURSDAY, 16 MARCH

8:30 – 9:00 FISHERIES OUTREACH AND EDUCATION 

Diane Borggaard, NOAA 

9:00 – 9:45 DISENTANGLEMENT EFFORTS 

Teri Rowles 

9:45 – 10:00 BREAK 

10:00 – 10:30 OVERVIEW ON VESSEL INTERACTIONS 

Gregory Silber, NOAA 

Jerry Conway, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada 

10:30 – 12:00 INTRODUCITON TO SHIP STRIKE MITIGATION PROGRAM 

Gregory Silber 

Barbara Zoodsma, NOAA 

12:00 – 1:15 LUNCH 

1:15 – 2:15 VESSEL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 

Gregory Silber, NOAA 

Jerry Conway, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada 

63 
2:15 – 3:15 MANDATORY SHIP REPORTING SYSTEM 

Gregory Silber, NOAA 

3:15 – 3:30 BREAK 

3:30 – 4:15 NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST RIGHT WHALE SIGHTING AND 

REPORTING SYSTEMS 

Tim Cole, NOAA 

Barbara Zoodsma, NOAA 

4:15 – 5:15 MARINER OUTREACH, EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

Barbara Zoodsma, NOAA 

Kristen Koyama, NOAA 

FRIDAY, 17 MARCH 

8:30 – 9:30 RESEARCH TO IMPROVE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW WHALES AND 

VESSELS INTERACT 

Gregory Silber, NOAA 

9:30 – 10:30 RESEARCH TO IMPROVE MITIGATION TOOLS FOR REDUCING 

VESSEL INTERACTIONS 

Gregory Silber, NOAA 

Richard Merrick, NOAA 

10:30 – 10:45 BREAK 

10:45 – 11:45 REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF INFORMATION PRESENTED 

12:00 ADJOURN 

64 
APPENDIX III 

RIGHT WHALE PROGRAM REVIEW PARTICIPANT LIST 

Mark Baumgartner 

Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution 

508.289.2678 

mbaumgartner@whoi.edu 

Jeff Benoit 

SRA International 

703.284.6191 

jeff_benoit@sra.com 

Shannon Bettridge 

NOAA/NMFS-F/PR 

202.289.6400 

Shannon.bettridge@noaa.gov 

Daryl Boness – Panelist 

Smithsonian National Zoo 

207.597.2333 

boness@megalink.net 

Diane Borggaard – Presenter 

NOAA/NMFS 

978.281.9328 x6503 

diane.borggaard@noaa.gov 

Moira "Mo" Brown 

New England Aquarium 

617.226.2195 

mbrown@neaq.org 

Deirdre Casey 

NOAA/GC 

978.281.9105 

Deirdre.casey@noaa.gov 

Hal Caswell 

Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution 

508.289.2751 

hcaswell@whoi.edu 

Cynthia Christman 

NOAA/NMFS 

508.495.2191 

Cynthia.christman@noaa.gov 

Christopher Clark 

Cornell University 

607.254.2405 

cwc2@cornell.edu 

Nicole Clarke 

SRA International 

703.284.6231 

nicole_clarke@sra.com 

Tim Cole – Presenter 

NOAA/NMFS 

508.495.2087 

Tim.Cole@noaa.gov 

Mary Colligan 

NOAA/NMFS 

978.281.9116 

mary.a.colligan@noaa.gov 

Kevin Collins 

NOAA/GC 

978.281.9289 

Kevin.collins@noaa.gov 

Jerry Conway – Presenter 

Department of Fisheries & 

Oceans, Canada 

902 426 6947 

ConwayJ@mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca 

Vicki Cornish 

NOAA/NMFS-SERO 

727.824.5312 

vicki.cornish@noaa.gov 

Todd Dubois 

NOAA/NMFS 

508.994.7008 

Todd.dubois@noaa.gov 

Peter Duley 

NOAA/NMFS 

508.495.2204 

Peter.duley@noaa.gov 

Tom Fetherston 

U.S. Navy

401.832.5857 

fethersonttn@npt.nwwc.navy.mil 

Teri Frady 

NOAA/NMFS/NEFSC 

508.495.2239 

Teri.frady@noaa.gov 

Tim Frasier – Presenter 

Trent University 

705.748.1011 x7055 

tim.frasier@nrdpfc.ca 

Lance Garrison – Presenter 

NOAA/NMFS-SEFSC 

305.361.4488 x488 

lance.garrison@noaa.gov 

Mendy Garron 

NOAA/NMFS 

978.281.9300 X6528 

Mendy.Garron@noaa.gov 

Clay George 

Georgia Deparment of Natural 

Resources 

404.656.3500 

Clay_George@dnr.state.ga.us 

CDR Eric Giese 

U.S. Coast Guard 

202.267.1785 

egiese@comdt.uscg.mil 

David Gouveia – Presenter 

NOAA/NMFS 

978.281.9280 

david.gouveia@noaa.gov 

Pat Grerrior 

Pgerrior2@adelphia.net 

65 
Jim Hain 

Associated Scientists at Woods 

Hole 

508.564.4449 

jhain@earthlink.net 

Ryan Hamel 

U.S. Coast Guard 

508.968.6603 

Ryan.hamel@uscg.mil 

Philip Hamilton – Presenter 

New England Aquarium 

617.973.5253 

phamilton@neaq.org 

Leila Hatch 

Stellwagan Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary 

781.545.8026 

Leila.hatch@noaa.gov 

John Higgins 

NOAA/NMFS 

207.677.2316 

john.higgins@noaa.gov 

Christine Hunter 

Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institute 

508-289-3245 

cmhunter@whoi.edu 

Wilhelmina Innes 

Marine Mammal Commission 

301.504.0087 

minnes@mmc.gov 

Steve Katona – Panelist 

College of the Atlantic 

207.288.5015 

skkatona@ecology.coa.edu 

John Kenney 

NOAA/NMFS 

401.294.0443 

John.f.kenney@noaa.gov 

Robert Kenney – Presenter 

University of Rhode Island 

401.874.6664 

rkenney@gso.uri.edu 

Amy Knowlton 

New England Aquarium 

617.973.5200 

aknowlton@neaq.org 

Kristen Koyama – Presenter 

NOAA/NMFS 

978.281.9328 x6531 

kristen.koyama@noaa.gov 

Scott Kraus 

New England Aquarium 

617.973.5457 

skraus@neaq.org 

David Laist 

Marine Mammal Commission 

301.504.0087 

dlaist@mmc.gov 

Gregg LaMontagne 

NOAA/NMFS 

978.281.9300 x6506 

Gregg.lamontagne@noaa.gov 

Bill Lange 

Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution 

508.289.2782 

wlange@whoi.edu 

Kristy Long 

NOAA/NMFS-F/PR 

301.713.2322 x171 

Kristy.Long@noaa.gov 

Lloyd Lowry – Panelist 

University of Alaska 

808.325.6885 

llowry@eagle.ptialaska.net 

Doug MacIntyre 

NOAA/OMAO-AOC 

813-828-3310 

Douglas.macintyre@noaa.gov 

Linda Manning 

SRA International 

703-284-6192 

linda_manning@sra.com 

Charles “Stormy” Mayo 

Provincetown Center for 

Coastal Studies 

508.487.3623 x110 

stormym33@pobox.com 

Richard Merrick – Presenter 

NOAA/NMFS 

508.495.2291 

richard.merrick@noaa.gov 

Henry Milliken 

NOAA/NMFS 

508.495.2294 

Henry.milliken@noaa.gov 

Mark Minton 

NOAA/NMFS 

978.281.9328 x6534 

Mark.minton@noaa.gov 

Katie Moore 

U.S. Coast Guard 

757-398-6504 

Katie.s.moore@uscg.mil 

Michael Moore 

Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution 

508.289.3228 

mmoore@whoi.edu 

David Morin 

Provincetown Center for Coastal 

Studies 

508.487.3622 

dmorin@coastalstudies.org 

LCDR Paul Murphy 

U.S. Coast Guard 

617.223.8425 

Paul.d.murphy@uscg.mil 

Misty Niemeyer 

NOAA/NMFS 

508.495.2040 

Misty.niemeyer@noaa.gov 

Doug Nowacek – Presenter 

Florida State University 

850.645.1547 

nowacek@ocean.fsu.edu 

Richard Pace – Presenter 

NOAA/NMFS 

508.495.2253 

richard.pace@noaa.gov 

Michael Payne – Presenter 

NOAA/NMFS 

301.713.2322 

michael.payne@noaa.gov 

66 
LT Jeff Pearson 

U.S. Coast Guard 

202.267.1770 

JPearson@comdt.uscg.mil 

Andy Read – Panelist 

Duke University 

252.504.7590 

aread@duke.edu 

Randall Reeves – Panelist 

Okapi Wildlife Associates 

450.458.6685 

rrreeves@okapis.ca 

Rosalind Rolland 

New England Aquarium 

617.973.6587 

rrolland@neaq.org 

Teri Rowles – Presenter 

NOAA/PR 

301.713.2322 

Teri.Rowles@noaa.gov 

Glenn Salvador – Presenter 

NOAA/NMFS 

302.644.2375 

glenn.salvador@noaa.gov 

Fred Serchuk 

NOAA/NMFS/NEFSCWoods Hole 

508.495.2000 x2245 

Fred.serchuk@noaa.gov 

Greg Silber – Presenter 

NOAA/NMFS 

301.713.2322 x152 

greg.silber@noaa.gov 

Aileen Smith 

U.S. Navy

757.836.7147 

aileen.smith@navy.mil 

Jamison Smith 

NOAA/NMFS 

978.281.9336 

jamison.smith@noaa.gov 

Leslie Ward 

Florida Fish & Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 

727.896.8626 x1906 

leslie.ward@fwc.state.fl.us 

David Wiley 

NOAA/NOS 

781.545.8026 x211 

david.wiley@noaa.gov 

Sharon Young 

Humane Society of the United 

States 

508.833.0181 

syoung@hsus.org 

Barbara Zoodsma – Presenter 

NOAA/NMFS-SERO 

904.321.2806 

barb.zoodsma@noaa.gov 

67 

69