A Report to Congress from 

the Marine Mammal Commission

February 2008

The Biological Viability 

of the Most Endangered

Marine Mammals 

and

the Cost-effectiveness

of Protection Programs

THE BIOLOGICAL VIABILITY

OF THE MOST ENDANGERED

MARINE MAMMALS 

AND

THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF 

PROTECTION PROGRAMS

A Report to Congress from

the Marine Mammal Commission

February 2008

iii

CONTENTS

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................ iv

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................v

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

 Response to the Congressional Directive ..........................................................................................................3

The Most Endangered Marine Mammals and Their Viability .................................................................................7

 Systems for Identifying Species at Risk of Extinction ......................................................................................7

 Information Needs for Assessing Viability ........................................................................................................8

 Integrating Information Using Population Viability Analysis .........................................................................10

 Identifying the “Most Endangered” Marine Mammals ...................................................................................11

 Past Extinctions and Recoveries ......................................................................................................................17

Cost-effectiveness of Protection Programs ............................................................................................................21

 Effectiveness of Protection Programs ..............................................................................................................21

 Costs of Protection Programs ...........................................................................................................................26

Case Study: Cost-effectiveness of the North Atlantic Right Whale Protection Program ......................................31

 Costs of the North Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Program ..........................................................................31

 Cost-effectiveness of Research ........................................................................................................................31

 Cost-effectiveness of Management ..................................................................................................................34

 The Marine Mammal Commission’s Perspective ............................................................................................37

Findings and Recommendation ..............................................................................................................................39

References ..............................................................................................................................................................43

Appendix 1: Steering Committee Members

Appendix 2: Endangered, Threatened, and Depleted Marine Mammals in U.S. Waters

Appendix 3: The Status of Protection Programs for Endangered, Threatened, and 

 Depleted Marine Mammals in U.S. Waters

Appendix 4: Report of the Workshop on Assessing the Population Viability of Endangered 

 Marine Mammals in U.S. Waters

Appendix 5: Report of the North Atlantic Right Whale Program Review

Appendix 6: Expenditures on Protection Programs
iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Endangered, threatened, and depleted marine mammals in U.S. waters and threats 

to their survival ................................................................................................................................4

Table 2. Examples of wild populations that have rebounded or are recovering after being 

reduced to extremely low population sizes ....................................................................................19

Table 3. Approximate combined federal and state expenditures for endangered, threatened, 

and depleted taxa, FY1998–2004 ..................................................................................................28

Table 4. Estimated number of fulltime-equivalent staff positions devoted to protection programs 

for endangered, threatened, or depleted marine mammal taxa........ ............................................30

Table 5. Estimated agency and organization expenditures on western North Atlantic right whale 

recovery and protection work, FY2003–2005 ...............................................................................32

Table 6. Expenditures on major research and management tasks identifi ed in the North Atlantic 

right whale recovery plan, FY2003–2005 .....................................................................................33

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Antillean manatee .....................................................................................................................2

Figure 2. AT1 killer whale .............................................................................................................................11

Figure 3. North Pacifi c right whales ..............................................................................................................12

Figure 4. Beluga whales ................................................................................................................................13

Figure 5. Southern resident killer whale mother and calf .............................................................................14

Figure 6. The Antillean manatee ...................................................................................................................15

Figure 7. North Atlantic right whale .............................................................................................................16

Figure 8. Hawaiian monk seal .......................................................................................................................17

Figure 9. Combined federal and state expenditures for taxa listed as endangered, threatened, 

or depleted, FY1998–2004 .............................................................................................................29

Figure 10. Expenditures for marine mammals listed as endangered or threatened, 

by agency and by year, FY2000–2004 ...........................................................................................29
v

As set forth in the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

and the Endangered Species Act, the citizens of 

the United States have placed great importance on 

preserving wild species and on maintaining marine 

mammal populations at levels well above what 

would place them at risk of extinction. Consistent 

with this concern, in 2004 Congress 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.”

The Commission reviewed 22 marine mammal 

taxa (i.e., species, subspecies, or population stocks) 

that occur regularly or entirely within U.S. waters 

and that are either listed as endangered or threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act or designated as 

depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

The review considered methods for identifying taxa 

at elevated risk of extinction, evidence regarding 

their viability, threats to their conservation, and the 

current status and funding for recovery programs. 

The review also included an in-depth case study 

of the cost-effectiveness of recovery efforts for the 

North Atlantic right whale.

Of the 22 taxa, 2 are not considered to be viable: 

the Caribbean monk seal is considered extinct 

and the AT1 population of killer whales appears 

to be on the verge of extinction. The remaining 20 

taxa are considered viable; that is, they can persist 

and recover if human-related threats are identifi ed 

and addressed. Historical data indicate that many 

wild species, including a number of marine mammal 

taxa, have recovered from low numbers when 

human-related threats were managed effectively.

Recovery programs for endangered, threatened, 

and depleted taxa depend heavily on information 

regarding population structure and dynamics, 

population ecology and health, factors that act 

with special force on small populations, and the 

nature and severity of threats. Population viability 

analysis provides a mechanism for integrating the 

available data into an analysis of extinction risk. 

However, such analyses have been conducted for 

relatively few taxa due to a lack of critical data and 

insuffi cient emphasis on the use of such tools to 

enhance risk assessment. 

Intentional killing was undoubtedly the greatest 

threat to marine mammals in the 1800s and early 

to mid-1900s. Since the early 1900s the passage, 

implementation, and enforcement of several key 

domestic laws and international treaties have 

contributed strongly to the conservation of many 

marine mammal taxa by limiting and in many 

cases prohibiting such killing. The Fur Seal Treaty, 

the International Convention for the Regulation 

of Whaling, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

and the Endangered Species Act may well have 

prevented the extirpation of some populations and 

possibly even the extinction of some species.

The primary human-related threats to marine 

mammals in U.S. waters have now shifted from 

intentional to indirect or incidental taking and 

degradation of habitat. Recovery efforts generally 

have been less successful at addressing indirect or 

incidental threats, which include competition with 

fi sheries for prey, contaminants, disease, noise, 

coastal development and loss or degradation of 

habitat, and climate change.

The indirect threats posed by human activities 

often increase in proportion to human population 

size, economic growth, and consumption patterns.

The consequences of “economic growth and 

development untempered by adequate concern and 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
vi

conservation” were incentives for passage of both the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered 

Species Act by Congress in the early 1970s. With 

regard to indirect threats, the fi ndings, purposes, and 

challenges of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

and the Endangered Species Act are more germane 

now than they were three decades ago.

Much remains to be learned about the threats 

facing marine mammals and about the actions 

needed to allow endangered taxa to recover. To 

be successful, marine mammal recovery programs 

must determine what critical information is lacking, 

obtain that information, and select or adjust recovery 

actions in response to the information. In the absence 

of critical information, a precautionary management 

approach is necessary to ensure conservation even 

though it may impose a risk of overprotection. 

Unfortunately, even under the best circumstances 

the recovery of marine mammals is limited by their 

inherently slow population growth rates, which 

means that recovery for some species will require 

decades or longer. Furthermore, as environmental 

and other conditions change, so too do some of the 

threats and options for recovery strategies. Strategies 

must be adapted as more is learned about the animals 

and the risks they face, and this adaptation must 

occur at a pace consistent with the adverse effects 

of socioeconomic development, climate change, and 

similar human-related phenomena.

Each year Congress allocates a substantial budget 

for marine mammal recovery programs, with 

two reasonable expectations. The fi rst is that 

those funds will be used effectively and costeffectively in accordance with the conservation 

framework established in the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act and Endangered Species Act. 

The second is that the funded programs will 

be adequate to achieve the goals of the Acts.

In fact, recovery programs have achieved mixed 

results with regard to their effectiveness and costeffectiveness. The inconsistency is due in part to 

insuffi cient information to assess extinction risks 

and guide recovery actions and in part to inadequate 

implementation of some programs. Nonetheless, 

no marine mammal taxon in U.S. waters has gone 

extinct during the period that the Acts have been in 

place, and many taxa have demonstrably benefi ted 

from the programs and protections implemented 

under the Acts. In contrast, during the same period, 

the Yangtze River dolphin appears to have become 

extinct and several marine mammals not under U.S. 

jurisdiction have declined to a very precarious state.

The agencies responsible for recovery programs 

have used congressional funding to balance 

competing interests and respond to a range of 

priorities, all under the constraint of a limited 

total budget. Congressional earmarks for specifi c 

species, threats, or confl icts may limit the agencies’ 

discretion and their ability to prioritize recovery 

efforts. 

In the end, certain at-risk taxa have received 

relatively high levels of attention in the form 

of specifi cally directed funding (e.g., western 

Steller sea lions), while certain other taxa have 

not received enough attention to prevent or even 

understand their ongoing decline (e.g., Cook 

Inlet beluga whales). Absent a more integrated, 

coherent national system for determining what the 

funding needs are, setting priorities, and determining 

how the limited funds should be allocated, the 

Marine Mammal Commission is concerned that 

recovery efforts for certain taxa will deteriorate into 

a patchwork of reactive crises, increasing the risk 

of extinction for those taxa, infl ating the long-term 

costs required to bring about their recovery, and 

undermining our nation’s goal of maintaining the 

health and stability of the marine ecosystem.

Therefore, the Marine Mammal Commission 

concludes that the national strategy for setting 

endangered marine mammal funding priorities—

in an informed manner and cognizant of recovery 

needs—is not yet suffi ciently coherent and 

consistent. The lack of coherence and consistency 

creates an obstacle to effective and cost-effective 

recovery efforts. To address this problem, the 

Marine Mammal Commission makes a single 

recommendation to Congress, as follows.

The primary agencies serving on the committee 
vii

would be those responsible for research and 

management of endangered, threatened, and depleted 

marine mammals—the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the Marine Mammal Commission. Ex

offi cio members of the committee would include the 

Council on Environmental Quality, the Smithsonian 

Institution, and the National Academy of Sciences. 

The Marine Mammal Commission would chair the 

committee. The strategy should include the following 

elements:

Funding for recovery: The comprehensive 

national strategy would include a separate fund 

for the specifi c purpose of addressing research and 

management needs for endangered, threatened, and 

depleted marine mammals. Funding levels would be 

determined annually and reported to Congress for its 

consideration during the budget process.

Prioritizing recovery efforts: The strategy would 

establish and be based on clear, objective criteria 

for assessing recovery needs including, among 

other things, risk of extinction, critical information 

gaps, expected conservation benefi ts, competing 

conservation needs, and related socioeconomic 

concerns. Prioritization would be based on structured 

and transparent risk/benefi t analysis. 

Monitoring, reporting, and evaluation: On an 

ongoing basis, the types of information sought by 

the Commission to complete this current report 

should be readily available for consideration by 

all interested parties, including Congress, the 

responsible agencies, and non-governmental 

stakeholders. To that end, expenditures, activities, 

and results of the committee would be reported 

annually in the Marine Mammal Commission’s 

Annual Report to Congress. The purpose of such 

information is to inform and adapt recovery 

processes by assessing past effectiveness, adjusting 

for existing shortcomings, and setting future 

directions. By measuring progress and identifying 

successes, problems, and ineffi ciencies, the strategy 

would provide a mechanism for holding the 

relevant agencies, including the Marine Mammal 

Commission, accountable for marine mammal and 

marine ecosystem conservation.

Adjusting total budget to needs: As the world’s 

human population grows, the demands placed on 

ocean resources will increase. So, too, will the 

threats to many endangered, threatened, and depleted 

marine mammals and the ecosystems of which they 

are a part. Consequently, the total budget needs for 

conservation of endangered, threatened, and depleted 

taxa will change over time. Costs might decrease if 

recovery programs are successful and taxa recover. 

Alternatively, costs might increase if recovery 

programs are not successful or additional taxa are 

listed. A risk- and effectiveness-based assessment 

process will provide an orderly guide for appraisal 

and adjustment of overall budgetary needs.

The Marine Mammal Commission believes that 

the activities undertaken to satisfy this single 

recommendation will lead to more effective and 

cost-effective implementation of recovery programs 

within the conservation framework defi ned in the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered 

Species Act. More effective implementation is 

essential to address growing conservation challenges 

in a rapidly changing world.

The Marine Mammal Commission recommends that Congress require the development and 

implementation of a comprehensive national strategy for determining (a) the annual funding 

requirements for research, monitoring, and recovery actions for endangered, threatened, and depleted 

marine mammals, and (b) how those funds should be distributed to ensure that recovery efforts are 

optimally effective and cost-effective. The strategy should be developed and updated at least annually 

by a standing committee consisting of representatives from the responsible agencies.

1

As part of the 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, 

Congress 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.” This report is the Commission’s response to 

that charge.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531 

et seq.) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

(16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq.) are the principal legislative 

instruments in the United States for protecting marine 

mammals. Together, those statutes affi rm a deep national 

interest in conserving endangered marine mammals and 

establish a corresponding commitment to promote their 

survival and recovery.

The fi ndings of the Endangered Species Act include the 

following (paraphrased from section 2 of the Act):

x Some wild species in the United States have been 

rendered extinct as a consequence of economic 

growth and development untempered by adequate 

conservation action;

x Other species have become so depleted in numbers 

that they are in danger of extinction;

x These species are of aesthetic, ecological, 

educational, historical, recreational, and scientifi c 

value to the Nation;

x The United States has an international obligation to 

conserve the various species facing extinction; and

x The development and maintenance of conservation 

programs, with federal fi nancial assistance and 

other incentives, is key to meeting the Nation’s 

commitments and safeguarding its heritage of wild 

species for the benefi t of all citizens.

The Endangered Species Act’s stated purposes are—

x to provide a means of conserving the ecosystems on 

which endangered and threatened species depend;

x to provide programs for conserving endangered and 

threatened species; and

x to take steps for achieving the purposes of the various 

wildlife treaties and conventions to which the United 

States is a signatory.

The fi ndings of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

include the following (paraphrased from section 2 of the 

Act):

x Certain species and population stocks of marine 

mammals are, or may be, in danger of extinction or 

depletion as a result of human activities;

x Such species and population stocks should not be 

permitted to diminish beyond the point at which 

they cease to be signifi cant functioning elements 

of the ecosystem, and measures should be taken to 

“replenish” those that have so diminished;

x Our knowledge of the ecology and population 

dynamics of marine mammals and of the factors 

affecting their ability to reproduce is inadequate;

x The protection and conservation of marine mammals 

and their habitats are necessary to assure the 

continued availability of economic and other benefi ts 

derived from these animals; and

x Marine mammals are of great aesthetic and 

recreational, as well as economic, signifi cance, and it 

is the sense of Congress that they should be protected 

and encouraged to exist at optimum sustainable 

population levels, keeping in mind the carrying 

capacity of their habitat.

The primary objective of the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act is to maintain the health and stability of the marine 

ecosystem. This objective is to be accomplished, in part, 

by maintaining marine mammals within their optimum 

sustainable population range so that they constitute 

signifi cant functioning elements of the ecosystems of 

which they are a part.

The citizens of the United States, through their 

representatives in Congress and the wording of the two 

statutes, have articulated the importance they place on 

preserving wild species and, in particular, on maintaining 

marine mammal populations at levels well above what 

would place them at risk of extinction. The Commission 

interpreted the 2004 directive from Congress as a desire 

INTRODUCTION
2
3

to evaluate how well we as a society and as a nation are 

satisfying those objectives, particularly with regard to 

marine mammals. It was in this context that the Marine 

Mammal Commission prepared this report to advise 

on whether extant species and populations of marine 

mammals are viable and whether efforts to protect them 

(and, by inference, ensure their viability) have been costeffective.

RESPONSE TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTIVE

After consultation with congressional staff, the 

Commission interpreted the directive to mean that 

Congress was most interested in endangered marine 

mammals occurring entirely or regularly in areas under 

U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, the Commission focused its 

analyses on the 22 marine mammal species, subspecies,

and populations (referred to generally in this report as 

“taxa”) currently listed as endangered or threatened under 

the Endangered Species Act or designated as depleted 

under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (Table 1). 

The Commission also understood that the purpose of the 

directive was to obtain an assessment of the effectiveness 

with which funding was being used to implement 

recovery programs for the most endangered marine 

mammals, rather than an evaluation and comparison of 

the full range of possible societal costs associated with 

those programs.

To guide its response to the congressional directive, the 

Commission formed a steering committee (Appendix 

1), reviewed systems for identifying imperiled species 

(Lowry et al. 2007; Appendix 2), reviewed the activities 

and status of protection programs (Weber and Laist 2007; 

Appendix 3), convened a workshop of experts to review 

population viability analysis (PVA) (Marine Mammal 

Commission 2007a, Appendix 4), and, with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, convened a case-study review 

of the cost-effectiveness of the North Atlantic right whale 

recovery program (Reeves et al. 2007; Appendix 5). 

With the white papers and workshop reports in hand, the 

Commission proceeded with the analyses summarized in 

this report.

Figure 1. The Antillean manatee, one of three subspecies of 

the West Indian manatee, occurs in waters around 

Puerto Rico and elsewhere in the Caribbean.

(Photograph © Avampini/ V & W /SeaPics.com)
4

Table 1. Endangered, threatened, and depleted marine mammals in U.S. waters (in approximate order of estimated abundance), and threats to their 

survival (in no particular order); see Appendices 2 and 3 for more detail.

Taxon Listing status Approx. number Percent of Ka Trend last decade Rec/Cons Planb Threats (known or considered likely)

Caribbean monk seal(Monachus tropicalis) Endangered 0 0 Extinct – –

AT1 killer whalec

(Orcinus orca) Depleted 7 ~40% Declining – Prey availability, pollutants, disturbance from vessel traffi c, small population effects

Southern resident killer whale(Orcinus orca) Endangered 90 <60% Variable 2005 (D)

Prey availability, pollutants, disturbance from vessel traffi c including whale-watching, coastal 

development, small population effects

Eastern North Pacifi c right whale

(Eubalaena japonica) Endangeredd <100 <5% Unknown 1991 (A) Fishery interactions, vessel strikes, small population effects

Puerto Rico Antillean manateee

(Trichechus inunguis) Endangeredd 150-360 Unknown Stable 1986 (A) Fishery interactions, pollutants, vessel strikes, coastal development, small population effects

Cook Inlet beluga whale(Delphinapterus leucas) Depleted ~300 ~20% Declining 2005 (D)

Fishery interactions, pollutants, disturbance, subsistence harvest, coastal development, small population effects

North Atlantic right whale(Eubalaena glacialis) Endangeredd ~300 <10% Declining 2005 (A) Fishery interactions, vessel strikes, small population effects

Hawaiian monk seal(Monachus shauinslandi) Endangered ~1,100 <40% Declining 2007 (A)

Fishery interactions, prey availability, disease, harmful algal blooms, disturbance, coastal development, climate change, entanglement, shark predation

Southern sea otter(Enhydra lutris nereis) Threatened ~2,800 Unknown Increasing 2003 (A) Fishery interactions, disease, harmful algal blooms, pollutants, vessel strikes, coastal development

Blue whale(Balaenoptera musculus) Endangeredd >3,000 <10% Increasingf 2006 (D) None known at the population level

Florida manatee(Trichechus manatus latirostris) Endangeredd ~3,300 Unknown Increasingf 2001 (A)

Fishery interactions, disease, harmful algal blooms, vessel strikes, coastal development, loss of warmwater refuges, fl ood gates/navigation locks, habitat degradation

Humpback whale(Megaptera novaeangliae) Endangeredd >7,000 Unknown Increasingf 1991 (A) Fishery interactions, vessel strikes
5

Guadalupe fur seal(Arctocephalus townsendi) Threatened ~7,500 Unknown Increasing – Fishery interactionsWestern Arctic bowhead whale(Balaena mysticetus) Endangeredd ~10,500 ~40% Increasing – Fishery interactions, oil and gas development, noise, vessel strikes, climate change

Fin whale(Balaenoptera physalus) Endangeredd >12,000 Unknown Increasingf 2006 (D) None known at the population level

Sperm whale(Physeter macrocephalus) Endangeredd >15,000 Unknown Unknown 2006 (D) Noise

Mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin(Tursiops truncatus)

Depleted ~33,000 Unknown Unknown Being developed Fishery interactions, disease, harmful algal blooms, pollutants, coastal development

Western Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) Endangered ~38,500 ~20% Stable? 2007 (D) Fishery interactions, prey availability, killer whale predation

Southwest Alaska sea otter(Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Threatened ~42,000 <20% Declining Being developed Predation by killer whales, disease

Eastern Steller sea lion(Eumetopias jubatus) Threatened ~45,000 Unknown Increasing 2007 (D) Fishery interactions, prey availability, killer whale predation

Eastern Pacifi c fur seal, Pribilof 

Islands population(Callorhinus ursinus)

Depleted ~688,000 ~40% Declining 1993 (A) Fishery interactions, prey availability, disturbance from coastal (industrial) development

Sei whale(Balaenoptera borealis) Endangeredd Unknown Unknown Unknown 1998 (D) None known at the population level

a “K” is the environmental carrying capacity, which is defi ned as the largest population the environment may support over time; carrying capacity may itself vary with natural changes in 

environmental conditions. In the majority of cases, K is not known with confi dence.

b “Rec/Cons Plan” indicates whether a recovery or conservation plan has been drafted (D) or adopted (A), and the latest year of such action.c AT1 killer whales comprise a genetically distinct population of killer whales that inhabits coastal water of the Gulf of Alaska principally between Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet.d Status is based on the species as a whole rather than individual populations or other groups below the species level.e The Puerto Rico population is the only part of the Antillean manatee subspecies (part of the West Indian manatee species) occurring in U.S. waters.f At least some populations (or areas) are thought to be changing as stated.

7

but that may require the extra protection and active 

management provided for threatened or endangered 

species on an ongoing basis. The Hawaiian monk seal 

may be one such species.

x Taxa with the potential to recover but that require 

extra protection and active management until they 

have done so. Most listed species fall within this 

category.

x Taxa that have recovered. The eastern North Pacifi c 

population of gray whales has recovered to the 

extent that it has been delisted under the Endangered 

Species Act.

x Taxa that are not currently at risk of extinction and 

do not require the special protections or active 

management afforded by the Endangered Species Act 

so long as the protections of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act are maintained. Most marine 

mammals are in this category.

The primary distinguishing elements of these categories 

are a taxon’s (1) inherent potential for recovery and 

persistence, and (2) dependence on human intervention 

(e.g., policy decisions and management actions) to 

address threats. These two elements are becoming more 

entwined as the effects of human activities become 

more nearly ubiquitous and as the boundary between 

anthropogenic and natural risk factors becomes less 

clear (as in the case of climate change). In general, 

viability analyses incorporate both anthropogenic and 

natural factors that may infl uence a population’s risk of 

extinction.

SYSTEMS FOR IDENTIFYING SPECIES AT RISK OF EXTINCTION

Assessments of extinction risk underlie most systems for 

identifying species and populations in need of additional 

protection or intervention. With increasing information 

about species at risk, these systems are becoming more 

quantitative and objective. In the United States the 

primary list used for identifying species at risk is the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora maintained by the Fish and Wildlife Service 

under the Endangered Species Act. The most common 

The Endangered Species Act defi nes an “endangered 

species”1

 as one that is in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a signifi cant portion of its range. Hence, “risk 

of extinction” is the ideal variable for evaluating and 

comparing degrees of endangerment among taxa. For the 

purpose of this review, we defi ne “biological viability” 

(or simply “viability”) to mean the potential for a taxon 

to persist far into the future with appropriate management 

of human-related threats. In general terms, species are 

often characterized as being either viable or not viable 

(implying a high or low potential for such persistence). 

However, a middle ground clearly exists between these 

two extremes. The transition from viable to not viable 

has been the subject of extensive research aimed at 

identifying the “minimum viable population.” This term 

was based on the idea that a declining population would 

reach a predictable point at which factors driving it 

toward extinction would dominate and recovery would 

be impossible or highly unlikely. This approach has given 

way to a growing body of empirical data illustrating that 

for any given species the transition from viable to not 

viable is determined by a variety of factors, both natural 

and anthropogenic, and the location of the threshold for 

such transition cannot be readily and reliably predicted.

For many marine mammal taxa, the existing information 

is not suffi cient to judge their viability with a high level 

of confi dence. For practical purposes, however, all 

marine mammal taxa must fall into one of the following 

categories:

x Taxa that are extinct. These taxa cannot recover. 

The Caribbean monk seal and Steller sea cow are 

examples.

x Taxa that are almost certain to become extinct in 

the near future. The persistence of such taxa is 

improbable and there is little hope that they will 

continue to persist or can be saved, irrespective of 

human efforts. The AT1 stock of killer whales appears 

to fall in this category.

x Taxa with the potential to persist far into the future 

1

 The Act recognizes subspecies and distinct population segments as 

manageable units under the rubric “species.”

THE MOST ENDANGERED MARINE MAMMALS 

AND THEIR VIABILITY
8

international list is the Red List of Threatened Species 

developed by IUCN–The World Conservation Union. The 

U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act identifi es marine 

mammal species in need of additional protection based 

on their ability to function within their ecosystems rather 

than their risk of extinction. In practice, these species 

are designated as depleted if they fall below 60 percent 

of their estimated historic population level (42 Fed.

Reg. 12010, 42 Fed. Reg. 64548). Any species listed as 

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species 

Act is automatically designated as depleted under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The Endangered Species Act identifi es fi ve factors (16 

U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1)) that must be considered during 

listing decisions:

(1) the present or threatened destruction, modifi cation, or 

curtailment of a species’ habitat or range;

(2) overutilization of the species for commercial, 

recreational, scientifi c, or educational purposes;

(3) disease or predation;

(4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and

(5) other natural or manmade factors affecting the 

species’ continued existence.

The IUCN system has been developed over several 

decades and is applied over a range of geographical 

scales from global to regional or national. It also uses 

multiple criteria to indicate extinction risk for various 

conservation units (i.e., species, subspecies, and 

geographic populations). Each unit is assessed in a 

stepwise manner against a set of quantitative criteria or 

decision rules based on, among other things, reduction in 

population size, geographic range and area of occupancy, 

number of mature individuals, population structure, and 

analytical estimation of extinction probabilities. A species 

conservation unit that meets one or more of the criteria 

is assigned to the most protective of those possible 

categories (e.g., critically endangered, endangered, 

vulnerable, or near threatened).

INFORMATION NEEDS FOR ASSESSING VIABILITY

Whether under the Endangered Species Act or the 

IUCN system, assessments of extinction risk or viability 

depend on the availability of key types of information. 

Initial marine mammal listings under the Endangered 

Species Act or its predecessors were based on qualitative 

assessments of limited quantitative data—although in 

some circumstances very limited data might still be 

very compelling. For example, listings of large whales 

(i.e., blue, fi n, sei, humpback, right, bowhead and sperm 

whales) were based on their severe reductions as a 

result of commercial whaling and concern that existing 

international management was inadequate to ensure their 

conservation. Abundance was, and probably still is, the 

most common single consideration in listing decisions. 

However, depending on circumstances, other factors 

also are important determinants of extinction risk for 

a species. An abundant population may still be at risk 

if it is experiencing a signifi cant, prolonged decline of 

undetermined or poorly managed cause(s) or if its habitat 

is being degraded or will be degraded in the near future, 

and so on. The Endangered Species Act addresses such 

circumstances with its all-inclusive listing factor of 

“other natural or manmade factors affecting the species’ 

continued existence.”

A comprehensive assessment of extinction risk (or, 

conversely, population viability) requires information on 

the following:

x population structure (e.g., species, subspecies, distinct 

population segments);

x population dynamics (e.g., numbers of individuals, 

age and sex structure, rates of reproduction and 

survival);

x population ecology and health (e.g., habitat, predators 

and prey, disease, parasites, contaminants)

x factors that apply with special force to small 

populations (e.g., social dysfunction, inbreeding, and 

environmental change); and

x current and projected threats (e.g., human-caused 

mortality, habitat destruction).

Population Structure: Identifi cation of the appropriate 

conservation unit should be the fi rst step in assessment 

of extinction risk (Taylor 2005). Most species of marine 

mammals exist as multiple populations that are discrete 

from one another to varying degrees and that occupy 

different parts of the species’ overall range (Reeves et al. 

2004). Different populations can be subjected to different 

environmental conditions and to different types and levels 

of threat. In extreme cases, one or more populations of 

a single species may be endangered or even extirpated 

while other populations of that same species are thriving. 

The contrast between the substantial recovery of the 

gray whale population in the eastern North Pacifi c, 

the continued very low numbers of gray whales in the 

western North Pacifi c, and the extinction of the gray 

whale population in the North Atlantic illustrates the 

importance of recognizing different populations of the 

same species and managing them individually.
9

Important biological and ecological distinctions among 

populations may be subtle and diffi cult to discern without 

up-to-date scientifi c approaches. A variety of indicators 

have been studied (e.g., geography, demography, 

morphology; Dizon et al. 1991) using a variety of 

techniques (e.g., tagging, telemetry, photo-identifi cation). 

More recently, genetic studies have dominated this fi eld, 

revealing differences that often were not discernible using 

other methods (e.g., Reeves et al. 2004). Such insights 

are vital to understanding and maintaining the role of 

marine mammal populations as functioning elements of 

their ecosystems. Eastern and western Steller sea lions, 

southwest Alaska sea otters, and southern resident killer 

whales are three examples where population units below 

the species level have been explicitly recognized in listing 

actions under the Endangered Species Act, and where 

the recognition of such structure is proving essential 

to conservation (Taylor 2005). Better information on 

population structure is needed for many other listed 

marine mammals, as well as for non-listed species that 

may have population segments that merit listing.

Population Dynamics: For any particular population, 

determination of status requires information on a suite of 

parameters, including population size and distribution, 

vital rates such as reproduction and mortality, and age 

and sex structure, each of which may vary over time and 

space. Under the best circumstances, such data are often 

diffi cult to collect and may require years or decades of 

research and monitoring.

Directed research over the past 30 years or more has 

generated valuable long-term datasets for Florida 

manatees, Hawaiian monk seals, North Atlantic right 

whales, bowhead whales, southern sea otters, northern 

fur seals, Steller sea lions, and southern resident 

killer whales, all of which are depleted, threatened, or 

endangered taxa. For many other taxa, including some 

that are not listed, data on key demographic parameters 

are sparse, outdated, or entirely lacking (e.g., fi n, sei, 

sperm, and blue whales; see Appendix 2; National 

Marine Fisheries Service 1998, 2006a, 2006b). Often 

assessments are based on crude population estimates 

generated from data collected opportunistically or on 

default values derived from related, better-studied taxa. 

Hence, such assessments can involve great uncertainty. 

Even rudimentary data are lacking for a number of nonlisted species (e.g., many beaked whales, many North 

Pacifi c cetaceans, ice-associated seals; see Carretta et al. 

2007, Angliss and Outlaw 2007). Thus, it is likely that 

some marine mammal taxa qualify for listing as depleted, 

threatened, or endangered but are not recognized as such.

Population Health and Ecology: The status of a taxon 

is infl uenced by the health and condition of individuals 

within the population, their biotic interactions with 

other taxa (e.g., predators, prey, parasites, symbionts, 

biotoxins), and by the physical and chemical 

characteristics of their environment (e.g., temperature, 

salinity, currents, bottom topography, contaminants). 

The interplay of these factors determines the overall 

health of a population and, more broadly, creates the 

ecological structure of the ecosystem in which the taxon 

exists. Understanding the nature of such structure lies at 

the heart of the ecosystem approach to conservation and 

management. Any change in that structure may affect the 

population or species through a variety of mechanisms 

and pathways. Population ecology has been characterized 

qualitatively for many marine mammal species, but 

quantitative evaluation is an extremely challenging task, 

generally requiring years of study and multidisciplinary 

research approaches. Such evaluation, however diffi cult, 

can be essential for distinguishing natural trends and 

variation from changes driven by human activities. This 

distinction is frequently at the center of controversies 

involving recovery actions.

Factors Affecting Small Populations: Small populations 

are susceptible to certain factors (“small-population 

factors”) that elevate their risk of extinction. Such factors 

are often referred to as “Allee” effects (Allee 1931) 

and include inbreeding, disruption of social structure, 

unfavorable environmental conditions, demographic 

stochasticity (e.g., the chances of skewed sex ratios), 

and various types of catastrophes (e.g., severe weather, 

disease). The population size at which vulnerability to 

these factors becomes signifi cant is diffi cult to determine 

and varies by species and circumstances. When these 

factors begin to feed back on themselves in a manner 

that hastens a population’s decline toward extinction, the 

population is said to have entered an “extinction vortex” 

(Gilpin and Soulé 1986), which, although possibly 

reversible, signifi cantly exacerbates the conservation 

challenge. The most recent research emphasizes the 

genetic consequences of small population size as a serious 

factor contributing to the risk of extinction (O’Grady 

et al. 2006). Small-population factors are not well 

characterized for marine mammals, but they should be 

considered when evaluating degree of endangerment.

Threats: Most, but not all, of the currently endangered, 

threatened, or depleted marine mammal taxa were reduced 

as a result of poorly managed or unmanaged commercial 

exploitation prior to the 1970s. Although considerable 

steps have been taken over the last few decades to reduce 
10

or eliminate such exploitation and some taxa have 

recovered, not all of them have responded as anticipated 

(even taking account of the inherently slow growth rates 

characteristic of marine mammal populations). A variety 

of risk factors (Table 1) have constrained recovery, 

including interactions with fi sheries, collisions with 

vessels, entanglement in marine debris, and changes in 

habitat (e.g., reductions in prey availability, disturbances 

that disrupt normal feeding or reproductive behavior). It 

also is possible that the ecosystems in which these taxa 

occur have switched to alternative states, either naturally 

or as a result of human activities. A number of threats 

may affect each of these taxa, either independently or 

synergistically, and recovery efforts must address their 

cumulative impact (Reynolds et al. 2005).

Managers are increasingly turning to formal risk 

assessment to manage threats to marine mammals. Risk 

assessment requires information on the nature of the 

threats, cause-and-effect relationships, responsiveness 

to management efforts, and relative signifi cance of the 

threats over time. Whereas direct threats (e.g., collisions, 

entanglement) often can be documented by examining 

carcasses or wounds, other threats may be more 

diffi cult to identify, assess, and mitigate. Investigators 

frequently must rely on correlations between observed 

population trends and potential risk factors to indicate 

which factors might be playing a signifi cant role. For 

example, depletion of prey resources was regarded as a 

possible contributing factor in the decline of Hawaiian 

monk seals in a portion of the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands during the early 1990s and in the decline of the 

western Steller sea lion population in the 1970s to 1990s. 

Despite extensive research on both species, the relative 

importance of potential causes such as overfi shing and 

natural shifts in oceanic regimes (conditions) continues 

to be debated by experts (National Marine Fisheries 

Service 2007a,b). Projecting the future effects of such 

risk factors is even more challenging. Analysis of threats 

is nevertheless central to any assessment of population 

viability and is an area where more research, more data, 

and greater predictive capability are needed.

INTEGRATING INFORMATION USING POPULATION VIABILITY

ANALYSIS

To date, no simple method has been universally accepted 

for integrating all relevant information into an analysis of 

extinction risk. In the Commission’s view, the preferred 

approach would involve quantitative analysis of all 

relevant species-specifi c factors pertaining to population 

structure, population dynamics, ecology, small-population 

factors, and threats (both current and projected). It would 

integrate all of the pertinent information, compensate 

for vital but missing data by using the best available 

default values, and recognize and explicitly account for 

uncertainty. It would be applied consistently across taxa, 

and would be suffi ciently general to apply to data-poor 

species while fl exible enough to incorporate new and 

detailed information as available.

With these requirements in mind, the Commission 

believes that population viability analysis (PVA) is the 

preferred framework. Properly conducted, PVA integrates 

information into a statistical model to estimate a 

population’s risk of extinction over a set period based on 

known and projected threats. The results are probabilistic, 

which is appropriate for predictions incorporating 

uncertainty (like the paradigm of weather prediction). 

Results indicating a high probability of extinction may 

refl ect an impact by anthropogenic factors rather than 

the population’s intrinsic ability to reproduce and grow. 

If those factors can be identifi ed and addressed by 

effective management action, the population’s decline 

could be reversed to allow recovery. Thus, a predicted 

declining trend may simply underscore a need for 

management attention rather than an inevitable decline 

toward extinction. Presentations and discussions at the 

Commission’s PVA workshop (Appendix 4) indicated that 

signifi cant methodological progress is being made and 

that PVA is becoming a more widely accepted assessment 

tool.

IDENTIFYING THE “MOST ENDANGERED”

MARINE MAMMALS

Formal quantitative PVAs have been conducted only for 

a small subset of the 22 marine mammal taxa currently 

listed as endangered or threatened or designated as 

depleted: southern resident killer whale, Cook Inlet beluga 

whale, North Atlantic right whale, Florida manatee, 

western Steller sea lion, and eastern Steller sea lion 

(Appendix 4). In the absence of similar analyses for the 

remaining taxa, the Commission was unable to compare 

PVA results for all listed species to make a conclusive, 

quantitatively-based ranking of degrees of endangerment.

Recognizing that limitation, but wishing to be as 

responsive as possible to the congressional directive, 

the Commission identifi ed the most endangered marine 

mammals in U.S. waters based on the collective 

judgment of its Committee of Scientifi c Advisors on 

Marine Mammals. The committee based its judgments 

primarily on the information summarized in Table 1, 
11

including absolute population size, trends, and the 

degree to which the main threats were being managed 

effectively. In general, “most endangered” taxa include 

those that may be characterized according to some 

combination of (1) least numerous, (2) failing to recover 

at the expected rate, or (3) not receiving some needed 

protection or intervention. The Caribbean monk seal was 

excluded from this list because it is thought to be extinct. 

As described below, the committee judged the most 

endangered taxa in U.S. waters, in order of decreasing 

jeopardy, to be the following:

x AT1 killer whales

x eastern North Pacifi c right whales

x Cook Inlet beluga whales

x southern resident killer whales

x Puerto Rico population of Antillean manatees

x North Atlantic right whales

x Hawaiian monk seals

AT1 Killer Whales: The AT1 pod of killer whales 

(Figure 2) inhabits the northern rim of the Gulf of 

Alaska from Prince William Sound (considered its 

principal habitat) west to the Kenai Fiords near Cook 

Inlet. Movement and association patterns, prey selection 

(they prey on other marine mammals), vocal dialect, and 

genetics all indicate that AT1 killer whales form a distinct 

group, and they were recognized as such beginning in 

1984 (Leatherwood et al. 1984a, Heise et al. 1992). At 

that time, the pod consisted of 22 individuals identifi ed 

on the basis of photographs of distinctive markings, 

including three juveniles (indicating 

recent reproduction). All 22 animals 

were observed regularly between 

1984 and 1988 (Matkin et al. 1999a).

In the spring of 1989, spilled oil 

from the tanker Exxon Valdez fouled 

much of Prince William Sound and 

spread westward through the AT1 

pod’s range. At least 11 members 

disappeared by 1992 (Matkin et 

al. 1993, 1994). Another pod of 

killer whales (AB pod) that was 

seen swimming through a slick of 

Exxon Valdez oil also lost a large 

number of members during the fi rst 

two years after the spill. Although 

the existing evidence does not 

prove that the disappearance of the 

AT1 killer whales was caused by 

the Exxon Valdez spill, it strongly 

suggests a link. In light of their decline, AT1 killer whales 

were designated as depleted under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act in 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 31322). The most 

recent count (2006) was seven whales, four of which were 

females, and the pod has not produced a single surviving 

calf since 1984 (C. Matkin, North Gulf Oceanic Society, 

pers. comm.).

In addition to oil spills, known or potential threats include 

disturbance by whale-watching boats, depletion of prey 

resources, and interactions with commercial fi shing gear. 

The AT1 group’s recent failure to reproduce could be 

related to breeding behavior or to a physiological problem 

caused by oil contamination.

Given the very small population size, the lack of 

reproduction for the past two decades, and the fact that 

only four older females remain in the group, a formal 

model is not needed to demonstrate that the chance of the 

AT1 group persisting over the long term is very small. 

The pod likely will disappear as the remaining animals 

die. Accordingly, the Marine Mammal Commission 

concludes that AT1 killer whales probably are not 

biologically viable. This conclusion does not mean that 

further monitoring and protection are unjustifi ed. Studies 

of this group of whales could provide rare insights into 

extinction processes. For example, continued monitoring 

could help answer such questions as whether remaining 

animals merge with another regional pod of killer whales, 

or whether other pods begin to exploit the prey resources 

formerly targeted by the AT1 whales.

Figure 2. AT1 killer whale photographed in Prince William Sound, Alaska. (Photograph 

courtesy of Craig Matkin, North Gulf Oceanic Society)
12

North Pacifi c Right Whale: The North Pacifi c right 

whale (Figure 3) was severely depleted by commercial 

whaling in the mid to late 1800s. The species appears to 

consist of a western population off Asia and an eastern 

population off North America. The western population, 

distributed primarily in coastal waters off Japan and 

Russia, is poorly studied 

but may number in the 

hundreds. The eastern 

population historically 

inhabited the Gulf of 

Alaska and southeastern 

Bering Sea; it may number 

fewer than 50 animals.

In the early to mid1900s eastern North 

Pacifi c right whales were 

observed occasionally 

in the Gulf of Alaska 

and southeastern Bering 

Sea. In the early 1960s 

illegal whaling by the 

Soviet Union apparently 

removed more than 350 

right whales in the eastern 

North Pacifi c (Yablokov 

1995), curtailing any 

recovery that may have 

been occurring at the time. From the 1960s to 1996, right 

whales were sighted infrequently in the region between 

Mexico, Hawaii, and Alaska. In the summer of 1996, four 

right whales were seen in the southeastern Bering Sea 

(Goddard and Rugh 1998). Almost every summer since 

then, surveys by the National Marine Fisheries Service 

have documented at least a few animals in that area. In 

the summer of 2004 a satellite tag placed on one animal 

led researchers to an area north of the Alaska Peninsula 

where an estimated 23 right whales were seen, including 

three mother-calf pairs (Wade et al. 2006). The latter 

constitute the fi rst defi nite evidence of calving in nearly a 

century. Photo-identifi cation records and biopsy samples 

collected between 1996 and the end of 2004 provide 

evidence of at least 23 individuals, including 7 females 

(Richard LeDuc, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 

pers. comm.).

Clearly, the status of North Pacifi c right whales, 

particularly the eastern population, is precarious. The 

locations of calving grounds and migration routes remain 

unknown, as do the risks to whales in different parts of 

their range. Given what is known about North Atlantic 

right whales, vessel collisions and entanglement in 

fi shing gear likely pose risks wherever North Pacifi c 

right whales overlap in time and space with ship traffi c or 

particular kinds of fi shing gear (e.g., gillnets and traps or 

pots with connecting and/or vertical lines). Risk factors 

associated

Figure 3. North Pacifi c right whales sighted and tagged in the 

Bering Sea in August 2004. (Photograph by John 

Durban, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, and 

courtesy of National Marine Fisheries Service) 

with small populations are highly relevant, particularly 

for the eastern population: the male-biased sex ratio of 

individuals in the eastern population over the last decade 

could refl ect demographic stochasticity (i.e., more male 

offspring may have been born by chance) or differential 

survival (females may be more susceptible than males to 

a particular risk factor).

The viability of North Pacifi c right whales has not 

been analyzed formally. If, as seems plausible, the 

23 individuals identifi ed to date account for a large 

proportion of the remaining population in the eastern 

North Pacifi c, a formal PVA would not alter the obvious 

conclusion that this population is at a very high risk 

of extinction. The mother-calf pairs observed in 2004 

indicate that the population is still reproductively active 

and therefore likely to be viable with a potential for 

recovery if given proper protection. Because of the 
13

naturally low reproductive rate of right whales, recovery 

necessarily will be a long, slow process.

Cook Inlet Beluga Whales: Beluga whales (Figure 4)

occur in a number of populations throughout the 

Arctic and sub-Arctic. Evidence indicates that the 

population in Cook Inlet, Alaska, has been genetically 

and demographically isolated for thousands of years 

(O’Corry-Crowe et al. 1997). An aerial survey suggested 

an abundance of about 1,300 beluga whales in Cook Inlet 

in 1979 (Calkins 1989). Their abundance prior to that is 

not known, although they were a familiar sight to people 

in the Anchorage area until recently.

Systematic annual surveys began in 1993. Results 

indicate a population decline of at least 50 percent by 

the late 1990s, and the decline appears to have continued 

to the present. The 2006 estimate was 302, suggesting 

a decline of more than 75 percent in slightly over 25 

years. The decline in numbers has been accompanied by 

a change in distribution and the whales are now confi ned 

mainly to coastal and estuarine areas of the inlet’s shallow 

upper reaches (National Marine Fisheries Service 2005, 

Rugh et al. 2000, 2005; Speckman and Piatt 2000).

Although subsistence hunting for Cook Inlet beluga 

whales by Alaska Natives has occurred for centuries, 

the rate of removals increased sharply in the mid to late 

1990s, causing or contributing to a rapid decline in the 

population. In 1999 Congress enacted a moratorium 

on hunting and in 2000 the National Marine Fisheries 

Service designated the population as depleted under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act (65 Fed. Reg.

34590–34597). From 2000 to 2006, only fi ve whales 

were taken legally. In spite of the reduction in removals, 

the population has not recovered as expected and other 

factors are now thought to be suppressing population 

growth. These may include fi shery interactions, 

contaminants and noise associated with oil and gas 

exploration and production, vessel traffi c, waste disposal, 

and urban runoff. Although scientists have assessed 

population abundance and trends since 1993, they have 

obtained few data pertaining to the life history of these 

animals, their ecology, or the above risk factors.

The Cook Inlet beluga whale population became a 

candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act 

in 1991. After lengthy deliberation, including a status 

review in 1998 and two petitions to list the population 

as endangered in 1999, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service decided against listing. The Service’s rationale 

was that subsistence hunting was being addressed through 

new regulations under co-management agreements, 

and no other factor had been identifi ed as having a 

signifi cant adverse effect on the population. IUCN–The 

World Conservation Union listed the Cook Inlet beluga 

population as “critically endangered” in 2006 (Lowry et 

al. 2006). In April 2007 the National Marine Fisheries 

Service responded to a petition from the Center for 

Biological Diversity by proposing to list the Cook Inlet 

beluga whale population as endangered (72 Fed. Reg.

19854–19862), but the actual decision is still pending.

If conditions prevailing in 2006 persist, the probability 

of further decline of this population is about 80 percent 

even with no removals by hunting (D. Goodman, 

Montana State University, pers. comm.). Analyses to 

date make clear that this population is in serious trouble 

and needs vigorous protection. In particular, research 

and management efforts are needed to investigate and 

address factors other than hunting that may be impeding 

recovery. If those factors are identifi ed and addressed, the 

population should be able to recover.

Figure 4. Five stocks of beluga whales are recognized in 

U.S. waters, the most isolated being the Cook 

Inlet stock, which is separated from the other four 

stocks by the Alaska Peninsula. (Photograph © 

Elena Yatsenko www.dreamstime.com)
14

Southern Resident Killer Whales: Southern resident 

(fi sh-eating) killer whales (Figure 5) are a distinct group 

of whales that range from California to British Columbia 

but are found primarily in Puget Sound and coastal waters 

of southern British Columbia. The population consists 

of three relatively independent pods of related animals. 

Individuals in all three pods have been monitored 

annually since 1974, providing detailed records of 

population size and trends, survival, reproduction, and 

age and sex composition. Foraging, movements, and 

behavior patterns also have been studied.

Abundance prior to the late 1800s may have exceeded 

200 animals, based on carrying capacity estimates and 

genetic evidence (Krahn et al. 2002). Since the 1960s 

the population has never numbered more than about 

100 whales. Between 1962 and 1971, 55 whales were 

removed alive for public display, and at least a few 

others died during captures. By 1971 the population was 

estimated to number only 61 whales, and public concerns 

led to a prohibition on captures in U.S. waters beginning 

in 1976 and in British Columbia beginning in 1981. By 

1995, the number of southern resident killer whales had 

increased to 98 whales, but it then declined again to a low 

of 81 in 2001. By 2006 the number had increased to 90 

(National Marine Fisheries Service 2006c).

In 2001 the Center for Biological Diversity and 10 other 

conservation groups petitioned the National Marine 

Fisheries Service to list the southern resident killer whale 

population as endangered. The population was designated 

as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

in 2003 and listed as endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act in 2005 after a lawsuit forced the issue. A PVA 

conducted as part of the listing process (Krahn et al. 2002, 

Krahn et al. 2004) considered a range of realistic scenarios 

involving small-population factors (e.g., catastrophes and 

both demographic and environmental variation), changes 

in carrying capacity, and density dependence. Depending 

on whether survival and reproductive rates were estimated 

from the preceding 29-year history or the most recent 

10 years—which may better refl ect ongoing threats—

estimated extinction risks ranged from negligible to as 

high as 68 to 94 percent over the next 300 years.

Figure 5. A southern resident killer whale (K22) and her calf (K41) photographed in September 2006. As is the case for many marine 

mammal offspring, K41 did not survive its fi rst winter. (Photograph courtesy of Ken Balcomb, Center for Whale Research)
15

The suggested risk factors for southern resident killer 

whales include high levels of contaminants, local or 

regional declines in available prey (particularly chinook 

salmon), and stress from vessel noise and the nearly 

constant attention of whale-watching boats (National 

Marine Fisheries Service 2006c). These human-related 

threats may be exacerbated by the fact that the population 

also is vulnerable to small-population effects. The end 

result is that southern resident killer whales face a serious 

risk of extinction that could easily become more severe 

because much of their summer habitat is surrounded by 

several large metropolitan areas with expanding coastal 

development. Addressing the major risk factors for 

these whales will require creative, aggressive, steadfast 

management; continued monitoring; and carefully 

directed research carried out cooperatively by the United 

States and Canada. If such management and research can 

be implemented effectively, the Commission believes this 

population is viable.

Puerto Rico population of Antillean Manatees: The

Antillean manatee (Figure 6), a subspecies of the West 

Indian manatee, occurs in waters around the Greater 

Antilles and in coastal waters and rivers along the 

Caribbean coast of Central and South America from 

Mexico to Brazil. The only population of this subspecies 

living in U.S. territories occurs in waters around Puerto 

Rico. Most animals in this population rely principally on 

sea grass beds and coastal habitat on the eastern, western, 

and south-central coasts of the island and around Vieques 

Island about 17 miles east of Puerto Rico. The population 

was estimated at 150 to 360 animals in 2005 (MignucciGiannoni 2005). Given the limited number of past surveys 

and differences in the methods used, current population 

trends are uncertain (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007).

Since the mid-1970s at least 156 manatee deaths have 

been reported for this population, with about one-third 

each attributed to anthropogenic, natural, and unknown 

causes (Mignucci-Giannoni et al. 2000, MignucciGiannoni 2006). Manatees have been killed for food 

throughout the Greater Antilles since before the time 

of Columbus (Powell et al. 1981). Although hunting in 

Puerto Rico has been prohibited for decades, poaching 

was the principal source of known human-related 

manatee deaths as recently as the 1980s. Since 1995, 

however, no hunting-related deaths have been reported, 

and boat strikes now appear to be the largest source of 

human-related manatee deaths. The fi rst boat-related 

death was reported in 1981 and, between 1990 and 

2005, at least 30 Puerto Rico manatees died from boat 

strikes (17 percent of all reported deaths in that period; 

Mignucci-Giannoni 2006). Entanglement in gillnets also 

has been a source of mortality, although the number of 

such deaths has declined. Other threats include coastal 

development, which can affect the sea grasses that 

manatees eat and the freshwater they drink, and periodic 

hurricanes that expose shallow nearshore waters to 

high waves and storm surges. Elsewhere in the wider 

Caribbean, manatees have high body burdens of some 

organic contaminants.

The observation of numerous calves in the 2005 survey 

(Mignucci-Giannoni 2005) indicates that these animals 

are reproducing well, but it remains to be seen if the 

birth rate is high enough to offset the mortality rate. If 

human-related threats can be managed effectively and 

the population does not suffer too much from the effects 

of catastrophic events (e.g., hurricanes) or other smallpopulation factors, it should be viable with a potential for 

recovery.

North Atlantic Right Whale: Historically, 

North Atlantic right whales (Figure 7) 

inhabited North Atlantic waters off both 

Europe and North America. Relentless 

commercial whaling from the 11th century 

through the 1920s all but eliminated the 

population off Europe. By the early 1900s, the 

Figure 6. 

The Antillean manatee, a subspecies of the West 

Indian manatee, is nearly identical to the Florida 

subspecies and is mainly distinguishable by its 

range, less robust body, and slight but measurable 

cranial differences. (Photograph © Wayne 

Johnson www.dreamstime.com)
16

This population may be experiencing the effects of smallpopulation factors. Compared to several populations of 

the southern right whale, North Atlantic right whales 

have less genetic diversity and a longer average calving 

interval (Best et al. 2001, Kraus et al. 2001). These 

characteristics could be related to inbreeding, although 

longer calving intervals also may refl ect environmental 

factors affecting food quality or availability and, 

hence, body condition and physiology. Periods of low 

reproduction, such as between 1998 and 2000 when only 

11 births were reported (Waring et al. 2007), may indicate 

vulnerability to stochastic environmental factors such as 

oceanic or climatic variability.

A PVA using data from 1980 through 1998 indicated that 

North Atlantic right whales are not likely to go extinct 

within the next 100 years because of their long life span 

(possibly exceeding 100 years) (Fujiwara and Caswell 

2001). The analysis indicated that their numbers may 

have been increasing at about 2.5 percent per year in the 

early 1980s, but the situation had changed by the late 

1990s when the population was probably either stationary 

or declining slowly. If those trends continue in the future, 

extinction probabilities increase from about 20 percent in 

the next 200 years to 100 percent in the next 500 years. 

The most important factor infl uencing this trend is the 

survival of reproductively active females. Importantly, 

the analysis suggested that reducing the number of deaths 

of reproductive females by just two per year could be 

suffi cient to arrest the decline. Since 1990, 17 of the 28 

right whale deaths attributed to vessel collisions and 

entanglements were females, and 11 of those were known 

to be adults.

The Commission concludes that the North Atlantic right 

whale population is viable, but that reducing collision and 

entanglement-related deaths is necessary for recovery. 

Recovery will take a long time (probably more than 

100 years of effective protection), but the potential for 

recovery has not been lost.

Hawaiian Monk Seal: Hawaiian monk seals (Figure 8) 

occur in six relatively discrete breeding subpopulations 

in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) and a 

growing but small subpopulation scattered throughout 

the main Hawaiian Islands. Hunting by early Polynesian 

settlers likely extirpated the species from the main 

Hawaiian Islands 2,000 years ago, and sporadic hunting 

during the 1800s by commercial sealers, feather hunters, 

and ship-wrecked sailors seeking food severely reduced 

the number of remaining monk seals in the outlying, 

uninhabited NWHI (Gilmartin et al. 1983, Ragen 1999). 

North American population had been reduced to a few 

hundred whales. Females accompanied by calves migrate 

annually from winter calving grounds off the southeastern 

United States to feeding grounds off New England and 

southeastern Canada. Adult males and females use the 

same summer feeding grounds, but the areas where most 

adult males and females without calves spend the winter 

are still unknown. Total abundance is uncertain, with a 

recent best estimate of about 300 (Kraus et al. 2001).

Collisions with ships and entanglement in fi shing 

gear, principally lines from lobster traps and gillnets, 

are the major threats. Collisions accounted for 22 and 

entanglements for 6 of the 50 documented deaths between 

1990 and 2006 (Waring et al. 2007, Marine Mammal 

Commission 2007b). These are minimum numbers 

because some carcasses are not detected and the cause 

of death cannot always be determined for those that are. 

Some animals observed entangled disappear and are not 

found again, dead or alive.

Figure 7: North Atlantic right whales photographed off North 

Carolina on 17 November 2007. (Photograph 

courtesy of the University of North Carolina/ 

Wilmington Marine Mammal Program)

Western North Atlantic right whales are relatively well 

studied. Annual research efforts began in the 1980s and 

have expanded steadily since then. Abundance, trends, 

and demographic parameters such as reproduction, 

survival, and age/sex distribution are estimated from 

individual sighting histories based on photographic 

or genetic matching. Reproduction also has been 

documented through annual calf counts in the winter 

calving grounds and the known summer nursery/feeding 

areas. Since 1993, the number of observed calves has 

varied from a low of 1 in 2000 to a high of 31 in 2001 

(Waring et al. 2007).
17

In the late 1800s and early 1900s visitors to some of the 

islands failed to sight a single seal (Rothschild 1893, 

Schauinslandi 1899, Wilder 1905, Dill and Bryan 1912).

The NWHI subpopulations recovered to a considerable 

extent by the 1950s, when the fi rst range-wide counts 

were made (Kenyon 1972). From then through the 1980s, 

the number of monk seals in the NWHI declined, due in 

part to disturbance by Navy and Coast Guard personnel 

stationed on some breeding islands and atolls (Gilmartin 

et al. 1983). As the Navy and Coast Guard reduced the 

level of disturbance, seal numbers at some sites began to 

increase slowly. However, beginning in the early 1990s 

a sharp decline in the largest subpopulation, located at 

French Frigate Shoals, has more than offset the increases 

at other locations (Antonelis et al. 2006). Possible causes 

of this decline include competition from an unsustainable 

episode of commercial lobster fi shing, natural oceanic 

cycles, climate change, competition for prey, shark 

predation, entanglement in derelict fi shing gear, or some 

combination of those and other factors (Craig and Ragen 

1999, Antonelis et al. 2006). Since the 1950s the total 

monk seal population has declined by more than 60 

percent, with only about 1,100 animals now surviving in 

the wild.

Since the early 1980s researchers have tagged and 

observed almost every individual seal in the NWHI 

during seasonal fi eld camps or visits to breeding sites. 

Key demographic parameters (e.g., age/sex composition, 

survival rates, trends in abundance, and reproduction 

rates) are known with a high degree of precision. 

Foraging behavior also has been well studied. No single 

subpopulation presently contains more than about 250 

animals, and some subpopulations already may be 

experiencing small-population effects. At Laysan and 

Lisianski Islands, sex ratios skewed toward males likely 

refl ect a chance occurrence of more male births or lower 

survival of females. Male aggression toward pups and 

females in those subpopulations may be aberrant behavior 

not typical of larger groups.

Because of persistently low juvenile survival, the age 

structure of the population is now distorted by a paucity 

of older juvenile and young adult animals. As a result, 

the number of Hawaiian monk seals will decline further 

before it can increase. The recent proclamation by 

President Bush of the NWHI as the Papahanaumokuakea 

Marine National Monument should provide a mechanism 

for minimizing or preventing many of the types of 

disturbance that have affected this species for the past 

two centuries. Nonetheless, it faces serious challenges 

that must be addressed to promote recovery. In the 

immediate future, management efforts are needed to 

reduce juvenile mortality caused by starvation, shark 

predation, and entanglement in marine debris, and to 

promote co-existence with humans in the main Hawaiian 

Islands (NMFS 2007a). Full recovery is a distant prospect 

at present, but the species is thought to have occupied 

the Hawaiian archipelago for 12 to15 million years 

(Repenning et al. 1979, Fyler et al. 2005) and likely 

has experienced a range of environmental conditions 

and periods of population reduction in the past. With 

dedicated and persistent management efforts, such 

recovery can reasonably be expected in the future.

PAST EXTINCTIONS AND RECOVERIES

A review of past extinctions and recoveries provides a 

useful perspective on the viability of highly endangered 

marine mammals. Many marine mammal populations 

have been severely reduced by human actions, and a few 

have become extinct. 

Figure 8.

Hawaiian monk seal 

at a NWHI coral reef.

(Photograph by James P. 

McVey, courtesy of NOAA 

Photo Library)
18

Northern (Steller’s) sea cows inhabited kelp-forested 

coastlines of the Bering Sea until the second half of the 

18th century. Encountered by Russian explorers in 1741, 

they were exterminated 27 years later by commercial seal 

and sea otter hunters who killed them for food (Stejneger 

1887, Domning 1978). The last confi rmed sighting of a 

Caribbean (West Indian) monk seal was in 1952 (Rice 

1973). The species was probably extinct by the 1960s 

or 1970s, a victim of hunting, disturbance, and habitat 

destruction. The Japanese sea lion (some authorities 

consider it to have been a subspecies related to the 

California sea lion rather than a full species) apparently 

suffered a similar fate, although very little is known 

about its population history. Once present in many parts 

of the Sea of Japan, the last credible report of a Japanese 

sea lion was in 1951 (Rice 1998). As mentioned earlier, 

the North Atlantic population of gray whales apparently 

vanished sometime in the 18th or early 19th century 

(Mead and Mitchell 1984). Whaling was almost certainly 

a contributing, if not the decisive, factor in its demise. 

Most recently a two-month survey of the Yangtze River 

failed to sight a single baiji, or Yangtze River dolphin (Guo 

2006). Surveys since the 1990s had individually sighted 

less than a score of these dolphins. The species, the sole 

representative of the family Lipotidae, may well be extinct.

Some other marine mammal species that were brought 

close to extinction have recovered partially, and a few 

have experienced nearly complete recovery. In almost 

all of these instances, protection from commercial 

exploitation was essential to allow recovery. Many 

populations of fur seals, elephant seals, manatees, sea 

otters, and baleen whales were exploited to a point 

where hunting them was no longer profi table and their 

survival was in doubt. In a few cases (e.g., Guadalupe 

fur seals, Juan Fernandez fur seals, northern elephant 

seals, southern sea otters), numbers were so low that 

the species or population was considered extinct, only 

to make a dramatic resurgence after rediscovery of 

remnant populations and the implementation of protective 

measures (e.g., Bartholomew 1950).

Terrestrial mammals and other taxonomic groups provide 

similar examples (Table 2). Such reversals demonstrate 

the resilience and adaptability of many wild species 

and underscore the importance of avoiding premature 

declarations of non-viability. At the same time, many 

of the examples involve terrestrial mammals and birds 

that were reduced to a few tens of animals and required 

intensive intervention in the form of captive breeding, 

translocations, or “headstart” programs. Such efforts do 

not appear to be feasible for many of the largest marine 

mammals, and it is therefore especially important to 

reduce potential sources of mortality and other factors 

that may impede recovery before marine mammal 

populations reach critically low levels.

The evolutionary history of marine mammal species 

indicates that they have had lengthy persistence times 

(hundreds of thousands to millions of years; Repenning 

1976, Fordyce 2002) and therefore low natural extinction 

rates. Within recorded history, no marine mammal species 

or population is known to have gone extinct as a result of 

natural processes alone.
19

Table 2. Examples of wild populations that have rebounded or are recovering after being reduced to extremely low 

population sizes (Marine Mammal Commission 2007a)

Species, stock, or population

Estimate of minimum 

population size 

(approximate date)

Estimate of 

current wild 

population size 

Source(s) of information

Marine mammals

Northern elephant seal

(Mirounga angustirostris)

20–100

(1890) >175,000 Bartholomew and Hubbs 1960, Stewart et al. 1994

Southern sea otter

(Enhydra lutris nereis)

50

(1938) >2,500 Riedman and Estes 1990

Guadalupe fur seal a

(Arctocephalus townsendi)

70–75

(1955) >27,500 Hubbs 1956, Gallo 1994

Southern right whale

(Eubalaena australis)

<300

(1920) >7,500 Baker and Clapham 2004

Juan Fernandez fur seal

(Arctocephalus philippii)

700–750

(1970) >12,000 Hubbs and Norris 1971, United Nations Environment Programme b

Terrestrial mammals

Black-footed ferret

(Mustela nigripes)

18

(1987) 650 Black-footed ferret recovery team c

Tule elk

(Cervus elaphus nannodes)

28

(1895) 3,200 McCullough et al. 1996, National Park Service 1998

Przewalski horse

(Equus ferus przewalskii)

31

(1945) 175 Wakefi eld et al. 2003

European bison

(Bison bonasus)

54

(1918) 1,700 Pucek 2004

Golden lion tamarin

(Leontopithecus rosalia)

<200

(1970s) 1,500 Smithsonian National Zoological Park d

Birds

Mauritius kestrel

(Falco punctatus)

4

(1974) 800–1,000 Birdlife International e

Chatham island black robin

(Petroica traversi)

5 – one breeding pair

(1979) 250 New Zealand Department of Conservation 2001 f

Whooping crane

(Grus americana)

21

(1944) >300 Canadian Wildlife Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005

California condor

(Gymnogyps californianus)

25–35

(1979) 127 California Department of Fish and Game g

Seychelles warbler

(Acrocephalus sechellensis)

50

(1965) >2,000 Birdlife International

Guam rail

(Gallirallus owstoni)

100

(1983) 400 Smithsonian National Zoological Park h

a

 Considered extinct in the 1930s and early 1940s

b

 http://www.unep-wcmc.org/species/data/species_sheets/juanfern.htm

c

 http://www.blackfootedferret.org

d

 http://nationalzoo.si.edu/ConservationAndScience/EndangeredSpecies/GLTProgram/default.cfm

e

 http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/index.html

f http://www.doc.govt.nz/templates/podcover.aspx?id=32911

g

 http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wi`ldlife/species/t _e_spp/condor

h

 http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Support/AdoptSpecies/AnimalInfo/Guamrail/default.cfm

21

The second part of Congress’ directive was to make 

recommendations regarding the cost-effectiveness of 

current protection programs. Assessing cost-effectiveness 

requires determining both effectiveness and cost.

EFFECTIVENESS OF PROTECTION PROGRAMS

Effectiveness is best determined on the basis of reduction 

in risk of extinction for taxa and degree of recovery 

to a more viable status. Conceptually, the simplest 

measures of effectiveness are (a) the number of species 

or populations prevented from going extinct in the wild, 

and (b) the number showing clear evidence of improved 

status. No marine mammal taxon in U.S. waters has 

gone extinct since passage of the Endangered Species 

Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act2

, and while that 

time frame (about 35 years) is too short for this to be a 

conclusive indicator of effectiveness3, the fact certainly is 

encouraging.

Effectiveness also is diffi cult to judge by reference 

solely to population trends. Over the past decade, 8 of 

the 21 extant taxa considered in this review increased, 6 

declined, 2 appeared to be stable, 1 could be considered 

to have been variable, and the trends of 4 are unknown. 

Although the proportion of listed species with stable 

or increasing populations may be greater now than 

in the 1970s when the two Acts were passed, lack of 

information on abundance and trends for many taxa 

precludes a comprehensive and reliable comparison. 

Furthermore, this kind of comparison is based on status 

“before and after,” whereas the real question requires a 

“treatment/control” comparison; that is, how many of 

these population trends over the past few decades are 

better than they would have been in the absence of 

2 The Caribbean monk seal likely was extinct before those Acts were 

passed, so they were almost certainly too late to contribute to its 

rescue. The species was listed under the Endangered Species Act 

largely as a precautionary gesture with the hope that some animals 

still survived and could be given protection.

3 Some marine mammals live more than 100 years, as illustrated by 

the discovery of a harpoon head from the late 1800s in a bowhead 

whale killed for subsistence purposes in June 2007 (http://www.adn.

com/news/alaska/wildlife /story/8972512p-8888238c.html).

protection measures under the Endangered Species Act 

and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Coarse criteria for measuring effectiveness may be 

misleading as diagnostic tools because protection 

programs generally address multiple threats (Table 1) 

using a variety of measures, some of which may be more 

effective than others. Thus, the overall trend of a given 

taxon may mask certain threat-specifi c accomplishments 

or shortcomings. 

For these reasons, comprehensive evaluation of 

“effectiveness” is diffi cult, particularly given current 

data limitations. At present, we can evaluate in a 

reasonably systematic way some of the components of 

effectiveness—the degree to which certain classes of 

threats have been identifi ed and reduced or mitigated.

Recovery and Conservation Planning: Recovery

plans created under the Endangered Species Act and 

conservation plans created under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act are intended to identify threats, the 

research needed to evaluate them, and the management 

measures necessary to reduce or mitigate them (see 

Appendix 3 for a detailed review of existing plans and 

activities conducted under them). Such plans have been 

initiated, drafted, or adopted for 18 of the 22 taxa listed 

as endangered, threatened, or depleted (Table 1). The 16 

that have been fully drafted or adopted provide generally 

thorough reviews of threats based on information 

available at the time they were prepared, which may have 

been many years ago. Although the threats identifi ed in 

the various plans are often similar (e.g., entanglement, 

ship collision, contaminants, disturbance, and habitat loss 

or degradation), each taxon faces a different combination 

of the spectrum of anthropogenic and natural risk factors. 

Furthermore, the proximate causes of various threats 

and management of their effects can be very specifi c to 

each taxon because of its unique geographic distribution 

and ecology. Thus, with a few major exceptions (e.g., 

commercial whaling and disentanglement of large 

whales), research and management efforts cannot be 

treated as generic across taxa.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF 

PROTECTION PROGRAMS
22

Of the 16 drafted and adopted plans, 8 are at least 10 

years old, are becoming substantively outdated, and 

are not consistent with the most recent procedural 

standards. The older plans identify broad, generic goals 

(e.g., downlisting and delisting) and objectives (e.g., 

minimizing causes of mortality and injury, protecting 

habitat, and monitoring population status and trends). 

Some older plans also identify administrative objectives, 

such as providing certain levels of staff support, 

coordinating activities of involved parties, and updating 

planning documents. The nine plans adopted or drafted 

since 2000 have similar broad goals and objectives 

but also include “objective and measurable criteria” 

for delisting, as required by 1994 amendments to the 

Endangered Species Act. In most cases, the criteria 

involve either population viability analyses to calculate 

extinction probabilities or target population growth rates 

to be achieved over specifi ed lengths of time. Except in a 

few cases, progress toward meeting those criteria has not 

been formally analyzed. For the remaining taxa without a 

recovery or conservation plan (disregarding the Caribbean 

monk seal), broad goals may be apparent to managers, but 

more specifi c objectives and actions should be articulated 

to allow assessment of progress. Completion of initial 

plans would signifi cantly improve the basis for evaluating 

the effectiveness of protection programs.

Although recovery and conservation plans are important 

to guide recovery efforts, they are useful only insofar 

as they are followed. All too often the necessary actions 

either are not taken or are not implemented effectively. 

Under such conditions, the plans may establish a standard 

against which program implementation can be judged, 

but they do not contribute effectively to recovery unless 

shortcomings in implementation are recognized and 

addressed.

Research: To address threats and promote recovery, 

protection programs for marine mammals involve two 

essential parts—research, which includes monitoring, and 

management, which includes enforcement. Researchers 

identify, collect, analyze, and interpret information 

needed to assess population status and threats and 

to formulate and evaluate protection and mitigation 

measures and population responses to those measures. 

Information needs for evaluating status and guiding 

recovery actions are largely the same as those required 

to determine viability or risk of extinction, as described 

previously (i.e., population structure, population 

dynamics, population ecology and health, smallpopulation factors, and threats).

The degree to which those information needs are met 

constitutes a fi rst-level measure of recovery program 

effectiveness. The availability of information necessary 

for scientifi c assessment and management action varies 

greatly for listed marine mammals (Appendices 2 and 

3). Recovery and conservation plans explicitly recognize 

such information needs, but in some cases almost none 

of the requisite research has been conducted, often due 

to funding constraints. In other cases, research has been 

attempted but results have been inconclusive because 

of small sample sizes, diffi culty working in remote 

areas on hard-to-study animals, diffi culty distinguishing 

the effects of different risk factors from one another, 

inappropriately directed or conducted research, or a 

variety of other complicating factors. Many protection 

programs have critical data gaps of some kind. A recent 

analysis by Taylor et al. (2007) indicates that, given the 

current level of effort devoted to stock assessments in the 

United States, precipitous declines (defi ned as declines 

in abundance of at least 50 percent over 15 years) could 

not be detected for 72 percent of large whale stocks, 90 

percent of beaked whales, 78 percent of dolphins and 

porpoises, 5 percent of pinnipeds that haul out on land, 

and 100 percent of pinnipeds that haul out on sea ice.

Management: Managers translate research fi ndings into 

policies and measures that, ideally, address threats in a 

manner that is consistent with existing law and sound 

conservation principles and that refl ect current scientifi c 

understanding of the animals and their ecosystems. 

With some notable exceptions (e.g., captive breeding, 

relocation, habitat restoration), management actions 

for marine mammals generally focus on control or 

modifi cation of human activities to achieve conservation 

objectives. Enforcement and compliance often are 

inadequate and effi cacy uncertain. Thus, marine mammal 

protection programs often follow an informed trial-anderror approach where plans for recovery actions are 

adopted based on expert opinion and then modifi ed over 

time based on perceptions of population response (e.g., 

trends in mortality or rate of increase). Studies to evaluate 

compliance with management requirements, or their 

effectiveness, are notably scarce.

Major Threats to Endangered, Threatened, or Depleted 

Marine Mammals: In 2003 the Marine Mammal 

Commission held an international meeting to identify 

future directions for marine mammal research (Reeves 

and Ragen 2004, Reynolds et al. 2005). The meeting, 

convened at the request of Congress, was organized 

around threats to marine mammals and sought to identify 
23

key directions for research to understand and address 

them. The following paragraphs summarize the effi cacy 

of recovery programs in addressing those threats as they 

pertain to endangered, threatened, or depleted marine 

mammals in U.S. waters. Appendix 6 provides examples 

of varying degrees of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness 

in addressing threats to endangered, threatened, and 

depleted marine mammals.

Direct Interactions with Fisheries: Overall, the number 

of marine mammals killed annually incidental to fi sheries 

in U.S. waters has been reduced signifi cantly in recent 

years (Read et al. 2006). However, the record of efforts 

to reduce this mortality (often called “bycatch”) of the 

endangered, threatened, and depleted taxa identifi ed in 

this report has been mixed. Since the development and 

expansion of North Pacifi c and Bering Sea fi sheries in 

the 1970s and 1980s, bycatch from the western stock 

of Steller sea lions has been reduced from hundreds 

or thousands of animals annually to only a few dozen 

(about 10 percent of its potential biological removal 

level4

) in recent years (Angliss and Outlaw 2007). 

Bycatch of southern sea otters also has been reduced 

signifi cantly through nearshore area closures of gillnet 

fi sheries imposed by the state of California. Evidence that 

Hawaiian monk seals were being taken by an expanding 

pelagic longline fi shery in the North Pacifi c led quickly to 

the establishment of a Protected Species Zone around the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

In contrast, large whales—particularly those that occur 

in nearshore waters—continue to become entangled in 

gillnets and in fi shing line associated with pot fi sheries. 

Entanglement is one of the two major problems affecting 

North Atlantic right whales that spend much of their lives 

off the East Coast of the United States (see later in this 

report). Entanglement in marine debris—primarily lost or 

discarded fi shing gear—also is a persistent problem for 

Hawaiian monk seals (Henderson 2001) and northern fur 

seals (Fowler 1987). Despite some modest management 

efforts aimed at reducing entanglement injury to and 

deaths of individuals of these three taxa, the evidence 

suggests that entanglement remains a serious risk factor. 

To date, much of the effort to address entanglement has 

focused on gear modifi cations (right whales; see page 35), 

disentanglement (monk seals, northern fur seals, right 

whales), and removal of potentially entangling debris 

4 The Marine Mammal Protection Act defi nes the potential biological 

removal level as “the maximum number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum 

sustainable population” (16 U.S.C. § 1362 (3)(20)).

from nearshore habitats (monk seals and fur seals). Large 

amounts of actively fi shing gear remain in the water, 

portions of that gear are lost or discarded, and the risk of 

entanglement from that lost or discarded gear does not 

appear to have abated.

Indirect Fisheries Interactions and Prey Availability: 

Competition with fi sheries has reduced the prey available 

to a number of the marine mammals discussed in this 

report. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act defi nes optimum yield as the maximum 

sustainable yield less whatever is appropriate to account 

for economic, social, or ecological factors. However, 

insuffi cient effort has been made to operationalize that 

defi nition, and efforts to manage competition and other 

ecological effects of fi shing have not been effective. 

Furthermore, research efforts to quantitatively document 

the extent of prey reduction and determine its impact have 

achieved little success in most of the cases where this 

issue has been investigated (see Plaganyi and Butterworth 

2005 for a review). The designs of those studies 

merit reexamination. In some cases, fi shery exclusion 

zones have been established to protect endangered 

marine mammals from reduction in prey, as well as to 

reduce bycatch and disturbance. Nonetheless, reduced 

availability of prey is likely to remain a risk factor for a 

number of endangered, threatened, or depleted species, 

including southern resident killer whales, Hawaiian monk 

seals, western Steller sea lions, southern sea otters, and 

Cook Inlet beluga whales.

Disease: Disease is a natural risk to all wild species 

(Gulland and Hall 2005). Exposure to a novel disease 

is a particular concern for small populations that occur 

only in relatively small geographic areas (e.g., Cook Inlet 

beluga whales) because such exposure may compromise 

a high proportion of the individuals in the affected 

population. The risks of exposure may increase initially 

if range expansion brings individuals into contact with 

new disease vectors (e.g., monk seals reoccupying the 

main Hawaiian Islands, where they are exposed to the 

diseases of domestic, feral, and wild species with which 

those individuals have not had previous contact) or if 

disease vectors (including other marine mammal species) 

extend their range (e.g., as a result of climate change). 

Human population growth and concentration in coastal 

areas are contributing to the spread of some diseases that 

may affect marine mammals. For example, sea otters off 

southern California have contracted toxoplasmosis from 

cat feces in sewage released into the marine environment 

(Miller et al. 2002). Similarly, some otters have been 

exposed to new parasites in areas where their prey (e.g., 
24

abalone, urchins) have been depleted by fi sheries. To 

the extent that human-generated contaminants reduce 

immune system function in marine mammals, they can 

be considered to increase the likelihood of disease, albeit 

indirectly. Virtually all recovery efforts related to disease 

in marine mammals so far have been aimed at diagnosis 

or, in a few situations, quarantine rather than treatment or 

prevention. Possible immunization strategies have been 

considered but not yet pursued.

Harmful Algal Blooms: Over the past several decades 

harmful algal blooms have expanded from relatively 

uncommon and geographically isolated events to regular, 

seasonal occurrences that pose risks to a wide variety 

of marine organisms, including birds, fi sh, and marine 

mammals (Van Dolah 2000, 2005). Those risks can arise 

through a variety of ecological mechanisms, including 

direct ingestion by marine mammals that feed low on 

the food chain (e.g., large whales, Bargu et al. 2002), 

predation on contaminated fi sh (e.g., coastal bottlenose 

dolphins, Van Dolah 2005), and consumption of toxins 

accumulated on sea grasses (e.g., manatees, Flewelling 

et al. 2004) or in invertebrates (e.g., southern Alaska 

sea otters, Kvitek et al. 1991). A range of toxins may be 

involved, including saxitoxins off the northeast coast, 

brevetoxins off the Florida coast, and domoic acid off 

the West Coast. Harmful algal blooms have increased 

in frequency and become an added source of mortality 

that, again, poses a particular risk to small populations 

in restricted geographic areas. Most efforts to date have 

focused on diagnosis rather than treatment. Treatment 

may be an option in a few cases (e.g., Florida manatees). 

However, for most marine mammals, the only effective, 

and cost-effective, solution is to reduce the probability of 

such events by addressing the factors that cause them.

Contaminants: Thousands of manmade chemicals are 

fi nding their way into marine ecosystems (O’Hara and 

O’Shea 2005, Caroli et al. 1996). Such contaminants 

often are distributed widely by atmospheric and ocean 

currents, such as recently observed with polybrominated 

diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), compounds used in fl ame 

retardants and found in the tissues of wildlife around the 

globe (e.g., in the Antarctic, Corsolini et al. 2006). Even 

the herbivorous sirenians may accumulate contaminants 

at levels observed to cause adverse effects in other 

species (Ross et al. 1995). The primary concern is that 

contaminants impair reproductive or immune systems 

or cause cancers. Only a fraction of these chemicals 

are likely to pose actual risks, but exceedingly few are 

tested for their potential biological effects. AT1 killer 

whales (Ylitalo et al. 2001), southern resident killer 

whales (Krahn et al. 2002), Cook Inlet beluga whales 

(Becker et al. 2000), southern sea otters (Bacon et al. 

1999, Nakata et al. 1998), bottlenose dolphins (Nakata et 

al. 2002), and northern fur seals (Krahn et al. 1997) are 

at elevated risk of adverse health or reproductive effects 

from contaminant exposure or bioaccumulation. Although 

many studies have investigated contaminant levels in 

marine mammals, few have examined their biological 

consequences (O’Shea 1999, O’Hara and O’Shea 2005). 

Wild marine mammals that have accumulated high levels 

of contaminants cannot be treated practically, and the only 

actions that can be taken to address this problem involve 

limiting exposure (e.g., preventing contaminant release 

into the environment, clean-up).

Sound: A variety of human activities introduce sound 

into the marine environment, including commercial 

shipping and other vessel traffi c (e.g., fi shing, military, 

recreational, whale-watching), seismic studies 

(particularly, but not exclusively, related to oil and gas 

development), sonar systems (e.g., military, fi shing), 

and coastal development (e.g., blasting, dredging, pile 

driving) (Hildebrand 2005, Marine Mammal Commission 

2007c). At least in some areas, sound background levels 

are doubling each decade (National Research Council 

2003, McDonald et al. 2006). Introduced sound may 

have a variety of effects on marine mammals, including 

masking important natural sounds to which the animals 

need to respond, behavioral disturbance (e.g., leading 

to abandonment of habitat), injury (e.g., temporary and 

permanent loss of hearing), and death (potentially through 

direct trauma or secondarily through adverse behavioral 

response such as stranding; Anonymous 2001, Cox 

et al. 2006). Marine mammals in or near major ports, 

shipping lanes, oil and gas operations, or areas of coastal 

development are at elevated risk. Endangered, threatened, 

or depleted marine mammal taxa at risk in U.S. waters 

include southern resident killer whales in Puget Sound, 

bowhead whales and North Pacifi c right whales near 

oil and gas operations, North Atlantic right whales near 

major shipping ports and recreational areas, and Cook 

Inlet beluga whales near various construction and oil and 

gas operations. Efforts to monitor and assess the potential 

effects of sound sources have been largely ineffective, 

and in its 2006 report to Congress on anthropogenic 

sound, the Marine Mammal Commission emphasized the 

need for improvement in such efforts.

Vessel Strikes: Large whales that occur in or near major 

ports or shipping lanes and smaller marine mammals in 

nearshore waters are vulnerable to collisions with vessels 

of all sizes. A survey of vessel strikes involving large 
25

whales indicates that they are more likely to occur as 

vessel speeds increase above 10 knots (Laist et al. 2001, 

Vanderaan and Taggart 2006). Vessel strikes account for 

the largest proportion of observed human-caused deaths 

of North Atlantic right whales (Waring et al. 2007). To 

date, few measures have been implemented to protect 

large whales from vessel strikes (but see Johnson 2004 

for an example of rerouting in Canadian waters). The 

National Marine Fisheries Service has proposed new 

measures to reduce or prevent such strikes, but the 

measures have not yet been approved for implementation. 

They include spatial and temporal routing measures and 

speed limits. The anticipated doubling of commercial 

shipping in the fi rst three decades of this century 

(Department of Transportation 1999) gives special 

urgency to the need for effective implementation.

Boat strikes are the leading human cause of mortality of 

manatees in waters around Florida and Puerto Rico (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). A number of measures 

have been proposed and implemented in the 13 Florida 

counties where manatees occur and are struck most often, 

but the overall effectiveness of those measures has yet to 

be determined (Laist and Shaw 2006). At least in Florida, 

the number of manatees killed annually has risen steadily 

over the past decades. The trend may refl ect an increased 

number of manatees (and therefore more animals at 

risk), an increased amount of boating activity (about one 

million recreational boats are registered in Florida5

), an 

increase in the risk of collision per boat or manatee, or 

some combination of those. Vessel strikes also are known 

to kill southern sea otters (Estes et al. 2003), and may 

begin to pose a risk to bowhead whales in the Arctic as 

vessel traffi c increases with climate change and sea ice 

reduction.

Commercial Exploitation and Subsistence Hunting: 

Management measures under the Fur Seal Treaty, the 

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 

and the Marine Mammal Protection Act have limited 

or prohibited intentional killing of marine mammals, 

thereby preventing severe depletion or even extinction 

of many populations and allowing at least partial 

recovery. Of the 21 extant marine mammals in U.S. 

waters listed as endangered, threatened, or depleted, 

none is currently exploited for commercial purposes. 

Five are subject to ongoing subsistence hunting: western 

Arctic bowhead whales, eastern and western stocks of 

Steller sea lions, southwest Alaska sea otters, and eastern 

Pacifi c fur seals. Cook Inlet beluga whales were hunted 

5 Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (http://

www.hsmv.state.fl .us/html/revrpts.html).

aggressively until the late 1990s and were so depleted 

that hunting has essentially been halted until clear signs 

of recovery are observed. Subsistence hunting of all fi ve 

of those taxa is now co-managed by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service and Alaska Native organizations under 

agreements developed pursuant to section 119 of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act. The hunt for bowhead 

whales is an example of highly effective co-management.

Coastal Development: More than half of the U.S. human 

population resides in coastal regions comprising less than 

one-fi fth of the nation’s land area (U.S. Census Bureau 

2007). Projections indicate that the U.S. population will 

increase by about 115 to 120 million between now and 

2050 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004), with at least half of 

that growth expected in coastal regions (Pew Oceans 

Commission 2003). Such development leads to loss of 

natural habitat, increased frequency and intensity of 

human interactions with marine mammals, and more 

exposure to pollution, noise, disease, and vessel traffi c. 

Because they occur in nearshore waters, a number of 

endangered, threatened, and depleted taxa (including 

six of the seven identifi ed as most endangered in this 

report) are vulnerable to the effects of further coastal 

urbanization, growth, and development. These include 

AT1 killer whales in Prince William Sound, southern 

resident killer whales in Puget Sound, manatees in Puerto 

Rico and Florida waters, beluga whales in Cook Inlet, 

North Atlantic right whales off the eastern U.S. coast, 

southern sea otters in California waters, Hawaiian monk 

seals in the main Hawaiian Islands, coastal bottlenose 

dolphins off the mid-Atlantic coast, and even eastern 

Pacifi c fur seals on the Pribilof Islands. The responsible 

agencies have managed the confl icts between human 

activities and marine mammal populations with mixed 

results (Appendix 3). Often the shortcoming is simply 

due to lack of resources to implement and enforce needed 

actions or the will to take those actions. It seems clear 

that human population growth with all its accompanying 

secondary effects cannot go on indefi nitely without severe 

consequences for nearshore ecosystems.

Climate Variability and Change: Whether and how the 

endangered, threatened, and depleted taxa considered 

in this report will be affected by climate variability and 

climate change is uncertain (Tynan and DeMaster 1997, 

Laidre et al. in press, Moore and Huntington in press), 

although the potential long-term effects are cause for 

great concern. Arctic species are already being affected 

by the loss of sea ice and subsequent ecosystem changes 

(Stirling and Parkinson 2006, Ferguson et al. 2005), as 

well as by the increase in and diversifi cation of human 
26

activities in the region. Bowhead whales undoubtedly will 

be affected by habitat changes (although the consequences 

of those effects may be positive or negative) as well as by 

increased shipping, fi shing, etc. (Laidre et al. in press) that 

will follow the reduction in ice. The habitat of other taxa, 

such as Florida manatees and Hawaiian monk seals, will 

be affected by rising sea levels (Baker et al. 2006, Walton 

2007, Titus and Richman 2001) and more frequent and 

intense storms. Perhaps the most severe effects of climate 

change will be experienced not by taxa that are now listed, 

but by others destined to become endangered, threatened, 

or depleted as a consequences of sea ice reduction, sea 

level rise, and the many other ecological and humanrelated changes that will occur (e.g., polar bears6

 and 

ice-associated seals). Short of prevention, we know of no 

effective means for addressing the physical consequences 

of climate change and the associated ecological 

transformations (Ragen et al. in press).

Cumulative Effects: Status of most marine mammals 

is determined by the combined infl uence of the threats 

discussed here, together with natural ecological factors. 

Effects may be additive for threats that are more or 

less independent of each other or synergistic for threats 

that interact. The impacts and signifi cance of various 

risk factors vary, as does the degree to which they are 

amenable to management. Individually insignifi cant 

threats may be cumulatively signifi cant, and addressing 

them either individually or collectively requires 

comprehensive research and management programs. 

Effective management of oil and gas operations off 

the North Slope of Alaska, for example, must take into 

account not only the effects of any single operation but 

also the effects of their combined activities and other risk 

factors in the region. 

To be effective, conservation and management programs 

must ensure that populations are able to sustain long-term 

positive growth until they reach a healthy status and then 

maintain that status in the face of risk factors operating 

at that time. As a general rule, research and management 

programs that proactively address individual risk factors 

are preferable because they allow protective measures 

to be tailored to a specifi c set of circumstances, and 

such options are more likely to minimize unnecessary 

restraints on human activities (Reynolds et al. 2005). 

However, such an approach also requires funding for data 

collection and a predictive capability that exceeds current 

budgets for many of the taxa considered in this report.

6 Polar bears are currently being considered for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act largely because of the effects of diminished 

sea ice due to global warming.

Analysis of cumulative effects is required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species 

Act. In practice, these analyses often have been poorly 

structured and limited by insuffi cient data. As a result, 

they provide little confi dence that the total impacts of 

the various risk factors are being effectively considered 

and addressed. The ability of scientists and managers to 

understand and address cumulative impacts is vital to 

the conservation of marine mammals and ecosystems 

(National Research Council 2003). To that end, the 

Marine Mammal Commission will soon seek to engage 

related research and management agencies in an effort 

to develop practical and rigorous guidance for analyzing 

cumulative effects.

Efforts to promote the recovery of endangered, 

threatened, and depleted marine mammals by stopping 

or sharply curtailing intentional removals by hunting 

have been generally effective. In contrast, efforts to 

address problems of incidental (non-deliberate) removals, 

ecological disturbance, the introduction of contaminants 

or anthropogenic sound into the marine environment, or 

large-scale loss or degradation of habitat (e.g., climate 

change) have achieved less, sometimes because of simple 

failure to implement needed interventions and sometimes 

for lack of critical information. An information-driven 

approach to conservation is needed to minimize 

overprotection. To date, the information available to 

managers has varied widely by taxa and in some cases 

has been far from adequate to guide conservation efforts, 

particularly when addressing cumulative impacts.

COSTS OF PROTECTION PROGRAMS

The following were used as the primary sources of 

information regarding funding for marine mammal 

protection programs (Appendix 3):

x annual administrative reports required by the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act and prepared by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and Marine Mammal Commission;

x National Marine Fisheries Service budget documents;

x congressional Appropriations Committee reports;

x annual surveys of federally funded marine mammal 

research conducted by the Marine Mammal 

Commission; and

x annual reports of federal and state expenditures on 

listed endangered and threatened species required by 

the Endangered Species Act and prepared by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service.
27

The fi rst three sources rarely contain details on funding 

for individual protection programs and their accounting 

format and completeness vary yearly. For example, 

agency budget documents and Appropriations Committee 

reports might specify funding levels for certain protection 

programs or program components one year but lump 

them under broad categories the next. As a result, those 

sources were of limited use for determining how much 

was spent on particular protection programs or tasks 

in any one year or documenting trends over years. The 

Marine Mammal Commission’s surveys were useful 

for assessing research expenditures but contained little 

information on management expenditures. Furthermore, 

much of the information in the Commission’s reports 

is aggregated by agency or subject category, making it 

diffi cult or impossible to assign all reported expenditures 

to protection programs for individual taxa.

The most useful source of information on federal and 

state expenditures for listed endangered and threatened 

species is the series of reports compiled annually by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to section 18 

of the Endangered Species Act. Those reports contain 

funding data on recovery efforts by agency and listed 

taxon. Although they have become more detailed and 

complete over the years, those reports still lack some of 

the key information needed for this review. First, they 

do not provide information on expenditures for marine 

mammal taxa that are designated as depleted under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act but are not listed under 

the Endangered Species Act. Second, they refl ect annual 

and agency-based differences in accounting methods. 

Third, the specifi c activities undertaken with the reported 

funding are not described. Finally, because compiling 

and organizing the data takes time, reporting of program 

expenditures is delayed for several years. Therefore, 

the most recent data available for this review is from 

FY2004.

Despite such limitations, the available data reveal 

important patterns in funding for protection programs 

(Appendix 3):

x Between 1998 and 2004, total federal and state annual 

expenditures for the taxa considered in this report rose 

from $8.6 million in 1998 to $85.5 million in 2003 

(Table 3 and Figure 9). Although data for fi scal years 

after 2004 were not available, congressional and 

agency budget documents indicate that funding for 

recovery work on endangered and threatened marine 

mammals has declined signifi cantly since then.

x Annual expenditures are unevenly distributed, 

with marked differences in funding among taxa. In 

2003, the year of peak funding for marine mammal 

protection programs, 89 percent of all funding 

was allocated to just four taxa: western Steller sea 

lions ($49.5 million); eastern Steller sea lions ($5.3 

million); North Atlantic right whales ($11.7 million); 

and Florida manatees ($9.7 million).

x Most of the remaining funds were spent on three 

other taxa: Hawaiian monk seals ($2.1 million), 

humpback whales ($1.6 million), and southern sea 

otters ($1.4 million). 

x In contrast, approximate funding for the fi rst 

fi ve of the seven taxa described in this report as 

most endangered—AT1 killer whales (less than 

$100,000), eastern population of North Pacifi c right 

whales ($100,00–$200,000), Cook Inlet beluga 

whales ($150,000), southern resident killer whales 

($580,000), and Puerto Rico population of Antillean 

manatees ($50,000–$100,000)— totaled less than 

$1.2 million, or about 1.4 percent of the total 

expenditure, in 2003. 

x The wide range and uneven distribution of funds 

for listed taxa suggests that available resources are 

distributed more on the basis of potential disruption 

of human activities rather than the actual recovery 

needs or the degree of endangerment of the species 

involved.

x Almost all of the reported funding for marine 

mammal protection programs was administered 

through four federal agencies: the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

U.S. Geological Survey, and the Coast Guard 

(Figure 10). Except for the Florida manatee program, 

which receives most of its funding from the state of 

Florida, state contributions to protection programs for 

listed taxa have been relatively small.

During the 1990s the annual number of persons assigned 

to research and administrative activities for all marine 

mammals (including non-listed taxa) by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (plus the U.S. Geological Survey after 1997) 

averaged about 167 and 49, respectively (Waring 2001). 

These are measured in terms of FTEs, or fulltimeequivalent positions, for permanent and contract staff. 

Staff time devoted to individual taxa was not reported. 

In FY2005 the National Marine Fisheries Service 

allocated at least 108.5 FTEs for work on the 18 listed 

marine mammal taxa under its jurisdiction (Table 3). The 

Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey 

assigned about 17 FTEs each to recovery efforts for 

the four marine mammal taxa under their jurisdiction 

(Appendix 3).
28

Table 3. Approximate combined federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for endangered, threatened, and depleted 

taxa, FY1998–2004. State contributions, if any, to those totals are shown in parenthesis. Limited data are 

available for taxa designated as depleted only and for taxa only recently listed as threatened or endangered.

Taxon FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04

 Most Endangered Taxa

Caribbean monk seal 1000800 0

AT1 killer whale <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Southern resident killer whale – – – – – 580 1,098

Eastern North Pacifi c right whale 100–200 100–200 100–200 100–200 100–200 100–200 100–200

Puerto Rico Antillean manatee 25 35 50–100 50–100 50–100 50–100 50–100

Cook Inlet beluga whale 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

North Atlantic right whale 1,310

(1)

3,123

(290)

4,722

(127)

5,886

(145)

8,243

(280)

11,652

(123)

12,220

(504)

Hawaiian monk seal 1,156 1,105

(0.4)

1,267

(14)

2,121

(14)

2,197

(14)

2,145

(15)

2,321

Southern sea otter 495 615 

(156)

624

(35)

1,094

(35)

1,066

(35)

1,376

(40)

734

(20)

Blue whale 4

(1)

125 6 1 8 203 67

(2)

Florida manatee 1,540

(13)

4,316

(1,945)

9,668

(5,923)

9,298

(5,936)

8,496

(5,929)

9,724

(5,969)

9,787

(5,945)

Humpback whale 361

(41)

492

(8)

567

(11)

740

(11)

890

(11)

1,615

(18)

666

(7)

Guadalupe fur seal 0 2 2 0 0 0 0

(1)

Western Arctic bowhead whale 1

(1) (3)

3

(3)

25

(25)

7 204 190 

Fin whale 5

(1)

13

(0.3)

5

(1)

24

(2)

13

(1)

206

(1)

72

(3)

Sperm whale 5

(1)

7 3 27 1 203 2,270

(2)

Mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin – – – 748 2,000 1,987 3,950

Western Steller sea lion 3,079

(19)

7,234

(8)

13,1313

(6)

46,783

(2,338)a

55,998

(2,496)a

49,514

(1,200)

31,746

(1,200)

Southwest Alaska sea otter – – – 20 68 745 939

Eastern Steller sea lionb ––––– 5,297

(1,203)

10,811

(1,203)

Eastern Pacifi c fur seal 180 603 1,957––– –

Sei whale 5

 (1)

4 4 12 1 203 66

APPROXIMATE TOTALS c $8,626

(79)

$18,124

(2,411)

$32,491

(6,120)

$67,337

(8,506)

$79,538

(8,766)

$86,204

(8,569)

$77,487

(8,887)

a These funds were included in Fish and Wildlife Service reports as coming from the state but were, in fact, routed to the state through the National 

Marine Fisheries Service.

b

 Expenditures for FY1998–2002 are included under Western Steller sea lion (above).

c

 Where a range is given, total is based on an upper limit of that range.
29

Figure 10. Expenditures (in $ millions) for taxa listed as endangered or threatened, by agency and by year, 

FY2000–2004.

Figure 9. Combined annual federal and state expenditures (in $ millions) for taxa listed as endangered, threatened, or 

depleted, FY1998–2004.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Fiscal Year

In $ millions

Other

Humpback whale

Southern sea otter

Hawaiian monk seal

Florida manatee

North Atlantic right whale

Steller sea lion

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Fish and Wildlife

Service

U.S. Geological

Survey

National Marine

Fisheries Service

U.S. Coast Guard All Other

Federal Agencies

State Agencies

In $ millions

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004
30

Taxon

National Marine Fisheries 

Service Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service

U.S.

Geological

Survey

Regional Total

Offi ces and 

Headquarters

Science

Centers

 Most Endangered Taxa

Caribbean monk seal 0 0 – – 0

AT1 killer whale 0.2 0 – – 0.2

Southern resident killer whale 2.1 4.4 – – 6.5

Eastern North Pacifi c right whale 0.6 2.8 3.4

Puerto Rico Antillean manatee – – 1.0 0.8 1.8

Cook Inlet beluga whale 2.3 0.5 – – 2.8

North Atlantic right whale 16.0 13.2 – – 29.2

Hawaiian monk seal 1.2 21.0 – – 22.2

Southern sea otter – – 2.0 1.5 3.5

Blue whale 0.4 1.0 – – 1.4

Florida manatee – – 11.3 13.4 24.7

Humpback whale 1.8 3.3 – – 5.1

Guadalupe fur seal 0 0.2 – – 0.2

Western Arctic bowhead whale 1.9 0 – – 1.9

Fin whale 0.6 0 – – 0.6

Sperm whale 0.5 1.2 – – 1.7

Mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin 2.1 13.8 – – 15.9

Western Steller sea lion 1.1 13.3 – – 14.4

Southwest Alaska sea otter – – 2.5 1.5 4.0

Eastern Steller sea lion 1.1 0 – – 1.1

Eastern Pacifi c fur seal 1.7 0 – – 1.7

Sei whale 0 0.2 – – 0.2

TOTAL FTEs 33.6 74.9 16.8 17.2 142.5

Table 4. Estimated number of fulltime-equivalent staff positions (FTEs) devoted to protection programs for 

endangered, threatened, or depleted marine mammal taxa by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey in FY2005.
31

The Commission selected the North Atlantic right whale 

as a case study to examine cost-effectiveness of an entire 

protection program. We chose this species because it is 

highly endangered, Congress has allocated a relatively 

large amount of funding to its recovery, and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service recently adopted an updated 

recovery plan and is engaged in ongoing efforts to reduce 

vessel/whale collisions and entanglement of whales in 

commercial fi shing gear.

To review this program the Commission appointed a 

fi ve-person panel consisting of four current members 

and one former member of the Commission’s Committee 

of Scientifi c Advisors on Marine Mammals, all familiar 

with the right whale recovery program. The panel 

conducted its review in cooperation with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service and other agencies and groups 

involved in implementing recovery activities. The 

review took place on 13–17 March 2006 in Woods Hole, 

Massachusetts, and focused on the status, costs, and 

results of all major research and management activities 

set forth in the North Atlantic right whale recovery 

plan and carried out during FY2003–2005. The panel 

summarized its fi ndings regarding the cost-effectiveness 

of research and management components of the recovery 

program in a report to the Commission (Reeves et al. 

2007, Appendix 5). The following summarizes the results 

of that review and presents the Commission’s conclusions 

based on the panel’s report.

COSTS OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE

RECOVERY PROGRAM

During FY2003 to 2005, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service and about a dozen other agencies 

and organizations spent combined annual totals of 

$13.1 million, $16.6 million, and $15.6 million for 

North Atlantic right whale recovery efforts (Table 5). 

Cost estimates for major components of the protection 

program (Table 6) generally corresponded well with 

priorities identifi ed in the recovery plan. The cost 

estimates reported here may be infl ated somewhat in 

instances where the same assets were used to meet 

multiple recovery objectives, making it diffi cult to 

apportion costs among tasks. For example, aerial surveys 

are used to alert mariners to whale locations, detect 

entangled whales, trigger fi shery management zones 

in areas of whale concentrations, collect right whale 

sighting data, and obtain photographs for individual 

identifi cation of animals.

Cost-effectiveness of Research

Overall funding for research in support of the North 

Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Program was about $4.2 

million in FY2003, $5.7 million in FY2004, and $5.5 

million in FY2005 (Table 6). The research program can 

be separated into six broad subject areas: distribution, 

abundance and trends, mortality, health and reproduction, 

habitat, and genetics. All six areas depend heavily on an 

identifi cation catalogue maintained by the New England 

Aquarium. The catalogue archives information on 

individual life histories from photographic records and 

genetic samples. Catalogue data are used to investigate 

reproduction, survival, population abundance and trends, 

movement and habitat use patterns, and interactions with 

fi shing gear and ships. All six areas of research require 

ongoing logistical and personnel support as well as 

periodic supplemental funds to purchase new equipment, 

upgrade operating systems, and carry out special analyses.

A variety of research activities are needed to support 

recovery efforts for the North Atlantic right whale, as 

illustrated in Table 6. These activities are generally 

aimed at the subject areas discussed earlier in this report: 

population dynamics, population health and ecology, 

factors affecting small populations, and threats. The 

utility of research cannot always be judged in advance, 

and the challenge for managers is to integrate research 

results in such a way as to identify the most effective 

and cost-effective recovery measures. The panel made 

the following recommendations to enhance the research 

program and, therefore, provide a stronger basis for 

effective and cost-effective management efforts:

x The National Marine Fisheries Service should 

provide a one-time funding supplement to enhance 

the utility of the central identifi cation catalogue and 

CASE STUDY: COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF

THE NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE 

PROTECTION PROGRAM
32

sightings database by upgrading data storage and 

integrating a backlog of genetic and photographic 

records. These databases are central to research and 

monitoring efforts. They provide individual records 

of the animals in the population, their relationships, 

the times and locations where they were observed, 

and their behavior and condition. Such information is 

vital to assessing both the size and distribution of the 

population. To use that information most effectively, 

the catalogue and database should be updated and 

maintained.

x The program should review distribution data to 

assess whether and how critical habitat designations 

should be changed to ensure that all appropriate 

areas have been identifi ed and adequately protected.

Management strategies to mitigate entanglement and 

ship collisions focus on areas where right whales 

occur most frequently. Aerial surveys have revealed 

that some areas of predictably high use by right 

whales are not included in critical habitat and, on that 

basis, are omitted from area-specifi c management 

measures. To ensure effectiveness and costeffectiveness of management measures, they must be 

implemented in the areas where right whales occur.

x The program should assess population size and 

trend on an ongoing basis. Managers, stakeholders, 

and the public should know whether the right whale 

population is increasing, decreasing, or stable. Such 

information is necessary to determine whether 

particular measures are effective and cost-effective.

x The program should review funding support for 

stranding responses, including necropsy teams. 

Existing cooperative agreements for stranding 

response should be maintained. Fishing gear that 

has been removed from stranded carcasses or 

from entangled living animals should be analyzed 

expeditiously. This information is essential for 

determining causes of death and the sex/age of the 

animals that have died, and is invaluable for assessing 

threats and their potential population-level effects.

x The program should continue investigations of 

health and reproduction. In particular, studies are 

needed to determine how injuries from ship strikes 

Table 5. Estimated agency and organization expenditures on western North Atlantic right whale recovery and 

protection work, FY2003–FY2005

Source FY 03 FY 04 FY 05

Federal Agencies $12,619,228 $16,107,899 $14,516,409

 National Marine Fisheries Service 10,127,897 12,821,559 12,307,725

 National Ocean Service (Marine Sanctuaries) 67,000 66,900 124,300

 Navy 165,267 218,427 399,216

 Coast Guard 789,466 1,964,658 1,063,533

 Army Corps of Engineers 147,000 180,000 191,000

 National Science Foundation – 359,206 237,682

 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 1,322,598 497,149 192,953

State Agencies $102,600 $72,800 $134,542

 Florida 76,000 72,800 73,250

 Massachusetts 21,600 0 61,292

 Rhode Island 5,000 0 0

Nongovernmental Organizations $379,678 $454,227 $907,926

 International Fund for Animal Welfare 140,000 104,000 257,418

 New England Aquarium 98,075 85,431 312,404

 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 $13,101,506 $16,634,926 $15,558,877
33

Table 6. Expenditures on major research and management tasks identifi ed in the North Atlantic right whale recovery 

plan, FY2003–2005

RESEARCH FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005

Assess and monitor distribution $2,726,367 $3,361,762 $3,362,294

Aerial surveys 2,017,000 2,906,544 2,984,470

Shipboard surveys 66,815 39,048 32,500

Acoustic monitoring 642,552 416,170 345,324

Assess abundance and trends $556,262 $953,940 $804,984

Right whale identifi cation catalogue 219,000 579,206 363,000

Right whale sightings database 98,962 117,815 124,949

Population modeling/abundance estimates 238,300 256,919 317,035

Assess and monitor right whale mortality $102,596 $226,169 $307,259

Necropsy teams 0 65,000 65,000

Logistics 91,596 150,169 231,259

Diagnostics 11,000 11,000 11,000

Health and reproduction studies $561,000 $513,044 $413,444

Habitat studies $300,100 $664,224 $477,200

Habitat studies in the northeastern United States 0 161,200 100,100

Predictive modeling in the northeastern United States 119,100 198,100 196,100

Habitat modeling in the southeastern United States 56,000 56,000 56,000

Geographic Information System analyses 125,000 125,000 125,000

D-Tag studies 0 123,924 0

Genetics studies $3,007 $25,002 $136,812

Total research $4,249,332 $5,744,141 $5,501,993

MANAGEMENT

Mitigate effects of vessel collisions $3,722,393 $4,928,792 $4,582,970

Development of speed regulations 100,000 450,000 $450,000

Development of routing measures 269,400 264,400 291,000

Public outreach 9,000 80,000 97,000

Research on whale avoidance technologies 1,897,800 2,657,713 1,753,825

Enforcement 64,668 67,512 87,592

Whale sighting advisory systems for

mariners (i.e., regional aerial surveys) 1,114,649 1,124,788 1,607,200

Mandatory ship reporting systems 266,876 284,379 296,353

Mitigate entanglements in fi shing gear $4,969,081 $7,684,466 $6,217,395

Administration (e.g., public hearings, take

reduction team meetings, preparing EISs) 168,000 1,057,000 729,000

Development of gear modifi cations and

gear buyback programs 1,129,400 1,713,605 1,839,405

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan 2,101,714 2,648,400 2,216,586

Disentanglement 1,175,933 808,691 836,438

Enforcement 394,034 1,456,770 595,966

 Total management $8,691,474 $12,613,258 $10,800,365
34

and entanglement are affecting the health and 

reproductive capacities of individual right whales. 

Such information is necessary to assess the full 

consequences of these and other risk factors.

x The program should continue to fund genetics 

studies based on the merits of proposed work.

Such studies are a core element of the research 

program and provide vital information about the 

population structure and relatedness. This information 

supplements other population data and provides a 

more complete understanding of population status. 

For example, genetic studies recently revealed that 

the total population must be larger than estimated on 

the basis of sightings alone.

x The program should consider alternative research 

methods as a way of increasing cost-effectiveness.

In particular, the use of aerial surveys might be 

reduced through the use of alternative technologies. 

Aerial surveys are used to monitor whales in highuse areas, assess their distribution outside those 

areas, and collect photographs of individual whales 

for life history information (e.g., reproduction). 

However, such surveys account for more than half 

of all research expenditures, pose risks to human 

safety, and may be ineffi cient when used for multiple 

purposes. Passive acoustics, satellite telemetry, and 

shipboard sampling provide alternative approaches 

for collecting similar data, and may prove more 

cost-effective than aerial surveys for monitoring 

high-use areas and locating additional important 

whale habitats. Shipboard surveys may be more costeffective because more types of data can be collected 

(e.g., photographs, biopsy samples, visual health 

assessments, fecal samples, observations of behavior, 

acoustic recordings, etc.) and more activities carried 

out (e.g., disentangling whales). A safer and more 

cost-effective approach might be to combine aerial 

surveys focused in areas where small survey vessels 

are unable to work easily, dedicated shipboard 

surveys in predictably used seasonal habitat, and 

passive acoustics and other approaches in place of 

more costly aerial surveys when and where feasible.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGEMENT

Overall costs of management activities related to ship 

strike and entanglement risks totaled about $8.7 million 

in 2003, $12.6 million in 2004, and $10.8 million in 2005 

(Table 6). These amounts include funding for research on 

mitigation measures, such as the development of whalesafe fi shing gear and technology that might be used on 

ships to avoid hitting whales.

Measures to Mitigate the Risks of Ship Strikes: To 

prevent collisions between ships and whales, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service has urged mariners to follow 

precautions such as posting an extra lookout, changing 

travel routes, and reducing speed. Public outreach efforts 

have included distributing brochures, placards, and 

videos; publishing magazine articles and notices in Coast 

Pilots; preparing curricula for maritime academies; and 

broadcasting radio alerts to mariners. The Service also 

designated two mandatory ship-reporting areas—one 

in the right whale calving grounds off the southeastern 

United States and the other in feeding grounds off 

Massachusetts. Ships entering those areas are required 

to call a shore station for whale information. Intensive 

aerial surveys are fl own to locate right whales and alert 

mariners via radio and telex.

The Service also has been developing routing measures 

and speed regulations and supporting related research. 

The latter includes studies of the feasibility of 

technological devices to reduce collision risks (e.g., 

alarms to alert whales to approaching ships and whale 

detection devices) and to help detect or predict when 

whales will be in certain areas (e.g., real-time passive 

acoustic monitoring and studies of prey density in Cape 

Cod Bay). Overall costs for research and management 

activities related to ship-strike mitigation ranged between 

$3.7 and $4.9 million per year from 2003 to 2005. More 

than two-thirds of those annual totals were spent on aerial 

surveys to sight whales and alert mariners, and on whale 

avoidance technologies (Table 6).

Regarding efforts to reduce ship strikes, the panel 

concluded that—

x The evidence to date is not suffi cient to evaluate the 

cost-effectiveness of the ship-strike mitigation efforts 

that have been implemented. Only one study (Moller 

et al. 2005) has attempted to investigate compliance 

of mariners with recommended actions to avoid ship 

strikes. That study examined the tracks of 40 vessels 

through a mandatory ship reporting area to determine 

whether speed or course was altered in response to 

broadcast right whale alerts. Fewer than 10 percent of 

the ships changed course or slowed down in response 

to the alerts. The lack of response could indicate 

non-compliance or a determination by mariners that 

their vessels did not pose imminent risks to sighted 

whales, perhaps because of distance. Further analyses 

36

Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone, others in designated 

seasonal management zones, and still others in dynamic 

management zones established temporarily in areas 

where large groups of right whales have been observed. 

The required gear modifi cations differ by fi shery and are 

subject to numerous exceptions.

In FY2003 to FY2005, an average of about $1.6 

million per year was spent on research to develop gear 

modifi cations and on buyback programs to encourage 

the use of sinking or neutrally buoyant line in the lobster 

fi shery. The principal costs associated with time/area 

management were for enforcement and aerial surveys 

in support of dynamic area management. The Coast 

Guard and state agencies are responsible for enforcement 

and between 2003 and 2005 the cumulative cost was 

estimated at more than $2.4 million. The costs of aerial 

surveys in support of dynamic management areas were 

uncertain because they could not be separated from 

the costs of surveys for research and for support of 

ship advisory programs. The costs of maintaining the 

disentanglement network along the Atlantic coast totaled 

about $2.8 million for FY2003–2005, not including 

logistical support and other services contributed by the 

Coast Guard and others. The costs of meetings of the 

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team are uncertain, 

but given the need for travel, meeting facilitators, and 

preparation of background documents and reports, they 

probably total at least $150,000 per meeting.

Regarding efforts to reduce entanglement in fi shing gear, 

the panel concluded that—

x The Service has relied too much on gear 

modifi cations to prevent entanglement in fi shing 

gear. The development of fi shing gear that does not 

entangle whales is an appropriate and worthy longterm goal. To date, however, only one potentially 

effective innovation has been developed for broadscale application—the use of neutrally buoyant 

or sinking groundlines for trap fi sheries. To avoid 

entanglements in buoy lines, the Service has relied 

principally on weak links. At least two unbroken 

weak links have been removed from entangled right 

whales, and more have been removed from other 

large whales, indicating that their mitigation value is 

limited. Despite the Service’s acknowledgment that 

weak links are of limited effectiveness, it continues 

to rely heavily on them while proposing increasingly 

complex regulations requiring untested gear 

modifi cations. Furthermore, enforcement practices for 

gear modifi cation requirements have been ineffective 

because enforcement patrols do not remove gear from 

the water for inspection.

x All fi sheries should be required to demonstrate that 

fi shing gear is whale-safe before its use is approved in 

areas where right whales aggregate (e.g., designated 

critical habitats, seasonal area management zones, 

and dynamic area management zones). This action 

would require a prohibition on the use of vertical 

lines, in addition to measures currently required or 

being contemplated under the Atlantic Large Whale 

Take Reduction Plan. In effect, this would entail 

strict time/area closures to all gear that has not been 

demonstrated to be safe. A shift in the burden of proof 

would stimulate fi shermen to use their considerable 

creative ability to develop ways of catching lobsters 

and fi nfi sh without depending on methods that lead to 

whale entanglement.

x Neither dynamic nor seasonal time/area regulations 

have provided adequate protection for right 

whales because implementation has been slow and 

incomplete. The bureaucratic process required to 

designate dynamic management zones typically 

delays implementation for two weeks or longer after 

groups of whales are fi rst sighted, thereby limiting 

the measure’s usefulness. In addition, restrictions 

specifi ed for such zones often have been voluntary. 

In both seasonal and dynamic management zones, 

fi shing is allowed to continue if certain gear 

modifi cations are in use. Those modifi cations 

invariably rely on weak links that are of limited 

effectiveness for preventing entanglement.

x Disentanglement efforts are not cost-effective 

view of the great value in saving each individual 

whale, these efforts should continue because they 

have demonstrated some level of success in reducing 

entanglement impacts. However, they also should be 

subject to further assessment to minimize the human 

risks involved, and they should be funded by the 

programs authorizing the involved fi sheries. From 

January 2000 through the end of 2005, the responding 

network received 25 reports of entangled right 

whales. Disentanglement teams were able to remove 

some gear from 7, most of the gear from 4, and no 

gear from 14. Some of the whales that were partially 

disentangled subsequently died, but at least one 

disentangled female was later seen with a newborn 

calf. Network members have disentangled many more 

individuals of other large whale species, particularly 

compared to prevention of entanglement. But, in 
37

humpback whales. Nonetheless, disentanglement is 

dangerous, costly work. In view of those dangers 

and the limited chances of success in dealing with 

complex entanglements, the panel recommended 

that a risk/benefi t analysis be conducted to assess 

safety risks versus the likelihood of successful 

outcomes. It also recommended that the costs of 

disentanglement should be borne by the program or 

programs authorizing the involved fi sheries (e.g., 

programs to implement fi shery management plans), 

rather than by the right whale recovery program. In 

addition, the panel cited the need for better methods 

to chemically sedate entangled whales, improved 

means of attaching telemetry systems to track 

entangled animals, and more trained individuals to 

lead disentanglement teams.

x The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team 

should be replaced by a less costly and more scientifi c 

advisory body, such as a small recovery team 

consisting of individuals with direct knowledge of 

right whale biology and whale entanglement issues.

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the 

take reduction team is charged with providing advice 

on measures to reduce incidental mortality to the 

potential biological removal level (i.e., zero for this 

population) within six months of implementation. 

On most key issues, the team has consistently failed 

to reach consensus, and instead has offered majority 

and minority opinions. The panel concluded that the 

take reduction team, which has been in existence for 

nearly a decade, has been ineffective as a mechanism 

for developing mitigation strategies to deal with 

right whale entanglements. Believing that Congress 

did not envision such a protracted and open-ended 

process for reducing entanglement risks, the panel 

recommended that the Atlantic Large Whale Take 

Reduction Team be replaced.

THE MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION’S PERSPECTIVE

The Commission concurs with and supports the 

recommendations of the right whale program review 

panel. Although much useful work has been done, the 

combined research and management effort to date have 

not achieved and sustained a positive growth rate for 

the North Atlantic right whale. Whales are still dying 

in unsustainable numbers. Therefore, the Commission 

believes that, in failing to achieve their objective of 

right whale recovery, those efforts cannot be considered 

effective or cost-effective.

39

Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act have 

provided a strong framework for marine mammal 

conservation in U.S. waters and beyond. Those laws 

and treaties certainly have prevented the extirpation 

of some populations and possibly even the extinction 

of some species. The primary benefi t was through 

cessation or strict regulation of intentional killing that 

had been largely unregulated.

x With the adoption of those laws and treaties, the 

primary human-related threats to marine mammals 

in U.S. waters shifted from intentional to incidental 

taking and degradation of habitat. Compared to 

the mostly effective curtailment of direct harvest, 

recovery efforts generally have been less successful at 

reducing to acceptable levels the indirect or incidental 

threats, which include competition with fi sheries for 

prey; exposure to contaminants, disease, and noise; 

coastal development and loss or degradation of 

habitat; and climate change.

x Basic information is still lacking for a considerable 

number of marine mammal taxa, including many that 

are endangered, threatened, or depleted.

x Unfortunately, even under the best circumstances 

the recovery of marine mammals is limited by their 

inherently slow population growth rates, which means 

that recovery for some taxa will require decades, or 

longer.

x The indirect threats posed by human activities often 

increase in proportion to human population size, 

economic growth, and consumption patterns. The 

consequences of “economic growth and development 

untempered by adequate concern and conservation” 

were incentives for passage of both the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species 

Act by Congress in the early 1970s. With regard to 

indirect threats, the fi ndings, purposes, and challenges 

of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the 

Endangered Species Act are more germane now than 

they were three decades ago.

With regard to the cost-effectiveness of recovery efforts, 

the Commission fi nds that—

With regard to the viability of the most endangered 

marine mammals, the Commission fi nds that—

x Twenty-two marine mammal taxa occurring regularly 

or entirely in U.S. waters are listed as endangered 

or threatened under the Endangered Species Act or 

designated as depleted under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act.

x Of those 22 taxa, the Caribbean monk seal is 

considered extinct and the AT1 population of killer 

whales is on the verge of extinction and is probably 

not biologically viable.

x The remaining 20 taxa are considered viable; that 

is, these 20 taxa can persist and recover if humanrelated threats are managed effectively. Historical 

data indicate that many wild species have shown 

considerable resilience and have recovered from low 

numbers when human-related threats were managed 

effectively.

x Protection programs for a number of listed marine 

mammal taxa are constrained by insuffi cient 

information, resulting in uncertainty with regard to 

both their risk of extinction and measures needed to 

promote recovery. Key types of information to project 

future status and guide recovery efforts include 

population structure, population dynamics, population 

ecology and health, small-population factors, and 

threats. Population viability analysis provides a 

mechanism for integrating the available data into an 

analysis of extinction risk. However, such an analysis 

has been conducted for only a limited number of taxa 

due to a lack of critical data and insuffi cient emphasis 

on the use of such tools to enhance risk assessment.

With regard to the effectiveness of recovery efforts, the 

Commission fi nds that—

x Since the early 1900s the passage of several key 

domestic laws and international treaties has had a 

profoundly positive effect on the status and recovery 

process of many marine mammal species. The 

Fur Seal Treaty, the International Convention for 

the Regulation of Whaling, the Marine Mammal 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
40

x Over the past decade, Congress has provided a 

commendable and much-needed increase in funding 

for recovery of endangered, threatened, and depleted 

marine mammal taxa.

x The distribution of funds for recovery efforts has been 

inconsistent with the extinction risks of the various 

endangered, threatened, and depleted taxa discussed 

in this report. Funds appear to have been directed 

primarily at the taxa whose recovery needs could 

impose signifi cant constraints on human activities, 

while other taxa at higher risk of extinction have been 

neglected.

x Existing mechanisms to track expenditures for 

protection programs do not provide suffi ciently 

detailed information to evaluate amounts spent per 

taxa or threat. Without this type of information, any 

attempt to determine the effectiveness and costeffectiveness of recovery efforts—and thereby hold 

ourselves accountable—is bound to be confounded, 

incomplete, and unsatisfactory.

With regard to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 

North Atlantic right whale conservation, the Commission 

concurs with the recommendations of its review panel and 

fi nds that—

x Efforts to date have not been suffi cient to achieve and 

sustain a positive growth rate for the North Atlantic 

right whale. Whales are still dying in unsustainable 

numbers.

x The principal human causes of North Atlantic right 

whale mortality are ship strikes and entanglement in 

fi shing gear.

x The key measures needed to reduce the risks of ship 

strikes are (a) reductions of ship speeds to 10 knots 

or less in areas where, and times when, right whales 

are known or likely to be present, and (b) ship routing 

to minimize spatial and temporal overlap with right 

whales.

x The key measures needed to reduce entanglement 

would shift the burden of proof so as to require 

fi sheries to demonstrate that gear and methods are 

safe for right whales before they are approved for use 

in areas where right whales occur. Such a shift would 

reduce reliance on gear modifi cations of unproven 

and questionable utility. Other important measures 

to reduce entanglement include (a) re-examination 

of critical habitat areas, (b) implementation of time/

area closures when and where whales are present, 

and (c) replacement of the Atlantic Large Whale 

Take Reduction Team with a smaller, more focused 

scientifi c advisory body to identify and recommend 

the measures needed to ensure North Atlantic right 

whale recovery.

Each year Congress allocates a substantial budget 

for marine mammal recovery programs with the 

expectation that those funds will be used effectively and 

cost-effectively in accordance with the conservation 

framework established in the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act and Endangered Species Act, and that the funded 

programs will be adequate to achieve the goals of the 

Acts. Recovery programs implemented under that 

framework have achieved mixed results with regard to 

their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Nonetheless, 

no marine mammal taxa in U.S. waters has gone extinct 

during the period that the Acts have been in place, 

and many taxa have demonstrably benefi ted from the 

programs and protections implemented under the Acts. 

In contrast, during the same period, the Yangtze River 

dolphin appears to have become extinct and several 

marine mammals not under U.S. jurisdiction have 

declined to a very precarious state.

Much remains to be learned about the threats facing 

marine mammals and about the recovery actions needed 

to allow endangered taxa to recover. The inconsistency 

in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of U.S. recovery 

programs is due in part to insuffi cient information 

to guide recovery actions and in part to inadequate 

implementation of needed actions. Furthermore, as the 

world changes so too do some of the threats and options 

for successful recovery strategies. To be successful, 

marine mammal recovery programs must determine what 

critical information is lacking, obtain that information, 

and select or adjust recovery actions in response to the 

information. They must adapt as more is learned about 

the animals and the risks they face, and they must do so 

at a pace consistent with socioeconomic development and 

potentially adverse consequences thereof.

The agencies responsible for recovery programs 

undoubtedly have used congressional funding to balance 

competing interests and respond to a range of priorities, 

all under the constraint of a limited total budget. Agency 

discretion has been limited and their ability to prioritize 

recovery efforts compromised when Congress has 

earmarked certain funds for specifi c species, threats, or 

confl icts. 

In the end, certain at-risk taxa have received relatively 

high levels of attention in the form of specifi cally directed 
41

funding (e.g., western Steller sea lions), while certain 

others have not received enough attention to stop or even 

understand their ongoing decline (e.g., Cook Inlet beluga 

whales). Absent a more integrated, coherent national 

system for determining what the funding needs really 

are, setting priorities, and determining how the limited 

funds should be allocated, we have reason to worry that 

recovery efforts for certain taxa will deteriorate into 

a patchwork of reactive crises, increasing the risk of 

extinction for those taxa, infl ating the long-term costs 

required to bring about their recovery, and undermining 

our nation’s goal of maintaining the health and stability of 

the marine ecosystem.

In light of the above considerations, the Marine Mammal 

Commission concludes that the national strategy for 

setting endangered marine mammal funding priorities, in 

an informed manner and cognizant of extinction risk, is 

not suffi ciently coherent and consistent. The shortcomings 

undermine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 

recovery efforts. To address this problem, the Marine 

Mammal Commission makes a single recommendation to 

Congress, as follows.

The Marine Mammal Commission recommends 

that Congress require the development and 

implementation of a comprehensive national 

strategy for determining (a) the annual funding 

requirements for research, monitoring, and recovery 

actions for endangered, threatened, and depleted 

marine mammals, and (b) how those funds should 

be distributed to ensure that recovery efforts are 

optimally effective and cost-effective. The strategy 

should be developed and updated at least annually 

by a standing committee consisting of representatives 

from the responsible agencies. The primary agencies 

serving on the committee would be those responsible 

for research and management of endangered, threatened, 

and depleted marine mammals—the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and the Marine Mammal Commission. 

Ex offi cio members of the committee would include the 

Council on Environmental Quality, the Smithsonian 

Institution, and the National Academy of Sciences. The 

Marine Mammal Commission would chair the committee. 

The strategy should include the following elements.

Funding for recovery: The comprehensive national 

strategy would include a separate fund for the specifi c 

purpose of addressing research and management 

needs for endangered, threatened, and depleted marine 

mammals. Funding levels would be determined annually 

and reported to Congress for its consideration during the 

budget process.

Prioritizing recovery efforts: The strategy would 

establish and be based on clear, objective criteria for 

assessing recovery needs including, among other things, 

risk of extinction, critical information gaps, expected 

conservation benefi ts, competing conservation needs, and 

related socioeconomic concerns. Prioritization would be 

based on structured and transparent risk/benefi t analysis. 

Monitoring, reporting, and evaluation: On an ongoing 

basis, the types of information sought by the Commission 

to complete this current report should be readily 

available for consideration by all interested parties, 

including Congress, the responsible agencies, and nongovernmental stakeholders. To that end, expenditures, 

activities, and results of the committee would be reported 

annually in the Marine Mammal Commission’s Annual 

Report to Congress. The purpose of such information 

is to inform and adapt recovery processes by assessing 

past effectiveness, adjusting for existing shortcomings, 

and setting future directions. By measuring progress 

and identifying successes, problems, and ineffi ciencies, 

the strategy would provide a mechanism for holding 

the relevant agencies, including the Marine Mammal 

Commission, accountable for marine mammal and marine 

ecosystem conservation.

Adjusting total budget to needs: As the world’s human 

population grows, the demands placed on ocean resources 

will increase. So too will the threats to many endangered, 

threatened, and depleted marine mammals and the 

ecosystems of which they are a part. Consequently, 

the total budget needs for conservation of endangered, 

threatened, and depleted taxa will change over time. 

Costs might decrease if recovery programs are successful 

and taxa recover. Alternatively, costs might increase if 

recovery programs are not successful or additional taxa 

are listed. A risk- and effectiveness-based assessment 

process will provide an orderly guide for appraisal and 

adjustment of overall budgetary needs.

The Marine Mammal Commission believes that 

the activities undertaken to satisfy this single 

recommendation will lead to more effective and costeffective implementation of recovery programs within the 

conservation framework defi ned in the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. More 

effective implementation is essential to address growing 

conservation challenges in a rapidly changing world.

43

REFERENCES

Allee, W.C. 1931. Animal Aggregations: A study in general sociology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Angliss, R.P., and R.B. Outlaw. 2007. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 2006. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-168. 

Anonymous. 2001. Joint interim report of Bahamas marine mammal stranding event of 14–16 March 2000. U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. 

Navy, Washington, DC. Available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res /overview/Interim_Bahamas_Report.pdf.

Antonelis, G.A., J.D. Baker, T.C. Johanos, R.C. Braun, and A.L. Harting. 2006. Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi): status and 

conservation issues. Atoll Research Bulletin 543:75–101.

Bacon, C.E., W.M. Jarmon, J.A. Estes, M. Simon, and R.J. Norstrom. 1999. Comparison of organochlorine contaminants among sea otter (Enhydra

lutris) populations in California and Alaska. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18:452–458.

Baker, J.D., C.L. Littnan, and D.W. Johnston. 2006. Potential effects of sea level rise on the terrestrial habitats of endangered and endemic megafauna 

in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Endangered Species Research 2:21–30.

Baker, S.C., and P.J. Clapham. 2004. Modeling the past and future of whales and whaling. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19(7):365–371.

Bargu, S., C.L. Powell, S.L. Coale, M. Busman, G.J. Doucette, and M.W. Silver. 2002. Krill: A potential vector for domoic acid in marine food webs. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 237:209–216.

Bartholomew, G.A., Jr. 1950. A male Guadalupe fur seal on San Nicolas Island, California. Journal of Mammalogy 31(2):175–180.

Bartholomew, G.A., and C.L. Hubbs. 1960. Population growth and seasonal movements of the northern elephant seal, Mirounga angustirostris.

Mammalia 24:313–324.

Becker, P.R., M.M. Krahn, E.A. Mackey, R. Demiralp, M.M. Schantz, M.S. Epstein, M.K. Donais, B.J. Porter, D.C.G. Muir, and S.A. Wise. 2000. 

Concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorinated pesticides, and heavy metals and other elements in tissues of belugas, 

Delphinapterus leucas, from Cook Inlet, Alaska. Marine Fisheries Review 62(3):81–98.

Best, P.B., A. Branadâo, and D.S. Butterworth. 2001. Demographic parameters of southern right whales off South Africa. Journal of Cetacean 

Research Management. (Special Issue) 2:161–169.

Calkins, D.G. 1989. Status of beluga whales in Cook Inlet. Pages 109–112 in L.E. Jarvela and L.K. Thorsteinson (eds.). Gulf of Alaska, Cook Inlet, 

and North Aleutian Basin information update meeting. Anchorage, Alaska, Feb. 7–8, 1989. USDOC, NOAA, OCSEAP.

Canadian Wildlife Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (CWS and FWS). 2005. Draft international recovery plan for the whooping crane. 

Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW), Ottawa, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Caroli, S., A. Menditto, and F. Chiodo. 1996. The International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals. Challenges of data collection in the fi eld of 

toxicology. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 3(2):104–107.

Carretta, J.V., K.A. Forney, M.M. Muto, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson, and M.S. Lowry. 2007. U.S. Pacifi c Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 

2006. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-398. 

Corsolini, S., A. Covaci, N. Ademollo, S. Focardi, and P. Schepens. 2006. Occurrence of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and their enantiomeric 

signatures, and concentrations of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in the Adélie penguin food web, Antarctica. Environmental 

Pollution 140:371–382.

Cox, T.M., T.J. Ragen, A.J. Read, E. Vos, R.W. Baird, K. Balcomb, J. Barlow, J. Caldwell, T. Cranford. L. Crum, A. D’Amico, G. D’Spain, A. 

Fernandez, J. Finneran, R. Gentry, W. Gerth, F. Gulland, J. Hildebrand, D. Houser, T. Hullar, P.D. Jepson, D. Ketten, C.D. MacLeod. P. 

Miller, S. Moore, D. Mountain, D. Palka, P. Ponganis, S. Rommel, T. Rowles, B. Taylor, P. Tyack. D. Wartzok, R. Gisiner, J. Mead, and 

L. Benner. 2006. Understanding the impacts of anthropogenic sound on beaked whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 

7(3):177–187.

Craig, M.P., and T.J. Ragen. 1999. Body size, survival, and decline of juvenile Hawaiian monk seals, Monachus schauinslandi. Marine Mammal 

Science 15(3):786–809.

Dill, H.R., and W.A. Bryan. 1912. Report on an expedition to Laysan Island in 1911. U.S. Department of Agriculture Biological Survey Bulletin 

42:1–30.

Dizon, A.E., C. Lockyer, W.F. Perrin, D.P. DeMaster, and J. Sisson. 1991. Rethinking the stock concept: a phylogeographic approach. Conservation 

Biology 6(1):24–36.

Domning, D.P. 1978. Sirenian evolution in the North Pacifi c Ocean. University of California. Publications in Geological Sciences 118:1–176.

Estes, J.A., B.B. Hatfi eld, K. Ralls, and J. Ames. 2003. Causes of mortality in California sea otters during periods of population growth and 

decline. Marine Mammal Science 19(1):198–216.

Ferguson, S.H., I. Stirling, and P. McLoughlin. 2005. Climate change and ringed seal (Phoca hispida) recruitment in western Hudson Bay. Marine 

Mammal Science 21(1):121–135.

Flewelling, L.J., J.P. Abbott, D.G. Hammond, J. Landsberg, E. Haubold, T. Pulfer, P. Speiss, and M.S. Henry. 2004. Sea grass as a route of brevetoxin 

exposure in the 2002 red tide-related manatee mortality event. Harmful Algae 3:205.

Fordyce, R.E. 2002. Fossil record. Pages 453 –471 in W.F. Perrin, B. WĦrsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. 

Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Fowler, C.W. 1987. Marine debris and northern fur seals: A case study. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6):326–335.

Fujiwara, M., and H. Caswell. 2001. Demography of the North Atlantic right whale. Nature 414:537–541.

Fyler, C.A., T.W. Reeder, A. Berta, G. Antonelis, A. Aguilar and E. Androukaki. 2005. Historical biogeography and phylogeny of monachine seals 
45

Mignucci-Giannoni A.A. 2005. Estatus del manati de las Indias Occidentals (Trichechus manatus) en Puerto Rico. A report by Antonio Mignucci, 

Investigacion Ambiental. 13 pp. (Prepared February 21, 2005; translated January 29, 2007.)

Mignucci-Giannoni A.A. 2006. West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) mortality analysis: 1990–2005. Progress report, Red Caribeña 

deVaramientos, Caribbean Stranding Network, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

Mignucci-Giannoni, A.A., R.A. Montoya-Ospina, N.M. Jimenez-Marrero, M.A. Rodriguez- Lopez, E.H. Williams, Jr., and R.K.Bonde. 2000. 

Manatee mortality in Puerto Rico. Environmental Management 25(2): 189–198.

Miller, M.A., I.A. Gardner, C. Kreuder, D.M. Paradies, K.R. Worcester, D.A. Jessup, E. Dodd, M.D. Harris, J.A. Ames, A.E. Packham, and P.A. 

Conrad. 2002. Coastal freshwater runoff is a risk factor for Toxoplasma gondii infection of southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis).

International Journal for Parasitology 32:997–1006.

Moller, J.C., D.N. Wiley, T.V.N. Cole, M. Niemyer, 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, California. December 12–16, 2005.

Moore, S.E., and H.P. Huntington. In press. Arctic marine mammals and climate change: impacts and resilience. Ecological Applications. 

Nakata, H., K. Kannan, L. Jing, N. Thomas, S. Tanabe, and J.P. Giesy. 1998. Accumulation pattern of organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated 

biphenyls in southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis) found stranded along coastal California, USA. Environmental Pollution 103: 45–53.

Nakata, H., A. Sakakibara, M. Kanoh, S. Kudo, H. Watanabe, N. Nagai, N. Miyazaki, Y. Asano, and S. Tanabe. 2002. Evaluation of mitogen-induced 

responses in marine mammal and human lymphocytes by in-vitro exposure of butyltins and non-ortho-coplanar PCBs. Environmental 

Pollution 120(2):245–53.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Recovery plan for the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus). Prepared by Reeves, R.R., P.J. Clapham, R.L. 

Brownell, Jr., and G.K. Silber for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Draft conservation plan for the Cook Inlet beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas). National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Juneau, Alaska.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006a. Draft recovery plan for the fi n whale (Balaenoptera physalus). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver 

Spring, Maryland. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006b. Draft recovery plan for the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Silver Spring, Maryland. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006c. Proposed recovery plan for southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca). National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007a. Recovery plan for the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi). 2nd revision. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007b. Draft revised recovery plan for the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

NOAA Fisheries Strategic Plan. May 1997. National Park Service (NPS). 1998. Tule elk, the return of a species. Point Reyes National Seashore, CA.

National Park Service. 1998. Tule elk, the return of a species. Point Reyes National Seashore, California.

National Research Council. 2003. Ocean noise and marine mammals. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

Nowacek, D., 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. Series B, Biological Sciences, 271:227–231.

O’Corry-Crowe, G.M., R.S. Suydam, A. Rosenberg, K.J. Frost, and A.E.Dizon. 1997. Phylogeography, population structure and dispersal patterns of 

the beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas, in the western Nearctic revealed by mitochondrial DNA. Molecular Ecology 6:955–970.

O’Grady, J.J., B.W. Brook, D.H. Reed, J.D. Ballou, D.W. Tonkyn, and R. Frankham. 2006. Realistic levels of inbreeding depression strongly affect 

extinction risk in wild populations. Biological Conservation 133:42-51.

O’Hara, T.M., and J.J. O’Shea. 2005. Assessing impacts of environmental contaminants. Pages 63–83 in J.E. Reynolds, W.F. Perrin, R.R. Reeves, S. 

Montgomery, and T.J. Ragen (eds.), Marine Mammal Research: Conservation beyond Crisis, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 

Maryland.

O’Shea, T.J., R.R. Reeves, and A.K. Long (eds.). 1999. Marine Mammals and Persistent Ocean Contaminants. Proceedings of the Marine Mammal 

Commission workshop, 12–15 October 1998, Keystone, Colorado. Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, Maryland.

Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America’s living oceans: charting a course for sea change. A report to the nation. May 2003. Pew Oceans 

Commission, Arlington, Virginia.

Pucek, Z. 2004. Status survey and conservation action plan, European bison. IUCN–The World Conservation Union.

Ragen, T. 1999. Human activities affecting the population trends of the Hawaiian monk seal. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23:183–194. 

Table, p. 186.

Ragen, T.J., H.P. Huntington, and G.K. Hovelsrud. In press. Conservation of Arctic marine mammals faced with climate change. Ecological 

Applications.

Read, A.J., P. Drinker, and S.P. Northridge. 2006. Bycatch of marine mammals and U.S. and global fi sheries. Conservation Biology 20(1):163–169.

Reeves, R.R., W.F. Perrin, B.L. Taylor, C.S. Baker, and S.L. Mesnick. 2004. Report of the workshop on shortcomings of cetacean taxonomy 

in relation to needs of conservation and management: April 30–May 2, La Jolla, California. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC 363. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, California. 

Reeves, R.R., and T.J. Ragen. 2004. Future directions in marine mammal research: Report of the Marine Mammal Commission consultation, August 

3–7, 2003. Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Reeves, R.R., A. Read, D. Boness, L. Lowry, and S.K. Katona. 2007. Report of the North Atlantic right whale program review, 13–17 March 2006. 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Marine Mammal Commission. Bethesda, Maryland.

Repenning, C.A. 1976. Adaptive evolution of sea lions and walruses. Systematic Zoology 25:375–390.

Repenning, C.A., C.E. Ray, and D. Grigorescu. 1979. Pinniped biogeography. Pages 357–369 in J. Gray and A.J. Boucet (eds.), Historical 
46

biogeography, plate tectonics and the changing environment. Oregon State University Press.

Reynolds, J.E. III, W.F. Perrin, R.R. Reeves, S. Montgomery, and T.J. Ragen. 2005. Marine mammal research: Conservation beyond crisis. The Johns 

Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland.

Rice, D.W. 1998. Marine Mammals of the World. Systematics and Distribution. Special Publication Number 4. The Society for Marine Mammalogy, 

Lawrence, Kansas.

Rice, D.W. 1973. Caribbean monk seal (Monachus tropicalis). Pages 98–112 in Seals, proceedings of a working meeting of seal specialists on 

threatened and depleted seals of the world held under the auspices of the Survival Service Commission of the IUCN, 18–19 August 1972 at 

the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. IUCN pubs. New Series, Supp. Paper No. 39. IUCN, 1110 Morges, Switzerland. 

Riedman, M.L., and J.A. Estes. 1990 The sea otter (Enhydra lutris): behavior, ecology, and natural history. Biological Report 14. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 126 pp.

Ross, P.S., R.L. DeSwart, P.J. Reijnders, H. Van Loveren, J.G. Vos, and A.D. Osterhaus. 1995. Contaminant-related suppression of delayed-type 

hypersensitivity and antibody responses in harbor seals fed herring from the Baltic Sea. Environmental Health Perspectives 103(2):162–

167.

Rothschild, W. 1893–1900. The avifauna of Laysan and the neighboring islands. R.H. Porter, London.

Rugh, D.J., K.E.W. Sheldon, and B.A. Mahoney. 2000. Distribution of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska, during June/July 1993–

2000. Marine Fisheries Review 62:6–21.

Rugh, D.J., K.E.W. Shelden, C.L. Sims, B.A. Mahoney, B.K. Smith, L.K. Litzky, and R.C. Hobbs. 2005. Aerial surveys of beluga whales in Cook 

Inlet, Alaska, June 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-149.

Schauinslandi, H.H. 1899. Three monks on a coral island (Laysan). Translated by M.D.F. Udvardy. Atoll Research Bulletin 432.

Speckman, S.G., and J.F. Piatt. 2000. Historic and current use of lower Cook Inlet, Alaska, by belugas, Delphinapterus leucas. Marine Fisheries 

Review 62:22–26.

Stejneger, L. 1887. How the great northern sea-cow (Rytina) became exterminated. American Naturalist 21:1047–1054. (doi:10.1086/274607)

Stewart, B.S., P.K. Yochem, H.R. Huber, R.L. DeLong, R.J. Jameson, W.J. Sydeman, S.G. Allen, and B.J. LeBoeuf. 1994. History and present 

status of the northern elephant seal population. Pages 29–48 in B. J. LeBoeuf and R.M. Laws (eds.). Elephant Seals: Population Ecology, 

Behaviour and Physiology. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Stirling, I., and C.L. Parkinson. 2006. Possible effects of climate warming on selected populations of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Canadian 

Arctic. Arctic 59(3):261–275.

Taylor, B.L. 2005. Identifying units to conserve. Pages 149–161 in J.E. Reynolds III, W.F. Perrin, R.R. Reeves, S. Montgomery, and T.J. Ragen 

(eds.). Marine Mammal Research: Conservation Beyond Crisis. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Taylor, B.L., M. Martinez, T. Gerrodette, and J. Barlow. 2007. Lessons from monitoring trends in abundance of marine mammals. Marine Mammal 

Science 23(1):157–175.

Titus, J.G., and C. Richman. 2001. Maps of lands vulnerable to sea level rise: modeled elevations along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Climate 

Research 18(3):205–228.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. 2007. The state of world fi sheries and aquaculture 

2006, Rome.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. U.S. interim projections by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www.usinterimproj/. Internet 

release date: March 18, 2004.

U.S. Census Bureau 2007. Population program’s 2005 estimates. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/emergencies/coast_areas.html. 

Accessed on 9/21/07. Sources: Decennial censuses of 1950, 1970, and 2000. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 1999. An assessment of the U.S. Marine transportation system: A report to Congress. September 1999. 

Washington, DC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Florida manatee recovery plan (Trichechus manatus latirostris), 3rd revision. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Atlanta, Georgia. 144 pp. + appendices.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Federal and state endangered and threatened species expenditures: fi scal year 2004. U.S Department of the 

Interior. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. 

Van Dolah, F.M. 2000. Marine algal toxins: Origins, health effects, and their increased occurrence. Environmental Health Perspectives 108:133–141.

Van Dolah, F.M. 2005. Effects of harmful algal blooms. Pages 85–99 in J.E. Reynolds III, W.F. Perrin, R.R. Reeves, S. Montgomery, and T.J. Ragen 

(eds.), Marine mammal research: Conservation beyond crisis. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Wade, P., M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, K. Shelden, J. Barlow, J. Carretta, J. Durban, R. LeDuc, L. Munger, S. Rankin, A. Sauter, and C. Stinchcomb. 2006. 

Acoustic detection and satellite-tracking leads to discovery of rare concentration of endangered North Pacifi c right whales, Biology Letters 

doi:10.1098/rsbl.2006.0460.

Wakefi eld, S., J. Knowles, W. Zimmerman, and M. van Dierendonck. 2003. Status and action plan for the Przewalski’s horse (Equus ferus 

przewalskii). Pages 82–92 in P.D. Moehlman (ed.) Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan, Equiids: zebra, asses, and horses. IUCN–

The World Conservation Union.

Walton, T. L., Jr. 2007. Projected sea level rise in Florida. Ocean Engineering 34:1832–1840.

Waring, G.H. 2001. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal research and studies FY74–FY99. Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, 

Maryland.

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfi eld, K. Maze-Foley (eds.), with contributions from D. Belden, T.V.N. Cole, L.P. Garrison, K. Mullin, C. 

Orphanides, R.M. Pace III, D.L. Palka, M.C. Rossman, and F.W. Wenzel. 2007. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock 

assessments – 2006. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-201. 

Watson, R. and D. Pauly. 2001. Systematic distortions in world fi sheries catch trends. Nature 414:534–536.

Weber, M.L., and D.W. Laist. 2007. The status of protection programs for endangered, threatened, and depleted marine mammals in U.S. waters. 
47

Marine Mammal Commission. Bethesda. Maryland.

Wertz, S.P., S.H. Kramer, and J.S. Sunada. 2002. California Halibut. Pages 14–1 to 14–11 in Annual status of the fi sheries report. California 

Department of Fish and Game.

Wilder, G. 1905. A short trip to the Midway Islands with Captain A.P. Niblack in the U.S.S. Iroquois. Hawaiian Forester and Agriculturist 2:390–396.

Yablokov, A.V. 1995. Soviet antarctic whaling data (1947–1972). Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow. [In Russian and English]

Ylitalo, G.M., C.O. Matkin, J. Buzitis, M.M. Krahn, L.L. Jones, T. Rowles, and J.E. Stein. 2001. Infl uence of life-history parameters on 

organochlorine concentrations in free-ranging killer whales (Orcinus orca) from Prince William Sound, Alaska. Science of the Total 

Environment 281:183–203.

APPENDIX 1

Members of the Steering Committee for the Marine Mammal 

Commission’s Project to Analyze the Biological Viability of the 

Most Endangered Marine Mammals and the Cost-effectiveness of 

Protection Programs.

Daryl Boness

Committee of Scientifi c Advisors on Marine Mammals

Marine Mammal Commission

David Cottingham

Executive Director

Marine Mammal Commission

Debbie Crouse

Offi ce of Endangered Species

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Jon Goldstein (Retired)

Natural Resource Economist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Daniel Goodman

Professor of Biology

Montana State University

Lloyd Lowry

Chair, Committee of Scientifi c Advisors on Marine Mammals

Marine Mammal Commission

Randall R. Reeves

Committee of Scientifi c Advisors on Marine Mammals

Marine Mammal Commission

Phillip Williams

Director, Division of Endangered Species

Offi ce of Protected Resources

National Marine Fisheries Service

APPENDIX 2

Endangered,

Threatened, and 

Depleted Marine Mammals

In U.S. Waters

 

Endangered, Threatened, and Depleted 

Marine Mammals in U.S. Waters

A Review of Species Classification Systems 

and Listed Species 

Prepared for the Marine Mammal Commission by

Lloyd Lowry 

David W. Laist 

Elizabeth Taylor

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.

CONTENTS 

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

I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................1

II. MAJOR LISTING SYSTEMS FOR SPECIES AND 

POPULATIONS AT RISK .........................................................3 

Endangered Species Act...........................................................................................3 

Marine Mammal Protection Act .............................................................................5 

IUCN–The World Conservation Union................................................................6 

III. STATUS OF LISTED MARINE MAMMALS ......................................8 

West Indian manatee, Florida subspecies..............................................................8

West Indian manatee, Antillean subspecies, Puerto Rican population ...........11

Southern sea otter ...................................................................................................13

Northern sea otter, southwest Alaska population..............................................15

Caribbean monk seal ..............................................................................................18 

Hawaiian monk seal................................................................................................19

Guadalupe fur seal ..................................................................................................21

Northern fur seal, eastern Pacific (Pribilof Islands) population ......................23

Steller sea lion, eastern population .......................................................................25 

Steller sea lion, western population ......................................................................28 

Blue whale ................................................................................................................32 

Bowhead whale, western Arctic population........................................................34 

Fin whale ..................................................................................................................37 

Humpback whale ....................................................................................................39 

North Atlantic right whale.....................................................................................42 

North Pacific right whale.......................................................................................45 

Sei whale...................................................................................................................47 

Sperm whale.............................................................................................................49 

Beluga whale, Cook Inlet population...................................................................51 

Bottlenose dolphin, mid-Atlantic coastal population ........................................54 

Killer whale, southern resident population .........................................................56 

Killer whale, AT1 group.........................................................................................59 

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................62 

Characteristics of ESA, MMPA, and IUCN classification systems.................62 

Summary of species listing status..........................................................................63 

Biological status of listed taxa ...............................................................................64 

Species for which new information may warrant a reexamination of listing 

classifications ...........................................................................................................64 

V. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................66 

VI. LITERATURE CITED........................................................................66 

VII. APPENDIX...........................................................................................78 

 Summary of Quantitative Features of the IUCN Rule-based Approach 
iv 

Table 1. International Union for the Conservation of Nature 

 classification categories.......................................................................................71 

Table 2. Marine mammal taxa currently listed as endangered or threatened 

 under the ESA or depleted under the MMPA................................................72 

Table 3. Conservation units used to evaluate status of selected large whale 

species in the ESA, IUCN, and MMPA evaluation systems ........................73 

Table 4. Summary of the biological status of marine mammal taxa currently 

listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA or 

depleted under the MMPA ................................................................................74 

Table 5. Summary of the quality of available data for marine mammal taxa 

currently listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA or 

depleted under the MMPA ................................................................................76 

Table 6. ESA and MMPA listings of taxa with good or fair data in at least 

five data categories..............................................................................................77 
v 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. INTRODUCTION 

In its 2004 appropriations bill, Congress 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.” 

This report identifies “the most endangered marine mammal populations” in U.S. waters, 

evaluates the criteria and methods used to place marine mammal species and populations 

on the major protected species lists, and reviews current data on their biological status. 

II. DESCRIPTION OF CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS 

Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), passed in 1973, employs a two-category system for 

listing species either as endangered (“in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range”) or threatened (“likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 

future”). Congress left the task of defining these terms to the federal agencies responsible 

for listing and delisting species, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The ESA defines the term ‘‘species’’ to include “any 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species 

of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” Although the ESA is 

international in scope, different kinds of protection apply in U.S. and foreign territory and 

in federal jurisdiction versus state or private property. 

The listing process begins with a review of the species’ taxonomy, life history, habitat and 

ecological relationships, and population status, and an analysis of threats known or thought 

to be causing the species to be endangered or threatened. The threats analysis considers the 

following five factors for both listing and reclassification decisions: 

x present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 

x overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 

x disease or predation; 

x inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 

x other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. 

In practice, the agencies often use what has been called a “weight of the evidence” 

approach in which all extinction risk factors for which information is available are 

considered in the analysis but without a strict formula for combining the appraisals of the 

respective factors. 
vi 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) uses population stocks (or simply stocks) as 

its unit of conservation and defines a stock as “a group of marine mammals of the same 

species or smaller taxa in a common spatial arrangement, that interbreed when mature.” 

The MMPA provides general protection to all marine mammal stocks and additional 

protection to those designated as “depleted.” A species or population stock is considered 

depleted if it is below its optimum sustainable population (OSP) or if it is listed under the 

ESA. The MMPA defines OSP as ‘‘the number of animals which will result in the 

maximum productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the carrying 

capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent 

element.’’ The responsible agencies have gone considerably farther in standardizing and 

quantifying criteria for evaluating status under the MMPA than they have for the ESA, and 

they have developed formulas relating to population size, carrying capacity, population 

growth rates, and incidental mortality rates. Similar to the ESA, the MMPA is international 

in scope but applies in different ways in U.S. and foreign territory. 

IUCN–The World Conservation Union 

IUCN–The World Conservation Union, through its Species Survival Commissions, 

evaluates the status of species, subspecies, and geographical populations worldwide and 

produces its “Red List” of threatened species. Its rule-based classification system uses both 

quantitative and qualitative criteria to place species within categories depending on the 

predicted degree of extinction risk. The criteria include measures of current population 

size, trend in population size, population structure, size of occupied range, and quantitative 

analysis of probability of extinction. The criteria can be applied to any taxonomic unit at or 

below the species level. Although the categories and criteria are intended primarily for 

global taxon assessments, they also may be applied at regional, national, or local levels. The 

IUCN assessments are not directly comparable with ESA listings, in part because they are 

not always done for the same taxonomic unit, and in part because the IUCN categories do 

not automatically carry a regulatory consequence so the terms like “endangered” are not 

fully portable between the classification systems. However, all 22 marine mammal taxa 

listed under the ESA and MMPA are considered in one way or another by the IUCN. 

Summary of Current Listing Status 

Out of the 22 marine mammal taxa reviewed, the ESA lists 14 as endangered and 4 as 

threatened; 4 are not listed. The MMPA lists all 22 taxa as depleted. The IUCN lists 1 of 

the taxa as extinct, 1 as critically endangered, 10 as endangered, 6 as vulnerable, 3 as lower 

risk, and 1 as data deficient (see Table 2). Both populations of sirenians are listed as 

endangered under the ESA and vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. Both populations of sea 

otters are listed as threatened under the ESA and endangered on the IUCN Red List. For 

the pinnipeds, three populations are listed under the ESA as endangered and two as 

threatened; one is not listed. The IUCN lists one pinniped population as extinct, three as 

endangered, and two as vulnerable. For the cetaceans, nine populations are listed as 

endangered and three are not listed under the ESA. The IUCN lists one cetacean 
vii 

population as critically endangered, five as endangered, two as vulnerable, three as lower 

risk, and one as data deficient. 

 Current IUCN, ESA, and MMPA approaches differ with respect to listing units. IUCN 

listings are often applied to entire species worldwide, while recent ESA and MMPA listings 

have been based on population segments or stocks. Under the ESA, all eight species of 

large whales are considered on a worldwide basis because they were first listed under the 

1969 Endangered Species Conservation Act, a precursor to the ESA. Of the taxa 

considered here, the IUCN lists 10 species on a worldwide basis, including 5 species of 

large whales. Although many of the species considered include multiple isolated or 

relatively discrete population units, the nature of those units is often either not described or 

not yet recognized in the evaluation/listing process. More recent listings by stocks and 

population segments indicate that this is an evolving process. 

In the United States, 11 marine mammal taxa were listed after passage of the Endangered 

Species Preservation Act or the Endangered Species Conservation Act, and none was 

subject to a baseline assessment of the five listing factors detailing the rationale for listing. 

Seven taxa were listed subsequent to passage of the ESA, one taxon was evaluated for 

listing and rejected, and three have not been evaluated. Under the MMPA, 16 taxa are 

listed as depleted due to their ESA listing, 5 taxa were listed following an OSP evaluation, 

and 1 taxon was listed without an OSP evaluation. 

Available Data and Current Biological Status 

A review of the data currently available on various biological attributes of listed species 

indicates that the quality of the data varies greatly. For only five taxa was data availability 

ranked as good in four or more of the six data categories considered. However, if both 

good and fair data quality are considered, 11 taxa have good or fair data in all six categories 

and 2 have good or fair in five categories. At the other extreme, 4 taxa have poor data 

availability in all of the categories and 8 in three or more categories. For taxa with good-tofair abundance estimates, population sizes range from 8 for AT1 killer whales to 688,028 

for eastern North Pacific fur seals. The taxa with the smallest estimated abundances are 

AT1 killer whales (8), North Pacific right whales (minimum 23), southern resident killer 

whales (84), Cook Inlet beluga whales (278), and Hawaiian monk seals (1,252). AT1 killer 

whales and Cook Inlet beluga whales are not listed under the ESA.

Major Findings and Conclusions 

In many cases the ESA, MMPA, and IUCN listings have not kept pace with the growing 

body of knowledge on population (or stock) structure, although the more recent listing 

actions have considered biologically reasonable population units. In particular, the ESA 

lists all species of large whales as endangered on a worldwide basis despite the fact that 

many are known to exist in discrete regional populations. For large whales listed under the 

ESA, NMFS should (1) identify distinct population segments based on recent information 

on population structure and (2) evaluate the listing status of each newly identified 

population segment. 
viii 

Some other taxa currently listed under the ESA should be reevaluated and possibly 

reclassified. For instance, Caribbean monk seals might be declared extinct, eastern Steller 

sea lions might be delisted, western Steller sea lions might be downlisted, and Cook Inlet 

beluga whales and AT1 killer whales might be listed as endangered or threatened. 

There is concern among scientists that a lack of data has precluded the listing of some taxa 

that may in fact be endangered, threatened, or depleted (e.g., beaked whales). For those 

taxa, scientists often do not know what the population units are that should be of 

conservation concern, what their historical and current abundances were and are, whether 

numbers are currently increasing or decreasing, and what factors may be threatening the 

population. Without such data, it is essentially impossible to conduct thorough status 

reviews or to compare population status with the listing criteria used by any system. A 

more robust decision system is needed for coping with the likelihood that some species for 

which there is little available data are nevertheless endangered and in need of conservation 

attention.
1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

In fiscal year 2004 the Congress 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.” The Commission interpreted, and confirmed 

with staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee, that this directive was focused on marine 

mammals occurring substantially in U.S. waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans. The 

Commission undertook a series of reviews and prepared two reports (including this one) to provide 

a basis for its response to Congress. The purpose of this report is to summarize relevant information 

on the status of marine mammal species and populations that have been formally identified as 

requiring special protection. The second report (Weber and Laist 2007) reviews existing protection 

programs for the listed species. The other related reviews undertaken as part of the Commission’s 

response to the directive have (1) examined modeling efforts to predict marine mammal population 

trends and assess their utility for evaluating degree of endangerment, and (2) assessed the costeffectiveness of the recovery program for North Atlantic right whales. 

The first line of protection for marine mammals in U.S. waters results from actions prescribed by 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Both Acts 

establish provisions for listing marine mammal species and populations with special conservation 

needs. The ESA creates a two-tiered system under which species and populations may be listed as 

“endangered” or “threatened.” The MMPA establishes a single category system for listing species or 

populations as “depleted.” Once listed, a species or population is eligible for additional protection 

measures specified in the Acts. At the time this report was drafted, 20 marine mammal species or 

populations occurring regularly in U.S. waters were listed under one or both Acts. Taxonomic 

revisions accepted since ESA listings were made have recognized northern right whales as two 

separate species (i.e., North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales) and West Indian manatees as 

consisting of two subspecies (i.e., Florida manatees and Antillean manatees). For this review, we 

considered each of these species and subspecies separately, thereby increasing the number of taxa 

considered from 20 to 22. Although marine mammals also are “listed” under many other 

classification systems of various organizations, the most widely recognized international system is 

the Red List of Threatened Species prepared by the International Union for the Conservation of 

Nature–The World Conservation Union (IUCN). Begun in the 1960s, the IUCN Red List has 

evolved into a multi-tiered classification system developed to identify species in greatest need of 

protection on a global basis. 

To identify which marine mammals in U.S. waters are most endangered, this report reviews the 

ESA, MMPA, and IUCN species classification systems and summarizes information on the listing 

status and biological status of those species and populations now included under them. For each of 

the three classification systems, the report describes the criteria and process for listing species. For 

the listed species and populations, it summarizes available information on distribution and identified 

conservation units, evaluation and listing history, major biological datasets, and current biological 

status and trend. Based on this information, summary tables are provided to compare information 

across taxa. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not 
2 

necessarily reflect those of the Marine Mammal Commission. They are intended to provide 

background information and suggestions for consideration by the Commission in developing its 

report to Congress. 
3 

II. MAJOR LISTING SYSTEMS FOR SPECIES AND POPULATIONS AT RISK 

Endangered Species Act 

Protection for endangered species under U.S. federal law began with the Endangered Species 

Preservation Act (ESPA) of 1966 (Public Law 89-669). This legislation directed the Secretary of the 

Interior to carry out conservation programs for endangered species and authorized measures to 

protect habitats. Species were to be determined as threatened with extinction upon a finding by the 

Secretary “after consultation with the affected States, that its existence is endangered because its 

habitat is threatened with destruction, drastic modification, or severe curtailment, or because of 

overexploitation, disease, predation, or because of other factors, and that its survival requires 

assistance.” The Secretary was directed to seek the advice and recommendations of interested 

persons, including wildlife scientists, and to publish in the Federal Register the names of all species 

found to be threatened with extinction. 

The ESPA was followed by the Endangered Species Conservation Act (ESCA) of 1969 (Public Law 

91-135). This legislation authorized the Secretary to promulgate a list of wildlife threatened with 

extinction worldwide and to prohibit their importation into the United States. It also required that 

listing of endangered species be done pursuant to the rulemaking procedures of the Administrative 

Procedure Act. 

The ESPA and the ESCA were superseded by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (Public 

Law 93-205), which was subsequently amended substantially in 1978, 1982, 1984, and 1988. With 

each succeeding Act, the list of already listed species was largely carried forward, notwithstanding 

changes in definitions and listing procedures. The purposes and policies of the current ESA as 

amended are stated in section 2 of the Act: 

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the 

ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be 

conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species 

and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the 

purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section. 

(c) POLICY.—(1) It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that all Federal 

departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened 

species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act. 

(2) It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that Federal agencies shall 

cooperate with State and local agencies to resolve water resource issues in concert 

with conservation of endangered species. 

The ESA employs a two-category system for listing species either as endangered (“in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range”; sec. 3[6]) or threatened (“likely to 

become endangered in the foreseeable future”; sec. 3[20]). An implicit third category is “not 

threatened or endangered,” which includes species that have been evaluated but not listed as well as 
4 

those that have never been evaluated. Congress left the task of defining these and other terms in the 

statute to the two federal agencies responsible for listing and delisting species, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In 1984 NMFS and FWS 

published joint regulations to govern the ESA listing process and the designation of critical habitat 

(50 C.F.R. §424). However, a multi-agency working group charged with making recommendations 

on the use of quantitative criteria concluded that the guidelines developed by those agencies have 

not yet achieved the desired level of consistency, standardization, and objectivity in the decision 

process for listing, reclassifying, or delisting species (DeMaster et al. 2004). The Act requires that 

recovery plans for endangered species include “objective, measurable criteria which, when met, 

would result in a determination, in accordance with the provisions of this section, that the species be 

removed from the list” (sec. 4(f)(1)(B)[ii]). This suggests that Congress intended that specific criteria 

be used in listing decisions. Recently NMFS has published reports recommending criteria to use for 

evaluating ESA listing status of marine species in general (DeMaster et al. 2004) and large whales in 

particular (Angliss et al. 2002). 

The ESA defines the term ‘‘species’’ to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when 

mature” (sec. 3[16]). FWS and NMFS agreed on a joint policy for identifying “distinct population 

segments” (DPSs) in 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 4722). The policy states that DPSs are to be determined 

based on three sequential considerations: (1) the discreteness of the population relative to the rest of 

the species; (2) the significance of the population segment to the species; and (3) the population 

segment’s conservation status in relation to the ESA’s standards for listing (i.e., is the population 

segment endangered or threatened when treated as if it were a species?). 

The policy goes on to state: “Listing, delisting, or reclassifying distinct vertebrate population 

segments may allow the Services to protect and conserve species and the ecosystems upon which 

they depend before large-scale decline occurs that would necessitate listing a species or subspecies 

throughout its entire range. This may allow protection and recovery of declining organisms in a 

more timely and less costly manner, and on a smaller scale than the more costly and extensive efforts 

that might be needed to recover an entire species or subspecies.” 

The listing process begins with a review of the species’ taxonomy, life history, habitat and ecological 

relationships, and population status, and an analysis of threats that may be causing it to be 

endangered or threatened. The threats analysis must, at a minimum, consider the following five 

factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: 

x present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 

x overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 

x disease or predation; 

x inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 

x other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. 
5 

These factors serve as a checklist to be used in evaluating species status and indicate that any threat 

including “natural” sources can cause a species to be at risk and to merit ESA protection. In 

practice, the agencies often use what has been called a “weight of the evidence” approach in which 

all extinction risk factors for which information is available are considered in the analysis but 

without a strict formula for combining the appraisals of the respective factors (DeMaster et al. 

2004). The ESA requires that listing decisions be based solely on the best scientific and commercial 

data available (sec. 4[b][1][A]), and it prohibits the consideration of economic impacts in making 

species listing decisions. The Act also requires FWS and NMFS to “conduct, at least once every five 

years, a review of all species included in a list” and “determine on the basis of such review whether 

any such species should—(i) be removed from such list; (ii) be changed in status from an 

endangered species to a threatened species; or (iii) be changed in status from a threatened species to 

an endangered species” (sec. 4[c][2]). Since 1994 FWS and NMFS have had a formal policy that 

listing recommendations and recovery plans are subject to independent peer review (59 Fed. Reg. 

34270). 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; Public Law 92-522) was passed in 1972 and has been 

amended several times, most recently in 2003. The first two findings in the Act pertain to protection 

for endangered species, and state (sec. 2): 

(1) certain species and population stocks of marine mammals are, or may be, in 

danger of extinction or depletion as a result of man’s activities; 

(2) such species and population stocks should not be permitted to diminish beyond 

the point at which they cease to be a significant functioning element in the ecosystem 

of which they are a part, and, consistent with this major objective, they should not be 

permitted to diminish below their optimum sustainable population. Further measures 

should be immediately taken to replenish any species or population stock which has 

already diminished below that population. In particular, efforts should be made to 

protect essential habitats, including the rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance for each species of marine mammal from the adverse effect of 

man’s actions. 

The MMPA provides general protection to all marine mammal species and population stocks and 

provides additional protections to those designated as “depleted.” Section 3(1) defines the term 

“depleted” as any case in which: 

(A) the Secretary, after consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission and 

the Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals established under title II 

of this Act, determines that a species or population stock is below its optimum 

sustainable population; 
6 

(B) a State, to which authority for the conservation and management of a 

species or population stock is transferred under section 109, determines that such 

species or stock is below its optimum sustainable population; or 

(C) a species or population stock is listed as an endangered species or a 

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Section 3(11) defines the term “population stock” or “stock” as “a group of marine mammals of the 

same species or smaller taxa in a common spatial arrangement, that interbreed when mature.” 

 

A species or stock that is not listed under the ESA will be classified as depleted only if it is 

determined to be below its optimum sustainable population (OSP) level. Section 3(9) of the MMPA 

defines OSP as ‘‘...with respect to any population stock, the number of animals which will result in 

the maximum productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity of 

the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element.’’ 

NMFS regulations (50 C.F.R. § 216.3) clarify the definition of OSP as a population size that falls 

within a range from the largest supportable within the ecosystem (i.e., carrying capacity or K) to its 

maximum net productivity level (MNPL). Maximum net productivity is the greatest net annual 

increment in population numbers or biomass resulting from additions to the population from 

reproduction, less losses due to natural mortality. Historically, MNPL has been expressed as a range 

of values (generally 50 to 70 percent of K) determined theoretically by estimating what size stock in 

relation to the original stock size will produce the maximum net increase in population (42 Fed. Reg. 

12010). The midpoint of this range (60 percent) was used to determine whether dolphin stocks in 

the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean were depleted (42 Fed. Reg. 64548) and in the final rule governing 

the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations (45 Fed. Reg. 72178). 

Section 115 of the MMPA describes procedures for reviewing the status of species. It specifies that, 

when designation of a species as depleted may be appropriate, “the Secretary shall only make such a 

determination by issuance of a rule, after notice and opportunity for public comment and after a call 

for information” that should be made available in a status review. It also states that any 

determination made shall be based “solely on the basis of the best scientific information available.” 

There is no required schedule for reexamining the status of depleted species once listed. 

IUCN–The World Conservation Union 

The Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the IUCN evaluates the status of species worldwide and 

produces its “Red List of Threatened Species” (see http://www.redlist.org). To encourage 

consistency in classifications within broad taxon groups, “Red List Authorities” are established for 

all taxonomic groups included on the List. In most cases, the Red List Authority is the SSC 

Specialist Group responsible for the species, group of species, or specific geographic area. The Red 

List Authorities are charged with ensuring that all species within their jurisdiction are evaluated 

against the Red List categories at least once every ten years and, if possible, every five years. The 

minimum documentation required for an assessment is specified, and assessments are reviewed both 
7 

within the Red List Authority and by outside peer reviewers. Once approved, a classification is 

added, or a change is made, to the Red List. 

IUCN uses a rule-based classification system with both quantitative and qualitative criteria to place 

species at risk in eight categories (IUCN 2001; Table 1). Those categories include “data deficient” as 

well as a distinction between “extinct” and “extinct in the wild.” The criteria are based on current 

population size (expressed as mature individuals), trends in population size (past, present, and 

projected), population structure, size and degree of fragmentation of range (in two senses: extent of 

occurrence and area of occupancy), and quantitative analysis of probability of extinction (see 

Appendix 1). 

The IUCN criteria are designed for application to any taxonomic unit at or below the species level 

and are the same for all taxa. Although the categories and criteria are intended primarily for global 

taxon assessments, they also may be applied at regional, national, or local levels. When applied at a 

more restricted level, a taxon may merit a different category than it does in a global assessment. 
8 

III. STATUS OF LISTED MARINE MAMMALS 

West Indian manatee, Florida subspecies (Trichechus manatus latirostris) (ESA – 

endangered1; IUCN – vulnerable; MMPA – depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

The Florida manatee is one of two recognized subspecies of the West Indian (also called Caribbean) 

manatee (Rice 1998). Except for a few summer migrants that have traveled as far north as Rhode 

Island and as far west as Texas, Florida manatees occur only in waters of the southeastern United 

States. In winter they are limited almost exclusively to Florida. Four subpopulations are identified in 

the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (FWS 2001): two on the eastern coast of Florida (one in the 

upper St. Johns River and the other along the Atlantic coast) and two on the western coast (one in 

southwest Florida from Tampa Bay south and the other in northwest Florida north of Tampa Bay). 

These four subpopulations were identified for management purposes and are not considered distinct 

population segments for purposes of listing under the ESA. 

History of evaluation and listing

The Florida manatee is under the jurisdiction of FWS. Milestones relative to the subspecies’ listing 

include the following: 

x Subspecies listed as endangered under the ESPA in 1967. 

x Entire species listed as endangered under the ESCA in 1970. 

x Endangered status carried forward under the ESA in 1973. 

x Qualified as depleted under the MMPA in 1973 by virtue of its listing under the ESA. 

x West Indian manatee recovery plan first adopted in 1980. 

x First revision of recovery plan specific to the Florida population adopted in 1989. 

x Second revision of Florida manatee recovery plan adopted in 1996. 

x Subspecies listed as vulnerable by the IUCN in 1996. 

x Third revision of Florida manatee recovery plan adopted in 2001. 

x Species status currently being reviewed by IUCN. 

x Species status under the ESA currently being reexamined by FWS. 

No detailed explanation was given when the Florida subspecies of the West Indian manatee was 

listed as endangered under the ESPA in 1967 (32 Fed. Reg. 4001). Based on correspondence in FWS 

files, it apparently was listed at the recommendation of the State of Florida because of habitat 

concerns related to coastal development and boating activity. The entire species was later included 

on the list of endangered species in the 1970 ESCA (35 Fed. Reg. 18319) and the 1973 ESA. 

 

1 West Indian manatees are currently listed under the ESA as a single species; however, taxonomic studies (Domning and Hayek 1986) 

recognize two subspecies, one in Florida and the other from Central America to Brazil, including the Antilles. 
9 

Because the species was already listed when the ESA was passed, a formal analysis of threats and 

ESA listing factors was not done at that time. 

The 2001 Florida Manatee Recovery Plan states its goal as “to assure the long-term viability of the 

Florida manatee in the wild, allowing initially for reclassification from endangered to threatened 

status (downlisting) and ultimately removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(delisting)” (FWS 2001). The plan provides criteria for downlisting and delisting the population 

based on “implementing, monitoring and addressing the effectiveness of conservation measures to 

reduce or remove threats which will lead to a healthy and self-sustaining population” (FWS 2001). 

The criteria are based largely on protecting important habitats (warm-water refuges, migratory 

corridors, feeding areas, calving and nursing areas) and controlling sources of human-caused 

mortality (boat strikes, entrapment in water control structures, fishing gear entanglement). Criteria 

also specify demographic benchmarks for survival, reproduction, and population growth rate. 

Downlisting and delisting decisions require that each of the four identified subpopulations meet the 

demographic benchmarks. 

Major threats identified in the 2001 recovery plan were human-caused mortality (principally from 

boat strikes and to a lesser extent entrapment in flood gates and navigation locks), decreasing 

availability of warm-water refuges, and coastal development (FWS 2001). The recovery plan 

recommended that a full ESA status review be initiated in 2003. In April 2005 FWS announced its 

intention to conduct a status review and requested interested parties to submit relevant information 

(70 Fed. Reg. 19780). 

In its 1996 Red List, the IUCN SSC listed the Florida manatee as vulnerable based on criterion A2d 

(IUCN 1996). The status of the taxon was evaluated most recently by the IUCN Sirenian Specialist 

Group at the International Mammalogical Congress in August 2005. The Group concluded that the 

Florida manatee should be listed as endangered based on criteria A3c, A3d, and C1 (Taylor et al. 

2006), but such a change has not yet been made to the Red List. Potential threats that were 

identified at the time were watercraft mortality and serious injury, red tides, loss of warm-water 

habitat, habitat loss in general, disease, and possibly contaminants (J. Reynolds, pers. comm.). 

Florida manatees are considered depleted under the MMPA because of their ESA listing. Their 

status relative to OSP has not been evaluated. 

Available data

Few directed studies were conducted on manatees in Florida prior to listing under the ESPA in 

1967. Currently, however, they are among the most extensively studied marine mammals in the 

United States. Dedicated research since the late 1970s has produced several important long-term 

datasets. Most research is funded by federal and state agencies and carried out by scientists with the 

Department of the Interior (initially FWS and now the U.S. Geological Survey) and the State of 

Florida (the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute in the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
10 

Commission). Cooperating scientists with aquariums, universities, and other research institutes also 

contribute significant amounts of information. 

The most extensive datasets are (1) manatee mortality records including (where possible) age 

estimates, causes of death, and archived tissue samples for more than 5,000 animals since the late 

1970s; (2) a photo-identification catalogue with associated life history data including information on 

reproduction and survival rates for more than 2,000 animals; (3) aerial surveys and counts of animals 

at major winter refuges (several dating back to the late 1970s or early 1980s); and (4) satellite tracking 

data for a large number of individuals in many parts of the state. Many of these data have been 

compiled in a GIS system developed and maintained by the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 

Information also is available on manatee foraging behavior in numerous locations. Data also are 

collected on vessel traffic in manatee habitat to assess efforts to reduce collisions with boats and 

evaluate the efficacy of existing regulations. 

Several population models have been developed for Florida manatees including a stage-based 

population viability analysis (PVA) model (Runge et al. 2004). 

Current biological status

Surveys in the late 1970s indicated at least 800 to 1,000 manatees in Florida at that time (FWS 1980). 

The minimum population size for Florida manatees is now estimated at 3,300 animals based on 

aerial and ground counts in 2001 (Haubold et al. 2005). Most manatee biologists believe that 

abundance has increased since the early 1980s although improvements in survey methods probably 

account for at least some of the differences in estimates between then and now. The Manatee 

Recovery Team, with advice from its Population Status Working Group, evaluates status separately 

for each region using available data on reproduction, survival, and population growth. Based on that 

evaluation, the Northwest and Upper St. Johns River subpopulations appear to be increasing 

steadily, the Atlantic subpopulation appears to be demographically stable but evidence regarding its 

recent growth rate is inconclusive, and data for the Southwest subpopulation are not sufficient to 

evaluate status. The two subpopulations of uncertain status comprise more than 80 percent of the 

total population. Several of the human-related causes of mortality discussed above are likely 

responsible for limiting population growth. 

FWS published the most recent stock assessment report (SAR) for the Florida stock of West Indian 

manatees in 2000 (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm). The SAR presents 

outdated information on population size and trend. It calculates a PBR of 3.0 and notes that the 

level of human-related mortality (primarily from watercraft collisions and water control structures) 

greatly exceeds the PBR. 
11 

West Indian manatee, Antillean subspecies (Trichechus manatus manatus), Puerto Rican 

population (ESA – endangered2

; IUCN – vulnerable; MMPA – depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

The Antillean manatee is one of two recognized subspecies of the West Indian (also called 

Caribbean) manatee (Rice 1998). The largest known groups of Antillean manatees occupy waters of 

Belize and southeastern Mexico. They are also fairly numerous (but poorly surveyed) around certain 

rivers in Colombia and Brazil. However, distribution is very patchy due to past hunting and 

discontinuous habitat (Lefebvre et al. 1989). In many countries, manatees are now very rare or 

absent altogether. With regard to waters under U.S. jurisdiction, manatees occur in Puerto Rico 

where they are most abundant along the southern and eastern coasts. They generally do not occur in 

the Virgin Islands (FWS 1986). 

History of evaluation and listing

The Antillean manatee is under the jurisdiction of FWS. Milestones relative to the population’s 

listing include the following: 

x Entire species listed as endangered under the ESCA in 1970. 

x Endangered status carried forward under the ESA in 1973. 

x Qualified as depleted under the MMPA in 1973 by virtue of its listing under the ESA. 

x West Indian manatee recovery plan (including Puerto Rico) first adopted in 1980. 

x Puerto Rico manatee recovery plan adopted in 1986. 

x Listed as vulnerable by the IUCN in 1996. 

x Status being reviewed by IUCN in 2005. 

The ESPA in 1967 listed the Florida subspecies of West Indian manatee as endangered but did not 

list the Antillean subspecies (32 Fed. Reg. 4001). When the ESCA was passed in 1970, the list of 

endangered species included the entire West Indian manatee species (35 Fed. Reg. 18319). No 

detailed explanation was given for the ESCA listing. The situation remained the same with passage 

of the ESA in 1973, and because the species was already listed when the Act was passed, a formal 

analysis of threats and ESA listing factors was not done at that time. 

The Recovery Plan for the Puerto Rico Population of the West Indian Manatee states its goal as “to 

recover the population of manatees in Puerto Rico so that the Puerto Rican population of the 

Antillean manatee (T. m. manatus) can be delisted” (FWS 1986). The recovery plan does not specify 

criteria for downlisting and delisting because data on historical and current abundance are lacking. 

The plan identifies entanglement in gillnets and industrial development as factors that could be 

affecting the population and states that there is no evidence that natural factors are causing excessive 

mortality. 

 

2 See note 1 above. 
12 

In its 1996 Red List, IUCN listed the Antillean manatee as vulnerable based on criteria A1c, A1d, 

and C2a (IUCN 1996). The status of the taxon was most recently evaluated by the IUCN Sirenian 

Specialist Group at the International Mammalogical Congress in August 2005. The Group 

concluded that the Antillean manatee should be listed as endangered based on criteria A4c, A4d, and 

C1 (Taylor et al. 2006), but such a change has not yet been made to the Red List. Potential threats 

that were identified in the evaluation were habitat degradation and loss, hunting, accidental 

mortality, pollution, and human disturbance. Conservation actions are complicated by the fact that 

the subspecies occupies waters of a number of countries. 

Antillean manatees are considered depleted under the MMPA because of their ESA listing. Their 

status relative to OSP has not been evaluated. 

Available data

Other than passing historical references to manatees in Puerto Rico, there is virtually no information 

on this population prior to its listing under the ESCA in 1967. Since then, information has improved 

significantly but remains very limited. Most research has been funded by the Department of the 

Interior and the U.S. Navy and is carried out by scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey and nongovernmental institutions. Available data sources include counts from sporadic island-wide aerial 

surveys done since 1978, mortality records from carcass salvage efforts, several satellite tracking 

studies, and sighting records for few photo-identified individuals. Substantive long-term datasets are 

not available. Data on manatees in the Virgin Islands are limited to opportunistic sighting reports. 

No models designed specifically for population viability analysis have been developed for the 

Antillean manatee population. 

Current biological status

The abundance of Antillean manatees is largely unknown. FWS published a SAR for the Puerto Rico 

portion of the stock in 1995 (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm), which cites a 

1994 survey that produced a count of 86 manatees. The SAR uses that number as a minimum 

population estimate and calculates a PBR of 0. It states that Antillean manatees are a strategic stock 

because of high levels of human-caused mortality relative to population size and severe threats to 

important habitats. There are no good data to assess population trend in Puerto Rico, but overall the 

Antillean subspecies appears to be declining (J. Reynolds, pers. comm.). 

 
13 

Southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) (ESA – threatened; IUCN – endangered; MMPA – 

depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

Sea otters once occupied coastal waters all along the North Pacific rim from central Baja California 

to northern Japan, but their distribution is now discontinuous. Three subspecies are recognized in 

eastern Russia, Alaska-British Columbia-Washington, and California (Rice 1998). The southern 

(California) subspecies is geographically isolated from animals living farther north and differs from 

the other subspecies in cranial morphology (Wilson et al. 1991) and DNA characteristics (Cronin et 

al. 1996). The range currently occupied by the southern subspecies includes nearshore waters in 

central California from approximately Half Moon Bay to Point Conception. Also, a translocation 

program has established a small group of animals at San Nicolas Island. 

History of evaluation and listing

The southern sea otter is under the jurisdiction of FWS. Milestones relative to the subspecies’ listing 

include the following: 

x Subspecies listed as threatened under the ESA in 1977. 

x Qualified as depleted under the MMPA in 1977 by virtue of its listing under the ESA. 

x First recovery plan adopted in 1982. 

x Experimental population at San Nicolas Island established by translocation in 1987. 

x Entire species listed as endangered by the IUCN in 2000. 

x Revised recovery plan adopted in 2003. 

In 1977 FWS determined that the southern sea otter was not endangered but should be listed as 

threatened under the ESA (42 Fed. Reg. 2965). The listing notice included an analysis of the five 

ESA listing factors that concluded as follows: 

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range—The current 

range is much reduced from what it was in historical time, and that habitat is potentially 

jeopardized by oil spills, pollution, and competition with humans. 

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes—The original decline was 

caused largely by commercial exploitation. At the time of listing, illegal killing was known to 

occur but was not judged to be a current threat to the overall population. 

C. Disease or predation—These factors were not known to pose a serious threat at the time. 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms—Existing laws were judged adequate to protect 

sea otters from direct taking, but methods for habitat protection were judged to be 

inadequate and would be improved with ESA listing. 

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence—The most serious potential threat 

was judged to be a large oil spill that could affect a large portion of the remaining 

population. 
14 

The 2003 recovery plan reiterates those threats and notes that pollution and incidental take in 

fisheries are recognized problems (FWS 2003). Other threats that have been identified include 

disease, shark predation, and illegal shooting (MMC 2004). 

The goal stated in the 2003 recovery plan is “to establish the long-term viability of the southern sea 

otter population sufficiently to allow delisting of the species” (FWS 2003). The plan establishes the 

following quantitative criteria for reclassification and delisting based on spring survey counts using 

standardized methods: 

x Reclassification as endangered should be considered if the average population size over a threeyear period is less than or equal to 1,850. 

x Sea otters should remain classified as threatened as long as the average population size over a 

three-year period is more than 1,850 and less than 3,090. 

x Delisting should be considered when the average population size over a three-year period is 

more that 3,090. 

The recovery plan also states that if the proposed criterion for delisting is reached, it will be 

necessary to do a full evaluation of the ESA’s five listing factors prior to changing the listing status. 

Rationales for the development of the delisting criteria are described in Ralls et al. (1996). 

The status of sea otters was evaluated by the IUCN Otter Specialist Group in 2000, and the species 

was listed by the IUCN as endangered based on criteria A1a, A1c, and A1e (IUCN 1996). The 

southern subspecies was not evaluated as a separate taxon. Threats identified at the time were oil 

pollution, killer whale predation, poaching, and fishery interactions. 

Southern sea otters are considered as depleted under the MMPA because of their ESA listing. Their 

status relative to OSP has not been evaluated. However, FWS has estimated the lower bound of 

OSP at 8,400 animals for the entire California coast (FWS 2003). Because the lower bound of OSP 

is considerably greater than the population size at which southern sea otters would be considered for 

delisting under the ESA, it is possible that upon delisting the population would still be considered 

depleted under the MMPA. 

Available data

Before listing under the ESA in 1977, information on southern sea otters was almost entirely limited 

to historical accounts of the fur trade and sporadic surveys done by the California Department of 

Fish and Game (CDFG) since the 1930s. Since 1977 a dedicated ongoing research program has 

developed involving the CDFG and the Department of the Interior, with significant contributions 

from the academic community and aquariums. The core of the research program has been 

standardized range-wide counts conducted annually in the spring and fall since 1982. The counts 

include information on the numbers of pups and independent animals. Data also have been 

collected on causes of and trends in mortality and on movement patterns. The former are from 

opportunistic and directed carcass salvage efforts; the latter are from radio tracking studies. Prey 
15 

preferences, foraging patterns, and the effects of foraging otters on coastal marine communities also 

have been the subjects of focused research. 

A population model has been developed for southern sea otters (T. Tinker and D. Doak, unpub.), 

but it has not been used for population viability analysis. 

Current biological status

 

Estimates of the historical population of southern sea otters and estimates of carrying capacity for 

California are in general agreement at approximately 16,000 animals (Laidre et. al. 2001). By the early 

1900s the southern sea otter was nearly extinct due to exploitation by fur hunters. A remnant group 

of perhaps 50 animals remained in central California when hunting was prohibited in 1911 under the 

North Pacific Fur Seal Convention. The number of sea otters generally increased along with the 

expansion of occupied range, and the population was estimated to number 1,789 in 1976, the year 

before ESA listing. The estimated population size was lower in 1983 (1,277) when annual spring 

counts using standardized methods began, but counts increased steadily to a peak in 1994 (2,359) 

and 1995 (2,377) before declining for several years. The population appears to have been increasing 

since about 2000, with the 2003 (2,505) and 2004 counts (2,825) the highest on record (see 

http://www.werc.usgs.gov/otters/ca-surveydata.html). In 2005 the count dropped slightly to 2,735. 

FWS published the most recent SAR for southern sea otters in 1995 (see http://www.nmfs.noaa. 

gov/pr/sars/species.htm). The SAR provides outdated information on population size and trend. It 

notes that the population is classified as threatened and depleted and calculates a PBR of seven 

animals. However, this evaluation has no legal implications because southern sea otters are 

specifically exempted from the incidental take management process specified in section 118 of the 

MMPA. 

Some translocated populations of northern sea otters have shown population growth of 17 to 20 

percent per year (Estes 1990). However, in California overall population growth has been much 

slower, apparently due to elevated mortality rates that have caused periods of population decline. 

Potential causes for elevated mortality have been identified as increased rate of disease, 

entanglement in coastal fishing gear, and decreased abundance of food (FWS 2003). 

Northern sea otter, southwest Alaska population (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) (ESA – 

threatened; IUCN – endangered; MMPA – depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

Sea otters once occupied coastal waters all around the North Pacific rim from central Baja California 

to northern Japan, but their distribution is now discontinuous. Sea otters in eastern Russia, AlaskaBritish Columbia-Washington (called northern), and California are recognized as separate subspecies 

(Rice 1998). The southwest Alaska population is a part of the northern subspecies that occurs along 
16 

the Alaska Peninsula and in the Aleutian Islands and eastern Bering Sea. The range of the southwest 

Alaska population extends from the western Aleutian Islands at the U.S.-Russia border to Cook 

Inlet. It is considered a taxon distinct from those to the west and east because of geographical 

barriers and morphological and genetic differences (Gorbics and Bodkin 2001). 

History of evaluation and listing

The northern sea otter is under the jurisdiction of FWS. Milestones relative to the population’s 

listing include the following: 

x Population added to the list of candidate species for ESA listing in 2000. 

x Petitioned to list sea otters in the Aleutian Islands as endangered or threatened under the ESA in 

2000, but no action taken. 

x Entire species listed as endangered by IUCN in 2000. 

x Denied petition to list “Alaska stock” of sea otters as depleted under the MMPA in 2001. 

x Southwest Alaska distinct population segment listed as threatened under the ESA in 2005. 

The 2005 ESA listing notice for the southwest Alaska distinct population segment (70 Fed. Reg. 

46366) included an analysis of the five ESA listing factors that concluded as follows: 

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range—This factor is 

not known to have been important in the decline. 

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes—There is no commercial 

use of sea otters, and subsistence harvests are relatively low and do not pose an immediate 

threat. 

C. Disease or predation—There is no evidence that disease has caused the population decline. 

Predation by killer whales has been identified as the most likely cause of the decline. 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms—Provisions of the MMPA allow for regulation 

of subsistence take by Alaska Natives and incidental take by commercial fisheries. Because 

those factors do not appear to be what is threatening the population, the MMPA was judged 

inadequate to prevent the continuing decline. 

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence—Contaminants, particularly a large 

oil spill, could affect the remaining population. 

The status of sea otters was evaluated by the IUCN Otter Specialist Group in 2000, and the species 

was listed by the IUCN as endangered based on criteria A1a, A1c, and A1e (IUCN 1996). Neither 

the northern subspecies nor the southwest Alaska population was evaluated as a separate taxon. 

Threats identified at the time were oil pollution, killer whale predation, poaching, and fishery 

interactions. 

In 2001 FWS was petitioned by the Center for Biological Diversity to list the Alaska stock of sea 

otters as depleted under the MMPA (66 Fed. Reg. 46651), but the petition was denied. The agency 

found that “the petition does not present substantial information that the petitioned action is 
17 

warranted. FWS has determined that the statewide population of sea otters in Alaska is larger than 

presented in the petition. Furthermore, the best available scientific information indicates that 

multiple stocks of sea otters exist in Alaska” (66 Fed. Reg. 55693). However, with listing of the 

southwest Alaska population as threatened under the ESA, the taxon qualified as depleted under the 

MMPA. 

Available data

Almost no information is available documenting the recovery of southwest Alaska sea otters prior to 

the 1950s. From the late 1950s though the 1970s, however, some aerial survey counts were made in 

various parts of their range. In the 1980s the frequency of surveys increased significantly, including a 

few range-wide surveys completed during the past 20 years. Direct information on many population 

parameters (e.g., reproductive rates, mortality, survival rates, and age/sex) is very limited. 

No models designed specifically for population viability analysis have been developed for southwest 

Alaska sea otters. 

Current biological status

When sea otters became protected from commercial harvests in 1911, only 13 small remnant 

populations were known to exist, 6 of them within the bounds of the current southwest Alaska 

population (Kenyon 1969). With protection, southwest Alaska sea otters increased in abundance and 

may have been near carrying capacity in the 1980s when numbers were estimated at 55,100 to 73,700 

in the Aleutian Islands alone. Surveys in 1992 indicated declines of more than 50 percent at some 

locations in the Aleutian Islands, and counts made in 2000 showed a further 70 percent decline 

during that eight-year interval. Additional surveys in 2000 and 2001 in Bristol Bay and along the 

Alaska Peninsula also showed major declines (Burn and Doroff 2005). 

FWS published the most recent SAR for southwest Alaska sea otters in 2002 (see http://www.nmfs 

.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm). The SAR estimates the size of the population in 2002 as 41,474 and 

calculates a PBR of 830 animals. It states that the stock is considered strategic because it was a 

candidate species for ESA listing in 2002. The final rule on ESA listing gives a total population 

estimate of 41,865 for 2004, which compares to estimates of 94,050 to 128,650 in 1976 (70 Fed. Reg. 

46366). 

The cause or causes of the decline are not well understood. In good conditions, sea otter 

populations are capable of increasing at 17 to 20 percent per year (Estes 1990). For the southwest 

Alaska population there is no evidence for decreased reproduction or limitations due to food 

availability, which suggests that the current decline is caused by excessive mortality. Relatively small 

numbers of animals are killed in fishing gear and by Alaska Native subsistence hunters. One 

hypothesis suggests that increased predation by transient killer whales is the primary cause for the 

decline (Estes et al. 1998). 
18 

Caribbean monk seal (Monachus tropicalis) (ESA – endangered; IUCN – extinct; MMPA – 

depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

The Caribbean monk seal is known only from the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, the subtropical 

coast of Florida, and adjacent subtropical areas, and is geographically isolated from other seals. It is 

now believed to be extinct (LeBoeuf et al. 1986). 

History of evaluation and listing

The Caribbean monk seal is under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Milestones relative to the species’ 

listing include the following: 

x Species listed as endangered under the ESPA in 1967. 

x Endangered status carried forward under the ESCA in 1970. 

x Endangered status carried forward under the ESA in 1973. 

x Qualified as depleted under the MMPA in 1973 by virtue of its listing under the ESA. 

x Listed as extinct by the IUCN in 1996. 

No detailed explanation was given when the Caribbean monk seal was listed as endangered under 

the ESPA in 1967 (32 Fed. Reg. 4001). Because the species was already listed when the ESA was 

passed in 1973, a formal analysis of threats and ESA listing factors was not done at that time. 

The status of the Caribbean monk seal was most recently evaluated by the IUCN Seal Specialist 

Group in 1993, which noted that the species was believed to be extinct (Reijnders et al. 1993). In 

1996 the IUCN listed the species as extinct (IUCN 1996). 

Caribbean monk seals are considered as depleted under the MMPA because of their ESA listing. 

Their status relative to OSP has not been evaluated. 

Available data

Prior to listing under the ESPA in 1967, Caribbean monk seals were very poorly known. No directed 

studies have been undertaken since 1967. In the 1980s the Marine Mammal Commission supported 

a survey of fishermen in remote coastal villages on the Island of Hispaniola to determine if there had 

been any recent sightings, but no sighting reports were obtained (Woods 1987). 

Current biological status

Caribbean monk seals were extensively hunted after the arrival of Europeans. The last confirmed 

sighting of this species in the United States was made in 1922, and the last sighting made anywhere 

was in 1952 at a remote bank off Honduras (Rice 1973). Although many (e.g., LeBoeuf et al. 1986 
19 

and IUCN 1996) consider the species to be extinct, Woods (1987) and Boyd and Standford (1998) 

present circumstantial evidence that a few individuals may still exist. 

 

Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) (ESA – endangered; IUCN – endangered; 

MMPA – depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

 

The Hawaiian monk seal is geographically isolated from other seals and is considered a distinct 

species with no recognized subspecies (Rice 1998). The species exists as a metapopulation with six 

primary semi-isolated breeding colonies at Kure Atoll, Midway Atoll, Pearl and Hermes Reef, 

Lisianski Island, Laysan Island, and French Frigate Shoals. Although these colonies show 

considerable demographic independence (Ragen and Lavigne 1999) and are considered 

subpopulations, studies to date have found little genetic difference between them (Kretzmann et al. 

1997, 2001). The Hawaiian monk seal occurs only in the Hawaiian archipelago with the majority of 

the population in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Nihoa Island to Kure Atoll) and a relatively 

few animals in the main Hawaiian Islands (Hawaii Island to Niihau Island; Ragen and Lavigne 1999). 

History of evaluation and listing

The Hawaiian monk seal is under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Milestones relative to the species’ listing 

include the following: 

x Species designated as depleted under the MMPA in 1976. 

x Species listed as endangered under the ESA in 1976. 

x Recovery plan adopted in 1983. 

x Listed as endangered by the IUCN in 1996. 

x Recovery plan revision currently underway. 

The 1976 ESA listing notice (41 Fed. Reg. 33923) included an analysis of the five listing factors that 

concluded as follows: 

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range—Human activity 

on beaches formerly used by monk seals has curtailed habitat use, displaced seals, and 

reduced recruitment. This was identified as the major factor threatening the species. 

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes—This factor was not 

considered applicable. 

C. Disease or predation—Shark predation, particularly on weaned pups, was identified as a 

problem for the reduced population. Disease was not known to be a factor. 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms—Although monk seals were afforded some 

protection by the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge and the MMPA, additional 

protection, including protection for habitat, could be gained by ESA listing. 
20 

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence—Vessel traffic and recreational 

activities in waters where the species occurs may have deleterious effects. 

The 1983 recovery plan (Gilmartin 1983) has not been updated although a new plan is currently 

being developed. The 1983 plan did not identify quantitative criteria for determining when the 

population had recovered but did describe the following four intermediate goals: (1) stopping the 

downward trend in numbers in the central and western portions of the species’ range; (2) taking 

action to develop positive growth rates at most or all islands; (3) identifying and preventing human 

activities that could result in the degradation or destruction of habitats critical to the survival and 

recovery of the species; and (4) determining the population size that will result in maximum net 

productivity (Gilmartin 1983). The plan identified important threats as human disturbance (primarily 

from U.S. Coast Guard and Navy facilities), shark predation, mobbing by adult males, biotoxins 

(ciguatera), and entanglement in debris. A revision of the recovery plan is currently underway 

(NMFS in prep.[a]). 

The status of the Hawaiian monk seal was most recently evaluated by the IUCN Seal Specialist 

Group in 1993 (Reijnders et al. 1993). Potential threats to its existence identified at the time were 

sensitivity to disturbance, male mobbing of adult females, and fishery interactions. In 1996 the 

IUCN listed the species as endangered based on criterion C2a (IUCN 1996). 

NMFS published a proposed rule to designate the Hawaiian monk seal as a depleted species under 

the MMPA in 1976 (41 Fed. Reg. 24393) prior to its being proposed for ESA listing. The rationale 

given for a depleted listing was as follows: “Current population estimates indicate that the numbers 

of monk seals have been decreasing in recent years.” No evaluation was done of the population’s 

size relative to OSP. The species was subsequently designated as depleted (41 Fed. Reg. 30120). 

Available data

Prior to listing under the ESA in 1976, information on Hawaiian monk seals was very limited. There 

are a few historical accounts, including some records of seal harvests from the 1800s, and a series of 

beach counts at various atolls in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands beginning in 1956. Since 1976 

an extensive monitoring program, funded and largely carried out by NMFS, has made Hawaiian 

monk seals one of the world’s best-studied pinnipeds. Major components of the monk seal research 

program include (1) replicate beach counts at major pupping beaches conducted annually at most 

colonies since the early 1990s and periodically at many colonies since the 1970s; (2) life history 

records of a large proportion of individuals flipper-tagged at each major monk seal colony since the 

early 1980s (including information on age, sex, survivorship, and pupping intervals); (3) satellite 

tracking studies of seals at different colonies; (4) studies of prey preferences and foraging behavior; 

and (5) assessments of the health and condition of individuals. 

Counts and life history data have been integrated into a population model that gives separate 

consideration to each major monk seal colony (Harting 2002). The model is suitable for PVA 

analysis but has not yet been used for that purpose. 
21 

Current biological status

The abundance of Hawaiian monk seals before the arrival of Polynesians is not known, but it is 

likely that the arrival of humans displaced seals from inhabited islands. The first comprehensive 

counts were made in 1958, and the population declined about 60 percent between then and 2001. 

Since regular counts began, the subpopulations have shown different dynamics. Counts at most 

locations declined after 1958, with the exception of French Frigate Shoals. That subpopulation grew 

rapidly from the early 1960s to the late 1980s, then declined by 70 percent during 1989–2001. 

Subpopulations at Laysan and Lisianski Islands have been relatively stable since 1990. In contrast, 

the subpopulation at Kure Atoll grew at an average rate of 5 percent per year after 1983, and the 

subpopulation at Pearl and Hermes Reef increased at approximately 7 percent per year during 1983–

1999. Midway Islands was formerly largely unavailable to monk seals due to military presence, but its 

subpopulation began to increase after 1990. However, since 2000 all three of the western 

subpopulations have shown indications of decline. Based on increasing reports of pups being born 

in the main Hawaiian Islands, it appears that the number of monk seals has been increasing in that 

area since the 1990s (NMFS in prep.[a]). 

NMFS published the most recent SAR for Hawaiian monk seals in 2005 (see http://www.nmfs 

.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm). The SAR estimates the population size in 2003 as 1,252, and states 

that since 1993 the population has been declining at a rate of 1.9 percent per year. The SAR states 

that PBR is undetermined because recovery to MNPL would be unlikely in the foreseeable future if 

the calculated PBR level of takes was to occur. The Hawaiian monk seal is considered a strategic 

stock because it is listed as endangered under the ESA. 

The declines in Northwestern Hawaiian Islands subpopulations have been attributed to low survival 

of juvenile seals, but it is not clear why survival has declined. Possible factors include shark 

predation, entanglement in marine debris, injuries and deaths caused by aggressive male seals, 

biotoxins, and/or nutritional limitations possibly related to climate cycles and/or commercial lobster 

fishing. Also, growth and reproductive rates vary among subpopulations, which suggests that some 

factor such as food availability is limiting reproductive output in some areas (NMFS in prep.[a]). 

Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) (ESA – threatened; IUCN – vulnerable; 

MMPA – depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

The Guadalupe fur seal is considered to be a distinct species with a single breeding colony at Isla 

Guadalupe, Mexico (Reijnders et al. 1993, Rice 1998). Currently, a few animals occur in Southern 

California. Archeological remains indicate the species was taken prehistorically in California by 

Native Americans, but it is unclear whether breeding colonies ever occurred in California or if the 

species was ever abundant there (Hanni et al. 1997). 
22 

History of evaluation and listing

The Guadalupe fur seal is under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Milestones relative to the species’ listing 

include the following: 

x Species listed as endangered under the ESPA in 1967. 

x Species listed as threatened under the ESA in 1985. 

x Qualified as depleted under the MMPA in 1985 by virtue of listing under the ESA. 

x Listed as vulnerable by the IUCN in 1996. 

No detailed explanation was given when the Guadalupe fur seal was listed as endangered under the 

ESPA in 1967 (32 Fed. Reg. 4001). The species was not included on the 1970 list of species 

considered endangered under the ESCA (35 Fed. Reg. 18319), and there was no explanation given 

for its omission. This omission was carried forward when the ESA was passed in 1973, and the 

species therefore remained off the list until it was listed as threatened in 1985 (50 Fed. Reg. 51252). 

The listing notice included an analysis of the five ESA listing factors that concluded as follows: 

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range—Habitat loss 

has not been the primary factor causing the reduced abundance of the species. Some human 

activities have the potential to affect their habitat, including offshore oil and gas 

development, high-intensity sonic booms from the U.S. Air Force’s Space Shuttle Program, 

and disturbance by tourists and fishing vessels. 

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes—Prior commercial 

hunting was responsible for significantly reducing population size and range. 

C. Disease or predation—There was no information available concerning disease or predation. 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms—Existing regulations were judged to be 

providing adequate protection within areas subject to Mexican and U.S. jurisdiction. 

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence—The potential expansion of several 

fisheries into waters adjacent to Guadalupe Island could result in fur seal entanglement. 

The ESA listing notice also provided the following criteria for determining when the species could 

be delisted: (1) the population has increased to 30,000 animals; (2) one or more additional rookeries 

have been established within the historic range; or (3) the population has reached the MNPL. If one 

or more criteria were met, NMFS would conduct a status review prior to proposing delisting. 

The status of the Guadalupe fur seal was most recently evaluated by the IUCN Seal Specialist Group 

in 1993 (Reijnders et al. 1993). The only threat to its existence identified at the time was a possible 

lack of genetic diversity. In its 1996 Red Book, the IUCN listed the species as vulnerable based on 

criterion D2 (IUCN 1996). 

Guadalupe fur seals are considered as depleted under the MMPA because of their ESA listing. Their 

status relative to OSP has not been evaluated. 
23 

Available data

No breeding colonies of Guadalupe fur seals currently exist in U.S. waters, and a dedicated research 

program has not been established for this species in the United States. Following their nearextinction in the 1800s, almost no information was collected on the species until the 1950s. Since 

1954 sporadic counts have been made at various times of the year at the rookery on Guadalupe 

Island. Reproduction, mortality, survival rates, and other population parameters are poorly known. 

No models designed specifically for population viability analysis have been developed for Guadalupe 

fur seals. 

Current biological status

 

Guadalupe fur seals were hunted nearly to extinction during the 19th century by commercial sealers 

and began to recover in the mid-20th century. NMFS published the most recent SAR for Guadalupe 

fur seals in 2000 (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm). The SAR gives a 1993 

population estimate of 7,408, and states that the population had increased by 13.7 percent per year 

since the mid-1950s. It calculates a PBR of 104 animals and states that the Guadalupe fur seal is 

considered a strategic stock because it is listed as threatened under the ESA. 

Northern fur seal, eastern Pacific (Pribilof Islands) population (Callorhinus ursinus) (ESA – 

not listed; IUCN – vulnerable; MMPA – depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

 

The northern fur seal is a distinct species with no recognized subspecies (Rice 1998). There are two 

populations recognized in U.S. waters: one that pups and breeds only at San Miguel Island in 

Southern California, and another that pups and breeds on rookeries in the Bering Sea (the eastern 

Pacific population). Fur seals from the eastern Pacific population mostly use several rookeries on St. 

George and St. Paul Islands in the Pribilof Islands. They also use a rookery on Bogoslof Island that 

was established naturally in the 1980s and has grown considerably since then. During the nonbreeding season, fur seals range widely throughout the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean. 

History of evaluation and listing

The northern fur seal is under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Milestones relative to the population’s 

listing include the following: 

x Population listed as depleted under the MMPA in 1988. 

x Conservation plan adopted in 1993. 

x Entire species listed as vulnerable by the IUCN in 1996. 

x Conservation plan revision currently underway. 
24 

The status of the northern fur seal was most recently evaluated by the IUCN Seal Specialist Group 

in 1993 (Reijnders et al. 1993). Potential threats to its existence identified at the time were fishery 

interactions, entanglement in marine debris, and oil and gas exploration and development. In its 

1996 Red Book, the IUCN listed the species as vulnerable based on criterion A1b (IUCN 1996). 

The eastern North Pacific population was not evaluated as a separate taxon. 

The Pribilof Islands population of northern fur seals was designated as depleted under the MMPA 

in 1988 (51 Fed. Reg. 47156) because it had declined to a level less than 50 percent of what it was in 

the 1950s and there was no evidence that carrying capacity for the species had declined during that 

time. Therefore the population was determined to be below the lower bound of OSP, which was 

assumed to be 60 percent of K. The cause of the decline from 1956 to 1968 was thought to be 

commercial harvests of adult females. Declines after 1976 were thought to be a result of increased 

mortality of juveniles, perhaps due to entanglement in marine debris and/or changes in prey 

availability (NMFS 1993). 

In 1993 NMFS published the Northern Fur Seal Conservation Plan. The goal of the plan is to 

“promote recovery of the fur seal population on the Pribilof Islands to a level appropriate to justify 

removal from MMPA listing” (NMFS 1993). It states that reconsideration of the depleted 

classification should occur when the sustained abundance (estimated population size or pup counts) 

reaches 60 percent of the peak historical estimate. The plan identified the following as humanrelated threats of possible importance at that time: incidental take in fisheries, competition for prey 

with commercial fisheries, entanglement in marine debris, disturbance and coastal development, 

toxic substances, and oil spills. A revised draft of the conservation plan is currently in agency review. 

Available data

 

At one time Pribilof fur seals were the most intensely monitored pinniped in the world by virtue of 

their management under the Fur Seal Treaty of 1911. As part of efforts by Treaty parties—Russia, 

Japan, the United States, and Great Britain (for Canada)—to determine appropriate harvest levels, 

estimates of the number of pups, the number of breeding males, and the overall size of the Pribilof 

Islands fur seal herd were made annually throughout most of the 20th century. Until 1984 

cooperative research among the Treaty parties also produced extensive data and analyses of other 

population parameters (e.g., survival rates by age and sex), at-sea distribution and movements, and 

feeding habits. The Treaty lapsed in 1984 and subsequently research efforts have decreased 

substantially. Because of funding limitations, research by NMFS has been limited largely to 

estimating key population parameters (e.g., the number of pups born and the number of breeding 

males) every other year in cooperation with the Pribilof Islands Aleut community. 

A number of population models have been prepared for Pribilof Islands fur seals, but they have not 

been used for population viability analysis. 
25 

Current biological status

 

The size of the eastern Pacific population of northern fur seals has fluctuated considerably in the last 

100 years, with recovery from overexploitation followed by periods of decrease and increase. As 

recently as the 1950s it was estimated to number about 2 to 2.5 million. NMFS published the most 

recent SAR for the population in 2005 (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm). The 

SAR estimates the population size as 688,028 (based on an extrapolation from pup counts made in 

2004) and calculates a PBR of 14,546 animals. It states that the population is considered a strategic 

stock because it is listed as depleted under the MMPA. Counts of pups on the Pribilof Islands made 

during 1998–2004 have shown a steady decline (see http://nmml.afsc.noaa.gov/AlaskaEcosystems/ 

nfshome/pribpup.htm). Potential causes for this most recent decline have not been identified. The 

colony on Bogoslof Island, however, has increased at a rate of about 12 percent per year since 1997 

with pup production in 2005 estimated to exceed 12,000 pups. 

Steller sea lion, eastern population (Eumetopias jubatus) (ESA – threatened; IUCN – 

endangered; MMPA – depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

 

Steller sea lions are a distinct species with no recognized subspecies (Rice 1998). However, two 

discrete populations are recognized, both of which are currently considered distinct population 

segments under the ESA and listed separately. The two populations are the eastern population, 

which includes animals from Cape Suckling, Alaska, east and south to California, and the western 

population, which includes animals from west of Cape Suckling to Russia. Eastern population Steller 

sea lions pup and breed on rookeries, and occupy haulouts, in southeast Alaska, British Columbia, 

Washington, Oregon, and California (NMFS 1995). 

History of evaluation and listing

Steller sea lions are under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Milestones relative to the population’s listing 

include the following: 

x Advance notice of proposed rulemaking published to designate the entire species as depleted 

under the MMPA in 1988. 

x Entire species listed as threatened under the ESA in 1990. 

x Qualified as depleted under the MMPA in 1990 by virtue of listing under the ESA. 

x Recovery plan adopted in 1992. 

x Species listed as endangered by the IUCN in 1996. 

x ESA listing revised in 1997; species split into two populations and the eastern population left as 

threatened. 

x Revised recovery plan released for public review in 2006. 
26 

The status of Steller sea lions was first reviewed in 1988 (55 Fed. Reg. 16299). The review concluded 

that the number of adult and juvenile Steller sea lions counted in southwest Alaska had declined by 

at least 52 percent from 1956–1960 to 1985. Potential causes of the decline being investigated at the 

time of the review included fishery interactions, environmental changes, diseases, contaminants, 

predation, and commercial and subsistence harvests. 

In 1990 the Steller sea lion was listed as threatened under the ESA throughout its range because 

NMFS determined that, given is declining trend, it was likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future (55 Fed. Reg. 49204). The 1990 listing notice included an analysis of 

the five ESA listing factors that concluded as follows: 

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range—Activities that 

result in disturbance or changes in prey availability could be affecting suitability of habitat. 

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes—Commercial harvests of 

pups prior to the 1970s could explain early parts of the declines in some areas. Subsistence 

takes by Alaska Natives have been too small to have caused the overall decline. 

C. Disease or predation—Disease was unlikely to have been a significant factor in the decline. 

Killer whale predation was probably unimportant when the sea lion population was high but 

could exacerbate a decline once numbers have been reduced. 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms—The MMPA prohibits most taking and has a 

mechanism to limit incidental take by fisheries. No inadequacies were noted. 

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence—Incidental take in fisheries and 

intentional shooting may have had some impact but cannot explain the overall decline. 

The 1992 Final Recovery Plan for Steller Sea Lions states its goal as “to promote the recovery of the 

Steller sea lion population to a level appropriate to justify removal from ESA listings” (NMFS 1992). 

The plan includes quantitative criteria that the recovery team recommended for reclassification and 

delisting based on counts and trends in counts of pup and non-pup Steller sea lions in the principal 

area of decline and elsewhere. However, the approved plan states that NMFS would not implement 

those recommendations, but instead would develop final criteria after further analyses, including a 

population viability analysis. Human-related threats identified in the plan were subsistence harvests, 

fishery-related taking, competition for food with commercial fisheries, toxic substances, 

entanglement in debris, and disturbance. 

NMFS published a second status review of Steller sea lions in 1995. The review concluded that the 

species should be split into two populations. The eastern population was predicted to persist for the 

foreseeable future because its population trend was stable or increasing. No evaluation was done of 

ESA listing factors and no specific threats to the population were identified (NMFS 1995). 

In 1997 NMFS revised the ESA listing to reflect new information on the species’ population 

structure and status. It retained the classification of threatened for the eastern population based on 

the following rationale: “The eastern population segment has exhibited a stable population trend for 

the last 15 years; however, NMFS believes that the large decline within the overall U.S. population 
27 

threatens the continued existence of the entire species. This is particularly true, since the underlying 

causes of the decline remain unknown and thus unpredictable. Therefore, despite the apparent 

stability of the eastern population segment, NMFS is maintaining a threatened listing for this portion 

of the geographic range” (62 Fed. Reg. 24345). 

The 1997 listing notice included an analysis of the five ESA listing factors for the eastern population 

that concluded as follows: 

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range—Human 

disturbance may have had an effect at certain rookeries in Oregon and California, and 

changes may have occurred in prey resources in California due to natural cycles, fisheries, 

and toxic substances. 

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes—Commercial harvest and 

illegal shooting may have been significant factors in the past but are not considered major 

factors at this time. Utilization for scientific or educational purposes has not been a 

significant factor. 

C. Disease or predation—Neither disease nor predation is considered a significant factor currently 

affecting the population. 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms—The listing states, “A final determination with 

respect to whether existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate is difficult to make, given 

the lack of a clear cause of the decline.” 

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence—Removals from the eastern 

population due to incidental takes in fisheries and Alaska Native subsistence hunting are low. 

Concern has been expressed about the possible adverse effects of anthropogenic 

contaminants on the health and productivity of animals in California. 

In May 2006 NMFS released a revised draft Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan for public review (71 

Fed. Reg. 29919). 

The status of the Steller sea lion was most recently evaluated by the IUCN Seal Specialist Group in 

1993 (Reijnders et al. 1993). Potential threats to its existence identified at the time were deliberate 

killing by fishermen, incidental take by fisheries, reduced food supply, and disease. In its 1996 Red 

Book, the IUCN listed the entire species as endangered based on criterion A1b (IUCN 1996). The 

status of the eastern population was not evaluated separately. 

In 1988 NMFS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to list Steller sea lions as 

depleted under the MMPA, citing results of its status review and stating that “the current population 

may be below 50 percent of historic carrying capacity and below the lower bound of OSP for this 

population” (55 Fed. Reg. 16299). NMFS did not follow through on the depletion designation but 

instead proceeded to list Steller sea lions under the ESA. Therefore, the eastern population of Steller 

sea lions is considered as depleted under the MMPA because it is listed under the ESA. Its status 

relative to OSP has not been evaluated. 
28 

Available data

 

The basic population data available for Steller sea lions are counts of animals (usually both pups and 

non-pups) on rookeries during the pupping and breeding season. For California and British 

Columbia, some counts are available starting in the early 1900s. For Oregon and southeast Alaska, 

systematic counts began in the mid to late 1970s. Since sea lions were listed under the ESA in 1990, 

all major rookeries have been counted at regular intervals, usually every other year. 

Prior to ESA listing, Steller sea lion research was funded and conducted primarily by NMFS and 

State agencies, especially the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). After listing, Congress 

began to annually appropriate additional funds to investigate causes of the population’s decline. 

Initially funding was earmarked primarily to support work by NMFS and ADFG, but later it was 

expanded to include a number of universities and other research and management agencies. Data 

have been gathered on a variety of subjects including distribution, abundance, movements, stock 

structure, vital parameters, life history, foraging ecology, behavior, physiology, contaminants, 

predation, and disease. The majority of effort has gone to studies of the western population, but 

significant data have been gathered also for the eastern population. 

A model that can be used for population viability analysis has recently been developed for Steller sea 

lions (NMFS in prep.[b]). 

Current biological status

 

NMFS published the most recent SAR for the eastern population of Steller sea lions in 2005 (see 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm). The SAR estimates total abundance as 44,996 

(based on pup counts made in 2002) and calculates a PBR of 1,967 animals. It states that the eastern 

population of Steller sea lions is considered a strategic stock because it is listed as threatened under 

the ESA. Based on pup counts, Pitcher et al. (2007) estimate that the eastern population’s 

abundance increased at a rate of 3.1 percent per year from the 1970s to 2005. 

Steller sea lion, western population (Eumetopias jubatus) (ESA – endangered; IUCN – 

endangered; MMPA – depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

Steller sea lions are a distinct species with no recognized subspecies (Rice 1998). However, two 

discrete populations are recognized, both of which are currently considered distinct population 

segments under the ESA and listed separately. The two populations are the eastern population, 

which includes animals from Cape Suckling, Alaska, east and south to California, and the western 

population, which includes animals from west of Cape Suckling to Russia. Steller sea lions range 

around the rim of the North Pacific Ocean from California through Alaska and to Russia and Japan 
29 

(NMFS 1992). Western sea lions pup and breed on rookeries, and occupy haulouts, in central and 

western Alaska, eastern Russia, and northern Japan (NMFS 1995). 

History of evaluation and listing

 

Steller sea lions are under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Milestones relative to the population’s listing 

include the following: 

x Advance notice of proposed rulemaking published to designate the entire species as depleted 

under the MMPA in 1988. 

x Entire species listed as threatened under the ESA in 1990. 

x Qualified as depleted under the MMPA in 1990 by virtue of listing under the ESA. 

x Recovery plan adopted in 1992. 

x Species listed as endangered by the IUCN in 1996. 

x ESA listing revised in 1997; species split into two populations and the western population 

reclassified as endangered. 

x Revised recovery plan released for public review in 2006. 

The status of Steller sea lions was first reviewed in 1988 (55 Fed. Reg. 16299). The review concluded 

that the number of adult and juvenile Steller sea lions counted in southwest Alaska had declined by 

at least 52 percent from 1956–1960 to 1985. Potential causes of the decline being investigated at the 

time of the review included fishery interactions, environmental changes, diseases, contaminants, 

predation, and commercial and subsistence harvests. 

In 1990 the Steller sea lion was listed as threatened under the ESA because NMFS determined that it 

was likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future, given its ongoing decline 

(55 Fed. Reg. 49204). The 1990 listing notice included an analysis of the five ESA listing factors that 

concluded as follows: 

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range—Activities that 

result in disturbance or changes in prey availability could be affecting suitability of habitat. 

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes—Prior commercial 

harvests of pups could explain early parts of the declines in some areas. Alaska Native 

subsistence takes have been too small to have caused the overall decline. 

C. Disease or predation—Disease was unlikely to have been a significant factor in the decline. 

Killer whale predation was probably unimportant when the sea lion population was high but 

could exacerbate a decline once numbers have been reduced. 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms—The MMPA prohibits most taking and has a 

mechanism to limit incidental take by fisheries. No inadequacies were noted. 

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence—Incidental take in fisheries and 

intentional shooting may have had some impact but cannot explain the overall decline. 
30 

The 1992 Final Recovery Plan for Steller Sea Lions states its goal as “to promote the recovery of the 

Steller sea lion population to a level appropriate to justify removal from ESA listings” (NMFS 1992). 

The plan includes quantitative criteria that the recovery team recommended for reclassification and 

delisting based on counts and trends in counts of pup and non-pup Steller sea lions in the principal 

area of decline and elsewhere. However, the approved plan states that NMFS would not implement 

those recommendations but instead would develop final criteria after further analyses, including a 

population viability analysis. Human-related threats identified in the plan were subsistence harvests, 

fishery-related taking, competition for food with commercial fisheries, toxic substances, 

entanglement in debris, and disturbance. 

NMFS published a second status review of Steller sea lions in 1995. The review concluded that the 

species should be split into two populations. Models using historical trends predicted that the 

western population could be reduced to very low levels within 100 years. The review concluded that 

the proximate cause of the population decline was primarily a reduction in juvenile survival, and that 

disease and changes in prey abundance were the most likely causes of that change. No evaluation 

was done of ESA listing factors (NMFS 1995). 

In 1997 NMFS revised the ESA listing to reflect new information on the species’ population 

structure and status. It changed the classification of the western population to endangered based on 

the following rationale: “Available data on population trends indicate that the western population 

segment of Steller sea lions is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range. 

This population had exhibited a precipitous, large population decline at the time that the Steller sea

lion was listed as a threatened species in 1990 and has continued to decline since the listing. 

Therefore, the western population segment of Steller sea lions is reclassified as an endangered 

species under the ESA” (62 Fed. Reg. 24345). 

The 1997 listing notice included an analysis of the five ESA listing factors for the western 

population that concluded as follows: 

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range—There is no 

evidence that habitat factors are significant issues. 

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes—Commercial harvest and 

illegal shooting may have been significant factors in past declines but are not a major cause 

of recent population changes. Utilization for scientific or educational purposes has not been 

a significant factor. 

C. Disease or predation—Disease and predation are not considered significant factors currently 

affecting the population. 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms—The listing states, “A final determination with 

respect to whether existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate is difficult to make, given 

the lack of a clear cause of the decline.” 

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence—Incidental catch in fisheries may 

have been a contributing factor to declines in some areas during certain periods. Alaska 

Native subsistence hunting may become significant if the population continues to decline 
31 

and harvests continue at current levels. There is evidence that limitations in food availability, 

due either to commercial fishing or environmental changes, may be a factor in the ongoing 

decline. Concern has been expressed about possible effects of contaminants, but their 

possible significance is unknown. 

In May 2006 NMFS released a revised draft Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan for public review (71 

Fed. Reg. 29919). 

The status of the Steller sea lion was most recently evaluated by the IUCN Seal Specialist Group in 

1993 (Reijnders et al. 1993). Potential threats to its existence identified at the time were deliberate 

killing by fishermen, incidental take by fisheries, reduced food supply, and disease. In its 1996 Red 

Book, the IUCN listed the entire species as endangered based on criterion A1b (IUCN 1996). The 

status of the western population was not evaluated separately. 

In 1988 NMFS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to list Steller sea lions as 

depleted under the MMPA citing results of its status review and stating that “the current population 

may be below 50 percent of historic carrying capacity and below the lower bound of OSP for this 

population” (55 Fed. Reg. 16299). NMFS did not follow through on the depletion designation but 

instead proceeded with listing Steller sea lions under the ESA. Therefore, the western population of 

Steller sea lions is considered as depleted under the MMPA because it is listed under the ESA. Its 

status relative to OSP has not been evaluated. 

Available data

 

The basic population data available for Steller sea lions are counts of animals (usually both pups and 

non-pups) on rookeries during the pupping and breeding season. The first systematic counts of the 

western population were made in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands in the late 1950s. 

Subsequent counts were made during 1975–1979, 1984–1985, and 1989–1990. Since sea lions were 

listed under the ESA in 1990, all major rookeries have been counted at regular intervals, usually 

every other year. 

Prior to ESA listing, research on the western stock of Steller sea lions was funded and conducted 

primarily by NMFS and ADFG. During 1975–1979 a major research project funded by the Outer 

Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program produced detailed information on the 

distribution, abundance, and life history of sea lions, principally in the Gulf of Alaska. After ESA 

listing, Congress began to appropriate additional funds annually to investigate the population’s 

decline. Initially, funding was earmarked primarily to support work by NMFS and ADFG, but later 

it expanded to include a number of universities and other research and management agencies. Data 

have been gathered on a variety of subjects including distribution, abundance, movements, stock 

structure, vital parameters, life history, foraging ecology, behavior, physiology, contaminants, 

predation, and disease. The majority of effort has gone to studies of the western population, and a 

huge amount of information has been collected. 
32 

A model that can be used for population viability analysis has recently been developed for Steller sea 

lions (NMFS in prep.[b]). 

Current biological status 

 

NMFS published the most recent SAR for the western population of Steller sea lions in 2005 (see 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm). The SAR gives a minimum abundance of 38,513 

(based on counts made in 2001–2004) and states that the population declined by 3.1 percent per year 

from 1991 to 2004. It calculates a PBR of 231 animals and states that the population is considered a 

strategic stock because it is listed as endangered under the ESA. Trend counts for the western Steller 

sea lion population declined by 81 percent from 109,880 in the late 1970s to 20,563 in 2004. The 

most recent count data suggest that the decline may have stopped and that sea lion numbers are 

increasing slowly in some regions (see http://nmml.afsc.noaa.gov/AlaskaEcosystems/sslhome/ 

decline.htm). 

Although reproductive and mortality rates are poorly known, the proximate cause of the decline is 

likely to be poor survival, especially of juveniles (NRC 2003). One theory has proposed that much of 

the mortality may be due to killer whale predation (Springer et al. 2003). The SAR notes that another 

possibility is that prey availability in sea lion foraging area has been reduced by commercial fishing 

and/or climate changes. 

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) (ESA – endangered; IUCN – endangered; MMPA – 

depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

 

The blue whale is a cosmopolitan species with four recognized subspecies, one of which occurs in 

the Northern Hemisphere (Rice 1998). Current information suggests that multiple populations occur 

within different ocean basins. The Recovery Plan for the Blue Whale discusses North Atlantic and 

North Pacific populations separately (NMFS 1998a). For purposes of SARs required by the MMPA, 

NMFS has identified three stocks—western North Atlantic, eastern North Pacific (formerly called 

California/Mexico), and western North Pacific (formerly called Hawaii). Blue whales range widely in 

the North Atlantic and North Pacific from the subtropics to the subarctic, and are most common in 

offshore waters (Perry et al. 1999). 

History of evaluation and listing

 

The blue whale is under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Milestones relative to the species’ listing include 

the following: 

x Species listed as endangered under the ESCA in 1970. 

x Endangered status carried forward under the ESA in 1973. 
33 

x Qualified as depleted under the MMPA in 1973 by virtue of its listing under the ESA. 

x North Pacific population listed as lower risk and North Atlantic population as vulnerable by the 

IUCN in 1996. 

x Recovery plan adopted in 1998. 

No detailed explanation was given when the blue whale was listed as endangered under the ESCA in 

1970 (35 Fed. Reg. 18319). Because the species was already listed when the ESA was passed in 1973, 

a formal analysis of threats and ESA listing factors was not done at that time. 

The Recovery Plan for the Blue Whale states its goal as “to promote the recovery of blue whale 

populations so that it becomes appropriate to remove them from the list of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act” (NMFS 1998a). Threats identified in the 

plan were collisions with vessels, entanglement in fishing gear, reduced food availability due to 

habitat degradation, and disturbance from low-frequency noise. 

The most recent review of the status of blue whales under the ESA was published in 1999 (Perry et 

al. 1999). The review states, “Any reevaluation of blue whale status awaits the collection of more 

reliable information on stock structure, distribution and migration patterns, trends in abundance, 

causes of mortality, and factors affecting the recovery of blue whale stocks, as well as the 

development of objective delisting criteria.” It recommends that the classification status of all blue 

whale stocks should remain as endangered. ESA listing factors identified in the status review as 

possibly influencing recovery were destruction or modification of habitat (offshore oil and gas 

development and noise from vessel traffic); overutilization (whale-watching, scientific research, 

photography, and associated vessel traffic); and other factors (vessel collisions and entanglement in 

fishing gear). 

In 1996 the IUCN listed the blue whale species as endangered based on criteria A1a, A1b, and A1d 

(IUCN 1996). The North Atlantic population was listed as vulnerable based on criterion D1, and the 

North Pacific population was listed as lower-risk, conservation-dependent.3

 The status of blue 

whales was most recently evaluated by the IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group in 2003 (Reeves et al. 

2003). The report states that at the time there were no well-identified threats from human activities 

but notes that blue whales could be susceptible to changes in ocean productivity such as might result 

from climate change. 

Blue whales are considered as depleted under the MMPA because of their ESA listing. Their status 

relative to OSP has not been evaluated. 

 

3 The category of “lower-risk, conservation-dependent” is no longer in use, but the categorization for this taxon has not been changed 

because a formal reassessment of status has not been done. 
34 

Available data

Prior to listing under the ESCA in 1970, information on blue whales in U.S. waters was limited 

almost exclusively to historical whaling records and reports of scattered opportunistic sightings. 

Since then, there had been almost no directed studies to assess the status of blue whales in U.S. 

waters until the past few years. Recent studies include seasonal surveys to (1) count and photoidentify blue whales on feeding grounds in the eastern North Pacific (i.e., off the coast of California, 

Oregon, and Washington); (2) track the movements of whales using satellite tags after they leave 

waters off California; and (3) assess blue whale distribution and stock structure in the North Pacific 

and North Atlantic Oceans using acoustic recordings of their calls. Information on blue whales in 

U.S. waters, particularly in the North Atlantic Ocean, is generally very poor. 

No models designed specifically for population viability analysis have been developed for blue whale 

populations in U.S. waters. 

Current biological status

 

Blue whale populations in both the North Atlantic and North Pacific were greatly reduced by 

commercial whaling during the early and mid-1900s (NMFS 1998a). Gambell (1976) gives preexploitation population estimates of 4,900 blue whales for the entire North Pacific and 1,100 to 

1,500 for the entire North Atlantic, but those estimates are considered speculative and statistically 

unreliable (Perry et al. 1999). NMFS published the most recent SARs for the western North Atlantic 

stock of blue whales in 2002 and the eastern and western North Pacific stocks in 2005 (see 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm). Stock status parameters given in the SARs are 

shown here. 

Stock name Abundance PBR Trend Classification

Western North Atlantic No reliable 

estimate 

Unknown Insufficient data Strategic 

Eastern North Pacific 1,744* 1.4 Possibly increasing Strategic 

Western North Pacific No reliable 

estimate 

Unknown Insufficient data Strategic 

*A more recent analysis of ship survey data gave an estimate of 2,994 blue whales off Baja California, California, Oregon, and 

Washington during 1991–1996 (Calambokidis and Barlow 2004). 

Bowhead whale, western Arctic population (Balaena mysticetus) (ESA – endangered; IUCN 

– lower risk; MMPA – depleted) 

 

Distribution and conservation units

 

Bowhead whales are currently considered a single species with no identified subspecies (Rice 1998). 

Five populations are recognized for management purposes, only one of which, the western Arctic 
35 

(also called Bering Sea or Bering–Chukchi–Beaufort Seas) population, occurs in U.S. waters (Shelden 

and Rugh 1995). Western Arctic bowhead whales range seasonally throughout the northern Bering, 

Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, usually in association with sea ice. 

History of evaluation and listing

 

The western Arctic bowhead whale is under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Milestones relative to the 

species’ listing include the following: 

x Species listed as endangered under the ESCA in 1970. 

x Endangered status carried forward under the ESA in 1973. 

x Qualified as depleted under the MMPA in 1973 by virtue of its listing under the ESA. 

x Listed as lower-risk, conservation-dependent by the IUCN in 1996. 

No detailed explanation was given when the bowhead whale was listed as endangered under the 

ESCA in 1970 (35 Fed. Reg. 18319). Because the species was already listed when the ESA was 

passed in 1973, a formal analysis of threats and ESA listing factors was not done at that time. A 

recovery plan has not been prepared for bowhead whales. 

A review of the status of bowhead whales under the ESA was conducted in 1995. It concluded that 

the western Arctic stock was relatively large and had been increasing (Shelden and Rugh 1995). 

Although bowhead whales are killed by subsistence hunters, attacked by killer whales, and may die as 

a result of entanglement in fishing gear, the principal threat to the population identified in the review 

was impacts associated with offshore oil and gas development. No analysis was done of ESA listing 

factors, and the review made no recommendations on the population’s status under ESA because 

objective criteria for downlisting or delisting had not been developed. 

Shelden et al. (2001) proposed methods for developing objective criteria to classify species under the 

ESA, using bowhead whales as a case study. They reviewed the five ESA listing factors and 

concluded that they do not provide compelling reasons for listing western Arctic bowhead whales. 

They then applied a modeling approach developed by Gerber and DeMaster (1999) and concluded 

that, based on those results, the western Arctic population should be delisted under the ESA. 

In 1996 the IUCN listed the western Arctic bowhead whale population as lower-risk, conservationdependent4

 (IUCN 1996). The status of bowhead whales was most recently evaluated by the IUCN 

Cetacean Specialist Group in 2003 (Reeves et al. 2003). Its report notes that the western Arctic 

population has been growing for the past 20 years despite subsistence hunting. No potential threats 

to its existence were identified at the time. 

The western Arctic bowhead whale population is designated as depleted under the MMPA because 

of its ESA listing. The population’s status relative to OSP has not been evaluated. Shelden and Rugh 

 

4 See note 3 above. 
36 

(1995) provided an estimate of the lower end of the OSP range as 6,500 to 10,500, based on an 

estimated initial stock size of 10,945 to 17,431 (IWC 1995) and an assumption that the MNPL is 60 

percent of K. 

Available data

 

Prior to listing under the ESCA in 1970, information on bowhead whales in U.S. waters was limited 

almost exclusively to historical whaling records and reports of scattered opportunistic sightings. 

Since 1978 directed studies of western Arctic bowhead whales have been funded and conducted by 

NMFS, Minerals Management Service, Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, and North Slope 

Borough. The western Arctic bowhead whale population is now one of the best-studied large whale 

populations in the world. Principal research efforts have included periodic counts of migrating 

whales as they pass along the ice edge near Point Barrow to estimate the size of the population. 

Counts have been supplemented by acoustic surveys to account for whales passing by the counting 

stations beyond visual range. Population size also was estimated from aerial surveys in 1985 and 

1986 using aerial photographs of whales and capture-recapture methods. The results have provided 

a good estimate of population size and trends over the past two decades. More recent studies 

include satellite-tracking work, genetic analyses to assess stock structure, and additional aerial 

photogrammetry studies to estimate stock size using mark-recapture methods. A number of studies 

have been done to evaluate the potential impacts of human activities, particularly noise from oil and 

gas exploration and development, on western Arctic bowhead whales. 

A population viability analysis done for bowhead whales concluded that the western Arctic 

population should be delisted under the ESA (Shelden et al. 2001). 

Current biological status

 

Bowhead whale numbers were severely reduced throughout the Arctic by commercial whaling in the 

1800s and early 1900s. The pre-exploitation abundance of the western Arctic population was 

estimated to be 23,000 by Woodby and Botkin (1993) and 10,945 to 17,431 by the International 

Whaling Commission (1995). NMFS published the most recent SAR for the western Arctic 

population of bowhead whales in 2005 (see www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm). The SAR 

estimates the population size as 10,545 and increasing at 3.4 percent per year. It calculates a PBR of 

95 animals and states that western Arctic bowheads are considered a strategic stock because they are 

listed as endangered under the ESA. 

The primary source of human-caused mortality for this population is subsistence hunting by Alaska 

Natives. Such hunting is closely regulated both by a cooperative agreement between NMFS and the 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and by the IWC. 
37 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) (ESA – endangered; IUCN – endangered; MMPA – 

depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

 

The fin whale is a cosmopolitan species with two recognized subspecies: one in the Northern 

Hemisphere and the other in the Southern Hemisphere (Rice 1998). Animals in the North Atlantic 

and North Pacific are likely isolated, and the draft Recovery Plan for the Fin Whale and Sei Whale 

deals with them as separate populations (NMFS 1998b). For purposes of SARs required by the 

MMPA, NMFS has identified four stocks—western North Atlantic, California-Oregon-Washington, 

northeast Pacific, and Hawaii. Fin whales are an oceanic species that seasonally move north or 

south. In general, wintering areas and migration routes are poorly known (Perry et al. 1999). 

History of evaluation and listing

 

The fin whale is under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Milestones relative to the species’ listing include 

the following: 

x Species listed as endangered under the ESCA in 1970. 

x Endangered status carried forward under the ESA in 1973. 

x Qualified as depleted under the MMPA in 1973 by virtue of its listing under the ESA. 

x Listed as endangered by the IUCN in 1996. 

x Draft recovery plan prepared in 1998 but not adopted. 

x Draft recovery plan released for public review in 2006. 

No detailed explanation was given when the fin whale was listed as endangered under the ESCA in 

1970 (35 Fed. Reg. 18319). Because the species was already listed when the ESA was passed in 1973, 

a formal analysis of threats and ESA listing factors was not done at that time. 

A draft Recovery Plan for the Fin Whale and Sei Whale was prepared by NMFS in 1998, but no 

action was taken to adopt it. The draft plan stated that its goal was “to promote recovery of all fin 

and sei whale populations to levels at which it becomes appropriate to downlist them from 

endangered to threatened status, and ultimately to remove them from the list of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants, under the provisions of the ESA” (NMFS 1998b). Threats identified 

in the plan were vessel interactions (collisions and noise), entanglement in fishing gear, disturbance 

from low-frequency noise, and hunting. In July 2006 NMFS released a revised draft Recovery Plan 

for the Fin Whale for public review (71 Fed. Reg. 38385). 

The most recent status review of fin whales under the ESA was published in 1999 (Perry et al. 1999). 

The review states, “Any reevaluation of fin whale status awaits the collection of more reliable 

information on stock structure, distribution and migration patterns, trends in abundance, causes of 

mortality, and factors influencing the recovery of fin whale stocks, as well as the development of 

objective delisting criteria.” It makes no specific recommendation for reclassifying or delisting the 
38 

species under the ESA. The ESA listing factors identified in the status review as possibly influencing 

recovery were destruction or modification of habitat (offshore oil and gas development); 

overutilization (whale-watching, scientific research, photography and associated vessel traffic, West 

Greenland and Icelandic harvests); disease (nematode infestations); and other factors (vessel 

collisions). 

In 1996 the IUCN listed fin whales worldwide as endangered based on criteria A1a, A1b, and A1d 

(IUCN 1996). Individual populations were not evaluated separately. The status of fin whales was 

most recently evaluated by the IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group in 2003 (Reeves et al. 2003). Ship 

strikes were identified as a potential threat in that review. 

Fin whales are considered as depleted under the MMPA because of their ESA listing. No formal 

evaluation has been conducted of their status relative to OSP. 

Available data

 

Prior to listing under the ESCA in 1970, information on fin whales in U.S. waters was limited almost 

exclusively to data associated with efforts to manage commercial whaling (e.g., catch and sighting 

records and tag recovery). Since 1970 there have been very few studies directed specifically at fin 

whales in U.S. waters. Available information is limited largely to sighting data collected during aerial 

and shipboard surveys for marine mammals, stranding records, and a few photo-identification 

studies in localized areas. Recordings of fin whale calls have been analyzed to assess their 

distribution in the North Pacific, and fin whale sightings along the eastern United States were 

analyzed as part of a series of marine mammal and turtle surveys supported by the Bureau of Land 

Management between 1979 and 1981. For populations in U.S. waters, information on abundance, 

population dynamics, and trends is very limited. 

No models designed specifically for population viability analysis have been developed for fin whale 

populations in U.S. waters. 

Current biological status

 

Populations of fin whales in both the North Atlantic and North Pacific were greatly reduced by 

commercial whaling during the early and mid-1900s (NMFS 1998b). Pre-exploitation population 

estimates for fin whales are 42,000 to 45,000 for the entire North Pacific and 30,000 to 50,000 for 

the entire North Atlantic (Perry et al. 1999). NMFS published the most recent SARs for the 

California-Oregon-Washington stock of fin whales in 2003 and for the western North Atlantic, the 

northeastern Pacific, and the Hawaii stocks in 2005 (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/ 

species.htm). Stock status parameters given in the SARs are shown on the opposite page. 
39 

Stock name Abundance PBR Trend Classification

Western North Atlantic 2,814 4.7 Insufficient data Strategic 

California-OregonWashington 3,279 15.0 Possibly increasing Strategic 

Northeastern Pacific 5,703 11.4 Insufficient data Strategic 

Hawaii 174 0.2 Insufficient data Strategic 

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) (ESA – endangered; IUCN – vulnerable; 

MMPA – depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

 

Humpback whales occur in all the world’s oceans except the Arctic Ocean and are currently 

considered a single species with no recognized subspecies (Rice 1998). They typically feed in 

summer at higher latitudes and winter at lower latitudes where they calve and breed. Based on 

whaling records, photographic resightings, and genetics data, about a dozen populations have been 

identified worldwide, with geographically distinct calving and breeding areas (Perry et al. 1999). The 

Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale considers three populations in U.S. waters: one in the 

western North Atlantic, another in the central North Pacific, and a third in the eastern North Pacific 

(NMFS 1991a). In at least some instances, humpback whales show fidelity to specific summer 

feeding areas (Perry et al. 1999), and those feeding aggregations also may comprise important 

conservation units. For purposes of preparing SARs required by the MMPA, NMFS has identified 

four stocks—Gulf of Maine (formerly called the western North Atlantic stock), eastern North 

Pacific (formerly called the California-Oregon-Washington-Mexico stock), central North Pacific, and 

western North Pacific. 

History of evaluation and listing

The humpback whale is under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Milestones relative to the species’ listing 

include the following: 

x Species listed as endangered under the ESCA in 1970. 

x Endangered status carried forward under the ESA in 1973. 

x Qualified as depleted under the MMPA in 1973 by virtue of its listing under the ESA. 

x Recovery plan adopted in 1991. 

x Listed as vulnerable by the IUCN in 1996. 

No detailed explanation was given when the humpback whale was listed as endangered under the 

ESCA in 1970 (35 Fed. Reg. 18319). Because the species was already listed when the ESA was 

passed in 1973, a formal analysis of threats and ESA listing factors was not done at that time. 
40 

The Final Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale states its long-term goal as “to increase 

humpback whale populations to at least 60 percent of the number existing before commercial 

exploitation or of current environmental carrying capacity” and its interim goal as “a doubling of 

extant populations within the next 20 years” (NMFS 1991a). Threats identified in the plan were 

subsistence hunting, entanglement in fishing gear, collisions with vessels, acoustic disturbance, 

habitat degradation, and competition with humans for food resources. 

The most recent review of the status of humpback whales under the ESA was published in 1999 

(Perry et al. 1999). It states as follows: “Assuming that abundance levels are accurate and continue to 

increase, anthropogenic threats are reduced, adequate monitoring plans are developed and 

implemented, and information on population trends continue to be collected, the western North 

Atlantic and central North Pacific stocks should be considered for downlisting to threatened status.” 

This recommendation was apparently based in part on an unpublished paper by Gerber and 

DeMaster (1997) that developed possible classification criteria for humpback whales based on 

abundance, trends in abundance, changes in distribution, and regulatory status. ESA listing factors 

identified in the status review as possibly influencing recovery were destruction or modification of 

habitat (vessel traffic, oil and gas exploration); channel dredging and coastal development (western 

North Atlantic stock only); overutilization (whale-watching, scientific research, photography, and 

associated vessel traffic); hunting by whalers near West Greenland and St. Vincent and the 

Grenadines (western North Atlantic stock only); disease (saxitoxin—western North Atlantic stock 

only); and other factors (entanglement in fishing gear, vessel collisions, and human depletion of fish 

stocks—western North Atlantic stock only). Subsequently, Gerber and DeMaster (1999) proposed 

quantitative criteria for classifying humpback whales under the ESA and concluded as follows: “It 

was determined that the best estimates of current abundance for the central population of North 

Pacific humpback whales were larger than the estimated threshold for endangered status but less 

than the estimated threshold for threatened status. If accepted by the responsible management 

agency, this analysis would be consistent with a recommendation to downlist the central stock of 

humpback whales to a status of threatened, whereas the status of eastern and western stocks would 

remain endangered.” 

In 1996 the IUCN listed humpback whales worldwide as vulnerable based on criteria A1a and A1d 

(IUCN 1996). Individual populations were not evaluated separately. The status of humpback whales 

was most recently evaluated by the IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group in 2003 (Reeves et al. 2003). 

Potential threats identified in the review include ship collisions, entanglement in fishing gear, and 

noise disturbance, but the report notes that humpbacks seem able to tolerate living in close 

proximity to many human activities. 

Humpback whales are considered as depleted under the MMPA because of their ESA listing. Their 

status relative to OSP has not been evaluated. 
41 

Available data

 

Prior to listing under the ESCA in 1970, information on humpback whales in U.S. waters was 

limited almost exclusively to data associated with efforts to manage commercial whaling (e.g., catch 

and sighting records and tag recovery). Since then, a considerable amount of information has been 

gathered on humpback biology, especially in their nearshore calving and feeding areas. Some of this 

work has been funded and conducted by NMFS, but large contributions have been made by many 

other organizations and individuals. The development of methods to identify individuals from 

markings on their flukes has produced data on stock structure, movements, and vital rates. Photoidentification data have also been used to estimate population sizes using mark-recapture methods. 

Information on mortality has been collected through regional stranding programs. Genetic analyses 

of biopsy samples have been used to examine population structure. A number of animals have been 

tagged with satellite-linked transmitters that have produced data on movements and behavior. 

Additional data on distribution and abundance has been collected during aerial and shipboard 

surveys for other marine mammals. 

During the 1980s and early 1990s a number of researchers studied humpback whales, often 

independently collecting data in small parts of a population’s range. However, in 1992–1993 

investigators from several institutions and several countries came together to conduct a cooperative 

international study called YoNAH (Years of the North Atlantic Humpback), which produced a 

comprehensive picture of the biology of North Atlantic humpback whales. More recently a similar 

international program called SPLASH (Structure of Populations, Levels of Abundance, and Status of 

Humpbacks) has been initiated to assess and sample humpback whales throughout the North Pacific 

Ocean. 

No models designed specifically for population viability analysis have been developed for humpback 

whale populations in U.S. waters. 

Current biological status

 

All humpback whale populations in the Northern Hemisphere were reduced by commercial whaling 

between the mid-1800s and mid-1900s (NMFS 1998b). The pre-exploitation abundance of 

humpback whales for the entire North Pacific Ocean has been estimated as 15,000, but there is no 

comparable estimate for the North Atlantic (Perry et al. 1999). NMFS published the most recent 

SARs for humpbacks in the Gulf of Maine, the eastern North Pacific, the central North Pacific, and 

the western North Pacific in 2005 (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm). Stock 

status parameters given in the SARs are shown on the following page.
42 

Stock name Abundance PBR Trend Classification

Gulf of Maine* 902 1.3 Increasing Strategic 

Eastern North Pacific 1,391** 2.3 Increasing Strategic 

Central North Pacific 4,005 12.9 Increasing Strategic 

Western North Pacific 394 1.3 Insufficient data Strategic 

*Most humpback whales in the North Atlantic are part of a single large population that breeds in the West Indies in winter and 

disperses to various feeding grounds, including the Gulf of Maine, in summer. Based on data from 1979 to 1993, Stevick et al. (2003) 

estimated the size of the “West Indies population” at 10,752 whales with an annual rate of increase at 3.1 percent. 

**Calambokidis and Barlow (2004) estimate an abundance of 687 whales for the eastern North Pacific population.

North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) (ESA – endangered5; IUCN – endangered; 

MMPA – depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

 

Right whales occur in temperate to subtropical latitudes in both the Northern and Southern 

Hemispheres. The initial Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale treated all Northern 

Hemisphere right whales as a single species with two populations (NMFS 1991b). However, the 

current convention is to recognize the North Atlantic right whale (E. glacialis) and North Pacific 

right whale (E. japonica) as separate species (Rosenbaum et al. 2000). The revised recovery plan dealt 

only with E. glacialis (NMFS 2005), and NMFS is currently taking steps to recognize current right 

whale taxonomy in ESA listings (68 Fed. Reg. 17560). Western North Atlantic right whales feed 

between spring and fall in waters off New England and southeastern Canada. In fall, reproductive 

females and some juveniles migrate to winter calving grounds primarily off Georgia and Florida 

(Perry et al. 1999). Five major concentration areas have been identified in coastal waters off the 

United States and Canada including the nearshore waters of Florida and Georgia, the Great South 

Channel, Cape Cod Bay, the Bay of Fundy, and the Scotian Shelf. 

History of evaluation and listing

 

The right whale is under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Milestones relative to the species’ listing include 

the following: 

x Species listed as endangered under the ESCA in 1970. 

x Endangered status carried forward under the ESA in 1973. 

x Qualified as depleted under the MMPA in 1973 by virtue of its listing under the ESA. 

x Recovery plan adopted in 1991. 

 

5 Right whales are currently listed under the ESA as a single species, but here we consider whales in the North Atlantic and North 

Pacific as separate taxa. This is consistent with currently accepted taxonomy and also reflects the fact that NMFS is in the process of 

making regulatory changes to list them separately (68 Fed. Reg. 17560). 
43 

x Listed as endangered by the IUCN in 1996. 

x Revised recovery plan adopted in 2005. 

No detailed explanation was given when the right whale was listed as endangered under the ESCA in 

1970 (35 Fed. Reg. 18319). Because the species was already listed when the ESA was passed in 1973, 

a formal analysis of threats and ESA listing factors was not done at that time. 

The most recent ESA status review of right whales was published in 1999 (Perry et al. 1999). The 

review states, “Any reevaluation of northern and southern right whale status awaits collection of 

more reliable information on abundance, distribution, and threats from human activities...as well as 

the development of objective delisting criteria.” It makes no specific recommendation for 

reclassifying or delisting the species under the ESA. ESA listing factors identified in the status 

review as possibly influencing recovery were destruction or modification of habitat (offshore oil and 

gas development, pollution, and channel dredging); overutilization ( whale-watching and scientific 

research), regulatory inadequacy (a lack of vessel traffic and fishing regulations); and other factors 

(vessel collisions and entanglement in fishing gear). 

The 2005 revised Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic Right Whale states, “There has been no 

apparent sign of recovery in the previous 15 years and the species may be rarer and more 

endangered than previously thought.” It goes on to state, “The possibility of biological extinction in 

the next century is very real.” The plan states that its ultimate goal is “to promote the recovery of 

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

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the ESA,” and its intermediate goal is “to 

reclassify the species from endangered to threatened” (NMFS 2005). Criteria for reclassification 

from endangered to threatened were specified in the plan as follows: 

x All available data indicate that the population is increasing. 

x The population has increased for a period of 35 years at an average rate of at least 2 percent per 

year. 

x None of the ESA listing factors are known to be limiting population growth. 

x A peer-reviewed population viability analysis shows that the population has no more than a 1 

percent chance of reaching the quasi-extinction level in 100 years. 

Criteria for delisting North Atlantic right whales were not included in the recovery plan because 

NMFS concluded that decades of population growth would need to occur before delisting could be 

considered. 

The 2005 recovery plan includes an analysis of the five ESA listing factors that concluded as follows: 

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range—Habitat 

degradation may occur from a number of sources (e.g., oil spills, vessel traffic, noise, 

dredging, and contaminants) and actions should be taken to ensure that habitats are 

protected. 
44 

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes—Recreational, scientific, 

and educational activities are regulated, and currently no whales may be taken for 

commercial purposes. Prior to delisting, it should be affirmed that such activities will be 

adequately regulated in the future. 

C. Disease or predation—No evidence indicates that these factors are limiting recovery, but few 

data are available. Prior to delisting, it should be affirmed that disease is not affecting the 

population and is not likely to do so in the foreseeable future. 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms—Regulations may be insufficient to adequately 

protect the population. In particular, it may be necessary to strengthen regulations to 

eliminate or reduce ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear. 

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence—No natural factors are known to 

be limiting recovery. Human factors known to be of high significance are ship strikes and 

entanglement in fishing gear. Other human factors of concern include contaminants, coastal 

development, and noise. 

In 1996 the IUCN listed the North Atlantic right whale as endangered based on criterion D1 (IUCN 

1996). The status of North Atlantic right whales was most recently evaluated by the IUCN Cetacean 

Specialist Group in 2003 (Reeves et al. 2003). Ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear were 

identified as the most significant threats in that review. 

North Atlantic right whales are considered as depleted under the MMPA because of their ESA 

listing. Their status relative to OSP has not been evaluated. 

Available data

 

Prior to the listing of northern right whales under the ESCA in 1970, information on North Atlantic 

right whales was limited to historical whaling records and reports of scattered opportunistic 

sightings. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a dedicated research program was developed through 

the efforts of independent scientists. Research since then has made this species one of the most 

extensively studied large whale species in the world. Most research has been carried out by nongovernmental scientists with funding from federal agencies. NMFS provides the principal source of 

funding, although the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, various state agencies, 

and non-governmental foundations and groups also provide significant contributions. 

The central pillar of available data is a photo-identification catalogue believed to include most of the 

population. The catalogue includes information on the age (year born or first sighted) and sex for a 

large proportion of the current population. Extensive aerial and shipboard sighting surveys provide 

resighting information from which life history information (e.g., calving rates, movement patterns, 

survival and mortality rates, injury and entanglement rates, etc.) can be derived. Genetic samples 

have been collected from many known individuals to assess filial relationships and confirm 

individual identifications. A dedicated carcass salvage program expanded in the early 1990s provides 

information on causes of many deaths. 
45 

A population model has been developed for the North Atlantic right whale population (Caswell et 

al. 1999) that has been used for population viability analysis. 

Current biological status

 

Commercial hunting of right whales began as early as the 11th century in the eastern North Atlantic, 

in the 1500s off eastern Canada, and in the 1600s along the East Coast of the United States (Reeves 

2001); there are no estimates of pre-exploitation population size (NMFS 1991b, Perry et al. 1999) 

although catch records indicate the population numbered at least a few thousand (Reeves 2001). The 

North Atlantic population may have numbered fewer than 100 animals when international 

protection was put in place in 1935. NMFS published the most recent SAR for North Atlantic right 

whales in 2005 (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm), and estimated the population 

size in 1998 as 299. There is some indication that the population grew slowly during 1986–1992, but 

the survival rate declined in the 1990s. The SAR states that because of the likelihood that the 

population is declining the PBR is set at 0 animals. It also states that North Atlantic right whales are 

a strategic stock because they are listed as endangered under the ESA and because average annual 

fishery mortality and serious injury exceed PBR. 

Caswell et al. (1999) have estimated that the North Atlantic right whales began declining at 2.4 

percent per year in the 1990s. They predict that, if current conditions continue, the upper bound on 

expected time to extinction is 191 years. 

North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) (ESA – endangered6; IUCN – endangered; 

MMPA – depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

 

Right whales occur in temperate to subtropical latitudes in both hemispheres. The initial Recovery 

Plan for the Northern Right Whale treated all Northern Hemisphere right whales as a single species 

with two populations (NMFS 1991b). However, North Pacific right whales (E. japonica) are currently 

considered a species distinct from the North Atlantic (E. glacialis; Rosenbaum et al. 2000). The 

revised recovery plan dealt only with E. glacialis (NMFS 2005), and NMFS is currently taking steps to 

recognize current right whale taxonomy in ESA listings (68 Fed. Reg. 17560). In the North Pacific 

right whales were once found throughout the ocean basin north of 35 degrees (Clapham et al. 2004, 

Shelden et al. 2005). They now occur in separate groups in the east and west that presumably 

constitute separate populations (Perry et al. 1999, Clapham et al. 2004). 

History of evaluation and listing

 

The right whale is under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Milestones relative to the species’ listing include 

the following: 

 

6 See note 5 above.
46 

x Species listed as endangered under the ESCA in 1970. 

x Endangered status carried forward under the ESA in 1973. 

x Qualified as depleted under the MMPA in 1973 by virtue of its listing under the ESA. 

x Recovery plan published in 1991. 

x Listed as endangered by the IUCN in 1996. 

No detailed explanation was given when the right whale was listed as endangered under the ESCA in 

1970 (35 Fed. Reg. 18319). Because the species was already listed when the ESA was passed in 1973, 

a formal analysis of threats and ESA listing factors was not done at that time. 

The 1991 Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale devotes most of its attention to the western 

Atlantic population. With regard to the eastern Pacific population, the plan notes that at the time it 

was written there were no predictable areas where right whales occurred and therefore it was 

impossible to propose specific recovery measures (NMFS 1991b). The plan did not identify any 

major threats for the eastern Pacific stock, but they were assumed to be similar to those for the 

western Atlantic population (i.e., vessel interactions, entanglement in fishing gear, and habitat 

degradation). 

The most recent ESA status review of right whales was published in 1999 (Perry et al. 1999). It 

states, “The eastern North Pacific right whale stock remains severely depleted. Virtually nothing is 

known about its current size, trends in abundance, distribution, or migration patterns. The size of 

this stock is thought to be very small, but there are no reliable estimates of abundance. The 

classification of this stock should not change at this time, and is not likely to change in the 

foreseeable future.” ESA listing factors identified in the status review as possibly influencing 

recovery were destruction or modification of habitat (offshore oil and gas development) and other 

factors (entanglement in fishing gear). 

In 1996 the IUCN listed the North Pacific right whale as endangered based on criterion D1 (IUCN 

1996). The status of North Pacific right whales was most recently evaluated by the IUCN Cetacean 

Specialist Group in 2003 (Reeves et al. 2003). Ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear were 

identified as the most significant threats. 

North Pacific right whales are considered as depleted under the MMPA because of their ESA listing. 

Their status relative to OSP has not been evaluated. 

Available data

 

Prior to listing under the ESCA in 1970, information on right whales in the eastern North Pacific 

was limited almost entirely to historical whaling records and reports of scattered opportunistic 

sightings. From 1970 to the mid-1990s information was limited to rare opportunistic sighting 

records scattered in the region from Southern California to Alaska to Hawaii. No dedicated studies 

were possible because there was no location in the eastern North Pacific where right whales were 

known to occur regularly in any numbers. Since 1997 when a small group of right whales was found 
47 

in the southeastern Bering Sea, efforts have been undertaken each summer in that area to locate, 

photograph, and collect biopsy samples from individuals. With almost no recent information on 

their occurrence in other areas or during other seasons, eastern North Pacific right whales are the 

least well known of all listed marine mammals in U.S. waters. 

No models designed specifically for population viability analysis have been developed for North 

Pacific right whales. 

Current biological status

 

Commercial hunting of right whales in the western North Pacific began in the 1500s along the Asian 

coast; there are no estimates of their pre-exploitation abundance (Perry et al. 1999). In the mid- to 

late 1800s intensive whaling occurred in the eastern North Pacific and by the end of the 19th 

century, right whales were rare throughout the region. The most recent SAR for North Pacific right 

whales was published in 2003 (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm). The SAR does 

not provide a population estimate but notes that a few right whales have been seen in a portion of 

the southeastern Bering Sea each summer since 1996 and a very few sightings have been made in 

other areas. As of 2005, 23 individuals had been identified by photo-identification or genetic samples 

collected between 1998 and 2004 (P. Wade, pers. comm.). The population size may be only a few 

tens of animals, and its trend is unknown. The SAR does not calculate a PBR because there are 

insufficient data to estimate population size. It states that North Pacific right whales are considered a 

strategic stock because they are listed as endangered under the ESA. 

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) (ESA – endangered; IUCN – endangered; MMPA – 

depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

 

The sei whale is a cosmopolitan species with separate subspecies in the Northern and Southern 

Hemispheres (Rice 1998). Animals found in the North Atlantic, North Pacific, and Southern Oceans 

are almost certainly separate populations and are dealt with separately in the draft Recovery Plan for 

the Fin Whale and Sei Whale (NMFS 1998b). For purposes of preparing SARs required by the 

MMPA, NMFS has identified three stocks—Nova Scotia (formerly called the western North 

Atlantic stock), eastern North Pacific, and Hawaii. Sei whales range widely in oceanic waters of the 

North Atlantic and North Pacific, migrating from high-latitude summer feeding areas to lowerlatitude winter breeding areas. 

History of evaluation and listing

 

The sei whale is under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Milestones relative to the species’ listing include 

the following: 
48 

x Species listed as endangered under the ESCA in 1970. 

x Endangered status carried forward under the ESA in 1973. 

x Qualified as depleted under the MMPA in 1973 by virtue of its listing under the ESA. 

x Listed as endangered by the IUCN in 1996. 

x Draft recovery plan prepared in 1998 but not adopted. 

No detailed explanation was given when the sei whale was listed as endangered under the ESCA in 

1970 (35 Fed. Reg. 18319). Because the species was already listed when the ESA was passed in 1973, 

a formal analysis of threats and ESA listing factors was not done at that time. 

A draft Recovery Plan for the Fin Whale and Sei Whale was prepared by NMFS, but no action has 

been taken to adopt it. The draft plan states that its goal is “to promote recovery of all fin and sei 

whale populations to levels at which it becomes appropriate to downlist them from endangered to 

threatened status, and ultimately to remove them from the list of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants, under the provisions of the ESA” (NMFS 1998b). The draft plan suggests that, 

because they rarely occur in nearshore waters, sei whales may be less susceptible to human-caused 

threats than fin whales. 

The most recent review of the status of sei whales under the ESA was published in 1999 (Perry et al. 

1999). It states, “Any reevaluation of sei whale status awaits the collection of more reliable 

information on stock structure, distribution and migration patterns, trends in abundance, causes of 

mortality, and factors influencing the recovery of sei whales stocks, as well as the development of 

objective delisting criteria.” It makes no specific recommendation for reclassifying or delisting the 

species under the ESA. ESA listing factors identified in the status review as possibly influencing 

recovery were destruction or modification of habitat (offshore oil and gas development); 

overutilization (whale-watching, scientific research, photography, and associated vessel traffic; 

Icelandic harvests), disease (parasite infestations), and other factors (vessel collisions). 

In 1996 the IUCN listed sei whales as endangered worldwide based on criteria A1a, A1b, and A1d 

(IUCN 1996). Individual populations were not evaluated separately. The status of sei whales was 

most recently evaluated by the IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group in 2003 (Reeves et al. 2003). No 

specific threats were identified in that review. 

Sei whales are considered as depleted under the MMPA because of their ESA listing. Their status 

relative to OSP has not been evaluated. 

Available data

 

Prior to listing under the ESCA in 1970, information on sei whales in U.S. waters was limited almost 

exclusively to data associated with efforts to manage commercial whaling (e.g., catch and sighting 

records and tag recovery). Since 1970 there has been no directed research program on sei whales in 

the United States, and available information is limited to a few isolated studies, sighting reports 

during aerial and shipboard surveys for other marine mammals, and stranding records. For 
49 

populations in U.S. waters, information on abundance, population dynamics, and trends ranges from 

very limited to almost none. 

No models designed specifically for population viability analysis have been developed for sei whale 

populations in U.S. waters. 

Current biological status

 

Sei whale populations in both the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans were greatly reduced by 

commercial whaling during the early and mid-1900s (NMFS 1998b). The pre-exploitation population 

size for the entire North Pacific Ocean has been estimated at 42,000, but there is no comparable 

estimate for the North Atlantic Ocean (Perry et al. 1999). NMFS SARs for sei whales were 

published in 2003 for the eastern North Pacific stock and in 2005 for the Nova Scotia and Hawaii 

stocks (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm). Stock status parameters given in the 

SARs are shown here. 

Stock name Abundance PBR Trend Classification

Nova Scotia No reliable 

estimate 

Unknown Insufficient data Strategic 

Eastern North Pacific 56 0.1 Insufficient data Strategic 

Hawaii 77 0.1 Insufficient data Strategic 

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) (ESA – endangered; IUCN – vulnerable; MMPA – 

depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

 

The sperm whale is a cosmopolitan species occurring in all the world’s oceans except the Arctic 

Ocean; there are no recognized subspecies (Rice 1998). It is generally recognized, however, that 

there are a number of discrete populations. For purposes of preparing SARs required by the MMPA, 

NMFS has identified five stocks—North Atlantic, California-Oregon-Washington, North Pacific, 

Hawaii, and northern Gulf of Mexico. Sperm whales occur throughout deeper parts of the North 

Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans from the equator to polar regions. Mature females, calves, and 

immature animals stay in temperate and tropical waters while adult males range farther north. 

History of evaluation and listing

 

The sperm whale is under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Milestones relative to the species’ listing 

include the following: 

x Species listed as endangered under the ESCA in 1970. 

x Endangered status carried forward under the ESA in 1973. 
50 

x Qualified as depleted under the MMPA in 1973 by virtue of its listing under the ESA. 

x Listed as vulnerable by the IUCN in 1996. 

x Draft recovery plan released for public review in 2006. 

No detailed explanation was given when the sperm whale was listed as endangered under the ESCA 

in 1970 (35 Fed. Reg. 18319). Because the species was already listed when the ESA was passed in 

1973, a formal analysis of threats and ESA listing factors was not done at that time. 

The most recent ESA status review of sperm whales was published in 1999 (Perry et al. 1999). It 

states, “Any reevaluation of sperm whale classification status awaits the collection of more reliable 

information on distribution, migration patterns, abundance, and trends in abundance on a stockspecific basis, as well as the development of objective delisting criteria.” It also suggests that the 

North Atlantic and North Pacific populations might be candidates for downlisting if better 

information becomes available on their abundance and stock identity and if human-related sources 

of mortality are controlled. ESA listing factors identified in the status review as possibly influencing 

recovery were destruction or modification of habitat (pollution, and offshore oil and gas 

development); overutilization ( whale-watching, scientific research, and associated vessel traffic), 

disease or predation (papillomavirus and calicivirus and killer whale predation), and other factors 

(entanglement in fishing gear). 

In July 2006 NMFS released a draft Recovery Plan for the Sperm Whale for public review (71 Fed. 

Reg. 38385). 

In 1996 the IUCN listed sperm whales worldwide as vulnerable based on criteria A1b and A1d 

(IUCN 1996). Individual populations were not evaluated separately. The status of sperm whales was 

most recently evaluated by the IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group in 2003 (Reeves et al. 2003). Ship 

strikes and entanglement in fishing gear were identified as potential threats at the time. 

Sperm whales are considered as depleted under the MMPA because of their ESA listing. Their status 

relative to OSP has not been evaluated. 

Available data

 

Prior to listing under the ESCA in 1970, information on sperm whales in U.S. waters was limited 

almost exclusively to data associated with efforts to manage commercial whaling (e.g., catch and 

sighting records and tag recovery). Since 1970 there has been no directed sperm whale research 

program in the United States, and available information is limited to a few isolated studies, sighting 

reports during aerial and shipboard surveys for other marine mammals, and stranding records. 

Probably the best known population in U.S. waters is in the Gulf of Mexico where the Minerals 

Management Service has recently supported studies to tag and track sperm whales to help assess 

impacts of noise from offshore oil and gas exploration and development. Very few directed studies 

have been undertaken on sperm whales in U.S. waters of the Atlantic or Pacific. For the populations 
51 

in U.S. waters, information on abundance, population dynamics, and trends varies from very limited 

to almost none. 

No models designed specifically for population viability analysis have been developed for sperm 

whale populations in U.S. waters. 

Current biological status

 

Sperm whale populations in the North Atlantic and especially the North Pacific were heavily 

harvested by commercial whalers from the 1800s to the mid-1900s (Perry et al. 1999). Preexploitation abundance estimates for the North Pacific and North Atlantic are in the hundreds of 

thousands, but those estimates are considered unreliable (Perry et al. 1999). The most recent SARs 

for sperm whales were published in 2003 for the California-Oregon-Washington and northern Gulf 

of Mexico stocks and in 2005 for the North Atlantic, North Pacific, and Hawaii stocks (see 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm). Stock status parameters given in the SARs are 

shown here. 

Stock name Abundance PBR Trend Classification

North Atlantic 4,804 7.0 Insufficient data Strategic 

California-Oregon- 

 Washington 

1,233 1.8 Insufficient data Strategic 

North Pacific No reliable estimate* Unknown Insufficient data Strategic 

Hawaii 7,082 11.0 Insufficient data Strategic 

Gulf of Mexico 1,349 2.2 Insufficient data Strategic 

*Barlow and Taylor (2005) estimated the number of sperm whales in a region of the eastern North Pacific extending from the West 

Coast of the United States to Hawaii as 26,300 based on visual surveys and 32,100 based on acoustic surveys. The surveys included all 

or part of the range of the California-Oregon-Washington, North Pacific, and Hawaii stocks. 

Beluga whale, Cook Inlet population (Delphinapterus leucas) (ESA – not listed; IUCN – 

critically endangered; MMPA – depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

 

Beluga whales occur only in arctic and subarctic waters of the Northern Hemisphere and are 

considered a single species with no identified subspecies (Rice 1998). Genetics studies confirm five 

demographically isolated populations in Alaska that each have their own summer concentration 

areas (O’Corry-Crowe et al. 1997). For purposes of preparing SARs required by the MMPA, NMFS 

has identified five stocks, only one of which, the Cook Inlet population, has been listed. Cook Inlet 

beluga whales are isolated both genetically and geographically. They are separated from the nearest 

other beluga whale population in the Bering Sea by the 900-km-long Alaska Peninsula. Cook Inlet 

beluga whales currently occur mostly in Cook Inlet where they seem to remain throughout the year 

(Hobbs et al. 2005). In summer they are most common near the mouths of large rivers in the upper 
52 

inlet. A small group occurs in Yakutat Bay where they may be resident. Few sightings have been 

made in adjacent waters of the Gulf of Alaska (NMFS in prep.[c]). 

History of evaluation and listing

 

The Cook Inlet beluga whale is under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Milestones relative to the 

population’s listing include the following: 

x Population listed as a candidate species for listing under the ESA in 1988. 

x Species listed as vulnerable by the IUCN in 1996. 

x NMFS petitioned in 1999 to list Cook Inlet beluga whales as depleted under the MMPA and 

endangered under the ESA. 

x Population listed as depleted under the MMPA in 2000. 

x Determination made that ESA listing was not warranted in 2000. 

x Draft conservation plan released for public review in 2005. 

x Listed as critically endangered by the IUCN in 2006. 

In 1998 NMFS initiated a status review for the Cook Inlet beluga whale population (63 Fed. Reg. 

64228). Reasons given for initiating the review were that (1) beluga whale counts made in 1998 were 

the lowest on record and had been declining since at least 1994, and (2) Alaska Native subsistence 

harvests, which had risen from about 15 whales per year in the early 1990s to about 100 whales per 

year (including whales struck and lost) in the mid-1990s, appeared to be exceeding sustainable levels. 

In 1999 NMFS received petitions from the State of Alaska to list Cook Inlet beluga whales as 

depleted under the MMPA and from several organizations and individuals to list them as 

endangered under the ESA (64 Fed. Reg. 17347). NMFS determined that each of the petitions 

presented substantial information indicating that the listing action might be warranted, and later in 

1999 it published a proposed rule to designate the population as depleted (64 Fed. Reg. 65298). In 

2000 NMFS listed the population as depleted (65 Fed. Reg. 34590), noting that the abundance 

estimate for 1998 (347 whales) was likely less than 35 percent of K (estimated to be at least 1,000), 

which would be far below the population’s MNPL level. The notice did not directly address causes 

of the decline or threats to the population. 

Later in 2000 NMFS determined that the Cook Inlet population did not merit listing as endangered 

or threatened under the ESA based on its conclusion that the population was not in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future (65 Fed. Reg. 38778). The notice 

acknowledged that the population was small and had declined markedly in recent years. With regard 

to ESA listing factors NMFS concluded the following: 

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range—“A significant 

part of the habitat for this species has been modified by municipal, industrial and 
53 

recreational activities in Upper Cook Inlet. However, the data do not support a conclusion 

that the range of CI belugas has been diminished by these activities.” 

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes—Mortality caused by 

overharvesting by Alaska Natives is of serious concern, and some of the products resulting 

from those harvests have been sold. 

C. Disease or predation—There is no indication that disease has been a significant factor in the 

decline. Killer whale predation does occur but is not likely to be having a significant impact. 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms—Although there is a need to regulate subsistence 

hunting and development in beluga whale habitats, “NMFS believes that an inadequate 

regulatory mechanism has not caused the stock to become in danger of extinction, nor is it 

likely to do so in the foreseeable future.” 

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence—A number of other factors were 

identified that could affect Cook Inlet beluga whales including stochastic events, strandings, 

subsistence harvests, fishery interactions, oil spills, other pollutants, noise, and prey 

availability. The only one of these factors that was thought to be of significance was 

subsistence harvesting. 

Overall NMFS concluded that because “legislative and management actions have been taken to 

reduce the subsistence harvest to levels that will allow the beluga whale stock to recover,” a listing 

under the ESA was not warranted. The decision was appealed by some of the petitioners but was 

upheld in federal appeals court. 

In 2005 NMFS released a draft Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale for public 

review (70 Fed. Reg. 12853). Its stated goal is recovery of the Cook Inlet stock of beluga whales to a 

population size of no fewer than 780 whales (NMFS in prep.[c]). The plan reviews the population’s 

biology and status, as well as natural and human factors that could be affecting its recovery. It also 

contains a section on ESA listing that analyzes the five ESA listing factors and concludes that “there 

is evidence that one or more of these factors would apply to this stock.” It also notes that the 

decision in 2000 not to list the population was based on the assumption that subsistence hunting 

was the only factor affecting the population, and that, because the population has not grown as 

expected since hunting has been controlled, the assumption may have been wrong. It goes on to 

state, “In consideration of the factors described above, and because it has been five years since the 

last Status Review for these whales occurred, we believe it is appropriate to again assess this stock 

for possible listing under the ESA. Therefore, NMFS will initiate a formal Status Review for the CI 

beluga whale commensurate with the development of this Conservation Plan.” In 2006 NMFS 

announced in the Federal Register that it was again initiating a review of the status of Cook Inlet 

beluga whales to determine whether they should be listed under the ESA (71 Fed. Reg. 14836). 

In 1996 the IUCN listed the entire beluga whale species as vulnerable based on criteria A1a, A1b, 

and A1d (IUCN 1996). The Cook Inlet population was not evaluated separately. The status of 

beluga whales was evaluated by the IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group in 2003 (Reeves et al. 2003). 

General threats to the species identified in the review were hunting and vessel traffic. An assessment 

specific to the Cook Inlet population was conducted by the IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group in 
54 

2006 (Lowry et al. 2006), and the population was listed as critically endangered in the 2006 IUCN 

Red List. 

Available data

 

Relatively little research has been done on Cook Inlet beluga whales. From the 1960s to the 1980s, a 

few counts were made by the ADFG and other biologists. In 1993 NMFS began flying beluga whale 

surveys in Cook Inlet. Based on those surveys, population estimates using standardized methods 

have been produced each year since 1994. Satellite telemetry studies also have been undertaken to 

track beluga whale movements, distribution, and behavior. Some data on genetics, contaminants, 

and life history have been collected from animals stranded and taken by Alaska Natives for 

subsistence purposes. It has generally been assumed that biological characteristics of Cook Inlet 

beluga whales are similar to those of western Alaska beluga whale populations that have been better 

studied. 

A population model specific to Cook Inlet beluga whales that can be used for population viability 

analysis has been developed (D. Goodman, unpub.). 

Current biological status

 

The most recent SAR for Cook Inlet beluga whales was published in 2005 (see http://www.nmfs 

.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm). It gives a population estimate of 357 whales and calculates a PBR 

of 2.0 animals per year. The population size estimates declined rapidly from 1994 (653 animals) to 

1998 (349 animals), after which the decline appeared to stop. Annual abundance estimates for 1999–

2004 have ranged from 313 to 435 and show no trend (NMFS in prep.[c]). The estimate for 2005 

was 278 (R. Hobbs, pers. comm.). An analysis of population growth that includes the 2005 count 

suggests that the population is most likely declining at about 1 percent per year (Lowry et al. 2006). 

The SAR states that Cook Inlet beluga whales are a strategic stock because they are listed as depleted 

under the MMPA. Identified sources of human-caused mortality are subsistence hunting and 

incidental take in fisheries, both of which appear to be very small at the current time. 

Bottlenose dolphin, mid-Atlantic coastal population (Tursiops truncatus) (ESA – not listed; 

IUCN – data deficient; MMPA – depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

Bottlenose dolphins occur in tropical and temperate regions of the North Pacific and North Atlantic 

Oceans in both coastal and offshore waters. Although they are currently considered a single species 

with no identified subspecies, their taxonomy and population structure are not fully resolved (Rice 

1998). It was previously thought that a single coastal migratory stock ranged along the U.S. Atlantic 

coast from as far north as Long Island, New York, to as far south as central Florida (Scott et al. 

1988). It was this “mid-Atlantic” coastal population that was listed as depleted under the MMPA 
55 

after a large dolphin die-off along the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast in the late 1980s. However, new 

information suggests that their stock structure is more complicated. For purposes of preparing SARs 

required by the MMPA, NMFS currently uses eight bottlenose dolphin management units along the 

U.S. Atlantic coast. 

History of evaluation and listing

 

The mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin is under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Milestones relative 

to the population’s listing include the following: 

x Petitioned to list the mid-Atlantic coastal population as depleted in 1988. 

x Population listed as depleted under the MMPA in 1993. 

x Listed as data deficient by the IUCN in 1996. 

In 1987–1988 a major die-off of bottlenose dolphins occurred along the U.S. Atlantic coast. Shortly 

thereafter, NMFS estimated that the regional population could have been reduced by as much as 60 

percent. As a result, the Center for Marine Conservation petitioned NMFS to list the population as 

depleted under the MMPA. Final action to do so was completed in 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 17789). In its 

analysis of population status, NMFS was unable to compare pre- and post-die-off population sizes 

because of insufficient abundance data. Instead, it described a model that looked at estimates of 

stranding rates, natural mortality rates, and birth rates, and estimated that there had been a 53 

percent reduction in abundance during the die-off period (54 Fed. Reg. 41654). Because this would 

have resulted in a population size less than 50 percent of its carrying capacity (assuming that carrying 

capacity had not changed) and thus below its OSP level, NMFS concluded that the population was 

depleted under the MMPA definition. Although the final rule advised that NMFS would prepare a 

conservation plan for the population, this was assigned a low priority relative to work on other listed 

species and work to develop a bottlenose dolphin take reduction plan. As a result, the conservation 

plan has not been completed. 

In 1996 the IUCN listed the bottlenose dolphin as data deficient (IUCN 1996). The U.S. midAtlantic coastal population was not evaluated separately. The status of bottlenose dolphins was most 

recently evaluated by the IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group in 2003 (Reeves et al. 2003). Acute 

threats were identified in some regions but not for the western North Atlantic, although the report 

notes the occasional occurrence of major unexplained mortality events. 

Available data

Prior to its listing as depleted in 1993, information on the Atlantic coastal migratory population of 

bottlenose dolphins was limited primarily to data from some stranded animals and to an estimate of 

abundance and distribution obtained during a series of marine mammal and sea turtle surveys 

funded by the Bureau of Land Management between 1979 and 1981. Since 1993 periodic aerial and 

vessel surveys have been carried out to assess abundance. Recent research has focused largely on 

genetic studies using biopsy samples to better resolve the population structure and range of the 
56 

various bottlenose dolphin groups along the Atlantic coast. Determining the distribution and 

overlap in ranges between what appear to be separate coastal and offshore migratory populations is 

particularly important. Other recent research has included studies to track the movements of a few 

individual dolphins with satellite-linked tags and efforts to monitor causes of mortality of stranded 

animals. Overall, abundance, trends, population parameters, and other details of the Atlantic coastal 

migratory population remain poorly known, although significant studies have been done in some 

local areas (e.g., Read et al. 2003). 

No models designed specifically for population viability analysis have been developed for bottlenose 

dolphins in U.S waters. 

Current biological status

 

NMFS most recently revised the SAR for the mid-Atlantic coastal population of bottlenose dolphins 

(now called the western North Atlantic coastal population) in 2005 (see http://www.nmfs.noaa 

.gov/pr/sars/species.htm). Abundance estimates are given for a number of migratory and nonmigratory components of the population and suggest a total abundance of about 33,000. Population 

trend is unknown. Rather than calculating a single PBR for the total population, the SAR calculates 

multiple PBRs for a complex of small management units. It states that the western North Atlantic 

coastal population is considered a strategic stock because it is listed as depleted under the MMPA 

and because incidental takes in fisheries exceed PBR in some areas. The SAR further notes that 

although the coastal migratory population is designated as depleted under the MMPA, the depletion 

designation should be reevaluated based on the current system of management units. 

Killer whale, southern resident population (Orcinus orca) (ESA – endangered; IUCN – 

lower risk; MMPA – depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

The killer whale is currently considered a single species with no identified subspecies (Rice 1998). 

However, the current taxonomy is outdated and needs revision (Reeves et al. 2004, Krahn et al. 

2004). Four populations of resident killer whales are recognized in the eastern North Pacific: 

southern, northern, southern Alaska, and western Alaska residents (Krahn et al. 2004). The southern 

resident population is the only listed taxon. Killer whales are locally common along the coast of the 

eastern North Pacific, especially from California northward. Southern residents are known to occur 

in the coastal waters off central California, Washington, Vancouver Island, and the Queen Charlotte 

Islands (Krahn et al. 2004). 

History of evaluation and listing

 

The southern resident killer whale is under the jurisdiction of NMFS. Milestones relative to the 

population’s listing include: 
57 

x Entire species listed as lower risk by the IUCN in 1996. 

x NMFS petitioned to list the population as endangered or threatened under the ESA in 2001. 

x NMFS determined that ESA listing was not warranted, but that MMPA listing may be warranted 

in 2002. 

x Population listed as depleted under the MMPA in 2003. 

x Finding relative to the ESA listing petition challenged in court, and NMFS directed to proceed 

with a listing proposal in 2003. 

x Population listed as endangered under the ESA in 2005. 

NMFS received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity and several other organizations 

in 2001 to list the eastern North Pacific southern resident population of killer whales as an 

endangered or threatened species under the ESA. NMFS determined that the petition presented 

substantial information indicating that a listing may be warranted and thus conducted an ESA status 

review. A Biological Review Team (BRT) was established for this purpose and, in accordance with 

its report (Krahn et al. 2002), NMFS determined that southern resident killer whales are not a 

“species” as defined by the ESA and that listing was therefore not warranted (67 Fed. Reg. 44133). 

The BRT report identified potential risk factors that could influence the southern resident killer 

whale population, including changes in prey availability caused by fluctuations in environmental 

conditions, contaminants, noise from whale-watching vessels, diseases and parasites, declines in 

salmon stocks that are important prey, and catastrophes such as oil spills and harmful algal blooms. 

Later in 2002 NMFS’ decision was challenged in U.S. District Court. In 2003 the court set aside the 

not warranted finding, ruling that NMFS had erred in using incorrect taxonomy when determining 

whether southern resident killer whales constituted a distinct population segment under the ESA. 

The court therefore remanded the matter back to NMFS and required the agency to issue a new 

finding consistent with the court’s order by December 2004. As a result a new BRT was convened 

to produce a new status report. 

The 2004 status report (Krahn et al. 2004) concluded that North Pacific resident killer whales should 

be considered as an unnamed subspecies of the global killer whale species, and that the southern 

resident group likely comprises a distinct population segment of that subspecies. The report does 

not specifically address the five ESA listing factors but makes the following statements regarding 

threats to the population: “Concern remains about whether reduced quantity or quality of prey are 

affecting the Southern Resident population. In addition, levels of organochlorine contaminants are 

not declining appreciably and those of many newly emerging contaminants (e.g., brominated flame 

retardants) are increasing, so Southern Residents are likely at risk for serious chronic effects similar 

to those demonstrated for other marine mammal species (e.g., immune and reproductive system 

dysfunction). Other important risk factors that may continue to impact Southern Residents are oil 

spills and noise and disturbance from vessel traffic.” 

The report included a PVA model that predicted a 1 to 15 percent probability that the population 

would decline to a quasi-extinction threshold within 100 years and a 4 to 68 percent probability that 

it would do so within 300 years. The report also considered IUCN listing criteria and concluded that 
58 

the taxon would qualify for listing under criterion D because it includes only 41 mature individuals. 

In conclusion, the report stated, “Taken together, the population dynamics of the Southern 

Residents describe a population that is at risk for extinction, due either to incremental small-scale 

impacts over time (e.g., reduced fecundity or subadult survivorship) or to a major catastrophe (e.g., 

disease outbreak or oil spill).” Based on findings of the status review, NMFS proposed listing 

southern resident killer whales as a threatened species under the ESA in 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 76673). 

In 2005 NMFS took final action to list the southern resident killer whale population as endangered 

under the ESA (70 Fed. Reg. 69903). The analysis of the five ESA listing factors accompanying the 

action concluded as follows: 

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range—The habitat of 

southern resident killer whales has been modified by contaminants, vessel traffic, and 

changes in prey availability. 

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes—Capture for public 

display in the 1970s likely affected the southern resident killer whale population. Whalewatching may currently be having some impact. 

C. Disease or predation—There is no evidence that disease has caused the population decline, but 

there is concern that high levels of contaminants may cause immunosuppression. 

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms—Existing regulatory mechanisms have not been 

adequate to prevent contaminants from accumulating in southern resident killer whales. 

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence—There is concern that an oil spill 

could impact the remaining population. 

At the time NMFS initially declined to list southern resident killer whales under the ESA, scientific 

information evaluated during the status review (Krahn et al. 2002) indicated that the population 

might qualify as depleted under the MMPA. Therefore, in 2002 NMFS began the process for 

determining if the stock was depleted. In 2003 it determined that the taxon constituted a population 

stock as defined under the MMPA and that its abundance (80 animals in 2002) was below the lower 

bound of MNPL (84 based on an estimated minimum historical abundance of 140). Southern 

resident killer whales were therefore designated as depleted (68 Fed. Reg. 31980). 

In its 1996 Red Book, the IUCN listed killer whales as lower-risk, conservation-dependent7 (IUCN 

1996). The southern resident population was not evaluated separately. The status of killer whales 

was most recently evaluated by the IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group in 2003 (Reeves et al. 2003). 

Threats to killer whales in the Washington–British Columbia region identified during that review 

were contaminants, depletion of prey populations, and disturbance from vessel traffic. 

 

7 See note 3 above.
59 

Available data

The southern resident killer whale population has been well studied. Because killer whales can be 

identified from photographs and the southern resident population lives in an area easily accessed by 

scientists and whale-watchers, extensive population data have been collected annually. Most of its 

members are known individually and have been monitored over the past several decades or since 

birth. Most research on southern resident killer whales has been carried out by non-governmental 

scientists with funding from various foundations and other non-governmental sources in addition to 

NMFS. Distribution, abundance, movements, behavior, and life history parameters have been 

described in detail. Biopsy samples and stranded animals have provided data on genetics and 

contaminant levels. 

In its 2004 status report (Krahn et al. 2004) the BRT for southern resident killer whales developed a 

population model and did a population viability analysis. 

Current biological status

 

The most recent SAR for the southern resident population of killer whale, published in 2005 (see 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm), reports a population size of 84 animals and states 

that the population has declined from 99 animals in 1995. It calculates a PBR of 0.8 and states that 

southern resident killer whales are a strategic stock because they are listed as depleted under the 

MMPA. 

Killer whale, AT1 group (Orcinus orca) (ESA – not listed; IUCN – lower risk; MMPA – 

depleted) 

Distribution and conservation units

Killer whales are currently considered a single species with no identified subspecies (Rice 1998). 

However, the current taxonomy is outdated and in need of revision (Reeves et al. 2004, Krahn et al. 

2004). For purposes of preparing SARs required by the MMPA, NMFS recognizes seven killer whale 

stocks in U.S. waters. The AT1 group is considered to be part of the eastern North Pacific transient 

stock. Killer whales are common along the coast of the eastern North Pacific, especially from 

California northward. AT1 killer whales seem to have a very restricted distribution in the central 

Gulf of Alaska, occurring mostly in Prince William Sound and nearby fiords of the Kenai Peninsula.8

 

8 http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/killerwhales/at1statreview0703.pdf 
60 

History of evaluation and listing

The AT1 group of eastern North Pacific transient killer whales is under the jurisdiction of NMFS. 

Milestones relative to the taxon’s listing include the following: 

x Entire species listed as lower risk by the IUCN in 1996. 

x NMFS petitioned to list the taxon as depleted under the MMPA in 2002. 

x Taxon listed as depleted under the MMPA in 2004. 

In 2002 NMFS was petitioned by the National Wildlife Federation and several other conservation 

groups to list AT1 killer whales as depleted under the MMPA. A status review in 2003 reported that 

the abundance of the AT1 group had declined from 22 animals in 1988 to 9 in 2002.9

 It also 

concluded that the AT1 group is “a genetically distinct, socially isolated group of killer whales” and 

that, while it is currently considered part of the eastern North Pacific transient stock, it probably 

qualifies as an independent population stock under the MMPA. The review goes on to state, “If the 

AT1 group is considered a population stock under the MMPA, there is little doubt that it would be 

considered to be below its MNPL level, as it has declined by more than 50 percent from historic 

levels (since 1984). Therefore, under that scenario, the AT1 group would be considered to be below 

OSP.” Based on the status review, NMFS determined that the AT1 group is a population stock as 

defined by the MMPA and, therefore, designated the group as depleted in 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 

21321). Threats to the population identified in the status review were oil spills and other 

contaminants, declines in prey availability, fisheries interactions, and whale-watching and vessel 

traffic. 

In its 1996 Red Book, the IUCN listed killer whales worldwide as lower-risk, conservationdependent (IUCN 1996).

10 The AT1 group was not evaluated separately. The status of killer whales 

was most recently evaluated by the IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group in 2003 (Reeves et al. 2003), 

but the AT1 group was not specifically addressed. 

Available data

The AT1 group of killer whales has been relatively well studied. Studies began in the late 1970s and 

intensified after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound. Because killer whales can 

be identified from photographs, a considerable amount of data is available on the distribution, 

movements, and biological characteristics of individual members in the AT1 group. Biopsy samples 

and stranded animals have provided data on genetic relationships and contaminant levels. 

No models designed specifically for population viability analysis have been developed for AT1 killer 

whales. 

 

9 Ibid. 

10 See note 3 above. 
61 

Current biological status

The most recent SAR for the AT1 group of transient killer whales, published in 2005 (see 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm), reports a population size of eight animals and 

calculates a PBR level of zero. The trend in abundance is declining, and there have been no 

documented births since 1984. The SAR states that the AT1 killer whale group is a strategic stock 

because they are listed as depleted under the MMPA. 
62 

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Characteristics of ESA, MMPA, and IUCN classification systems 

The ESA is the principal U.S. law that requires actions to prevent extinction of species. It provides 

for the listing of species, subspecies, or distinct population segments as endangered or threatened 

based on their likelihood of going extinct within the foreseeable future. Species so listed are then 

eligible for protective provisions set forth in the Act. There is no set formula for making ESA listing 

determinations; rather they are based on an analysis of factors that may cause extinction. 

Evaluation of marine mammals for listing under the ESA is done by either FWS (for sirenians, 

otters, walruses, and polar bears) or NMFS (all other species). For listing actions, FWS stresses an 

evaluation of threats using case-by-case professional judgment (DeMaster et al. 2004). Taxa are listed 

if one or more of the threat factors indicate a likelihood of extinction. Taxa may be reclassified or 

delisted based on a combination of population size, population trend, distribution, and abatement of 

threats (D. Crouse, pers. comm.). NMFS also considers the five factors when evaluating taxa for 

listing but recently has been giving more emphasis to use of “structured expert opinion” that looks 

at a variety of qualitative and quantitative measures of extinction risk, as well as an analysis of threats 

under the five listing factors (Angliss et al. 2002, DeMaster et al. 2004, M. Nammack, pers. comm.). 

All marine mammals listed under the ESA are considered to be depleted under MMPA provisions. 

The MMPA also allows species or population stocks not listed under the ESA to be listed as 

depleted if they are determined to be below their OSP level. OSP is defined based on population 

size and population dynamics and is generally considered to be a range from the largest supportable 

in an ecosystem (K) down to the level at which the population shows maximum net productivity 

(generally considered to be 60 percent of K). Therefore, in addition to those taxa threatened with 

extinction, taxa listed as depleted may include some that are still quite abundant but are known to be 

substantially depleted compared to historical levels. 

The IUCN listing system uses eight categories ranging from data deficient up to critically 

endangered. A combination of quantitative and qualitative criteria are used to assign taxa to the 

various categories. Although this approach has the advantage that criteria and thresholds for listing 

are specified, concern has been expressed that the IUCN system may not be optimal for marine 

mammals because it is intended primarily to evaluate species risk at the global level and is designed 

for all species, most of which have life history characteristics that are much different from those of 

cetaceans and pinnipeds (Angliss et al. 2002). 

The ESA and IUCN systems have a similar purpose, that is to identify taxa at risk of becoming 

extinct within the foreseeable future. The comparability of the categories used by the two 

classification systems has not been formally analyzed, but the IUCN categories of critically 

endangered and endangered are roughly equivalent to ESA endangered, while the IUCN category 

vulnerable is similar to ESA threatened (Angliss et al. 2002). The MMPA category of depleted has 

no real biological equivalent in either the ESA or IUCN systems and, in some respects, is more 
63 

similar to the category “overfished” under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and 

Management Act. Nevertheless, the protections provided by the MMPA for depleted stocks are 

similar to the prohibitions on take of listed species under ESA. 

A critical issue in listing is the taxonomic or population unit selected for evaluation. This is a subject 

where science and management are progressing rapidly, and it has become evident that in many 

cases proper conservation must address population units smaller than entire species (Taylor 2005). 

The current version of the ESA specifically recognizes the possible need to list distinct population 

segments, and federal agencies have specified policies for determining when such segments occur 

based on reproductive isolation and evolutionary considerations. However, many species were first 

listed in 1970 after the ESCA was passed and they have not been subjected to rigorous status 

reviews using more appropriate population units. The MMPA allows depleted designation for 

species or population stocks, the latter of which has a definition similar to that of a distinct 

population segment. The IUCN states that its primary purpose is evaluating species at the global 

level, but its listing system also allows for evaluations of lower taxonomic units and smaller 

geographic regions (IUCN 2004). Although all three systems allow for listings based on relevant 

conservation units, many listings are still for entire species worldwide. 

The 1994 amendments to the MMPA require that NMFS and FWS prepare SARs for all stocks of 

marine mammals under their jurisdictions. The amendments further require that the agencies review 

the SARs annually for any stock designated as “strategic,” which includes any taxon listed as 

endangered or threatened under the ESA or depleted under the MMPA. Therefore, the stocks 

referred to in the SARs should reflect the most current understanding of proper population units to 

use in conserving marine mammals based on the most recent scientific information. Table 3 shows, 

for selected large whale species, the population units used to make status evaluations in the ESA, 

IUCN, and MMPA SAR systems. For blue, fin, humpback, sei, and sperm whales, the ESA lists the 

entire species while the SARs provide separate evaluations of three to five stocks within each 

species. Clearly, for these species, currently available data and analyses show that status should be 

evaluated based on much smaller units than are currently used as the basis for ESA and IUCN 

classifications. The failure to use appropriate units very likely will result in both over-protection (e.g., 

a stock being considered as endangered as part of a global taxon when in fact the stock itself has 

recovered) and under-protection (e.g., a stock at risk not remaining listed as endangered or 

threatened because the global taxon has recovered). A reevaluation of the ESA listing status of large 

whales using currently accepted population units should be a high priority for action by NMFS. 

Summary of species listing status 

 

The 22 listed marine mammals include two sirenian populations, two sea otter populations, two 

phocid seal species, four otariid populations, eight species of large whales, and four populations of 

small whales or dolphins (Table 2). Under the ESA, 14 of these taxa are listed as endangered, 4 as 

threatened, and 4 are not listed. Eleven of the ESA listed taxa were first listed under the ESPA or 

ESCA, and six were listed subsequent to passage of the ESA. Of the four taxa not listed under the 

ESA, one was evaluated for listing and rejected, and three have not been evaluated. All 22 taxa are 
64 

listed as depleted under the MMPA, 16 by virtue of their ESA listing and 6 as a result of a formal 

determination that their population was below OSP. The IUCN lists 1 of the taxa as extinct, 1 as 

critically endangered, 10 as endangered, 6 as vulnerable, and 4 as lower risk or data deficient. 

Despite different criteria and methods used for status evaluations, the ESA and IUCN systems have 

resulted in quite comparable listings of most marine mammals. Fifteen of the 18 taxa listed as 

endangered or threatened under the ESA also are listed as critically endangered, endangered, or 

vulnerable by IUCN. Of the four taxa not listed under the ESA, one is listed as critically endangered 

by IUCN, and one is listed as vulnerable worldwide. 

Some of the apparent discrepancies in how individual taxa are listed under the various systems are 

due to differing definitions of the listing categories. For example, a species can qualify as depleted 

under the MMPA because it is below OSP while it is still relatively numerous and not in immediate 

danger of extinction. The ESA and IUCN allow for use of different listing criteria, and therefore it is 

not surprising that taxa are sometimes assigned to slightly different categories under the two 

systems. Furthermore there are major differences in the nature of population units being evaluated 

for listing. The IUCN listings considered here generally applied to entire species worldwide, while 

recent ESA and MMPA listing actions have dealt more with population segments or stocks. Unless 

the population units being evaluated are identical, there is no reason to expect that different listing 

systems will produce comparable results. 

Biological status of listed taxa 

 

Most of the listed marine mammal taxa are not abundant, are known to be declining or of unknown 

trend, and are substantially reduced in numbers compared to historical levels (Table 4). However, 

there are some major variations. Estimates of abundance for taxa listed as endangered under the 

ESA range from 0 to 38,513, with only four taxa estimated to number more than 10,000. (Note, 

however, that abundance data are incomplete for several large whale taxa, and the numbers given are 

therefore underestimates.) Estimates for threatened taxa range from 2,825 to 44,996, with two 

numbering fewer than 10,000 and two more than 40,000. Abundance estimates for taxa listed as 

depleted under the MMPA but not listed under the ESA range from 8 to 688,028. Populations of 

two of those taxa are estimated to number fewer than 300 individuals. Of taxa listed as endangered 

under the ESA, five are known or thought to be increasing and three to be declining. (Note that 

large whales were considered increasing if any stock was increasing, but such a judgment is 

uncertain, given available data.) For threatened taxa, three are known or thought to be increasing 

and one declining. For taxa listed only as depleted, three are known or thought to be declining. 

Species for which new information may warrant a reexamination of listing classifications 

 

The quality of data currently available on the biology of listed species was subjectively evaluated 

based on expert judgment of the authors of this report in consultation with other species experts. 

Six general categories of population and ecological data were evaluated (Table 5). For only five taxa 

was data availability ranked as good in four or more of the six data categories considered. If both 
65 

good and fair data quality are considered, the situation is much better—11 taxa have good or fair in 

all 6 categories and 2 have good or fair in 5 categories. At the other extreme, four taxa have poor 

data availability in all of the categories and eight in three or more categories. 

Table 6 summarizes the biological and listing status for the 13 taxa that have good or fair data 

quality in at least five data categories. Although an evaluation of the appropriateness of current 

listing classifications was not the primary objective of this report, the table shows some obvious 

instances where reconsideration of listing status would appear to be appropriate. For example, 

western Arctic bowhead whales are relatively numerous and have been increasing steadily in 

abundance for at least the last 20 years. Consideration might be given to downlisting or delisting this 

population under ESA provisions. At least some stocks of humpback whales are both relatively 

numerous and increasing; these also might be candidates for downlisting or delisting if they are 

evaluated as appropriate distinct population segments using the most recent abundance data (e.g., 

from the SPLASH program). The eastern population of Steller sea lions is currently numerous and 

increasing and should be considered for ESA delisting. The western population of Steller sea lions is 

comparatively numerous and, if the apparent recent increasing trend is confirmed and continues 

long enough to convincingly be interpreted as more than just the effect of temporary environmental 

variation, the population might be considered for ESA downlisting. Two taxa listed as depleted 

under the MMPA but not currently listed under the ESA—AT1 killer whales and Cook Inlet beluga 

whales—are at very low population sizes and are not known to be recovering, and their ESA status 

should be reevaluated. Finally, the Caribbean monk seal, which has not been observed since the 

early 1950s, probably warrants delisting on grounds that it is now extinct. 

Finally, it is important to remember that this review included only those taxa that are already listed 

under the MMPA and/or ESA and that our suggestions above deal only with a subset of those for 

which there are relatively good population data. There is legitimate concern among some marine 

mammal scientists that some other taxa may qualify for protective listing, and might in fact be 

among the “most endangered marine mammal populations” if adequate data were available to make 

an evaluation. However for those taxa we often do not know what the population units are that 

should be of conservation concern, what their historical and current abundances were and are, 

whether numbers are currently increasing or decreasing, and what factors may be threatening the 

population. Without such data, it is essentially impossible to conduct thorough status reviews or to 

compare population status with the listing criteria used by any system. In the absence of status 

reviews and listing evaluations, such taxa are de facto considered to be not endangered or threatened 

and not depleted and thus will not be afforded the extra protection that might be warranted. A good 

example of this are the various species of beaked whales. A more robust decision system is needed 

for coping with the likelihood that some species for which there is little available data are 

nevertheless endangered and in need of conservation attention. Evaluation of whether, and if so 

how, such taxa should be listed under the ESA and MMPA will be a huge challenge, but it is one 

that must be faced if the conservation and recovery goals of these laws are to be realized. 
66 

V. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 

A number of experts reviewed and commented on parts of this report, and for their efforts the 

authors thank Michael Payne, Michael Gosliner, John Reynolds, Deborah Crouse, Gregory Sanders, 

James Valade, Dawn Jennings, Diane Bowen, Melissa Andersen, and Jorge Saliva. We especially 

thank Randall Reeves, Daniel Goodman, and Suzanne Montgomery for their thorough and helpful 

reviews of the complete report. Preparation of this report was funded by the U.S. Marine Mammal 

Commission as part of a special project requested by the U.S. Congress.

VI. LITERATURE CITED

Angliss, R. P., G. K. Silber, and R. Merrick. 2002. Report of a workshop on developing recovery 

criteria for large whale species. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-21. 32 pp. 

Barlow, J., and B. L. Taylor. 2005. Estimates of sperm whale abundance in the northeastern 

temperate Pacific from a combined acoustic and visual survey. Marine Mammal Science 21:429–

445. 

Boyd, I. L., and M. P. Standford. 1998. Circumstantial evidence for the presence of monk seals in 

the West Indies. Oryx 32:310–316. 

Burn, D. M., and A. M. Doroff. 2005. Decline in sea otter (Enhydra lutris) populations along the 

Alaska Peninsula, 1986–2001. Fishery Bulletin 103:270–279. 

Calambokidis, J., and J. Barlow. 2004. Abundance of blue and humpback whales in the eastern 

North Pacific estimated by capture-recapture and line-transect methods. Marine Mammal 

Science 20:65–85. 

Caswell, H., M. Fujiwara, and S. Brault. 1999. Declining survival probability threatens the North 

Atlantic right whale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96:3308–3313. 

Clapham, P. J., C. Good, S. E. Quinn, R. R. Reeves, J. E. Scarff, and R. L. Brownell, Jr. 2004. 

Distribution of North Pacific right whales (Eubalaena japonica) as shown by 19th and 20th century 

whaling catch and sighting records. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 6:1–6. 

Cronin, M. A., J. Bodkin, B. Bellachey, J. A. Estes, and J. C. Patton. 1996. Mitochondrial-DNA 

variation among subspecies and populations of sea otters (Enhydra lutris). Journal of Mammalogy 

77:546–547. 

DeMaster, D., R. Angliss, J. Cochrane, P. Mace, R. Merrick, M. Miller, S. Rumsey, B. Taylor, G. 

Thompson, and R. Waples. 2004. Recommendations to NOAA Fisheries: ESA Listing Criteria 

by the Quantitative Working Group, 10 June 2004. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSF/SPO-67. 85 

pp. 

Domning, D. P., and L. C. Hayek. 1986. Interspecific and intraspecific morphological variation in 

manatees (Sirenia: Trichechus). Marine Mammal Science 2:87–144. 

Estes, J. A. 1990. Growth and equilibrium in sea otter populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 

59:385–401. 

Estes, J. A., M. T. Tinker, T. M. Williams, and D. F. Doak. 1998. Killer whale predation on sea 

otters linking oceanic and nearshore ecosystems. Science 282:473–476. 

FWS. 1980. West Indian manatee recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 27 pp. 
67 

FWS. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Puerto Rico Population of the West Indian (Antillean) Manatee 

(Trichechus manatus manatus L.). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 28 pp. 

FWS. 2001. Florida Manatee Recovery Plan, (Trichechus manatus latirostris), Third Revision. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 144 pp. + appendices. 

FWS. 2003. Final Revised Recovery Plan for the Southern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris nereis). U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 165 pp. 

Gambell, R. 1976. World whale stocks. Mammal Review 6(1):41–53. 

Gerber, L. R., and D. P. DeMaster. 1997. Endangered Species Act classification criteria for North 

Pacific humpback whales. Pages 203–211 in Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered 

Species Act Implementation Program 1996. NOAA NMFS AFSC Processed Rep. 97–10. 

Gerber, L. R., and D. P. DeMaster. 1999. A quantitative approach to Endangered Species Act 

classification of long-lived vertebrates: application to the North Pacific humpback whale. 

Conservation Biology 13:1–12. 

Gilmartin. W. G. 1983. Recovery plan for the Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi. NOAA, 

NMFS Tech. Rep. 29 pp. + tables, appendix. 

Gorbics, C. S., and J. L. Bodkin. 2001. Stock structure of sea otters (Enhydra lutris kenyoni ) in Alaska. 

Marine Mammal Science 17:632–647. 

Hanni, K. D., D. J. Long, R .E. Jones, P. Pyle, and L. E. Morgan. 1997. Sightings and strandings of 

Guadalupe fur seals in central and northern California, 1988–1995. Journal of Mammalogy. 

78:684–690. 

Harting, A. L. 2002. Stochastic simulation model for the Hawaiian monk seal. Ph.D. thesis, Montana 

State University, Bozeman. 328 pp. 

Haubold, E. M, C. Deutsch, and C. Fonnesbeck. 2005. Preliminary biological status review of the 

Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. St. Petersburg, FL. 

Hobbs, R. C., K. L. Laidre, D. J. Vos, B. A Mahoney, and M. Eagleton. 2005. Movements and area 

use of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in a subarctic Alaskan estuary. Arctic 58:331–340. 

IUCN. 1996. 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 70 + 368 pp. 

IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival 

Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK. 30 pp. 

IUCN. 2004. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. IUCN Species 

Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK. 50 pp. 

IWC. 1995. Chairman’s report of the forty-sixth annual meeting. Report of the International 

Whaling Commission 45:1552. 

Kenyon, K. W. 1969. The sea otter in the eastern Pacific Ocean. North American Fauna 68. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. 

Krahn, M. M., P. R. Wade, S. T. Kalinowski, M. E. Dahlheim, B. L. Taylor, M. B. Hanson, G. M. 

Ylitalo, R. P. Angliss, J. E. Stein, and R. S. Waples. 2002. Status review of Southern Resident 

killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-54. 133 pp. 

Krahn, M. M., M. J. Ford, W. F. Perrin, P. R. Wade, R. P. Angliss, M. B. Hanson, B. L. Taylor, G. 

M. Ylitalo, M. E. Dahlheim, J. E. Stein, and R. S. Waples. 2004. Status review of Southern 
68 

Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-NWFSC-62. 73 pp. 

Kretzmann, M. B., N. J. Gemmell, and A. Meyer. 2001. Microsatellite analysis of population 

structure in the endangered Hawaiian monk seal. Conservation Biology 15:457–466. 

Kretzmann, M. B., W. G. Gilmartin, A. Meyer, G. P. Zegers, S. R. Fain, B. F. Taylor, and D. P. 

Costa. 1997. Low genetic variability in the Hawaiian monk seal. Conservation Biology 11:482–

490. 

Laidre, K. L, R. J. Jameson, and D. P. DeMaster. 2001. An estimate of carrying capacity for sea 

otters along the California coast. Marine Mammal Science 17:294–306. 

Le Boeuf, B., K. W. Kenyon, and B. Villa-Ramirez. 1986. The Caribbean monk seal is extinct. 

Marine Mammal Science 2:70–72. 

Lefebvre, L. W., T. J. O’Shea, G. B. Rathbun, and R. C. Best. 1989. Distribution, status, and 

biogeography of the West Indian manatee. Biogeography of the West Indies 1989:567–610. 

Lowry, L., G. O’Corry-Crowe, and D. Goodman. 2006. Delphinapterus leucas (Cook Inlet population). 

In IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

NRC. 2003. The decline of the Steller sea lion in Alaskan waters: untangling food webs and fishing 

nets. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 216 pp. 

NMFS. 1991a. Final Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 105 pp. 

NMFS. 1991b. Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 86 pp. 

NMFS. 1992. Final Recovery Plan for Steller Sea Lions, Eumetopias jubatus. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, MD. 92 pp. 

NMFS. 1993. Conservation Plan for the Northern Fur Seal, Callorhinus ursinus. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 74 pp. 

NMFS. 1995. Status review of the United States Steller sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus, population. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, WA. 61 pp. 

NMFS. 1998a. Recovery Plan for the Blue Whale, Balaenoptera musculus. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, MD. 30 pp. 

NMFS 1998b. Draft Recovery Plan for the Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus and the Sei Whale

Balaenoptera borealis. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 65 pp. 

NMFS. 2005. Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 138 pp. 

NMFS. In prep.(a). Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Silver Spring, MD. 

NMFS. In prep.(b). Recovery Plan for the Steller Sea Lion. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver 

Spring, MD. 

NMFS. In prep.(c). Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas). 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, AK. 

O’Corry-Crowe, G. M, R. S. Suydam, A. Rosenberg, K. J. Frost, and A. E. Dizon. 1997. 

Phylogeography, population structure and dispersal patterns of the beluga whale Delphinapterus 

leucas in the western Nearctic revealed by mitochondrial DNA. Molecular Ecology 6:955–970. 
69 

Perry, S. L., D. P. DeMaster, and G. K. Silber. 1999. The great whales: history and status of six 

species listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Marine Fisheries 

Review 61:1–74. 

Pitcher, K. W., P. F. Olesiuk, R. F. Brown, M. S. Lowry, S. J. Jeffries, J. L. Sease, W. L. Perryman, C. 

E. Stinchcomb, and L. F. Lowry. 2007. Abundance and distribution of the eastern North Pacific 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) population. Fishery Bulletin 107:102–115. 

Ragen, T. J., and D. M. Lavigne. 1999. The Hawaiian Monk Seal: Biology of an Endangered Species. 

Pages 224–245 in J. R. Twiss and R. R Reeves (eds.), Conservation and Management of Marine 

Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Ralls, K., D. DeMaster, and J. Estes. 1996. Developing a delisting criterion for the southern sea otter 

under the U. S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 10:1528–1537. 

Read, A. J., B. Foster, K. Urian, B. Wilson, and D. Waples. 2003. Abundance of bottlenose dolphins 

in the bays, sounds, and estuaries of North Carolina. Marine Mammal Science 19:59–73. 

Reeves, R. R. 2001. Overview of catch history, historic abundance and distribution of right whales in 

the western North Atlantic and in Cintra Bay, West Africa. Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management 2:187–192. 

Reeves, R. R., B. D. Smith, E. A. Crespo, and G. N. di Sciara (compilers). 2003. Dolphins, Whales 

and Porpoises: 2002–2010 Conservation Action Plan for the World’s Cetaceans. IUCN/SSC 

Cetacean Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK. 139 pp. 

Reeves, R. R., W. F. Perrin, B. L. Taylor, C. S. Baker, and S. L. Mesnick (eds.). 2004. Report of the 

Workshop on Shortcomings of Cetacean Taxonomy in Relation to Needs of Conservation and 

Management, April 30–May 2, 2004, La Jolla, CA. 94 pp. 

Reijnders, P., S. Brasseur, J. van der Toorn, P. van der Wolf, I. Boyd, J. Harwood, D. Lavigne, and 

L. Lowry. 1993. Seals, Fur Seals, Sea Lions, and Walrus: status survey and conservation action 

plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 88 pp. 

Rice, D. W. 1973. Caribbean monk seal (Monachus tropicalis). IUCN Survival Service Commission. 

IUCN Pub. New Series Supplementary Paper 39:98–112. 

Rice, D. W. 1998. Marine Mammals of the World: Systematics and Distribution. Society for Marine 

Mammalogy, Spec. Publ. No. 4. Allen Press, Lawrence, KS. 231 pp. 

Rosenbaum, H. C., R. L. Brownell, W. M. Brown, et al. 2000. World-wide genetic differentiation of 

Eubalaena: questioning the number of right whale species. Molecular Ecology 9:1793–1802. 

Runge, M. C., C. A. Langtimm, and W. L. Kendall. 2004. A stage-based model of manatee 

population dynamics. Marine Mammal Science 20:361–385. 

Scott, G. P., D. M. Burn, and L. J. Hansen. 1988. The dolphin die off: long term effects and 

recovery of the population. Proceedings: Oceans ‘88, IEEE Cat. No. 88-CH2585-8, Vol.3:819–

823. 

Shelden, K. E. W., D. P. DeMaster, D. J. Rugh, and A. M. Olson. 2001. Developing classification 

criteria under the U.S. Endangered Species Act: bowhead whales as a case study. Conservation 

Biology 15:1300–1307. 

Shelden, K. W., S. E. Moore, J. M. Waite, P. R. Wade, and D. J. Rugh. 2005. Historic and current 

habitat use by North Pacific right whales Eubalaena japonica in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. 

Mammal Review 35:129–155. 
70 

Shelden, K. E. W., and D. J. Rugh. 1995. The bowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus: its historic and 

current status. Marine Fisheries Review 57(3–4):1–20. 

Springer, A. M., J. A. Estes, G. B. van Vliet, T. M. Williams, D. F. Doak, E. M. Danner, K. A. 

Forney, and B. Pfister. 2003. Sequential megafaunal collapse in the North Pacific Ocean: An 

ongoing legacy of industrial whaling? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

100:12223–12228. 

Stevick, P. T, J. Allen, P. J. Clapham, N. Friday, S. K. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D. K. Mattila, P. J. 

Palsbol, J. Sigurjonsson, T. D. Smith, N. Oien, and P. S. Hamilton. 2003. North Atlantic 

humpback whale abundance and rate of increase for decades after protection from whaling. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 258:263–273. 

Taylor, B. 2005. Identifying units to conserve. Pages 149–162 in J. E. Reynolds, W. F. Perrin, R. R. 

Reeves, S. Montgomery, and T. J. Ragen (eds.), Marine Mammal Research, Conservation beyond 

Crisis. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 

Taylor, C. R., J. Reynolds, and A. Brautigam. 2006. Support of the SSG Sirenian Symposium and 

IUCN Red List Assessments, Ninth International Mammalogical Congress. Final Report to 

Conservation International Foundation. 16 pp. 

Weber, M. L, and D. W. Laist. 2007. The status of protection programs for endangered, threatened, 

and depleted marine mammals in U.S. waters. Final report prepared for the Marine Mammal 

Commission, Bethesda, MD. 

Wilson, D. E., M. A. Bogan, R. L. Brownell, Jr., A. M. Burdin, and M. K. Maminov. 1991. 

Geographic variation in sea otters, Enhydra lutris. Journal of Mammalogy. 72:22–36. 

Woodby, D. A., and D. B. Botkin. 1993. Stock sizes prior to commercial whaling. Pages 387–407 in

J. J. Burns, J. J. Montague, and C. J. Cowles (eds.), The Bowhead Whale. Society for Marine 

Mammalogy, Spec. Publ. No. 2. 

Woods, C. A. 1987. An investigation of possible sightings of Caribbean monk seals (Monachus 

tropicalis) along the north coast of Haiti. Final report to the Marine Mammal Commission. 

National Technical Information Service, NTIS PB-285 410. Springfield, VA. 89 pp. 
71 

Table 1. International Union for the Conservation of Nature classification categories 

(IUCN 2001) 

EXTINCT (EX) 

A taxon is Extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died. A taxon is 

presumed Extinct when exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times 

(diurnal, seasonal, annual), throughout its historic range have failed to record an individual. Surveys 

should be over a time frame appropriate to the taxon’s life cycle and life form. 

EXTINCT IN THE WILD (EW) 

A taxon is Extinct in the Wild when it is known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a 

naturalized population (or populations) well outside the past range. A taxon is presumed Extinct in 

the Wild when exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, 

seasonal, annual), throughout its historic range have failed to record an individual. Surveys should be 

over a time frame appropriate to the taxon’s life cycle and life form. 

CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR) 

A taxon is Critically Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the 

criteria A to E for Critically Endangered, and it is therefore considered to be facing an extremely 

high risk of extinction in the wild. 

ENDANGERED (EN) 

A taxon is Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A 

to E for Endangered, and it is therefore considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the 

wild. 

VULNERABLE (VU) 

A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to 

E for Vulnerable, and it is therefore considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild. 

NEAR THREATENED (NT) 

A taxon is Near Threatened when it has been evaluated against the criteria but does not qualify for 

Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable now but is close to qualifying for or is likely to 

qualify for a threatened category in the near future. 

LEAST CONCERN (LC) 

A taxon is Least Concern when it has been evaluated against the criteria and does not qualify for 

Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened. Widespread and abundant taxa 

are included in this category. 

DATA DEFICIENT (DD) 

A taxon is Data Deficient when there is inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, 

assessment of its risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or population status. A taxon in 

this category may be well studied, and its biology well known, but appropriate data on abundance 

and/or distribution are lacking. Data Deficient is therefore not a category of threat. Listing of taxa in 

this category indicates that more information is required and acknowledges the possibility that future 

research will show that threatened classification is appropriate. It is important to make positive use 

of whatever data are available. In many cases great care should be exercised in choosing between 

Data Deficient and a threatened status. If the range of a taxon is suspected to be relatively 

circumscribed, if a considerable period of time has elapsed since the last record of the taxon, 

threatened status may well be justified. 
72 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Table 2. Marine mammal taxa currently listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA 

or depleted under the MMPA, with the current IUCN classification also shown

Taxon name ESA listing IUCN 

classification 

MMPA 

listing 

West Indian manatee, Florida population Endangered Vulnerable Depleted 

West Indian manatee, Antillean population Endangered Vulnerable Depleted 

Southern sea otter Threatened Endangered11 Depleted 

Northern sea otter, southwest AK population Threatened Endangered11 Depleted 

Caribbean monk seal Endangered Extinct Depleted 

Hawaiian monk seal Endangered Endangered Depleted 

Guadalupe fur seal Threatened Vulnerable Depleted 

Northern fur seal, eastern Pacific population Not listed Vulnerable11 Depleted 

Steller sea lion, eastern population Threatened Endangered11 Depleted 

Steller sea lion, western population Endangered Endangered11 Depleted 

Blue whale Endangered Endangered12 Depleted 

Bowhead whale, western Arctic population Endangered Lower risk, cd13 Depleted 

Fin whale Endangered Endangered11 Depleted 

Humpback whale Endangered Vulnerable11 Depleted 

North Atlantic right whale Endangered Endangered Depleted 

North Pacific right whale Endangered Endangered Depleted 

Sei whale Endangered Endangered11 Depleted 

Sperm whale Endangered Vulnerable Depleted 

Beluga whale, Cook Inlet population Not listed Critically 

endangered 

Depleted 

Bottlenose dolphin, mid-Atlantic coastal population Not listed Data deficient11 Depleted 

Killer whale, southern resident population Endangered Lower risk, 

cd11,13

Depleted 

Killer whale, AT1 group Not listed Lower risk, 

cd11,13

Depleted 

 

11 Listing applies to the entire species worldwide; individual populations have not been evaluated. 12 Listing applies to the entire species worldwide; North Pacific population listed as lower risk; North Atlantic population as 

vulnerable. 

13 See note 3 above.
73 

Table 3. Conservation units used to evaluate status of selected large whale species in the 

ESA, IUCN, and MMPA evaluation systems 

 

Species name Currently accepted 

taxonomy 

ESA 

listing 

IUCN 

evaluation 

MMPA Stock 

assessment reports 

Blue whale Single species with 

one Northern 

Hemisphere 

subspecies 

Entire species Worldwide Western North Atlantic 

Eastern North Pacific 

Western North Pacific 

Fin whale Single species with 

one Northern 

Hemisphere 

subspecies 

Entire species Worldwide Western North Atlantic 

California-Oregon- 

 Washington 

Northeastern Pacific 

Hawaii 

Humpback whale Single species with 

no recognized 

subspecies 

 Entire 

species14

Worldwide Gulf of Maine 

Eastern North Pacific 

Central North Pacific 

Western North Pacific 

Sei whale Single species with 

one Northern 

Hemisphere 

subspecies 

Entire species Worldwide Nova Scotia 

Eastern North Pacific 

Hawaii 

Sperm whale Single species with 

no recognized 

subspecies 

Entire species Worldwide North Atlantic 

California-Oregon- 

 Washington 

North Pacific 

Hawaii 

Gulf of Mexico 

 

14 The recovery plan for humpback whales recognizes three populations in the western North Atlantic, central North Pacific, and 

eastern North Pacific. 
74 

Table 4. Summary of the biological status of marine mammal taxa currently listed as 

endangered or threatened under the ESA or depleted under the MMPA 

Taxon 

Current 

population 

size 

Current 

population trend 

Population size 

relative to historical 

level 

Endangered Species 

West Indian manatee, Florida >3,300 Increasing? Unknown 

West Indian manatee, Antillean Unknown Declining? Reduced? 

Caribbean monk seal 0 N/A Extinct 

Hawaiian monk seal 1,252 Declining 1.9 

percent per year 

Reduced 60 percent 

from 1958 

Steller sea lion, western population 38,513 Increasing? Reduced 81 percent 

from 1970s 

Blue whale15 >2,994 Increasing? Reduced 

Bowhead whale, western Arctic 

population 

10,545 Increasing 3.4 

percent per year 

Reduced 54 percent 

from the 1800s 

Fin whale >11,970 Unknown Reduced 

Humpback whale >6,692 Increasing Reduced 

North Atlantic right whale 299 Declining? Reduced 

North Pacific right whale, eastern 

population 

>23 Unknown Reduced 

Sei whale16 >133 Unknown Reduced 

Sperm whale17 >14,468 Unknown Reduced 

Killer whale, southern resident 

population 

84 Unknown Reduced 40 percent 

from historical levels 

Threatened Species 

Southern sea otter 2,825 Increasing? Reduced 

Northern sea otter, southwest 

Alaska population 

41,865 Declining Reduced 55 to 67 

percent from 1976 

Guadalupe fur seal 7,408 Increasing Reduced 

Steller sea lion, eastern population 44,996 Increasing Unknown 

 

15 Data not available for the North Atlantic and western North Pacific stocks. 16 Data not available for the Nova Scotia stock. 

17 Data not available for the North Pacific stock.
75 

Table 4. Summary of the biological status of marine mammal taxa currently listed as 

endangered or threatened under the ESA or depleted under the MMPA 

(continued) 

Taxon 

Current 

population 

size 

Current 

population trend 

Population size 

relative to historical 

level 

Species Listed Only as Depleted 

Northern fur seal, eastern 

population 

688,028 Declining Reduced 65 percent 

from the 1950s 

Beluga whale, Cook Inlet 

population 

278 Declining? Reduced 57 percent 

from 1994 

Bottlenose dolphin, mid-Atlantic 

coastal population

33,000 Unknown Reduced 

Killer whale, AT1 group 8 Declining Reduced 64 percent 

from 1988 
76 

Table 5. Summary of the quality of available data for marine mammal taxa currently listed 

as endangered or threatened under the ESA or depleted under the MMPA 

(G=good, F=fair, P=poor) 

Taxon name 

Total 

population 

size 

Trend 

in pop. 

size 

Population 

structure

Vital 

rates 

Habitat 

needs 

Limiting 

factors 

West Indian manatee, Florida G G G G G G 

West Indian manatee, 

Antillean 

P P P P F F 

Southern sea otter G G G G G F 

Northern sea otter, southwest 

Alaska 

G G F F G F 

Caribbean monk seal — — — — — — 

Hawaiian monk seal G G G G G G 

Guadalupe fur seal P P P P P P 

Northern fur seal, eastern 

Pacific 

G G G F F F 

Steller sea lion, eastern 

population 

G G G F F F 

Steller sea lion, western 

population 

G G G F F F 

Blue whale P P P P P P 

Bowhead whale, western 

Arctic 

G G F F F F 

Fin whale F P P F P P 

Humpback whale18 F F F F F F 

North Atlantic right whale F F G G F G 

North Pacific right whale P P P P P P 

Sei whale P P P P P P 

Sperm whale F P F F P P 

Beluga whale, Cook Inlet G G G P F F 

Bottlenose dolphin, midAtlantic coastalP P P P F F 

Killer whale, southern resident G G G G F F 

Killer whale, AT1 group G G G G F P 

 

18 Results from the SPLASH project should greatly improve data available for North Pacific populations. 
77 

Table 6. ESA and MMPA listings of taxa with good or fair data in at least five data 

categories (grouped by listing status and arranged within groups in order of 

increasing abundance) 

Taxon name Current 

pop. size 

Current 

pop. trend 

Relative 

pop. size 

ESA/MMPA 

listing 

Killer whale, southern resident 84 Unknown Reduced 41 

percent 

Endangered 

North Atlantic right whale 299 Declining? Reduced Endangered 

Hawaiian monk seal 1,252 Declining Reduced 60 

percent 

Endangered 

West Indian manatee, Florida >3,300 Increasing? Unknown Endangered 

Humpback whale >6,692 Increasing Reduced Endangered 

Bowhead whale, western Arctic 10,545 Increasing Reduced 57 

percent 

Endangered 

Steller sea lion, western population 38,513 Increasing? Reduced 82 

percent 

Endangered 

Southern sea otter 2,825 Increasing? Reduced Threatened 

Steller sea lion, eastern population 44,996 Increasing Unknown Threatened 

Northern sea otter, southwest 

Alaska 

41,865 Declining Reduced 62 

percent 

Threatened 

Killer whale, AT1 group 8 Declining Reduced 59 

percent 

Depleted 

Beluga whale, Cook Inlet 278 Declining? Reduced 72 

percent 

Depleted 

Northern fur seal, eastern Pacific 688,028 Declining Reduced 60 

percent 

Depleted 
78 

VII. APPENDIX 

 Summary of Quantitative Features of the IUCN Rule-based Approach 

See IUCN (2001) for a more complete description of the criteria. Bolding indicates the differences between the 

classifications of “critically endangered,” “endangered,” and “vulnerable.” (wl) = “whichever is longer, up to a 

maximum of 100 years.” (From DeMaster et al. 2004) 

Critically endangered

A. Reduction in population size 

•  90 percent decline in past 10 years or 3 generations (wl), if understood and reversible 

and stopped 

•  80 percent decline in past 10 years or 3 generations (wl), if not understood or reversible 

or stopped 

•  80 percent decline projected for next 10 years or 3 generations (wl) 

•  80 percent decline including past and future 10 years or 3 generations (wl), if not 

understood or reversible or stopped 

B. Geographic range 

• extent of occurrence < 100 km2

• area of occupancy < 10 km2

C. Population size < 250 mature individuals and: 

• continuing decline  25 percent in future 3 years or 1 generation (wl) 

• no subpopulation with > 50 mature individuals, or  90 percent mature individuals in one 

subpopulation 

D. Population size < 50 mature individuals 

E. Quantitative analysis showing Pr(extinction)  50 percent within 10 years or 3 generations 

(wl) 

Endangered

A. Reduction in population size 

•  70 percent decline in past 10 years or 3 generations (wl), if understood and reversible 

and stopped 

•  50 percent decline in past 10 years or 3 generations (wl), if not understood or reversible 

or stopped 

•  50 percent decline projected for next 10 years or 3 generations (wl) 

•  50 percent decline including past and future 10 years or 3 generations (wl), if not 

understood or reversible or stopped 

B. Geographic range 

• extent of occurrence < 5000 km2

• area of occupancy < 500 km2

C. Population size < 2,500 mature individuals and: 

• continuing decline  20 percent in future 5 years or 2 generations (wl) 
79 

• no subpopulation with > 250 mature individuals, or  95 percent mature individuals in 

one subpopulation 

D. Population size < 250 mature individuals 

E. Quantitative analysis showing Pr(extinction)  20 percent within 20 years or 5 generations 

(wl) 

Vulnerable

A. Reduction in population size 

•  50 percent decline in past 10 years or 3 generations (wl), if understood and reversible 

and stopped 

•  30 percent decline in past 10 years or 3 generations (wl), if not understood or reversible 

or stopped 

•  30 percent decline projected for next 10 years or 3 generations (wl) 

•  30 percent decline including past and future 10 years or 3 generations (wl), if not 

understood or reversible or stopped 

B. Geographic range 

• extent of occurrence < 20,000 km2

• area of occupancy < 2000 km2

C. Population size < 10,000 mature individuals and: 

• continuing decline  25 percent in future 10 years or 3 generations (wl) 

• no subpopulation with > 1,000 mature individuals, or 100 percent mature individuals in 

one 

subpopulation 

D. Population size < 1,000 mature individuals 

E. Quantitative analysis showing Pr(extinction)  10 percent within 100 years (wl) 

53

APPENDIX 3

The Status of 

Protection Programs for 

Endangered, Threatened, 

and

Depleted Marine Mammals in 

U.S. Waters

The Status of Protection Programs for 

Endangered, Threatened, and Depleted 

Marine Mammals in U.S. Waters 

Michael L. Weber

David W. Laist 

2007

One of a series of reports prepared in response to a directive from Congress to the Marine 

Mammal Commission to examine the biological viability and cost–effectiveness of protection 

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

iii

CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY.........................................1

II. MAJOR FEDERAL STATUTORY PROTECTION MEASURES ...........3

The Marine Mammal Protection Act...............................................................................3

The Endangered Species Act.............................................................................................4

Other Authorities...............................................................................................................6

III. SPECIES-SPECIFIC PROTECTION PROGRAMS ..................................7

Sirenians..............................................................................................................................7

Florida Manatee ...........................................................................................................

Antillean Manatee, Puerto Rico Population...............................................................

Sea Otters..........................................................................................................................20

Southern Sea Otter......................................................................................................

Northern Sea Otter, Southwest Alaska Population.....................................................

Caribbean Monk Seal .................................................................................................

Hawaiian Monk Seal...................................................................................................

Guadalupe Fur Seal....................................................................................................

Northern Fur Seal, Eastern Pacific (Pribilof Islands) Population.............................

Steller Sea Lion, Eastern Population..........................................................................

Steller Sea Lion, Western Population .........................................................................

Cetaceans ..........................................................................................................................53

Blue Whale..................................................................................................................

Bowhead Whale, Western Arctic Population..............................................................

Fin Whale....................................................................................................................

Humpback Whale........................................................................................................

North Atlantic Right Whale.........................................................................................

North Pacific Right Whale..........................................................................................

Sei Whale ....................................................................................................................

Sperm Whale ...............................................................................................................

Beluga Whale, Cook Inlet Population ........................................................................

Bottlenose Dolphin, Mid-Atlantic Coastal Population...............................................

iller Whale, Southern Resident Population..............................................................

iller Whale, AT Group............................................................................................

IV. OVERVIEW AND TRENDS........................................................................96

Statutory Protection Provisions......................................................................................96

Population Status .............................................................................................................97

Species Protection Programs ..........................................................................................97

Threats to Marine Mammal Species and Populations..................................................98

Management Framework................................................................................................99

Critical Habitat ..............................................................................................................100

Recovery Plans and Teams ...........................................................................................100

Management Actions .....................................................................................................102

Staffing and Funding .....................................................................................................105

Pinnipeds..........................................................................................................................30
iv

V. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.......................................................................... 112

VI. REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 112

VII. APPENDICES ............................................................................................ 121

Appendix A. Major Federal Statutory Protection Measures.................................... 121

Appendix B. Year 2004 Category I, II, and III Fisheries Affecting Species Listed as 

Endangered, Threatened, or Depleted .................................................................. 141

Appendix C. Federal and State Expenditures for Listed Species of Marine

Mammals ................................................................................................................. 147

Appendix D. Federal and State Expenditures (in $ thousands) for Listed Species of 

Marine Mammals by Year: 1998 – 2004............................................................... 154

Appendix E. National Marine Fisheries Service Line Items Related to Endangered 

Marine Mammal Species: 2001–2005 (in $ thousands) ....................................... 158

Appendix F. Federal Funding of Research on Listed Marine Mammal Species by 

Research Issue: FY1991–FY2000 .......................................................................... 160

Appendix G. Summary of the Status and Protection Programs for Listed Marine 

Mammals ................................................................................................................. 165

List of Tables 

Table 1. Status of four major subpopulations of Florida manatees relative to recovery criteria in the 

2001 recovery plan..................................................................................................................8 

Table 2. Major habitat protection concerns for the four subpopulations of Florida manatees ............10 

Table 3. Criteria for downlisting and delisting Florida manatees under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 ......................................................................................................................................12 

Table 4. Department of the Interior funding allocations (in $ thousands) for West Indian manatee 

research and management activities under the MMPA and ESA as cited in administrative 

reports required by the MMPA: 1980–2000 ........................................................................17 

Table 5. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for recovery of the West Indian manatee, 

1998–2004 ............................................................................................................................18 

Table 6. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement recovery activities for Florida 

manatees during the first five years after adoption of the 2001 Revised Florida Manatee 

Recovery Plan.......................................................................................................................18 

Table 7. Department of the Interior funding allocations (in $ thousands) for southern sea otter 

research and management activities under the MMPA and ESA as cited in administrative 

reports required by the MMPA: 1980–2000.........................................................................26 

Table 8. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of southern sea otters, 

1998–2004 ............................................................................................................................27 

Table 9. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of Hawaiian monk seals, 

1998–2004 ............................................................................................................................38 

Table 10. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement recovery activities for Hawaiian 

monk seals during the first five years after adoption of the 2005 draft revised recovery

plan........................................................................................................................................38 

Table 11. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of the eastern population of 

Steller sea lions, 1998–2004 .................................................................................................46 

Table 12. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of western population of 

Steller sea lions, 1998–2004 .................................................................................................53 
v

Table 13. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of blue whales, 

1998–2004 ............................................................................................................................56 

Table 14. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of western Arctic bowhead 

whales, 1998–2004 ...............................................................................................................59 

Table 15. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of fin whales, 

1998–2004 ............................................................................................................................63 

Table 16. Projected funding needs ($ thousands) to implement the draft 2006 fin whale 

recovery plan.........................................................................................................................64 

Table 17. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of humpback whales, 1998–

2004 ......................................................................................................................................69 

Table 18. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of northern right whales, 

1998–2004 ............................................................................................................................74 

Table 19. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement recovery activities for North Atlantic 

right whales during the first five years after adoption of the 2005 North Atlantic Right 

Whale Recovery Plan............................................................................................................74 

Table 20. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of sei whales, 

1998–2004 ............................................................................................................................78 

Table 21. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of sperm whales, 1998–

2004 ......................................................................................................................................82 

Table 22. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement recovery activities for sperm whales 

in the 2006 draft sperm whale recovery plan........................................................................83 

Table 23. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement objective 1 during the first five years 

after adoption of the 2005 draft Cook Inlet beluga whale conservation plan.......................87 

Table 24. Estimates of abundance, bycatch, and potential biological removal for mid-Atlantic coastal 

bottlenose dolphin management units in 2002 .....................................................................88 

Table 25. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement conservation activities for southern 

resident killer whales during the first five years after adopting the draft 2005 southern 

resident killer whale conservation plan ................................................................................93 

Table 26. Status of recovery plans and conservation plans prepared under the Endangered Species Act 

and Marine Mammal Protection Act for endangered, threatened, and depleted marine 

mammals.............................................................................................................................101 

Table 27. Estimated number of full time equivalent staff positions (FTEs) devoted to marine mammal 

protection programs by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service in fiscal year 2005 (P. M. Payne and J. Bengtson pers. comm.). ..........................107 

Table 28. Total estimated federal and state expenditures on endangered and threatened species in 

fiscal years 1998–2005 .......................................................................................................109

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Expenditures (in $ thousands) for recovery activities on all taxa listed as endangered or 

threatened by species and by year, 1998–2004......................................................................110 

Figure 2. Expenditures (in $ thousands) for recovery activities on all taxa listed as endangered or 

threatened by agency and by year, 1998–2004. .....................................................................111 

1

I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY 

As part of its fiscal year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Congress 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.” Pursuant to this directive, the Marine Mammal Commission sought to 

address four basic questions: 

1. What are the most endangered marine mammal populations in U.S. waters? 

2. What is their biological viability? 

3. What is the biological effectiveness of current protection programs?1

4. What is the cost-effectiveness of expenditures to implement those programs? 

This report reviews protection programs for the 22 taxa listed under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and is intended to complement other 

parts of the Commission’s response to Congress, including— 

x The report of a workshop to examine population viability analyses (PVAs) conducted to date 

on marine mammals in U.S. waters and ways to improve their usefulness for management 

(Marine Mammal Commission 2007). 

x A report to examine systems for classifying marine mammals under the ESA, the MMPA, 

and IUCN–The World Conservation Union’s Red List of Threatened Species, including a 

review of information on the current biological condition of each listed species (Lowry et al. 

2007).

x A more in-depth review of the cost-effectiveness of recovery efforts for the North Atlantic 

right whale (Reeves et al. 2007). 

These reports provide background information for use by the Commission as it prepares its 

findings and recommendations for submission to Congress. 

This report is divided into three major sections. The first discusses provisions of the MMPA and 

the ESA that form the foundation for most marine mammal protection programs. The second 

profiles protection programs for all 22 listed taxa. Each profile summarizes information on the 

taxon’s status, major threats, management framework, critical habitat, recovery planning, major 

management actions, and staffing and funding levels. The third summarizes overall trends in 

protection programs for the listed species and populations, based on those profiles. Appendices 

include tables and charts with estimates of expenditures for related conservation programs, 

additional details regarding key provisions of the MMPA and the ESA, and information on the 

status of the various taxa. 

With regard to the allocation of funding levels related to recovery, the species profiles present 

cost data from four principal sources. First, they include actual funding spent by various federal 

 

1 For purposes of the study, the terms “protection” and “protection program” encompass all activities undertaken under the 

auspices of federal programs to reverse a population’s decline and restore the population to its former abundance. This definition 

includes, but is not limited to, research and regulatory and other management actions, including enforcement, public outreach, 

and recovery planning.
2

and state agencies as reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for its annual reports to 

Congress on federal and state expenditures for listed species, a report required by the ESA. 

Second, the profiles include information on species-specific research and management actions 

reported to the Marine Mammal Commission as part of its annual surveys of federally funded 

marine mammal research. Third, funding levels listed in agency budget documents are identified 

to the extent that line items clearly focus on an individual species. And fourth, the profiles 

present projected annual funding needs set forth in recovery plans at the time of their adoption. 

In almost all cases, funding projections in recovery plans are substantially higher than actual 

allocations. 

Although these were the best available sources of funding data and provide a general picture of 

funding levels provided or believed necessary to foster a species’ recovery, readers also should 

be aware that accounting practices used by the reporting agencies often differ greatly among 

agencies and even within agencies between years. Thus, funding levels reported here from 

different sources are not always consistent, and aggregate funding levels should be considered as 

general approximations at best.
3

II. MAJOR FEDERAL STATUTORY PROTECTION MEASURES 

Provisions of the MMPA and the ESA form the foundation and framework for most marine 

mammal protection activities. Those provisions are summarized briefly below and in greater 

detail in Appendix A. 

THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT

When it was passed in 1972, the MMPA fundamentally changed the management of human 

activities affecting marine mammals and their ecosystems. The Act sets as its primary objective 

“...to maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem.” Consistent with this objective, 

it calls for maintaining marine mammals at their “optimum sustainable population keeping in 

mind the carrying capacity of the habitat.” 

The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), has 

primary authority for all cetaceans (i.e., whales and dolphins) and pinnipeds (i.e., seals and sea 

lions) except walruses. The Commerce Secretary also implements the MMPA’s provisions for 

managing incidental take of all marine mammals in commercial fisheries. The Secretary of the 

Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), has authority for managing all 

manatees, dugongs, polar bears, sea and marine otters, and walruses. The Act also established the 

Marine Mammal Commission, whose primary responsibility is to provide an independent source 

of advice and oversight to the Services and other federal agencies on implementation of the Act’s 

provisions. The MMPA preempts state laws or regulations relating to the taking of marine 

mammals unless authorized through a formal process by which management authority can be 

transferred to individual states. However, states are not prevented from cooperating with NMFS 

and FWS in conservation efforts consistent with the Act’s objectives, and in many cases they are 

vital partners in this regard. 

Other important features of the MMPA include the following: 

x Moratorium on taking: The Act imposed a moratorium on taking that includes both 

intentional and unintentional capture, killing, and harassment (including potential injury) of 

marine mammals. Subject to certain limitations or requirements, exemptions and exceptions 

to the moratorium are authorized for the following purposes: 

– Non-wasteful taking by Alaska Indians, Aleuts, or Eskimos when the taking is for 

subsistence purposes or for the purpose of creating authentic handicrafts and clothing; 

– Taking for scientific research, public display, enhancement, or commercial or educational 

photography;

– Taking of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to activities other than 

commercial fishing; 

– Taking of non-depleted marine mammals under the Act’s waiver provisions; 

– Deterring marine mammals from damaging fishing gear and catch or private property; 

– Taking by government officials for the protection and welfare of a marine mammal, the 

protection of public health and welfare, or relocation of nuisance animals; and 

– Taking in defense of one’s self or another person in immediate danger. 
4

x Depleted species: The Act directs the responsible agencies to designate a species as 

“depleted” if its abundance declines below its optimum sustainable population (OSP) level. 

This level is defined as a range between the population size that produces the maximum rate 

of net productivity and the maximum number that can be supported by the ecosystem. For 

species or populations designated as depleted, the Act authorizes the preparation of 

conservation plans to restore them to OSP levels. Species designated as depleted also are 

considered strategic stocks for which take reduction plans are to be prepared if they are taken 

incidentally in a category I or II fishery (see Appendix A for explanation of fishing 

categories). 

x Taking incidental to commercial fishing: The Act calls for reducing mortality and serious 

injury of marine mammals incidental to commercial fisheries, first to below a stock’s 

potential biological removal (PBR) level and ultimately to “insignificant levels approaching a 

zero mortality and serious injury rate.” PBR is defined as the number of animals that can be 

removed from a population, not counting natural mortality, while retaining a high degree of 

assurance that the population will remain within the OSP range or, if it is depleted, will 

increase toward its OSP level. As the implementing agency, NMFS must place all U.S. 

commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on their level of incidental taking. 

Depending upon the classification, fishermen must undertake actions to meet the standards of 

the Act. For fisheries that are not meeting those standards, NMFS is required to convene a 

take reduction team to prepare a plan for that purpose. 

THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

In 1973 Congress passed a major revision of two earlier versions of the ESA—the Endangered 

Species Preservation Act (ESPA) of 1966 and the Endangered Species Conservation Act (ESCA) 

of 1969. Like the MMPA, the ESA is intended to conserve individual species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The aim of the Act is “to bring any endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this [Act] are no longer 

relevant.” As with the MMPA, the Department of Commerce has lead responsibility for 

cetaceans and pinnipeds (other than walruses) listed as endangered or threatened, and the 

Department of the Interior has lead responsibility for the recovery of listed manatees, dugongs, 

and sea and marine otters. 

The Act defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in 

the foreseeable future. The Act identifies five factors that must be considered in evaluating 

whether to list a species under either category: 

x The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range;

x Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or education purposes; 

x Disease or predation; 

x The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 

x Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species’ survival. 

The economic impact of a listing may not be considered in listing determinations. 
5

Specific protection provisions in the ESA include the following: 

x Prohibition on taking endangered and threatened species: The ESA makes it unlawful to take 

an endangered or threatened species. Taking includes intentional and unintentional harm or 

harassment, including modification of habitat that significantly impairs essential behavioral 

patterns to the extent that it kills or injures listed species. This prohibition also is generally 

applied to activities affecting threatened species through regulations issued by the two 

Services. Exemptions to this prohibition include the following: 

– Taking by certain Alaska Natives and non-native permanent residents of Alaska Native 

villages primarily for subsistence purposes. Such taking may be regulated if it is found 

that the taking materially and negatively affects the species; 

– Taking for scientific research or enhancement of a population; 

– Taking incidental to an otherwise lawful activity provided there is an acceptable plan and 

funding to mitigate takings and that the takings will not “appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild”; and 

– Taking incidental to federal actions that are subject to section 7 consultation for which a 

“no-jeopardy” biological opinion is issued. 

x Designation of critical habitat: The ESA requires designation of critical habitat for listed 

species, with some exceptions. Critical habitat includes geographical areas “on which are 

found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 

which may require special management considerations or protection.” Unlike listing 

decisions, a decision to designate critical habitat may consider economic impacts. The Act 

requires that federal agencies avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 

x Preparation of recovery plans: The ESA requires the development and implementation of a 

recovery plan for a listed species unless the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 

Commerce finds that a recovery plan will not promote the conservation of a listed species. 

These plans must include objective and measurable criteria for removing the species from the 

list of endangered and threatened species, measures needed to recover the species, and 

estimates of the time and costs required to carry out those measures. 

x Section 7 consultations: Section 7 of the ESA requires that all federal agencies use their 

authorities to further the conservation objectives of the Act and that they consult with the 

Services to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. Consultation may be informal or formal, depending 

on the likely effect of the activity. A formal consultation results in the preparation of a 

written biological opinion by the relevant Service on whether the activity is likely to 

jeopardize the existence of the listed species or modify its habitat. If so, reasonable and 

prudent alternatives to the proposed action must be identified to avoid jeopardy or adverse 

modification.
6

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Listed marine mammals also are protected by other federal statutes and international agreements 

to which the United States is a party (Appendix A). Among the more important domestic statutes 

are provisions under the National Environmental Policy Act requiring the preparation of 

environmental assessments and impact statements; the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act requiring the preparation of fishery management plans; the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act, which authorizes the establishment of marine sanctuaries; and the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act, which authorizes and regulates the leasing of U.S. outer continental 

shelf areas for purposes of oil, gas, and hard mineral exploration and development. Important 

international agreements include the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and 

the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 
7

III. SPECIES-SPECIFIC PROTECTION PROGRAMS 

SIRENIANS

Florida Manatee 

Status: The Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) is a subspecies of the West Indian 

manatee that occurs only in the southeastern United States. The species as a whole occurs from 

the southeastern United States through the Greater Antilles and Central America to northern 

Brazil. It was first listed as endangered under the ESPA in 1967 (FWS 2001), and that listing 

was carried forward under the ESCA and ESA. Florida manatees are not listed separately but are 

considered endangered by virtue of the species’ listing as endangered throughout its range. In 

April 2005 the Service announced plans to begin a five-year review of the Florida manatee to 

determine whether information is sufficient to warrant downlisting or delisting the species (FWS 

2005c). Florida manatees also are protected under the state of Florida’s Manatee Sanctuary Act. 

Although the Florida subspecies ranges as far west as Texas and as far north as Rhode Island, its 

distribution is concentrated in coastal waters and rivers of Florida (Lefebvre et al. 2001). Four 

subpopulations have been identified for management purposes, including two along Florida’s 

Atlantic coast and two on the Gulf of Mexico coast. Forty-seven percent of the total population is 

estimated to be in the Atlantic subpopulation, 4 percent in the St. Johns River subpopulation, 12 

percent in the northwest subpopulation, and 37 percent in the southwest subpopulation (FWS 

2001).

A reliable method for estimating total abundance has not been developed because of 

shortcomings in survey techniques; however, a minimum population has been estimated based 

on counts of animals at winter refuges (FWS 2001). In the 1980s the total population was 

estimated to number at least 1,200 manatees. More comprehensive surveys involving aerial and 

ground counts were initiated in 1991, and in January 2001 a total of 3,300 manatees were 

counted. The current population is therefore thought to number at least 3,300 (Haubold et al. 

2005). Roughly equal numbers of manatees occur on Florida’s east and west coasts. In the 

absence of a series of reliable total population estimates, trends in abundance have been assessed 

using survival rates from photo-identification, mortality records, and reproduction rates. The 

2001 revision of the Florida manatee recovery plan includes the assessments shown in Table 1 

for each of the four subpopulations. (See also Table 3 for recovery criteria.) 

The most recent stock assessment report for Florida manatees estimates the potential biological 

removal (PBR) level to be between 0 and 3 and notes that human-related manatee mortality far 

exceeds those levels (FWS 2000). The report also concludes that establishing any level for PBR 

would be inappropriate and inconsistent with the Florida manatee recovery plan. 
8

Table 1. Status of four major subpopulations of Florida manatees relative to recovery criteria in 

the 2001 recovery plan (FWS 2001) 

Northwest Southwest Upper St. Johns Atlantic 

Exceeds survival, 

reproduction, and 

population growth 

criteria

Estimates of survival and 

population growth not yet 

available; reproduction 

criterion has been 

exceeded for group that 

summers in Sarasota Bay 

Meets or exceeds survival, 

reproduction, and 

population growth criteria 

Meets reproduction 

criterion; may meet 

survival and population 

criteria

Although overall deaths 

are relatively low, 

watercraft-related deaths 

are increasing rapidly 

Overall deaths are high; 

watercraft-related deaths 

are increasing rapidly 

Overall deaths are 

moderate; watercraftrelated deaths increasing 

slowly

Overall deaths are high; 

watercraft-related deaths 

increasing moderately 

Major Threats: About one-third of all known Florida manatee deaths are directly related to 

human activities, principally collisions with vessels, which constitute the most immediate threat 

to their survival (Rathbun and Wallace 2000, MMC 2005). Overall, the total number of manatee 

deaths has grown steadily since 1976 when mortality records were first compiled. Between the 

1980s and 1990s average annual reported mortality doubled (MMC 2001). Without good 

estimates of population size, it is unclear whether this change reflects an increased mortality rate, 

a relatively stable mortality rate accompanying an increased population size, or some 

combination of the two. In the long term, the major threat to Florida manatees is thought to be 

the potential loss of warm-water habitat necessary to survive cold winter periods. Other threats 

include entrapment in floodgates and navigation locks, incidental take in fishing gear, habitat 

destruction, cold stress, and naturally produced biotoxins associated with red tides (FWS 2001). 

Boat Collisions: Boat collisions are the largest source of human-caused manatee deaths and 

injuries in Florida, accounting for about one-quarter to one-third of all known deaths. Between 

1976 and 2005 watercraft-related deaths of manatees ranged from a low of 15 in 1983 to a high 

of 95 in 2002 with an average of 81 deaths per year between 2001 and 2005 (Laist and Shaw 

2006). Although the total number of deaths has been increasing steadily, the proportion of annual 

mortality caused by boats has remained relatively stable. 

Loss of Warm-Water Refuges: Perhaps the major long-term threat to Florida manatees is the loss 

of warm-water refuges. This is due both to the likely closure of industrial facilities, principally 

power plants, that produce warm-water discharges now used by most Florida manatees in winter, 

and potential declines of warm-water flows at natural springs due to groundwater withdrawal for 

human uses (FWS 2001, Laist and Reynolds 2005a,b). In the past, manatees likely relied on 

warm-water springs in central Florida and passive thermal basins (i.e., persistent pockets of 

warm water) in southernmost Florida to survive the lethal effects of cold winter temperatures. 

Hunting prior to the 1900s apparently drastically reduced manatee use of natural springs and, as 

Florida developed and warm-water outfalls from power plants became available, manatees 

expanded their restricted winter range in southernmost Florida using those discharges as refuges. 

About 60 percent of all Florida manatees currently winter at 10 major power plant outfalls. 

Along the Atlantic coast, 85 percent depend on five power plant outfalls (Laist and Reynolds 

2005b). Of nine warm-water refuges with at least one winter count of more than 200 manatees, 

six are power plants, one is a natural spring, and two are passive thermal basins in southernmost 
9

Florida. Even at power plants, manatees wintering there can be at risk due to plant malfunction 

or maintenance shutdowns or because the plants do not heat water to temperatures warm enough 

for manatees. 

Although some power plants have recently been upgraded to operate for another 20 to 30 years, 

others will likely be shut down, perhaps as soon as the next few years (MMC 2005). Plants built 

before the early 1970s, including those that have been or may be upgraded after 1972, are 

allowed to continue discharging warm water from plant cooling systems under a regulatory 

variance. Power plants built since the early 1970s are not allowed to do so. According to the 

2001 Florida manatee recovery plan, “in the absence of stable, long-term sources of warm water 

and winter habitat, large numbers of manatees may succumb to the cold” (FWS 2001). 

Discrete groups of manatees also depend on discharges from warm-water springs (Laist and 

Reynolds 2005b). Nearly the entire subpopulation of 170 manatees in the upper St. Johns River 

depends on Blue Spring to survive winter cold periods. In recent years, drought and groundwater 

withdrawals for domestic and agricultural uses may have contributed to reduced flow rates. In a 

few other cases, manatee access to warm-water springs is restricted by human modifications. At 

Homosassa Springs on the gulf coast of Florida, a fence has been placed across the spring run to 

confine a few captive manatees near the spring discharge where they serve as an attraction for 

visitors to a state wildlife park. Ironically, this restricts wild manatees to lower portions of the 

spring run where water temperatures in winter are somewhat cooler than the discharges at the 

head of the spring run (MMC 2005). In other cases, dams and locks have blocked access to 

springs once used by manatees. Spring runs made shallow by siltation also limit manatee access 

to some warm-water spring discharges. 

Floodgates and Navigation Locks: The second largest source of human-related manatee mortality 

is crushing and drowning in floodgates and navigation locks. Between 1976 and 2000 these 

structures caused between 3 and 16 deaths per year, representing about 4 percent of total manatee 

mortality (MMC 2005). 

Other Anthropogenic Causes: Other anthropogenic causes of manatee death include entanglement and ingestion of marine debris such as monofilament fishing line, incidental take in shrimp 

nets, vandalism, and entrapment in sewer pipes. Between 1976 and 2000 these sources combined 

to account for approximately 3 percent of all recorded manatee deaths (FWS 2001). 

Other Habitat Degradation: Large portions of habitat upon which manatees rely for food, resting, 

calving, nurturing young, or as travel corridors have been and are being altered by expanding 

development (FWS 2001). Some areas once inaccessible for boating are now heavily used 

navigation routes and open to other human activities. Polluted runoff, boat propellers, and 

dredging have damaged or destroyed grass beds on which manatees feed (MMC 2001). Hydrilla, 

an exotic plant that has supplanted native aquatic species, has become a new food source for 

manatees (FWS 2001). Although eaten by manatees, Hydrilla is managed as a nuisance plant 

(FWS 2001). Table 2 lists some of the habitat-related concerns for each of the four 

subpopulations of Florida manatees (FWS 2001). 
10

Table 2. Major habitat protection concerns for the four subpopulations of Florida manatees 

(FWS 2001) 

Northwest Southwest Upper St. Johns Atlantic

x Spring flow rates 

x Water quality effects 

on submerged 

aquatic vegetation 

(SAV) 

x Storm-related 

salinity fluctuation 

effects on SAV 

x Storm-related effects 

on adult survival 

x Human disturbance 

at springs 

x Conflicts between 

weed control and 

SAV

x Papilloma virus 

x Manatee dependence 

on power plants as 

thermal refuges 

x Increasing boat traffic 

x Red-tide-related 

deaths

x Water control 

structure deaths 

x Water quality effects 

on SAV 

x Storm-related salinity 

fluctuation effects on 

SAV

x Storm-related effects 

on adult survival 

x Human disturbance 

x Spring flow rates 

x Increasing boat traffic 

x Water quality effects 

on SAV 

x Water control 

structure deaths 

x Conflicts between 

weed control and 

SAV

x Manatee dependence 

on power plants as 

thermal refuges 

x Increasing boat 

traffic

x Use of Intra-coastal 

Waterway as a 

manatee travel 

corridor

x Water control 

structure deaths 

x Water quality effects 

on SAV 

x Storm-related 

salinity fluctuation 

effects on SAV 

x Human disturbance 

Natural and Undetermined Causes: About two-thirds of all known manatee deaths between 1976 

and 2000 (FWS 2001, MMC 2005) were caused by natural and undetermined causes. Natural 

causes include disease, parasitism, and reproductive complications. In some years, exposure to 

cold has been a major cause of death. The greatest number of cold-related deaths occurred 

following a winter cold spell in 1989 when at least 46 manatees died. Red tides also cause 

episodes of high manatee mortality. In the spring of 1996 at least 145 manatees died during a 

red-tide event in southwestern Florida. In many cases, causes of death cannot be determined 

because of badly decomposed carcasses or other reasons. Undetermined deaths may be caused by 

either natural or human-related factors. 

Management Framework: At the federal level, FWS has lead responsibility for conservation 

and recovery of Florida manatees (FWS 2001, MMC 2004). Among other things, FWS oversees 

development and implementation of the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (FWS 2001), conducts 

section 7 consultations on federally authorized projects that may affect manatees, enforces 

federal and state manatee protection regulations, and oversees efforts to rescue and rehabilitate 

injured manatees (MMC 2001). The Sirenia Project and the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in 

the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Biological Resources Division have the lead in manatee 

research at the federal level. Among other things, they develop population models, assess life 

history information from photo-identification records, and conduct research on feeding ecology 

and habitat needs. 

The Florida manatee recovery program is unique among marine mammal recovery programs in 

that staff and funding levels provided for recovery work by the state agencies exceed those 

provided by the federal government. At the state level, the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission exercises lead responsibility through its Imperiled Species 

Management Section and the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. The management section 

oversees state regulatory, planning, and public education activities related to manatee protection, 

including the development of boat speed regulations and oversight of manatee protection plans 
11

developed by Florida counties with important manatee habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute oversees the carcass salvage and necropsy program, conducts aerial surveys, assists in 

the rescue of injured manatees, and maintains a geographic information system of data on 

manatees and manatee habitats. 

Other agencies and organizations play important roles as well. The Army Corps of Engineers and 

the South Florida Water Management District have been designing and installing devices to 

prevent manatees from being crushed and drowned in floodgates and navigation locks. The U.S. 

Coast Guard and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Division of Law 

Enforcement enforce boat speed zones. The non-profit Save the Manatee Club has purchased 

equipment, funded research, and lobbied state and federal legislatures for funding and actions to 

support manatee recovery. The Florida Power & Light Company has funded aerial surveys of 

manatee abundance at power plants and produced public education materials. A number of 

marine aquaria and zoological parks have provided facilities and medical treatment to 

rehabilitate injured and distressed manatees for release back into the wild. The Marine Mammal 

Commission provides support for projects and helps in identifying recovery priorities through 

periodic reviews of manatee recovery efforts. 

FWS first established a recovery team for West Indian manatees in 1976. The recovery team, 

which has been restructured and expanded several times, was last restructured in 2002. It now 

includes more than 140 people representing 60 agencies and groups and carries out its work 

through 12 working groups. 

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat for manatees was designated in several areas of Florida in 1976 

(40 Fed. Reg. 58308). It was the first of any listed marine mammal species to have such areas 

designated. The designated areas include most of the species’ Florida range as it was known in 

1976. Since that time, critical habitat has not been revised to reflect new understanding of 

manatee distribution and habitat needs. 

Recovery Plan: FWS first adopted a recovery plan for West Indian manatees in 1980 (FWS 

2001). The initial plan focused principally on the Florida subspecies and, to a lesser extent, on 

Antillean manatees in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. When it first revised the plan, the 

Service developed separate recovery plans for Florida manatees (adopted in 1989) and Puerto 

Rico manatees (adopted in 1986, see below.) Two subsequent plan revisions were adopted for 

the Florida manatee in 1996 and 2001. Steps to prepare a fourth revision are currently underway. 

The goal of the current recovery plan is “to assure the long-term viability of the Florida manatee 

in the wild,” allowing for downlisting to threatened and later to delisting, based in part of criteria 

shown in Table 3 (FWS 2001). 

The recovery plan includes four objectives and dozens of associated tasks. The objectives and 

some of the major tasks include the following (FWS 2001): 

Minimize causes of manatee disturbance, harassment, injury, and mortality

x Continue state and federal review of permitted activities to minimize impacts to manatees 

and their habitats

x Minimize collisions between manatees and watercraft
12

Table 3. Criteria for downlisting and delisting Florida manatees under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (FWS 2001) 

Downlist to Threatened Delist

1. Reduce threats to manatee habitat or range as well 

as threats from natural and manmade factors by— 

x Identifying minimum spring flows 

x Protecting selected warm-water refuge sites 

x Identifying foraging habitats associated with 

warm-water refuges for protection 

x Identifying other important habitat (e.g., migratory 

corridors, feeding areas, and calving/nursing 

areas) for protection 

x Reducing unauthorized human-caused “take” 

1. Reduce or remove threats to manatee habitat or 

range, as well as threats from natural and manmade 

factors, by enacting and implementing federal, state, or 

local regulations that— 

x Adopt and maintain minimum spring flows 

x Protect a network of warm-water refuge sites 

x Protect foraging habitats associated with the 

network of warm-water refuge sites 

x Protect a network of other important manatee 

habitats 

x Reduce or remove unauthorized human-caused 

“take”

2. Achieve the following population benchmarks in 

each of the four regions for the most recent 10-year 

period, with 95 percent level of statistical confidence: 

x Average annual rate of adult manatee survival is 

90 percent or greater 

x Average annual percentage of adult female 

manatees with first or second year calves in winter 

is 40 percent or greater 

x Average annual rate of population growth is equal 

to or greater than zero 

2. Achieve the following population benchmarks in 

each of the four regions for an additional 10-year 

period after downlisting to threatened, with 95 percent 

level of statistical confidence: 

x Average annual rate of adult manatee survival is 90 

percent or greater 

x Average annual percentage of adult female 

manatees with first or second year calves in winter 

is 40 percent or greater 

x Average annual rate of population growth is equal 

to or greater than zero 

x Enforce manatee protection regulations 

x Assess and minimize mortality caused by large vessels 

x Eliminate manatee deaths in water-control structures, navigational locks, and drainage 

structures

x Rescue and rehabilitate distressed manatees and release back into the wild 

x Eliminate or minimize harassment due to other human activities 

Determine and monitor the status of manatee populations

x Conduct a five-year status review 

x Determine life history parameters, population structure, distribution patterns, and population 

trends

x Evaluate and monitor causes of mortality and injury 

x Define factors that affect health, well-being, physiology, and ecology 

Protect, identify, evaluate, and monitor manatee habitats

x Protect, identify, evaluate, and monitor existing natural and industrial warm-water refuges 

and investigate alternatives 

x Establish, acquire, manage, and monitor regional protected area networks and manatee 

habitat 
13

x Ensure that minimum flows and levels are established for surface waters to protect resources 

of importance to manatees 

x Assess the need for revising critical habitat 

Facilitate manatee recovery through public awareness and education

x Develop, evaluate, and update public education and outreach programs and materials 

x Coordinate development of manatee awareness programs and materials in order to support 

recovery

x Develop consistent manatee viewing and approach guidelines 

Major Management Actions: Major actions to protect and conserve the Florida manatee 

include the following: 

Boat Collisions: In 1989 the state of Florida initiated major efforts to reduce boat collisions with 

manatees. In conjunction with steps being taken by FWS, the state’s initiative called for a threepronged approach: regulations to limit boat speed and access in 13 key counties and specific 

areas where collision risks are greatest; enforcement of those rules; and restrictions on 

developing boating access facilities in key manatee habitat (MMC 2005). 

Reducing speeds of watercraft may reduce manatee injuries and deaths largely by providing 

manatees more time to detect and avoid oncoming watercraft (Laist and Shaw 2006). It also 

provides vessel operators more time to detect and avoid manatees and reduces the force of 

collisions to levels that manatees might survive. By 2000 the state had established speed zones in 

all 13 key counties, with additional speed zones in parts of 11 other counties. Several types of 

speed zones are used depending on site-specific assessments of manatee habitat, vessel traffic 

patterns, and other factors. The two principal types of speeds zones include one that exempts 

marked channels and another that includes them. Speed limits within zones typically vary from 

idle or slow in non-channel areas and up to 30 mph in marked channels (MMC 2005). A third 

type of zone (i.e., shoreline slow speed zones) limits speeds within certain distances of shore and 

a fourth type (i.e., no entry areas) excludes all watercraft. The Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission has continued efforts to expand and refine speed zones and to 

introduce them in other counties. In addition, FWS has restricted boat speeds in several national 

wildlife refuges and has established 13 manatee refuges in various parts of Florida for purposes 

of strengthening or complementing state boat speed rules to protect manatees. 

Development of boat speed rules is a demanding, iterative effort conducted county-by-county 

and area-by-area. The process involves the collection and analysis of manatee distribution and 

vessel traffic data, interagency meetings, public hearings, sign posting, public education, and 

enforcement operations. Controversy has often surrounded establishment of these zones. In Lee 

County in southwestern Florida—which often has led all Florida counties in annual watercraftrelated manatee deaths—an appellate court invalidated state speed zones in five areas in 2004 

after a particularly contentious rule challenge (MMC 2005). In the absence of those county rules, 

FWS issued emergency rules under the MMPA and the ESA to reinstate measures comparable to 

the annulled state speed zones (70 Fed. Reg. 17863). 
14

Efforts to enforce boat speed restrictions were limited as new rules were adopted in the 1990s 

(MMC 2001). In 1997 the Service began dedicated enforcement operations in selected areas. In 

2000 the Service received a special congressional appropriation that enabled it to establish a parttime enforcement strike team that increased its enforcement efforts fivefold. In 1998 the Coast 

Guard also began increasing its enforcement efforts. In 2000 the Florida Division of Law 

Enforcement, the primary source of enforcement for manatee rules, significantly increased its 

efforts. Boater compliance studies have been conducted periodically in various areas, principally 

by the state, to assess boater compliance and help identify enforcement priorities. 

There has been little evidence of a decline in watercraft-related manatee deaths since the 

establishment of speed zones. Indeed, the total annual number of watercraft-related deaths has 

increased at roughly the same pace as the increase in total mortality. The failure to reduce 

watercraft-related deaths may be due to low compliance, inadequately designed speed zones, 

and/or increasing numbers of boats and manatees. A review of manatee deaths in two connected 

waterways in eastern Florida since 2002 suggested an abrupt decrease in the number of collisionrelated manatee deaths when channels with speed-limit exemptions were removed and all boaters 

were required to go slow both inside and outside the marked channels (Laist and Shaw 2006). 

The removal of speed-exempt channels also may have simplified enforcement and enhanced 

compliance. 

A second approach to reducing watercraft-related deaths has been to limit the development of 

marinas and other watercraft access facilities. Both the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers require permits for new marinas, boat ramps, 

private piers, and docks, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and FWS 

have a formal role in reviewing such permit applications. Restrictions and limitations imposed 

through this process to protect manatees have been controversial. 

To facilitate review and approval of boating facilities, the governor of Florida launched an effort 

in 1989 to encourage the 13 key counties to adopt comprehensive manatee protection plans as 

part of required growth management plans. The manatee protection plans, which are reviewed by 

the Commission and FWS, are to include guidance on locating new watercraft access facilities in 

a manner consistent with the protection of manatees. By the end of 2004, 10 Florida counties had 

adopted state-approved manatee protection plans.2

Floodgates and Navigation Locks: Efforts in the 1980s to reduce manatee deaths in floodgates 

and navigation locks involved simple modifications in the timing of gate closures. Those 

measures appeared to reduce such deaths until the early 1990s when they increased sharply to a 

high of 16 deaths in 1994 (FWS 2001). In response, an interagency task force was established 

early in the 1990s, including representatives of the South Florida Water Management District, 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Wildlife Commission, FWS, and other agencies. 

The task force has overseen efforts to design and install pressure-sensing devices on gates and 

locks implicated in manatee deaths. The sensors trigger mechanisms that reverse closing gates, 

operating much like elevator doors. By 2006 most of the structures responsible for manatee 

deaths prior to the early 1990s (approximately 25 structures) had been modified. Manatee deaths 

 

2 James A. Valade, personal communication. 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6620 Southpoint Drive, Room 310, 

Jacksonville, FL 32216. 
15

at retrofitted structures subsequently declined substantially; however, some deaths have 

continued at structures not previously implicated and at retrofitted gates not operating properly. 

Adjustments have been developed for those not operating properly, and plans for retrofitting the 

remaining structures are being developed. The cost for modifying lift gates at flood control 

structures and some navigation lock gates has been about $150,000 per gate, while the cost for 

modifying navigation locks with swinging barn door-style gates has been about $1 million per 

lock.

Warm-Water Refuges: In 1999 FWS and Florida Power & Light Company convened a workshop 

to evaluate the potential impact of the loss of industrial warm-water refuges in the event that 

power plants are retired. As a result of this workshop, a Warm-Water Task Force was formed 

within the Florida Manatee Recovery Team. The task force is composed of representatives of 

state and federal agencies, power companies, environmental organizations, and the scientific 

community. Its purpose is to develop and implement measures to assure the availability of 

natural warm-water springs as winter refuges for manatees while minimizing mortality 

associated with future power plant closures. 

Research supported by the Florida Power & Light Company, the Marine Mammal Commission, 

and Reliant Energy examined ways of mitigating the potential effect of power plant closures by 

developing solar-heated refuges that could sustain manatees during the winter pending an 

increase in manatee subpopulations dependent on natural springs (Laist and Reynolds 2005a, 

MMC 2005). These findings were incorporated into a draft warm-water refuge action plan by the 

Warm-Water Task Force. Among other things, the plan calls for maintaining a network of warmwater habitats for each of the four Florida manatee subpopulations to maintain their current 

range.

In 2000 Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

convened a Springs Task Force (not part of the manatee recovery team) to restore, protect, and 

enhance Florida springs. Its charge includes establishing and maintaining minimum spring 

discharge levels for a variety of environmental reasons, including manatee protection. At the 

behest of representatives from the Florida Manatee Recovery Team, the St. Johns Water 

Management District, which has management responsibility for Blue Spring, supported a study 

to identify the minimum spring flow necessary to maintain an optimal population of manatees at 

the spring during the winter. Based on this study, the district proposed minimum spring flows for 

the next 25 years. 

Other Habitat Degradation: Several approaches have been taken to prevent or mitigate 

degradation of important manatee habitat. As noted above, FWS and the state of Florida review 

hundreds of permit applications to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Florida Department of 

Environmental Regulation for construction projects in areas that include important manatee 

habitat (FWS 2001). County manatee protection plans also are expected to include provisions 

incorporated into local growth management plans, including policies on locating boat facilities 

(FWS 2001). 

Both the state of Florida and FWS also have acquired tens of thousands of acres of land, 

particularly in the Crystal and Homosassa Rivers area intended, in part, to protect manatee 
16

habitat (FWS 2001). FWS also has adopted regulations for designating manatee refuges (areas in 

which human activities may be regulated) and manatee sanctuaries (areas in which all 

waterborne activity is prohibited) (44 Fed. Reg. 60962). Manatee sanctuaries have been 

designated primarily to prevent divers from driving animals away from warm-water discharges at 

the Crystal and Homosassa Rivers. Eight small sanctuaries covering a total of about 60 acres 

have been established at those locations. With access by swimmers as well as boats prohibited in 

marked sanctuary boundaries, manatees quickly learned to use those areas to escape unwanted 

human attention. About a dozen manatee refuges covering many thousands of acres also have 

been established by FWS to regulate boat speeds in several areas of Florida where state measures 

were deemed inadequate or have been annulled following legal challenges. 

Manatee Rescue and Rehabilitation Efforts: A recovery team working group led by FWS staff 

coordinates a network of state and local agencies and private organizations that rescues, 

rehabilitates, and releases dozens of injured and distressed manatees annually (FWS 2001). Such 

animals typically include animals hit by boats, entangled in fishing line or marine debris, caught 

in pipes or other structures, or debilitated due to exposure to red tides or cold. Between 1973 and 

2005 more than 375 manatees were captured, treated, and returned to the wild, and many others 

were assisted and released on site (FWS 2001). Although a significant number of animals 

brought into captivity for special treatment died of their injuries or health problems during 

transport or treatment, animals released after successfully completing treatment appear to have a 

high rate of success in readapting to the wild. In 2005, FWS estimated that rehabilitation costs 

exceeded $5 million, with about two-thirds of that provided by oceanariums. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Information on FWS and USGS funding allocations for research and 

management activities on Florida manatees is provided in annual administrative reports required 

by the MMPA (FWS 1981–1996, FWS, FWS and National Biological Service 1996, FWS and 

USGS 1997–2004). Although those reports do not itemize funding for all management activities 

in detail, they indicate that departmental funding levels between 1980 and 2000 ranged from at 

least $373,000 in 1986 to $1.4 million in 2000 (Table 4). In most of those years, funding for 

research accounted for between one-half and two-thirds of all itemized funding for manatees. In 

2000 nearly $500,000 was appropriated specifically for enforcing manatee protection rules, 

principally boat speed rules.

FWS annual reports on endangered species expenditures by all federal and state agencies (FWS 

2003b-d, 2005d-f, 2006) provide information on the total level of manatee funding by all federal 

and state agencies. Those reports indicate that total federal funding for Florida manatee recovery 

averaged about $3.1 million per year (Table 5, Appendices C.1-7). Unlike all other marine 

mammal recovery programs, state expenditures for recovery have exceeded those of federal 

agencies since 2000. State of Florida funding for Florida manatee activities remained relatively 

steady at nearly $6 million annually between 2000 and 2004. An uncertain amount of additional 

funding is provided by private organizations, such as oceanaria, which help maintain and treat 

injured and distressed manatees, and the Save the Manatee Club, which helps provide funding 

for research and certain equipment needs. Regarding staff, FWS currently estimates that it 

devotes about 11.3 full-time equivalents (FTEs) per year to manatee recovery activities3

; the 

 

3

 James A. Valade, personal communication. 25 June 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6620 Southpoint Drive, Room 310, 

Jacksonville, FL 32216. 
17

Table 4. Department of the Interior funding allocations (in $ thousands) for West Indian 

manatee research and management activities under the MMPA and ESA as cited in 

administrative reports required by the MMPA: 1980–2000 (FWS 1981–1996, FWS and 

National Biological Service 1996, FWS and USGS 1997–2004) 

Year Research and 

Development Management † Grants to States ‡ Total 

1980 330 N/A 184 514 

1981 379 320 396 1,095 

1982 333 234 0 567 

1983 320 191 0 511 

1984 262 117 15 399 

1985 379 114 117 610 

1986 248 87 38 373 

1987 310 31 115 456 

1988 310 75 75 460 

1989 325 75 105 505 

1990 344 350 100 799 

1991 625 389 87 1,101 

1992 673 145 70 888 

1993 670 621 90 1,381 

1994 597 N/A 77 674 

1995 468 N/A 76 544 

1996 483 N/A 26 509 

1997 556 N/A 26 582 

1998 648 N/A 26 674 

1999 810 N/A 26 836 

2000 823 551 26 1,400 

† Includes only management costs specifically identified for manatees; does not include support for all enforcement, 

permit, or administrative tasks 

‡ Includes grants under section 6 of ESA to Florida and Georgia 

USGS also supports about 13.3 FTEs who work on manatee research and monitoring studies as 

part of its Sirenia Project. It is not known whether or to what extent staff salaries are included in 

the funding estimates presented here

According to the Marine Mammal Commission survey of federally funded marine mammal 

research (Waring 2002), expenditures for biological and population assessment studies on 

manatees and dugongs in FY1991–FY2000 ranged from $544,000 in FY2000 to $1.3 million in 

FY1995 (see Appendix F). The principal sources of funding were FWS and USGS. 

Projected cost estimates for work during the first five years under the Florida manatee recovery 

plan adopted in 2001 (Table 6) identified annual expenditures of approximately $8.3 million by 

all involved governmental and non-governmental groups (FWS 2001). Those costs include 
18

Table 5. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for recovery of the West Indian 

manatee, 1998–2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal

Year FWS USGS NMFS USCG 

Other 

Federal

Total 

Federal State

Total 

State and 

Federal

1998 927 526 – – 99 1,551 13 1,565 

1999 1,145 526 – 619 117 2,407 1,945 4,351 

2000 2,727 466 – 461 166 3,820 5,923 9,743 

2001 2,363 510 – 480 85 3,438 5,936 9,373 

2002 1,710 523 – 228 182 2,643 5,929 8,571 

2003 2,070 971 – 713 75 3,830 5,969 9,799 

2004 2,432 428 – 831 226 3,917 5,945 9,862 

activities ranked under three priority categories. However, several significant costs—such as 

enforcement by the U.S. Coast Guard and state agencies and the installation of gate-reversing 

mechanisms on floodgates and navigation locks by the Army Corps of Engineers and South 

Florida Water Management District—were excluded from those cost estimates. 

Table 6. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement recovery activities for Florida 

manatees during the first five years after adoption of the 2001 Revised Florida Manatee 

Recovery Plan (FWS 2001) 

Objective Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total 

Objective 1: Minimize causes of manatee 

disturbance, harassment, injury, and 

mortality

4,238 4,238 4,238 4,193 4,193 21,100

Objective 2: Determine and monitor the 

status of manatee populations 2,488 2,449 2,506 2,496 2,511 12,450

Objective 3: Protect, identify, evaluate, 

and monitor manatee habitats 1,370 1,333 1,331 1,331 1,343 6,708

Objective 4: Facilitate manatee recovery 

through public awareness and education 288 258 258 258 258 1,320

TOTAL 8,384 8,278 8,333 8,278 8,305 41,578
19

Antillean Manatee, Puerto Rico Population 

Population Status: The Antillean manatee (Trichechus manatus manatus) is a subspecies of the 

West Indian manatee that inhabits the coastal waters of Central America and northern South 

America and the larger Caribbean Islands (USGS 2005a). The species as a whole was first listed 

as endangered under the ESPA in 1967. That listing was carried forward under the ESCA and 

ESA. The Antillean subspecies is not listed separately but is considered endangered by virtue of 

the species’ overall listing. Other than the Florida manatee, the Puerto Rico population of the 

Antillean subspecies is the only other group of manatees under U.S. jurisdiction. This subspecies 

is believed to be a relatively discrete population occurring in rivers and coastal waters of Puerto 

Rico. The extent to which manatees move between Puerto Rico and other parts of the Greater 

Antilles is uncertain. 

Historical accounts of manatees in Puerto Rico include references to their use as food by 

aborigines and Spanish explorers, but information is insufficient to estimate former abundance or 

the extent to which hunting reduced their numbers (Rathbun and Possardt 1986). Aerial surveys 

since the late 1970s and mid-1980s reveal that most manatees in Puerto Rico occur on the eastern 

end of the island and along the southern coast in shallow, protected bays, and in sea grass beds 

along the northwestern shore of Vieques Island, about 10 miles east of Puerto Rico (Rathbun et 

al. 1985). Based on actual counts of animals during surveys conducted in 2005, the Puerto Rico 

population of Antillean manatees numbers at least 121 animals. Considering animals possibly 

not seen during that survey, some researchers suspect there are between 150 and 360 manatees 

and that the population is not declining. The PBR level has been set at zero (FWS 1994a). 

Major Threats: In the 1980s the principal causes of manatee deaths in Puerto Rico were 

identified as poaching for food and unintentional entanglement in gillnets (Rathbun and Possardt 

1986). Over time, poaching has become less frequent although boat collisions have increased. 

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, 43 percent of all known manatee mortalities in Puerto 

Rico were due to boat collisions (FWS 1994a). More recently, however, an assessment by USGS 

suggests that loss of habitat and small population size also are primary threats to this population 

(FWS 2005b). 

Management Framework: The principal agencies involved with research and recovery efforts 

are the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, 

the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, the U.S. Navy, and 

the U.S. Coast Guard (Rathbun and Possardt 1986, USGS 2005a). The non-profit Caribbean 

Stranding Network has conducted manatee carcass salvage and manatee rescue, rehabilitation, 

and release activities in Puerto Rico over the last 20 years. 

Critical Habitat: None designated. 

Recovery Plan: FWS adopted a recovery plan for Puerto Rico manatees in 1986 (Rathbun and 

Possardt 1986). The lack of information on historical and current abundance prevented the 

development of a quantitative recovery target for this population, and the plan’s goal was 

therefore to establish a population “large enough to maintain sufficient genetic variation to 
20

enable it to evolve and respond to natural habitat changes and stochastic and catastrophic 

events.” The plan’s objectives were defined as follows: 

x Identify, assess, and reduce human-related mortality, especially that related to gillnet 

entanglement; 

x Identify and minimize alteration, degradation, and destruction of habitats important to the 

survival and recovery of the Puerto Rico manatee population; and 

x Develop the criteria and biological information necessary to determine whether to reclassify 

the Puerto Rico population of manatees and, if so, when. 

Among other actions, the plan recommended continuation of aerial surveys, improvements in the 

carcass salvage program, and public education aimed at reducing entanglement in gillnets. 

Major Management Actions: Over the years, aerial surveys have been conducted 

intermittently, and carcass salvage and necropsy efforts have been maintained and improved to 

help monitor population status and trends. Past management efforts have stressed public 

education aimed at preventing poaching and reducing entanglement in gillnets. Boat speed zones 

have been established in some areas, including an identified manatee feeding area located within 

a naval base at Roosevelt Roads on the eastern end of the island. As noted earlier, some injured 

and distressed animals have been rescued, rehabilitated, and released back to the wild. In recent 

years, USGS has carried out a number of research projects to better identify habitat-use patterns 

through radio tracking individual animals and mapping their nearshore benthic habitats (USGS 

2005a). Some management actions also have been taken to prevent disturbance and to restrict 

development in specific areas where manatees feed, rest, and obtain fresh water. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Because West Indian manatees are listed as a species, FWS 

administrative reports under the MMPA and expenditure reports under the ESA do not separate 

funding data for Puerto Rico manatees from Florida manatees. As a result, information on 

funding is uncertain but is believed to be a very small fraction of total funding reported for all 

West Indian manatees (see Florida manatee above and Appendices C.1–7). FWS supported at 

least one FTE to work on manatees in Puerto Rico in 2005 and USGS supported 0.8 FTE.4

SEA OTTERS

Southern Sea Otter 

Status: The southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) is one of three subspecies of sea otters. Its 

historical range is thought to have stretched from southern Canada to central Baja California. All 

three sea otter subspecies were hunted to near-extinction in the 18th and 19th centuries until 

hunting was prohibited in 1911 under the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention (Wilson et al. 

1991). The species as a whole once ranged in coastal waters from Hokkaido, Japan, through the 

Kuril Islands around the North Pacific rim and south to Baja California. The population is 

 

4

 James A. Valade, personal communication. 25 June 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6620 Southpoint Drive, Room 310, 

Jacksonville, FL 32216; Cathy Beck, personal communication. 1 November 2006. Sirenia Project, U.S. Geological Survey. 2201 

NW 40th Terrace, Gainesville, FL 32605 
21

thought to have numbered between 150,000 and 300,000 animals before commercial exploitation 

(Rotterman and Simon-Jackson 1988). In 1938 a remnant colony of approximately 50 southern 

sea otters was discovered in central California. In 1977 the southern sea otter was listed as 

threatened under the ESA because of its low abundance, limited distribution, and vulnerability to 

impacts from oil spilled by tankers and offshore oil development. To promote recovery and 

minimize the risk of a single large oil spill affecting the entire population, an attempt was made 

in the 1980s to establish a second southern sea otter population by translocating animals from the 

central California mainland coast to San Nicolas Island off southern California. The San Nicolas 

Island colony has not increased as expected and now numbers about 25 to 30 animals (FWS 

2003b).

Based on annual surveys conducted since the 1970s, the number of southern sea otters has 

increased slowly, despite two apparent periods of decline. In 1976 the population numbered an 

estimated 1,789 individuals; it then declined to 1,372 animals in 1984 (FWS 2003b). After 1985 

population growth resumed and counts peaked at 2,377 animals in 1995 before beginning a fouryear decline to 2,090 animals in 1999. Recent surveys suggest that population growth has 

resumed. In 2003 and 2004 counts of sea otters during spring surveys rose to 2,505 and 2,825, 

respectively, for a three-year average of 2,490 animals (USGS 2004). However, the overall rate 

of growth (less than 5 percent per year) has remained far below recovery rates of 15 percent or 

more observed in sea otter populations in some areas of Alaska prior to the 1970s and the 20 

percent recovery rate reported for expansion into some unoccupied areas (FWS 2003b). Because 

the legislation authorizing a translocation of southern sea otters included provisions to address 

interactions with fisheries, California sea otters have been exempted from the fishery 

management provisions of the MMPA, and no PBR has been calculated for this population 

(FWS 1995). 

Major Threats: At the time of listing in 1977 the primary threat to southern sea otters was 

thought to be a major oil spill from a tanker (42 Fed. Reg. 2968). Since then, other threats have 

emerged, including mortality incidental to commercial fishing, disease, chemical contaminants, 

naturally occurring biotoxins, and increased exploration and development of oil and gas 

resources off the California coast (FWS 2003b). The slow recovery of sea otters in California 

appears to be due to relatively high mortality among all age classes rather than low reproduction 

rates (MMC 2004). Among the likely explanations for the slow rate of recovery is incidental 

mortality in coastal fishing gear, increases in the rate of infectious disease, and decreases in food 

abundance (FWS 2003b). 

Oil Spills: Sea otters with oiled fur face a high probability of dying due to hypothermia and toxic 

effects. Although the death of oiled otters depends, in part, on the extent to which they are 

covered, the recovery plan estimates that the probability of an oiled otter dying from related 

impacts is likely to be at least 50 percent (FWS 2003b).5 The plan states, “we do not believe it is 

possible to avoid a catastrophic loss to the sea otter population in the event of a major spill in the 

vicinity of the sea otter’s current range.” The Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, which spread over 

an area covering hundreds of miles, underscored the scale of this threat. Spreading more than 

 

5

 It is believed that sea otters may survive with oil on less than 10 percent of their body surface but that levels of coverage greater

than 25 percent will lead to death (FWS 2002e). 
22

400 miles in 30 days, that spill covered an area equal to the entire central California range of 

southern sea otters. 

Incidental Catch in Commercial Fisheries: Between the late 1960s and early 1980s entanglement 

and drowning in gillnets and trammel nets are estimated to have caused an average of 80 sea 

otter deaths a year (Wendell et al. 1985). This mortality was apparently sufficient to cause a 

decline in the population that was reversed after a series of incremental actions taken by the state 

of California between 1982 and 1990 to restrict the use of gillnets in and around key sea otter 

habitats (Estes 1990). Fishing gear used in coastal pot and set net fisheries also may pose an 

entanglement hazard for southern sea otters; however, the revised recovery plan concludes that 

there is insufficient information to evaluate its possible impact on sea otters (FWS 2003b). 

Disease: Infectious disease is believed to have been an important factor limiting population 

growth (Lafferty and Gerber 2002). Between 1991 and 1995 disease and infections from 

parasites, fungi, and bacteria were responsible for roughly 40 percent of all deaths for which 

causes were determined by the southern sea otter carcass salvage and necropsy program (Thomas 

and Cole 1996). Other causes of death included emaciation (10 percent), miscellaneous 

conditions such as gastrointestinal obstructions (13 percent), shark predation (7 percent), gunshot 

(4 percent), and unknown (18 percent). The most frequent infection was peritonitis induced by 

parasitic acanthocephalan worms in the digestive tract, followed by bacterial infections, 

protozoal encephalitis, and coccidioidomycosis (a systemic infection caused by a fungus) (FWS 

2003b).

The variety and prevalence of infectious diseases found in necropsied sea otters suggest that 

southern sea otters are far more vulnerable to death by diseases than are other marine mammals 

(Thomas and Cole 1996). This, in turn, suggests that the immune function of southern sea otters 

may be compromised due to congenital, genetic, or environmental factors. The degree to which 

high exposure to pathogens may contribute to the frequency of infection in sea otters is 

unknown. There is evidence from live animals that these infectious agents are particularly 

common near human population centers (O’Shea et al. 1999). 

Other Threats: Food availability and emaciation also may threaten southern sea otters. 

Emaciation, in turn, may compromise immune systems and expose sea otters to infectious 

diseases (Thomas and Creekmore 2005). The movement of male otters south of Point 

Conception may indicate limitations in food availability in the core of their current range. 

Examination of carcasses also suggests that the rate of pre-weaning mortality is higher in central 

California than it is in the large Alaska sea otter populations (FWS 2003b). 

Management Framework: FWS is the lead federal agency for recovery of the southern sea 

otter. The California Department of Fish and Game is the principal state agency involved in 

recovery efforts. Annual fall and spring surveys of sea otters in California began in 1982 and are 

conducted cooperatively by scientists from USGS, the California Department of Fish and Game, 

FWS, and the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and with experienced volunteers. These organizations, 

together with the California Academy of Sciences, the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural 

History, beach clean-up crews for coastal cities, and others, are the principal members of the 

California Sea Otter Stranding Network. The network is responsible for recovering and 
23

examining carcasses. Since southern sea otters were first listed, FWS has established a sea otter 

recovery team and reconstituted it twice. The team’s principal task has been to develop and 

revise recovery plans. For much of the 1980s recovery efforts focused on developing a 

translocation plan to move otters from the mainland colony to San Nicolas Island, and the 

recovery team did not meet. Instead FWS convened an Interagency (Translocation) Project 

Review Team to help guide and oversee recovery work during that period. 

Critical Habitat: None designated. 

Recovery Plan: A recovery plan for the southern sea otter was first adopted in February 1982 

(FWS 1982). Its goals included the following: 

x Establishing new sea otter colonies outside the existing sea otter range; 

x Reducing vandalism, harassment, and incidental take; 

x Incorporating recovery measures into local coastal development plans; 

x Setting the recovery target as the OSP size; and 

x Establishing a research program to assess and monitor the status of sea otters and their 

habitat. 

In 1989 FWS reconstituted the recovery team to update the 1982 plan. FWS subsequently 

prepared revised draft plans in 1991 and 1996, but neither was adopted. In January 2000 a third 

draft revised recovery plan was circulated for public and agency review and, based on comments 

from the public and the recovery team, FWS adopted a final revised recovery plan in February 

2003 (FWS 2003b). Its goal is “to establish the long-term viability of the southern sea otter 

population sufficiently to allow delisting the species.” The revised plan concludes that a 

genetically viable population would be one with a minimum three-year average count of 1,850 

animals. It therefore identifies that population size as the threshold for reclassifying the southern 

sea otter population as endangered under the ESA. The plan also establishes a three-year average 

count of 3,090 animals as the threshold for evaluating whether to remove southern sea otters 

from the list of threatened and endangered species. If delisted, the population could still be 

considered depleted under the MMPA because the lower limit of the OSP level for southern sea 

otters currently is estimated to be approximately 8,400 animals. 

To develop a recovery strategy for the new plan, FWS reviewed the results of past management 

actions and concluded, in part, that the San Nicolas Island translocation had not been successful 

either in significantly reducing the chances of a large loss of otters due to a single major oil spill 

or other catastrophic event or in creating a separate population that could be used to restock the 

mainland population. The revised recovery plan therefore set forth the following elements for its 

recovery strategy (FWS 2003b): 

x Restriction of range due to management provisions related to the translocation program:

Evaluate the translocation program in light of changed circumstances and determine whether 

one or more criteria for declaring the translocation a failure have been met. 

x Disease: Collect and analyze tissues for evidence of stress or disease; determine sources of 

disease agents and stress; minimize factors causing stress and disease. 
24

x Incidental take in fishing gear: Evaluate the causes of mortality; monitor incidental take in 

commercial fisheries; evaluate the effectiveness of fishing regulations for preventing 

bycatch; evaluate incidental take in trap/pot fisheries; determine and take possible steps to 

reduce or eliminate mortality incidental to fisheries. 

x Oil spills: Implement and monitor Coast Guard vessel management plans; assess the current 

risk of tanker accidents and other sources of oil spills, including offshore platforms, 

pipelines, and marine terminals; implement an oil spill contingency plan that includes a sea 

otter response plan. 

x Contaminants: Evaluate causes of mortality; analyze tissues for environmental contaminants 

and archive tissues for future analysis; determine sources of environmental contaminants; 

determine contaminant levels in sea otter prey and habitat. 

x Intentional take: Evaluate causes of mortality; minimize intentional take. 

Major Management Actions: Efforts to protect and recover southern sea otters have focused on 

(1) establishing a new sea otter colony by translocating some otters to San Nicolas Island, (2) 

establishing a vessel traffic management system to reduce the chance of an oil tanker spill that 

could affect the sea otter range, and (3) reducing the incidental take of sea otters in commercial 

fisheries.

Translocation: To mitigate the possible impact of a major oil spill, the 1982 recovery plan 

recommended a translocation of sea otters to establish a new colony far enough removed from 

the mainland colony that it would be unlikely that a single spill would affect both areas (FWS 

2003b). San Nicolas Island off southern California was selected as the appropriate translocation 

site, and in 1986 Congress passed legislation authorizing the creation of an experimental sea 

otter colony at that location by translocating otters from the mainland population (PL 99-625). 

To address concerns about subsequent range expansion into areas where sea otter foraging could 

affect commercial and recreational shellfish fisheries, the legislation also created a management 

zone south of the sea otter’s mainland range. Any sea otters that moved into that management 

area were to be removed by non-lethal means and transported back to their range farther north 

(52 Fed. Reg. 29754). It was expected that the translocated population would stabilize at roughly 

70 sea otters within one or more years and would reach carrying capacity in 10 or more years. 

Between August 1987 and July 1993 more than 180 sea otters were moved from their mainland 

range to San Nicolas Island (FWS 2003b). Most translocated otters quickly disappeared or 

returned to their mainland range, leaving a small number of animals at the island. Since then, 

counts at San Nicolas Island have increased very slowly, and the population numbered about 27 

animals in 2002. At the same time, increasing numbers of animals from the mainland population 

moved into the management zone where the Service had limited success in capturing and 

removing them. In light of these developments, FWS is considering steps to formally declare the 

translocation a failure, discontinue the otter-free management zone in southern California, and 

allow the otters at San Nicolas Island to remain there (FWS 2005a). 

Vessel Traffic Management: Under auspices of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Coast Guard worked 

with stakeholders to develop a plan for managing large vessel traffic in and near the sanctuary 

area to reduce the risk of oil spills, groundings, and collisions (FWS 2003b). The plan called for 
25

transiting vessels to remain minimum distances from shore, instituting an offshore vessel traffic 

separation scheme, monitoring vessel traffic, establishing a response network to assist vessels in 

distress, and implementing a mariner education program. To date, several of these 

recommendations have been implemented. In May 2000 the International Maritime Organization 

approved a U.S. proposal to establish offshore vessel traffic lanes for ships entering and leaving 

ports north and south of the sea otter range. In addition, the California Department of Fish and 

Game’s Office of Spill Prevention and Response has developed contingency plans to protect 

wildlife, including sea otters, from the impacts of oil spills (FWS 2003b). This program also 

sponsors a network of professionally trained volunteers, paid staff, and veterinarians who can 

retrieve and attempt to rehabilitate oiled animals. 

Fisheries Interactions: To reduce the bycatch of sea otters, as well as other marine mammals and 

seabirds in trammel nets and gillnets, the California legislature adopted a series of area closures 

between 1982 and 1990. The first closure adopted in 1982 closed a portion of Monterey Bay out 

to 10 fathoms from shore, but the measure simply displaced fishermen to other parts of the sea 

otter’s range. In 1985 the measure was expanded to include the entire sea otter range out to the 

15-fathom contour. Although this level reduced the incidental take of sea otters, animals 

continued to be taken in deeper waters, and in 1986 and 1990 the state legislature extended the 

closed area to 20 and 30 fathoms, respectively. The 1986 action reduced observed takes to low 

levels and in the late 1980s sea otter counts began to increase. The 1990 action essentially 

eliminated all sea otter bycatch. Since 1990 the closed area has been extended out to the 60-

fathom contour to reduce bycatch of marine mammals other than sea otters and seabirds (FWS 

2003b). In addition, the state has required that traps used to catch nearshore finfish be outfitted 

with a 5-inch ring in the entry funnel to prevent sea otters from getting caught in trap openings. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Funding allocations by FWS and USGS for southern sea otter 

research and management work are identified in annual administrative reports prepared by those 

agencies pursuant to requirements of the MMPA (FWS 1981–1996, FWS and National 

Biological Service 1996, FWS and USGS 1997–2004). Although those reports do not itemize 

funding for all management activities (e.g., funding for enforcement and permit management is 

combined for all marine mammals under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior), they 

indicate that departmental funding for southern sea otter recovery work increased during the 

1980s to a high of $1.3 million in 1990 when steps were being taken to implement the sea otter 

translocation (Table 7, Appendices C.1–7). During the 1990s funding levels declined 

substantially.

According to FWS reports on expenditures for endangered species by all federal and state 

agencies since 1998 (FWS 2003 b–e, 2005 d–f, 2006), annual federal funding of sea otter 

recovery again increased from $495,000 in 1998 to $1.37 million in 2003 (Table 8, Appendices 

C.1–7). FWS funding during that period ranged between $95,200 in 1999 and $184,100 in 2001. 

Most funding for southern sea otter activities was provided by USGS for research. In 2003, for 

example, USGS reported expenditures of $1,152,986 for southern sea otter activities. State of 

California funding for southern sea otter activities between 1998 and 2004 ranged between 

$35,100 and $156,000 (FWS 2005d) 
26

Table 7. Department of the Interior funding allocations (in $ thousands) for southern sea otter 

research and management activities under the MMPA and ESA as cited in 

administrative reports required by the MMPA: 1980–2000 (FWS 1981–1996, FWS and 

National Biological Service 1996, FWS and USGS 1997–2004) 

Year

Research/ 

Development Management 
 Grants to States A Total 

1980 405 Not provided 162 567 

1981 353 120 160 553 

1982 318 144 0 462 

1983 320 64 141 525 

1984 244 171 93 508 

1985 289 421 92 802 

1986 362 377 88 827 

1987 362 449 102 913 

1988 310 448 106 864 

1989 756 350 100 1,206 

1990 821 386 100 1,307 

1991 756 399 0 1,155 

1992 605 366 0 971 

1993 498 244 0 742 

1994 403 Not provided 0 403 

1995 429 Not provided 10 439 

1996 398 Not provided 0 398 

1997 389 Not provided 0 389 

1998 389 Not provided 60 389 

1999 233 Not provided 0 456 

2000 290 Not provided 0 290 


 Includes only management costs specifically identified for southern sea otters; does not include support for all 

enforcement, permit, or administrative tasks 

A Includes grants under section 6 of ESA to California

According to the Marine Mammal Commission’s survey of federally funded marine mammal 

research (Waring 2002), federal expenditures for biological and population assessment research 

on sea otters between FY1991 and FY2000 ranged from $463,000 in FY1997 to $1.4 million in 

FY2000 (see Appendix F). The principal sources of funding were FWS and USGS. The 

Commission’s survey also reported funding to investigate fisheries/sea otter interactions. That 

work ranged between $132,000 in FY1996 and FY1997 to $1.3 million in FY2000 with most of 

the funds provided by FWS. 
27

Table 8. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of southern sea otters, 

1998–2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal

Year

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal

Total 

Federal

State

Total 

State and 

Federal

1998 97 389 – – 9 495 – 495 

1999 95 317 – – 47 459 156 615 

2000 174 403 – – 13 589 35 624 

2001 184 868 – – 7 1,059 35 1,094 

2002 170 856 – – 5 1,031 35 1,066 

2003 156 1,154 – – 26 1,336 40 1,376 

2004 134 578 – – 3 714 20 734 

Northern Sea Otter, Southwest Alaska Population 

Status: Sea otters once ranged from the Hokkaido, Japan, through the Kuril Islands around the 

North Pacific rim south to Baja California and numbered between 150,000 and 300,000 animals 

(Rotterman and Simon-Jackson 1988, FWS 2002e). The range of the northern sea otter (Enhydra

lutris kenyoni), one of three subspecies of sea otters, extends along the coast from the Aleutian 

Islands to the state of Washington (Jameson et al. 1982). FWS considers sea otters west of the 

entrance to Cook Inlet and Kodiak Island and along the Aleutian Islands to be a distinct 

population segment of northern sea otters, referred to as the southwest Alaska population (FWS 

2002e).

Commercial hunting between the late 1700s and early 1900s reduced all northern sea otter 

populations to a combined total of perhaps 1,000 to 2,000 animals scattered among 13 remnant 

populations. Six of those remnant populations were within the range of the southwest Alaska sea 

otter population. In 1911 commercial hunting of sea otters was banned under the Convention on 

Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals (Rotterman and Simon-Jackson 1988). After cessation 

of hunting, sea otter numbers grew rapidly. By 1976 the southwest Alaska population had 

increased to an estimated 94,050 to 128,650 animals and was thought to be at or above its preexploitation population size (Calkins and Schneider 1985). Since the mid-1980s, however, the 

population has declined precipitously (Doroff et al. 2003). Periodic surveys suggest their number 

has decreased by at least 55 to 67 percent with declines of more than 90 percent in some areas. 

Surveys since 2000 indicate annual rates of decline of 12 percent on the south side of the Alaska 

Peninsula and 29 percent in the western and central Aleutians (70 Fed. Reg. 46366). With the 

exception of the Kodiak area, there is no evidence that the decline has abated. Based on aerial 

surveys in 2000–2004, FWS estimates that the southwest Alaska sea otter population numbers 

41,865 animals (70 Fed. Reg. 46366). Although the Service was petitioned in 2001 to list all sea 

otters in Alaska as depleted, the petition was rejected on grounds that substantial declines were 

limited largely to southwest Alaska and that sea otters in that area constituted a separate 

population. In 2005 FWS designated the southwest Alaska sea otter population of the northern 

sea otter as threatened under the ESA (70 Fed. Reg. 46366). 
28

Major Threats: Despite the sharpness and geographic extent of the southwest Alaska sea otter 

population decline, its cause remains uncertain. In listing the population as threatened, FWS 

evaluated the following possible factors (70 Fed. Reg. 46366): 

Oil Spills: Like the southern sea otter, the northern sea otter is extremely vulnerable to oil spills. 

At this time, oil and gas development occurs only in Cook Inlet, and tanker transport is relatively 

infrequent in the range of the southwest Alaska sea otter population. Although there is no 

evidence to suggest that oil spills caused the decline, the threat of a major oil spill remains a 

matter of concern, given experience with the Exxon Valdez spill, which demonstrated that a large 

oil spill could affect coastlines hundreds of miles from a spill site. 

Hunting: Subsistence hunting of sea otters does not appear to have been a factor in the decline of 

the southwest Alaska sea otter population. In Kodiak, where most sea otter hunting occurs, the 

harvest has ranged between 0.4 and 1.3 percent of the estimated population size. Little or no 

subsistence hunting occurs in areas with the steepest declines in sea otter numbers. 

Habitat Loss: FWS has found no evidence that the loss of habitat has contributed to the sea otter 

decline although it may be an important factor in recovery. 

Competition for Prey: FWS has found no evidence that commercial catch of prey species has 

been a factor in the decline, that sea otters are nutritionally stressed, or that their foraging success 

has declined. 

Predation: Perhaps the most plausible explanation for the decline in southwest Alaska sea otters 

is increased mortality caused by killer whale (Orcinus orca) predation (Estes et al. 1998). FWS 

cites the following evidence in support this hypothesis: 

x An increase in the number of observed attacks by killer whales on sea otters during the 

1990s;

x A correspondence between the decrease in sea otter numbers and expectations from computer 

models of killer whale energetics; 

x The scarcity of beachcast otter carcasses, which would be expected if disease or starvation 

were the cause of the decline; and 

x Markedly lower mortality rates between sea otters in sheltered lagoons compared to those in 

exposed bays more accessible to killer whales. 

Management Framework: FWS has lead federal responsibility for the management and 

recovery of southwest Alaska sea otters. Some aspects of management are implemented though a 

cooperative agreement with an Alaska Native organization called the Alaska Sea Otter and 

Steller Sea Lion Commission. Collaboration between the United States and Russia also is carried 

out under the auspices of the U.S.-Russia Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Protection of 

the Environment and Natural Resources. Other agencies that support or participate in recovery 

work include USGS and the Alaska SeaLife Center, both of which conduct research. Since 

designating the population as threatened, FWS has convened a recovery team to help develop a 

southwest Alaska sea otter recovery plan (70 Fed. Reg. 46377). 
29

Critical Habitat: When designating southwest Alaska sea otters as threatened, FWS concluded 

that designation of critical habitat for the population segment would be prudent (70 Fed. Reg. 

46377). However, the Service stated that it was unable to identify the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of the population. Given that finding and the lack of 

understanding about the cause for the population’s decline, it therefore deferred critical habitat 

designation.

Recovery Plan: In 1994 the Service released a conservation plan for all Alaska sea otters in 

response to amendments to the MMPA authorizing such plans (FWS 1994b). The plan proposed 

three goals: (1) maintain the Alaska sea otter population level within its OSP range; (2) maintain 

healthy habitats for sea otters; and (3) allow for a variety of human uses. 

The plan then identified the following objectives to achieve those goals: 

x Identify the OSP range for sea otters, including factors that may influence how such a range 

is defined; 

x Monitor the size, status, and trends of sea otter populations and collect life history data for 

developing population models and establishing removal guidelines; 

x Establish cooperative working relationships with Alaska Natives to help support their 

conservation and management efforts related to Native sea otter harvest and use; 

x Characterize and monitor sea otter habitat, status, and trends; 

x Identify, avoid, and minimize human threats to sea otters and their habitat and, if possible, 

resolve resource conflicts; and 

x Establish cooperative programs to further the conservation and management of sea otters in 

Alaska.

Accompanying each of the objectives was a list of specific activities with projected funding 

needs for the first five years of implementation. As of the date of this report, initial efforts were 

being taken by the recovery team to develop a draft southwest Alaska sea otter recovery plan. 

Major Management Actions: Since the mid-1990s FWS has entered into an annual cooperative 

agreement with the Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission. The commission 

represents a consortium of 60 Alaska tribes and tribal organizations. With FWS, the Commission 

co-manages subsistence uses of sea otters throughout Alaska and facilitates sea otter research by 

tribes and local residents. Through the cooperative agreement, support is provided for skiff 

surveys to determine local sea otter population trends, for collecting samples from harvested 

animals, and for documenting traditional Alaska Native knowledge of sea otters. Other actions 

taken in support of recovery have focused on population monitoring and research planning. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Because southwest Alaska sea otters were not added to the list of 

endangered and threatened species until 2005, funding data does not appear in past FWS 

expenditure surveys and past estimates of funding for research and management are not 

available. FWS estimates that it devoted 2.5 FTEs to southwest Alaska sea otter research and 

management in 2005.6

 In 2005 the FWS Alaska Regional Office allocated approximately 

 

6

 Rosa Meehan, personal communication. 23 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammal Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1011 Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503. 
30

$120,000 to charter a research vessel and administered a $663,000 congressional add-on for 

studies of southwest Alaska sea otters by the Alaska SeaLife Center. Information was not 

available on expenditures by other agencies, such as USGS. 

Funding needs projected for the first five years of conservation work under the Alaska sea otter 

conservation plan (FWS 1994b) suggested that annual expenditures should have ranged from 

$700,000 to $1.04 million per year for a five-year total of $4.36 million. Actual expenditures 

during that period are uncertain.

Caribbean Monk Seal 

Caribbean monk seals (Monachus tropicalis) once inhabited the Caribbean Sea and parts of the 

Gulf of Mexico from the the Bahamas west to the Yucatan Peninsula and south along the east 

coast of Central America (44 Fed. Reg. 1979). They were listed as endangered throughout their 

range under the ESPA in 1967. That listing was carried forward under the ESCA, but for 

uncertain reasons was omitted from the initial list of endangered and threatened species under 

ESA. By the time the ESA was passed in 1976, some scientists already considered the species to 

be extinct; however, in 1979, it was again listed as endangered at the recommendation of the 

Marine Mammal Commission to afford protection in the event of its rediscovery. Presently, no 

Caribbean monk seals exist in captivity and no populations are known to occur in the wild. The 

last reliable record of the species was at a small colony at Seranilla Bank west of Jamaica in 

1952. The species is now widely considered to be extinct (Kenyon 1977) and in 1994 the IUCN 

listed the species as such on its Red List of Threatened Species (Groombridge 1994). 

Major Threats: Like the Hawaiian monk seal, the Caribbean monk seal appears to have been 

quite approachable and vulnerable to hunting and human disturbance. Organized and 

opportunistic hunts reduced the number of monk seals in the 17th and 18th centuries. 

Management Framework: NMFS has lead responsibility for the species. As no Caribbean 

monk seals have been sighted since passage of the ESA and MMPA, no species-specific 

management teams have been established. In November 2006 the Service announced plans to 

carry out a five-year status review of the Caribbean monk seal under the provisions of the ESA 

to determine whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened 

species or reclassified (71 FR 69100). 

Critical Habitat: None designated. 

Recovery Plan: None drafted or adopted. 

Staff and Funding Levels: NMFS has devoted no staff or funding to Caribbean monk seal 

recovery work. In 1985 the Marine Mammal Commission provided about $1,000 to help 

determine the validity of rumored Caribbean monk seal sightings and to survey remote 

Caribbean fishing villages for evidence of surviving animals. The survey produced no firm 

evidence of the species’ continued existence. Based on FWS surveys of funding for listed 

endangered and threatened species between 1998 and 2004 (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006), a 

combined total of $18,000 was spent on this species over that seven-year period (Appendix C). 

PINNIPEDS
31

Hawaiian Monk Seal 

Status: The Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) occurs only in the Hawaiian 

archipelago. It is the most endangered seal in U.S. waters and one of the most endangered seals 

in the world. It was listed as endangered under the ESA in 1976. The population consists of six 

main breeding colonies in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) and a dispersed, but 

growing population in the main Hawaiian Islands (NMFS 2006a). Monk seals apparently did not 

occur in the main Hawaiian Islands when Captain James Cook discovered the islands in the late 

1700s, and it seems likely that earlier Polynesian settlers had eliminated them from that portion 

of their range (Baker and Johanos 2004, MMC 2001). 

The breeding colonies in the NWHI are relatively isolated. Movement of seals between colonies 

is limited, and the individual colonies therefore constitute relatively discrete subpopulations with 

independent trends and recovery issues. For example, between the 1950s and the 1980s the 

colony at French Frigate Shoals grew rapidly to become the species’ largest group, producing 

nearly half of all monk seal pups. During the same period, other colonies declined or remained 

relatively stable. These trends were reversed in the late 1980s when juvenile survival, and 

perhaps reproduction, at the French Frigate Shoals colony began declining sharply, and the 

western colonies began increasing slowly. In 2001 a total of 1,224 seals were observed in the 

NWHI, and 52 were counted in the main Hawaiian Islands, with the total abundance estimate 

about 60 percent less than estimates based on counts in 1958 (NMFS 2006a). It appears that their 

overall numbers declined by 4.2 percent per year until 1993. Since then, the rate of decline has 

been 1.1 percent per year. The current best estimate of abundance is 1,252 animals (NMFS 

2006a). Because of the species’ low abundance and declining trend, a PBR level for the 

Hawaiian monk seal is undetermined. 

Major Threats: Intensive hunting in the 19th century is thought to have significantly reduced 

Hawaiian monk seal abundance in the NWHI (Ragen and Lavigne 1999). After recovering 

somewhat in the early 20th century, most subpopulations declined again in the last half of the 

20th century. The suspected cause of declines between the 1950s and early 1980s was human 

disturbance on pupping and resting beaches as a result of military and Coast Guard activity 

(Kenyon 1972, Ragen and Lavigne 1999, MMC 2002). Perhaps the greatest current threat to 

monk seals in the NWHI is reduction in prey availability due to commercial fishing and/or 

natural environmental change. The small, isolated nature of NWHI atolls makes their populations 

especially vulnerable to human and natural perturbations. Most of the species’ decline since the 

1980s has occurred at French Frigate Shoals where reduced juvenile survival rates characterized 

the decrease. Based on observations of weaned pups in emaciated or underweight condition, 

limited prey availability is believed to have precipitated the decline at that atoll. Similar signs of 

poor juvenile survival have been observed more recently at other atolls. 

Fishery Interactions: Monk seals are known to feed on lobsters as well as other species caught 

incidentally in lobster traps. Intensive fishing for spiny lobsters began in the NWHI in the late 

1970s shortly before the monk seal decline began at French Frigate Shoals. At the peak of the 

NWHI lobster fishery between 1985 and 1990, fishing effort exceeded one million trap nights 

per year, most of which focused on the banks and atolls nearest to French Frigate Shoals. In 1999 

the fishery was closed after spiny lobster abundance declined dramatically. Spiny lobsters have 

shown little sign of recovery since 1999, and parts of their range are now dominated by slipper 
32

lobsters, suggesting a major shift in the ecology of lobster populations in the NWHI. Decadal 

climate cycles also are a possible factor affecting lobster populations and other monk seal prey 

(Polovina 2005), but information is not sufficient to distinguish between the effects of climate 

and fishing operations (MMC 2001). 

Direct interactions between monk seals and the lobster, pelagic longline, and bottomfish fisheries 

also have been documented. At least one monk seal was entangled and drowned in lobster gear, 

and several others are known to have been injured by hooks from longline, bottomfish gear, and 

recreational fishing. Information on monk seal deaths and injuries in fisheries is limited, partly 

because efforts to monitor fishing operations have been inadequate (Ragen and Lavigne 1999, 

NMFS 2006a). 

Entanglement in Marine Debris: Entanglement of monk seals in marine debris, particularly 

derelict fishing nets, also is a significant threat in the NWHI. Seven entanglement deaths and 238 

cases of live entangled seals have been recorded through 2003 (NMFS 2006a). Almost all of 

these entanglements were seen on beaches. In most instances, either the animals were 

disentangled or the entanglements were considered minor ones from which the seals would be 

able to free themselves. Of greater concern is the unknown number of seals that become 

entangled and die unobserved at sea because they are unable to swim to shore. With rare 

exceptions, derelict fishing gear found attached to seals or fouling atoll reefs and beaches are 

from remote fisheries operating outside Hawaiian waters. 

Other Sources of Mortality: Other sources of mortality for NWHI seals include aggressive 

behavior by adult male seals towards pups, juveniles, and females; shark predation; and naturally 

occurring biotoxins. Adult male aggression has caused the death and serious injury of numerous 

pups and females at Laysan and Lisianski Islands. It has been identified as a major impediment 

to the recovery of colonies at both atolls and also has been observed at French Frigate Shoals 

where at least eight pups were killed by aggressive males in 1997 (NMFS 2006a). Shark 

predation has recently become a significant source of mortality at French Frigate Shoals. 

Approximately 25 percent of all pups born at that colony in 1999 were killed by sharks. 

In 1978 ciguatera, a naturally occurring biotoxin, is thought to have killed a few tens of seals 

although no similar die-offs have been recorded since. Disease and contaminants do not appear 

to have been a major source of past mortality for monk seals in the NWHI (Ragen and Lavigne 

1999). However, disease risks are a growing concern due to the possibility of seals becoming 

exposed to new diseases in the main Hawaiian Islands (Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team 

2005, Braun and Yochem 2006). Contaminant risks exist in the NWHI from occasional vessel 

groundings and fuel spills and from discarded equipment and pollution left from earlier Navy 

and Coast Guard activities (Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team 2005). 

Threats in the main Hawaiian Islands. Monk seal pups and adults in the main Hawaiian Islands 

tend to be larger than those in the NWHI, suggesting that prey availability is not a limiting factor 

in the main Hawaiian Islands at this time. Rather, the major threats in this area are disturbance at 

haul-out and pupping sites by beachgoers and dogs, hooking on fishing gear (particularly with 

recreational fishing), collisions with boats, exposure to oil spills, and diseases transmitted from 

other animals. To date, two seals are known to have been killed by fishing gear in the main 
33

Hawaiian Islands, and a number of seals have been found with embedded hooks or entangled in 

gillnets. One seal is thought to have been killed by a boat collision. There is limited evidence that 

disease has been a cause of deaths for monk seals in the past, but currently it is a significant 

concern (Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team 2005). Recent information suggests that since 

2003 one seal may have died as a result of leptospirosis and another from toxoplasmosis, 

representing the first reported cases of each (NMFS 2006a). 

Management Framework: Although NMFS has lead responsibility for recovery of Hawaiian 

monk seals, other agencies play important roles. FWS manages wildlife habitat and human 

activities on lands and waters of the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge and the Midway 

Atoll National Wildlife Refuge (MMC 2002). The Coast Guard assists with enforcement and 

control of pollution. NOAA and FWS, in coordination with the state of Hawaii manage the 

PapahƗnaumokuƗkea Marine National Monument, which extends out 50 nautical miles (nmi) 

from atolls and submerged banks in the NWHI. The Western Pacific Fishery Management 

Council is responsible for developing fishery management plans for federal waters in the region. 

The Marine Mammal Commission holds periodic reviews of the monk seal recovery program, 

makes recommendations for recovery needs, and provides funding for research and management 

projects on an opportunistic basis. 

The state of Hawaii, which owns Kure Atoll, also has jurisdiction over waters from the refuge 

boundaries out to 3 nmi around all emergent lands in the NWHI with the exception of Midway 

Atoll (MMC 2002). In 2005 the state of Hawaii adopted rules designating all NWHI state waters 

as a marine refuge within which all commercial activity, including almost all fishing, is banned. 

The state government also is an important partner in management efforts in the main Hawaiian 

Islands.

Critical Habitat: In 1986 NMFS designated all beaches and nearshore waters shallower than 10 

fathoms around all of the NWHI (except Sand Island on the Midway Atoll, which was then used 

as a naval air station) as critical habitat for Hawaiian monk seals. In 1988 the seaward boundary 

was extended to the 20-fathom isobath around the NWHI (again excluding Sand Island), partly at 

the recommendation of the Marine Mammal Commission (OPR 2005). 

Recovery Plan: In 1980 NMFS established a Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team composed of 

scientists and agency resource managers (MMC 2002). The team developed a draft plan adopted 

by NMFS in March 1983 (Gilmartin 1983). In 1989 NMFS appointed a new recovery team that 

met annually to review monk seal recovery efforts and provide advice on research and 

management. In 2001 NMFS again reconstituted the recovery team and charged it with updating 

the 1983 recovery plan. A draft revised plan was submitted to NMFS in 2005 and circulated for 

public comment in late 2006 (NMFS 2006e). The goal of the draft plan is “...to assure the long 

term viability of the Hawaiian monk seal in the wild, allowing initially for reclassification to 

threatened status and, ultimately, removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife” 

(NMFS 2006e). To accomplish this goal, four major actions are identified: 

x Improving the survival of females, particularly juvenile females, in subpopulations of the 

NWHI by maintaining and enhancing the species’ habitat and prey base, targeting research to 

better understand factors affecting juvenile survival, intervening when possible to improve 
34

rates of juvenile and adult female survival, protecting females from aggressive groups of 

male seals and shark predation, and continuing to remove marine debris and disentangle 

seals; 

x Maintaining field teams in the NWHI to carry out research and management actions; 

x Ensuring continued natural growth of the monk seal population in the main Hawaiian 

Islands; and 

x Reducing the possibility of inadvertent introduction of infectious diseases. 

The draft plan also describes specific actions to conserve monk seal habitat, reduce interactions 

with commercial fisheries, investigate factors affecting prey limitation, conduct population 

monitoring and research, prevent the spread of infectious diseases, minimize the impact of 

natural biotoxins, reduce aggression by groups of male seals toward females, prevent 

entanglement in marine debris, reduce sources of human disturbance, reduce the impact of vessel 

groundings, minimize risks of shark predation, reduce the impact of contaminants, prepare a 

main Hawaiian Island monk seal management plan, and carry out a public education and 

outreach program. 

The draft plan recommends that reclassification as threatened be considered when the following 

criteria are met: (1) the total number of monk seals in the NWHI exceeds 2,900 seals, (2) at least 

five of the six major breeding colonies have 100 individuals or more and the subpopulation in the 

main Hawaiian Islands exceeds 500 animals, and (3) female survivorship and birth rates in the 

major NWHI and main Hawaiian Islands colonies are high enough to assure that population 

growth rates are not declining 

Major Management Actions: Since publication of the initial monk seal recovery plan in 1983, 

much has been done to address the most direct and obvious causes of the monk seal decline. 

Some of those actions are summarized below. 

Improve survival rates of juvenile females: To address problems related to poor juvenile survival 

and limited prey availability, NMFS has undertaken two types of interventions: (1) a “head start” 

program at Kure Atoll and (2) a capture, rehabilitation, and release program for undersized pups 

from French Frigate Shoals. Both efforts sought to enhance survival of female pups to save their 

reproductive potential. Under the head start program, newly weaned female pups at Kure Atoll 

were captured, placed in pens at the atoll, and fed for several months to improve their chances of 

survival during the first year of life. Under the pup rehabilitation program, female pups at French 

Frigate Shoals judged unlikely to survive because of their small size (girth) at weaning were 

captured, transported to facilities in the main Hawaiian Islands for rehabilitation, and later 

released at Kure Atoll where prey availability did not appear to be limiting survival. These 

programs were successfully carried out between 1981 and 1992 but were suspended in 1993 

when a group of 12 female pups taken into captivity for rehabilitation developed an undiagnosed 

eye disease that blinded most of them. An attempt was made to reinitiate the program with 

releases at Midway Atoll in the mid-1990s, but it was discontinued because of poor survival of 

the released animals. More recently, NMFS developed plans for a “second chance” program at 

French Frigate Shoals. Under that program, juvenile seals (rather than newly weaned pups) 

showing signs of poor nutrition a few months after weaning are to be caught, placed in pens at 

the atoll for feeding, and released on site after fattening. Although steps were taken to implement 
35

the new program in the summer of 2004, no seals deemed eligible for the program were observed 

at that time. The program may be resumed in the future, depending on funding. 

Interactions with Commercial Fisheries: The potential effects of NWHI fisheries on monk seal 

prey resources, as well as direct interactions between monk seals and fishing gear, are considered 

within the context of four fishery management plans developed by the Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council and implemented by NMFS. These include fishery plans for crustaceans 

(i.e., lobster), bottomfish (e.g., snapper and grouper), pelagic species (e.g., tuna and swordfish), 

and precious corals. 

Crustacean Fishery In the late 1970s and early 1980s a fishery targeting spiny lobsters in the 

NWHI grew rapidly. As the fishery expanded, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council 

recommended a fishery management plan adopted by NMFS in 1983. To protect monk seal 

foraging habitat, the plan established no-fishing zones within 20 nmi of Laysan Island and within 

the 10-fathom contour around all other atolls. To prevent monk seals from wedging their heads 

in trap openings, the plan also specified a maximum trap opening size. Initially, the plan allowed 

the take of all the lobsters that could be caught above a minimum size limit. As lobster 

abundance quickly declined, the plan was modified to allow catch levels that were expected to 

maintain lobster population abundances at or above 20 percent of the size thought to occur in the 

absence of fishing. As this and other major amendments to the plan were proposed, NMFS 

conducted formal section 7 consultations pursuant to the ESA. Despite concern expressed by the 

Marine Mammal Commission and others throughout the 1990s that the fishery was reducing 

available monk seal prey, NMFS concluded that lobster fishing had no effect on monk seal prey 

availability (MMC 2004). In early 2000, shortly after a lawsuit challenged the basis for this 

conclusion, NMFS suspended the fishery on grounds that it was uncertain about the status of 

NWHI lobster populations (MMC 2004). Since then, NMFS has kept the NWHI lobster fishing 

quota at zero. 

Bottomfish fishery—The bottomfish fishery is a hook-and-line fishery that targets sizes and 

species of fish not normally eaten by monk seals. Occasionally, monk seals become hooked 

while taking bait or caught fish off of hooks. Monk seals also sometimes remain near fishing 

vessels and feed on discarded bycatch. After passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act in 1976, the number of fishing vessels and landings of 

bottomfish grew until 1987 when they began to decline to a much lower level, around which they 

now fluctuate. Requirements relative to monk seals have been limited primarily to observer and 

reporting requirements. In the NWHI bottomfish fishery, vessels must carry observers when 

requested to do so and must report interactions with monk seals. Most interactions reported by 

fishermen and observers involve seal sightings near fishing vessels and, very rarely, hookings. In 

2002 NMFS prepared a section 7 biological opinion on the bottomfish fishery management plan 

and concluded that the fishery would not jeopardize monk seals or their critical habitat. The state 

of Hawaii also requires logbooks for state waters around the main Hawaiian Islands; however, 

information on interactions with protected species is not required, and the logbooks therefore 

provide no information on interactions with monk seals (NMFS 2006a). 

Pelagic longline fishery—In the early 1990s as a pelagic longline fishery developed for 

swordfish and tunas near the NWHI, several seals were found with embedded longline hooks and 
36

other injuries thought to be associated with this fishery. In response the fishery management 

council recommended, and NMFS adopted, a 50-nmi no-fishing zone for this fishery around the 

NWHI and in corridors between the islands. The measure appears to have nearly eliminated 

hookings in this fishery (NMFS 2006a). 

Precious corals—Although no commercial harvests of precious corals used in the jewelry 

industry have occurred in the NWHI, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council drafted a 

fishery management plan to allow some coral harvesting in the area. The council, however, has 

recommended against harvesting of gold corals because some seals forage in beds of this species 

at depths of 500 meters or greater (NMFS 2006a). NMFS has not adopted the draft plan. 

New fishery restrictions in federal waters around the NWHI—In late 2000 and early 2001 fishery 

management in the NWHI became subject to new management restrictions when President 

Clinton signed two Executive Orders designating the NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve 

(MMC 2002). The reliance of Hawaiian monks seals on this regional coral reef ecosystem was 

cited as an important consideration leading to the designation. The Presidential orders directed 

that all landings and fishing permits for commercial fishing within reserve waters be capped at 

levels that existed in the year prior to the 4 December 2000 designation date. As bottomfish were 

the only landings taken from reserve waters during that period, the designation precluded fishing 

for other species. The directive also required the use of precautionary management principles and 

the establishment of 15 “reserve preservation areas” within which no fishing of any kind is 

allowed. The orders also directed that the National Marine Sanctuary Program consider 

designation of the area as a national marine sanctuary. The sanctuary designation process, 

however, was superceded on 15 June 2006 when President Bush signed an Executive Order 

designating the reserve as the PapahƗnaumokuƗkea Marine National Monument. In doing so, he 

instituted a ban on all commercial fishing except bottomfish fishing, which is to be phased out 

within five years. 

Fishery restrictions in state waters of the NWHI—In 2001 the state of Hawaii proposed 

designating all state waters in the NWHI as a state fishery management area to establish access 

permit requirements that would allow the state to control commercial fishing. Following receipt 

of comments urging the adoption of more restrictive measures, the state modified its proposal 

and, late in 2005, adopted rules designating the area as a state marine refuge within which all 

commercial and recreational fishing is prohibited.

Entanglement in Marine Debris: For more than 15 years, field teams responsible for monk seal 

research have routinely disentangled seals found entangled in marine debris and removed 

hazardous debris from beaches. Since the late 1990s divers also have removed derelict nets and 

lines from submerged reefs in the NWHI. Between 1996 and 2003 NMFS and cooperating 

organizations removed 470 metric tons of nets and other debris from NWHI coral reefs (NMFS 

2006a).

Aggression by Groups of Male Seals: To minimize seal deaths and injuries caused by aggressive 

male seals, NMFS has captured adult male seals known or suspected to have displayed 

aggressive behavior and relocated them in other areas. In 1994, 22 adult males were captured at 

Laysan Island for relocation to the main Hawaiian Islands (Ragen and Lavigne 1999, NMFS 
37

2006a). Since then, the number of seals killed by aggressive males at Laysan Island has declined 

dramatically (NMFS 2006a). Similarly, in 1998 two aggressive males responsible for killing 

pups at French Frigate Shoals were relocated to Johnston Atoll, after which injuries to pups at 

French Frigate Shoals declined. 

Shark Predation: NMFS also has taken steps to reduce shark predation on monk seals at French 

Frigate Shoals. Research field teams have attempted to catch and kill those sharks that patrol 

pupping beaches and prey on pups when they enter the water. In 2001 NMFS field teams killed 

five sharks exhibiting predatory behavior at Trig Island. Also in 2001 field teams moved 18 

weaned pups to other islands at the atoll where no sharks exhibited patrolling behavior (MMC 

2002).

Human Disturbance: To help minimize seal disturbance by people and pets at pupping and haulout sites in the main Hawaiian Islands, NMFS and the State of Hawaii Division of Aquatic 

Resources have launched cooperative efforts with volunteers and local officials to educate the 

public about seal protection needs and to mark off temporary seal safety zones around hauled-out 

animals (MMC 2002). On Kauai, where seals haul out most frequently, a fulltime coordinator 

was hired by the state to work with local authorities and the volunteer Monk Seal Watch 

Program. NMFS also has hired a similar coordinator for the other main islands. To mitigate the 

injury to seals hooked on fishing gear or entangled, procedures have been put in place to 

expedite a response by trained experts and to provide veterinary assistance as needed. In some 

cases where interactions with people pose particular risks for seals or people, seals have been 

captured and relocated. 

Disease and Contaminants: To address disease and contaminant risks, monk seals are 

occasionally captured and moved away from hazardous areas, and efforts are made to monitor 

for the presence of pathogens. Efforts also have been taken to improve monitoring of seals for 

the presence of disease and contaminants. Steps also are currently being taken to investigate the 

feasibility and safety of vaccinating Hawaiian monks seals against phocine morbillivirus, a 

distemper virus that has caused significant mortality in other seal species and may be spread to 

monk seals from other pinnipeds that occasionally visit the Hawaiian Islands (Braun and 

Yochem 2006). 

Staff and Funding Levels: According to the Marine Mammal Commission survey of federally 

funded marine mammal research (Waring 2002), expenditures for biological and population 

assessment research on Hawaiian monk seals between FY1991 and FY2000 ranged from less 

than $500,000 in FY1991 to nearly $1.9 million in FY2000 (see Appendix F). NMFS was the 

principal source of funding. 

Efforts to recover Hawaiian monk seals have received regular appropriations from Congress for 

many years. According to FWS annual reports on endangered species expenditures (FWS 

2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006), NMFS allocated an average of about $2.1 million per year to monk 

seal recovery work between 1998 and 2004 (Table 9, Appendices C.1–7). Although not reported 

in endangered species expenditure reports, FWS also has allocated funding annually for monk 

seal-related activities in its Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge since the 1970s. Recent 

funding levels have been approximately $75,000 per year (FWS and USGS 1997–2004). The 
38

Table 9. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of Hawaiian monk 

seals, 1998–2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal

Year

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal

Total 

Federal

State Total 

State and 

Federal

1998 – – 1,504 – 12 1,516 – 1,516 

1999 – – 1,052 48 4 1,104 0.4 1,105 

2000 – – 1,210 – 43 1,253 14 1,267 

2001 – – 2,100 2 5 2,108 14 2,121 

2002 – – 2,100 46 38 2,184 14 2,197 

2003 – – 2,100 – 30 2,130 15 2,145 

2004 – 1 2,164 105 51 2,321 – 2,321 

state of Hawaii, the Marine Mammal Commission, and NOAA’s Hawaii Humpback Whale 

National Marine Sanctuary also have contributed modest amounts of funding not reflected in the 

FWS annual expenditure surveys. NMFS budget documents specify budget allocations for 

Hawaiian monk seal activities below those levels reported to FWS for the annual expenditures 

reports. Line items specifically related to monk seals in those documents rose from $798,000 in 

2001 to $816,000 in 2004 (see Appendix E). 

Table 10. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement recovery activities for Hawaiian 

monk seals during the first five years after adoption of the 2005 draft revised recovery 

plan (NMFS 2006e) 

Action Objective Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total 

Conserve monk seal habitat 11,362 312 312 112 112 12,210

Reduce interactions with fisheries 1,625 1,625 1,625 1,625 1,625 8,125

Investigate food limitation 940 970 1,020 970 870 4,770

Population research, monitoring 1,550 1,500 1,450 1,450 1,450 7,400

Prevent infectious disease 610 567 567 567 567 2,898

Minimize impacts of biotoxins 425 200 125 75 75 900

Reduce aggression by male seals * * * * * *

Prevent entanglements 1,335 1,325 1,310 1,285 1,270 6,525

Reduce human disturbance 1,249 1,249 1,249 1,249 1,249 6,245

Reduce effects of vessel groundings 487 75 62 62 132 818

Reduce shark predation 350 250 250 250 250 1,350

Reduce impacts of contaminants 65 - - - - 65

Main Hawaiian Islands mgmt. plan 40 10 - - - 50

Public education and outreach 310 150 150 150 150 910

TOTAL 20,368 8,233 8,120 7,795 7,750 52,226

* The cost for this task is included in costs for other tasks. 
39

NMFS estimates that its headquarters and regional offices devoted 1.2 FTEs to monk seal 

management activities in 2005, while its fishery science centers devoted at least 21 FTEs to 

Hawaiian monk seal research activities.7

 Most of those positions are devoted to research and 

conservation efforts (e.g., disentangling seals, capturing and moving aggressive male seals, 

removing sharks, etc.) by field teams visiting the NWHI annually to monitor major breeding 

colonies. As shown in Table 10, the revised draft monk seal recovery plan (NMFS 2006e) 

projects total implementation costs for the first five fiscal years after adoption at $52.3 million 

(including activities ranked from priority 1 through 3). 

Guadalupe Fur Seal 

Population Status: The range of the Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) once 

extended south from Monterey, California, to the Revillagigedo Islands off southern Baja 

California, Mexico. The species’ initial population size has been estimated to have been at least 

20,000 animals and perhaps as many as 100,000 (Fleischer 1987, NMFS 2006a). Commercial 

hunting in the 19th century nearly drove the species to extinction. In 1911, commercial 

harvesting was prohibited under terms of the North Pacific Fur Seal Treaty. 

Following the capture of two adult males at Guadalupe Island off Mexico in 1928, this species 

was not reported again until 1949 (Bartholomew 1950). Since then, its abundance has increased 

at an estimated annual growth rate of 13.7 percent. The current best estimate of abundance, 

which is based on extrapolations from counts of animals on rookeries in 1993, is 7,408 seals. 

Based on that estimate, a PBR of 91 animals was calculated (NMFS 2006a). The species also has 

been expanding into its former range. Guadalupe fur seals are regularly sighted in low numbers 

on San Miguel and San Nicolas Islands off southern California, and in 1997 a pup was born at 

San Miguel Island. 

The species was listed as threatened under the ESCA in 1970, but for unknown reasons it was 

omitted from the list of threatened species carried forward under the ESA. In November 1983 the 

Center for Environmental Education (now The Ocean Conservancy) petitioned NMFS to list the 

species as endangered. In December 1985 NMFS listed the species as threatened. It also is listed 

as threatened under California state law. 

Major Threats: The cessation of commercial hunting in the early 1900s removed the major 

cause of the species’ decline. Other possible threats include incidental mortality and injury in 

commercial fisheries and entanglement in debris. Incidental mortality of Guadalupe fur seals has 

not been documented in any U.S. or Mexican fisheries (NMFS 2006a). However, in the 1990s 

incidental mortalities of unidentified marine mammals that may have included Guadalupe fur 

seals were documented in drift and set gillnet fisheries off southern California and off the Pacific 

coast of Baja California, Mexico. Some fur seals also may be killed as a result of entanglement 

in derelict fishing gear and marine debris. As indicated above, however, such mortality has not 

prevented the species’ abundance from increasing steadily. 

 

7

 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115 
40

Management Framework: NMFS is the lead agency for implementation of the ESA and the 

MMPA regarding Guadalupe fur seals. No recovery teams have been established specifically to 

promote the recovery of this species. 

Critical Habitat: In listing Guadalupe fur seals as threatened under the ESA, NMFS rejected a 

request by the petitioner to designate waters in the Channel Islands off southern California as 

critical habitat (50 Fed. Reg. 51254). NMFS concluded that other management measures would 

provide sufficient protection and noted that the species’ primary breeding grounds are under the 

jurisdiction of Mexico. 

Recovery Plan: No recovery plan has been prepared. When the species was listed as threatened 

in 1985, NMFS identified criteria for initiating a status review to determine whether Guadalupe 

fur seals should be delisted (50 Fed. Reg. 51256): 

x Growth of the population to 30,000 animals (the lower end of estimates of the initial 

population size); 

x Establishment of one or more additional rookeries within the species’ historical range; and 

x Growth in abundance to the level at which maximum net productivity level occurs. 

Major Management Actions: NMFS does not actively manage the conservation of Guadalupe 

fur seals although it has provided some funding for research. 

Staff and Funding Levels: According to FWS annual reports on endangered species 

expenditures for 1998–2004 (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006), federal agencies reported 

expenditures for Guadalupe fur seal activities that ranged between zero in most years to $2,200 

in 2000 (Appendices C.1–7). NMFS budget documents for the period FY2001–FY2005 did not 

identify any funding specifically for Guadalupe fur seals. NMFS estimates that its fishery science 

centers devoted at least 0.2 FTE on Guadalupe fur seal research activities in 2005, but that its 

headquarters and regional offices spent no time on this species that year.8

Northern Fur Seal, Eastern Pacific (Pribilof Islands) Population 

Population Status: Northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) range from southern California 

north to the Bering Sea and west as far as Honshu Island in Japan (Angliss and Lodge 2003d). 

There are five populations on at least six island groups: the Commander Islands (Russia), the 

Kuril Islands (Russia), Robbin Island (Russia), the Pribilof Islands and Bogoslof Island in the 

eastern Bering Sea (United States), and San Miguel Island off southern California (United States) 

(NMFS 1993). In the past, about 75 percent of all northern fur seals worldwide occurred on the 

Pribilof Islands during the breeding season (Angliss and Lodge 2003d). From 1918 until 1984 

fur seals from this population were harvested commercially for their pelts under terms of the 

Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals. The Convention was established to stop 

pelagic sealing practices that had nearly eliminated all populations by the late 1800s. Under its 

 

8

 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 
41

terms, harvests were limited to juvenile male seals that haul out at rookeries in the spring. Pelts 

from the land-based harvest were allocated among the four signatory nations (i.e., the United 

States, the Soviet Union, Japan, and Canada). This harvest practice resulted in a steady increase 

in abundance through the first half of the 1900s. By the 1950s the Pribilof Islands’ fur seal herd 

may have exceeded two million animals—a level thought to be near their pre-exploitation 

population size (NMFS 1993). 

In the late 1950s harvest practices were changed to include a take of adult females. At the time, it 

was thought this would result in a brief decline in population size, followed by an increase in pup 

production, which would increase the number of juveniles available for harvest. The population 

size soon began to decline as expected, but after a take of about 300,000 females over several 

years, pup production failed to increase. As a result, harvests were again limited to juvenile 

males in the late 1960s. It was expected that the decline would reverse within a few years; 

however, the decline continued through the early 1980s, by which time the Pribilof Islands fur 

seal population was less than half its size in the early 1950s. As a result of the decline, harvests 

were steadily reduced, and in 1984 the United States declined to ratify an extension of the 

Convention. Management authority therefore reverted to domestic legislation under the MMPA 

and the Fur Seal Act. Under this authority, commercial harvests are prohibited, and taking is 

limited to subsistence harvests by Alaska Natives at a much-reduced level. 

The reason for the continued decline long after the harvest of females was suspended has not 

been determined. Entanglement of juvenile seals in marine debris was postulated a possible 

cause. Based on a status review done by NMFS in response to a petition to list North Pacific fur 

seals as threatened under the ESA, NMFS designated the Pribilof Island fur seal population as 

depleted under the MMPA in 1988. The action was taken because the population was less than 

50 percent of its size in the 1950s and below 60 percent of its carrying capacity (53 Fed. Reg. 

17888). In the late 1980s and early 1990s the population stabilized at its reduced level, but in the 

mid-1990s it again began to decline for uncertain reasons. Based on a count made in 2004, the 

current best estimate of abundance for the Pribilof Islands fur seal population is 688,028. The 

calculated PBR level is 14,546 animals (NMFS 2005a). 

Major Threats: The following have been identified as known or potential threats to the Pribilof 

Islands fur seal population: 

Prey Availability: In its analysis of population trends at the time fur seals were designated as 

depleted in 1988, NMFS concluded that expansion of groundfish fisheries in the North Pacific 

(i.e., trawl fisheries for pollock, flatfishes, and other demersal finfish) had not reduced the 

carrying capacity for northern fur seals (53 Fed. Reg. 17891). However, in a conservation plan 

for the fur seal population adopted in 1993 (NMFS 1993), NMFS noted that the biomass of 

Pacific herring and walleye pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area had changed 

significantly since the 1960s. Given the importance of pollock as prey for northern fur seals, 

NMFS suggested that expansion of fisheries for those species may have altered the northern fur 

seal’s food supply, but that the causes for the shifts in prey abundance and their impact on 

northern fur seals were largely unknown. In the conservation plan NMFS also drew parallels 

with the decline of the Steller sea lion. 
42

Incidental Catch in Fisheries: In designating Pribilof Islands fur seals as depleted in 1988, NMFS 

evaluated information on the number of fur seals caught incidentally in commercial fisheries. It 

concluded that although some animals were taken in foreign and domestic fisheries, the number 

was insignificant (53 Fed. Reg. 17893). More recently, NMFS estimated that minimum annual 

mortality in commercial fisheries is 15 fur seals per year based on observer data and selfreporting by fishermen (NMFS 2005a). This level of mortality is well below the PBR level for 

this population and is considered insignificant and approaching a zero mortality and serious 

injury rate. 

Entanglement in Marine Debris: Mortality of juvenile seals due to entanglement in marine 

debris, particularly packing bands and derelict trawl nets, has been suggested as a significant 

factor in the decline of the population in the 1970s and early 1980s (Fowler 1982, 1985). Those 

analyses suggested that as many as 50,000 fur seals per year may have been entangled and 

drowned at sea in derelict fishing nets and other marine debris adrift in the North Pacific Ocean. 

Juvenile fur seals, which spend their first two years of life entirely at sea after leaving the 

rookeries, are thought to be particularly susceptible to entanglement because of their smaller 

head size relative to trawl net mesh sizes and their tendency to interact with floating objects. 

Documentation of this hypothesis, however, has proved elusive because of the vast pelagic 

habitat used by fur seals. Entanglement rates observed on rookeries have been on the order of 

three to four per thousand animals observed but may not accurately reflect pelagic entanglement 

rates because they are limited to animals that survive long enough to swim ashore. The rate of 

entanglement among subadult males observed on rookeries, however, appears to have declined 

somewhat since the early 1980s (NMFS 1993, 2005a). 

Habitat Concerns: Recent industrial and other development on the Pribilof Islands may affect fur 

seal rookeries through the discharge of seafood processing waste, oil and contaminant spills, 

increased direct human disturbance, and increased levels of noise and olfactory pollution (NMFS 

2005a). Pup production at two of three rookeries nearest to human settlements and sewer outfalls 

has declined. 

Management Framework: As noted previously, fur seals were managed under the Fur Seal 

Convention until 1984. While the Convention was in force, it was implemented in the United 

States under the Fur Seal Act, which superseded the authority of the MMPA. When the 

Convention expired in October 1984, management authority reverted to the MMPA. NMFS is 

responsible for management actions, some of which are implemented in cooperation with the 

Aleut communities of St. Paul and St. George Islands (Pribilof Islands), which continue to take 

some fur seals for subsistence purposes. There currently is no conservation or recovery team 

specifically for northern fur seals. 

Critical Habitat: Not applicable 

Recovery Plan: Because northern fur seals are not listed as endangered or threatened, no 

recovery plan has been prepared. However, in June 1993 NMFS approved a final conservation 

plan for northern fur seals under authority added to the MMPA in 1988 (NMFS 1993). The plan 

is presently under revision. Its goal is to restore the population of northern fur seals to the point 

where it is no longer considered depleted. The 1993 plan used a population estimate for the 
43

1940s and 1950s of 2.1 million animals as the basis for estimating the population’s OSP level. 

The plan also used the peak production of pups in the same period as a benchmark. The point at 

which the population could be considered not depleted is described as follows: 

The population level at which maximum productivity would occur, and the level 

at which NMFS would reconsider the depleted classification, would occur at a 

sustained population level (total abundance estimate) and/or a sustained level of 

annual pup production which are 60 percent of the peak historical estimates. 

The plan identifies the following two objectives to achieve its goal: 

x Continue and, as necessary, expand research or management programs to monitor population 

trends and detect natural or human-related causes of change in the population and habitats 

essential to its survival and recovery; and 

x Assess and avoid or mitigate possible adverse effects of human-related activities on or near 

the Pribilof Islands and other essential habitat throughout the population’s range. 

Specific recovery actions described in the plan include monitoring the status and trend of the 

population; monitoring health, condition, and vital parameters; assessing causes of mortality; 

minimizing effects of disturbance; investigating feeding ecology and factors affecting energetic 

requirements; investigating relationships between fur seals and fishery resources; assessing 

effects of natural ecosystem changes; and coordinating conservation efforts with other agencies 

and countries. 

Major Management Actions: Upon expiration of the Fur Seal Convention in 1984, 

management authority reverted to the MMPA and the Fur Seal Act. With that shift, the 

commercial harvest was prohibited, and the Service issued regulations to manage subsistence 

taking by residents of the Pribilof Islands. Prior to that time, the Aleut community relied on fur 

seals killed in the commercial harvest for meat. In June 1986 NMFS issued a final rule regulating 

the subsistence take of fur seals (51 Fed. Reg. 24828). Like the past commercial harvest, the 

subsistence harvest is limited to juvenile male seals. Under the harvest regulations, annual 

projections of harvest needs are developed by NMFS based on household surveys of Pribilof 

Island Native hunters. Those projections are used to develop annual harvest level guidelines. 

Since the late 1980s harvest levels have declined gradually. Between 1999 and 2003 they 

declined from 1,193 to 654 (NMFS 2005a). NMFS officials have observed the hunt annually. 

NMFS, in cooperation with Native hunters, also has supported various research projects, 

including efforts to monitor entanglement rates among seals on the rookeries. As noted above, 

NMFS also adopted a conservation plan in 1993. Designation of the northern fur seal as depleted 

in 1988 imposed additional restrictions on taking of the species, as presented in the description of 

the MMPA discussed previously. 

Staff and Funding Levels: NMFS budget documents for the period FY2001–FY2005 do not 

identify specific funding for research or management activities involving Pribilof Island fur 

seals. NMFS estimates that its headquarters and regional offices devoted at least 1.7 FTEs on 

northern fur seal management activities and that its fishery science centers currently devote at 
44

least 8.4 FTEs on research activities for this population during 2005.9 The Marine Mammal 

Commission’s survey of federally funded marine mammal research (Waring 2002) reports that 

expenditures for biological research and population assessment for northern fur seals in FY1991–

FY2000 ranged from $6,000 in FY1991 to $1.9 million in 2000 (see Appendix F). NMFS was 

the principal source of funding.

Cost estimates for the first five years of recovery work, developed when the northern fur seal 

conservation plan was adopted in 1991, projected annual funding needs ranging from $1.27 to 

$1.67 million per year for a five-year total of $7.2 million (NMFS 1991). Actual expenditures 

during that period are uncertain but are believed to have been much lower. NMFS administrative 

reports required by the MMPA do not provide information on expenditures for this population, 

and FWS annual reports on expenditures for threatened and endangered species do not include 

data on this species because it is not listed as endangered or threatened. 

Steller Sea Lion, Eastern Population 

Status: The eastern population of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus), one of two recognized 

Steller sea lion populations, is distributed east and south of Cape Suckling, Alaska (i.e., a point at 

144° W longitude west of Prince William Sound in the northern Gulf of Alaska) along the west 

coast of North America to southern California (NMFS 2005a). The population was initially listed 

as threatened under the ESA in 1990 when the entire species was listed as such. In 1997 the 

listing was modified to recognize the western population as endangered while retaining the 

threatened status for the eastern population. 

Based on aerial surveys from southeast Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and 

California in 2002, the eastern population numbers an estimated 44,996 animals and is increasing 

(NMFS 2005a). However, between 1980 and 2001 Steller sea lion abundance in central and 

southern California at the southern extreme of the population’s range declined by half to 1,500 to 

2,000 animals older than pups. Elsewhere in California and Oregon, counts of non-pups at trend 

sites have remained relatively stable since the 1980s. Counts of non-pups in southeast Alaska 

increased at about 2 percent annually between 1979 and 2002 to 9,951 while non-pup counts in 

British Columbia increased at an average annual rate of 2.8 percent between 1971 and 1998 

(NMFS 2005a). The status of the population relative to its OSP size is unknown. The PBR level 

was calculated as 1,967 (NMFS 2005a). 

Major Threats: From 1999 to 2003 observers monitored several commercial fisheries believed 

to take Steller sea lions incidentally (NMFS 2005a). The observed fisheries included longline, 

trawl, gillnet, and troll fisheries in Alaska, Oregon, Washington, and California. Combining data 

from observers and reports by fishermen, the average incidental take in U.S. fisheries between 

1999 and 2004 has been estimated to average 3.8 eastern Steller sea lions per year. Incidental 

take in both U.S. and Canadian fisheries is estimated to number at least 4.2 sea lions per year. 

 

9

 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115 
45

Because this total is less than 10 percent of the PBR level, it is considered insignificant and 

approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate. Between 1999 and 2002 an average of about 

45 animals were shot annually because they were preying on salmon in aquaculture pens in 

British Columbia. Such shooting is no longer allowed (NMFS 2005a). 

Mortality from other known human-related sources is also relatively low. Between 2000 and 

2003 subsistence takes by Alaska Natives averaged just four animals per year (NMFS 2005a). 

Before Steller sea lions were listed as threatened in 1990, indiscriminate shootings were thought 

to be a potentially significant source of mortality (NMFS 2005a) despite the fact that it was 

illegal under the MMPA after 1972. Since 1999 two illegal shootings of Steller sea lions were 

documented from stranded animals and were successfully prosecuted. 

Management Framework: The management framework for the eastern population of Steller 

sea lions is described in the recovery plan adopted in 1992. The framework is the same as for the 

western Steller sea lion population and is discussed later. 

Critical Habitat: In 1993 the Service designated waters and lands within 3,000 ft of rookeries 

and major haul-out sites east of 144° W longitude as critical habitat. 

Recovery Plan: A recovery plan for Steller sea lions throughout their U.S. range was approved 

in 1992 (see the western Steller sea lion section). A plan specific to the eastern population has 

not been developed. However, a new plan addressing both the western and eastern populations 

was developed and made available for public review in 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 29919). 

Major Management Actions: Other than steps taken to designate critical habitat, populationspecific management actions to promote recovery of eastern Steller sea lions have been limited 

largely to section 7 consultations concerning activities that could potentially affect the 

population.

Staff and Funding Levels: Until recently, the cost of recovery activities for eastern Steller sea 

lions has not been reported separately from that of the western population. Before 2003 FWS 

annual expenditure reports for endangered species (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–e) combined funding 

for both eastern and western Steller sea lion populations. In 2003 and 2004 those surveys 

indicate that NMFS spent $4.1 and $9.6 million, respectively, on the eastern population’s 

recovery, while the state of Alaska spent $1.2 million each year (FWS 2005f, 2006) (Table 11, 

Appendix C.6–7, Appendix D). For the most part, those efforts included measuring parameters in 

the relatively healthy eastern population for purposes of comparison with the endangered western 

population to help elucidate causes of the latter’s decline. NMFS estimates that it devoted at least 

6.4 FTEs in staff effort on eastern Steller sea lion recovery work (1.3 FTEs by its regional offices 

and headquarters and 5.1 FTEs by its science centers) during 2005.10

 

10 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115 
46

Table 11. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of the eastern 

population of Steller sea lions, 1998–2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) (Dash 

means no data were provided.) 

Fiscal

Year

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal

Total 

Federal

State

Total 

State and 

Federal

1998 a – – 3,040 – 20 3,060 19 3,079 

1999 a – – 4,879 2,291 56 7,226 8 7,234 

2000 a – – 5,243 7,810 54 13,107 6 13,113 

2001 a – – 33,312 11,067 66 44,445 2,338 46,783 

2002 a – – 29,295 24,172 35 53,502 2,496 55,998 

2003 b – – 4,090 N/A 4 4,094 1,203 5,297 c

2004 b – – 9,605 N/A 3 9,608 1,203 10,811 c

a

 Includes funding for both eastern and western populations 

b

 Includes funding only for eastern population 

c Excludes Coast Guard support for enforcement 

Steller Sea Lion, Western Population 

Status: The western population of Steller sea lions, one of two currently recognized populations, 

occurs along the North Pacific Ocean rim from the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk Sea to Cape 

Suckling, Alaska. Between the 1970s and late 1990s western Steller sea lions declined by 80 

percent in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (NOAA Fisheries 2000). In 

1990 the entire species was listed as threatened throughout its range (NMFS 1992). Subsequent 

research revealed that the species was comprised of two separate populations, and in 1997 

NMFS designated the western population as endangered while continuing to recognize the 

eastern population as threatened. 

The number of Steller sea lions in the western population was estimated to be at least 140,000 

animals in the 1950s and 1960s (NMFS 2005a). Counts in the late 1970s indicated a decline to 

roughly 110,000 animals, and between 1975 and 1985 the population continued to decline at an 

average annual rate of 5.9 percent (National Research Council 2003). The rate of annual decline 

increased dramatically to 15.9 percent between 1985 and 1990 before returning to about 5 

percent through the 1990s. Since 2000 counts of the population have increased slightly. Between 

2002 and 2004 counts at trend sites increased about 5.2 percent per year. The best estimate of 

total population size based on surveys in 2004 is 38,513 sea lions, which is is 32 percent less 

than the count in 1990 and more than 70 percent below counts estimates from the 1950s and 

1960s. The current PBR level is 231 animals (NMFS 2005a). 

Major Threats: The cause of the decline of Steller sea lions has been the subject of great 

controversy and scientific debate because of the potential effect of conservation measures on 

major groundfish fisheries in Alaska (NRC 2003, MMC 2002, NOAA Fisheries 2000). Possible 

causes of the decline include disease, pollution, entanglement in marine debris, commercial and 

subsistence harvest of sea lions, illegal killing, predation by killer whales and sharks, natural 
47

environmental changes in carrying capacity, and interactions with commercial fisheries, 

including both incidental catch and depletion of available prey resources. Most of these factors 

are not thought to have been likely causes of the population decline. 

x Disease, pollution, and entanglement in marine debris are not considered significant sources 

of mortality (MMC 2002). 

x Steller sea lions have not been harvested commercially since the passage of the MMPA in 

1972 (National Research Council 2003). Between 1963 and 1972, 45,178 pups were 

harvested in the eastern Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska (NMFS 1992). Although 

half of the pups on some islands were killed in some years, the effect of this take does not 

explain the long-term decline since the early 1970s. 

x The mean annual subsistence take by hunters in Alaska coastal communities—principally in 

the Pribilof Islands—was 187 sea lions between 2000 and 2003 (NMFS 2005a), a level not 

considered a likely cause of the decline. 

x After the initial listing of Steller sea lions as threatened in 1990, shootings of sea lions by 

fishermen are thought to have become less frequent. In 1998 two such violators were 

successfully prosecuted, but no successful cases were brought between 2000 and 2003 

(NMFS 2005a). 

x The role of predation by killer whales is controversial. Evidence suggests that such predation 

had limited effects during the major part of the decline in the 1970s and 1980s but may now 

be more significant given the species’ much-reduced population size (NMFS 2005a). 

x Analyses of fishery observer data between 1990 and 2003 suggest an average annual take of 

25 sea lions incidental to groundfish trawl, longline, and trap, and salmon gillnet fisheries in 

the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and in the Gulf of Alaska (NMFS 2005a). When selfreporting by fishermen and stranding data are added, the minimum mean annual mortality 

rate increases to 31 sea lions per year. Because this level exceeds 10 percent of the PBR level 

for western Steller sea lions, current levels of incidental take in fisheries are not considered 

insignificant and approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate (NMFS 2005a).11

Although incidental taking in fisheries exceeds this target level for fishery-related mortality, 

the current minimum estimate of all sources of human-caused mortality (218 animals) is 

below the calculated PBR level. 

Much of the debate about causes of the decline of Steller sea lions has centered upon the degree 

to which climate change and fishing have reduced prey and, by extension, the nutritional fitness 

of Steller sea lions (National Research Council 2003, MMC 2002, NMFS 1992). The 

oceanographic regime of the North Pacific undergoes periodic shifts that can have profound 

effects on fisheries and wildlife populations, including sea lion prey species. A significant 

regime shift occurred in the late 1970s, and one hypothesis is that the shift led to a decrease in 

available prey of high nutritional quality, thereby compromising growth and survival of juvenile 

sea lions and reproduction of adult females. Alternatively, intensive fishing by foreign fleets off 

Alaska between the late 1950s and early 1970s may have been a major factor in changing the 

abundance levels of prey populations. 

 

11 In calculating the PBR level for the western population of Steller sea lions, NMFS applied the recovery factor for an 

endangered species of 0.1 (NMFS 2005a). At the same time, NMFS noted that this recovery factor and the entire regime of PBR 

were based on the assumption that direct human-related mortalities would be the primary reason for declines in marine mammal 

abundance—an assumption that may not be warranted for Steller sea lions.
48

Currently operating fisheries also may affect Steller sea lion populations by reducing prey. Both 

fisheries (including those for pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod) and sea lions exploit the 

same species in the same geographic regions during the same seasons (MMC 2002). During the 

course of the sea lion decline, harvests were managed to reduce the biomass of some prey 

species by as much as 65 percent or more. Recent management strategies are attempting to limit 

reductions to 60 percent of their estimated unfished biomass. The extent to which prey species 

can be removed without significant ecological effects on marine predators such as the Steller sea 

lion is not clear and is a subject being addressed in section 7 consultations. The effects of 

removing such a large percentage of available biomass are further confounded by the manner in 

which they are removed. Much of the controversy regarding fishery effects on Steller sea lions 

has focused on where and when the prey are removed because the concentration of fishing effort 

in time and space can exacerbate effects by causing excessive localized depletions. In addition, 

fishing concentrated in areas close to rookeries and haul-out sites can exacerbate general 

reductions in biomass because sea lions must then extend their foraging range and use more 

energy to find the prey needed. All of these effects are considered to be most significant for 

young animals making the transition to independent foraging and for females that must support 

their own nutritional needs plus those of dependent pups and developing fetuses. Evidence 

collected in the 1970s and 1980s indicated that growth, survival, and reproduction all may have 

been compromised during that period, suggesting the animals were subject to nutritional 

limitations. Unfortunately, the effects of oceanic regime shifts and fishing may become 

expressed more or less identically, making discrimination between these potential causes 

difficult. 

A National Academy of Sciences panel reviewed the principal hypotheses for the decline of the 

western population of Steller sea lions and divided them into two trophically based categories: 

bottom-up and top-down categories (National Research Council 2003). The former includes 

effects that alter the carrying capacity of the ecosystem and that could affect the physical 

condition of sea lions (e.g., large-scale fisheries, climate change, pollutants, and disease). The 

latter includes effects that are independent of the system’s carrying capacity but could still cause 

sea lion mortality (e.g., increased predation by killer whales or sharks, incidental taking in 

fishing gear). The panel concluded that there is no definitive evidence to support any particular 

hypothesis for the decline of the western population of Steller sea lions. 

Management Framework: NMFS is the lead federal agency responsible for managing Steller 

sea lions. Implications that fisheries off Alaska have been a major factor in the decline of Steller 

sea lions have received great attention. Fishery management plans for walleye pollock, Pacific 

cod, and Atka mackerel in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands region and the Gulf of Alaska have 

been the subject of numerous formal consultations under section 7 of the ESA and numerous 

directives by the courts and Congress. Between 1998 and 2003 NMFS conducted six different 

section 7 consultations related to Steller sea lions, all but one of which examined groundfish 

fisheries.

The initial forum within which these fishery management plans are discussed and developed is 

the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Like other regional fishery management 

councils, the North Pacific council has the lead in drafting and recommending measures under 

which the fisheries operate. Those measures must be reviewed by NMFS and meet standards of 
49

the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the ESA, the MMPA, and 

the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Congress also has played an active role in managing interactions between Alaska groundfish 

trawl fisheries and Steller sea lions. For instance, in its appropriations bill for FY2001, Congress 

modified the reasonable and prudent alternatives in a biological opinion. Congress also required 

that measures aimed at compliance with the ESA be developed consistent with the procedures 

and requirements of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

NMFS administers a coordinated Steller sea lion research program that includes participants 

from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the North Pacific Universities Marine Mammal 

Research Consortium, the Alaska SeaLife Center, and other agencies and organizations. The 

program includes extensive studies to monitor population trends and elucidate possible causes of 

the Steller sea lion decline (NOAA Fisheries 2000). Since Steller sea lions were listed in 1990, 

NMFS has conducted annual subadult/adult and biennial pup counts. Other studies have 

examined sea lion feeding ecology and prey biomass. The University of Alaska Fairbanks and a 

consortium of fishing companies have undertaken research under the aegis of the Pollock 

Conservation Cooperative Research Center. 

NMFS also has taken steps to manage subsistence harvests of Steller sea lions in cooperation 

with Alaska Native hunters. From 1995 to 1997 NMFS sponsored efforts to increase Native 

awareness of the status of Steller sea lions and to encourage local management of the subsistence 

harvest. In 1997 representatives from Alaska Native communities in the Aleutian and Pribilof 

Islands formed a regional marine mammal commission to help manage certain marine mammals, 

including Steller sea lions, taken for subsistence purposes (NOAA Fisheries 2000). In 1999 an 

Alaska Native organization known then as the Alaska Sea Otter Commission added Steller sea 

lions to its responsibilities. Since then NMFS has worked with both the Native commission and 

the tribal government of St. Paul to develop a range-wide conservation program for Steller sea 

lions.

Critical Habitat: In 1993 NMFS designated critical habitat in three types of areas (58 Fed. Reg. 

45269):

x Waters within 20 nmi of all rookeries and major haul-out sites west of 144° W longitude; 

x Foraging areas in Shelikof Strait, the southeastern Bering Sea, and Seguam Pass in the 

central Aleutian Island chain; and 

x Waters and lands within 3,000 ft of all rookeries and major haul-out sites east of 144° W 

longitude (i.e., for the eastern Steller sea lion population). 

Recovery Plan: Soon after the 1990 listing of Steller sea lions as threatened throughout their 

range, NMFS convened a Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team, which prepared the first recovery 

plan for the species (NMFS 1992). The plan’s goal was to promote the recovery of Steller sea 

lions “...to a level appropriate to justify removal from the ESA listings.” It also identified criteria 

for reclassifying and delisting the species based on an initial benchmark of 90,000 animals older 

than pups counted at selected trend sites located between the Kenai Peninsula to Kiska Island in 

the Aleutians. The recovery team recommended the following: 
50

x If the counts at designated trend sites in the area fall below 17 percent of the benchmark 

value, the species should be listed as endangered; 

x If the counts are greater than 17 percent but less than 40 percent of the benchmark, the 

species should remain threatened, with the following exception; if the count is greater than 

17 percent but less than 25 percent of the benchmark, the population should be listed as 

endangered if any of the following conditions apply: 

– The count at designated trend sites declines by at least 10 percent over three or more 

consecutive survey years; 

– The overall pup production index at trend sites declines by 10 percent over the count in 

the previous two-year period; or 

– The number of animals declines by at least 10 percent over a three-year period in three 

or more of the six other regions from Russia to California. 

The recovery plan included the following criteria for delisting the Steller sea lion (NMFS 1992): 

(1) the trend count in the area is greater than 40 percent of the benchmark value of 90,000 

animals older than pups, and (2) the number of animals is stable or increasing in at least three of 

the six other regions. NMFS decided not to adopt these criteria, pending further analysis. 

The recovery plan also identifies recovery actions to accomplish the following: 

x Identify habitat requirements and protect areas of special biological significance; 

x Identify management stocks; 

x Monitor status and trends of sea lions; 

x Monitor health, condition, and vital parameters; 

x Assess and minimize causes of mortality; 

x Investigate feeding ecology and factors affecting energetic status; and 

x Implement a recovery plan and coordinate recovery activities. 

In 2001 NMFS convened a new 20-member recovery team to draft a revised recovery plan for 

both the western and eastern Steller sea lions. A revised recovery plan has been developed by the 

team and was made available for public review in 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 29919). 

Major Management Actions: Management actions put into place with the initial listing of 

Steller sea lions in 1990 include the following (MMC 2001): 

x Prohibiting the discharge of firearms within 100 yards of a sea lion; 

x Prohibiting most vessels from transiting within 3 nmi of major rookeries in the Aleutian 

Islands and Gulf of Alaska; and 

x Monitoring incidental mortality and reducing the allowable annual take quota from 1,350 to 

675 sea lions. 

Between 1991 and 1998 NMFS established no-trawl zones within 10 nmi of 37 sea lion 

rookeries in Alaska, with seasonal extensions to 20 nmi around six major rookeries in the eastern 

Aleutian Islands and the Bering Sea, and prepared several biological opinions on the effects of 

trawl fisheries on sea lions. Among other things, the opinions led the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council and NMFS to adjust time and area catch allocations to prevent 
51

concentrated fishing effort in foraging areas beyond the no-trawl zones around major haul-out 

sites (MMC 2001). 

1998 Fishery Actions: NMFS issued several biological opinions finding that the pollock fisheries 

in the Bering Sea /Aleutian Islands areas and Gulf of Alaska could jeopardize Steller sea lions 

and their critical habitat. The opinions included reasonable and prudent measures that further 

dispersed fishing effort and limited catches in sea lion foraging areas. The agency also 

recommended studies on the efficacy of no-trawl zones, the foraging range of young-of-the-year 

Steller sea lions, and site-by-site relationships between fishing effort and trends in juvenile 

survival. Partially in response to litigation, NMFS issued additional biological opinions late in 

December 1998 on management plans for all three fisheries. Although one opinion for the 

proposed Atka mackerel fishery concluded that the fishery was not likely to jeopardize Steller 

sea lions or their designated critical habitat, a separate opinion concluded that the proposed plan 

for the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands groundfish fishery would do so. Upon 

reaching this conclusion, the opinion proposed a management framework to avoid jeopardy by 

dispersing fisheries adjacent to rookeries and haul-out sites, both temporally and spatially. 

NMFS later incorporated measures developed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 

into the biological opinion as reasonable and prudent alternatives, allowing the fishery to 

proceed.

1999 Fishery Actions: Measures developed in the December 1998 biological opinions were 

implemented by regulation in January 1999. In December 1999 NMFS issued a biological 

opinion on the total allowable catch of groundfish recommended by the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council for 2000 (NOAA Fisheries 2000). The opinion concluded no jeopardy or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

2000 Fishery Actions: In November 2000 NMFS issued a biological opinion on new measures 

for Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands groundfish fisheries (NOAA Fisheries 

2000). The opinion found that the fisheries, as implemented under the fishery management plans, 

would jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions and adversely modify their critical 

habitat. The biological opinion set out the following reasonable and prudent alternatives to be 

phased in, beginning in 2001: 

x Adopting a more precautionary rule for setting overall catch limits; 

x Extending 3-nmi no-fishing zones around rookeries and haul-out areas to sites not already 

protected;

x Closing areas around some rookeries and haul-out sites out to 20 nmi; 

x Establishing catch limits on a seasonal basis inside critical habitat and two seasonal 

releases of quotas outside of critical habitat; and 

x Establishing a procedure for setting limits on catch levels in critical habitat based on the 

biomass of target species in critical habitat. 

To help address uncertainties about interactions between fisheries and Steller sea lions, Congress 

authorized a significant increase in funding for Steller sea lion research late in 2000. The 

legislation also directed that certain modifications be made in the reasonable and prudent 

alternatives and that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the National Academy 
52

of Sciences undertake an independent review to assess underlying hypotheses regarding 

interactions between Steller sea lions and fisheries and recommend reasonable and prudent 

management measures. 

2001 Fishery Actions: NMFS began phasing in reasonable and prudent alternatives reflective of 

its 2000 biological opinion and congressional directives. A new biological opinion was released 

recommending additional measures to avoid interactions between sea lions and fisheries. A 

National Research Council report concluded that fishing might have negative effects on Steller 

sea lions, but that data are limited and circumstantial (National Research Council 2003). The 

report recommended studies to monitor population trends and investigate temporal and spatial 

scales of sea lion foraging and hypotheses concerning local prey depletion. The report also 

concluded that, on a single-species basis, the fish stocks in the Alaska region were generally well 

managed although long-lived species with low recruitment may require more protective 

management. The review also concluded that there is not a sufficient basis to conclude that the 

existing management strategy is safe on an ecological basis and therefore protective of the 

ecosystem as a whole. 

2002 Fishery Actions: NMFS issued rules making previous measures adopted in 2001 permanent 

(60 Fed. Reg. 956). Ongoing litigation resulted in a court decision recommending that NMFS 

further modify its reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

2004 Fishery Actions: In December 2004 NMFS issued a final rule revising Steller sea lion 

protection measures in the pollock and Pacific cod fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska (69 Fed. Reg. 

75865). The regulations changed fishing closures near four Steller sea lion haul-out sites and 

revised the seasonal quotas for pollock. In doing so, NMFS concluded that the measures would 

be unlikely to affect Steller sea lion populations beyond levels identified in the 2000 biological 

opinion.

Staff and Funding Levels: Cost projections developed for the first five years of recovery work 

when the Steller sea lion recovery plan was adopted (NMFS 1992) suggested funding needs 

ranging from between $1.18 to $2.83 million per year for a five-year total of $11.4 million. 

Actual expenditures during that period are uncertain; however, according to the Marine Mammal 

Commission’s survey of federally funded marine mammal research (Waring 2002), annual 

expenditures for biological and population assessment research on Steller sea lions (including 

both eastern and western populations) during the 1990s ranged from $4,000 in FY1991 to $1.9 

million in FY1997 (Appendix F). The principal sources of funding were NMFS and the National 

Ocean Service, which funded studies on foraging patterns and competition for prey. 

Prior to 2003 FWS annual reports on endangered species expenditures also combined funding 

data for eastern and western Steller sea lions consistent with their listing as a single species under 

the ESA. According to those reports, federal expenditures for recovery of both populations in 

1998 were about $3.1 million, and state expenditures were $19,000 (FWS 2003d). Federal 

expenditures grew quickly in succeeding years to $7.2 million in 1999, $13.1 million in 2000, 

and $44.4 million in 2001 (Table 12, Appendices C.1–7) (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006). In 

2003 overall federal funding for western Steller sea lions alone reached $48.3 million. Of that 

total, $8.2 million was spent on research by NMFS (largely on contracts with other institutions) 
53

and $39.9 million was spent on enforcement by the U.S. Coast Guard (FWS 2005d).12 NMFS 

estimates that it devoted at least 14.4 FTEs in staff effort on eastern Steller sea lion recovery 

work (1.1 by its regional offices and headquarters staff and 13.3 by its science centers) during 

2005.13

NMFS budget documents indicate that budget allocations for Steller sea lions (including both 

eastern and western populations) declined from $35 million in 2001 to $17.7 million in 2004 (see 

Appendix E). 

Table 12. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of western population 

of Steller sea lions, 1998–2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) (Dash means no 

data were provided.) 

Fiscal

Year

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal

Total 

Federal

State

Total 

State

and 

Federal

1998 a – – 3,040 – 20 3,060 19 3,079 

1999 a – – 4,879 2,291 56 7,226 8 7,234 

2000 a – – 5,243 7,810 54 13,107 6 13,113 

2001 a – – 33,312 11,067 66 44,445 2,338 46,783 

2002 a – – 29,295 24,172 35 53,502 2,496 55,998 

2003b – – 8,180 39,940 194 48,314 1,200 49,514 

2004b – – 9,605 20,856 85 30,546 1,200 31,746 

a

 Includes funding for both eastern and western populations b

 Includes funding for western population only 

CETACEANS

Blue Whale 

Population Status: Blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus), the largest animals ever to live on 

earth, are found in all the world oceans. They have been divided into three subspecies: B. m. 

intermedia in Antarctic waters, B. m. musculus in the Northern Hemisphere, and B. m. 

brevicauda in the southern Indian Ocean and southwestern Pacific Ocean. For purposes of 

preparing stock assessment reports required under the MMPA, blue whales in U.S. waters have 

been divided into three populations: western North Atlantic, eastern North Pacific, and western 

North Pacific (NMFS 2006a). Blue whales were listed as endangered as a species throughout 

their range under the ESCA in 1970. That designation was carried forward under the ESA. The 

International Whaling Commission (IWC), the international organization responsible for 

 

12 Coast Guard cost estimates include the cost of vessel operations, including all crew and prorated maintenance costs, during 

periods when the vessel’s primary mission is identified as enforcement of fishery regulations to protect Steller sea lions. 

13 P. Michael Payne, personal communication, 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115. 
54

regulating commercial and subsistence whaling, classifies all populations of blue whales 

worldwide as “protection stocks” (i.e., stocks at less than 10 percent of their maximum 

sustainable yield level and for which no commercial whaling is allowed). 

Western North Atlantic Population: In the western North Atlantic, blue whales are most common 

off the east coast of Canada and only occasionally enter U.S. waters (NMFS 2002c). The only 

basis for an estimate of abundance for this population is a count of 308 blue whales made in the 

Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1987. 

Eastern North Pacific Population: Although the IWC considers blue whales throughout the North 

Pacific as a single population, it is now thought that as many as five separate populations occur 

in the North Pacific (NMFS 2005a, Reeves et al. 1998). One of these feeds principally along the 

coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington in summer and winters in calving grounds off 

Mexico and Central America. Based on surveys off California between 1996 and 2002, NMFS 

(2005a) concluded that the best estimate of abundance for this population is 1,744 whales. Based 

on a different analysis of those data by Calambokidis and Barlow (2004), however, the size of 

the population was estimated to be 2,994 whales. In general, their abundance appears to be 

increasing although it is possible that increases in blue whale counts since the mid-1990s simply 

reflect an increasing use of the California feeding grounds. The PBR level calculated for this 

population is 1.4 whales, which is greater than the documented mortality from ship strikes or 

fisheries (NMFS 2006a).

Western North Pacific Population: The western North Pacific population of blue whales is 

thought to winter in the central North Pacific and summer along the Aleutian Islands. However, 

based on rare sightings and acoustic recordings, blue whales enter the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone off Hawaii at least occasionally (NMFS 2006a). No data are available to estimate 

population size or PBR level. 

Major Threats: All populations of blue whales worldwide, including those in U.S. waters, were 

nearly eliminated by commercial whaling. A prohibition on hunting for blue whales was adopted 

by the IWC in 1966 (NMFS 2006a), but by that time whalers had taken at least 9,500 blue 

whales in the North Pacific and 11,000 in the North Atlantic, leaving populations in each ocean 

estimated to be fewer than 1,000 animals at that time. Current threats include the following: 

Fishery Interactions: Although blue whales may have been incidentally taken in offshore drift 

gillnet fisheries and longline fisheries, there are no confirmed records of such takings off Hawaii, 

California, or the U.S. Atlantic coast (NMFS 2006a,b). 

Vessel Collisions: Blue whales are occasionally injured or killed by collisions with ships (Laist 

2001, NMFS 2006a). In March 1998 a 66-ft male blue whale, likely killed when struck, was 

carried into Rhode Island waters on the bow of a tanker. In the eastern North Pacific, ship strikes 

were implicated in the deaths of at least four blue whales between 1980 and 1993 (Jensen and 

Silber 2003). 

Noise: Rising levels of anthropogenic noise in all the world’s oceans may disrupt long-distance 

communication of blue whales as well as other species of great whales. Whether such effects 

could alter their population abundance and trend is unknown. 
55

Management Framework: NMFS is the lead federal agency responsible for managing blue 

whales. In cooperation with the Department of State, NMFS develops and coordinates scientific 

advice and U.S. positions on related management issues considered at meetings of the IWC. No 

interagency management teams currently exist to assist or oversee management activities 

specifically related to blue whales. 

Critical Habitat: None designated. 

Recovery Plan: In July 1998 the Service adopted a recovery plan for blue whales (Reeves et al. 

1998). Its primary purpose is “...to identify a set of actions that will minimize or eliminate 

effects of human activities that are detrimental to the recovery of blue whale populations.” Its 

immediate objectives “are to identify factors that may be limiting the populations and actions 

necessary to allow the populations to increase.” Key actions highlighted in the plan focus on 

research to improve understanding of blue whale populations. The identified actions involve (1) 

determining population structure, (2) estimating population sizes and trends, (3) identifying and 

protecting essential habitats, (4) minimizing sources of human-caused injury and mortality, (5) 

coordinating federal, state, and international recovery efforts, (6) assessing detrimental effects of 

interactions with vessels, and (7) improving the collection of information from stranded and 

entangled animals. 

Major Management Actions: To address the impact of commercial whaling, the IWC imposed 

a ban on hunting blue whales in the North Atlantic in 1955 and in the North Pacific in 1966 

(Reeves et al. 1998). In 1986–1987 the ban was extended globally when the IWC, with the 

support of the U.S. delegation, adopted a moratorium on all commercial whaling. Other than 

preparing a blue whale recovery plan and blue whale stock assessment reports, NMFS has 

undertaken no management measures designed specifically to protect blue whales in U.S. waters. 

Most management actions related to blue whales involve actions focused on endangered whales 

in general. Although a few directed studies have been undertaken to assess the occurrence and 

movements of blue whales in the population off California, Oregon, and Washington, most 

information on blue whales in U.S. waters has been collected opportunistically (e.g., through 

stranding programs or incidental to studies on other species) or through studies to assess the 

regional composition of fauna. 

Staff and Funding Levels: According to available budget data, NMFS allocated $994,000 in 

FY2003 for the recovery of endangered large whales (e.g., bowhead, blue, fin, sei, and sperm 

whales). The amount devoted specifically to blue whales is uncertain (see Appendix E). NMFS 

estimates that its headquarters, regional offices, and fishery science centers devoted at least 1.6 

FTEs to blue whale recovery activities (0.4 by its headquarters and regional office staff and 1.2 

by its regional science centers) in 2005.14 According to FWS annual expenditure reports on 

endangered species (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006), very little or no funding has been devoted 

explicitly to blue whales by NMFS in recent years (Table 13, Appendices C1–7). Most recent 

funding has involved Coast Guard enforcement activities. 

 

14 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115
56

Table 13. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of blue whales, 1998–

2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal

Year

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal

Total 

Federal

State

Total 

State and 

Federal

1998 – – – – 3 3 1 4 

1999 120 – – – 5 125 – 125 

2000 – – – – 6 6 – 6 

2001 – – – – 1 1 – 1 

2002 – – – 7 1 8 – 8 

2003 – – – 199 4 203 – 203 

2004 – – – 60 4 65 2 67 

Cost projections developed for the first five years of recovery work when the blue whale 

recovery plan was adopted in 1998 (Reeves et al. 1998) suggested funding needs ranging from 

between $138,000 and $673,000 per year between 1999 and 2003 with a five-year total of $1.95 

million. Actual expenditures during that period are uncertain but were clearly below those levels.

Bowhead Whale, Western Arctic Population 

Population Status: The only population of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) occurring in 

U.S. waters is the western Arctic population. This is the largest of five bowhead whale 

populations found worldwide (NMFS 2005a). The western Arctic population migrates annually 

from winter areas in the northern Bering Sea through the Chukchi Sea to summer grounds in the 

Beaufort Sea. Arctic Native communities have hunted bowhead whales for more than 1,000 

years at levels that are not thought to have had a significant effect on overall abundance. From 

the late 1800s to the early 1900s, however, commercial whaling reduced the western Arctic 

population to fewer than 3,000 bowhead whales, and in 1970 the species was listed as 

endangered throughout its range under the ESCA. That designation was carried forward under 

the ESA. The IWC has classified all populations of bowhead whales as protection stocks for 

which no commercial whaling is allowed. 

Based on a count in 2001, the best abundance estimate for the western Arctic population is 

10,545 whales (NMFS 2005a). Past counts suggest that the population has been increasing 

steadily at an average annual rate of 3.1 percent since 1978. The PBR level is 95 whales. Based 

on an estimated pre-exploitation population size of 12,599 whales, the lower limit of its OSP size 

has been estimated at between 6,500 and 10,500 whales (Shelden et al. 2003a). 

Major Threats: With the cessation of commercial whaling, the principal management issues 

concerning western Arctic bowhead whales have been the subsistence harvest by Alaska Natives, 

the effects of noise and possible oil spills associated with offshore oil and gas development, and, 

more recently, the effects of climate change. Vessel collisions and entanglement in fishing gear 

also pose potential threats. 
57

Subsistence whaling: Under subsistence whaling quotas established by the IWC, the number of 

bowhead whales taken annually by Alaska Natives has been below calculated PBR levels for the 

western Arctic bowhead whale population since such calculations were first made in the mid1990s. The number of whales landed annually between 1999 and 2003 ranged from 35 whales in 

2000 and 2003 to 49 whales in 2001 (NMFS 2006a). As indicated previously, the western Arctic 

bowhead whale population has continued to increase in size steadily over the past 20 years under 

the existing harvest management measures. 

Oil and Gas Development: Because much of the habitat of the western Arctic bowhead whale 

population is within active or potential lease sale areas, oil and gas exploration and development 

off Alaska have increased the species’ risk of exposure to pollutants and noise (Shelden and 

Rugh 1995, NMFS 2005a). Although bowhead whales are sensitive to noise and appear to avoid 

seismic operations, there is little evidence that increased levels of noise associated with activities 

to date have impeded their recovery (NMFS 2005a). Oil spills also pose a potential threat; 

however, to date no major spills are known to have affected bowhead whales within their range. 

Entanglement: Incidents of entanglement by bowhead whales in commercial fishing gear appear 

to be infrequent. Available information on such interactions comes principally from whales 

found entangled in fishing gear by Alaska Natives during the subsistence harvest. It suggests that 

such interactions occur principally in crab pot gear. From 1999 to 2003 the estimated average 

annual rate of entanglement was 0.2 whale per year (NMFS 2005a). 

Climate Change: Although there are insufficient data to make reliable predictions, changes in 

Arctic weather, sea-surface temperatures, ice extent, and prey availability may affect iceassociated animals such as bowhead whales (NMFS 2005a). Both positive and negative effects 

are possible (Shelden et al. 2003a). 

Vessel Collisions: Injury and mortality caused by collision with vessels appear to be infrequent 

although this is probably due largely to the low levels of commercial vessel traffic within the 

species’ Arctic habitat (Laist et al 2001). Three of 236 bowhead whales taken during the 

aboriginal subsistence hunt in the Beaufort Sea showed evidence of vessel injuries, and no 

known mortalities have been recorded (67 Fed. Reg. 55768). Collision risks could increase 

substantially in the future if seasonal pack ice coverage continues to retreat and northern sea 

routes are developed for shipping. 

Management Framework: NMFS and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission have primary 

responsibility for conservation and management of bowhead whales. However, as a member of 

the IWC, the United States follows management recommendations for subsistence whaling 

developed by the IWC (Shelden and Rugh 1995). Subsistence harvests are managed and 

monitored by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission under a cooperative agreement with the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NMFS’s parent agency. The 

Commission is composed of whaling captains and crewmembers and is directed by a board of 10 

commissioners, one from each whaling village. Besides allocating quotas among its member 

villages and providing funds to the North Slope Borough for periodic censuses of the bowhead 

whale population, the Commission has funded research to improve harpoons used in the hunt and 

to reduce the number of whales struck but lost. 
58

Together with the Department of State and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, NMFS and 

other NOAA offices develop policies and quota requests and coordinate scientific advice for 

IWC meetings. 

Critical Habitat: No critical habitat has been designated for western Arctic bowhead whales. In 

February 2000 the Center for Biological Diversity and the Marine Biodiversity Protection Center 

petitioned NMFS for such action, but the petition was rejected (67 Fed. Reg. 55767) for the 

following reasons: 

x The decline in bowhead whale abundance and reason for listing the species was 

overexploitation by commercial whaling; habitat issues were not a factor in the decline; 

x There is no indication that habitat degradation is impeding population growth; 

x The population is abundant and increasing; and 

x Existing laws and practices adequately protect the species and its habitat. 

Recovery Plan: In June 1998 NMFS determined that a recovery plan for bowhead whales was 

not needed due to the population’s abundance and trend and the effectiveness of the agreement 

between NOAA and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission in managing the subsistence hunt 

(67 Fed. Reg. 55769). 

Major Management Actions: Since 1977 the IWC has recommended quotas for the subsistence 

hunt of bowhead whales by Alaska Natives. Those quotas, which have ranged between 14 and 67 

whales per year (not including unused strikes that can be carried forward), have represented 0.1 

to 0.5 percent of the estimated total population size. In recent years, Russian Natives also have 

taken a few whales under these quotas. The most recent IWC quota is a block quota of 280 

whales for the period 2003–2007 with a limit of 67 strikes in any single year. The average annual 

take by Natives in Alaska and Russia has been 52 whales. Since 1996, when NMFS began 

calculating PBR levels, the IWC has set annual strike quotas of 65 to 67 whales, which have 

been below the PBR level. 

NMFS manages potential impacts of noise from oil and gas operations through incidental 

harassment authorizations issued under the MMPA exemption for the small take of marine 

mammals incidental to activities other than fishing. Such authorizations can be issued only if the 

actions they permit are believed to have no more than a negligible impact on the population and 

no immitigable adverse effect on the availability of bowhead whales to subsistence users. NMFS 

also consults with the Minerals Management Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the 

Environmental Protection Agency on the effects of oil and gas exploration and development on 

the outer continental shelf under section 7 of the ESA and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act. Recent opinions have concluded that effects of proposed offshore oil and gas exploration on 

bowhead whales do not jeopardize the population. 

Staff and Funding Levels: According to NMFS budget documents (Appendix E), the agency 

allocated $994,000 in FY2003 for the recovery of endangered large whales (e.g., bowhead, blue, 

fin, sei, and sperm whales). The amount devoted specifically to bowhead whales is uncertain. 

NMFS also has transferred funds appropriated by Congress to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission ranging from $399,000 in FY2001 to $492,000 in FY2003. According to FWS 
59

annual expenditure reports for endangered species (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006), total federal 

funding for work on bowhead whales ranged from zero to $203,000 between 1998 and 2004 (14, 

Appendices C1–7); however, all federal funding for this species (e.g., funding passed to the 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission) is not reflected in those numbers. NMFS estimates that it 

devoted at least 4.1 FTEs in staff effort on bowhead whale recovery work (0.6 by its regional 

offices and headquarters and 3.5 by its science centers) during 2005.15 Funding for those salaries 

clearly has not been included in funding levels reported in the FWS annual expenditure reports. 

Table 14. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of western Arctic 

bowhead whales, 1998–2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal

Year

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal

Total 

Federal

State

Total 

State and 

Federal

1998 – – – – – – 1 1 

1999 – – – – – – 3 3 

2000 – – – – – – 3 3 

2001 – – – – – – 25 25 

2002 – – – 7 – 7 – 7 

2003 – – – 199 5 204 – 204 

2004 – – – 60 130 190 – 190 

The Marine Mammal Commission survey of federally funded marine mammal research (Waring 

2002) reports that funding for biological and population assessment research on bowhead whales 

between FY1991 and FY2000 ranged from $280,000 in FY2000 to $1.5 million in 1999 (see 

Appendix F). The principal sources of funding were NMFS and the Minerals Management 

Service. Recent funding levels have been increased to more than $1 million to address research 

questions raised by the IWC Scientific Committee and to help prepare a request to the IWC for a 

new subsistence quota. 

Fin Whale 

Population Status: Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) were listed as endangered throughout 

their range under the ESCA in 1970, and that designation was carried forward under the ESA. 

For purposes of preparing stock assessment reports required by the MMPA, NMFS recognizes 

four fin whale populations in U.S. waters: a western North Atlantic population, a 

California/Oregon/Washington population, a northeast Pacific population, and a Hawaii 

population. The stock structure of fin whale populations, however, is not well known (NMFS 

2006b). It is thought that populations in different oceans may be divided into subpopulations that 

use different feeding grounds. Under the IWC management system, the Nova Scotia stock of fin 

whales (i.e., the western North Atlantic population) and all populations in the North Pacific are 

classified as protection stocks for which no commercial whaling is allowed. 

 

15 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115. 
60

Western North Atlantic Population: Fin whales are one of the most common large whales 

observed along the northeastern U.S. coast. The IWC currently recognizes fin whales off the 

eastern U.S. coast, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland to be a separate stock. Roughly half of all 

individually identified whales observed feeding in Massachusetts Bay have been observed there 

in multiple years, suggesting a degree of site fidelity. The best available abundance estimate for 

fin whales between Georges Bank and the Gulf of St. Lawrence is 2,814 (NMFS 2006b). 

Available information is not sufficient to determine trends in abundance, and the PBR level is 

4.7 whales per year. Because documented human-caused deaths have averaged more than one 

whale per year in recent years, which is greater than 10 percent of the PBR level, the rate of 

human-caused mortality and injury is not considered insignificant and approaching zero. 

California/Oregon/Washington Population: The IWC recognizes two populations of fin whales in 

the North Pacific Ocean: one in the East China Sea and one elsewhere in the North Pacific 

(NMFS 2006a). Although there is little information to determine population structure, some 

genetic studies suggest that fin whales in the Gulf of California are isolated from those elsewhere 

in the North Pacific and represent an “evolutionary unique population” (NMFS 2006a). By 1973 

commercial whaling had reduced North Pacific fin whale abundance from an estimated 42,000 to 

45,000 animals to between 13,620 and 18,680 animals (Ohsumi and Wada 1974). Surveys in 

1996 and 2001 produced an estimate of 3,279 fin whales off California, Oregon, and 

Washington. NMFS calculates the PBR level to be 15 fin whales in this area. Recently 

documented fishery-caused deaths have averaged about 1.0 whale per year, while confirmed 

vessel related-deaths have averaged 0.4 fin whale per year (NMFS 2006a). 

Northeast Pacific Population: This population occurs across the northern North Pacific Ocean 

from British Columbia to Japan and north to the Bering Strait (NMFS 2005a). A combination of 

estimates from surveys between 1999 and 2003 in the central and eastern Bering Sea and along 

the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands suggests the number of fin whales west of the Kenai 

Peninsula is at least 5,703 whales (NMFS 2005a). Information to assess the population’s trend is 

insufficient and PBR for the population is calculated to be 11.4 whales per year. About 0.6 fin 

whale a year is known to have been killed recently in this area, which is less than 10 percent of 

PBR. Thus, the estimated mortality and serious injury rate for the area west of the Kenai is 

considered insignificant and approaching zero. 

Hawaii Population: Fin whales sightings off Hawaii are rare; however, recordings of fin whale 

vocalizations indicate their presence (NMFS 2006a). Based on a ship survey in 2002, an 

abundance of 174 fin whales was estimated for waters within 200 nmi of Hawaii. The calculated 

PBR level for this stock is 0.2. Fishing-related mortality of fin whales in Hawaiian waters has not 

been reported, and incidental take levels, if any take occurs, are considered to be insignificant 

and approaching zero. 

Major Threats: A draft recovery plan for fin and sei whales (Reeves et al. 1998) identified the 

following threats for both species: 

Vessel Interactions: Fin whales are the species of whale most commonly injured or killed by ship 

strikes off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States. Based on recent but limited 

data, NMFS estimates known mortality due to vessel collisions to be at least 1.4 fin whales per 
61

year in the North Atlantic. Limited evidence also suggests that fin whales may alter their 

behavior in response to whale-watching vessels off Atlantic Canada and the northeastern United 

States. Off the U.S. Pacific coast, the most likely sources of vessel disturbance may be industrial, 

military, and fishing vessel traffic. 

Entrapment and Entanglement in Fishing Gear: Fin whales are killed or injured annually by 

inshore fishing gear off Atlantic Canada and the eastern United States, as well as off the Pacific 

coast of the United States and Mexico. During the 1980s the southern California offshore drift 

gillnet fishery killed an estimated 73 rorqual whales per year. Some of those whales may have 

been fin whales, but it is unclear how many. Shark and swordfish driftnet fisheries off Baja 

California, Mexico, also have likely killed fin whales. The frequency of entanglements is 

difficult to estimate because of limited observer coverage for relevant fisheries and because the 

offshore distribution of fin whales makes it unlikely that whale carcasses will strand on land. 

Habitat Degradation: The principal concern regarding habitat degradation is the possible 

depletion of fin whale prey (small schooling fish) by commercial fishing. In addition, highenergy, low-frequency underwater sound transmissions for research and military purposes may 

disturb fin whales or interfere with their vocal communications. 

Hunting: Until the mid-1970s fin whales were hunted intensively in the North Atlantic and North 

Pacific Oceans. Currently, populations occurring in U.S. waters are legally hunted only in 

Greenland for aboriginal subsistence use. Although commercial hunting is currently banned 

under the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling, that measure was adopted as a temporary 

measure that could be removed, thereby opening the possibility for a resumption of commercial 

harvesting by other nations at some point in the future. The government of Iceland, which 

withdrew from the IWC several years ago, has recently announced plans to take a small number 

of fin whales commercially despite IWC provisions against such takes. 

Management Framework: NMFS is the lead federal agency responsible for managing activities 

affecting fin whales. Together with the Department of State, NMFS and other parts of NOAA 

develop scientific advice and U.S. positions for meetings of the IWC. No recovery team or other 

interagency management team has been established to oversee or undertake management 

activities specifically for fin whales. However, take reduction teams have been established to 

address the take of multiple large whale species, including fin whales, in the offshore drift gillnet 

fishery off California and in trap and gillnet fisheries along the Atlantic coast (NMFS 2006a,b). 

Critical Habitat: None designated. 

Recovery Plan: In 1998 NMFS contracted for the preparation of a draft recovery plan 

addressing both fin and sei whales. Although completed in 1998, the draft plan (Reeves et al. 

1998) was never adopted formally by NMFS. In 2006 NMFS released a new draft fin whale 

recovery plan for public review and comment (NMFS 2006c). The immediate and ultimate goals 

of the new draft plan are to recover fin whale populations to the point where they can be 

downlisted to threatened and delisted from the list of endangered species. A two-tier system of 

criteria is proposed in the draft plan for making reclassification and delisting decisions. The first 

tier considers population status and trends and identifies the following standards: 
62

x For reclassifying as threatened, the overall population in each ocean basin (1) must have 

remained stable or increased for at least 1.5 generations (26 years) or (2) must have 

satisfied a risk analysis standard of no more than a 1 percent chance of quasi-extinction in 

100 years. 

x For removing the species from the list, the overall population in each ocean basin (1) must 

have remained stable or increased for at least three generations (51 years) or (2) have less 

than a 10 percent probability of becoming endangered in 20 years. 

The second tier describes standards relative to the five listing factors established by the ESA.

x Destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or range: For downlisting, 

fishing interactions, vessel interactions, prey reduction, and effects of anthropogenic noise 

must have been assessed and needed management actions must have been initiated. For 

removal from the list, management actions must have been proven effective. 

x Overutilization for commercial, recreational, or educational purposes: For downlisting, 

direct human kills must be managed on a sustainable basis by the IWC, and for removal 

from the list, those management actions must have been proven effective and consistent 

with MMPA standards for maintaining populations at OSP levels. 

x Disease or predation: For both downlisting and removal from the list, assessments must 

have been undertaken showing that these factors are not appreciably affecting recovery.

x Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms: For both downlisting and removal from the 

list, the IWC must be regulating directed take on a sustainable basis, and applicable 

authorities must be adequately regulating takes due to vessel collisions and fishery 

interactions. 

x Other natural or manmade factors: For both downlisting and removal from the list, 

anthropogenic factors must have been investigated and determined not to be limiting 

recovery.

To meet these goals and criteria, the draft plan identifies eight actions. These involve tasks to (1) 

maintain an effective program of international whaling regulation, (2) determine population 

discreteness and structure, (3) develop and apply methods to estimate population size and 

monitor trends in abundance, (4) conduct risk analyses for whales in each ocean basin, (5) 

identify and protect habitat essential to recovery, (6) minimize human sources of injury and 

mortality, (7) determine and minimize detrimental effects of anthropogenic noise, and (8) 

develop a plan for monitoring the population after the species is removed from the list. Because 

the whales move across international borders, the draft plan stresses the importance of a 

multinational research and management approach. 

Major Management Actions: With regard to fin whales, management by NMFS over the last 

several decades has focused principally on participation in the IWC. The IWC began managing 

commercial whaling for fin whales in 1969 in the North Pacific and in 1976 in the North Atlantic 

(Reeves et al. 1998). In 1976 it adopted a ban on hunting fin whales in the North Pacific, and in 

1987 it did so for the North Atlantic. Since then, the only authorized take of fin whales likely to 

belong to a population that occurs in U.S. waters has been an annual quota of 10 whales for 

aboriginal subsistence hunters in Greenland. In recent years, however, the IWC has received 
63

proposals from some members to lift the commercial whaling moratorium. Although these have 

been rejected to date, regulated harvests of fin whales could resume at some point in the future. 

Since the late 1990s the incidental take of fin whales in commercial fisheries (principally trap 

and gillnet fisheries) has been addressed through take reduction plans developed for multiple 

species of endangered large whales and through periodic section 7 consultations on fishery 

management plans. Take reduction plans covering fin whales and other large whales have been 

developed for trap and gillnet fisheries along the Atlantic coast and for drift gillnet fisheries 

along the U.S. Pacific coast. Because estimated take levels for fin whales have been below the 

calculated PBR levels, entanglement risks for fin whales generally have not been a central focus 

of protection measures. However, because fin whale habitats overlap those of other large whales 

and because fin whales can be entangled in the same gear types, fin whales are thought to benefit 

from mitigation measures designed largely with other whale species in mind. 

Staff and Funding Levels: NMFS reported no funding specifically for fin whales between 2000 

and 2004 in FWS surveys of expenditures for ESA listed species (FWS 2005d-f). According to 

NMFS budget documents, NMFS allocated $994,000 in FY2004 funding to the recovery of 

endangered large whales (Appendix E), an uncertain portion of which may have included 

research relative to fin whales. NMFS estimates that it devoted at least 0.9 FTE in staff effort on 

fin recovery work (0.6 by its regional offices and headquarters and 0.3 by its science centers) 

during 2005.16

Funding for fin whales reported by other federal agencies and states in FWS annual expenditure 

surveys (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006) ranged between $4,870 in 2000 to $205,900 in 2004 

(Table 15, Appendices C.1–7). Most of this funding was reported by the U.S. Coast Guard for 

enforcement. For example, in 2003, the Coast Guard reported expenditures totaling $198,897. 

Table 15. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of fin whales, 1998–

2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal

Year

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal

Total 

Federal

State

Total 

State and 

Federal

1998 – – – – 4 4 1 5 

1999 – – – 9 4 13 0.3 13 

2000 – – – – 4 4 1 5 

2001 – – – – 22 22 2 24 

2002 – – – 7 5 13 1 13 

2003 – – – 199 6 205 1 206 

2004 0.2 – – 63 6 69 3 72 

 

16 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115. 
64

The draft fin whale recovery plan (NMFS 2006d) projects future funding needs for implementing 

each of the eight major recovery actions identified above, but the plan does not break down those 

costs annually. As shown in Table 16, those funding needs were developed for each of the three 

ocean basins in which fin whales occur and totaled approximately $30.2 million over the next 20 

years for all areas. 

Table 16. Projected funding needs ($ thousands) to implement the draft 2006 fin whale recovery 

plan (NMFS 2006d) 

Ocean

Basin* 

Action 

1

Action 

 2 

Action 

3

Action 

4

Action 

 5 

Action 

6

Action 

7

Action 

8 Total 

N.

Atlantic 

(2012) 

301 267 2,150 100 225 1,625 787 75 5,530 

N. Pacific 

(2012) 101 366 1,500 100 225 1,625 788 75 4,780 

S. Ocean 

(2026) 523 667 18,000 200 500 – – – 23,140 

* Years in parentheses are the earliest expected date for meeting recovery criteria. 

Humpback Whale 

Population Status: Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) occur in all the world oceans 

except the Arctic Ocean. All populations were severely depleted by commercial whaling in the 

20th century (NMFS 1991b). Humpback whales were listed as endangered throughout their 

worldwide range under the ESCA in 1970, and that designation was carried forward under the 

ESA. In the North Pacific, an estimated 28,000 humpbacks were killed during the period of 

modern commercial whaling, including 2,000 off Oregon and Washington, 3,400 off California, 

and 2,800 off Baja California. By 1966 their numbers throughout the North Pacific were thought 

to have been reduced to as few as 1,000 to 1,200 whales. In the North Atlantic, between 14,000 

and 18,000 humpback whales were killed. The IWC has classified all populations of humpback 

whales worldwide as protection stocks for which no commercial hunting is permitted. 

Since the 1960s populations in both oceans have been recovering. The total number of humpback 

whales in the North Atlantic Ocean is currently estimated at 11,570 whales (NMFS 2006b) and 

more than 6,000 whales are estimated to occur in the North Pacific Ocean (NMFS 2006a). For 

purposes of preparing stock assessment reports under the MMPA (NMFS 2005a, 2006a,b), 

NMFS currently recognizes four populations that occur at least seasonally in U.S. waters: one in 

the North Atlantic (the Gulf of Maine population) and three in the North Pacific (the eastern 

North Pacific population, the central North Pacific population, and the western North Pacific 

population).

Gulf of Maine Population: Although almost all humpback whales in the North Atlantic share 

winter breeding grounds in the Caribbean, they appear to use at least six summer feeding 

grounds around the rim of the North Atlantic Ocean (NMFS 2006b). A high degree of site 

fidelity to individual feeding grounds apparently is ingrained in newborn calves as they follow 

their mothers to the feeding grounds. As a result, discrete groups or subpopulations of whales 

tend to use different feeding grounds. Humpback whales also occur seasonally in the spring in 
65

coastal waters between the Chesapeake Bay and Cape Hatteras. It is not clear if those individuals 

are part of the subpopulation that uses summer feeding grounds in the Gulf of Maine. The best 

abundance estimate for the Gulf of Maine subpopulation is 902 animals (NMFS 2006b). Gulf of 

Maine humpback whales are thought to be increasing at a rate consistent with the overall 3.2 

percent annual rate of increase observed for humpback whales throughout the North Atlantic 

basin (Stevick et al. 2003). 

The PBR level for the Gulf of Maine subpopulation is 1.3 (NMFS 2006b). Between 1999 and 

2003 recorded fishery-related deaths and serious injures for humpback whales in the Gulf of 

Maine averaged at least 2.8 per year, exceeding the PBR level. About one-half of all humpback 

whales in the Gulf of Maine bear scars caused by entanglement in fishing gear, suggesting that 

the incidence of entanglement is far greater than mortality records indicate. In addition, six other 

human-related deaths and injuries were recorded between 1999 and 2003 off mid- and south 

Atlantic states although it is unclear whether those whales were part of the Gulf of Maine 

subpopulation. Among the documented humpback whale carcasses available for examination, 

human factors, principally collisions with ships, contributed to or caused death in nearly 60 

percent of the cases (Wiley et al. 1995). 

Eastern North Pacific Population: The eastern North Pacific population of humpback whales 

winters in calving grounds off Central America and Mexico and migrates to summer feeding 

grounds along the coast between California and southern British Columbia. The best estimate of 

abundance for the eastern North Pacific population is 1,391 animals (NMFS 2006a). The 

population appears to have been growing steadily, with the exception of a brief period in the late 

1990s when it may have declined. The PBR level for this population is 4.6, but because the 

whales spend half their time outside U.S. waters, the PBR for U.S. waters is estimated at 2.3 

whales per year. The total known mortality in recent years, including 1.2 whales per year from 

entanglement and 0.2 from ship strikes, is less than the PBR level (NMFS 2006a). Because the 

fishery-related takes off California exceed 10 percent of the PBR level, the fishery mortality and 

serious injury rate is not considered to be insignificant and approaching zero. 

Central North Pacific Population: The central North Pacific population spends winter and spring 

off the Hawaiian Islands and migrates to feeding areas off northern British Columbia, southeast 

Alaska, and Prince William Sound west to the Bering Sea (NMFS 2005a). The best estimate of 

abundance is 4,005 whales based on surveys in Hawaii. As in the North Atlantic, humpback 

whales in the central North Pacific population appear to maintain a high degree of site fidelity to 

feeding areas. Minimum estimates of abundance for feeding stocks identified to date include 651 

around Kodiak Island, 410 around the Shumagin Islands, 315 in Prince William Sound, 961 in 

southeast Alaska, and 850 to 1,000 in British Columbia (which may include some animals from 

southeast Alaska) (NMFS 2005a). The PBR level for the entire central North Pacific population 

is 12.9, including 3.0 for southeast Alaska and 9.9 for areas north of southeast Alaska (NMFS 

2006a). Commercial fisheries are thought to cause at least 3.4 humpback whale deaths per year. 

Because this rate is more than 10 percent of the calculated PBR level, the incidental mortality 

and serious injury rate due to fishing is not considered insignificant or approaching zero. 

Although the population as a whole appears to be increasing, its rate of increase is uncertain. 
66

Western North Pacific Population: Humpback whales in the western North Pacific population 

spend winter and spring off Japan and probably migrate to the Bering Sea and the Aleutian 

Islands to feed in summer (NMFS 2005a). Photo-identification studies from winter breeding 

areas have resulted in an abundance estimate of 394 whales. Because of limited study and 

overlap with feeding grounds of humpback whales from the central North Pacific population, 

there are no reliable estimates of abundance on feeding grounds. The PBR level is calculated to 

be 1.3, and the minimum annual mortality due to U.S. commercial fisheries is estimated as 0.5 

whale (NMFS 2005a). Available information suggests that incidental mortality caused by 

fisheries off Japan and Korea averages at least 1.1 to 2.4 whales per year, which would make the 

total human-caused mortality exceed the PBR level. 

Major Threats: Humpback whales are exposed to human activities more than most other great 

whales because they spend much of their time in coastal waters near human population centers 

(NMFS 1991b). Threats to humpback whales include entanglement and entrapment in fishing 

gear, collisions with vessels, competition for prey with commercial fishing, disturbance by 

whale-watching vessels, pollution from coastal development, and displacement and disturbance 

caused by noise and vessel traffic. Although the level of human-caused mortality and serious 

injury is unknown, current information indicates that these threats may be impeding, but not 

preventing, recovery of most populations in U.S. waters. 

Entanglement and Entrapment: As described above, deaths and serious injuries as a result of 

fisheries currently exceed the calculated PBR level for humpback whales in the Gulf of Maine 

subpopulation, and possibly for the western North Pacific population. Data show that whales 

from the central North Pacific population frequently interact with fishing gear, but the level of 

serious injury and mortality appears to be below PBR. Entanglement of eastern North Pacific 

humpback whales in a drift gillnet fishery appears to have been significantly reduced by 

measures adopted under a take reduction plan requiring the use of pingers and buoy line 

extenders to increase the depth at which nets are set (NMFS 2006a). However, some 

entanglements also occur in unidentified fisheries. 

Prey Reduction: Although humpback whales feed on small schooling fish such as herring and 

sardines that are targets for commercial fisheries in some areas, prey removal by fisheries does 

not appear to be limiting the recovery of humpback whale populations in U.S. waters. 

Vessel Collisions: Injuries and deaths due to vessel strikes may be as or more common than 

those from entanglement. Between 1999 and 2003, 15 vessel-related deaths or injuries were 

documented for humpback whales along the Atlantic coast; six involved whales that were killed, 

eight involved cases with insufficient information to determine severity, and one was known to 

have caused a minor, non-lethal injury (NMFS 2006b). For the eastern North Pacific population, 

vessel-related deaths and injuries appear to be less frequent, averaging at least 0.2 per year 

between 1999 and 2003 (NMFS 2006a). At least seven vessel-related deaths and injuries were 

reported for the central North Pacific population between 1999 and 2001, resulting in a minimum 

estimate of 0.8 deaths and serious injuries per year in Alaska (NMFS 2006a). There has been a 

substantial increase in reports of vessel collisions in Hawaii since 2001, and such injuries and 

deaths will likely increase for this population in coming years. No information is available on 

collision records for the western North Pacific population. 
67

Whale-Watching: In New England, southeast Alaska, California, and Hawaii, whale-watching 

activity has increased, raising concerns that disturbance from whale-watching vessels may cause 

humpback whales to abandon or reduce their use of preferred habitats, particularly preferred 

calving grounds in Hawaii (NMFS 2005e, NMFS 1991b). In southeast Alaska, noise and 

disturbance by increased numbers of large tour ships may have caused whales to reduce their use 

of feeding grounds in Glacier Bay during the 1980s (Baker and Herman 1989). 

Management Framework: NMFS is the lead federal agency responsible for managing activities 

affecting humpback whales. Together with the Department of State, NMFS and other NOAA 

offices develop policies and coordinate scientific advice for meetings of the IWC. Humpback 

whales also receive focused attention from managers of several national marine sanctuaries, 

including designated sanctuaries off Massachusetts, California, and Hawaii, and from the 

National Park Service at Glacier Bay National Park and Monument in southeastern Alaska. 

Although a recovery plan was adopted for humpback whales in 1991, no recovery or 

implementation teams have been established for this species. Interactions with fishing gear are 

addressed by take reduction teams established by NMFS to recommend take reduction plans for 

large whale species, including humpback whales. 

Critical Habitat: None designated. 

Recovery Plan: NMFS adopted a recovery plan for humpback whales in 1991. The plan 

identifies three goals: 

x A biological goal for building and maintaining populations to levels large enough to be 

resilient to chance events such as episodic changes in oceanographic conditions, epizootics, 

anthropogenic environmental catastrophes, or inbreeding; 

x A numerical goal for achieving a population size consonant both with the biological goal 

and with continuing human use of the oceans. The long-term goal is to achieve population 

sizes equal to the historical environmental carrying capacity in U.S. waters; and 

x A management goal for changing the classification of particular populations from 

endangered to threatened and removing them from the list of protected species. 

As an interim goal, the plan sought to double the size of humpback whale populations in 20 

years. Major identified objectives included (1) maintaining and enhancing habitat, (2) identifying 

and reducing direct human-related injury and mortality, (3) monitoring population parameters, 

and (4) improving coordination of recovery activities. 

Major Management Actions: The IWC has prohibited commercial exploitation of humpback 

whales worldwide since 1966. However, an aboriginal subsistence quota of two humpback 

whales per year has been authorized by the IWC to the government of St. Vincent and The 

Grenadines in the Caribbean. 

Since adopting a recovery plan for humpback whales, NMFS has supported the maintenance of 

whale photo-identification catalogues to assist in monitoring reproductive rates and other life 

history parameters. NMFS also has undertaken studies to estimate abundance and determine 

genetic relationships. Coordinated international research on humpback whales in the North 

Atlantic was conducted during 1992 and 1993 in an effort known as the Years of the North 
68

Atlantic Humpback (Project YoNAH). A similar effort called Structure of Populations, Levels of 

Abundance and Status of Humpbacks (SPLASH) was initiated for the North Pacific in 2004; data 

collection is expected to be completed in 2006. The SPLASH program involves cooperative 

efforts by NMFS, the National Marine Sanctuaries Program, and various national and foreign 

research organizations to determine the population status, structure, and trends of humpback 

whales throughout the North Pacific Ocean basin. 

Since 1986 NMFS has monitored fishery interactions through fishery reporting requirements, 

observer programs in several large pelagic fisheries off the Atlantic coast, and opportunistic 

sighting reports of entangled animals by aerial survey teams, Coast Guard patrols, and the public 

(NMFS 2006b). Based on information from these sources as well as stranding records, 11 serious 

injuries or deaths related to fisheries were identified in trap fisheries in the 1990s, and in 1997 

the Service elevated the Gulf of Maine and mid-Atlantic lobster pot fishery from a category III 

fishery to a category I. Since 1998 entanglement of humpback whales in this fishery and East 

Coast gillnet fisheries has been addressed by the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team 

and the take reduction plan developed to reduce interactions in both types of fishing gear. Major 

features of that plan have included efforts to disentangle whales, require modification of fishing 

gear to reduce entanglement risks, and restrict fishing in key whale habitats. Although these 

efforts have focused primarily on reducing entanglement risks for North Atlantic right whales, 

the actions, particularly disentanglement efforts, also benefit humpback whales. Experience in 

disentangling humpback whales in the northeastern United States has led to similar efforts in 

Alaska, Hawaii, and California. 

To address disturbance by whale-watching vessels, NMFS has developed recommended 

guidelines for whale-watching activities for several regions and promulgated regulations limiting 

the distances at which vessels can approach whales in waters off both Hawaii in 1995 (50 Fed. 

Reg. 3775) and Alaska in 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 29502), and the National Park Service also has 

restricted vessel speeds and access to Glacier Bay in southeast Alaska to protect feeding 

humpback whales. The National Ocean Service also has implemented education and outreach 

efforts to protect humpback whales using national marine sanctuaries at Stellwagen Bank off 

eastern Massachusetts, the Channel Islands and Farallon Islands off California, and coastal 

waters around the main Hawaiian Islands. In response to increasing reports of collisions between 

humpback whales and vessels off Hawaii, managers of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale 

National Marine Sanctuary have focused particular attention on advising vessel operators as to 

actions they can take to avoid hitting whales. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Cost projections for recovery work during the first five years after 

the Humpback Whale Recovery Plan was adopted in 1991 were estimated to range from $2.69 to 

$8.14 million per year with a five-year total of $20.62 million (NMFS 1991b). Actual 

expenditures during that period are uncertain but are believed to have been much lower. Funding 

for work on humpback whales reported in annual FWS expenditure surveys (FWS 2003b–d, 

2005d–f, 2006) indicate that NMFS funding levels between 2001 and 2004 ranged from $53,000 

in Fiscal Year 2001 to $1.15 million in Fiscal Year 2003 (Table 17, Appendices C.1–7). Most 

funding in 2003 supported the SPLASH program. Recent NMFS budget documents indicate that 

NMFS received $994,000 in FY 2003 funding for the recovery of endangered large whales. The 

amount devoted specifically to humpback whales from this source is uncertain (Appendix E).
69

Table 17. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of humpback whales, 

1998–2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal

Year

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal

Total 

Federal

State

Total 

State

and 

Federal

1998 – – 240 – 80 320 41 361

1999 – – 131 277 76 484 8 492

2000 – – 53 349 154 556 11 567

2001 – – 53 324 352 729 11 740

2002 – – 150 280 449 879 11 890

2003 – – 1,150 199 248 1,597 18 1,615

2004 – – – 416 243 659 7 666

NMFS estimates that it devoted at least 7.1 FTEs in staff effort on humpback whale recovery 

work (1.8 by its regional offices and headquarters and 5.3 by its science centers) during 2005.17

The Marine Mammal Commission’s survey of federally funded marine mammal research 

(Waring 2002) reports that between FY1991 and FY2000 funding for research on humpback 

whales ranged from $107,000 in FY1991 to $673,000 in FY1994 (see Appendix F). In 2000, the 

most recent year reported, federal research funding was $342,000. The principal sources of 

funding were NMFS and the Department of Defense’s Strategic Environmental Research and 

Development Program. Recently funding has increased above those levels as a result of support 

from various agencies for the SPLASH program. 

North Atlantic Right Whale 

Population Status: All species and populations of right whales worldwide were severely 

depleted by centuries of commercial whaling that continued into the early 1900s. The IWC has 

classified all right whale populations as protection stocks. In 1970, when right whales were 

initially listed as endangered under the ESCA, right whales in the North Atlantic and North 

Pacific Oceans were considered to be separate populations of a single species called the northern 

right whale. That designation was carried forward under the ESA. Recent genetic analyses, 

however, indicate that North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales are separate species 

(Eubalaena glacialis and E. japonica, respectively). Based on that information, NMFS is taking 

steps to reclassify them separately under the ESA. In the North Atlantic, the only remaining 

population considered viable inhabits the western North Atlantic Ocean off the coasts of the 

United States and Canada. A population that occurred off Europe has been all but eliminated by 

commercial whaling. The North Atlantic species currently is estimated to number at least 299 

animals; its PBR level is set at zero (NMFS 2006b). 

The western North Atlantic population has shown little evidence of increasing since research 

efforts began in the early 1980s. Modeling studies suggest that the population began to decline at 

 

17 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115.
70

about 2 percent per year in the early to mid-1990s (Caswell et al. 1999). The current recovery 

plan, adopted in 2005, concludes that the possibility of biological extinction within the next 

century “is very real” (NMFS 2005b). A series of five consecutive years (2001–2005) in which 

documented calf counts have averaged more than 20 per year, however, has been an encouraging 

prospect for future recovery. 

Major Threats: Deaths due to collisions with ships and entanglement in fishing gear are the 

principal reasons for the species’ failure to recover since the cessation of commercial hunting 

(MMC 1990, Kraus et al. 2005, NMFS 2005b). Most deaths due to ship collisions are caused by 

large vessels (Laist et al. 2001). Most entanglements appear to involve lines from actively fished 

lobster traps and gillnets (NMFS 2005b). Between 1990 and 2005 more than 50 percent of all 

documented right whale deaths were caused by ship collisions (18 deaths) or entanglements (5 

deaths) (MMC 2006). Additional deaths undoubtedly occurred but were not recorded. A recent 

study concluded that only 17 percent of all deaths are observed (Kraus et al. 2005). Between 

2000 and the end of 2005, 25 live right whales were observed entangled in fishing gear, 2 of 

which were later found dead and 7 of which were in poor condition when last sighted (MMC 

2006). For the period 1999–2003 NMFS estimates that human-caused mortality averaged 2.6 

deaths per year in U.S. and Canadian waters (NMFS 2006b), including one vessel-related death 

per year and 1.6 entanglement-related deaths per year. 

Other threats to North Atlantic right whales identified in the revised recovery plan include 

habitat degradation, noise, contaminants, underwater explosives, climate and ecosystem change, 

and commercial exploitation (NMFS 2005b). 

Management Framework: Before the 1980s management of right whales worldwide was 

principally through the IWC, the international organization responsible for the regulation of 

whaling. Under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, the management 

authority that eventually led to the formation of the IWC in 1946, commercial hunting for right 

whales has been banned worldwide since the 1930s. A dedicated research program on western 

North Atlantic right whales was not begun until the early 1980s when a small remnant 

population was discovered off the U.S. East Coast. Dedicated management efforts were not 

initiated until 1987 when, at the recommendation of the Marine Mammal Commission, NMFS 

convened a recovery team to develop a draft recovery plan. A final plan was adopted in 1991. 

The team was then disbanded, and NMFS established two regional recovery plan implementation 

teams: one for summer feeding areas off the northeastern United States and the other off the 

southeastern United States where whales calve in winter. The teams, composed of federal, state, 

and non-governmental representatives, are charged with helping the Service implement recovery 

actions. The southeastern team continues to meet, but the northeastern team does not. 

In 1997 NMFS established the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team to provide advice on 

measures to reduce entanglement risks in fishing gear. NMFS also is assisted by the Right Whale 

Consortium, an organization of non-governmental marine mammal scientists working at various 

universities and research institutes. The consortium and its members conduct much of the right 

whale research and monitoring work, manage a right whale photo-identification catalogue and 

associated data, convene annual reviews of research findings, participate on various management 

teams, and carry out most disentanglement work with funding from NMFS. Several state 
71

agencies also assist in recovery work with supplemental funding provided by appropriations 

under the ESA. The U.S. Coast Guard carries out fisheries enforcement, vessel management, and 

other recovery activities in cooperation with NMFS. NMFS also cooperates with Canada’s 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans on related recovery activities. 

Critical Habitat: Early studies of right whales identified five seasonal high-use right whale 

habitats, three of which are in U.S. waters (Kraus and Kenny 1991). These are— 

x coastal Florida and Georgia used as a calving ground in winter; 

x Cape Cod Bay used as a feeding ground in late winter and early spring; 

x the Great South Channel east of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, used as a feeding ground in spring 

and early summer; 

x the Bay of Fundy between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Canada, used as a feeding 

ground in summer and early fall; and 

x the Scotian Shelf, including Browns and Baccaro Banks, Roseway Basin, southeast of Nova 

Scotia, used as a feeding ground principally in the fall. 

In 1994 NMFS designated the three areas in U.S. waters as critical habitat for northern right 

whales. In July 2002 the Ocean Conservancy petitioned NMFS to expand the designated critical 

habitats based on regular sightings of right whales in adjacent waters. NMFS found that the 

petition included information warranting consideration, but in August 2003 it concluded that the 

petition did not provide all the information necessary to justify such an action. It therefore 

deferred action to revise the boundaries, pending analyses of sighting data. No further action has 

been taken. Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans has designated the two areas in 

Canada as whale conservation areas. 

Recovery Plan: The Service adopted an initial recovery plan for right whales in both the North 

Atlantic and North Pacific in 1991. In 2005 a revised recovery plan for North Atlantic right 

whales was adopted (NMFS 2005b). The ultimate goal of the revised plan is to promote recovery 

of North Atlantic right whales to a level sufficient to warrant their removal from the list of 

endangered and threatened species. Its interim goal is to achieve a population level that would 

allow the species to be reclassified as threatened. The plan identifies the following criteria for 

reclassifying the western Atlantic population as threatened: 

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

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

right whales are indicative of an increasing population; 

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

or greater than 2 percent per year; 

x None of the known threats to northern right whales (summarized in the five listing factors) is 

known to limit the population’s growth rate; and 

x Given current and projected threats and environmental conditions, the right whale population 

has no more than a 1 percent chance of quasi-extinction in 100 years. 

The recovery plan does not include criteria for delisting because of the very low abundance and 

the need for decades of population growth to reach abundance levels at which the species could 

be considered for delisting. 
72

To achieve its goals, the revised recovery plan identifies five objectives: (1) significantly reduce 

human-caused mortality, injury, and disturbance; (2) develop demographically based recovery 

criteria; (3) identify, characterize, protect, and monitor important habitats; (4) monitor the status 

and trends of the population; and (5) coordinate federal, state, international, and nongovernmental recovery actions.

Highest priority under the plan is placed on actions to reduce entanglement in fishing gear and 

ship collisions. 

Major Management Actions: To reduce entanglement, NMFS has relied principally on efforts 

to (1) develop and require the use of fishing gear thought to be less likely to ensnare whales and 

(2) disentangle whales that are observed entangled. To develop fishery management strategies, 

NMFS relies on advice from the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team. The team, 

composed of representatives from involved fisheries, state and regional fishery management 

agencies, conservation groups, federal agencies, and academic organizations, considers 

entanglement risks for several endangered whale species but focuses almost entirely on North 

Atlantic right whales. In 1997 NMFS adopted an Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. Its 

goal was to reduce the mortality and serious injury of right whales to below its PBR level, which, 

because of the species’ depleted status, has been set at zero. Measures adopted to meet this goal 

include (1) actions to disentangle whales found entangled, (2) requirements for modifying gear 

thought by the Service to reduce whale entanglement risks throughout certain fisheries, (3) 

seasonal management areas where additional gear modifications are required, and (4) seasonal 

time/area closures in areas where right whales aggregate seasonally. 

Reducing right whale entanglements has proven to be one of the most difficult and controversial 

challenges of any endangered marine mammal recovery program. Since 1997 the take reduction 

plan has undergone a series of major and minor modifications, none of which has resulted in 

meeting required goals. Measures implemented in 1997 resulted in no observable reductions in 

right whale entanglements, and in 2001 NMFS initiated formal consultations pursuant to section 

7 of the ESA on its own fishery management plans for four lobster and gillnet fisheries along the 

U.S. East Coast. The consultations concluded that the plans were jeopardizing the continued 

existence of North Atlantic right whales and identified reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

Those alternatives included new gear modification requirements, development of a dynamic area 

management process to temporarily close or manage fishing in areas where right whales 

aggregate to feed, and development of new seasonal management areas. In consultation with the 

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team, such measures were implemented late in 2001. 

They, too, yielded no observable reduction in right whale entanglement. After the take of a whale 

in gear previously considered safe, NMFS reconvened the take reduction team in 2003 to 

develop another major revision of the take reduction plan. Reinitiation of consultations on 

relevant fishery management plans has not been undertaken as of this writing, and 

implementation of new measures is not expected until 2007. 

Efforts to reduce ship collisions have relied on voluntary actions by vessel operators to avoid 

hitting whales. Major actions identified in the recovery plan include developing educational 

materials to advise mariners as to how to identify and avoid hitting right whales, implementing 

mandatory ship reporting systems in key habitats to advise mariners of collision risks and 
73

encourage voluntary efforts, conducting aerial surveys in key habitats to locate whales and 

advise mariners of their location, and developing a ship strike reduction strategy with speed and 

routing requirements (NMFS 2005). Efforts to develop the latter have been ongoing since the 

late 1990s but have not yet been completed. NMFS requested comments on its strategy in 2004 

(70 Fed. Reg. 36121), and in 2006 it completed a draft environmental impact statement 

evaluating alternative speed and routing restrictions. Accompanying that statement, NMFS 

proposed regulations (71 Fed Reg. 36299) to seasonally limit vessel speeds to 10 knots within 30 

nmi of major East Coast ports and to impose temporary speed restrictions around large 

aggregations of right whales wherever they are detected. Final rules are expected in 2007. NMFS 

also has conducted formal consultations with the Navy and the Coast Guard under section 7 of 

the ESA on the operation of their vessels in areas where right whales are likely to occur. The 

consultations recommended that crews of Coast Guard and Navy vessels watch out for right 

whales and reduce speeds to levels they determine appropriate in key right whale habitats.

Staff and Funding Levels: The Marine Mammal Commission survey of federally funded marine 

mammal research (Waring 2002) reports that funding for northern right whale biological and 

population assessment by all federal agencies increased from $641,000 in FY1991 to $3.1 

million in FY2000 (Appendix F). Research funding by NMFS grew from $194,000 to $1.8 

million during that period. The next largest source of funding was the Navy whose funding 

declined from $970,000 in FY1997 to $611,000 in FY2000. 

Between 1998 and 2004 funding for North Atlantic right whale conservation increased steadily. 

Since then it has declined substantially. According to annual FWS expenditure reports for work 

on endangered species (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006), appropriated funding for NMFS right 

whale conservation activities increased from $1.5 million in 1998 to $5.2 million in 2001 and 

$11.2 million in 2004 (Table 18, Appendices C.1–7). Although most federal funding 

appropriated specifically for right whales has been allocated to NMFS, Coast Guard expenditures 

for enforcement and assistance in disentanglement efforts grew to $4.4 million in 2004. NMFS 

budget documents indicate that allocations for right whale research and recovery activities 

declined in 2005 (Appendix E). NMFS estimates that it devoted 29.2 FTEs to North Atlantic 

right whale conservation working during 2005, including 20.5 in New England, 5.5 in the 

southeastern United States, and 2.25 at headquarters.18

In 2002 the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation established a National Whale Conservation 

Fund recommended by the Marine Mammal Commission and subsequently mandated by 

Congress. The foundation is a not-for-profit organization established by Congress in 1984 to help 

secure non-governmental donations for wildlife conservation work. Since 2002 NMFS has 

partnered with the foundation to coordinate various grant programs through the fund. The 

foundation has funded more than 20 gear research projects related to right whale conservation at 

levels ranging from about $4,000 to $20,000. It also supported related state agency conservation 

initiatives in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Georgia, and Florida at levels ranging from about $50,000 to $500,000 per year. 

 

18 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 
74

Table 18. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of northern right 

whales, 1998–2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal

Year

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal

Total 

Federal

State

Total 

State

and 

Federal

1998 2 – 1,100 – 357 1,458 1 1,460 

1999 – – 1,542 892 549 2,983 290 3,273 

2000 – – 4,168 433 143 4,744 127 4,872 

2001 – – 5,270 474 147 5,891 145 6,036 

2002 – – 7,120 857 136 8,113 280 8,393 

2003 – – 10,270 1,098 312 11,679 123 11,802 

2004 0.2 – 11,225 444 197 11,866 504 12,370 

As shown in Table 19, the 2005 revision of the North Atlantic right whale recovery plan projects 

estimated annual recovery program costs for the first five years of recovery work under the plan 

(including activities ranked from priority 1 through 3) to be between $7.69 and $9.96 million 

(NMFS 2005b). 

Table 19. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement recovery activities for North 

Atlantic right whales during the first five years after adoption of the 2005 North 

Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Plan (* = staff time only) 

Action 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total 

1. Significantly reduce sources of 

human-caused death, injury, and 

disturbance 6,060 6,250 5,505 4,675 4,565 27,045

2. Develop demographically based 

recovery criteria * * 0 0 0 0

3. Identify, characterize, protect, and 

monitor important right whale habitats 735 865 880 770 585 3,845

4. Monitor the status and trends of 

abundance and distribution of the 

western North Atlantic right whale 2,365 2,645 2,630 2,360 2,235 12,235

5. Coordinate federal, state, 

international, and private efforts to 

implement the recovery plan 180 200 250 250 300 1,180

TOTAL 9,330 9,960 9,265 8,055 7,695 44,305

North Pacific Right Whale 

The northern right whale was listed as endangered throughout its range under the ESCA in 1970. 

That designation was carried forward under the ESA. At the time of those listing actions, right 

whales in both the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans were considered to be part of same 
75

species. Recent genetic analyses, however, indicate that North Pacific right whales are a separate 

species (Eubalaena japonica), and NMFS is taking steps to reclassify them as such under the 

ESA. Historical whaling records suggest there are two North Pacific populations—one in the 

eastern North Pacific Ocean in U.S. waters and one in the western North Pacific Ocean off 

Russia. Commercial whaling in the late 1800s and early 1900s drastically reduced both 

populations, and the IWC has classified North Pacific right whales as a protection stock. In its 

1991 recovery plan for northern right whales, NMFS suggested that the pre-exploitation 

abundance of right whales throughout the North Pacific might have exceeded 11,000 animals, 

and that its abundance in 1991 probably ranged from 100 to 500 (NMFS 1991). 

Between the 1960s and mid-1990s the eastern North Pacific population was known only from a 

few sightings of individuals and pairs scattered between Mexico, Hawaii, and Alaska. In the 

summer of 1996 four right whales were sighted in the southeastern Bering Sea. Since then, 

sightings of a few individuals have been reported annually in the same area. Photo-identification 

and biopsy studies between 1996 and 2004 indicate that there are at least 23 individual right 

whales in the population, including three cow-calf pairs. The surviving population may number 

only a few tens of animals, making it one of the world’s most endangered mammal populations 

(MMC 2005). In its 2003 stock assessment report, NMFS reported that it was unable to provide a 

reliable estimate of abundance. As a result, a PBR level for the population has not been 

calculated (NMFS 2005a). 

Major Threats: The 1991 recovery plan identified vessel interactions, entrapment and 

entanglement in fishing gear, habitat degradation, and hunting as potential threats, but almost no 

information was available on the level of those threats (NMFS 1991a). The low abundance and 

scattered distribution of eastern North Pacific right whales confound assessments of the scale of 

current threats (NMFS 2005a). 

Management Framework: The Northern Right Whale Recovery Team convened by NMFS in 

1987 considered management needs for North Pacific right whales in developing the draft 

Northern Right Whale Recovery Plan (NMFS 1991a). However, the team was not reconvened 

after the plan was adopted, and no regional team has been established specifically for North 

Pacific right whales. 

Critical Habitat: In February 2002 NMFS rejected a petition by the Center for Biological 

Diversity to designate most of the eastern Bering Sea as right whale critical habitat (MMC 2004). 

NMFS based its decision on a conclusion that essential features of critical habitat could not be 

identified, given available information. It therefore advised that it would continue to analyze the 

situation (68 Fed. Reg. 51758). In June 2005 in response to a lawsuit filed by the Center for 

Biological Diversity in 2004, a federal court in San Francisco found the NMFS decision not to 

designate critical habitat to be arbitrary and capricious, and it directed the Service to proceed 

with a critical habitat proposal. In late July 2006, NMFS published final rules to designating 

critical habitat in an area of about 36,000 sq mi in the southeastern Bering Sea and a small area 

south of Kodiak Island in the Gulf of Alaska (71 Fed Reg. 38277). 

Recovery Plan: The 1991 recovery plan for northern right whales included a separate, although 

brief section on North Pacific right whales (NMFS 1991a). The plan noted that the lack of 

information on where North Pacific right whales occur precluded the identification of site-
76

specific research and management actions. Upon identification of such areas, the recovery plan 

recommended that the following objectives be pursued: 

x Initiate studies to determine the population size and monitor trends in abundance of the 

North Pacific right whale; 

x Identify and protect habitats essential to the survival and recovery of North Pacific right 

whales;

x Collect and analyze information on the areas and seasons where potential conflicts exist 

between vessel traffic and North Pacific right whales and the types of vessels involved; 

x Vigorously enforce whale protection laws; 

x Continue the international ban on hunting and other directed lethal take; 

x Reduce and eliminate injury and mortality caused by fisheries and fishing gear; and 

x Maximize efforts to acquire scientific information from dead or stranded North Pacific 

right whales. 

Although NMFS has published a revised recovery plan for North Atlantic right whales (NMFS 

2005), it has not done so for North Pacific right whales. 

Major Management Actions: Other than efforts to designate critical habitat, no management 

actions have been taken for North Pacific right whales. As indicated above, since 1996 NMFS 

has supported studies annually to better identify the number and distribution of right whales 

feeding in the southeastern Bering Sea in summer. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Prior to the mid-1990s, no staff or funding was devoted specifically 

to North Pacific right whales by NMFS. Funding specifically for North Pacific right whales is 

not reported in the Fish and Wildlife Service’s summary of federal expenditures on endangered 

species between 1998 and 2004 (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f). Based on information provided to the 

Marine Mammal Commission during its recent annual meetings, however, NMFS has provided 

between $100,000 and $200,000 per year since 1996 for various studies, including aerial and 

shipboard surveys, acoustic detection studies, satellite telemetry, and genetic sampling of right 

whales in Alaska. The Coast Guard has contributed ship time for studies, but its costs for doing 

so are unknown. NMFS estimates that it devoted at least 3.4 FTEs in staff effort on North Pacific 

right whale recovery work (0.6 by its regional offices and headquarters and 2.8 by its science 

centers) during 2005.19

Sei Whale 

Population Status: Sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis) were hunted commercially in the early to 

mid-1900s. The species as a whole was listed as endangered throughout its worldwide range 

under the ESCA in 1970, and that designation was carried forward under the ESA. The IWC 

classifies the Nova Scotia population of sei whales and all populations in the North Atlantic as 

protection stocks for which all commercial catch limits are set at zero. Sei whales in the eastern 

 

19 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115. 
77

North Pacific are also classified as protection stocks. Although the population structure of sei 

whales is not well understood, NMFS recognizes three populations in U.S. waters, based largely 

on historical whaling records: a Nova Scotia population in the western North Atlantic, an eastern 

North Pacific population, and a Hawaii population. 

Nova Scotia Population: The distribution of the Nova Scotia population is centered in Canadian 

waters, but in spring and summer a portion of the population moves south to feed in U.S. waters 

of the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank (NMFS 2006b). Generally, those whales remain offshore 

along the edge of the continental shelf, but occasionally they enter shallower waters, presumably 

in search of prey when food in offshore waters is insufficient. In 1977 the sei whale population in 

Canadian waters was estimated at 1,393 to 2,248 animals. Based on aerial surveys in the late 

1970s and early 1980s, sei whale abundance between Cape Hatteras and Nova Scotia was 

estimated to be 280 whales. There are no more recent estimates, and information is insufficient 

to determine current population size, population trends, or the PBR level (NMFS 2006b). 

Eastern North Pacific Population: The IWC recognizes one population of sei whales in the North 

Pacific (NMFS 2006a). In its stock assessment reports, however, NMFS considers whales off the 

Pacific coast of North America to be a distinct population separate from the population that 

occurs throughout the rest of the North Pacific. Commercial whaling in the North Pacific 

reduced sei whale abundance from an estimated pre-exploitation level of 42,000 whales to 

between 7,260 and 12,620 whales in 1974. Between 1947 and 1987 commercial whalers took 

61,500 sei whales in the North Pacific, of which 410 were taken off central California. Shipboard 

surveys in 1996 and 2001 yielded an estimated abundance of 56 whales off California, Oregon, 

and Washington. Based on that estimate, NMFS calculates a PBR of 0.1. 

Hawaiian Population: Although information on the population structure of sei whales in the 

North Pacific is insufficient to identify individual stocks with confidence, NMFS recently 

decided to prepare a separate stock assessment for sei whales in Hawaiian waters to avoid the 

risk of assuming them to be part of a single panmictic stock. Based on vessel surveys in 2002, 

the abundance of sei whales in U.S. waters around Hawaii was estimated to be 77 whales, with a 

PBR of 0.1. 

Major Threats: Vessel collisions and entanglement in fishing gear are potential threats to sei 

whales. Off the northeastern U.S. coast, a few recent collision-related sei whale deaths have been 

recorded (Laist et al. 2001, NMFS 2006b). There were no documented deaths due to 

entanglement in fishing gear. No recent sei whale deaths or serious injuries have been recorded 

in the eastern North Pacific or Hawaiian waters from collisions or entanglement (NMFS 2006a). 

Management Framework: NMFS has not established a recovery team or other management 

team for sei whales. The agency has limited its management actions to efforts to control 

commercial whaling through the IWC and the development of take reduction plans for large 

whale species along the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific coasts. 

Critical Habitat: None designated. 

Recovery Plan: Although a draft recovery plan for fin and sei whales was completed in 1998 

(Reeves et al. 1998), it was not adopted (see fin whales above). 
78

Major Management Actions: The IWC did not begin regulating commercial hunting for sei 

whales until 1970 (Reeves et al. 1998). Commercial hunting for the species was prohibited in the 

North Pacific in 1976 but continued in the North Atlantic until 1986 when the IWC’s 

moratorium on all commercial whaling went into effect. Other than addressing the impact of 

commercial whaling through the IWC, NMFS management actions regarding sei whales have 

been limited largely to conducting section 7 consultations and the development and 

implementation of take reduction plans that apply to large whales in general. 

Staff and Funding Levels: According to FWS annual expenditure reports (FWS 2003b–d, 

2005d–f, 2006), funding for work on sei whales between 1998 and 2004 ranged from $3,600 in 

2000 to $202,900 in 2003 (Table 20, Appendices C.1–7). Most reported expenditures have been 

by the U.S. Coast Guard for enforcement and reflect an apportionment of expenditures for ship 

time to enforce rules generally applicable to large whales. According to budget documents, 

NMFS allocated $994,000 in FY2003 for the recovery of endangered large whales (e.g., blue, 

bowhead, fin, sei, sperm, and North Pacific right whales, Appendix E). It is not clear how much, 

if any, of that funding was dedicated to sei whales. NMFS estimates that it devoted at least 0.2 

FTE in staff effort on sei whale recovery work (all by its regional offices) during 2005.20

Table 20. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of sei whales, 1998–

2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal

Year

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal

Total 

Federal

State

Total 

State

and 

Federal

1998 – – – – 4 4 1 5

1999 – – – – 4 4 – 4

2000 – – – – 4 4 – 4

2001 – – – – 12 12 – 12

2002 – – – – 1 1 – 1

2003 – – – 199 4 203 – 203 

2004 – – – 60 6 66 – 66

Sperm Whale 

Population Status: Sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) were drastically reduced in 

numbers worldwide by commercial whaling in the 1800s and early 1900s. The species as a 

whole was listed as endangered throughout its range under the ESCA in 1970, and that 

designation was carried forward under the ESA. The IWC has classified sperm whales 

worldwide as protection stocks for which commercial catch limits have been set at zero. 

Information on the population structure of the species is limited. The IWC currently considers 

sperm whales in the North Atlantic to be single population and those in the North Pacific to be 

 

20 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
79

divided into eastern and western populations. Abundance of sperm whales in the North Atlantic 

is unknown. For the eastern North Pacific Ocean, estimates include 22,700 whales for tropical 

latitudes and 24,000 (based on visual sightings) and 39,200 (based on visual sightings and 

acoustic data) for eastern temperate latitudes, although it is unclear whether whales from this 

area enter U.S. waters (Barlow and Taylor 1998). In contrast to the IWC, NMFS currently 

recognizes five sperm whale population stocks in U.S. waters for purposes of preparing stock 

assessment reports: a North Atlantic population, a northern Gulf of Mexico population, a 

California/Oregon/Washington population, a Hawaii population, and a North Pacific population. 

North Atlantic Population: Sperm whales that occur off the U.S. Atlantic coast are likely part of 

a larger population (NMFS 2006b). Based on surveys carried out in 2004, the best available 

estimate of abundance for sperm whales in U.S. waters off the East Coast is 4,804 whales. The 

PBR level is 7. Data are insufficient to determine population structure or trends. 

Northern Gulf of Mexico Population: Based on strandings, sightings, and historic whaling 

catches, sperm whales in the northern Gulf of Mexico are currently considered a distinct 

population for management purposes (NMFS 2006b). Pooled data from surveys conducted in 

1996–2001 yield a best estimate of abundance of 1,349 whales in the northern Gulf of Mexico, 

and a PBR level of 2.2. Data are insufficient to determine population trends. 

California/Oregon/Washington Population: Recent genetic analyses of sperm whales in the 

eastern North Pacific suggest that the whales along the California coast differ markedly from 

those sampled farther offshore (NMFS 2006a). Although there appear to be large numbers of 

sperm whales west and south of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone off the West Coast, it is not 

clear whether those whales enter U.S waters. The best available abundance estimate, which is 

derived from surveys in 1996 and 2001, is 1,233 sperm whales off California, Oregon, and 

Washington. The PBR level is 1.8. Data are insufficient to determine population trends. 

Hawaii Population: Hawaii was the center of a sperm whale fishery in the 19th century (NMFS 

2006a). Strandings and sound recordings document the continued presence of sperm whales in 

these waters. Preliminary results of genetic studies suggest a significant difference between 

whales sampled off the U.S. mainland coast and those off Hawaii (NMFS 2006a). Based on a 

shipboard survey in 2002, the abundance of sperm whales in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

around the Hawaiian archipelago is 7,082 whales resulting a PBR of 11. Information is 

insufficient to determine population trends. 

North Pacific Population: The range of the North Pacific sperm whale population considered in 

NMFS stock assessment reports extends from British Columbia, Canada, through Alaska, west to 

Russia. Current information is not sufficient to estimate its abundance, trend, or PBR level 

(NMFS 2005a). 

Major Threats: Sperm whales were hunted with varying degrees of intensity until the 

moratorium on commercial whaling went into effect in 1986–1987. Between 1800 and 1987 

commercial whalers took at least 436,000 sperm whales worldwide (NMFS 2006a). The actual 

take may have been as high as one million. Although commercial harvests are currently banned 

worldwide under the IWC’s moratorium on commercial whaling, the moratorium was adopted as 
80

a temporary measure and may be removed in the future, thereby raising the possibility of 

resumption in commercial hunting of sperm whales. Because of their offshore distribution, sperm 

whales have less exposure to many types of human impact than do some coastal species, but they 

are still vulnerable to entanglement in fishing gear, collisions with ships, chemical contaminants, 

and noise pollution (NMFS 2002b). 

Entanglement and Entrapment in Fishing Gear: Although sperm whales are known to become 

entangled in gillnets and longlines, the frequency of such events appears to be very low. In recent 

years, there has been no evidence of entanglements for the northern Gulf of Mexico and Hawaii 

populations. In the North Atlantic, three sperm whale entanglements were documented between 

1993 and 1998, but since then only one entanglement has been documented, suggesting a 

minimum annual rate of mortality and serious injury of 0.2 (NMFS 2006b). Along the Pacific 

coast, an average of one sperm whale per year was killed or seriously injured in offshore drift 

gillnets between 1997 and 2001 (NMFS 2006a). For waters off Alaska, the incidental mortality 

and serious injury rate based on known reports is 0.4 whale per year. These rates are less than 10 

percent of calculated PBR levels and are considered insignificant and approaching zero. 

Ship Strikes: Although there have been several reports of ship strikes involving sperm whales in 

areas such as the Canary Islands and parts of the Mediterranean Sea (Laist et al. 2001, NMFS 

2002b), fewer than five collisions have been recorded between sperm whales and ships in U.S. 

waters (Jenson and Silber 2003). Highest risks appear to occur when sperm whales use habitats 

close to land where ship traffic is greater. 

Contaminants: In some areas, high contaminant loads have been found in sperm whales (Ferber 

2005). In the North Atlantic, levels of mercury and PCBs were low in sperm whales sampled, but 

cadmium levels were high (NMFS 2006b). Whether or how such contaminant levels affect sperm 

whales is not known. 

Noise: Noise associated with oil and gas activities (particularly seismic surveys and drilling), 

military activities (particularly sonars used to detect submarines), and routine ship traffic may 

affect sperm whales (Mate et al. 1994). Such effects have been of particular concern in the Gulf 

of Mexico because of the extent of seismic surveys to locate and delineate oil and gas reserves. 

Management Framework: NMFS is the lead federal agency responsible for managing sperm 

whales. Together with the Department of State, NMFS and other offices in NOAA develop and 

coordinate scientific advice and U.S. positions for meetings of the IWC. NMFS and the Minerals 

Management Service share responsibility for ensuring that noise and other possible impacts 

associated with offshore oil and gas exploration and development do not adversely affect sperm 

whales. No recovery team or other interagency management team has been established to 

oversee or assist management activities specifically related to sperm whales. However, sperm 

whales have been considered in some take reduction plans developed for large whales taken 

incidentally in commercial fisheries. 

Critical Habitat: None designated. 
81

Recovery Plan: A draft recovery plan for sperm whales was circulated for public comment early 

in the summer of 2006 (NMFS 2006d). The immediate and ultimate goals of the draft plan are to 

recover sperm whale populations to the point where they can be downlisted to threatened and 

delisted from the list of endangered species. A two-tier system of criteria is included in the draft 

plan for reclassification and delisting purposes. The first tier addresses population benchmarks 

and identifies the following standards: 

x For reclassifying as threatened, the overall population in each ocean basin (1) must have 

remained stable or increased for at least 1.5 generations (26 years) or (2) must have 

satisfied a risk analysis standard of no more than a 1 percent chance of quasi-extinction in 

100 years. 

x For removing the species from the list, the overall population in each ocean basin (1) must 

have remained stable or increased for at least 3 generations (51 years) or (2) have less than 

a 10 percent probability of becoming endangered in 20 years. 

The second tier describes standards relative to the five listing factors established by the ESA.

x Destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species habitat or range: For downlisting, 

fishing interactions, vessel interactions, prey reduction, and effects of anthropogenic noise 

must have been assessed and needed management actions must have been initiated. For 

removal from the list, management actions must have been proven effective. 

x Overutilization for commercial, recreational, or educational purposes: For downlisting, 

direct human kills must be managed on a sustainable basis by the IWC, and for removal 

from the list, those management actions must have been proven effective and consistent 

with MMPA standards for maintaining populations at OSP levels. 

x Disease or predation: For both downlisting and removal from the list, assessments must 

have been undertaken showing that these factors are not appreciably affecting recovery.

x Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms: For both downlisting and removal from the 

list, the IWC must be regulating directed take on a sustainable basis, and applicable 

authorities must be adequately regulating takes due to vessel collisions and fishery 

interactions. 

x Other natural or manmade factors: For both downlisting and removal from the list, 

anthropogenic factors must have been investigated and determined not to be limiting 

recovery.

To meet these goals and criteria, the draft plan identifies nine objectives: (1) coordinate state, 

federal, and international recovery actions, (2) determine population discreteness and structure, 

(3) develop and apply methods to estimate population size and monitor trends in abundance, (4) 

conduct risk analyses for whales in each ocean basin, (5) identify and protect habitat essential to 

recovery, (6) identify and minimize human sources of injury and mortality, (7) determine and 

minimize detrimental effects of anthropogenic noise, (8) maximize efforts to acquire scientific 

information from dead, stranded, and entangled whales, and (9) develop a plan for monitoring 

the population after the species is removed from the list. Because sperm whales move across 

international borders, the draft plan stresses the importance of a multinational research and 

management approach. 
82

Major Management Actions: A ban on pelagic whaling for sperm whales in the North Pacific 

was first adopted by the IWC in 1980. It was extended globally in 1986–1987 when the IWC 

adopted a moratorium on all commercial whaling and set catch quotas for all stocks at zero. 

Section 7 consultations between NMFS and the Minerals Management Service have examined 

the effects of oil and gas exploration and development on sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico 

and have concluded that such activities are not likely to jeopardize their continued existence. 

Research is being undertaken in the Gulf of Mexico to improve information on possible noiserelated effects. Implementation of a take reduction plan for drift gillnets along the 

Oregon/Washington/California coast in 1997 included measures, such as education of skippers 

and the use of pingers, designed to reduce the take of marine mammals, including sperm whales. 

Staff and Funding Levels: According to NMFS budget documents, NMFS allocated $994,000 

in FY2003 funding to the recovery of endangered large whales (Appendix E). It is not clear how 

much of this was devoted to sperm whales. NMFS estimates that it devoted at least 2.2 FTEs in 

staff effort on sperm whale recovery work (0.5 by its regional offices and headquarters and 1.7 

by its science centers) during 2005.21 Annual FWS reports on expenditures for endangered 

species (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006) indicate that total funding related to sperm whale 

research and conservation between 1998 and 2004 ranged from $1,200 in 2002 to $2.27 million 

in 2004 (Table 21, Appendices C.1–7). Almost all the reported funding for 2003 was for U.S. 

Coast Guard enforcement activities. 

Table 21. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for the recovery of sperm whales, 1998–

2004 (Source: FWS 2003b–d; 2005d–f; 2006) 

Fiscal

Year

FWS USGS NMFS USCG Other 

Federal

Total 

Federal

State

Total 

State

and 

Federal

1998 – – – – 4 4 1 5

1999 – – – 6 1 7 – 7

2000 – – – – 3 3 – 3

2001 – – – – 27 27 – 27

2002 – – – – 1 1 – 1

2003 – – – 199 4 203 – 203

2004 6 – – 60 2,203 2,268 2 2,270

In recent years, the Minerals Management Service and partner agencies and organizations have 

been assessing the effects of noise from seismic air guns used to explore for oil and gas reserves 

on sperm whale distribution and abundance in the Gulf of Mexico. Between 2002 and 2007 more 

than $10 million has been allocated or committed in support of this study.22

The draft sperm whale recovery plan projects future funding needs to implement each of the nine 

major management actions identified previously (NMFS 2006d). As shown in Table 22, funding 

 

21 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

22 Ann Jochens, personal communication. 12 June 2006. Texas A&M University, College Station TX 77843; William Lang, 

personal communication. 12 June 2006. Program Director, Division of Ocean Sciences, National Science Foundation, 4301 

Wilson Blvd., Suite 725, Arlington, VA 22230.
83

needs were developed for each of the three ocean basins in which sperm whales occur and total 

$37.14 million over the next 20 years. 

Table 22. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement recovery activities for sperm 

whales in the 2006 draft sperm whale recovery plan (NMFS 2006d) 

Ocean

Basin* 

Action 

1

Action 

2

Action 

3

Action 

4

Action 

5

Action 

6

Action 

7

Action 

8

Action 

9

Total 

North 

Atlantic 

(2012) 250 500 9,000 100 525 385 520 2,623 75 13,950 

North 

Pacific

(2012) 220 500 13,500 100 525 385 520 2,650 75 4,780 

Southern 

Ocean

(2026) 220 250 3,000 200 475 180 410 – 4735 

* Dates in parentheses are estimates of the earliest possible dates for meeting recovery criteria. 

Beluga Whale, Cook Inlet Population 

Population Status: Distinct populations of beluga whales (Delphinapterus lecuas) are found in 

five areas off Alaska: the Beaufort Sea, the eastern Chukchi Sea, the eastern Bering Sea, Bristol 

Bay, and Cook Inlet (NMFS 2005d). Studies indicate that Cook Inlet beluga whales comprise the 

most discrete and isolated population in U.S. waters and that most whales remain in the inlet 

year-round (NMFS 2005d). Before 1994 there were no regular, systematic surveys of beluga 

whales in Cook Inlet; however, based on an aerial survey count of 479 whales in August 1979 

and on a correction factor for unobserved whales, NMFS estimates a population abundance of 

1,300 whales at that time. In 1994 NMFS began comprehensive, systematic aerial surveys of 

beluga whales in Cook Inlet (NMFS 2005d). Between 1994 and 1998 the surveys documented a 

decline of 47 percent, from 653 to 347 animals (NMFS 2005d). Based on the 2003 survey 

results, their abundance was estimated at 357 whales. The most recent NMFS stock assessment 

report uses those results to calculate a PBR of 2 (NMFS 2005a). Beluga whales are an important 

subsistence resource for Alaska Natives, and subsistence hunting levels were severely limited 

beginning in 1999 because of the population’s decline. Although the limited harvest was 

expected to allow the population to recover, the anticipated increase in population size has not 

occurred (Lowry et al. 2006). 

In 1988 NMFS included the Cook Inlet beluga whale population on its list of candidate species 

for listing under the ESA (53 Fed. Reg. 33516). Although inclusion on that list did not, in itself, 

impose restrictions, it signaled that federal agencies should take beluga whales into account in 

their planning. In 1998 NMFS began the process of deciding whether to designate Cook Inlet 

beluga whales as depleted under the MMPA or as threatened or endangered under the ESA (64 

Fed. Reg. 56258). In 1999 NMFS received two petitions to list the Cook Inlet beluga whales as 

endangered under the ESA; both petitions identified unregulated hunting as a major cause for the 

decline of the population. On 31 May 2000 NMFS announced a decision to deny the petitions 

and designated the Cook Inlet population as depleted under the MMPA (65 Fed. Reg. 34590). 
84

Although NMFS denied the two petitions to list the population under the ESA, in 2006 NMFS 

began a reexamination of the merits of such a listing in view of the population’s failure to 

increase since harvest limits were imposed (71 Fed. Reg. 14836). 

Major Threats: In 1999 NMFS concluded that the cause of the decline was high levels of 

mortality from subsistence hunting by Alaska Natives—including whales that were both struck 

and landed and those that were struck but lost and presumed dead (65 Fed. Reg. 38778). 

Although the precise level of mortality due to hunting is uncertain, the estimated average number 

of animals killed annually in subsistence harvests between 1995 and 1997 was 87 whales (NMFS 

2005a).

Beluga whales in Cook Inlet frequent shallow waters near developed coastal areas around 

Anchorage and ascend freshwater rivers. Because of this, they face a wide range of humanrelated threats in addition to subsistence hunting. These include vessel traffic and habitat 

alteration due to coastal development, as well as natural threats (NMFS 2004d; NMFS 2005a,d). 

Natural Threats

x Stranding Events: Strandings of beluga whales are common on tidal mud flats in Cook Inlet, 

but whales often are able to free themselves on incoming tides. Between 1988 and 2004 

NMFS recorded strandings of 804 beluga whales, including 129 reported mortalities (Vos 

and Shelden 2005). Of those strandings, 91 occurred between 1998 and 2004. Some 

strandings coincided with occurrences of killer whales in the inlet and may be the result of 

attempts to avoid predation. 

x Predation: Cook Inlet beluga whales are preyed upon by killer whales (Shelden et al. 2003b). 

Although little is known about the level of predation, it could be significant, especially in 

light of the severely reduced size of the population. 

x Parasitism and Disease: Little is known about the effects of disease on Cook Inlet beluga 

whales.

x Habitat Capacity and Environmental Change: Climate change may affect the availability of 

prey for beluga whales, chiefly salmon and eulachon, but to date there is no evidence that 

prey availability is a limiting factor. 

Human-induced Threats

x Subsistence Harvest: Alaska Natives hunt Cook Inlet beluga whales for food and traditional 

handicrafts. Take levels for Cook Inlet beluga whales are now limited to those authorized 

through a co-management agreement with NMFS. Although the decline in Cook Inlet beluga 

whale abundance in the 1990s can be explained largely by the level of Native take, the 

population’s failure to recover in recent years is apparently due to other factors. 

x Commercial Fishing: Beluga whales in Cook Inlet may be taken incidentally in fisheries for 

shellfish, groundfish, herring, and salmon. The only records of beluga whale mortality in 

commercial fisheries are from the early 1980s. Observer coverage of these fisheries is 

limited, but no incidental mortality was reported by observers or in fishery logbooks between 

1990 and 2000 (NMFS 2005a). 
85

x Pollution: Cook Inlet beluga whales are exposed to many kinds of pollutants commonly 

found in urban and industrial areas. Sources include partially treated sewage and runoff, 

discharges from industrial activities, such as petroleum exploration, fish-processing facilities, 

mining and agricultural operations, accidental oil spills, and routine discharges from oil 

exploration and development operations. With the exception of copper, beluga whales in 

Cook Inlet show lower levels of contaminants in their tissues than beluga whale populations 

elsewhere in Alaska (NMFS 2005d). 

x Vessel Traffic: Beluga whales are vulnerable to being struck by vessels, particularly near 

river mouths and other favored habitats that were once relatively isolated but are now 

accessible by boats. 

x Tourism and Whale-Watching: Currently there are no vessel-based commercial whalewatching operations in upper Cook Inlet where beluga whales are most easily observed. 

NMFS has concluded that whale watching is not a substantial threat to Cook Inlet beluga 

whales (NMFS 2005d). 

x Coastal Development: Beluga whales are found primarily in nearshore waters where they 

may come into conflict with development of adjacent lands and shallow waters. The effects 

of coastal development are poorly known, and NMFS is proposing that standards for coastal 

development be prepared, particularly in Knik Arm, an important summer feeding area for 

beluga whales near Anchorage (NMFS 2005d). 

x Noise: Like other toothed whales, beluga whales use sound to communicate, locate prey, and 

navigate. In Cook Inlet, a wide variety of human activities generate noise that may affect 

beluga whales. 

x Oil and Gas: Although oil and gas production in Cook Inlet is past its peak, about 238 wells 

are presently in production and approximately six new wells are drilled each year (NMFS 

2005d). Both state and federal governments continue to offer leases for exploration and 

development. Oil spills could affect beluga whales directly or significantly alter their habitat. 

Management Framework: Lead federal responsibility for managing beluga whales rests with 

NMFS. The management framework established by the MMPA provides an exemption for the 

taking of marine mammals by Alaska Natives for subsistence uses and the production of 

handicrafts. The Act allows limits on subsistence hunting only if a species has been designated as 

depleted. NMFS therefore had no authority to regulate hunting by Alaska Natives when the level 

of hunting increased in the mid-1990s (65 Fed. Reg. 38778). Because of concern about high 

levels of subsistence take, in 1999 the U.S. Congress enacted legislation (PL 106-31, section 

3022, 113 Stat. 57, 100) establishing a moratorium on hunting Cook Inlet beluga whales unless 

authorized through a co-management agreement between Alaska Native organizations and 

NMFS. The moratorium was made permanent by legislation passed in 2000 (PL 106-553), and 

conforming regulations were adopted by NMFS (65 Fed. Reg. 17973). NMFS is currently 

developing a conservation plan under the MMPA to identify and help guide research and 

management work to recover the Cook Inlet beluga whale population (NMFS 2005d). 

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat is not applicable because the Cook Inlet beluga whale 

population currently is not listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. However, the draft 

conservation plan characterizes habitats in Cook Inlet according to their importance to the 

population (NMFS 2005d). 
86

Recovery Plan: Because Cook Inlet beluga whales are not listed under the ESA, a recovery plan 

has not been developed for this population. However, in 2005 NMFS released a draft 

conservation plan for Cook Inlet beluga whales prepared under authority of the MMPA (NMFS 

2005d). Its stated purpose is to recover the Cook Inlet beluga whale population to its OSP level. 

Based on current estimates of carrying capacity, it recommends that NMFS consider removing 

the Cook Inlet population from the list of depleted species when the population reaches 780 

animals. The draft plan sets out three objectives for achieving this goal: 

x Identify and eliminate or mitigate factors that are responsible for the decline of the Cook 

Inlet beluga whales or that may be preventing their recovery; 

x Continue and, as necessary, expand research and management programs to monitor trends 

and detect natural or human-related factors affecting the Cook Inlet population of beluga 

whales and its habitat; and 

x Assess the success of implementing conservation actions and high-priority studies 

identified in the plan. 

Major Management Actions: In May 1999 President Clinton signed legislation establishing a 

moratorium on the taking of Cook Inlet beluga whales by Native subsistence hunters unless 

authorized by a cooperative agreement between NMFS and affected Alaska Native organizations 

(§3022 PL 106-31). That moratorium was to have expired in October 2000, but it was extended 

indefinitely by Public Law 106-553. In 2000 NMFS issued a proposed rule to establish harvest 

limitations under a formal rulemaking process set forth in the MMPA. Based on the 

recommendations of an administrative law judge and the findings of an environmental impact 

statement, NMFS published interim final regulations that set a harvest level of 1.5 whales per 

year for 2001–2004 (MMC 2005). Since 2000 NMFS has entered into cooperative agreements 

with the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council under which limited hunts have been authorized. 

The 2003 agreement calls for maintaining the beluga whale population at “levels that will allow 

for long-term sustainable harvests” (NMFS 2005d). In 2004, as required under a stipulation 

agreed to by the parties to the rulemaking, NMFS and the Council suspended the hunt because of 

the unusually high number of beluga whale deaths (20) recorded the previous year. The parties to 

the rulemaking also agreed that NMFS would develop a long-term harvest regime to govern 

subsistence taking after 2004 (MMC 2005). The long-term harvest plan has not been finalized. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Because Cook Inlet beluga whales are not listed under the ESA, 

funding levels for this population are not reported in annual FWS expenditure reports for 

endangered and threatened species. The Marine Mammal Commission’s survey of federally 

funded marine mammal research (Waring 2002) reports that federal expenditures for research on 

all beluga whale populations between FY1991 and FY2000 ranged from $160,000 in FY1991 to 

$781,000 in FY1995 (see Appendix F). The proportion devoted to Cook Inlet beluga whales is 

unknown. In 2000, the most recent year reported, the funding level was $351,000. The principal 

sources of funding were NMFS, the Navy, and the National Science Foundation. Between 

FY2002 and FY2004 NMFS allocated roughly $150,000 annually for research and management 

activities related to Cook Inlet beluga whales. NMFS estimates that it devoted at least 6.1 FTEs 

in staff effort on Cook Inlet beluga whale recovery work (2.3 by its regional offices and 

headquarters and 3.8 by its science centers) during 2005.23

 

23 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
87

The draft conservation plan (NMFS 2005d) projects cost estimates amounting to a total of $4.7 

million for identified activities (including all activities ranked from priority 1 through 3) during 

the first five years of recovery work after plan adoption (Table 23). The estimates, however, are 

provided only for activities associated with objective 1 (i.e., identify and eliminate or mitigate 

factors responsible for the decline of the Cook Inlet beluga whales or which may be preventing 

their recovery). Costs associated with objectives 2 and 3 are not provided. 

Table 23. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement objective 1 during the first five 

years after adoption of the 2005 draft Cook Inlet beluga whale conservation plan 

(NMFS 2005d) 

Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total 

Stranding events 103 164 103 91 108 569

Predation 6 8 10 12 14 50

Subsistence harvest 56 56 45 18 45 220

Commercial fishing 12 22 32 27 32 125

Vessel traffic 0 215 210 28 128 581

Tourism/whale-watching 38 63 41 31 35 208

Noise 20 40 40 20 20 140

Oil and gas activities 90 90 85 70 75 410

Research 72 137 78 118 80 485

Oil spills 60 110 100 75 75 420

Enforcement 70 65 70 63 67 335

Outreach and education 0 0 50 15 15 80

Marine discharges and pollution 10 10 15 15 20 70

Habitat alteration and coastal 

development 15 15 20 20 25 95

Knik Arm development 10 35 40 28 28 141

Legal/administrative support 150 170 140 150 150 760

TOTAL 722 1,200 1,079 781 917 4,699

Bottlenose Dolphin, Mid-Atlantic Coastal Population 

Population Status: Mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are a 

morphologically distinct group of dolphins that generally remains in waters less than 25 meters 

deep along the U.S. Atlantic coast from Long Island, New York, to Florida (NMFS 2002). Based 

on genetic analyses, photo-identification, satellite telemetry, and analyses of stable isotopes, at 

least seven management units have been identified within the population’s range (i.e., northern 

migratory, northern North Carolina, southern North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, northern 

Florida, and central Florida) (NMFS 2006b). 

In 1987–1988 a large die-off of at least 742 dolphins reduced the number of Atlantic coastal 

bottlenose dolphins by what was then thought to be more than half their abundance. As a result, 

NMFS designated the population as depleted under the MMPA in 1993. The proximate cause for 
88

the die-off was determined to be a neurotoxin produced by a red tide dinoflagellate, Ptychodiscus

brevis. However, the affected dolphins also carried high levels of organochlorines and other 

contaminants that may have predisposed them to effects of the neurotoxin (54 Fed. Reg. 41654). 

Aerial surveys are the primary source of information on distribution and abundance of coastal 

bottlenose dolphins. Surveys since the 1987–1988 die-off suggest that their abundance is 

substantially greater than previously thought (NMFS 2002). Results of surveys, conducted in 

2002, are shown in Table 24 (69 Fed. Reg. 65129). 

Table 24. Estimates of abundance, bycatch, and potential biological removal for mid-Atlantic 

coastal bottlenose dolphin management units in 2002 (NMFS 2006a) 

Management Unit Abundance 

Estimated 

Bycatch 

2001–2002 

Potential 

Biological 

Removal 

SUMMER (May-October) 

Northern migratory 17,466 112 146.2 

Northern North Carolina 7,079 8 40.8 

 Oceanic 6,160 32.6 

 Estuary 919 82.0 

Southern North Carolina 4,787 0 19.9 

 Oceanic 3,646 18.6 

 Estuary 141 1.2 

WINTER (November-April) 

Winter Mixed (Northern migratory, 

northern and southern North Carolina) 16,913 58 135.6 

ALL YEAR 

South Carolina 2,325 19.6 

Georgia 2,195 17.2 

Northern Florida 448 0 N/a 

Central Florida 10,652 6 N/a 

Major Threats: Because they inhabit nearshore waters, mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins 

are exposed to a number of anthropogenic and natural threats caused by interactions with 

commercial fisheries, red tides, contaminants, and focused recreational attention. 

Incidental Catch in Fisheries: Perhaps the principal threat to coastal bottlenose dolphins is 

bycatch in coastal fisheries, primarily large-mesh gillnet fisheries (NMFS 2006a). Analyses 

indicate that bycatch rates are highest within state waters, particularly in North Carolina and 

Virginia, during winter. Among the fisheries of greatest concern are the mid-Atlantic coastal 

gillnet fishery, the Virginia pound net fishery, the mid-Atlantic beach seine fishery, the Atlantic 

blue crab trap fishery, the North Carolina inshore gillnet fishery, the North Carolina roe mullet 

stop net fishery, the North Carolina long-haul seine fishery, the southeast Atlantic gillnet fishery, 

and the southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet fishery (69 Fed. Reg. 65128) (see Appendix B 

and later discussion). Although no bycatch has been documented by observers for the summer 

southern North Carolina management unit, stranding data indicate that dolphins also are taken as 

bycatch in that area and time of year (69 Fed. Reg. 65129). 
89

Red Tides: Neurotoxin poisoning associated with red tides appears to be an infrequent cause of 

major mortality for bottlenose dolphins; however, over the last 15 years at least six die-offs much 

smaller than the 1987–1988 event have been recorded (MMC 2004). Limited understanding 

about the population structure of coastal bottlenose dolphins and their abundance makes it 

impossible to accurately assess the impact of such die-offs. 

Contaminants: Coastal bottlenose dolphins are exposed to a wide range of pollutants from landbased run-off. Like many other marine mammals that inhabit nearshore areas, bottlenose 

dolphins carry high levels of some contaminants. The direct and indirect effects of contaminants 

have not been established but may include impairment of immune function (a possible 

contributing factor in the large 1987–1988 die-off) and reproduction. 

Tourism: Over the past decade, both legal and illegal commercial dolphin-watching ventures 

have encouraged close human interactions (e.g., feeding) with bottlenose dolphins. These 

activities have increased dramatically, particularly in the southeastern United States. A study by 

Samuels et al. (2003) concluded that dolphins are vulnerable to injury and death as a result of 

human contact and that important natural behaviors can be disrupted through such contact. For 

the last several years, NMFS has been considering regulations to govern such operations. 

Management Framework: NMFS has lead federal responsibility for conserving mid-Atlantic 

coastal bottlenose dolphins under the authority of the MMPA. Section 118(f)(1) of the MMPA 

requires the preparation and implementation of take reduction plans for strategic marine mammal 

stocks that interact with category I or category II fisheries. Coastal bottlenose dolphin 

populations in the Atlantic qualify as strategic stocks because fishery-related incidental mortality 

exceeds current estimates of PBR levels for some management units and because the population 

is designated as depleted (NMFS 2006b). In February 1997 NMFS convened a take reduction 

team, but the team determined that information was insufficient to develop management 

measures. After further research and analyses, NMFS convened a new take reduction team in 

October 2001. That team met five times and submitted recommendations to NMFS in May 2002. 

The Service determined that those recommended measures would not meet the statutory 

requirement for reducing incidental mortality and serious injury to below the PBR level. No 

other teams exist specifically for the purpose of managing mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose 

dolphins. The population is now managed according to a complex structure of “management 

units.”

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat is not applicable because the mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose 

dolphin population is not listed under the ESA. 

Recovery Plan: Provisions for preparing a recovery plan are not applicable because the midAtlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin population is not listed under the ESA. However, when 

NMFS proposed designating the population as depleted under the MMPA in 1991, it advised that 

it would prepare a conservation plan (56 Fed. Reg. 40595). In May 2001 a draft conservation 

plan was provided to the Marine Mammal Commission, which subsequently submitted 

comments to NMFS (MMC 2004). However, a draft plan has not been circulated for public 

review.
90

Major Management Actions: In November 1988 the Center for Marine Conservation petitioned 

NMFS to designate the coastal bottlenose dolphin population as depleted under the MMPA (54 

Fed. Reg. 41654). Proposed rules to do so were published in August 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 40594) 

and adopted in 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 17789). At the time, it was thought that there was only one 

coastal population distributed along the Atlantic coast. Although this is no longer believed to be 

the case, the stock structure remains uncertain, and the depleted designation remains in effect. 

The principal management focus has been on reducing incidental mortality and serious injury in 

coastal fisheries. In November 2004 NMFS proposed regulations based on recommendations 

prepared by the Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Team (69 Fed. Reg. 65127). They called for 

restrictions on fishing areas, gillnet soak times, and amounts of gear, with specific measures 

differing by management unit. Other recommendations were made for education and outreach 

efforts and for research, particularly to improve understanding of population stock structure. 

Final rules implementing those measures were published in 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 24775). 

Staff and Funding Levels: Because mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins are not listed under 

the ESA, estimated expenditures spent on this population are not reported in annual FWS 

expenditure reports required under the ESA. According to the Marine Mammal Commission’s 

survey of federally funded marine mammal research (Waring 2002), expenditures for biological 

and population assessment research on bottlenose dolphins between FY1991 and FY2000 ranged 

from $822,000 in FY1997 to $2.5 million in FY1995 (Appendix F). This funding, however, is 

not restricted explicitly to the mid-Atlantic coastal population. The principal sources of funding 

were NMFS and the Navy. 

NMFS estimates that it devoted at least 15.9 FTEs in staff effort on coastal mid-Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphin conservation (2.1 by its regional offices and headquarters and 13.8 by its 

science centers) during 2005.24 NMFS budget documents indicate that it allocated $748,000 to 

coastal bottlenose dolphins in FY2001, $2 million in FY2002, $1.99 million in FY2003, and 

$3.96 million in FY2004 (Appendix E).

Killer Whale, Southern Resident Population 

Status: The taxonomy of killer whales (Orcinus orca) is poorly known, but new information is 

being developed. Until recently, killer whales were considered to be a single species worldwide 

(69 Fed. Reg. 76674). Based on recent information, this is no longer believed to be the case. 

NMFS currently recognizes several distinct groups of killer whales in the North Pacific Ocean, 

including resident, transient, and offshore populations, each of which differs from the others in 

significant ways. A distinct group of southern resident killer whales occurs in waters straddling 

the U.S.-Canada border between Washington and British Columbia. This group is further divided 

into three pods designated J, K, and L. 

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, 47 killer whales were removed for purposes of research and 

public display, reducing the southern resident population to about 70 animals (MMC 2002). The 

 

24 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 
91

population subsequently increased to a high of 99 whales in 1995 but then declined to 79 whales 

by 2001. The decline seems to have resulted from a decrease in fecundity and an increase in 

mortality of immature and mature females. In 2001 the Center for Biological Diversity and other 

environmental groups petitioned NMFS to list southern resident killer whales as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA (69 Fed. Reg. 76673). Based on findings by a biological review team, 

NMFS denied the petition, concluding that southern resident killer whales did not constitute a 

separate species or a distinct population segment under the Act. In May 2003, however, NMFS 

designated the population as depleted under the MMPA. 

In response to litigation successfully challenging the decision on the initial ESA petition, NMFS 

reexamined the possibility of listing southern resident killer whales under the ESA. A new 

biological review team convened by NMFS concluded that southern resident killer whales meet 

the definition of a distinct population segment (Krahn et al. 2002). NMFS subsequently proposed 

listing the population as threatened (69 Fed. Reg. 76678). In taking this action, NMFS cited new 

results from population modeling studies that suggested, under the most optimistic recovery 

scenario, the population has a 0.1 to 3 percent probability of extinction in 100 years. Under the 

most pessimistic scenario, it was predicted to have a 39 to 67 percent probability of extinction in 

100 years. In support of its proposal to list southern resident killer whales as threatened rather 

than endangered, NMFS cited evidence of a small increase in abundance since 2000 and noted 

that the recruitment of several juvenile male and female whales to breeding age was expected in 

the next few years (69 Fed. Reg. 76679). In 2005 NMFS took final action and decided to list the 

southern resident killer whale population as endangered, rather than threatened, under the ESA 

(70 Fed. Reg. 69903). According to the notice, the listing as endangered instead of threatened 

resulted from information received during the comment period and a reanalysis of threats facing 

the population. The count of southern resident killer whales in 2005 was 84 whales; its PBR 

level is calculated to be 0.8 (NMFS 2006a).

Major Threats: Although specific causes for the slow growth and periodic declines in 

abundance of southern resident killer whales remain unknown, a number of possible factors were 

identified by the most recent biological review (Krahn et al. 2002). Since the mid-1980s the 

abundance of salmon, a principal prey species for southern resident killer whales, has declined in 

Puget Sound. In addition, the whales have been found to have high levels of organochlorines, 

including PCBs and a chemical flame retardant, that has been associated with compromised 

immune systems and reproductive function in other species. Oil spills and noise and disturbance 

from vessel traffic, including whale-watching ventures, also are considered possible factors in 

the decline. Noise-related impacts associated with the operation of sonar by Navy vessels passing 

through the species’ habitat also have been a source of concern. In support of its listing proposal, 

NMFS also cited concerns about the limited number of reproductive males and the lack of 

reproduction by some sexually mature females. 

Management Framework: At present, no recovery team or other interagency management team 

has been convened specifically to oversee or assist NMFS in implementing recovery efforts for 

southern resident killer whales. In its proposal to list the population as threatened, NMFS 

announced that it would convene a recovery team if designation were to occur. In March 2005 

NMFS released a preliminary draft conservation plan under the MMPA (NMFS 2005c). 
92

Critical Habitat: In listing southern resident killer whales as endangered, NMFS declined to 

propose critical habitat, citing difficulty in identifying critical habitat for a group of animals 

whose foraging areas vary in time and space and which do not use specific breeding, nursing, or 

resting areas. In June 2006, however, NMFS proposed designating more than 2,500 square miles 

of inland waters in Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and around the San Juan Islands as 

critical habitat. Final designation of the area was made in November 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 69054). 

Recovery Plan: In March 2005 NMFS released a preliminary draft conservation plan under the 

MMPA (NMFS 2005c). This preliminary draft plan, structured much like a recovery plan, 

identifies proposed actions to accomplish the following objectives: 

x Monitor the status and trends of the southern resident killer whale population; 

x Protect the population from factors that may contribute to its decline or reduce its ability to 

recover;

x Protect the population from additional threats that may disturb, injure, or kill the whales or 

affect habitat; 

x Conduct research to facilitate and enhance conservation efforts; 

x Develop public information and education programs; 

x Respond to killer whales found stranded, sick, injured, or isolated, that pose a threat to the 

public, or that exhibit nuisance behaviors; and 

x Promote transboundary and interagency coordination and cooperation. 

Although NMFS has not announced plans to prepare a recovery plan for southern resident killer 

whales, the draft conservation plan presumably would provide a basis for doing so. 

Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans has convened a recovery team for southern 

resident killer whales that includes representatives of the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife and NMFS. The team has begun developing a recovery plan under Canadian authority 

(69 Fed. Reg. 76679). 

Major Management Actions: In announcing its proposal to list the southern resident killer 

whales as threatened, NMFS described initial management needs including public education, 

outreach, and stewardship activities in cooperation with the Seattle Aquarium and the Whale 

Museum. A major focus of outreach efforts would be promoting responsible whale-watching 

behavior and enforcement in cooperation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(69 Fed. Reg. 76679). NMFS also noted that it would evaluate protective regulations available 

under the ESA. As noted above, NMFS designated southern resident killer whales as endangered 

in 2005 and designated critical habitat in November 2006. 

Staff and Funding Levels: Because southern resident whales were not listed under the ESA 

until 2005, funding levels for this population have not been reported in past annual FWS 

expenditure reports for listed endangered and threatened species. However, budget documents 

indicate that NMFS allocated $746,000 in FY2003 and $1.5 million in FY2004 for actions 

related to recovery of southern resident killer whales. NMFS estimates that its headquarters, 

regional offices, and fisheries science centers devoted 7.1 FTEs to research and management 

activities (2.1 by its regional office and headquarters staff and 5 by its science centers) related to 
93

the southern resident killer whale population in 2005.25 Projected funding needs to carry out 

tasks identified in the 2005 southern resident killer whale conservation plan during the first five 

years after adoption of the plan totaled $13.6 million (Table 25). 

Table 25. Projected funding needs (in $ thousands) to implement conservation activities for 

southern resident killer whales during the first five years after adopting the draft 2005 

southern resident killer whale conservation plan (NMFS 2005c) 

Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total 

MANAGEMENT 

Identify contaminant clean-up sites 30 30 – – – 60

Minimize risks from oil spills 20 – – – – 20

Minimize disturbance from vessels 220 270 290 310 290 1,380

Develop public outreach programs 172 132 142 132 142 720

Respond to distressed/stranded whales N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pursue cooperation with Canada 10 230 200 240 160 840

RESEARCH AND MONITORING 

Monitor status and trends 20 100 100 100 100 420

Assess distribution and movements 419 975 1,025 1,025 1,025 4,469

Assess diet 112 190 190 190 190 872

Assess population dynamics 32 130 130 130 130 552

Determine metabolic rates 40 75 75 75 75 340

Assess changes in prey availability – 200 200 200 200 800

Assess effects of noise 150 325 325 325 325 1,450

Assess effects of contaminants/disease 55 210 210 210 210 895

Assess genetic relationships 70 150 150 100 100 570

Improve research technology 50 50 50 50 50 250

TOTAL 1,400 3,067 3,087 3,087 2,997 13,638

Killer Whale, AT1 Group 

Status: The AT1 group of killer whales is a genetically and socially distinct group of transient 

killer whales in the northern Gulf of Alaska. This group has been resighted annually in Prince 

William Sound and the Kenai Fjords area (NMFS 2005a). Like other transient killer whales, the 

AT1 whales are specialized feeders on marine mammals, particularly harbor seals (Phoca

vitulina) and Dall’s porpoises (Phocoenoides dalli). Although their range overlaps with other 

killer whale populations, they have never been observed to associate with whales from other 

groups.

 

25 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115. 
94

Under the MMPA, AT1 killer whales are considered part of a larger eastern North Pacific 

transient killer whale population (NMFS 2003a). The minimum population estimate for the 

eastern North Pacific population is 346 animals. Although some AT1 killer whales were first 

observed in 1978 in Prince William Sound, the group was not identified as a separate unit until 

1984 (NMFS 2003). At that time, three individuals were identified as juveniles, indicating that 

reproduction had occurred in the previous eight years. In 1987, 9 of the 22 whales counted in the 

group were males. This is considered a very high percentage of males. All 22 whales were 

observed regularly until the Exxon Valdez oil spill in March 1989. Since that time, the population 

has steadily declined. The most recent abundance estimate is eight whales, including four aging 

females (NMFS 2005a). No new calves have been documented since 1984. 

In November 2002 several conservation organizations submitted a petition to NMFS to designate 

the AT1 group of transient killer whales as depleted under the MMPA (68 Fed. Reg. 3483). In 

response, NMFS convened a status review group that subsequently concluded that AT1 killer 

whales had a distinct vocal dialect and pattern of movement and were genetically distinct from 

other transient killer whales (NMFS 2003). Based on those findings, NMFS concluded that AT1 

killer whales constituted a population stock as defined by the MMPA and that the population of 

nine animals remaining at the time had declined to 41 percent of their presumed carrying 

capacity (i.e., the 22 whales documented in the late 1980s). In June 2004 NMFS issued a final 

rule designating the group as depleted under the MMPA (69 Fed. Reg. 31321). 

Major Threats: Threats identified for AT1 killer whales by NMFS include the following: 

Oil Spills: AT1 killer whales appear to have been harmed by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill 

(NMFS 2003). Eleven members of the group have disappeared since the spill, and at least some 

of those animals are thought to have died because of it. The AB pod of resident killer whales in 

Prince William Sound also was observed swimming through the spill and, within two years, it 

lost 13 of its 36 members. Although steps have been taken to reduce the likelihood of large spills 

occurring in the future, such a threat will continue to exist as long as oil is transported through 

habitats used by these whales. 

Environmental contaminants: Seven members of the AT1 group were found to have significantly 

higher levels of organochlorine concentrations than resident killer whales in the same area 

(NMFS 2003). The high levels are similar to those found in other North Pacific transient killer 

whales and are consistent with a diet that includes other top-level predators. Exposure to 

organochlorines may be contributing to the absence of observed reproduction in this group over 

the past 20 years. 

Prey Availability: The abundance of harbor seals in Prince William Sound—a primary prey item 

for AT1 killer whales—declined 63 percent between 1984 and 1997 after the Exxon Valdez oil 

spill (NMFS 2003). This may have limited the whales’ ability to find adequate food and 

compromised their health and reproduction. 

Fisheries Interactions: Although a number of fisheries operate in the range of AT1 killer whales, 

incidental take and mortality of killer whales has been documented only for the Bering Sea 

groundfish trawl and longline fisheries (NMFS 2003). 
95

Whale-Watching and Vessel Traffic: It appears that AT1 killer whales are not likely to be 

affected by the increase in whale-watching in Alaska (NMFS 2003). Most whale-watching 

activities in Prince William Sound and Kenai Fjords interact with resident killer whales. 

Although other types of vessel traffic also have increased, it is unknown whether or to what 

extent vessel noise might impair the ability of killer whales to navigate, forage, and 

communicate.

Management Framework: NMFS is the lead agency responsible for conserving killer whales. 

No interagency management teams have been established explicitly to oversee or assist with 

recovery of this group of killer whales. 

Critical Habitat: Critical habitat is not applicable because the AT1 killer whale population is 

not listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. 

Recovery Plan: In designating AT1 killer whales as depleted in June 2004, NMFS announced its 

intent to develop a conservation plan under provisions of the MMPA (69 Fed. Reg. 31322). A 

draft plan had not been circulated for public review as of the compiling of this report. 

Major Management Actions: No specific management actions for AT1 killer whales have been 

taken to date. Recovery work on this group of whales has been limited to research and 

monitoring by NMFS’ National Marine Mammal Laboratory and contracted researchers to 

determine demographic parameters and monitor their abundance (69 Fed. Reg. 31322). 

Staff and Funding Levels: Because AT1 killer whales are not listed under the ESA, funding 

levels for this population are not reported in annual FWS expenditure reports for endangered and 

threatened species. NMFS estimates that it devoted 0.5 FTE in staff effort (0.2 by its regional 

offices and headquarters and 0.3 by its science centers) to the AT1 group of killer whales.26 No 

estimates of funding levels for research activities specific to this group of whales could be 

identified.

 

26 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115. 
96

IV. OVERVIEW AND TRENDS 

STATUTORY PROTECTION PROVISIONS

The ESA and the MMPA provide the foundation for most marine mammal protection activities. 

For species listed as threatened or endangered, the ESA is generally more important. Among the 

most important provisions of the ESA are (1) a prohibition on the taking of listed species, 

including adverse modification of their critical habitat; (2) requirements for preparing and 

implementing recovery plans that identify necessary recovery actions and associated costs; and 

(3) requirements for all federal agencies to use their respective authorities to protect listed 

species and to consult with either NMFS or FWS if any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out 

are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify its critical 

habitat. In this regard, the Act authorizes the designation of areas as critical habitat if they 

contain biological or physical features essential for a species’ survival. 

The MMPA prohibits intentional as well as unintentional injury, death, or harassment of all 

marine mammals, including those listed as endangered or threatened. This prohibition is subject 

to some exceptions, such as non-wasteful taking by Alaska Natives for subsistence and 

handicraft purposes and for authorized scientific research and enhancement activities. The 

MMPA also provides exemptions for (1) taking small numbers of marine mammals incidental to 

activities other than commercial fishing if the taking is authorized by regulations, and (2) taking 

incidental to commercial fishing, provided that the take does not exceed a PBR level calculated 

specifically for the stock. For fisheries not achieving this standard, NMFS is required to convene 

a take reduction team and prepare a take reduction plan to reduce takes to below the PBR level. 

If a marine mammal stock falls below its OSP level, it also must be listed as “depleted.” Besides 

further limiting the taking from stocks so listed, the Act authorizes the preparation of a 

conservation plan similar to a recovery plan under the ESA. 

Other relevant legislation includes the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, which establishes national standards for harvesting fish and authorizes the 

development of fishery management plans. In part, national standards under this Act require that 

fishery management plans prevent overfishing while achieving an optimum yield that takes into 

account interactions with other species, such as marine mammals, and ecosystem elements. The 

Act also requires minimizing bycatch of marine mammals and other non-target species. Most 

fishery management plans, however, have not directly addressed the impact of fisheries on 

marine mammals. 

Other important statutes include the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the 

preparation of environmental impact statements for major federal actions that may affect the 

environment; the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which guides the exploration and 

development of oil and gas reserves in federal waters and requires consideration of 

environmental effects on marine mammals and other species; and Title III of the Marine 

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, which authorizes the designation and management of 

national marine sanctuaries that include marine areas of national significance, some of which are 

particularly important as marine mammal habitats. 
97

The conservation of marine mammals, including listed species, also is subject to provisions of 

several international treaties. For example, the International Convention for the Regulation of 

Whaling established the International Whaling Commission, which recommends limits on 

commercial and subsistence harvests of whales by member countries. The Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora establishes controls on 

international trade in wildlife species by its member countries. 

POPULATION STATUS

The abundance of listed marine mammal populations varies widely. Some are among the world’s 

rarest mammals, such as the AT1 group of killer whales (with eight individuals), eastern North 

Pacific right whales (numbering perhaps a few tens of animals), and North Atlantic right whales 

(numbering about 300 animals). Other populations are far larger but have experienced alarming 

declines in recent decades. For instance, the eastern North Pacific population of northern fur 

seals has declined from more than two million to an estimated 688,028 animals, while western 

Steller sea lions, which numbered more than 150,000, now number about 38,000 animals. 

Excluding Caribbean monk seals—which are widely considered to be extinct—the 21 listed 

marine mammal taxa include 7 with known or probable declining trends, 8 that have shown signs 

of increasing over the past 25 years, and 6 whose population trends are unknown. 

SPECIES PROTECTION PROGRAMS

As of December 2006, 14 marine mammal species and populations occurring regularly in U.S. 

waters were recognized as endangered under the Endangered Species Act and four others were 

listed as threatened (Lowry et al. 2007). By virtue of these listings, all 18 taxa are automatically 

classified as depleted under the MMPA. Four other marine mammal taxa were independently 

listed as depleted. 

Differences in the behavior, distribution, and preferred habitats of these marine mammals present 

a wide variety of recovery challenges. Some large whales annually migrate thousands of miles 

across the jurisdictions of several countries and are exposed to diverse threats including 

entanglement in fishing gear, contamination by pollutants, and collisions with vessels. The 

movements of other marine mammals, such as Florida manatees, Hawaiian monk seals, and 

southern sea otters, are comparatively limited, with animals remaining largely or entirely under 

U.S. jurisdiction. Those taxa tend to be limited to coastal waters where, again, human activities 

can have profound effects on population growth and survival. 

A significant development for marine mammal conservation programs in recent years has been 

an improvement in the understanding of population structure through new genetic studies and 

better data on species distribution and ecology. The implications of this new information have 

yet to be fully reconciled with current assessments of the conservation status and recovery goals 

for the listed marine mammals. For example, although humpback whales are listed as a single 

species and classified as endangered worldwide, at least four separate populations have now been 

identified in U.S. waters alone. Furthermore, there appear to be at least six subpopulations of 

humpback whales whose use of discrete feeding grounds suggests that they would not be readily 

repopulated by whales from different subpopulations if they were to be reduced. Similar 

behavioral patterns appear to isolate groups of killer whales and Florida manatees. To integrate 
98

rapidly advancing understanding of stock structure into recovery programs, management 

agencies are struggling to reassess and revise recovery priorities, goals, and conservation 

strategies to conform to this new understanding. Failure to understand and account for population 

structure can lead to poorly directed management actions, ineffective recovery effort, and the 

loss of ecologically significant species groups. 

THREATS TO MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES AND POPULATIONS

In the 19th and 20th centuries, commercial hunting greatly reduced most of the listed marine 

mammal taxa, and it was thought that cessation of hunting would allow the species to recover 

fully. Because marine mammals tend to be long-lived and to reproduce slowly, their recovery 

from severe depletion is a long process at best and, in some cases, will take more than 100 years 

even after factors limiting population growth have been controlled. Some species and 

populations have shown signs of recovery since directed harvests ended. After decades of 

protection, the eastern Pacific population of gray whales recovered to near-pre-exploitation

levels, allowing it to be removed from the endangered species list in 1994. Since passage of the 

ESA and MMPA, several other listed species also have shown varying degrees of recovery, 

including some populations of humpback whales, blue whales, sperm whales, and fin whales, 

Guadalupe fur seals, and Florida manatees. In a few cases—particularly for populations that 

were reduced to very low levels—a variety of factors is preventing or slowing recovery, and it 

often is not clear which factors are most influential. 

The most prevalent impediments to the growth of listed marine mammal taxa in U.S. waters 

include incidental entanglement in fishing gear, ship strikes, reduction in prey availability, 

entanglement in marine debris, and the effects of natural biotoxins. Other factors that have been 

important for at least some species are subsistence harvests, coastal development, contaminants, 

oil spills, disturbance and harassment by people, climate change, predation, disease, entrapment 

in physical structures, and loss or degradation of key habitats (see Appendix G). The significance 

of different types of stresses varies by species and population. For example, entanglement in 

marine debris is a serious threat to Hawaiian monk seals but a relatively minor threat to Florida 

manatees and great whales. Entrapment in floodgates and navigation locks poses a threat unique 

to Florida manatees. Ship strikes and collisions with smaller vessels affect a number of species 

but have had their greatest effect on Florida manatees and North Atlantic right whales. MidAtlantic bottlenose dolphins are most affected by fishery interactions, contaminants, and disease. 

Although significant progress has been made in reducing incidental injury and mortality of many 

marine mammals in fisheries, direct (e.g., entanglement in active fishing gear) and indirect (e.g., 

removal of marine mammal prey items) interactions continue to impede the recovery of a 

number of listed marine mammals. 

Examples of significant natural threats to species are male mobbing and shark predation on 

Hawaiian monk seals, cold winter weather and periodic red tides on Florida manatees and 

bottlenose dolphins, and outbreaks of disease on bottlenose dolphins. In some cases, causes of 

decline remain unknown or subject to controversy (e.g., southwest Alaska sea otters, northern fur 

seals, and Steller sea lions) despite directed study. In many cases involving natural threats, 

human-related factors may have subtle underlying influences. For example, red tide-related dieoffs may be indirectly related to effects of contaminants that impair animal immune systems, and 

the frequency or intensity of red tides themselves may be related to pollution from land run-off 
99

or, potentially, changes in ocean temperature and currents secondary to climate change. 

Similarly, cold stress in some manatees may be related to the location and reliability of warmwater outfalls created by power plants and used by manatees during winter. 

MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Although NMFS and FWS exercise lead responsibility for marine mammals under their 

respective jurisdictions, the conservation of many endangered, threatened, and depleted marine 

mammal taxa rely on a much broader group of federal, state, and non-governmental partners. 

The activities of these agencies and groups often are organized through recovery teams, take 

reduction teams, implementation teams, Alaska Native organizations, and other formal and 

informal advisory groups. 

The most elaborate example of this approach is the Florida manatee recovery program. Although 

FWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission carry out most formal 

regulatory aspects of the program and USGS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 

undertake most manatee research, the current manatee recovery team includes more than 140 

members from 60 agencies and groups. The team’s activities are coordinated through 12 working 

groups and task forces. The cooperative efforts of these organizations help address many of the 

tasks identified in the recovery plan that the lead agencies could not undertake alone, given 

limited resources. However, the breadth of involvement also presents an enormous 

organizational challenge. 

Cooperative programs with large numbers of partners also exist for North Atlantic right whales 

and Steller sea lions. Somewhat less complex, but no less crucial, partnerships exist for bowhead 

whales, Hawaiian monk seals, and southern sea otters. In some cases, other agencies or 

organizations play key decision-making roles in recovery efforts. For instance, the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council has developed and incorporated measures to reduce fishery 

impacts on western Steller sea lions into its groundfish fishery management plans, and the 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission allocates and enforces Native subsistence catch quotas for 

bowhead whales. Congress also has played an important role in many recovery programs by 

directing appropriations to species or projects and, in a few cases, by enacting legislation 

designed to address species-specific management issues. Examples of the latter include statutory 

provisions authorizing the translocation of southern sea otters and legislation prohibiting the 

subsistence hunting of Cook Inlet beluga whales except as provided in co-management 

agreements. 

Conservation programs for many listed species, however, are far less developed. For example, 

blue whales, sperm whales, fin whales, sei whales, and Guadalupe fur seals receive very little 

species-specific management attention from NMFS or other agencies. Because the United States 

is a member of the IWC, NMFS and the Department of State have actively represented U.S. 

interests at IWC meetings to promote protection of whales from commercial exploitation. Also, 

the National Marine Sanctuary Program has supported research and public education regarding 

marine mammals that occur in national marine sanctuaries. 
100

CRITICAL HABITAT

Although the ESA now requires designating critical habitat for species or populations that are 

listed, such areas have not been designated for most listed marine mammals. This is partly 

because this requirement was not in effect when most marine mammals were first listed. In 

addition, data to identify such areas are not available for some species, and both NMFS and FWS 

have been reluctant to dedicate resources to this purpose for species already listed. Where such 

efforts have been made, it has often been in response to litigation to compel such designations. 

Only 7 of the 18 marine mammal taxa currently listed have had critical habitat designated (i.e., 

North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales, southern resident killer whales, Hawaiian monk 

seals, eastern and western Steller sea lions, and Florida manatees). 

RECOVERY PLANS AND TEAMS

Recovery plans or conservation plans have been completed and adopted for 9 of the 18 marine 

mammal taxa listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA and one of the four taxa listed 

only as depleted under the MMPA (Table 26). In a few cases, these plans have been updated 

periodically to reflect new information and issues. For example, the Florida manatee recovery 

plan has been updated three times at roughly five-year intervals, and the recovery plans for 

northern right whales and southern sea otters have both been revised once since initial adoption. 

Recovery plans for Hawaiian monk seals and Steller sea lions and the conservation plan for 

northern fur seals are currently being updated for the first time. Recovery plans for humpback 

whales and Antillean manatees are more than a decade old and have not been updated. Draft 

recovery plans also have been developed or initiated for four other taxa (fin whales, sperm 

whales, sei whales, and southwest Alaska sea otters), but no plans have been developed or 

planned for three taxa (bowhead whales, Guadalupe fur seals, and Caribbean monk seals). With 

regard to the four taxa listed only as depleted under the MMPA, a conservation plan was adopted 

for one (the Pribilof Islands population of northern fur seals) and draft plans are in varying stages 

for the other three. A draft conservation plan for mid-Atlantic bottlenose dolphins was prepared 

several years ago but has not been circulated for pubic review, a draft conservation plan for Cook 

Inlet beluga whales was released in 2005, and an intent to prepare a draft conservation plan for 

AT1 killer whales was announced in 2004.

The different recovery and conservation plans vary greatly in content. The goals of recovery 

plans developed prior to the mid-1990s were generally qualitative and often called for increasing 

populations to undefined levels that would allow downlisting or delisting with adequate levels of 

protection for the species and its habitats. Recent plans (e.g., for North Atlantic right whales and 

Florida manatees) reflect the 1994 amendments to the ESA that require objective, measurable 

criteria for determining when species have recovered. Those plans generally have far more 

specific goals, such as downlisting or delisting the species after specific quantitative criteria have 

been met. In such cases, however, meeting the quantitative benchmarks merely triggers a 

qualitative analysis of the five listing factors set forth in the ESA and to date, with the exception 

of Florida manatees, no analyses have been undertaken to measure progress against identified 

criteria.
101

Table 26. Status of recovery plans and conservation plans prepared under the Endangered Species 

Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act for endangered, threatened, and depleted 

marine mammals. 

Common Name Adopted Plans Draft Plans 

Plans Currently 

under

Development or 

Revision 

Florida Manatee 1980, 1989, 1991, 

1996, 2001 Revision 

Puerto Rican Manatee 1986

Caribbean Monk Seal 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 1983 2006 

Western Steller Sea Lion 1992 2006 

Blue Whale 1998 2006 

Western Arctic Bowhead Whale 

Fin Whale 1998, 2006 

Humpback Whale 1991

North Atlantic Right Whale 1991, 2005 

North Pacific Right Whale 1991

Sei Whale 1998 

Sperm Whale 2006 

Southern Resident Killer Whale 2005 

Southern Sea Otter 1982, 2003 

Southwest Alaska Sea Otter Development 

Guadalupe Fur Seal 

Eastern Steller Sea Lion 1992 Revision 

Eastern North Pacific Northern Fur Seal 1993 Revision 

Cook Inlet Beluga Whale 2005 

Mid-Atlantic Coastal Bottlenose Dolphin Development 

AT1 Killer Whale 

Although causes of population declines and obstacles to recovery are not always apparent, all of 

the recovery and conservation plans provide thorough analyses of known and suspected or 

potential conservation threats as they are understood at the time the plans are written. As most 

plans are developed by teams of stakeholders and scientists and are made available for public 

comment, the plan development process provides an important opportunity for reaching 

agreement on conservation issues and needs and for encouraging and directing involvement by 

concerned agencies and groups. Developed plans also vary in the degree to which they focus on 

reducing the factors contributing to the unfavorable status of listed species. In most cases, initial 

recovery plans have focused more on identifying research priorities to clarify and provide a more 

informed basis for management actions. 

Approved recovery plans typically outline sets of prioritized tasks that provide a basis for 

projecting funding needs over a five-year period. The funding needs invariably exceed levels the 

lead agencies expect to provide but have served to encourage, justify, and guide cooperative 
102

involvement and funding by partner agencies and organizations. Periodic plan revisions have 

provided renewed opportunities for encouraging and guiding partner agencies and groups in light 

of new information and progress. However, because many taxa either do not yet have approved 

recovery or conservation plans or have plans that are more than 10 years old, the benefits of 

provisions for preparing plans under the ESA and MMPA have not been used to their fullest 

extent for all listed taxa. 

The role and composition of recovery teams has varied by species and over time. As noted 

above, the recovery team for Florida manatees has evolved from a small team composed 

principally of scientists to one that now includes more than 150 members representing 

management agencies, industry and environmental groups, academia, and the public. This shift 

reflects a change in focus from research to provide information for decision-making to one of 

coordinating a wide range of research, monitoring, and recovery activities performed by many 

different institutions. Similarly, the recovery teams initially convened by NMFS for Hawaiian 

monk seals were composed principally of scientists, but recent membership changes have 

reduced the number of scientists and increased representation from involved agencies and 

stakeholders. However, because the lead agencies have convened teams for only a few listed 

taxa, the provisions authorizing them to establish teams have been underused. 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

In most cases, recovery program management measures—particularly regulations—have been 

developed through an adaptive management approach. That is, management measures have been 

adopted incrementally and remain in effect until they are determined to be insufficient, at which 

time they are supplemented or replaced with new measures. This approach reflects agency 

desires to minimize the risk of imposing unnecessary measures. However, it also can result in 

management programs that develop too slowly and are ineffective or minimally effective. 

Adaptive management presumes an ability to measure the effectiveness of implemented 

measures. Effectiveness is usually evaluated by one of two methods: (1) monitoring trends in 

overall population abundance or particular population parameters (e.g., rates of mortality) in 

response to a particular measure, and (2) studies to assess the extent to which relevant 

stakeholders use or comply with recommended or required measures. 

The North Atlantic right whale recovery program typifies the adaptive management approach 

although, in this case, one that has been unsuccessful. To reduce entanglement in fishing gear, 

NMFS adopted a take reduction plan in 1997 that relied largely on requirements for modifying 

fishing gear. As observed right whale entanglements continued with little evidence of a decline, 

NMFS has had to make frequent minor and major changes to its plan. However, instead of 

implementing fundamentally different approaches with a higher probability of addressing 

entanglement risks, adopted changes have relied on expanded requirements for the same gear 

modifications, so far resulting in little or no progress. To reduce right whale deaths due to ship 

collisions, NMFS initially relied on public outreach and voluntary actions by vessel operators. 

Initial outreach efforts were supplemented by mandatory ship reporting measures in the late 

1990s to ensure that vessel operators transiting key habitats were aware of available information 

on right whales, collision risks, and avoidance measures. As those measures failed to reduce the 

frequency of collision-related right whale deaths, steps were initiated to develop a fundamentally 

different approach involving new speed and routing requirements. Adaptive management also 
103

has been used incrementally to better effect for expanding the scope of restrictions on fisheries 

interacting with southern sea otters and Steller sea lions and for boat speed limits to protect 

Florida manatees. In the Steller sea lion case, however, the changes in management were driven 

more by litigation than by recognition of and response to inadequate protection measures. 

The scope and scale of recovery programs for listed marine mammals varies greatly depending 

on many factors including the types of threats, the adequacy of information with which to design 

management measures, public interest, and available funding. As indicated in the following 

section on staffing and funding, roughly 95 percent of the funding allocated to the 18 taxa listed 

as endangered or threatened has been devoted to 7 taxa (Florida manatees, California sea otters, 

Hawaiian monk seals, eastern and western Steller sea lions, North Atlantic right whales, and 

humpback whales). For the other 11 listed taxa (Puerto Rico manatees, southwest Alaska sea 

otters, Caribbean monk seals, Guadalupe fur seals, North Pacific right whales, bowhead whales, 

blue whales, fin whales, sei whales, sperm whales, and southern resident killer whales), recovery 

programs involve limited studies to assess population trends and limited management actions. 

Management efforts for large whales generally involve programs that cover multiple taxa 

simultaneously (e.g., take reduction plans addressing several species and participation in the 

IWC management program). Funding levels for the four taxa listed only as depleted under the 

MMPA are moderate to small. In general, no single factor or set of factors explains the disparate 

scope of recovery efforts. 

For many of the taxa receiving the most funding, interactions with commercial fisheries have 

been and may continue to be the major issue (i.e., North Atlantic right whales, mid-Atlantic 

coastal bottlenose dolphins, Steller sea lions, Hawaiian monk seals, and southern sea otters). 

Management measures to address fishery interactions with listed marine mammals have 

frequently involved biological opinions prepared pursuant to section 7 of the ESA and lawsuits 

filed by environmental groups to compel greater protection for listed marine mammals. Adopted 

management actions have focused on the design of fishing gear, voluntary or mandatory use of 

fishing gear modifications, time/area fishing closures, fishery observer programs, 

disentanglement programs, and, in the case of southern sea otters, attempts to exclude animals 

from certain areas. In several cases, NMFS has convened take reduction teams composed of 

fishermen, government agency officials, conservationists, and other interests to recommend take 

reduction plans under the MMPA for reducing incidental injury and mortality. Although work to 

develop plans for non-listed marine mammals appears to have resulted in added protection in 

some cases (e.g., Gulf of Maine harbor porpoises), efforts to develop plans for listed taxa, such 

as North Atlantic right whales and bottlenose dolphins, have been less successful. In the case of 

North Atlantic right whales, entanglement rates have not declined since the take reduction plan 

was first implemented in 1997 despite periodic efforts to reconvene and expand the take 

reduction team and to implement significant plan modifications. In the case of bottlenose 

dolphins, limits on available information have delayed plan adoption. In these cases, it appears 

that MMPA provisions requiring the formation of take reduction teams and the preparation of 

take reduction plans have not been effective and that alternative approaches for identifying 

needed measures may be needed. 

The depletion of prey resources by commercial fisheries also is a significant issue for some listed 

taxa (e.g., Steller sea lions and Hawaiian monk seals). Such indirect fishery interactions are 
104

nominally addressed in fishery management plans under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, but our understanding of such potential impacts and efforts 

to investigate them have been inadequate to date. Following litigation concerning the effects of 

management plans for fisheries that might affect Steller sea lions, the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council and NMFS limited fishing in or near certain sea lion habitats (e.g., 

rookeries and foraging areas), but they have not addressed the large-scale question of whether 

fishing under a maximum sustainable yield-based paradigm is safe for marine ecosystems. With 

regard to possible effects of lobster fishing on Hawaiian monk seals, the Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council and NMFS rejected management recommendations by the Marine 

Mammal Commission for nearly 10 years until litigation and uncertainty as to the status of the 

lobster stock compelled NMFS to close the fishery entirely. Although efforts to address such 

indirect interactions are consistent with directives that fishery management plans establish 

optimal yield levels that take into account ecological factors, such efforts have been inconsistent 

at best and suggest that clearer guidance and direction are needed. 

As a general matter related to both incidental taking in fishing gear and effects on prey 

availability, federal managers appear particularly reluctant to consider creating or modifying 

time/area closure provisions to address interactions with marine mammals. Although such 

actions are invariably controversial, time/area closures are routinely adopted and used to manage 

targeted fish stocks. However, most fishery management councils and NMFS have given little 

consideration to integrating time/area closure systems to benefit both marine mammal 

conservation and fish conservation objectives at the same time. A broader approach in preparing 

fishery management plans to adopt closure systems that attempt to meet conservation benefits for 

both fish stocks and marine mammals would be a positive step toward addressing conservation 

needs for marine mammals. 

In several cases, state agencies have appeared more willing than federal agencies to establish 

fishery closures to protect marine mammals. For example, over the last decade, the state of 

California has excluded trap and net fishing from important sea otter habitats. In 2005 the state 

of Hawaii restricted all types of fishing in state waters of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to 

protect marine life, including Hawaiian monk seals. 

Several listed taxa, particularly large whales and Florida manatees, are affected by vessel 

collisions. To reduce collision risks for whales, federal managers have relied largely on outreach 

and voluntary actions by mariners. The most ambitious efforts in this regard have focused on 

North Atlantic right whales that use calving grounds off Florida and Georgia and feeding 

grounds off New England. Those efforts advise vessel operators on ways to reduce collision risks 

and provide them with real or near-real time reports of whale sighting locations. Because these 

efforts have not reduced observed levels of collision-related right whale deaths, NMFS is 

developing regulatory measures to restrict vessel speeds and routing in key right whale habitats. 

Such rules have already been developed by the state of Florida and FWS to protect Florida 

manatees. Some of those rules have been contentious and subject to legal challenges. FWS and 

the state also have sought to reduce boat collisions with manatees by limiting or conditioning 

permits for marinas and other watercraft facilities in manatee habitat and by encouraging 

comprehensive manatee protection plans as part of county growth management plans. 
105

Other management issues common to many listed marine mammal taxa are entanglement in 

marine debris and harassment by human activities. The taxa most affected by marine debris 

appear to be Hawaiian monk seals and the Pribilof Islands population of northern fur seals. 

Management actions to reduce marine debris impacts have included efforts to disentangle 

individual animals, public education to foster proper disposal practices, and volunteer beach 

clean-ups. Dedicated at-sea clean-up efforts also have been undertaken to remove hazardous 

debris from reefs adjacent to monk seal pupping beaches in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 

To date, pleas for voluntary action to properly dispose of trash does not appear to have reduced 

debris levels. Efforts to reduce human disturbance have generally focused on keeping people 

some minimal distance away from animals. For example, NMFS has established a 100-yard 

minimum approach distance for humpback whales in Hawaii and Alaska and a 500-yard 

minimum approach distance for North Atlantic right whales. The agency also has developed nonbinding whale-watching guidelines specific to each of its regions of the county. For Florida 

manatees, FWS has established no-entry manatee sanctuaries at warm-water refuges where 

manatees can avoid attention by swimmers and divers. To minimize disturbance of Hawaiian 

monk seals on beaches in the main Hawaiian Islands, volunteers working with NMFS and the 

state of Hawaii post temporary safety zones around hauled-out animals to keep beachgoers at a 

proper distance. These measure have had varying degrees of success. 

For several listed marine mammal taxa, management programs include or encourage steps to 

purchase land or set aside areas whose development or use could adversely affect marine 

mammals or their habitat. Both the state of Florida and FWS have acquired tens of thousands of 

acres of land adjacent to waterways heavily used by Florida manatees. The importance of the 

Midway Islands as monk seal pupping habitat was a factor prompting the U.S. Navy to transfer 

the area to FWS for use as a national wildlife refuge. In several cases, marine areas have been 

designated as national marine sanctuaries largely or in part because of their importance as habitat 

for listed marine mammals (e.g., the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary, the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, and the PapahƗnaumokuƗkea

Marine National Monument). 

Another element common to management programs for several listed taxa (e.g., southern sea 

otters, Hawaiian monk seals, and Florida manatees) is direct intervention to improve survival 

rates or reduce risks (e.g., head start programs, translocations, and rescue/rehabilitation 

programs). Because of logistical limitations, direct intervention programs are generally not 

feasible for large whales (with the exception of disentanglement efforts noted previously). In the 

late 1980s FWS implemented a program to relocate southern sea otters outside their existing 

range in California to establish a new colony at an offshore island that would reduce the risk of a 

catastrophic event, such as an oil spill, affecting the entire remaining population. Between 1981 

and 1993 NMFS attempted to increase the survivorship of Hawaiian monk seal pups at French 

Frigate Shoals and Kure Atoll by taking them into captivity for brief periods and then releasing 

them back into the wild. Injured and distressed Florida manatees are routinely brought into 

captivity for rehabilitation and release back into the wild. 

STAFFING AND FUNDING

Staffing and funding are significant factors affecting the scope of recovery programs. Both have 

increased substantially since directed management programs were first required by the MMPA 
106

and ESA in the 1970s. NMFS estimates that it spent 131.4 FTEs in staff time on research and 

management activities for the 18 listed species and populations under its jurisdiction during 

2005. Of this, 32.7 FTEs were by headquarters and regional office staffs for management 

purposes and 98.7 by the staff of fisheries science centers principally for research (Table 27) 

(Payne and Bengtson pers. comm.27). Seventy percent of that staff time was devoted to four taxa: 

North Atlantic right whales, western Steller sea lions, Hawaiian monk seals, and mid-Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphins. Nearly three-quarters of the remaining staff effort was devoted to four other 

taxa: southern resident killer whales, humpback whales, eastern Steller sea lions, and beluga 

whales. FWS and USGS allocated at least 30.9 FTEs in staff effort to the four listed marine 

mammals under jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, most of which was devoted to the 

recovery efforts for Florida manatees. 

Information on funding allocated to listed marine mammals is fraught with limitations. The most 

systematic and useful sources of information were (1) annual administrative reports prepared by 

FWS and USGS pursuant to a requirement of the MMPA (FWS 1981–1996, FWS and National 

Biological Service 1996, FWS and USGS 1997–2004), and (2) annual reports on recovery 

program expenditures for all endangered and threatened species prepared by FWS pursuant to a 

requirement in the ESA (FWS 2003b–d, 2005d–f, 2006). NMFS also prepared annual 

administrative reports pursuant to MMPA requirements through the early 2000s; however, its 

reports did not provide information on species-specific funding allocations. Annual MMPA 

administrative reports by FWS and USGS were more useful, but those also do not summarize 

total costs by species and address only the listed marine mammals under Department of the 

Interior jurisdiction (i.e., manatees and sea otters) and combine budget data for some categories 

for all marine mammals. Requirements for those reports have since been eliminated. Recent 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration budget books also provide line-item 

summaries of appropriations that include information for some species, but many relevant lineitems list only receiving organizations, and it is not clear what taxa or what work is being 

addressed. The Marine Mammal Commission’s annual surveys of federally funded marine 

mammal research provide species-specific information on research projects but do not address 

funding for management activities and are organized by agency rather than species. 

Perhaps the single most useful source of funding data are the FWS annual reports of 

expenditures for all endangered and threatened species. Those reports include a species-byspecies summary of all “reasonably identifiable federal expenditures primarily for the 

conservation of endangered and threatened species,” including expenditures by states receiving 

grants under section 6 of the ESA. In part, the reports identify taxa-specific funding levels by 

federal and state agencies for the listed marine mammals that receive the most funding. They do 

not, however, itemize costs for listed marine mammals that receive low levels of funding 

(generally those less than $1 million) or are not listed as endangered or threatened (i.e., species 

listed only as depleted under the MMPA). They also do not necessarily reflect costs that are not 

clearly related to a specific species. In this regard, agencies providing funding data have broad 

latitude in determining how they tabulate their expenditures. As a result, accounting methods 

differ across agencies. For example, budget data for the Coast Guard, whose enforcement and 

 

27 P. Michael Payne, personal communication. 17 August 2005. Chief, Marine Mammals Division, Office of Protected Species, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910; John Bengtson, personal communication. 8 December 2006. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA 98115. 
107

support activities accounted for half of all reported expenditures on listed marine mammals in 

2003, include all costs for ship operations (e.g., fuel costs, depreciation, and crew salaries) while 

on missions whose primary objective relates to listed species. Other agencies, however, 

apparently may not include such administrative and overhead costs. It also is unclear whether 

and how cost accounting methods by reporting agencies have changed over time, the extent to 

which participating agencies may have changed, or to what degree agency staff salaries are 

reflected. Notwithstanding such limitations, FWS reports provide the most comprehensive source 

of funding data available for listed marine mammals. 

Table 27. Estimated number of full time equivalent staff positions (FTEs) devoted to marine 

mammal protection programs by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service in fiscal year 2005 (P. M. Payne and J. Bengtson pers. comm.). 

Species

NMFS 

Regional 

Offices & 

Headquarters 

NMFS 

Fisheries

Science

Centers

Fish and 

Wildlife

Service

U.S. 

Geological 

Survey Total 

Florida Manatee – – 11.25 13.36 24.61 

Puerto Rican Manatee – – 1.00 0.75 1.75 

Caribbean Monk Seal 0 0 – – 0 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 1.20 21.00 – – 22.20 

Western Steller Sea Lion 1.10 13.30 – – 14.40 

Blue Whale 0.35 1.18 – – 1.53 

Western Arctic Bowhead Whale 0.60 3.50 – – 4.10 

Fin Whale 0.60 0.28 – – 0.88 

Humpback Whale 1.80 5.30 – – 7.10 

North Atlantic Right Whale 16.00 13.20 – – 29.20 

North Pacific Right Whale 0.60 2.80 – – 3.40 

Sei Whale 0.20 0 – – 0.20 

Sperm Whale 0.53 1.70 – – 2.23 

Southern Resident Killer Whale 2.10 4.95 – – 7.05 

AT1 Killer Whale 0.20 0.25 – – 0.45 

Southern Sea Otter – – 2.00 ? 2.00+ 

Guadalupe Fur Seal 0 0.20 – – 0.20 

Eastern Steller Sea Lion 1.30 5.13 – – 6.43 

Eastern North Pacific Fur Seal 1.70 8.40 – – 10.10 

Cook Inlet Beluga Whale 2.30 3.78 – – 6.08 

Mid-Atlantic Coastal Bottlenose 

Dolphin 

 2.10 13.75 – – 15.85 

Southwest Alaska Sea Otter – – 2.50 ? 2.50+ 

TOTAL FTEs 32.68 98.72 16.75+ 14.11+ 162.16+ 
108

Based on those reports, federal expenditures for ESA-listed marine mammal taxa increased 

steadily from $8.5 million in 1998 to a high of $82.6 million in 2003, and then declined to $71.2 

million in 2004 (Table 28). During that same period, expenditures by states receiving ESA 

section 6 grants increased from $40,100 to $8.9 million. Much of this increase can be attributed 

to funding for Steller sea lions. Excluding funds for that species, reported expenditures for the 

other ESA-listed marine mammals increased from $2.9 million to $17.1 million between 1998 

and 2000 and then increased at a slower rate, reaching $28.6 million in 2004. For most listed 

marine mammals, more than half of all funding has been devoted to research and monitoring. 

The high expenditures on research reflect the fundamental need for demographic and biological 

data. Such data are essential for making and justifying management decisions in environmental 

impact statements, recovery and conservation plans, budget documents, and other decisionmaking records. For several listed marine mammals (e.g., AT1 killer whales, several great 

whales, and Guadalupe fur seals), research and monitoring studies are virtually the only activities 

funded.

Funding for marine mammal taxa listed under the ESA is heavily weighted toward a few taxa 

(Figure 1). Of the $82.6 million in federal and state expenditures reported during the peak 

funding year of 2003, 91 percent was allocated to four taxa: western and eastern Steller sea lions 

($49.5 million and $5.3 million, respectively), North Atlantic right whales ($11.8 million), and 

Florida manatees ($9.8 million). More than half of the remaining funds were allocated to three 

other taxa: Hawaiian monk seals ($2.1 million), humpback whales ($1.6 million), and southern 

sea otters ($1.4 million). The remaining $1 million was distributed among the other nine ESAlisted taxa and was reported principally by the Coast Guard for enforcement. Overall, more than 

half of all reported expenditures for ESA-listed marine mammals in 2003 ($42.9 million) was 

reported by the Coast Guard for enforcement, principally related to Steller sea lions and North 

Atlantic right whales. Excluding Coast Guard funds from the 2003 total, federal and state 

expenditures totaled $39.6 million, with 88 percent allocated to eastern and western Steller sea 

lions ($14.9 million), North Atlantic right whales ($10.7 million), and Florida manatees ($9.85 

million). An additional 12 percent was allocated to Hawaiian monk seals, southern sea otters and 

humpback whales. Only 0.4 percent of the funding by agencies other than the Coast Guard in 

2003 was spent on the other nine listed taxa. Overall, federal agencies accounted for nearly all 

spending on all listed marine mammal taxa except Florida manatees, where the state of Florida 

has provided more than 60 percent of reported expenditures since the 1990s. 

Funding levels for species listed only as depleted are less clear. Funding for bottlenose dolphins 

has exceeded $2 million in some years, but funding for Cook Inlet beluga whales, AT1 killer 

whales, and the eastern North Pacific fur seal population has rarely, if ever, exceeded about 

$200,000 to $400,000 annually. 

During the period 2001–2004 expenditures reported by NMFS for listed marine mammals 

declined from $40.7 million to $32.6 million; those reported by FWS remained relatively steady 

at between about $2 million to $2.5 million (Figure 2). At the same time, Congress earmarked 

increasing amounts of funding to both agencies for various activities on specific taxa. Most 

notable in this regard were earmarks for Steller sea lions and North Atlantic right whales. A 

significant amount of the congressional earmarks was targeted to non-federal research 

organizations for research and monitoring activities. Although data have not been compiled for 
109

2004 and 2005, congressional appropriations to NMFS and FWS for work on marine mammal 

recovery programs have been further reduced. As a result of recent budget cuts and increasing 

numbers of earmarks, the ability of NMFS and FWS to allocate funds among taxa on a 

discretionary basis is very limited. 

Table 28. Total estimated federal and state expenditures on endangered and threatened species in 

fiscal years 1998–2005. Numbers in parentheses are state funding levels; all amounts are 

in $ thousands.

Species FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 

West Indian Manatee 

(Florida + Puerto Rico taxa) 

1,565 

(13) 

4,351 

(1,945) 

9,743 

(5,923) 

9,373 

(5,936) 

8,571 

(5,929) 

9,799 

(5,969) 

9,862 

(5,945) 

Southern Sea Otter 495 

(0) 

615 

(156) 

624 

(35) 

1,094 

(35) 

1,066 

(35) 

1376 

(40) 

734 

(20) 

Caribbean Monk Seal 10

(0) 

0

(0) 

0

(0) 

8

(0) 

0

(0) 

0

(0) 

0

(0) 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 1,156 

(0) 

1,105 

(0.4) 

1,267 

(14) 

2,121 

(14) 

2,197 

(14) 

2,145 

(15) 

2,321 

(0) 

Steller Sea Lion 

(East + West taxa) 

3,079 

(19) 

7,234 

(8) 

13,113 

(6) 

46,783 

(2,338) 

55,998 

(2,496) – –

Eastern Steller Sea Lion –– – ––

5,297 

(1,203) 

10,811 

(1,203) 

Western Steller Sea Lion –– – ––

49,514 

(1,200) 

31,746 

(1,200) 

Guadalupe Fur Seal 0

(0) 

2

(0) 

2

(0) 

0

(0) 

0

(0) 

0

(0) 

0

(1) 

Blue Whale 4

(1) 

125 

(0) 

6

(0) 

1

(0) 

8

(0) 

203 

(0) 

67

(2) 

Bowhead Whale 1

(1) 

(0) 

(3) 

3

(3) 

25

(25) 

7

(0) 

204 

(0) 

190 

(0) 

Fin Whale 5

(1) 

13

(0.3) 

5

(1) 

24

(2) 

13

(1) 

206 

(1) 

72

(3) 

Humpback Whale 361 

(41) 

492 

(8) 

567 

(11) 

740 

(11) 

890 

(11) 

1,615 

(18) 

666 

(7) 

Northern Right Whale 

(N. Pacific + N. Atlantic 

taxa) 

1,460 

(1) 

3,273 

(290) 

4,872 

(127) 

6,036 

(145) 

8,393 

(280) 

11,802 

(123) 

12,370 

(504) 

Sei Whale 5

(1) 

4

(0) 

4

(0) 

12

(0) 

1

(0) 

203 

(0) 

66

(0) 

Sperm whale 5

(1) 

7

(0) 

3

(0) 

27

(0) 

1

(0) 

203 

(0) 

2,270 

(2) 

TOTAL 

 (All Marine Mammals) 

$8,505 

(81) 

$17,222 

(2,410) 

$30,207 

(2,410) 

$66,244 

(8,505) 

$77,147 

(8,765) 

$82,567 

(8,570) 

$71,175 

(8,887) 

Percent of funding relative 

to all listed taxa 

2.2% 

(0.5%) 

2.6% 

(4.3%) 

5.8% 

(6.1%) 

10.2% 

(11.1%) 

10.7

(11.7%) 

12.1% 

(12.6%) 

9%

(14.5%) 
110

$-

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

In $ thousands

Other

Humpback whale

Hawaiian monk seal

Southern sea otter

Florida manatee

North Atlantic right whale

Steller sea lion

Figure 1. Expenditures for recovery activities on all taxa listed as endangered or threatened by 

species and by year, 1998 2004 

Recent trends in congressional funding for endangered marine mammal programs pose at least 

two major challenges for lead agencies. First, appropriated funding has not been sufficient to 

address all high-priority needs identified in recovery and conservation plans. Second, the 

increasing proportion of funding appropriated as earmarks limits the agencies’ ability to respond 

to new information and issues. Although most earmarks have usefully addressed important 

research and management needs, they have reduced the ability of the lead agencies, particularly 

NMFS, to allocate funds based on its best assessment of greatest need or opportunity. In 

addition, although earmarks often allow the start-up of new programs, they do not provide a 

basis for carrying out long-term research or management work. As a result, modifications to 

existing recovery programs are difficult, and the implementation of new recovery initiatives for 

species and populations that may be equally or even more endangered than those receiving the 

most funding is limited. In addition, for those species that do receive significant funding, it is 

very difficult for the agencies to plan and support multi-year commitments that often are 

essential to achieve program goals. 
111

$-

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

FWS Funding NMFS Funding Coast Guard Funding State Funding

(in $ thousands)

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Figure 2. Expenditures for recovery activities on all taxa listed as endangered or threatened by 

agency and by year, 1998–2004. (Data for NMFS and USCG were not reported 

separately prior to 2001) 

Where resources have been available, recovery efforts for threatened, endangered, and depleted 

marine mammal populations have become increasingly sophisticated. In some cases, improved 

research techniques have better defined factors responsible for population declines or failure to 

recover. In other cases, resolution of such causes has remained elusive. For most taxa, improved 

information, particularly with regard to stock structure, has made it clear that the task of recovery 

is far more complex than previously thought. Managers must consider not just a single, broadly 

distributed species but multiple populations and subpopulations, each of which may be affected 

by different threats and human activities in a variety of ways that are not always apparent. This 

has made scientific and political decisions concerning how to mitigate the impact of human 

activities more difficult. 

Pressures on marine mammal populations, not to mention other marine wildlife, are clearly 

increasing as human demands for food, waste disposal, and economic development continue to 

grow. Although recovery programs for listed marine mammals have made great strides in 

addressing these issues, and some listed species are making good progress toward recovery, 

constraints on funding levels and agency flexibility loom as significant impediments in 

addressing pressing needs for other species. 
112

V. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank the staff of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service for their patience and assistance with innumerable requests for information. In 

particular, we would like to thank P. Michael Payne of the National Marine Fisheries Service and 

Deborah Crouse of the Fish and Wildlife Service for helping to coordinate many of the responses 

made during the preparation of this report. Although many people with both agencies and the 

Marine Mammal Commission reviewed and commented on various sections of this report, we 

express a special thanks to Lloyd Lowry, Suzanne Montgomery, and Timothy Ragen for their 

careful reviews of multiple drafts. Special thanks also go to Wilhelmina Innes for her help in 

preparing the appendices and various tables in the body of the report. 

VI. REFERENCES 

Baker, C. S., and L. M. Herman. 1989. Behavioral responses of summering humpback whales to 

vessel traffic: experimental and opportunistic observations. Technical report NPS-NRTRS-89-01 to the National Park Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, Gustavus, AK. 

50 pp. 

Baker, J. D., and T. C. Johanos. 2004. Abundance of the Hawaiian monk seal in the main 

Hawaiian Islands. Biological Conservation 116:103–110. 

Barlow, J., and B. L. Taylor. Unpubl. Preliminary abundance of sperm whales in the northeastern 

temperate Pacific estimated from a combined visual and acoustic survey. Paper 

SC/50/CAWS20 presented to the International Whaling Commission, June 1998. 

Bartholomew, G. A. 1950. A male Guadalupe fur seal on San Nicolas Island, California. Journal 

of Mammalogy 31:175–180. 

Bean, M. J., and M. J. Rowland. 1997. The Evolution of National Wildlife Law. Praeger 

Publishers, Westport, CT. 

Braun, R. C., and P. K. Yochem. 2006. Workshop to evaluate the potential for use of 

morbillivirus vaccination in Hawaiian monk seals. Final report prepared for the Marine 

Mammal Commission, Bethesda, MD. 35 pp. 

Calambokidis, J., and J. Barlow. 2004. Abundance of blue and humpback whales in the eastern 

North Pacific estimated by capture-recapture and line transect methods. Marine Mammal 

Science 20:65–85. 

Calkins, D. G., and K. B. Schneider. 1985. The sea otter (Enhydra lutris). Pp. 37–45 in J. Burns, 

K. J. Frost, and L. F. Lowry (eds.). Marine mammal species accounts. Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game. Game Technical Bulletin 7. 

Caswell, H., M. Fujiwara, and S. Brault. 1999. Declining survival probability threatens the North 

Atlantic right whale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 96:3308–3313. 

Clark, J. A., J. M. Hoekstra, P. D. Boersman, and P. Kareiva. 2002. Improving U.S. Endangered 

Species Act Recovery Plans: key findings and recommendations of the SCB recovery 

plan project. Final report to the FWS, Washington, DC March 2002. Cited in National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. Interim Endangered and Threatened Species 

Recovery Planning Guidance. October 2004. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/guidance.htm.
113

Crouse, D. T., L. A. Mehrhoff, M. J. Parkin, D. R. Elam, and L. Y. Chen. 2002. Endangered 

species recovery and the SCB study: A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service perspective. 

Ecological Applications V. 12, No. 3, pp.719–723. Cited in National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS). 2004. Interim Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Planning 

Guidance. October 2004. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/guidance.htm.

DeMaster, D., R. Angliss, J. Cochrane, P. Mace, R. Merrick, M. Miller, S. Rumsey, B. Gaylor, 

G. Thompson, and R. Waples. 2004. Recommendations to NOAA Fisheries: ESA Listing 

Criteria by the Quantitative Working Group, 10 June 2004. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-67, 85p. http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/.

Department of Commerce and Department of the Interior (DOC DOI 1996). 1996. Secretarial 

Order on American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the 

Endangered Species Act. Order 513, May 13, 1996. 

Doroff, A. M., J. A. Estes, M. T. Tinker, D. M. Burns, and T. J. Evans. 2003. Sea otter 

population declines in the Aleutian Archipelago. Journal of Mammalogy 84(1):55–64. 

Estes, J. A. 1990. Growth and equilibrium in sea otter populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 

59:385–401.

Estes, J. A., M. T. Tinker, T. M. Williams, and D. F. Doak. 1998. Killer whale predation linking 

oceanic and nearshore ecosystems. Science 282:473–476. 

Ferber, D. 2005. Sperm whales bear testimony to worldwide pollution. Science 309:1166. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (FWS and NMFS). 1994a. 

Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Activities. 59 

Fed.Reg. 34270. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (FWS and NMFS). 1994b. 

Interagency Cooperative Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species 

Act. 59 Fed.Reg. 34271.

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (FWS and NMFS). 1994c. 

Interagency Cooperative Policy on Recovery Plan Participation and Implementation 

Under the Endangered Species Act. 59 Fed.Reg. 34272. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (FWS and NMFS). 1994d. 

Interagency Cooperative Policy for the Ecosystem Approach to the Endangered Species 

Act. 59 Fed.Reg. 34274. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (FWS and NMFS). 1994e. 

Interagency Cooperative Policy Regarding the Role of State Agencies in Endangered 

Species Act Activities. 59 Fed.Reg. 34275. 

Fleischer, L. A. 1987. Guadalupe fur seal, Arctocephalus townsendi,. Pp 43–48 in J.P. Croxall 

and R.L. Gentry (eds). Status, biology, and ecology of fur seals. Proceedings of an 

international symposium and workshop. Cambridge, England, 23–27 April 1984. U.S. 

NOAA Technical Report NMFS 51. National Marine Fisheries Service. U.S. Department 

of Commerce.

Fowler, C. M. 1982. Interactions of northern fur seals and commercial fisheries. In Transactions 

of the 47th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife 

Management Institute. Washington, DC. 

Fowler, C. M. 1985. An evaluation of the role of entanglement in the population dynamics of 

northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and 

Impact of Marine Debris, 27–29 November 1984. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA 

Tech Memo, NMFS-NOAA- TM-MNMF-SWFC-54. 
114

Gilmartin, W.G. 1983. Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal, Monachus schauinslandi.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region. March 24, 1983. 

Groombridge, B. (ed.). 1994. 1994 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, 

Switzerland. 

Haubold, E. M, C. Deutsch, and C. Fonnesbeck. 2005. Preliminary biological status review of 

the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. St. Petersburg, FL. 

Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team. 2005. Draft Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal. 

October 2005. Prepared for the Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Silver Spring, MD. 

Hubbs, C. L. 1956. The Guadalupe fur seal still lives! Zoonoz. San Diego Zoological Society 

29(12):6–9.

Jameson, R. J, K. W. Kenyon, A. Johnson, and H. M. Wight. 1982. History and status of 

translocated sea otter populations in North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10(2):100–

107.

Jensen, A. S., and G. K. Silber. 2003. Large whale ship strike database. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-OPR-25. Office of Protected Resources. National Marine Fisheries 

Service. U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD. 37 pp. 

Kenyon, K. W. 1972. Man versus the monk seal. Journal of Mammalogy 53(4):687–696. 

Kenyon, K. W. 1977. Caribbean monk seal extinct. Journal of Mammalogy 58(1):97–98. 

Krahn, M. M. et al. 2002. Status review of southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under 

the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-54, 133 pp. 

Kraus, S. D. M. W. Brown, H. Caswell, C. W. Clark, M. Fujiwara, R. D. Kenny, A. R. 

Knowlton, S. Landry, C. A. Mayo, W. A. McLellan, M. J. Moore, D. J. Nowacek, D A. 

Papst, A. J. Read, and R. M. Rolland. 2005. North Atlantic right whales in crisis. Science: 

309: 561–562. 

Lafferty, K. D., and L. R. Gerber. 2002. Good medicine for conservation biology: the 

intersection of epidemiology and conservation theory. Conservation Biology 16:593–604. 

Laist, D. W., and C. Shaw. 2006. Preliminary Evidence that Boat Speed Restrictions Reduce 

Deaths of Florida Manatees. Marine Mammal Science 22(2):472–479. 

Laist, D. W., and J. E. Reynolds. 2005a. Florida Manatees, warm-water refuges, and an uncertain 

future. Coastal Management 33:279–295. 

Laist, D. W., and J. E. Reynolds. 2005b. Influence of power plants and other warm water refuges 

on Florida manatees. Marine Mammal Science 21(4):739–764. 

Laist, D. W., A. R. Knowlton, J. G. Mead, A. S. Collet, and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions 

between ships and whales. Marine Mammal Science 17(1:35–75. 

Lefebvre, L., W. M. Marmontel, J. P. Reid, G. B. Rathbun, and D. P. Domning. 2001. Status and 

biogeography of the West Indian manatee. Chapter 23 in C. Woods (ed.). Patterns of 

West Indian Biogeography. CRC Press. 35 pp + Figs. 

Lowry, L., D. W. Laist, and E. Taylor. 2007. Endangered, Threatened, and Depleted Marine 

Mammals in U.S. Waters: A Review of Species Classification Systems and Listed 

Species. Report to the Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda MD. 79 + viii pp. 

Lowry, L., G. O’Corry-Crowe, and D. Goodman. 2006. Delphinapterus leucas (Cook Inlet 

population). In: IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 
115

Marine Mammal Commission (MMC). 1991. Marine Mammal Commission Annual Report: 

Calendar Year 1990. Marine Mammal Commission. National Technical Information 

Service. NTIS PB91-164236. 280 pp. 

Marine Mammal Commission. 2001. Annual Report to Congress 2000. Bethesda, MD. 

http://www.mmc.gov.

Marine Mammal Commission. 2002. Annual Report to Congress 2001. Bethesda, MD. 

http://www.mmc.gov.

Marine Mammal Commission. 2003. Annual Report to Congress 2002. Bethesda, MD. 

http://www.mmc.gov.

Marine Mammal Commission. 2004. Annual Report to Congress 2003. Bethesda, MD. 

http://www.mmc.gov.

Marine Mammal Commission. 2005. Annual Report to Congress 2004. Bethesda, MD. 

http://www.mmc.gov.

Marine Mammal Commission. 2006. Annual report to Congress 2005. Bethesda MD. 

http://www.mmc.gov.

Marine Mammal Commission. 2007. Report of the Workshop on Assessing the Population 

Viability of Endangered Marine Mammals in U.S. Waters. Marine Mammal Commission, 

Bethesda, MD. 37 pp. 

Mate, B. R., K. M. Stafford, and D. K. Ljungblad. 1994. A change in sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus) distribution correlated to seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal 

of the Acoustical Society of America. 96:3268–3269. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991a. Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis). Prepared by the Right Whale Recovery Team for the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991b. Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale (Megaptera

novaeangliae). Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1992. Final Recovery Plan for Steller Sea Lions (Eumetopias

jubatus). Prepared by the Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team for the National Marine 

Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1993. Final Conservation Plan for the Northern Fur Seal 

(Callorhinus ursinus). Prepared by the National Marine Mammal Laboratory/Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington, and the Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2003. Status Review of the AT1 Group of killer whales from 

the Prince William Sound and Kenai Fjords area. 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/killerwhales/at1statreview0703.pdf.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004a. Interim Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery 

Planning Guidance. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/guidance.htm.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004b. Report to Congress: Review of Commercial Fisheries’ 

Progress Toward Reducing Mortality and Serious Injury of Marine Mammals Incidental 

to Commercial Fishing Operations. 18 pp + appendix. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004c. Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact 

Review for the Implementation of the Zero Mortality Rate Goal of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. 
116

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004d. Record of Decision for Subsistence Harvest 

Management of Cook Inlet Beluga Whales: Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/beluga/cibrod2004.pdf.

National Marine Fisheries Service 2005a. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2005. 

NOAA Tech. Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-161. A U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, WA. 250 pp. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm

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

(Eubalaena glacialis). U.S. Department of Commerce. National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Silver Spring, MD. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR3/recovery.html.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005c. Preliminary Draft: Conservation Plan for Southern 

Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). Silver Spring, MD. 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/mmammals/whales/CPPSKW.html.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005d. Draft Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet Beluga 

Whale (Delphinapterus leucas). Silver Spring, MD. 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/beluga/mmpa/draft/conservationpla

n032005.pdf.

National Marine Fisheries Service 2006a. U.S. Pacific marine mammal stock assessments: 2005. 

NOAA Tech. Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-388. U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Southwest. Fisheries Science Center. La Jolla, CA. 317 pp. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service 2006b. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal 

stock assessments: 2005. NOAA Tech. Memorandum NMFS-NE-194. U.S. Department 

of Commerce. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Woods Hole, MA. 352 pp. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006c. Draft recovery plan for the fin whale (Balaenoptera

physalus). Office of Protected Resources. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. Silver Spring, MD. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006d. Draft recovery plan for the sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus). Office of Protected Resources. National Marine Fisheries Service. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, MD. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service 2006e. Draft revision of the recovery plan for the Hawaiian 

monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi). Office of Protected Resources, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm

National Ocean Service. 2004. Proposed Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary: Advice and Recommendations on Development of Draft Fishing Regulations 

Under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act Section 304(a: (5). 

http://hawaiireef.noaa.gov/designation/fishing2004.html.

NOAA Fisheries. 2000. Annual Report: Administration of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 

1972, 1999–2000. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov.

NOAA Fisheries. 2003. Priorities for the 21st Century: NOAA Fisheries’ Strategic Plan for 

FY2003 – FY2008. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov.

National Research Council. 2003. The Decline of the Steller Sea Lion in Alaskan Waters: 

Untangling Food Webs and Fishing Nets. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 
117

O’Shea, T. J., R. R. Reeves, and A. K. Long. 1999. Marine mammals and persistent ocean 

contaminants: proceedings of the Marine Mammal Commission Workshop, Keystone, 

Colorado, 12–15 October 1998. Marine Mammal Commission. Bethesda, MD. 150 pp. 

Ohsumi, S., and S. Wada. 1974. Status of whale stocks in the North Pacific, 1972. Report of the 

International Whaling Commission. 25:114–126. 

Polovina, J. J. 2005. Climate variation, regime shifts, and implications for sustainable fisheries. 

Bulletin of Marine Science 76(2):233–244. 

Ragen, T. J., and D. M. Lavigne. 1999. The Hawaiian monk seal: biology of an endangered seal. 

Pp. 224–245 in J.R. Twiss and R.R. Reeves (eds). Conservation and Management of 

Marine Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, DC. 

Rathbun, G. B, N. Carr, T. Carr, and C. A. Woods. 1985. The distribution of manatees and sea 

turtles in Puerto Rico, with emphasis on Roosevelt Rhodes Naval Station. NTIS PB 85-

151847 AS. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA. 83 pp. 

Rathbun, G. B, and E. Possardt. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Puerto Rico Population of the West 

Indian (Antillean) Manatee (Trichechus manatus manatus L.). U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Atlanta, GA. 

Rathbun, G. B., and R. L. Wallace. 2000. Florida manatee. Pp. 107–111 in R.P. Reading and B. 

Miller (eds). A Reference Guide to Conflicting Issues. Greenwood Press. Westport, CT. 

Reeves, R. R., G. Silber, and P. M. Payne. 1998. Draft Recovery Plan for the Fin Whale 

Balaenoptera physalus and Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis. Prepared for the Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

Reeves, R. R., P. J. Clapham, R. L. Brownell, Jr., and G. K. Silber. 1998. Recovery Plan for the 

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus). Prepared for the Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

Reeves, R. R., A. J. Read, L. Lowry, S. K. Katona, and D. J. Boness 2007. Report of the North 

Atlantic Right Whale Program Review, 13–17 March 2006, Woods Hole, MA. Available 

from the Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda MD. 67 pp. 

Rotterman, M. L., and T. Simon-Jackson. 1988. Sea otter. Pp. 237–275 in J. W. Lentfer (ed.). 

Selected marine mammals of Alaska. Species accounts with research and management 

recommendations. Prepared for the Marine Mammal Commission. PB88-178462. 

National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA. 275 pp. 

Samuels, A., L. Bijder, R. Constantine, and S. Heinrich. 2003. A review of swimming with wild 

cetacean with a special focus on the Southern Hemisphere. In N. J. Gales, M. Hindell, 

and R. Kirkwood (eds.) Marine Mammals and Humans: Towards a Sustainable Balance. 

Melbourne University Press. 

Shelden, K. E. W., D. J. Rugh, D. P. DeMaster, and L. R. Gerber. 2003a. Evaluation of Bowhead 

Whale Status: Reply to Taylor. Conservation Biology 17(3):918–920. 

Shelden, K. E. W., D. J. Rugh, B. A. Mahoney, and M. E. Dahlheim. 2003b. Killer whale 

predation on a beluga whale in Cook Inlet, Alaska: implications for a depleted 

population. Marine Mammal Science 19(3):529–544. 

Shelden, K. E. W., and D. J. Rugh. 1995. The Bowhead Whale, Balaena mysticetus: Its Historic 

and Current Status. Marine Fisheries Review 56(3–4):1–20. 

Stevick, P. N., J. Allen, P. J. Clapham, N. Friday, S. K. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D. K. Mattila, 

P. J. Palsboll, J. Sigurjonsson, T. D. Smith, N. Oien, and P. S. Hammond. 2003. North 

Atlantic humpback whale abundance and rate of increase four decades after protection 

from whaling. Marine Ecology Progress Series 258: 263–273. 
118

Thomas, N. J. and L. H. Creekmore. 2005. Southern Sea Otter Health and Mortality: Questions 

Surrounding the Population Decline. http://www.werc.usgs.gov/otters

Thomas, N. J. and R. A. Cole. 1996. The Risk of Disease and Threats to the Wild Population. 

Endangered Species Update 13:12:24. 

U.S. Coast Guard. 2004. 2004 Report: Mission-Programs. 

http://www.uscg.mil/CG_2004_html/goals.html#LMR.

U.S. Congress. 2004. Conference report to accompany H.R. 4818 making appropriations for 

foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2005, and for other purposes. Conference report to accompany H.R. 4818. 

108th Congress, 2d session. House Report 108–792. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.1981–1996. Administration of the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act of 1972. Annual reports from 1980–1993 (Series). U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Southern sea otter recovery plan. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Unit i. Denver, CO. 66 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994a. West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus manatus)

Antillean stock. Stock Assessment Report prepared by the Jacksonville Field Office. 

Jacksonville, FL. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994b. Conservation Plan for the Sea Otter in Alaska. Marine 

Mammals Management, Anchorage, AK. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) California stock. 

Stock Assessment Report prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, CA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus manatus)

Florida stock. Stock Assessment Report prepared by the Jacksonville Field Office. 

Jacksonville, FL. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Florida Manatee Recovery Plan: Third Revision. 

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Manatee/manatees.htm#Manatee%20Recovery%20Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Endangered Species Recovery Program: Frequently Asked 

Questions. http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Consultations with Federal Agencies: Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. http://endangered.fws.gov.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002c. Delisting a Species: Section 4 of the Endangered Species 

Act. http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002d. Recovery Report to Congress: Fiscal Years 2001–2002. 

http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002e. Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris) Southwest Alaska Stock, Stock 

Assessment Report. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/individual_sars.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003a. Final Revised Recovery Plan for the Southern Sea Otter 

(Enhydra lutris nereis). FWS, Region 1, Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003b. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species 

Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2000. U.S. Department of the Interior. Endangered Species 

Program. Washington, DC. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/expenditures/19982000.html.
119

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003c. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species 

Expenditures: Fiscal Year 1999. U.S. Department of the Interior. Endangered Species 

Program. Washington, DC. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/expenditures/19982000.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003d. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species 

Expenditures: Fiscal Year 1998. U.S. Department of the Interior. Endangered Species 

Program. Washington, DC. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/expenditures/19982000.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003e. Three-Year Summary of Federal and State Endangered 

and Threatened Species Expenditures: Fiscal Years 1998–2000. U.S. Department of the 

Interior. Endangered Species Program. Washington, D.C. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/expenditures/19982000.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. ESA Basics: 30 Years of Protecting Endangered Species. 

http://endangered.fws.gov/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004b. Listing a Species as Threatened or Endangered: Section 4 

of the Endangered Species Act. February 2004. http://endangered.fws.gov.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004c. Partnerships With States: Tools for Helping Communities 

and Landowners Conserve Species Habitat. http://endangered.fws.gov.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a.: Translocation of southern sea otters. draft supplemental 

environmental impact statement. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office. Ventura, CA. 242 pp 

+ appendices. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. Species Information on Threatened and Endangered 

Animals and Plants. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005c. Service seeks public input for manatee five-year review. 

Press release. April 14, 2005. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005d. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species 

Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2003. U.S. Department of the Interior. Endangered Species 

Program. Washington, DC.

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pubs/expenditurereports.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005e. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species 

Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2002. U.S. Department of the Interior. Endangered Species 

Program. Washington, DC.

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pubs/expenditurereports.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005f. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species 

Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2001. U.S. Department of the Interior. Endangered Species 

Program. Washington, DC. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pubs/expenditurereports.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species 

Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2004. U.S. Department of the Interior. Endangered Species 

Program. Washington, DC. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/expenditures/19982000.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Biological Service. 1996. Administration of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972: January 1 1994 to December 31 1994. U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered 

Species Act Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Section 7 Consultations 

and Conferences. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/consultations/s7hndbk/toc-glos.pdf.
120

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey. 1997–2004. Administration of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Annual reports from 1995–2000 (Series) U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2004. California Sea Otter Numbers Climb for Second Consecutive 

Year. Press release: June 16, 2004. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005a. Manatee use patterns and benthic habitat characterization in 

Puerto Rico. Project #2070A7R, Task 15. http://cars.er.usgs.gov/basis/projects.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2005b. Manatee Biology, Ecology, and Adaptive Management. Project 

#2070A7R. http://cars.er.usgs.gov/basis/projects.

Vos, D. J., and K. E. W. Shelden. 2005. Unusual mortality in the Cook Inlet beluga 

(Delphinapterus leucas) population. Northwestern Naturalist 86:59–65. 

Waring, G.H. 2002. Survey of Federally-Funded Marine Mammal Research and Studies, FY74 – 

FY00. Final Report to the Marine Mammal, Bethesda, MD. 

Wendell, F. E, R. A. Hardy, and J. A. Ames. Unpublished. Assessment of the accidental take of 

sea otters, Enhydra lutris, in gill and trammel nets. Marine Research Branch, California 

Department of Fish and Game. 30 pp. 

Western Ecological Research Center. 2004. Sea Otter Studies. http://www.werc.usgs.gov

Wiley, D. N, R. A. Asmutis, T. D. Pitchford, and D. P. Gannon. 1994. Stranding and mortality of 

humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the mid-Atlantic and southeast United 

States, 1985–1992. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 93:196–205. 

Wilson, D. E., M. A. Bogan, R. L. Brownell, Jr., M. Burdin, and M. K. Maminov. 1991. 

Geographic variation in sea otters, Enhydra lutris. Journal of Mammalogy 72(1):22–36.
121

VII. APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. MAJOR FEDERAL STATUTORY PROTECTION MEASURES

MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT 

Passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in 1972 marked a dramatic departure 

from previous regimes for managing living marine resources (Bean and Rowland 1997). Rather 

than aiming to manage marine mammals for their maximum sustainable yield, the Act 

established as its primary objective “...to maintain the health and stability of the marine 

ecosystem.” As consistent with this objective, the Act also established a goal “...to obtain an 

OSP keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat.” The Act defines OSP as “the number 

of animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the population or the species, 

keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which 

they form a constituent element.” This definition was further refined by NMFS in regulations as 

“a population size, which falls within a range from [the carrying capacity of the] ecosystem to 

the population level that results in maximum net productivity.” Thus, rather than establishing a 

management regime focused on maximizing economic returns, it sought to assure that marine 

mammals are maintained as vital, functioning parts of a healthy marine environment. 

The Act vested the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior with responsibility for 

implementing its provisions. The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, has primary authority for all species in the order Cetacea (whales and 

porpoises), as well as all species in the order Pinnipedia (seals and sea lions) except walruses. 

The Commerce Secretary also implements the Act’s provisions on incidental take of all marine 

mammals in commercial fisheries. The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, exercises authority for the Act’s application to manatees, dugongs, polar bears, 

sea and marine otters, and walruses. The Act also established the Marine Mammal Commission, 

whose primary responsibility is to provide an independent source of advice and oversight to the 

Services and other federal and state agencies with regard to the Act’s implementation. In 

assigning these responsibilities, the Act pre-empts state laws or regulations relating to the taking 

of marine mammals unless authorized through a process by which management authority can be 

transferred to individual states. 

Moratorium on Taking and Relevant Exceptions 

A central feature of the MMPA is its moratorium on “taking” and importing of marine mammals. 

This moratorium is subject to exceptions, exemptions, and waivers, whose number and breadth 

has grown as Congress has amended the Act (Bean and Rowland 1997). In defining “take,” 

Congress included both intentional and unintentional capture, killing, and harassment of marine 

mammals. Harassment, in turn, has been defined to include actions that have the potential to 

injure or disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild. 

Native Exemption: Section 101(b) of the Act exempts Alaska Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos 

from the Act’s prohibitions on taking when the taking is for subsistence purposes or for purposes 

of creating and selling authentic Native articles of handicrafts and clothing and the taking is not 

accomplished in a wasteful manner. Native takes of depleted species may be limited by 
122

regulation. Section 119 of the Act, adopted in 1994, authorizes the Secretaries of Commerce and 

the Interior to “...enter into cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations to 

conserve marine mammals and provide co-management of subsistence use by Alaska Natives.” 

Permits for Scientific Research, Public Display, Enhancement, and Photography: The

MMPA authorizes the Services to issue permits for the taking or importation of marine mammals 

for the purposes of scientific research, public display, or enhancing the survival or recovery of a 

species or population. Amendments in 1994 provided additional authorization to grant permits 

for the taking of marine mammals in the course of educational or commercial photography. 

The 1994 amendments to the MMPA also authorized the Services to issue letters of general 

authorization for research that may disturb but not injure a marine mammal or marine mammal 

population (MMC 2005). Such general authorizations are not allowed for activities that involve 

the taking of endangered or threatened species, which remain subject to separate ESA permitting 

requirements. 

Small-Take Authorizations: Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA directs NMFS and FWS to 

authorize the taking of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to activities other than 

commercial fishing (MMC 2005), provided that certain findings are made. In 1986 Congress 

amended the Act to allow the taking of marine mammals from depleted species and populations, 

as well as from non-depleted species and populations (MMC 2005). There are three basic types 

of such small-take authorizations: 

x Authorization for most types of small takes require the promulgation of regulations that 

identify permissible methods of taking and specify reporting and monitoring requirements. 

The Services must determine that the taking will have a negligible impact on the affected 

populations and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such 

populations for subsistence purposes. Authorizations, under section 101(a)(5)(A), may be 

effective for as long as five years. 

x In 1994 Congress added section 101(a)(5)(D) to streamline such authorizations if the taking 

will involve harassment only. Such authorizations do not require the promulgation of 

regulations but are subject to public notice and comment. Such authorizations may be 

issued for no longer than one year at a time. 

x In 2003 Congress revised the small-take provisions as they apply to “military readiness 

activities.” Among other things, it removed the small numbers and geographic specificity 

limitations and required the consideration of several factors such as personal safety and 

practicality in designing mitigation measures. 

The Marine Mammal Commission generally comments on all such applications and associated 

regulations.

Taking Incidental to Commercial Fishing: In passing the MMPA, Congress set a goal of 

reducing the mortality and serious injury of marine mammals incidental to commercial fisheries 

“to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate” (NMFS 2004c). In 

amending the Act in 1994, Congress set a deadline of April 30, 2001, for achieving the goal of 
123

insignificant levels of incidental mortality and serious injury incidental to fisheries. Section 

118(b) includes four elements (NMFS 2004b): 

x Fisheries must reduce incidental mortality and serious injury to insignificant levels 

approaching zero; 

x Fisheries that do reduce their levels of incidental mortality and serious injury to 

insignificant levels shall not be required to make further reductions; 

x NMFS must review the progress of all commercial fisheries in meeting this goal and 

identify fisheries where additional information is required in order to assess the level of 

incidental mortality in a fishery; and 

x If a fishery is not meeting the goal of zero mortality and injury rate, NMFS must use the 

mechanisms in section 118(f), including the convening of take reduction teams and the 

preparation, approval, and implementation of take reduction plans. 

The 1994 amendments also included a mechanism (section 101(a)(5)(E)) for authorizing limited 

incidental take of marine mammals listed under the Endangered Species Act if NMFS or FWS 

determine that: 

x The incidental mortality and serious injury will have a negligible impact on the species or 

stock;

x A recovery plan has been or is being developed under the ESA; and 

x If required, a monitoring program has been established under section 118. 

The MMPA allows intentional lethal taking of marine mammals in commercial fishery 

operations only if it is “imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of another person 

in immediate danger.” Fishermen may intentionally take marine mammals by nonlethal means to 

deter them from damaging gear, catch, or other property under certain circumstances (MMC 

2002). Section 101(a)(4) requires that the two Services publish guidelines on how to deter 

marine mammals safely (MMC 2002), but neither agency has yet published and finalized such 

guidelines.

Sections 117 and 118 of the MMPA require NMFS to carry out a comprehensive program to 

reduce interactions between marine mammals and commercial fishing operations (NOAA 

Fisheries 2000). That program includes— 

x the preparation of stock assessment reports, 

x convening of scientific review groups, 

x publishing a list of fisheries, 

x convening take reduction teams to develop take reduction plans, and 

x meeting short- and long-term goals for reducing incidental takes of marine mammals.

Stock Assessment Reports: Section 117 requires marine mammal stock assessment reports to be 

prepared for all marine mammal stocks in U.S. waters. These reports are to be updated 

periodically based on use of the “best scientific information available.” 
124

The MMPA defines a population stock as “a group of marine mammals of the same species or 

smaller taxa in a common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature.” NMFS has 

interpreted this to mean “a management unit that identifies a demographically isolated biological 

population” (NMFS 2003b). A stock may be delineated based on its distribution and movements 

or population trends, as well as differences in morphology, genetics, contaminant and natural 

isotope loads, parasites, and oceanographic habitats. Reproductive isolation is proof of 

demographic isolation, according to the Service. (As a policy matter, the Service considers this 

definition to be different from the ESA definition of a distinct population segment, which it 

interprets as requiring that a population not only be distinct but that it represent an important 

component of the evolutionary legacy of the species [i.e., that it constitute an evolutionarily 

significant unit] in order to qualify for listing as endangered or threatened.) 

Stock assessment reports must include a determination of the stock’s potential biological

removal (PBR) level. PBR is defined as the maximum number of animals—not including natural 

mortalities—that may be removed from a marine mammal population while still allowing that 

population to reach or maintain its OSP level. The stock assessment reports also must identify 

those stocks that are to be considered “strategic stocks.” These include stocks with levels of 

human-caused mortality that exceed PBR, as well as any stock listed as endangered or threatened 

under the ESA, declining and likely to be listed as such in the foreseeable future, or listed as 

depleted under the MMPA (NMFS 2004b). Of the 145 marine mammal stocks assessed in 1995, 

47 were determined to be strategic stocks (MMC 2002). The MMPA requires that assessments of 

strategic stocks be reviewed at least annually and those of other stocks be reviewed at least once 

every three years. 

Under the MMPA, a species is designated as depleted when it falls below its OSP or if it is listed 

as endangered or threatened under the ESA. Once a species is determined to be depleted, a 

conservation plan may be developed to guide research and management actions to restore the 

species. As of June 2005, five marine mammal stocks had been designated as depleted 

independently of listing under the ESA.28 They are the North Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin, 

the eastern spinner dolphin, the North Pacific or northern fur seal, the northeastern offshore 

spotted dolphin, and the Cook Inlet beluga whale.

Of these five depleted populations, NMFS has prepared draft conservation plans for North 

Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins and Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

Scientific Review Groups: Under section 117 of the Act, the Secretary of Commerce established 

three regional scientific review groups—one each for Alaska, the Pacific Coast and Hawaii, and 

the Atlantic coast including the Gulf of Mexico (NOAA Fisheries 2000). Besides reviewing draft 

stock assessments, the review groups advise NMFS on a wide range of issues, including 

population status, trends, stock identity and dynamics, necessary research on marine mammals 

stocks, and methods to reduce incidental mortality and injury. 

 

28 The Hawaiian monk seal and the bowhead whale also were designated depleted under a separate action although both species 

also now qualify by virtue of their endangered status.
125

List of Fisheries: Section 118 requires NMFS to publish annually a list of fisheries that places all 

U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on the level of incidental serious 

injury and mortality of marine mammals (69 Fed. Reg. 48407). The list of affected species 

generally is based on observer data, logbook data, stranding reports, and reports of fishermen. 

Since 1996 some fisheries have been classified as category II fisheries by analogy to other gear 

types that are known to injure or kill marine mammals rather than on documented interactions 

(NOAA Fisheries 2000).

Fisheries are classified according to the impact of all fisheries on each marine mammal 

population, then the impact of individual fisheries on each population, measured as a ratio of the 

number of animals killed or injured to the PBR level (69 Fed. Reg. 48408). 

x Category I Fisheries: Annual mortality and serious injury in a given fishery is greater than 

or equal to 50 percent of the PBR level. 

x Category II Fisheries: Annual mortality and serious injury in a given fishery is between 1 

and 50 percent of the PBR level, and the total number of deaths and serious injuries from 

all fisheries is greater than 10 percent of the stock’s PBR level. 

x Category III Fisheries: Annual mortality and serious injury in a given fishery is less than or 

equal to 1 percent of the PBR level or the total annual mortality and serious injury across 

all fisheries is less than or equal to 10 percent of the stock’s PBR level. 

In 2004 NMFS identified 7 category I fisheries, 34 category II fisheries, and 174 category III 

fisheries (69 Fed. Reg. 48407). Of the seven category I fisheries, six were listed as taking 

endangered, threatened, or depleted species (see Appendix B). Another 19 category II fisheries 

and 26 category III fisheries were listed as taking endangered, threatened, or depleted species of 

marine mammals. 

Owners of vessels or gear engaging in a category I or II fishery are required by section 118(c)(3) 

to register with NMFS to engage lawfully in those fisheries or to be authorized to take a marine 

mammal incidental to their fishing operations (69 Fed. Reg. 48409). Participants in category III 

fisheries are not required to register with NMFS. Regardless of the category of a fishery, 

participants are required by law to report to NMFS all incidental injuries and mortalities 

occurring during commercial fishing operations (69 Fed. Reg. 48409). The Service defines injury 

as a wound or other physical harm, as well as the ingestion of or entanglement in fishing gear. 

Participants in category I and II fisheries are required to take on board an observer upon request 

by NMFS. 

Zero Mortality Rate Goal: As mentioned above, the MMPA has always included a goal of 

reducing incidental mortality and serious injury to insignificant levels approaching a zero rate. 

However, Congress did not provide clear guidance in the interpretation of the so-called zero 

mortality rate goal, which includes zero serious injury. In July 2004 NMFS finalized a rule 

defining the threshold below which the rate of mortality or serious injury should be considered 

insignificant (69 Fed. Reg. 43338). Under the final rule, the agency set the threshold at 10 

percent of a marine mammal stock’s PBR level. In cases where the Service has inadequate 

information to determine population abundance or the rate of mortality and serious injury, it 

treats such stocks as experiencing incidental mortality and serious injury above insignificant 
126

levels (NMFS 2004c). Stocks treated in this manner include the northeastern Pacific fin whale, 

the North Pacific sperm whale, and the Hawaiian monk seal. 

Take Reduction Plans: Section 118 of the MMPA requires that NMFS develop and implement a 

take reduction plan where a strategic stock of marine mammals interacts with a category I or II 

fishery and allows for development of take reduction plans for other category I fisheries where 

any stock of marine mammals interacts with a category I fishery that results in a high level of 

mortality and serious injury across a number of marine mammal stocks (NMFS 2004b). 

The immediate goal of a take reduction plan is to reduce, within six months of its 

implementation, the incidental mortality and serious injury rate in a fishery to levels less than the 

PBR level for all affected marine mammal stocks. The overall goal is to reduce this rate to 

insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate within five years of 

implementation. In seeking to achieve the latter goal, NMFS must take into account the 

economics of the fishery, the availability of existing technology, and existing fishery 

management plans. 

Where human-caused mortality and serious injury is believed to be equal to or greater than the 

stock’s PBR level, a take reduction team must prepare a take reduction plan within six months of 

the finding (MMC 2004). If NMFS has insufficient funds to prepare and implement all required 

take reduction plans, it gives priority to marine mammal stocks with mortality and serious injury 

rates greater than the stock’s PBR level, stocks with a small population size, and stocks with the 

highest rate of decline (NMFS 2004c). 

Four of the six take reduction teams convened by NMFS concerned fisheries that involved 

marine mammal populations listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA include the 

Pacific Offshore Cetacean, Atlantic Offshore Cetacean, Atlantic Large Whale, and Atlantic 

Bottlenose Dolphin teams. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

In 1973 Congress passed a major revision of earlier versions of the endangered species 

legislation passed in 1966 and 1969, which had required the listing of species but provided no 

meaningful protection (FWS 2004). The principal purposes of the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) of 1973 are to conserve “the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species 

depend” and to conserve and recover listed species. The Act placed responsibility for 

implementation in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce, who 

delegated this authority to FWS and NMFS. Unlike the MMPA, the ESA allows states to adopt 

state laws and regulations relating to the taking of listed species, provided that those laws and 

regulations are more restrictive than those applicable under the Act. States may enter into 

cooperative agreements with the Services for carrying out certain recovery and other functions. 

Like the MMPA, the ESA contemplates not only the conservation of individual species but also 

of the ecosystems upon which they depend. The aim of the Act is to employ all methods 

necessary “to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the 
127

measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.” To this end, the Act places a 

positive duty upon federal agencies to conserve endangered and threatened species and to 

promote their recovery (Bean and Rowland 1997). 

In 1978 Congress added a requirement for the preparation of recovery plans29 to aid in achieving 

the Act’s goal of restoring endangered and threatened species so that the protections of the Act 

would no longer be needed (Bean and Rowland 1997). Later amendments provided greater detail 

on the contents and timing of such plans, as discussed later. 

Prohibitions on Taking Endangered and Threatened Species and Exceptions 

The ESA makes it unlawful to “take” an endangered species (FWS 2004). The Act defines take 

as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage 

in any such conduct.” The Services have defined “harm” by regulation as “an act which actually 

kills or injures wildlife” (64 Fed. Reg. 60727). Such an act “may include significant habitat 

modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing 

essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” The Secretary of the 

Interior also defined harass as “an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the 

likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal 

behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” NMFS 

has not defined these terms (FWS and NMFS 1998). 

None of the prohibitions described here apply to activities affecting threatened species unless the 

appropriate Service issues regulations to that effect (Bean and Rowland 1997). The Services may 

issue prohibitions applicable to all threatened species or applicable only to individual threatened 

species.

Like the MMPA, the ESA includes exemptions to the prohibition on taking endangered species, 

which have expanded over time (Bean and Rowland 1997): 

Native Exemption: From the beginning, the ESA provided an exemption to certain Alaska 

Natives and non-native permanent residents of Alaska Native villages to take listed species 

primarily for subsistence purposes and to sell non-edible byproducts when made into authentic 

Native handicrafts (Bean and Rowland 1997). The appropriate Service may regulate the harvest 

of listed species if it finds that the taking “materially and negatively affects” the species. 

Permits for Scientific Research: The ESA authorizes the Services to issue permits allowing 

otherwise prohibited acts for the purposes of scientific research or enhancement of a population. 

Before issuing such permits, the Services must find that the activity will not “operate to the 

disadvantage” of the species. 

Incidental Taking of Listed Species: In 1982 Congress provided authority to permit the taking 

of an endangered species incidental to an otherwise lawful activity (Bean and Rowland 1997). 

 

29 The Fish and Wildlife Service defines recovery as the process by which the decline of an endangered or threatened species is 

arrested or reversed and threats removed or reduced so that the species’ survival in the wild can be assured (FWS 2004).
128

Such permission may be granted only if there is an acceptable plan and funding to mitigate the 

takings and only if the takings will not “appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and 

recovery of the species in the wild.” 

Incidental taking may also be authorized through a so-called “section 7(b)(4) statement” for 

federal actions that are subject to consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. If the Service 

determines that the “no-jeopardy” standard has been met and the authorized level of incidental 

taking will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species, it is to specify the level of 

taking that is allowed and set forth reasonable and prudent measures and related conditions 

designed to minimize the impact. For listed marine mammals, an incidental take statement may 

not be issued unless that taking has also been authorized under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA. 

Listing Categories and Processes 

Fundamental to the structure of the ESA are two classifications of species: endangered and 

threatened (Bean and Rowland 1997). An endangered species is one that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is 

likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. In order to be listed, a species must be 

determined to be endangered or threatened because of any of five factors: 

x The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range;

x Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 

x Disease or predation; 

x The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; 

x Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species’ survival. 

The listing of a species is the result of a rulemaking, which results in placing a species on the 

“List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,” published at 50 C.F.R. § 17.11. 

Once a species is placed on the list as endangered, all protective measures of the Act apply to the 

species and its habitat. Section 9 of the Act prohibits any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States from, among other things, taking, importing, exporting, shipping in commerce in 

the course of a commercial activity, selling, or offering for sale any endangered species. In 1994 

the Services adopted a policy of establishing a procedure at the time of listing that would identify 

activities that would or would not constitute a violation of the prohibitions on taking found in 

section 9 of the Act. 

Prohibitions applicable to threatened species are established through regulations published 

pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act. These “protective regulations” need not, but often do include 

all of the prohibitions applicable to endangered species under section 9.

All species of plants and animals, except pest insects, are eligible for listing. The Act defines 

“species” broadly to include subspecies as well as distinct population segments of vertebrate 

species. The Services adopted a policy in 1996 that interpreted the term “distinct population 

segment” (61 Fed. Reg. 4722). This interpretation includes three elements: 
129

x Discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which 

it belongs; 

x The evolutionary significance of the population segment to the species to which it belongs; 

and

x The population segment’s conservation status in relation to the Act’s standards for listing. 

A population segment may be considered discrete if it is markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon by physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors or is 

delimited by international government boundaries within which differences in management and 

other factors may be significant. Determining whether a population segment is significant may 

be based upon such findings as persistence of the population in an ecological setting unusual or 

unique for the taxon. 

Recovering threatened or endangered species may sometimes benefit from reintroduction of the 

species into areas of its former range. Under section 10(j), the ESA defines such experimental 

populations as a geographically described group of reintroduced plants or animals that is isolated 

from other existing populations of the species (FWS 2002). Regardless of the species’ 

designation elsewhere, an experimental population is considered threatened. 

As of August 2006, 1,879 species were listed, including 1,310 in the United States. Of the 566 

animal species with U.S. distribution, 410 species are listed as endangered and 156 as threatened. 

This includes 16 marine mammal species (see Table A-1). 

Table A-1. Marine mammals in U.S. waters listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA 

Common Name Scientific Name Where Listed 

Endangered

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus Entire range

Northern sea otter Enhydra lutris kenyoni Southwest Alaska DPS 

Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus Western population 

Caribbean monk seal Monachus tropicalis Entire range

Hawaiian monk seal Monachus schauinslandi Entire range

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Entire range 

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus Entire range 

Sei whale Balaenoptera boreali Entire range 

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Entire range 

Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus Entire range 

Right whale Eubalaena glacialis Entire range 

Gray whale Eschrichtius robustus Western Pacific Ocean 

Sperm whale Physeter catodon Entire range

 

Threatened

Southern sea otter Enhydra lutris nereis California (except experimental population 

at San Nicolas Island) 

Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus Eastern population 

Guadalupe fur seal Arctocephalus townsendi Entire range 
130

Candidate Lists: Periodically, the Services publish a list of U.S. species that appear to meet the 

definitions for threatened or endangered (FWS 2004). As of June 2005, 44 marine species were 

on the species of concern list, two of which were marine mammals. The Cook Inlet population of 

beluga whales was originally placed on the candidate list in 1988; the southern resident 

population of killer whales was placed on the candidate list in 2001. Because of the large number 

of candidates and limited resources to conduct reviews, in the late 1970s the Services began 

developing systems for setting priorities among candidate species. In 1983 FWS adopted a 

priority system based on three criteria: the degree or magnitude of threat, the immediacy of the 

threat, and the taxonomic distinctiveness of the species (monotypic genus, then species, 

subspecies, variety, or vertebrate population). 

Although the Services may initiate the listing process, individual citizens may also petition to 

have a species considered for listing under section 4(b) of the ESA. Within 90 days of receiving 

a petition, FWS or NMFS must publish a finding as to whether there is “substantial information” 

indicating a listing may be warranted. If the Service finds that a listing may be warranted, it 

must, within one year, make a finding as to whether the listing is or is not warranted. If, after the 

year, the Service finds that a listing is warranted, it may issue a proposed rule to list the species 

or, if other listing activities have a higher priority, it may defer issuing a proposed rule. In these 

latter cases, the Service must annually find whether the listing is warranted and either propose a 

rule to list the species, find that a listing is not warranted, or that it remains precluded by other, 

higher-priority listing actions. 

Downlisting or Delisting Species: Every five years the Services review the status of listed 

species, as required by section 4(c)(2) of the Act. The Services base this review on goals for 

downlisting and delisting identified in recovery plans prepared for listed species. Based on this 

review, the Services may determine that a species may warrant downlisting or delisting (48 Fed. 

Reg. 43103). In considering whether to downlist or delist a species, the Service must follow the 

same process as when considering whether to list a species, including assessment of the status of 

the species and of existing threats and issuance of a proposed rule. To delist a species, the 

Services must determine that the species is not threatened by any of the five factors noted earlier. 

If a species is delisted, the Service must monitor the species for at least five years. 

Designation of Critical Habitat 

The ESA requires designation of critical habitat for listed species, with some exceptions (FWS 

2004). Critical habitat includes geographic areas “on which are found those physical or 

biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special 

management considerations or protection.” Those features include the following: 

x Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; 

x Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; 

x Cover or shelter; 

x Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring, and 

x Generally, habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic 

geographical and ecological distribution of the species. 
131

Designation of critical habitat must take into account possible economic impacts. An area may 

be excluded if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation and if the exclusion 

will not result in the extinction of the species (NMFS 2004). If it is found that designation would 

increase the degree of threat to a species (e.g., by informing would-be collectors of its location) 

or that the designation would not benefit the species, critical habitat does not have to be 

designated. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that federal agencies avoid the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat, whether or not the species currently uses that habitat. 

Preparation of Recovery Plans 

Unless the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce finds that a recovery plan will 

not promote the conservation of a listed species, the ESA requires the development and 

implementation of such a plan. Section 4(f)(1)(B) specifies the contents of a recovery plan as 

follows: 

x a description of such site-specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve the 

plan’s goal for the conservation and survival of the species; 

x objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination...that the 

species may be removed from the list; and, 

x estimates of the time required and the cost to carry out those measures needed to achieve 

the plan’s goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal. 

Although recovery plans do not have the force of regulation, they do serve as the principal tool 

for guiding each species’ recovery process (NMFS 2004). 

The agencies may appoint recovery teams to assist in the development and implementation of 

recovery plans, and those teams may include non-agency participants. As of June 2005 recovery 

plans had been adopted for 8 of the 16 marine mammal populations listed previously in this 

report, with separate plans prepared for Florida and Puerto Rico populations of the West Indian 

manatee and a single plan addressing both the eastern and western Steller sea lion populations. 

In October 2004 NMFS issued interim guidance on recovery planning for listed species (NMFS 

2004). In it, the Service emphasizes an ecosystem approach to recovery planning that 

encompasses the health of a species’ habitat and ecosystem rather than simply the species’ 

abundance and range (NMFS 2004). Similarly, the guidance calls for a shift in focus from simply 

increasing a species’ numbers to alleviating threats that are contributing to the endangered or 

threatened status of a species or are likely to do so in the future. According to the guidance, a 

recovery plan should include an assessment of threats that determines the relative importance of 

each. The first step in the process is preparing a recovery outline based on currently available 

information. The recovery outline includes a preliminary strategy for guiding initial recovery 

actions and for making determinations regarding critical habitat, consultation, and take (NFMS 

2004). The plan also is to identify recovery priorities using guidelines adopted by the Services in 

1990 (55 Fed. Reg. 24296). Using this protocol, species are ranked on a scale from a high of 1 to 

a low of 12 regarding the magnitude of threat, recovery potential, and conflict with development 

projects or other economic activity. The recovery outline must also include a vision statement 

and a brief action plan. 
132

A plan’s recovery strategy should identify key facts and assumptions and specific objectives, 

together with their priority and timing, and recovery criteria—measurable and objective targets 

or values by which progress toward achievement of recovery objectives, especially the reduction 

or elimination of threats, can be measured. In determining priorities for recovery actions, a plan 

must use the following criteria (55 Fed. Reg. 24296): 

x Priority Action 1: Actions that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species 

from declining irreversibly; 

x Priority Action 2: Actions that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in a species’ 

population or habitat quality or in some other significant impact short of extinction; and 

x Priority Action 3: All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species. 

NMFS guidance requires that recovery plans describe actions and identify the length of time to 

complete the action, the responsible parties, and estimates of the costs. Regarding the last 

element, the guidance calls for estimating costs for the first five to ten years and until full 

recovery is achieved. Although citing the Act’s requirement to identify costs, the guidance 

acknowledges the difficulty of estimating costs far into the future. Finally, NMFS guidance 

requires review of recovery plans after the five-year review of a listed species. 

For a species listed as endangered or threatened and as depleted, a recovery plan required by the 

ESA generally serves also as the conservation plan required by the MMPA. Besides the 

components of a recovery plan identified here, a recovery plan should include information 

identified in Senate Report 100-92, according to the Service’s guidance (NMFS 2004): 

x an assessment of the status of the species or population and its essential habitat; 

x a description of the nature, magnitude, and causes of any population declines or loss of 

essential habitat; 

x an assessment of existing and possible threats to the species and its habitat; 

x a discussion of critical information gaps; 

x a description and discussion of research and management that could be undertaken to meet 

the objectives of the plan; and 

x a schedule for implementing the research and management actions. 

The guidance also calls for including goals and criteria for delisting under the ESA as well as 

goals and criteria for attaining OSP levels as required by the MMPA. Recovery plans must also 

include any take reduction plans developed under the MMPA, as well as any plans regarding 

rescue, rehabilitation, and captive breeding. 

Section 7 Consultations and Obligations of Federal Agencies 

Section 7 of the ESA contains several provisions that are designed to protect threatened and 

endangered species and designated critical habitat in the United States, its territorial seas, and the 

high seas. Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs NMFS, FWS, and all other federal agencies to use 

their authorities to promote the conservation of threatened and endangered species. Section 

7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to engage in consultations with NMFS, FWS, or both to insure 

that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat that has been designated for these species. 
133

There are several forms of consultation, but the most common forms are “informal” and 

“formal.” Informal consultations are designed to determine if formal consultation on a federal 

action is required. Federal agencies can, however, work with the Services during an informal 

consultation to modify a particular action to eliminate the likelihood of adversely affecting listed 

resources. As a result, they may avoid having to consult formally on the action. If, however, a 

federal action is likely to adversely affect listed resources, agencies are generally required to 

engage in a formal consultation with the Services. Formal consultations are designed to 

determine if federal actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or 

endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (FWS 

and NMFS 1998). 

Formal consultations generally conclude when the Services provide a federal agency with their 

“biological opinion” on an agency action. Biological opinions, which document the Services’ 

conclusions on an action and the reasons and evidence that led them to their conclusions, can 

conclude that an action is or is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or 

endangered species or is or is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat that has been designated for these species. If the Services conclude that a federal 

action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or 

result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, they are required to work with 

federal agencies and any applicants to develop and recommend “reasonable and prudent 

alternatives” to the original proposal that are not likely to jeopardize the species or result in the 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

When the Services conclude that a federal action is not likely to jeopardize threatened or 

endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, or 

when they can recommend reasonable and prudent alternatives that avoid these outcomes, but the 

action is still likely to “incidentally take” a threatened or endangered species, the Services are 

required to include an “incidental take statement” in their biological opinions. These statements 

exempt “take” associated with an action from the normal prohibitions of the Act. To receive 

these exemptions, federal agencies must (1) comply with reasonable and prudent measures and 

terms and conditions that the Services include in their incidental take statements and (2) for 

listed marine mammals, obtain an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5) of the 

MMPA.

Most federal agencies that operate in coastal and marine waters of the United States, its territorial 

seas, or the high seas—the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, and 

NOAA, among others—engage in consultations with the Services to insure that their operations 

are not likely to jeopardize threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat designated for these species. NMFS engages in 

consultations on its fishery management plans and other actions related to its oversight of 

fisheries. The Minerals Management Service engages in consultations with the Services on oil 

and gas or mineral leasing, exploration, development, and production on the outer continental 

shelf. The U.S. Navy, National Science Foundation, Minerals Management Service, NOAA, and 

other federal agencies that fund research in the territorial seas of the United States or the high 

seas engage in consultations with the Services. 
134

Before NMFS or FWS issues any permits for scientific research on ESA-listed marine mammals 

—or activities that are taken to enhance the propagation or survival of these species—in the 

United States, its territorial seas, or the high seas, those permits undergo formal section 7 

consultation.

OTHER AUTHORITIES 

National Environmental Policy Act

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, major federal actions that may have significant 

effects on the environment trigger a requirement for the preparation of an environmental impact 

statement that must describe any unavoidable adverse environmental effects, alternatives to the 

action, and the relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity. In recent years, these requirements have played a 

significant role in the evaluation of the impact of major fisheries off Alaska on endangered 

Steller sea lions. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 established a 

regional system for the development and conservation of marine fisheries in the Exclusive 

Economic Zone. Unlike the MMPA, the Magnuson-Stevens Act did not preempt state 

management authority for fisheries that occur primarily in state waters. The Act vested the 

Secretary of Commerce, acting through NMFS, with authority to review, approve, disapprove, 

and implement fishery management plans developed by regional fishery management councils. 

The regional councils include representatives of various sectors of the commercial and 

recreational fishing industry, other interests, state fisheries managers, and several federal 

agencies.

The Act establishes 10 national standards that fishery management plans must meet. National 

Standard 1 calls for preventing overfishing “while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum 

yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.”30 The optimum yield is a catch 

level that takes into account factors including ecological interactions with other species and 

ecosystem components. National Standard 9 calls for minimizing bycatch, to the extent 

practicable, and where bycatch cannot be avoided, minimizing mortality. Although amendments 

in 1996 changed some provisions to make management more risk-averse and cognizant of 

ecosystems, managers have remained largely focused on production and yield. 

 

30 The term "optimum," with respect to the yield from a fishery, means the amount of fish that— 

(A) will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational 

opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems; 

(B) is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant 

economic, social, or ecological factor; and 

(C) in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable 

yield in such fishery. 
135

Since 1977 regional fishery management councils have developed many fishery management 

plans, which have been reviewed and implemented by the Service. To varying degrees, the 

councils have increasingly taken into account the impact of fisheries on marine mammals. 

However, these considerations remain incompletely addressed in most cases. 

National Marine Sanctuary Program 

The National Marine Sanctuary Program in the National Ocean Service, established under the 

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, authorizes the Secretary of 

Commerce to designate and manage areas of the marine environment with special national 

significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, 

archeological, educational, or esthetic qualities. The Act also directs the Secretary to facilitate all 

public and private uses of those resources that are compatible with the primary objective of 

resource protection. The sanctuary program may regulate activities identified at the time a 

sanctuary is designated or during regular revisions of sanctuary management plans. The 

appropriate fishery management council must be given the opportunity to draft any fisheryrelated regulations if the sanctuary managers determine that fishery management measures are 

needed to meet the sanctuary’s goals. 

Of 13 existing sanctuaries, the following are relevant to the conservation of listed species of 

marine mammals: Channel Islands, Monterey Bay, Gulf of the Farallones, and Cordell Bank off 

California, Olympic Coast off Washington, Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale, Flower Garden 

Banks off Texas/Louisiana, Florida Keys, Gray’s Reef off Georgia, and Stellwagen Bank off 

Massachusetts. The National Marine Sanctuary Program also is responsible for managing the 

PapahƗnaumokuƗkea Marine National Monument, which includes lands and waters in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) establishes federal jurisdiction over 

submerged lands seaward of state boundaries. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

grant leases for purposes of oil and gas exploration and development under conditions that 

ensure safe and environmentally sound activities. The Act calls for the development of five-year 

leasing programs, individual lease sales, geological and geophysical exploration, and plans for 

the exploration, development, and production of lease resources. The Act stipulates that 

economic, social, and environmental values of renewable and non-renewable resources are to be 

considered in the management of the outer continental shelf. Lease conditions may stipulate 

measures designed to avoid and monitor possible effects on marine mammals. 

The Minerals Management Service in the Department of the Interior has primary responsibility 

for the OCSLA program. All stages of the exploration and development process are subject to 

environmental review, including section 7 consultations under the ESA and small take provisions 

of the MMPA. In support of these reviews, the department has in the past provided substantial 

funding for research regarding marine mammal populations, behavior, habitats, and other 

relevant matters. 
136

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 

Soon after the end of World War II, the United States led efforts to build on earlier international 

treaties for the management of commercial whaling. These efforts culminated in 1946 when the 

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was concluded (Bean and Rowland 

1997). The convention established the International Whaling Commission (IWC) composed of 

one representative from each signatory nation. The IWC Schedule recommends species and 

stocks of whales to be protected, seasons or closed areas, size and catch limits, and methods of 

whaling. Amendments to the IWC Schedule require support by three-fourths of the members. In 

July 1982 the IWC agreed to a moratorium on commercial whaling, which went into effect in 

1986. Most countries currently abide by the moratorium although some have continued to catch 

whales under a formal exception to the rule or provisions that allow them to catch whales for 

scientific research purposes. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of State’s Bureau of 

Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs are responsible for preparing and 

representing U.S. positions at IWC meetings. 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora was 

concluded in 1973. The Convention has 169 parties, including the United States. It establishes a 

system for listing species on one of three appendices. Appendix I includes species threatened 

with extinction for which commercial trade is prohibited or strictly limited. Appendix II includes 

species for which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their 

survival. Appendix III includes those species that receive special regulatory protection by at least 

one member country. 

In general, Appendix I species may be imported only for other than commercial purposes and if 

the trade will not be detrimental to the survival of the species. Appendix II species may be 

exported for commercial purposes only if the export will not be detrimental to the survival of the 

species.

FUNDING FOR RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

Federal funding for the conservation of listed marine mammal species can be examined from at 

least four independent sources: (1) an annual report on expenditures for species listed under the 

ESA compiled by the Fish and Wildlife Service, (2) congressional appropriation documents, (3) 

individual agency budget documents, and (4) a federal survey of marine mammal funding 

compiled by the Marine Mammal Commission. Determining expenditures by federal and state 

agencies for recovery of listed species of marine mammals is severely confounded by 

inconsistencies in the way cost estimates are reported by different agencies, changes in how costs 

are reported over time, and lumping of funding among various categories that may or may not be 

limited to marine mammals. The most systematically gathered source of information is an annual 

report on endangered species expenditures prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service, but even 
137

this suffers from several flaws described later. Public budget documents vary in their 

organization and detail by agency and by year. Congressional appropriation documents 

frequently include line-item appropriations for specific species or purposes; however, these are 

often pass-through funds for external organizations, have little relevance for determining internal 

agency expenditures, and may or may not be reported consistently from year to year. Agency 

program staffs generally have limited knowledge of all expenditures for individual species. 

ESA Annual Report 

Section 18 of the ESA, adopted in 1988, requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service report 

annually on expenditures for the conservation of threatened and endangered species. The Service 

assembles the report from annual submissions by all involved federal agencies (FWS 2003a). 

The Service has provided little guidance on how agencies are to develop their cost estimates and 

what guidance has been provided has changed somewhat over time. The Service has limited 

capacity to evaluate and verify these reports, and the estimates it receives may factor in varying 

costs and are accepted with little or no checking. 

The most recent report covers FY2003, when agencies reported $1.2 billion in total expenditures, 

$785 million of which was ascribed to individual species and $101 million devoted to related 

land acquisition (FWS 2003a). The balance of expenditures was for activities that benefited a 

number of listed species or supported general implementation of the Act. The median 

expenditure that year for individual species with at least $100 in expenditures was $20,100, with 

95 species receiving more than $1 million. The maximum expenditure for any individual species 

was $49.5 million for the western population of Steller sea lions, $39.9 million of which was 

reported by the Coast Guard for enforcement. Annual expenditures reported for Steller sea lions 

and other individual listed species of marine mammals between 1998 and 2003 are shown in 

Appendices C.1–6. Total expenditures for marine mammals in 2003 reached $83.7 million. The 

second highest total for a marine mammal, and ninth overall for all listed species, was for 

northern right whales at $11.8 million. After western Steller sea lions and right whales, the 

marine mammal species receiving the largest expenditures were West Indian manatees ($9.8 

million), eastern Steller sea lions ($5.3 million), Hawaiian monk seals ($2.1 million), humpback 

whales ($1.6 million), and southern sea otters ($1.3 million). 

Expenditures for other endangered marine mammals (blue whales, bowhead whales, fin whales, 

sei whales, and sperm whales) amounted to a little more than 1 percent of all expenditures 

allocated for the recovery of listed marine mammals. Although federal expenditures account for 

nearly all governmental spending on most listed marine mammals, state funding in 2003 

accounted for more than half of all funding for the recovery of southern sea otters and the West 

Indian manatee in Florida. Expenditures for listed species of marine mammals grew from 2 to 12 

percent of all expenditures for terrestrial and aquatic species of plants and animals. 

Since 2001 it has been much easier to track the reported expenditures of individual agencies by 

species (See Appendices C.4–6). In 2003 the Coast Guard expenditures for enforcement of 

regulations concerning nine listed species (West Indian manatees, Steller sea lions, blue whales, 

bowhead whales, fin whales, humpback whales, right whales, sei whales, and sperm whales) 

amounted to nearly 60 percent ($42.9 of $74 million) of all federal expenditures for listed marine 
138

mammals.31 By comparison, total Coast Guard expenditures in 2001 for marine mammal 

enforcement amounted to $12.3 million, of which $11.1 million was dedicated to Steller sea 

lions. The Coast Guard estimate includes the total cost for operating vessels (e.g., all crew and 

amortized maintenance costs) during periods when marine mammal enforcement is logged as the 

vessel’s primary mission. During the same period (i.e. 2001–2003), expenditures for listed 

marine mammal species reported by NMFS declined from $40.7 million to $25.8 million and 

FWS reported a decline from $2.5 million to $2.2 million. 

The funding for Steller sea lion and North Atlantic right whale conservation illustrates a broader 

feature of federal and state expenditures for listed species—namely disproportionate funding. For 

example, in 2003, about 1.6 percent of all listed species received roughly half of the funding that 

could be reasonably attributed to individual species (FWS 2003a). Those species that received 

separate appropriations from Congress or state legislatures are generally the species that attract 

the greatest public interest and enjoy the support of members of Congress on key committees. 

Congressional Budget Allocations 

In fiscal years 2004 and 2005 Congress made dozens of separate appropriations for individual 

marine mammal species (Table A-2) and, within these appropriations, allocations to specific 

programs or institutions (House of Representatives Report 108-792 [2004]). These included 

allocations for Cook Inlet beluga whale research, the Beluga Whale Committee, bowhead whale 

spatial studies, research on the southern resident population of killer whales, right whale 

activities, state cooperative plans on right whales, Hawaiian monk seals, and Steller sea lions. 

Table A-2. Species-Specific Congressional Appropriations (in $ thousands) for Marine Mammals, 

2001–2005 

Species/Population FY2001 

Enacted 

FY2002 

Enacted 

FY2003 

Enacted 

FY2004 

Enacted 

FY2005 

Request 

Steller sea lions 35,054 32,145 18,233 17,683 13,846 

North Atlantic right whales 4,989 6,850 9,936 12,193 5,850 

Beluga whales 225 375 373 370 375 

Hawaiian monk seals 798 825 820 816 825 

Manatees 0 0 248 248 0 

Bottlenose dolphins 748 2,000 1,987 3,958 0 

North Pacific southern resident killer 

whales 0 0 746 1,458 0 

Endangered large whales 0 0 994 (10) 1,000 

FWS has entered into cooperative agreements with individual states regarding implementation of 

the ESA. In FY2002 the Service awarded roughly $106 million to states under five types of 

endangered species grants (FWS 2002). In 2004 this amount declined to $86.5 million, most of 

which was spend on land acquisition (USFWS 2004c). 

 

31 According to Coast Guard budget documents, operating expenses for living marine resources enforcement amounted to $347 

million in 2003 and was set to rise to $497.9 million in 2005 (USCG 2004). 
139

Agency Budget Documents: Another source of information is agency budget documents. Only 

NMFS budget information was easily available for this study (see Appendix E). Budget 

allocations (in thousands of dollars) for individual listed species for the period 2001–2005 are 

shown on the preceding page. 

Marine Mammal Commission Survey of Federally-Funded Research 

The Marine Mammal Commission carries out a survey of federally funded marine mammal 

research and studies. The most recent report in this series covers the period FY1974–FY2000 

(Waring 2002). Like FWS annual report on endangered species expenditures, this report was 

derived from agency reports, which vary in completeness and accuracy by agency and by year. 

In particular, agencies sometimes encounter difficulties in separating administrative, 

management, enforcement, and research costs. 

Like other sources of information presented in this report, this source documents substantial 

increases in funding for several species. Funding for stock assessment and biological research for 

northern right whales grew from $641,000 in FY1991 to $3.1 million in FY2000. Similar 

research on Hawaiian monk seals grew from $493,000 to $1.9 million during the same period, 

while Steller sea lion research funding grew from $4,000 to $4.2 million. Northern fur seal 

research funding grew similarly from $6,000 in FY1991 to $2.0 million in FY2000. 

141

APPENDIX B

YEAR 2004 CATEGORY I, II, AND III FISHERIES AFFECTING SPECIES LISTED AS ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR DEPLETED

Table B – 1. 2004 Category I Fisheries Affecting Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Depleted 

(Source: 69 FR 48407–48423) 

Gear Area

Estimated Number of 

Vessels/Persons 

2004/2000 

Endangered Species Threatened Species Depleted Species 

Coastal gillnet Mid-Atlantic >655 Humpback whale Bottlenose dolphin, coastalSink gillnet Northeast U.S. 341 

North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, fin whale 

Large pelagic longline 

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico 

<200 Humpback whale 

Lobster trap/pot Gulf of Maine, Mid- Atlantic 13,000 North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, fin whale Angel shark/halibut and other species largemesh set gillnet California 58 Southern sea otter Longline/set line for swordfish, tuna, billfish, mahi mahi, wahoo, oceanic sharks 

Hawaii 140 Humpback whale, sperm whale 
142

Table B – 2. 2004 Category II Fisheries Affecting Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Depleted 

(Source: 69 FR 48407–48423) 

Gear Area

Estimated Number of 

Vessels/Persons 

2004/2000 

Endangered Species Threatened Species Depleted Species 

Inshore gillnet North Carolina 94 Bottlenose dolphin, coastalAnchored float gillnet Northeast U.S. 133 Humpback whale Gillnet Southeast Atlantic 779 Bottlenose dolphin, coastalShark gillnet Southeast U.S. Atlantic 6 North Atlantic right whale Bottlenose dolphin, coastalAtlantic blue crab pot Florida >16,000 West Indian manatee Atlantic mixed species pot Atlantic coast Unknown Fin whale, humpback whaleHaul seine Mid-Atlantic 25 Bottlenose dolphin, coastalLong-haul seine North Carolina 33 Bottlenose dolphin, coastalRoe mullet stop net North Carolina 13 Bottlenose dolphin, coastalPound net Virginia 187 Bottlenose dolphin, coastalSalmon drift gillnet Alaska, Bristol Bay 1,903 Steller sea lion Northern fur seal Salmon set gillnet Alaska, Bristol Bay 1,014 Northern fur seal 
143

Table B – 2. 2004 Category II Fisheries Affecting Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Depleted (continued)

Gear Area

Estimated Number of 

Vessels/Persons 

2004/2000 

Endangered Species Threatened Species Depleted Species 

Salmon drift gillnet Alaska, Cook Inlet 576 Beluga whale Salmon drift gillnet Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands 164 Northern fur seal Salmon set gillnet Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands 116 Steller sea lion, humpback whale Salmon drift gillnet Alaska, Prince William Sound 541 Steller sea lion Northern fur seal Salmon drift gillnet Southeast Alaska 481 Humpback whale Steller sea lion Purse seine Southeast Alaska 416 Humpback whale Thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 

California and Oregon 113 Sperm whale, fin whale, humpback whale Steller sea lion Northern fur seal 
144

Table B – 3. 2004 Category III Fisheries Affecting Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Depleted (continued) 

(Source: 69 FR 48407–48423) 

Gear Area

Estimated Number of 

Vessels/Persons 

2004/2000 

Endangered Species Threatened Species Depleted Species 

Gillnet Caribbean >991 West Indian manatee, West Antillean Inshore gillnet Delaware 60 Humpback whale Inshore gillnet New York, Long Island Sound 20 Humpback whale Inshore gillnet 

Rhode Island, southern Massachusetts, New York Bight 

32 Humpback whale 

Shrimp trawl Southeastern Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico >18,000 Bottlenose dolphin, coastalMonkfish trawl Atlantic Unknown Bottlenose dolphin, coastalMenhaden purse seine Mid-Atlantic 22 Humpback whale Tub trawl groundfish bottom longline/hookand-line Gulf of Maine 46 Humpback whale Tuna, shark, swordfish hook-and-line, and harpoon 

Gulf of Maine 26,223 Humpback whale 
145

Table B – 3. 2004 Category III Fisheries Affecting Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Depleted (continued)

Gear Area

Estimated Number of 

Vessels/Persons 

2004/2000 

Endangered Species Threatened Species Depleted Species 

Herring stop seine/weir Gulf of Maine 50 North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale Haul/beach seine Caribbean 15 West Indian manatee, West Antillean Blue crab trap and pot Gulf of Mexico 4,113 West Indian manatee, Florida Salmon gill net Alaska, Cook Inlet 745 Steller sea lion Miscellaneous finfish set gillnet Alaska 3 Steller sea lion Salmon set gillnet Alaska, Prince William Sound 30 Steller sea lion Salmon troll Alaska 2,335 Steller sea lion Steller sea lion Halibut longline/set line Alaska 3,079 Steller sea lion Atka mackerel trawl Alaska, Aleutian Islands 8 Steller sea lion Flatfish trawl Alaska, Aleutian Islands 26 Steller sea lion 
146

Table B – 3. 2004 Category III Fisheries Affecting Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Depleted (continued) 

Gear Area

Estimated Number of 

Vessels/Persons 

2004/2000 

Endangered Species Threatened Species Depleted Species 

Pollock trawl Alaska, Bering Sea 120 Steller sea lion, humpback whale Groundfish trawl California, Oregon, Washington 585 Steller sea lion Northern fur seal Sablefish pot Alaska 6 Humpback whale Lobster, prawn, shrimp, rock crab, fish pot California 608 Southern sea otter Lobster trap Hawaii 15 Hawaiian monk seal Bottomfish hand line and jig Hawaii 434 Hawaiian monk seal Tuna hand line and jig Hawaii 144 Hawaiian monk seal NOTE: Many other species are taken in these fisheries that are not endangered, threatened, or depleted. 
147

APPENDIX C 

FEDERAL AND STATE EXPENDITURES FOR LISTED SPECIES OF MARINE MAMMALS

Appendix C.1. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for listed species of marine mammals in 1998 

(Source: USFWS 1998) 

Species FWS USGS NMFS

Other

Federal

Total

Fedeal State

Total

State and 

Federal

% Total 

By

Species

West Indian manatee 927 526 – 99 1,551 13 1,565 18.40Southern sea otter 97 389 – 9 495 – 495 5.82Caribbean monk seal – – – 10 10 – 10 0.11Hawaiian monk seal – – 1,504 12 1,516 – 1,516 17.82Guadalupe fur seal – – – – – – – – Steller sea lion (eastern and western populations) 

– – 3,040 20 3,060 19 3,079 36.20

Blue whale – – – 3 3 1 4 0.05Bowhead whale – – – – – 1 1 0.02Fin whale – – – 4 4 1 5 0.06Humpback whale – – 240 80 320 41 361 4.24Northern right whale 2 – 1,100 357 1,458 1 1,460 17.16Sei whale – – – 4 4 1 5 0.06Sperm whale – – – 4 4 1 5 0.06Total expenditures for listed marine mammal species 1,025 915 5,884 602 8,424 81 8,505 100.00Total expenditures for all listed species (marine mammals and others)

 54,123 5,855 28,151 278,188 366,316 16,338 382,654

Marine mammal expenditures as percentage of expenditures for all listed species 

 1.9% 15.6% 20.9% 0.2% 2.3% 0.5% 2.2%
148

Appendix C.2. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for listed species of marine mammals in 1999 

(Source: USFWS 2003c) 

Species FWS USGS NMFS USCG

Other

Federal

Total

Federal State

Total

State

and

Federal

% Total 

By

Species

Total

State

and

Federal

$ Excl. 

USCG

%

Total

By

Species

Excl.

USCG

West Indian manatee 1,145 526 – 619 117 2,407 1,945 4,351 25.27 3,732 28.53 Southern sea otter 95 317 – – 47 459 156 615 3.57 615 4.70 Caribbean monk seal – – – – – – – – – – – Hawaiian monk seal – – 1,052 48 4 1,104 0.4 1,105 6.42 1,057 8.08 Guadalupe fur seal – – – – 2 2 – 2 0.01 2 0.02 Steller sea lion (eastern and western populations) 

– – 4,879 2,291 56 7,226 8 7,234 42.00 4,943 37.78 

Blue whale 120 – – – 5 125 – 125 0.73 125 1.00 Bowhead whale – – – – – – 3 3 0.01 3 0.02 Fin whale – – – 9 4 13 0.3 13 0.07 4 0.03 Humpback whale – – 131 277 76 484 8 492 2.85 215 1.64 Northern right whale – – 1,542 892 549 2,983 90 3,273 19.00 2,381 18.20 Sei whale – – – – 4 4 – 4 0.02 4 0.03 Sperm whale – – – 6 1 7 – 7 0.04 1 0.01 Total expenditures for listed marine mammal species 1,360 843 7,604 4,142 865 14,813 2,410 17,222 100.00 13,082 100.00 Total expenditures for all listed species 52,749 5,428 36,195 23,740 227,063 345,175 91,907 437,082 Marine mammal expenditures as % of expenditures for all listed species

2.6% 15.5% 21.0% 17.4% 0.4% 4.3% 2.6% 3.9% 
149

Appendix C.3. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for listed species of marine mammals in 2000 

(Source: USFWS 2003b) 

Species FWS USGS NMFS USCG 

Other 

Federal

Total 

Federal State

Total 

State and 

Federal

%

Total 

By 

Species

Total State 

and 

Federal $ 

Excl. 

USCG 

%

Total 

By 

Species

Excl. 

USCG 

West Indian manatee 2,727 466 – 461 166 3,820 5,923 9,743 32.25 9,282 43.87 Southern sea otter 174 403 – – 13 589 35 624 2.07 624 2.95 Caribbean monk seal – – – – – – – – – – – Hawaiian monk seal – – 1,210 – 43 1,253 14 1,267 4.19 1,267 5.99 Guadalupe fur seal – – – – 2 2 – 2 0.01 2 0.01 Steller sea lion (eastern and western populations) 

– – 5,243 7,810 54 13,107 6 13,113 43.41 5,303 25.07 

Blue whale – – – – 6 6 – 6 0.02 6 0.03 Bowhead whale – – – – – – 3 3 0.01 3 0.01 Fin whale – – – – 4 4 1 5 0.02 5 0.02 Humpback whale – – 53 349 154 556 11 567 1.88 218 0.01 Northern right whale – – 4,168 433 143 4,744 127 4,872 16.13 4,439 20.98 Sei whale – – – – 4 4 – 4 0.01 4 0.02 Sperm whale – – – – 3 3 – 3 0.01 3 0.01 Total expenditures for listed marine mammal species 2,901 869 10,674 9,053 592 24,088 6,119 30,207 100.00 21,156 100.00 Total expenditures for all listed species 66,536 6,021 53,029 24,589 273,691 423,866 100,311 524,177 Marine mammal expenditures as % of expenditures for all listed species

4.4% 14.4% 20.1% 36.8% 0.2% 5.7% 6.1% 5.8% 
150

Appendix C.4. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for listed species of marine mammals in 2001 

(Source: USFWS 2005f) 

Species FWS USGS NMFS USCG 

Other 

Federal

Total 

Federal State

Total 

State and 

Federal

%

Total 

By 

Species

Total State 

and 

Federal $ 

Excl. 

USCG 

% Total 

By 

Species

Excl. 

USCG 

West Indian manatee 2,363 510 – 480 85 3,438 5,936 9,373 14.15 8,893 16.50Southern sea otter(except experimental population)

 184 868 – – 7 1,059 35 1,094 1.65 1,094 2.03

Caribbean monk seal – – – – 8 8 – 8 0.01 8 0.01Hawaiian monk seal – – 2,100 2 5 2,108 14 2,121 3.20 2,119 3.93Guadalupe fur seal – – – – – – – – – – – Steller sea lion(eastern and western populations)

– – 33,312 11,067 66 44,445 2,338 46,783 70.62 35,716 66.27

Blue whale – – – – 1 1 – 1 0.00 1 0.00Bowhead whale – – – – – – 25 25 0.04 25 0.05Fin whale – – – – 22 22 2 24 0.04 24 0.04Humpback whale – – 53 324 352 729 11 740 1.12 416 0.77Northern right whale – – 5,270 474 147 5,891 145 6,036 9.11 5,562 10.32Sei whale – – – – 12 12 – 12 0.02 12 0.02Sperm whale – – – – 27 27 – 27 0.04 27 0.05Total expenditures for listed marine mammal species 

 2,547 1,378 40,735 12,348 732 57,739 8,505 66,244 100.00 53,897 100.00

Total expenditures for all listed species 50,294 11,241 95,879 28,219 388,314 573,976 76,633 647,580Marine mammal expenditures as % of expenditures for all listed species 

5.1% 12.3% 42.5% 43.8% 0.2% 10.1% 11.1% 10.2%
151

Appendix C.5. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for listed species of marine mammals in 2002 

(Source: USFWS 2005e) 

Species FWS USGS NMFS USCG

Other

Federal

Total

Federal State

Total

State

and

Federal

% Total 

By

Species

Total

State

and

Federal

$ Excl. 

USCG

%

Total

By

Species

Excl.

USCG

West Indian manatee 1,710 523 – 228 182 2,643 5,929 8,571 11.11 8,343 16.19 Southern sea otter 170 856 – – 5 1,031 35 1,066 1.38 1,066 2.07 Caribbean monk seal – – – – – – – – – – – Hawaiian monk seal – – 2,100 46 38 2,184 14 2,197 2.85 2,151 4.17 Guadalupe fur seal – – – – – – – – – – – Steller sea lion(eastern and western populations)

– – 29,295 24,172 35 53,502 2,496 55,998 72.59 31,826 61.75 

Blue whale – – – 7 1 8 – 8 0.01 1 0.00 Bowhead whale – – – 7 – 7 – 7 0.01 – 0.00 Fin whale – – – 7 5 13 1 13 0.02 6 0.01 Humpback whale – – 150 280 449 879 11 890 1.15 609 1.18 Northern right whale 

– – 7,120 857 136 8,113 280 8,393 10.88 7,536 14.62 

Sei whale – – – – 1 1 – 1 0.00 1 0.00 Sperm whale – – – – 1 1 – 1 0.00 1 0.00 Total expenditures for listed marine mammal species 

1,880 1,379 8,665 25,606 853 68,382 8,765 77,147 100.00 51,540 100.00 

Total expenditures for all listed species 76,341 11,878 180,735 27,319 348,339 644,611 74,606 719,218 Marine mammal expenditures as % of expenditures for all listed species 

2.5% 11.6% 4.8% 93.7% 0.2% 10.6% 11.7% 10.7% 
152

Appendix C.6. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for listed species of marine mammals in 2003 

(Source: USFWS 2005d) 

Species FWS USGS NMFS USCG

Other

Federal

Total

Federal State

Total

State

and

Federal

%

Total

By

Species

Total

State

and

Federal

$ Excl. 

USCG

%

Total

By

Species

Excl.

USCG

West Indian manatee 2,070 971 – 713 75 3,830 5,969 9,799 11.87 9,085 22.93 Southern sea otter(includes experimental population)

 156 1,154 – – 26 1,336 40 1,376 1.67 1,376 3.47 

Caribbean monk seal – – – – – – – – – – – Hawaiian monk seal – – 2,100 – 30 2,130 15 2,145 2.60 2,145 5.41 Guadalupe fur seal – – – – – – – – – – – Steller sea lion(eastern population)

– – 4,090 – 4 4,094 1,203 5,297 6.41 5,297 13.37 

Steller sea lion(western population) – – 8,180 39,940 194 48,314 1,200 49,514 59.97 9,574 24.16 Blue whale – – – 199 4 203 – 203 0.25 4 0.01 Bowhead whale – – – 199 5 204 – 204 0.25 5 0.01 Fin whale – – – 199 6 205 1 206 0.25 7 0.02 Humpback whale – – 1,150 199 248 1,597 18 1,615 1.96 1,416 3.57 Northern right whale – – 10,270 1,098 312 11,679 123 11,802 14.29 10,705 27.02 Sei whale – – – 199 4 203 – 203 0.25 4 0.01 Sperm whale – – – 199 4 203 – 203 0.25 4 0.01 Total expenditures for listed marine mammal species 

 2,226 2,125 25,790 42,944 912 73,997 8,570 82,567 100.00 39,623 100.00 

Total expenditures for all listed species 92,011 12,167 150,898 47,732 313,875 616,683 68,146 684,829 Marine mammal expenditures as % of expenditures for all listed species 

2.4% 17.5% 17.1% 90.0% 0.3% 12.0% 12.6% 12.1% 
153

Appendix C.7. Federal and state expenditures (in $ thousands) for listed species of marine mammals in 2004 

(Source: USFWS 2006) 

Species FWS USGS NMFS USCG

Other

Federal

Total

Federal State

Total

State

and

Federal

%

Total

By

Species

Total

State

and

Federal

$ Excl.

USCG

%

Total

By

Species

Excl.

USCG

West Indian manatee 2,432 428 – 831 226 3,917 5,945 9,862 13.86 9,030 18.73 Southern sea otter 134 578 – – 3 714 20 734 1.03 734 1.52 Caribbean monk seal – – – – – – – – – – – Hawaiian monk seal – 1 2,164 105 51 2,321 – 2,321 3.26 2,216 4.60 Guadalupe fur seal – – – – – – 1 1 0.00 1 0.00 Steller sea lion (eastern population)

– – 9,605 – 3 9,608 1,203 10,811 15.19 10,811 22.42 

Steller sea lion (western population) – – 9,605 20,856 85 30,546 1,200 31,746 44.60 10,890 22.58 Blue whale – – – 60 4 65 2 67 0.09 6 0.01 Bowhead whale – – – 60 13 190 – 190 0.27 130 0.27 Fin whale 0.2 – – 63 6 69 3 72 0.10 9 0.02 Humpback whale – – – 416 243 659 7 666 0.94 250 0.52 Northern right whale 0.2 – 11,225 444 197 11,866 504 12,370 17.38 11,925 24.73 Sei whale – – – 60 6 66 – 66 0.09 6 0.01 Sperm whale 6 – – 60 2,203 2,268 2 2,270 3.19 2,210 4.58 Total expenditures for listed marine mammal species

 2,571 1,007 32,559 22,956 3,040 62,290 8,887 71,177 100.00 48,221 100.00 

Total expenditures for all listed species 128,534 10,940 151,230 33,091 408,359 732,154 60,965 793,120 Expenditures for listed marine mammal species as % of expenditures for all listed species 

2.0% 9.2% 21.5% 69.4% 0.7% 8.5% 14.6% 9.0% 
154

APPENDIX D

FEDERAL AND STATE EXPENDITURES (IN $ THOUSANDS) FOR LISTED SPECIES OF MARINE MAMMALS BY YEAR: 1998 – 2004

(Source: USFWS 1998, 2003b, 2003c, 2005b, 2005d, 2005f, 2006) 

Fiscal Year FWS USGS NMFS USCG

Other

Federal

Total

Federal State

Total State and

Federal

West Indian Manatee 

1998 927 526 – – 99 1,551 13 1,5651999 1,145 526 – 619 117 2,407 1,945 4,3512000 2,727 466 – 461 166 3,820 5,923 9,7432001 2,363 510 – 480 85 3,438 5,936 9,3732002 1,710 523 – 228 182 2,643 5,929 8,5712003 2,070 971 – 713 75 3,830 5,969 9,7992004 2,432 428 – 831 226 3,917 5,945 9,862

Southern Sea Otter 

1998 97 389 – – 9 495 – 4951999 95 317 – – 47 459 156 6152000 174 403 – – 13 589 35 6242001 184 868 – – 7 1,059 35 1,0942002 170 856 – – 5 1,031 35 1,0662003 156 1,154 – – 26 1,336 40 1,3762004 134 578 – – 3 714 20 734

Caribbean Monk Seal 

1998 – – – – 10 10 – 101999 – – – – – – – – 2000 – – – – – – – – 2001 – – – – 8 8 – 82002 – – – – – – – – 2003 – – – – – – – – 2004 – – – – – – – – 
155

 Federal and State Expenditures (in $ thousands) for Listed Species of Marine Mammals by Year: 1998 – 2004 (continued) 

Fiscal Year FWS USGS NMFS USCG

Other

Federal

Total

Federal State

Total State 

and Federal 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 

1998 – – 1,504 – 12 1,516 – 1,5161999 – – 1,052 48 4 1,104 0.4 1,1052000 – – 1,210 – 43 1,253 14 1,2672001 – – 2,100 2 5 2,108 14 2,1212002 – – 2,100 46 38 2,184 14 2,1972003 – – 2,100 – 30 2,130 15 2,1452004 – 1 2,164 105 51 2,321 – 2,321

Guadalupe Fur Seal 

1998 – – – – – – – – 1999 – – – – 2 2 – 22000 – – – – 2 2 – 22001 – – – – – – – – 2002 – – – – – – – – 2003 – – – – – – – – 2004 – – – – – – 1 1 

Steller Sea Lion (eastern and western populations)

1998 – – 3,040 – 20 3,060 19 3,0791999 – – 4,879 2,291 56 7,226 8 7,2342000 – – 5,243 7,810 54 13,107 6 13,1132001 – – 33,312 11,067 66 44,445 2,338 46,7832002 – – 29,295 24,172 35 53,502 2,496 55,998

2003 

(eastern) – – 4,090 – 4 4,094 1,203 5,297

2003 

(western) 

– – 8,180 39,940 194 48,314 1,200 49,514

2004 

(eastern)

– – 9,605 – 3 9,608 1,203 10,811

2004 

(western) 

– – 9,605 20,856 85 30,546 1,200 31,746
156

Federal and State Expenditures (in $ thousands) for Listed Species of Marine Mammals by Year: 1998 – 2004 (continued)

Fiscal Year FWS USGS NMFS USCG

Other

Federal

Total

Federal State

Total State 

and

Federal

Blue Whale 

1998 – – – – 3 3 1 41999 120 – – – 5 125 – 1252000 – – – – 6 6 – 62001 – – – – 1 1 – 12002 – – – 7 1 8 – 82003 – – – 199 4 203 – 2032004 – – – 60 4 65 2 67

Bowhead Whale 

1998 – – – – – – 1 11999 – – – – – – 3 32000 – – – – – – 3 32001 – – – – – – 25 252002 – – – 7 – 7 – 72003 – – – 199 5 204 – 2042004 – – – 60 130 190 – 190

Fin Whale 

1998 – – – – 4 4 1 51999 – – – 9 4 13 0.3 132000 – – – – 4 4 1 52001 – – – – 22 22 2 242002 – – – 7 5 13 1 132003 – – – 199 6 205 1 2062004 0.2 – – 63 6 69 3 72

Humpback Whale 

1998 – – 240 – 80 320 41 3611999 – – 131 277 76 484 8 4922000 – – 53 349 154 556 11 5672001 – – 53 324 352 729 11 7402002 – – 150 280 449 879 11 8902003 – – 1,150 199 248 1,597 18 1,6152004 – – – 416 243 659 7 666
157

Federal and State Expenditures (in $ thousands) for Listed Species of Marine Mammals by Year: 1998 – 2004 (continued) 

Fiscal Year FWS USGS NMFS USCG

Other

Federal

Total

Federal State

Total State 

and

Federal

Northern Right whale 

1998 2 – 1,100 – 357 1,458 1 1,4601999 – – 1,542 892 549 2,983 290 3,2732000 – – 4,168 433 143 4,744 127 4,8722001 – – 5,270 474 147 5,891 145 6,0362002 – – 7,120 857 136 8,113 280 8,3932003 – – 10,270 1,098 312 11,679 123 11,8022004 0.2 – 11,225 444 197 11,866 504 12,370

Sei Whale 

1998 – – – – 4 4 1 51999 – – – – 4 4 – 42000 – – – – 4 4 – 42001 – – – – 12 12 – 122002 – – – – 1 1 – 12003 – – – 199 4 203 – 2032004 – – – 60 6 66 – 66

Sperm Whale 

1998 – – – – 4 4 1 51999 – – – 6 1 7 – 72000 – – – – 3 3 – 32001 – – – – 27 27 – 272002 – – – – 1 1 – 12003 – – – 199 4 203 – 2032004 6 – – 60 2,203 2,268 2 2,270
158

APPENDIX E

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE LINE ITEMS RELATED TO ENDANGERED MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES: 2001–2005

(IN $ THOUSANDS)

(Source: NOAA Budget Bluebooks for FY2003 and FY2005) 

Budget Line Item FY2001 Enacted FY2002 Enacted FY2003 Enacted FY2004 Enacted FY2005 Request

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STELLER SEA LIONS Alaska Fisheries Foundation – 500 994 961 –Alaska SeaLife Center 5,967 5,000 4,968 5,912 1,400 Recovery Plan: Base 21,952 16,800 4,968 3,562 9,796 North Pacific Universities MM Consortium 798 3,500 2,484 2,465 800 University of Alaska Gulf Apex Predator 998 1,000 994 989 1,000 Endangered Species Act 848 850 844 841 850 Steller sea lion/pollock research 1,996 2,000 PROTECTED SPECIES MISCELLANEOUS Marine mammals, sea turtles, others 9,517 3,500 3,477 3,433 3,500 Right whale activities 1,592 2,250 4,968 10,322 2,250 Right whale NE Consortium 2,894 1,000 – – –Hawaiian monk seals 798 825 820 816 825 Alaska harbor seal research 898 900 894 3,958 900 Manatee: New College – – 248 248 –Marine mammal strandings 3,991 4,000 3,974 3,694 4,000 Bottlenose dolphin research 748 2,000 1,987 3,958 – North Pacific southern resident killer whales – – 746 1,458 – Recovery of endangered large whales – – 994 (10) 1,000 
159

National Marine Fisheries Service Line Items Related to Endangered Marine Mammal Species: 2001– 2005 (continued) 

(in $ thousands)

Budget Line Item FY2001 Enacted FY2002 Enacted FY2003 Enacted FY2004 Enacted FY2005 Request

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT MARINE MAMMALS Cook Inlet beluga – 150 149 147 150Right whale activities 503 2,100 4,968 (108) 2,100Right whale cooperative state plans – 1,500 – 1,979 1,500Charleston health and risk assessment – 800 795 396 – Alaska Sealife Center – – 994 989 – Steller sea lion recovery plan: state of Alaska 2,495 2,495 1,987 1,964 – NATIVE ALAS A MARINE MAMMALS Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 399 400 497 492 400 Alaska Eskimo Whaling Comm: Prt of AEV – – – 99 – Alaska harbor seals 150 150 149 147 150 Aleut Pacific Marine Resources Observatory 125 125 124 61 125 Beluga Whale Committee 225 225 224 223 225 Bristol Bay Native Association 50 50 50 50 50 
160

APPENDIX F

FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESEARCH ON LISTED MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES BY RESEARCH ISSUE: FY1991–FY2000

(in $ thousands) 

(Based on Table 6 in Waring 2002)

Issue Funding Agency FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 

International Whaling Commission  Assessment of stocks NMFS 75 184 70 108 393 

MMC 8 

NSF 49 

DOS 8 45 72 112 63 12 14 22 8 18 

 Subtotal 57 45 80 187 247 12 14 92 116 411 Fisheries/Sea Otter Interactions 

FWS 323 205 207 157 157 132 1,181 

USGS 132 132 

MMC 3 3 

 Subtotal 323 205 207 157 160 132 132 1,316 Bowhead whale  Assessment of stocks NMFS

 912 655 499 314 298 315 413 465 400 

MMS 264 513 549 549 495 482 485 450 450 266 

NSF 14 

 Biology MMS 55 625 376 $ 650  Subtotal 1,231 1,168 1,048 863 793 797 1,523 1,291 1,500 280 
161

Federal Funding of Research on Listed Marine Mammal Species by Research Issue: FY1991–FY2000 (continued) 

(in $ thousands) 

Issue Funding Agency FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 

Humpback whale  Population assessment NMFS 45 250 240 388 208 175 136 121 

MMC 8 2 8 10 

NPS 21 16 16 20 70 70 60 229 

SERDP 265 45 241 

NOS 1 2 12 61 2 26 

 Biology NPS 13 27 

NMFS 20 

NOS 60 

NSGCP 43 

MMC 2 

 Subtotal 107 268 307 673 266 243 257 267 183 342 Northern Right Whale  Population assessment NMFS 194 235 324 510 371 827 379 552 869 1,797 

MMC 2 28 20 6 1 

MMS 196 

USCG 80 285 

Navy 970 350 693 611 

NSGCP 57 

DOT 217 

 Biology Navy 90 80 197 

NSF 200 

NMFS 45 228 97 51 212 

MMS 4 13 

NOS 25 

USCG 80 140 

 Subtotal 641 276 344 590 689 1,010 1,505 1,042 1,848 3,091 
162

Federal Funding of Research on Listed Marine Mammal Species by Research Issue: FY1991–FY2000 (continued) 

(in $ thousands) 

Issue Funding Agency FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 

Beluga whale  Population assessment MMS 80 28 75 

MMC 2 

NMFS 25 184 276 173 185 205 405 205 199 186 

 Biology Navy 172 387 115 5 

NSF 55 57 107 209 146 106 90 90 

 Subtotal 160 241 276 452 781 466 544 205 291 351 Bottlenose dolphin  Population assessment MMC 4 5 1 

NMFS 32 105 65 750 845 722 601 443 

EPA 23 10 56 5 

NSGCP 86 83 83 

NASA 9 5 

NPS 10 

 Biology Navy 864 525 677 786 1,504 975 671 634 805 1,398 

DHHS 109 35 

NSF 100 168 18 151 17 160 162 

NMFS 35 250 20 31 

NOS 10 252 

NSGCP 13 13 

 Subtotal 1,140 1,075 843 1,675 2,457 1,028 822 1,424 1,594 2,268 Northern Fur Seal  Population assessment NMFS 6 7 9 95 24 24 24 106 603  Biology NMFS 4 4 74 1,957 

NSF $ 138 

 Subtotal 6 11 13 95 162 24 24 180 603 1,957 
163

Federal Funding of Research on Listed Marine Mammal Species by Research Issue: FY1991–FY2000 (continued) 

(in $ thousands)

Issue Funding Agency FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 

Hawaiian Monk Seal  Population assessment NMFS 448 731 717 519 1,109 1,450 769 1,152 

Navy 30 9 

 Biology NPS 5 5 

NSGCP 25 14 34 

Army 20 

NMFS 745 

 Subtotal 493 745 751 519 1,139 1,459 774 5 1,897 Steller Sea Lion  Population studies NMFS 191 101 779 1,580 1,407 1,203 2,560 

NOS 1,100 

MMC 3 

NPS 1 2 16 20 20 3 

NSGCP 25 20 

 Biology NMFS 690 713 750 591 895 304 

Navy 15 

NOS 512 

 Subtotal 4 908 834 766 591 1,674 1,904 1,427 1,218 4,175 
164

Federal Funding of Research on Listed Marine Mammal Species by Research Issue: FY1991–FY2000 (continued) 

(in $ thousands) 

Issue Funding Agency FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 

Manatees and Dugongs  Population studies FWS 23 47 186 1 76 

NASA 10 10 24 24 24 26 24 20 25 25 

MMC 3 13 3 

USGS 231 232 167 

NPS 11 

Navy 64 

 Biology FWS 437 716 681 594 620 484 152 3 172 32 

USGS 409 234 215 180 

Army 145 282 282 

MMC 4 6 

NASA 8 7 7 7 7 

NSF 50 52 

Navy 375 330 

 Subtotal 604 809 783 625 1,308 1,122 632 688 645 544 Sea Otter  Population studies FWS 210 24 15 43 124 45 7 116 73 193 

USGS 329 599 552 353 

NPS 360 360 

MMC 3 

NOS 9 7 5 

 Biology MMC 3 

NSGCP 150 

FWS 703 690 544 403 409 429 8 71 25 

USGS 105 195 170 483 

NSF 174 122 122 5 NPS 68 180 

MMS 7 

USAF 149 

NOS 2 5 5 7 

 Subtotal 1,097 1,196 1,041 595 536 476 463 993 875 1,389 
165

APPENDIX G

SUMMARY OF THE STATUS AND PROTECTION PROGRAMS FOR LISTED MARINE MAMMALS

Species Legal Status 

Best

Abund. 

Estimate

Minimum

Population 

Estimate

Potential 

Biological 

Removal

Minimum

Annual

Mortality 

Fisheries 

Meeting 

Zero 

Mortality 

Goal?

Minimum

Annual

Mortality 

Other 

Potential 

Threats 

Recovery/

Conservation 

Plan

Critical Habitat

West Indian manatee Endangered Yes Florida population 3,300 3,300 3 Undeter. Undeter. ~298 

Boat collisions; loss of warm–water refuges; flood gates/navigationlocks; habitat degradation 

2001

(Update In 

Process) 

1976

Antillean population 121 121 0 Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. 

Fisheryinteractions; boat collisions

1986

Southern sea otter

Threatened 2,735 2735 7 Undeter. Not available Undeter. Oil spills; fishery interactions; disease 2003 None 

Northern sea otter,SW Alaska 

Threatened 41,865 33,203 830 Undeter. Not available Undeter.

Oil spills; predation by killer whales; infectious disease

Draft In 

Process 

Caribbeanmonk seal Endangered 0 0 None NoneHawaiianmonk seal Endangered 1,252 1,224 Undeter. Undeter. No Undeter. 

Prey availability; fishery interactions; debris entanglement; shark predation 

1983

(Update In 

Process) 

1986, 1988 

Guadalupefur seal Threatened 7,408 3,028 104 Undeter. Yes Undeter. Fishery interactions NoneNorthern fur sealEastern Pacific Depleted 688,028 676,540 14,546 15 Yes 870 

Prey availability; fishery interactions; debris entanglement; industrial development 

1993
166

Summary of the Status and Protection Programs for Listed Marine Mammals (continued) 

Species Legal Status 

Best

Abund. 

Estimate

Minimum

Population 

Estimate

Potential 

Biological 

Removal

Minimum

Annual

Mortality 

Fisheries 

Meeting 

Zero 

Mortality 

Goal?

Minimum

Annual

Mortality 

Other 

Potential 

Threats 

Recovery/

Conservati

on

Plan

Critical Habitat

Steller sea lion 

 1992 

(Update In 

Process) 

 Yes 

Western population Endangered 44,916 38,513 231 30.9 No 187.3

Prey availability; fishery interactions;predation by killer whales

1993

Eastern population Threatened 43,728 43,728 1,967 5.3 Yes 2

Fisheryinteractions;subsistencehunting 

 1993 

Blue whale Endangered 1998 None Western North Atlantic Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Ship strikes Pacific Coast 1,774 1,384 1.4 0 Yes 0.2 Ship strikes Hawaii Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Not available Bowhead whale Endangered None NoneWestern Arctic population Endangered 10,545 9,472 95 0.2 Yes 40

Fisheryinteraction; oil and gas development; climate change; ship strikes 

Fin whale Endangered Draft (2006) NoneWestern Atlantic 2,814 2,362 4.7 0.4 No 1 

Ship strikes; fishery interactions

Pacific Coast 3,279 2,541 15 1 Yes 0.4 

Fisheryinteractions; ship strikes

Northeast Pacific 5,703 5,703 11.4 0.6 Yes 0.2 

Fisheryinteractions; ship strikes

Hawaii 174 191 0.1 0 Undeter. Undeter. Not available 
167

Summary of the Status and Protection Programs for Listed Marine Mammals (continued) 

Species Legal Status 

Best

Abund. 

Estimate

Minimum

Population 

Estimate

Potential 

Biological 

Removal

Minimum

Annual

Mortality 

Fisheries 

Meeting Zero 

Mortality 

Goal?

Minimum

Annual

Mortality 

Other 

Potential 

Threats 

Recovery/

Conservation 

Plan

Critical Habitat

Humpbackwhale Endangered 1991 None Gulf of Maine 902 647 1.3 2.8 No 0.4 Fish. interactions; ship strikes Eastern North Pacific 1,391 1,158 2.3 1.2 No 0.2 Fish. interactions; ship strikes Central North Pacific 4,005 3,698 12.9 3.4 No 0.8 Fish. interactions; ship strikes Western North Pacific 394 367 1.3 0.69 No Undeter. Fish. interactions Northern right whale Endangered 1991 Yes North Atlantic 299 299 0 1.6 No 1 Fish. interactions; ship strikes 2005 1994 North Pacific Undeter. 23 Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Fish. interactions; ship strikes (1991) 2006 Sei whale Endangered Draft (1998) None Nova Scotia Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Ship strikes; fish. interactionsEastern North Pacific 56 35 0.01 0 Yes 0 Ship strikes; fish. interactionsHawaii 77 37 0.1 0 Undeter. Undeter. Ship strikes; fish. interactionsSperm whale Endangered Draft (2006) None North Atlantic 4,804 3,539 7 0 Yes 0.4 Fish. interactions; ship strikes Northern Gulf of Mexico 1,349 1,114 2.2 0 Yes 0 Fish. interactions; ship strikes Pacific Coast 1,233 885 1.8 1 No Not available Fish. interactions; ship strikes Hawaii 7,082 5,531 11 0 Undeter. 0 Fish. interactions; ship strikes 
168

Summary of the Status and Protection Programs for Listed Marine Mammals (continued) 

Species Legal Status 

Best

Abund. 

Estimate

Mininum 

Pop. 

Estimate

Potential 

Biological 

Removal

Minimum

Annual

Mortality 

Fisheries 

Meeting 

Zero 

Mortality 

Goal?

Minimum

Annual

Mortality 

Other Potential Threats 

Recov/

Cons. 

Plan

Critical Habitat

Sperm whale Endangered Draft (2006) None North Pacific Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Fishery interaction; ship strikes Cook Inlet beluga whale Depleted 357 366 2 0 Yes 1

Subsistence harvest; fishing interactions; vessel traffic; coastal development 

Draft

(2005) None 

Mid–Atlantic coastalbottlenose dolphin

Depleted Draft (2001) None 

NorthernMigratory 17,466 14,621 146.2 11 No Undeter. Fishery interactions; contaminants Northern North Carolina 7,079 4,083 40.8 8 No Undeter. Fishery interactions; contaminants Southern North Carolina 4,787 1,987 19.9 Undeter. Yes Undeter. Fishery interactions; contaminants Winter Mixed 16,913 13,558 135.6 58 No Undeter. Fishery interactions; contaminants South Carolina 2,325 1,963 19.6 Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Contaminants Georgia 2,195 1,716 17.2 Undeter. Undeter. Undeter. Northern Florida 448 328 Undeter. 0 Yes Undeter. Central Florida 10,652 7,377 Undeter. 6 Yes Undeter. Contaminants 

Southern 

resident killer 

whale

population

Depleted 84 84 0.8 0 Yes 0

Prey availability; contaminants; oil spills

In

Process Proposed

AT1 Group, killer whale Depleted 9 9 0 0 Yes 0

Oil spills; contaminants; prey availability; fishery interactions;vessel traffic 

 None 
55

APPENDIX 4

Report of the 

Workshop on Assessing the 

Population Viability of Endangered 

Marine Mammals in 

U.S. Waters

Report of the Workshop on 

Assessing the Population Viability of 

Endangered Marine Mammals 

in U.S. Waters

13 15 September 2005 

Savannah, Georgia

Prepared by the Marine Mammal Commission 

2007

 Marine Mammal Commission to assess the cost-effectiveness of protection programs for the 

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

most endangered marine mammals in U.S. waters. 

 

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv 

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................v 

I. Introduction..............................................................................................................1 

II. Biological Viability..................................................................................................1 

III. Population Viability Analysis..................................................................................5 

IV. Viability of the Most Endangered Marine Mammals ..............................................6 

 Extinctions and recoveries .......................................................................................6 

 Assessment of biological viability...........................................................................7 

V. Improving Listing Decisions..................................................................................10 

 Quantifying the listing process ..............................................................................10 

 A theoretical decision tree for listing under the Endangered Species Act.............10 

VI. Improving Other Management Decisions..............................................................11 

VII. Acknowledgments..................................................................................................12 

VIII. Literature Cited ......................................................................................................12 

Appendix I. Examples of Existing Marine Mammal Population Models......................19 

 North Atlantic Right Whales .....................................................................19 

 Southern Resident Killer Whales...............................................................20 

 Cook Inlet Beluga Whales .........................................................................21 

 Florida Manatees........................................................................................22 

 Hawaiian Monk Seals ................................................................................24 

 Steller Sea Lions — Western Stock...........................................................25 

 Steller Sea Lions — Eastern Stock ............................................................26 

 California Sea Otters..................................................................................27 

Appendix II. Workshop Attendees..................................................................................29 

Appendix III. Workshop Agenda .....................................................................................30 
 

iv

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Summary of the biological status of 22 marine mammal species and stocks 

currently listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act or 

designated as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act .............................15 

Table 2. Examples of wild populations that have recovered from extremely low 

 population sizes............................................................................................................16

Table 3. A theoretical decision tree and analytical recommendations for listings 

 under the Endangered Species Act ..............................................................................18 
 

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Congress, in its 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Act, 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.” As part of its response to the directive, the Commission convened a 

workshop to examine the state of science regarding population viability analysis (PVA) for 

marine mammal populations. The workshop was held 13–15 September 2005 in Savannah, 

Georgia. Its goals were to (1) review estimates of the viability of the most endangered 

marine mammals, (2) review the status of ongoing modeling efforts, particularly PVA, for 

endangered marine mammals, and (3) develop recommendations to improve listing and 

management decisions based on explicit consideration and improved estimation of 

population extinction risk. 

The workshop focused on the 22 marine mammal taxa occurring in U.S. waters and either 

listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act or designated as 

depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Participants agreed that, with two or 

possibly three exceptions, all those taxa—with appropriate management—appear to have 

the potential for persisting into the future. The first exception is the Caribbean monk seal, 

which has not been observed and documented since 1952 and is presumed to be extinct. 

The second is the AT1 stock of killer whales, which numbers fewer than 10 individuals, 

has not produced a single surviving calf for more than 20 years, and is highly unlikely to 

persist beyond the lifetimes of existing individuals. The possible third exception is the 

eastern population of North Pacific right whales, which has been a matter of concern 

based largely on the rarity of sightings, lack of information on the population, and its 

history of commercial exploitation. That concern has been tempered somewhat by recent 

evidence of successful reproduction (observations of cow-calf pairs). In addition to these 

obvious exceptions, the stock structure of many marine mammal species is poorly known, 

and participants noted that some additional stocks, yet to be identified, may be unlikely to 

persist into the future. For the taxa that were considered to be potentially viable, the 

available published analyses at the time of the workshop were not sufficient for a 

systematic and consistent quantification of their respective viabilities. The workshop 

identified methodological issues that need to be addressed to allow meaningful quantitative 

comparisons among viability estimates. 

Participants reviewed the current state of PVA for marine mammals and other wildlife. 

For candidate species or species that are already listed, the growing trend is to use PVA to 

support listing and management decisions. PVA provides a mechanism for integrating all 

relevant data into a quantitative assessment to produce an estimate of extinction risk over a 

defined period of time. Such analyses are more objective than the qualitative listing 

approaches used to date, more amenable to explicit inclusion of all relevant data, more 

transparent with respect to assumptions and uncertainties, more easily standardized, and 

more conducive to the kind of structured decision-making that is needed to improve listing 

and management of endangered, threatened, and depleted taxa. 
 

vi

Participants also highlighted several common impediments to quantitative analyses for 

many marine mammal taxa. These include poor understanding of stock structure, 

insufficient biological data for recognized taxa, insufficient data for characterizing potential 

relationships between specific threats or management actions and population responses, 

and difficulty in predicting future threats and management actions that may affect their risk 

of extinction. Further, participants expressed a need for caution when using commercially 

available analytical software without proper documentation and without an understanding 

of the structure, function, and assumptions incorporated into the software. 

Participants generally agreed with the findings of the Quantitative Working Group 

convened by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(DeMaster et al. 2004) to develop quantitative criteria for listing decisions. Among other 

things, those findings included the need for (1) performance testing of models used in the 

listing process to determine the likelihood of correct vs. incorrect decisions, given the life 

histories of species involved and uncertainties in the data or analytical results, and (2) clear 

links between policy decisions and quantitative models, particularly with regard to 

interpreting the uncertainty reflected in model results. 

Finally, participants in the Savannah workshop considered and expressed support for a 

proposed decision tree incorporating simple PVAs to assess the status of poorly known 

taxa and guide listing decisions. The decision tree would use available data on the species 

of interest; default values where data are lacking; a structured, standardized, and simple 

analytical framework; and explicit guidelines for interpreting results. With appropriate 

development, the decision tree might be used to structure listing decisions in much the 

same manner as the potential biological removal concept is used to identify strategic stocks 

in the management of marine mammal/fishery interactions under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. 
 

1

I. INTRODUCTION 

In its 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Congress 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.” In response 

to the directive, the Commission reviewed systems for classifying species (Lowry et al. 2007), 

reviewed current protection programs (Weber and Laist 2007), conducted a case study of the 

North Atlantic right whale recovery program to examine the issue of cost-effectiveness in depth 

(Reeves et al. 2007), and held a workshop on the state and utility of population viability analysis 

(PVA) in the management of marine mammal populations. 

The population viability workshop was held 13–15 September 2005 in Savannah, Georgia. Its 

goals were to (1) review estimates of the viability of the most endangered marine mammals, (2) 

review the status of ongoing modeling efforts, particularly PVAs, for endangered marine 

mammals, and (3) develop recommendations to improve listing and management decisions based 

on explicit consideration and improved estimation of extinction risk. This report summarizes the 

discussions and findings of the workshop. 

II. BIOLOGICAL VIABILITY 

For the purposes of this report, we define biological viability (or simply viability) to mean the 

potential to persist far into the future with appropriate management of human-related threats. 

Although species are often characterized as either viable or not viable (implying a high or low 

potential for such persistence), there is a meaningful intermediate area between these two 

extremes. The transition from viable to not viable has been the subject of extensive research 

aimed at identifying the “minimum viable population.” This term was based on the idea that a 

declining population would reach a predictable point at which factors driving it toward extinction 

would dominate and recovery would be impossible or highly unlikely. This concept has been 

largely abandoned in the face of a growing body of contrary, empirical data illustrating that 

viability is generally a function of multiple natural and anthropogenic influences, the transition 

from viable to nonviable is dependant on species and circumstances, and a threshold for such 

transition that can be applied generally across taxa is not readily and reliably predicted. 

Practically speaking, the viability of marine mammal taxa can be categorized as follows: 

x Taxa that are extinct. These are taxa that have zero potential of persisting, as exemplified 

by the Steller’s sea cow. 

x Taxa that are almost certain to become extinct in the near future. The persistence of such 

taxa is highly improbable and there is little or no hope that they will continue to persist or 

can be saved, irrespective of human efforts. The AT1 stock of killer whales appears to 

fall into this category. 
 

2

x Taxa with the potential to persist far into the future, but that may require the extra 

protections provided for threatened or endangered species on an ongoing basis. The 

Hawaiian monk seal may be one such species. 

x Taxa with the potential to recover fully but that require extra protections until they have 

done so. Most listed species fit this category. 

x Taxa that have recovered. The eastern North Pacific population of gray whales is the best 

example of this category. 

The primary distinguishing elements of these categories are (1) a taxon’s inherent potential for 

recovery and persistence, and (2) its dependence on human intervention (e.g., management 

actions and policy decisions) to address threats. These two elements are becoming more 

entwined as the effects of human activities become more nearly ubiquitous (e.g., climate change) 

and the boundary between anthropogenic and natural risk factors becomes less distinguishable 

(e.g., climate change). As a rule, scientists conducting PVAs have not made this distinction but 

rather have estimated population viability as a function of the list of known risk factors, both 

natural and anthropogenic, that may influence a population’s persistence. The primary outcome 

of a PVA is a measure of the population’s probability of extinction over a set period1

 based on 

the projected effects of such risk factors. Thus, a PVA is an approach to risk analysis that 

attempts to predict the probability of extinction based on available data. Except in rare situations 

that are usually apparent even without modeling, its results generally do not provide definitive 

answers as to when a species is no longer viable. For example, results of a PVA indicating that a 

population is declining toward extinction may be due to anthropogenic factors unrelated to its 

intrinsic ability to reproduce and grow. If those factors can be identified and addressed by 

effective management action, the population’s decline could be reversed to allow recovery. Thus, 

a predicted declining trend may simply underscore the urgent need for management attention. A 

review of the taxa considered in this report indicates that they have all been influenced in a 

significant manner by human activities. 

Factors affecting population viability generally fall into three categories. The first includes 

features of the population itself (e.g., abundance, age/sex structure, distribution, life history 

characteristics such as reproductive and survival rates). The viability of a marine mammal 

population may be a particular concern if, for example, it contains only a limited number of 

reproductive females (for example, the AT1 stock of killer whales includes only two or three 

females of reproductive age). The second category includes factors that are a function of the 

population’s environment or ecology (e.g., availability of prey, abundance of predators, exposure 

to disease, variation in the physical parameters of the environment). Small populations 

 

1

 PVAs often indicate the risk that a population will reach some specific, small number other than zero, called a “quasiextinction” threshold. Such thresholds are generally based on the assumption that extinction is virtually certain at or below the

chosen level. They are required for demographic models that describe animal abundance using real numbers (rather than integers)

that may approach zero exponentially but never actually reach that level. Quasi-extinction thresholds are often used when 

modeling marine mammal populations because actual extinction may be delayed beyond the time period modeled, even for 

rapidly declining populations, if individual animals are relatively long-lived. Some authors have interpreted the quasi-extinction 

threshold to represent the lip of an extinction vortex (an interaction of risk factors creating adverse feedback loops that hasten a 

population toward extinction), but this interpretation is often difficult to demonstrate and justify. 
 

3

occupying limited areas may be especially vulnerable to catastrophes. For example, Florida 

manatees, which tend to have clustered distributions in shallow waters, are vulnerable to toxic 

effects of periodic red tides. The third category includes factors that are a function of human 

activities (e.g., habitat destruction, competition for prey, disturbance, contaminants). Human 

activities, particularly exploitation, likely played a decisive role in the extinction of the Steller 

sea cow, Caribbean monk seal, Japanese sea lion, and North Atlantic gray whale, and have 

placed many other marine mammal taxa at risk of extinction (e.g., right whales). 

Small populations also are especially vulnerable to the following sources of variability (also 

called stochasicity). 

Genetic Variability—Two major concerns for small populations are (1) whether they contain 

sufficient genetic diversity to persist in the face of changing environmental conditions, and (2) 

whether mating between a limited number of breeding individuals will lead to the expression of 

deleterious genes affecting reproduction or survival (hence, population growth rate) because of 

inbreeding or genetic drift (i.e., random fluctuations in gene frequency). Although the former 

concern is often related to a species’ ability to adapt to change over long periods of time (i.e., 

evolutionary time frame), the rapid pace of climate change illustrates that this concern also is 

relevant to short-term changes (i.e., ecological time frame). As a general rule, genetic diversity 

decreases with decreasing population size. Smaller populations are therefore less likely to 

contain sufficient genetic variation to persist in the face of selection imposed by significant 

environmental change. With regard to inbreeding, matings in small populations are more likely 

to be between related individuals, which increases the probability that deleterious recessive 

genes will be expressed in their offspring. The probability of such events also is influenced by 

the species’ mating pattern. For example, inbreeding effects are more likely in polygamous than 

in monogamous species. Even in the absence of inbreeding, genetic drift in small populations can 

result in the expression of genetic defects. The effects of genetic drift and inbreeding depression 

may not be expressed for several to many generations, with the time frame depending on 

population size, the initial genetic diversity, the frequency of deleterious genes, and the 

reproductive strategy. Thus, their adverse consequences are more likely to manifest themselves 

in populations that are held at low abundance for long periods of time or that are repeatedly 

reduced to small size. 

Demographic Variability—Demographic variability is the result of random variations in 

biological processes or parameters, such as survival, reproduction, or sex ratio at birth. If the fate 

of each individual in a population is subject to the same probability, the resulting variation will 

be a function of population size. That is, as the size of a population shrinks, the likelihood that it 

will deviate from the expected norm for that process or parameter will increase. For example, if 

the expected sex ratio at birth is 50 percent females and 50 percent males, a substantial deviation 

from that sex ratio is more likely to occur in a small population than in a larger one2

. For 

depleted marine mammal populations, having more females generally is beneficial because of 

their role in reproduction, whereas a relative increase in males generally is detrimental. The 

 

2

 Similarly, significant deviation from the expected 50:50 heads to tails ratio is more likely to occur if you flip a coin a few times 

versus many times. 
 

4

actual consequences of such deviations depend on the population’s composition and social 

structure, including its reproductive strategy, but they become more likely to affect the long-term 

persistence of a population as its abundance declines. 

Environmental Variability—Environmental variability can alter population demographics by 

changing prey abundance, weather or oceanographic conditions, or abundances of predators. All 

individuals in a population may be affected, whether the population is large or small. Populations 

that occupy large areas may be exposed to a range of environmental conditions and thus may 

experience a degree of buffering from poor conditions in portions of the range. Small 

populations are more likely to occupy smaller areas where environmental conditions tend to be 

more homogeneous and, therefore, such populations may be more vulnerable to unfavorable 

circumstances. Metapopulations (collections of related subpopulations) may be buffered against 

such circumstances if animals are dispersed among subpopulations experiencing different 

environmental conditions. 

Catastrophic Variability—Catastrophic variability has been considered by some to be an 

extreme form of environmental variability and by others to be a separate type of risk factor 

because its nature and spatial-temporal patterns (e.g., hurricanes, tsunamis) are inconsistent with 

those of environmental variability. Here too, the problem for small populations is that all or some 

large percentage of the individuals in the population may be exposed to the effects of the same 

catastrophic event if their distribution is limited relative to the distribution of the event. 

Metapopulation structure and broad distribution enhance resilience to catastrophic variation. 

Allee Effects—Population parameters also vary as a function of animal density. As the number of 

individuals in a population declines, the potential for population growth may increase because of 

reduced competition for prey, habitat, or other resources. However, at very low levels, 

populations also may experience accelerating declines in reproductive or survival rates due to socalled Allee effects. For example, if animals are sparsely distributed, adult females may be 

unable to find mating partners. Similarly, strategies for foraging, predator avoidance, and rearing 

young may be impaired in very small populations if those behaviors depend on the cooperation 

or participation of multiple individuals. Allee effects and other risk factors may combine either 

additively or synergistically to create cumulative effects that, ultimately, determine the 

population’s risk of extinction. Such interactions may create negative feedback loops that hasten 

decline toward extinction, a phenomenon referred to as an extinction vortex. 

Population Structure—Finally, assessment of the risk factors discussed here is confounded by 

insufficient information on population (or stock) structure. The conservation and management 

frameworks established by the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and 

related statutes are predicated on scientists being able to identify appropriate units to conserve. 

As indicated earlier, stock structure is poorly understood for many marine mammal species 

despite recent progress using molecular genetics techniques. The failure to recognize distinct 
 

5

population segments3 or population stocks increases risk if, for any number of reasons, some are 

more vulnerable than others to the above-described risk factors and they are managed in a 

manner that does not recognize and adjust for that vulnerability. The identification and 

characterization of population structure are essential for accurate assessment of population 

viability. Therefore, this subject warrants continued scientific investigation. 

III. POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS 

To support and improve listing and management decisions for taxa that are either candidate 

species or are already listed as endangered or threatened, the growing trend is toward more 

structured, objective decision-making using the best available quantitative tools to determine risk 

of extinction. All of the early marine mammal listings involved species that were reduced to low 

levels by human exploitation (usually commercial hunting) and ineffective or non-existent 

management. Those listing decisions required expert judgment and a degree of qualitative 

assessment. Even the best information available at that time was subject to important limitations. 

Abundance, for example, is clearly an important consideration with regard to the risk of 

extinction. However, it has subsequently become clear that abundance is only one indicator of 

extinction risk, and an imperfect one at that. Some small populations may have a low probability 

of extinction because of favorable environmental conditions and an absence of significant 

threats, whereas some large populations may have a high probability of extinction because of 

poor environmental conditions and significant threats. As noted above, the risk of extinction also 

is a function of a potentially wide range of factors, including those related to the taxon itself, its 

environment, and the threats posed by human activities. 

PVAs provide a means for integrating many kinds of information to produce robust indicators of 

extinction risk. Such analyses vary in form as a function of the population under consideration, 

its life history traits, the nature and amount of data available on its biology and population 

dynamics, the nature and amount of data available on factors that may affect its risk of extinction 

(e.g., threats), and the modeler’s technical (i.e., mathematical) preferences. When feasible, such 

analyses incorporate the types of variation described earlier, usually by representing variables as 

distributions of possible values and running multiple analyses drawing randomly from those 

values to estimate the range of possible outcomes and their probability. The results can be used 

for a number of purposes, including informing listing processes under the Endangered Species 

Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act, evaluating the effects of past management actions, and 

predicting the effects of proposed actions. 

At the workshop, participants discussed existing PVA models or similar quantitative analyses for 

California sea otters, Cook Inlet beluga whales, Florida manatees, Hawaiian monk seals, North 

 

3

 In 1996 the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service finalized a policy statement interpreting the 

Endangered Species Act term “distinct population segment” to mean a population that is (1) discrete from the remainder of the 

species (e.g., markedly separate), (2) significant to the species (e.g., its loss could cause a major gap in the range or includes 

unique genetic characteristics), and (3) threatened or endangered based on the Act’s five listing factors. Use of the term in this 

report is intended to be consistent with that interpretation. 
 

6

Atlantic right whales, southern resident killer whales, and the eastern and western stocks of 

Steller sea lions (Appendix 1). Several of the models had been used to inform listing decisions, 

but the others were not used for that purpose because they were created after listing had already 

occurred. These latter models were created for other purposes and varied in their objectives, 

model parameters, and complexity. In all cases the models were constrained to varying degrees 

by limited information pertaining to biology (e.g., reproductive and survival rates), cause-andeffect relationships between specific threats or management actions and population responses, 

and factors likely to determine the nature and extent of future threats. Given limitations in 

available data, scientists developing each of the models were required to make certain 

simplifying assumptions (e.g., homogeneity in vital rates over space or time, relevant risk 

factors). As is generally the case in science, the assumptions warrant further consideration and 

testing. However, an important characteristic of these models (and of PVA models in general) is 

that all such assumptions are made explicit, and therefore the potential implications of erroneous 

assumptions can be directly evaluated using sensitivity analyses. Moreover, as new information 

becomes available, the data used in the models can be updated, the model processes refined, and 

the validity of simplifying assumptions re-evaluated, all of which will result in more robust and 

reliable model results. Thus, PVA is an evolving process, open to review and subject to 

improvement as new information and insights become available. 

IV. VIABILITY OF THE MOST ENDANGERED MARINE MAMMALS

To assess the biological viability of the most endangered marine mammals, the workshop 

focused on the 22 species and stocks occurring in U.S. waters and listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act or designated as depleted under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (Table 1). Some other marine mammal species (e.g., the Yangtze River 

dolphin or baiji4

) may be equally or more endangered but were not discussed in detail at the 

workshop or included in this report because they do not occur in U.S. waters or have not been 

listed. A wide variety of taxa, including marine mammals and other species, either have been 

rendered extinct or have been brought near to extinction before rebounding. Those cases also 

provide useful insights regarding the question of species viability. 

Extinctions and recoveries 

Human activities have caused the extinction of at least four marine mammal taxa. The northern 

(Steller’s) sea cow inhabited kelp-forested coastlines of the Bering Sea until the second half of 

the 18th century, when it was driven extinct by commercial seal and sea otter hunters who 

hunted sea cows for food (Stejneger 1887, Forsten and Youngman 1982). The last reliable 

sighting of a Caribbean (West Indian) monk seal was in 1952 (Kenyon 1977); this species also 

was a victim of uncontrolled hunting, disturbance, and habitat destruction. The Japanese sea lion 

was last sighted and documented in 1951 and is listed as extinct by IUCN–The World 

 

4

 During the preparation of this report, an international team of marine mammal scientists conducted an extensive survey of the 

Yangtze River and failed to detect a single baiji. 
 

7

Conservation Union (IUCN). It was exploited for various purposes and persecuted because it was 

perceived as a competitor of fisheries. The North Atlantic population of gray whales vanished by 

the 18th century, and whaling almost certainly was a contributing, if not decisive, factor in its 

demise. 

A number of other marine mammal taxa have been brought near to extinction and then 

recovered, at least partially, following protection from the main threat, which almost always has 

been deliberate exploitation (Table 2). Many populations of fur seals (Arctocephalus spp.), 

elephant seals (Mirounga spp.), sea otters, and baleen whales were harvested to the point where 

hunting for them was no longer profitable. In a few cases (e.g., Guadalupe fur seal), numbers 

were so low that a species or population was considered extinct, only to be discovered again and 

to recover under protection. These examples (and examples from other taxonomic groups, Table 

2) demonstrate the potential resilience and viability of wild species and populations, even when 

reduced to low population size. 

Assessment of biological viability 

PVAs have not been completed for most of the 22 taxa considered at the workshop because of 

insufficient information or lack of a standard for conducting such analyses on data-poor species. 

The general opinion of workshop participants was that all but 2 or possibly 3 of the 22 listed 

marine mammal taxa are potentially viable if human-related threats are effectively managed. The 

Caribbean monk seal probably is extinct, and the AT1 stock of killer whales does not appear to 

be biologically viable, regardless of recovery efforts. The viability of the eastern population of 

North Pacific right whales has been a matter of concern based on its history of exploitation, 

rarity of sightings, and lack of biological information on the population. 

The discussion of viability for the remaining taxa was based primarily on PVAs or a combination 

of expert opinion and varying amounts of quantitative information. Of the eight taxa for which 

quantitative biological analyses had been conducted, three (Florida manatee, eastern population 

of Steller sea lions, and southern sea otter) have experienced positive growth in recent years, 

although growth rates have been difficult to characterize (Florida manatee) or slower than 

expected (southern sea otter, eastern population of Steller sea lions). Thus, each of these three 

taxa is reasonably considered biologically viable although the persistence of at least two of them 

likely will continue to depend on rigorous, effective management of known threats (i.e., disease, 

contaminants, and fisheries for the southern sea otter and boat strikes and loss of warm-water 

refuges for the Florida manatee). 

The Hawaiian monk seal is now declining at about 4 to 5 percent per year, and its total 

population size in 2005 was estimated at 1,250 to 1,300. The species consists of seven 

reproductively isolated subpopulations including one in the main Hawaiian Islands and six in the 

remote Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The subpopulations are subject to a range of threats 

(e.g., reduced prey availability, entanglement, shark predation, male aggression, disease). 

Although monk seals benefit from a robust research program that helps direct a growing 
 

8

management effort and although some sweeping protection and conservation measures have 

been implemented recently, the species clearly is at risk of extinction. Rigorous, effective 

management of human-related threats is essential to its conservation. The species has persisted 

for 12 to 15 million years in approximately the same geographic range, and there is no reason to 

believe that it cannot continue to persist far into the future as long as human-related threats are 

managed effectively. 

The western population of Steller sea lions has declined by about 80 percent in the past three 

decades, and much of the decline has yet to be explained. Contributing causes may include 

natural changes in environmental conditions leading to a reduction in prey, predation by killer 

whales that lost a preferred prey source because of commercial whaling, deliberate or incidental 

killing in connection with fisheries, and competition for prey with large-scale commercial fishing 

that rapidly expanded in the region in the 1960s and early 1970s. The most recent abundance 

estimate is about 38,000 animals, and recent counts suggest that the population may have 

stabilized. Although there is still cause for concern regarding the future of this population and 

much remains to be learned about the importance of various risk factors, there is no basis for 

concluding that the population is incapable of persisting if human-related threats are managed 

effectively.

The number of North Atlantic right whales was reduced by commercial whaling prior to the 

1940s and currently numbers about 300 to 350 whales. This population’s estimated rate of 

increase was positive in the 1980s but apparently declined in the 1990s due to mortality from 

ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear. The population appears capable of maintaining a 

positive population growth rate if human-related threats are controlled, and therefore it appears 

to be viable. 

The southern resident stock of killer whales occurring each summer in the Puget Sound area has 

been subject to a range of human-related threats. A relatively large portion of the population was 

captured in the 1960s and early 1970s to supply animal-display facilities. Prior to that, the 

animals were subject to unregulated shooting and harassment (Hoyt 1981). In recent years, the 

stock has been subject to three primary threats: loss of prey (primarily chinook salmon) 

secondary to loss of salmon habitat and fishing, exposure to contaminants, and noise and 

disturbance due to watercraft traffic, including whale-watching vessels. Abundance of the stock 

under pristine conditions is unknown although it is likely to have been in the low hundreds. 

Although the elevated risk of extinction for this stock is a matter of significant concern, there is 

no basis for concluding that its low numbers and recent decline are due to an inherent lack of 

biological viability, particularly in view of the multiple human-related threats to which the stock 

is exposed. 

Abundance of the Cook Inlet beluga whale was reduced sharply in the 1990s by Alaska Native 

subsistence harvests. The harvest was restricted in the late 1990s, but trend analysis of 

abundance estimates from 1994 through 2006 indicates a statistically significant decline. 

Research is urgently needed to identify the causes for continued decline after the harvest was 
 

9

brought under control. A number of natural and anthropogenic factors could be contributing to 

the continued decline. There is no basis for concluding that the population has lost the potential 

to recover, but it is clear that its recovery potential is eroding rapidly and the population is in 

great need of rigorous, effective management to identify and address the factors perpetuating the 

decline. 

PVAs have not been conducted or were not discussed at the workshop for the remaining 12 taxa 

considered. The bowhead whale, fin whale, humpback whale, sperm whale, mid-Atlantic stock 

of bottlenose dolphins, Guadalupe fur seal, northern fur seal, and southwest Alaska stock of 

northern sea otters all are either known to be increasing or number at least 10,000 animals, and 

there is no basis for concluding that any of them has lost the potential to recover and persist. 

Blue and sei whale population structure and abundance are not well known. The National Marine 

Fisheries Service recognizes eastern and western North Pacific blue whale stocks and a North 

Atlantic stock. The eastern North Pacific stock, the only one for which an abundance estimate is 

available, consists of about 3,000 animals and may be increasing. It is therefore reasonably 

considered to be viable. The status of the other two blue whale stocks that occur in U.S. waters is 

not known, although the general sense of workshop participants was that they are capable of 

persisting if human threats are effectively managed. There are no current, reliable estimates of 

sei whale abundance in the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans. The sei whale estimate of 

>133 in Table 1 represents a combined minimum estimate for the eastern North Pacific and 

Hawaii stocks, but likely it is strongly and negatively biased. Better estimates of sei whale 

abundance are clearly needed and will provide a better basis for judging the viability of sei whale 

stocks. The Antillean subspecies of West Indian manatee occurred historically over a relatively 

large range in coastal areas of Central and South America and around islands in the Caribbean 

Sea. Manatees are now rare in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the most recent (1994) count in 

Puerto Rico suggested a minimum of 86 animals. As the Antillean manatee is threatened in U.S. 

waters mainly by boat strikes and entanglement in fishing nets, the primary recovery challenge 

appears to be controlling those human-related threats. Any further decline in numbers would 

erode the potential for recovery of the manatee populations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin 

Islands. Outside U.S. waters, deliberate killing also poses a significant risk and undermines the 

potential for recovery. Finally, the viability of the eastern population of North Pacific right 

whales is a significant concern. Since the mid-1990s only 23 individuals have been identified, 

including three cow-calf pairs. It is unlikely that the identified animals represent the entire 

population, but it also seems unlikely that there are a great many more than that number. 

Whether 23—or even 25 to 50—individuals would be sufficient for recovery is unclear. 

However, populations of other mammal species have recovered from such low numbers (e.g., 

northern elephant seals, southern sea otters) so there is a basis for hoping that this population is 

still capable of recovery. 
 

10

V. IMPROVING LISTING DECISIONS

Two efforts to improve listing decisions were discussed at the workshop, one undertaken by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, and one proposed by Dr. 

Daniel Goodman. Those efforts are summarized briefly below. 

uantifying the listing process 

In 2004 the National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service convened a 

Quantitative Working Group to evaluate listing decisions under the Endangered Species Act and 

develop procedures that would be “more transparent, consistent, and scientifically and legally 

defensible.” The working group identified several conceptual models for listing purposes, all of 

which are directly or indirectly related to risk of extinction (DeMaster et al. 2004). 

The working group noted that implementation of these approaches would require explicit policy 

input. Specifically, policy guidance must be provided regarding the degree to which errors in the 

listing process are acceptable if they result in over-protection (i.e., listing species that, in fact, are 

not endangered or likely to become so in the foreseeable future) versus under-protection (i.e., 

failing to list species that, in fact, are endangered or likely to become so). The extent to which 

the process should be precautionary (i.e., favor over-protection) also would require specification. 

In many cases, the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service must make 

listing decisions for species with very limited information on either population status or threats. 

The working group recommended that in those cases quantitative proxies, or “alternative 

decision metrics,” be developed (e.g., a 95 percent decline in abundance could serve as a proxy 

for an unacceptable probability of extinction). Both listing standards and proxies should be tested 

to determine the likelihood of correct versus incorrect listing decisions, given the life history of a 

species and uncertainty in the data or analytical results. The working group has initiated such 

performance testing for a suite of potential listing standards and proxies. An additional option 

recommended for consideration by the working group is a threshold approach similar to that used 

by a number of other organizations including IUCN in its Red List of Threatened Species, parties 

to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora for 

listing species on its appendices, and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in 

Canada for listing species under the Canadian Species at Risk Act. 

A theoretical decision tree for listing under the Endangered Species Act 

Participants at the Commission’s PVA workshop also considered a theoretical decision-making 

framework for listing decisions proposed by Dr. Goodman. The framework was developed to 

simplify and standardize listing decisions using quantitative tools and criteria, better document 

the decision-making process, provide default assessment methods for data-poor taxa, and guide 

the use of limited resources to develop more reliable assessments. The suggested framework is 

designed to classify “at-risk” populations into four categories based on their population dynamics 
 

11

and then use category-specific quantitative modeling approaches to assess a population’s 

viability and determine whether the population should be listed based on defined decision rules. 

The four suggested categories are (1) populations that are too small, (2) populations that are 

nearly too small, (3) populations that are large but declining, and (4) populations that are large 

but have volatile population dynamics (Table 3). For each category, standards would be 

established for classifying species as threatened or endangered. 

Several technical and scientific issues would have to be addressed before such a framework 

could be used. The framework would have to include options for taxa with known threats but 

little or no population data. Also, the term “too small” would have to be defined, and quantitative 

assessment methods for each category would need to be developed and tested. Those methods 

would require some flexibility to take into account different life history types (e.g., long-lived 

versus short-lived species or species with low versus high reproductive rates). Although some atrisk marine mammals may fit less cleanly than others into these four categories, an explicit 

decision tree framework with specific categories and corresponding quantitative assessments 

would enhance the objectivity and consistency of the listing process for data-poor taxa. For that 

reason, workshop participants favored the development of such a framework. With appropriate 

development, the decision tree might help structure listing decisions in much the same manner as 

the potential biological removal concept has structured the management of incidental take of 

marine mammals in commercial fisheries under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

VI. IMPROVING OTHER MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

In addition to listing decisions under the Endangered Species Act, decisions regarding a range of 

marine mammal management actions are based on qualitative assessments of limited quantitative 

data on population status, trends, and threats. The underlying analyses often are not explicit with 

regard to assumptions and uncertainties, and therefore they can seem subjective and arbitrary. 

This problem can be addressed, at least in part, by making the decision-making process more 

explicit, objective, and quantitative. For example, when deciding among management actions, 

quantitative models can be used to analyze or predict their alternative effects, thereby informing 

the decision-making process. Such models also can provide a mechanism to evaluate the 

significance of assumptions and uncertainty inevitably associated with management decisions. In 

addition, they may help identify factors likely to affect population recovery and help characterize 

the nature and significance of the likely effects. All of these benefits—if communicated 

effectively between scientists and managers—would result in a more structured and 

comprehensive process for making management decisions. 

Recently both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have 

increased their use of explicit, quantitative models to inform management decisions. In part, this 

increase is related to requirements for “objective, measurable” recovery criteria in recovery plans 

prepared under the Endangered Species Act. Quantitative models can be and have been used to 

assess relative risks from various threats and relative benefits of alternative management 
 

12

strategies in the recovery planning process. They also have been used in section 7 consultations 

under the Endangered Species Act to assess the effects of incidental takes of individuals from 

species or populations listed as endangered or threatened. 

Many PVA analyses have been conducted using VORTE (Bob Lacy, Department of 

Conservation Biology, Chicago Zoological Society) or other standardized software. Although 

such software can be very useful for heuristic purposes (e.g., exploring the dynamics of different 

populations and the effects of different management actions), workshop participants expressed 

concern that it may be used without adequate understanding of the actual structure, function, and 

assumptions incorporated into the software model. Such uninformed use may result in 

misunderstanding of population status and risk of extinction. Although participants did not 

necessarily suggest that complex models should be created from first principles for each analysis, 

they did suggest that analyses using standardized software should be conducted with a thorough 

understanding of their limitations and assumptions. All the case studies presented at the 

workshop and reviewed here were customized models specifically tailored to the circumstances 

of the population and the nature of the available data. 

VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The Marine Mammal Commission thanks all those who participated in, or provided support for, 

the workshop. The Commission is especially grateful to the presenters and panel members who 

led many of the discussions. A steering committee of experts directed the Commission’s 

response to the Congressional directive, including this workshop. Its members were David 

Cottingham, Deborah Crouse, Daniel Goodman, Lloyd Lowry, Linda Manning, Randall Reeves, 

Michael Simpkins, and Phil Williams. David Laist managed various components of the 

Commission’s response, and Michael Simpkins and Timothy Ragen collaborated on preparation 

of the workshop report. SRA International, particularly Linda Manning and Regan Maund, 

provided expert assistance in planning and facilitating the workshop and also helped with 

drafting of this report. Elizabeth Taylor, a 2005 Knauss Sea Grant Fellow at the Commission, 

also contributed substantially in organizing the workshop and drafting early versions of this 

report. Jeff Benoit from SRA International and Suzanne Montgomery provided editorial 

assistance for later revisions. Katherine Ralls helped with the development of Table 2. 

VIII. LITERATURE CITED 

Baker, S. C., and P. J. Clapham. 2004. Modeling the past and future of whales and whaling. 

Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19(7):365–371.

Bartholomew, G. A., and C. L. Hubbs. 1960. Population growth and seasonal movements of the 

northern elephant seal, Mirounga angustirostris. Mammalia 24:313–324. 
 

13

Canadian Wildlife Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (CWS and FWS). 2005. Draft 

international recovery plan for the whooping crane. Recovery of Nationally Endangered 

Wildlife (RENEW), Ottawa, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 

DeMaster, D., R. Angliss, J. Cochrane, P. Mace, R. Merrick, M. Miller, S. Rumsey, B. Taylor, 

G. Thompson, and R. Waples. 2004. Recommendations to NOAA Fisheries: ESA listing 

criteria by the Quantitative Working Group, 10 June 2004. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-67. 

Forsten, A., and P. M. Youngman. 1982. Hydrodamalis gigas. Mammalian Species. No. 165. 

American Society of Mammalogists. 3 pp. 

Gallo, J. P. 1994. Factors affecting the population status of Guadalupe fur seal, Arctocephalus

townsendi (Merriam, 1897), at Isla de Guadalupe, Baja California, Mexico. Ph.D. Thesis, 

University of California, Santa Cruz. 

Hoyt, E. 1981. Orca the whale called killer. Firefly Books, Ltd. Altona, Manitoba, Canada. 291 

pp.

Hubbs, C. L. 1956. Back from oblivion, Guadalupe fur seal: still a living species. Pacific 

Discovery 9(6):14–21. 

Hubbs, C. L., and K. S. Norris. 1971. Original teeming abundance, supposed extinction, and 

survival of the Juan Fernández fur seal. Antarctic Research Series 18:35–51. 

Kenyon, K. W. 1977. Caribbean monk seal extinct. Journal of Mammalogy 58(1):97–98. 

Lowry, L., D. Laist, and E. Taylor. 2007. Endangered, threatened, and depleted marine mammals 

in U.S. waters: a review of species classification systems and listed species. Marine 

Mammal Commission, Bethesda, MD. 

McCullough, D. R., J. K. Fischer, and J. D. Ballou. 1996. From bottleneck to metapopulation: 

recovery of the Tule elk in California. Pages 375–403 in Metapopulations and Wildlife 

Conservation (D. R. McCullough, ed.). Island Press. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1998. Tule elk, the return of a species. Point Reyes National 

Seashore, CA. 

New Zealand Department of Conservation (NZ DOC). 2001. Black robin recovery plan, 2001–

2011. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. 

Pucek, Z. 2004. Status survey and conservation action plan, European bison. IUCN–The World 

Conservation Union. 

Reeves, R. R., A. Read, D. Boness, L. Lowry, and S. K. Katona. 2007. Report of the North 

Atlantic right whale program review, 13–17 March 2006, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. 

Marine Mammal Commission. Bethesda, MD. 

Riedman, M. L., and J. A. Estes. 1990. The sea otter (Enhydra lutris): behavior, ecology, and 

natural history. Biological Report 14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the 

Interior. Washington, D.C. 126 pp. 

Soule, M. E. 1986. Conservation Biology, the Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer 

Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA. 

Stejneger, L. 1887. How the great northern sea-cow (Rytina) became exterminated. American 

Naturalist 21:1047–1054. 

Stewart, B. S., P. K. Yochem, H. R. Huber, R. L. DeLong, R. J. Jameson, W. J. Sydeman, S. G. 

Allen, and B. J. LeBoeuf. 1994. History and present status of the northern elephant seal 
 

14

population. Pages 29–48 In (B. J. LeBoeuf and R. M. Laws, eds.) Elephant Seals: 

Population Ecology, Behaviour and Physiology. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Wakefield, S., J. Knowles, W. Zimmermann, and M. van Dierendonck. 2003. Status and action 

plan for the Przewalski’s horse (Equus ferus przewalskii). Pages 82–92 in Status Survey 

and Conservation Action Plan, Equids: zebras, asses, and horses (P. D. Moehlman, ed.). 

IUCN–The World Conservation Union. 

Weber, M. L., and D. W. Laist. 2007. The status of protection programs for endangered, 

threatened, and depleted marine mammals in U.S. waters. Marine Mammal Commission, 

Bethesda, MD. 
 

15

Table 1. Summary of the biological status of 22 marine mammal species and stocks currently 

listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act or designated as 

depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (from Lowry et al. 2007). uestion 

marks indicate apparent population trends that have not been confirmed. 

Taxon

Current

population size 

Current

population trend 

Population size 

relative to historical 

level

Endangered species 

West Indian manatee, Florida >3,300 Increasing? Unknown

West Indian manatee, Antillean Unknown Declining? Reduced?

Caribbean monk seal 0 N/A Extinct

Hawaiian monk seal 1,252 Declining 4.9 

percent a year 

Reduced 60 percent 

from 1958 

Steller sea lion, western population 38,513 Stable Reduced 81 percent 

from the 1970s 

Blue whale1 >2,994 Increasing? Reduced

Bowhead whale, western Arctic 

population 10,545 Increasing 3.4 percent a year 

Reduced 54 percent 

from the 1800s 

Fin whale >11,970 Unknown Reduced

Humpback whale >6,692 Increasing Reduced

North Atlantic right whale 299 Declining? Reduced

North Pacific right whale, eastern 

population >23 Unknown Reduced 

Sei whale2 >133 Unknown Reduced

Sperm whale3 >14,468 Unknown Reduced

Killer whale, southern resident 

population 84 Unknown Reduced 

Threatened species 

Southern sea otter 2,825 Increasing Reduced

Northern sea otter, southwest 

Alaska population 41,865 Declining Reduced 55 to 67 percent from 1976 

Guadalupe fur seal 7,408 Increasing Reduced

Steller sea lion, eastern population 44,996 Increasing Unknown

Depleted (only) species 

Northern fur seal, eastern 

population 688,028 Declining Reduced 65 percent from the 1950s 

Beluga whale, Cook Inlet 

population 278 Declining? Reduced 57 percent from 1994 

Bottlenose dolphin, mid-Atlantic 

coastal population 33,000 Unknown Reduced 

Killer whale, AT1 group 8 Declining Reduced 64 percent 

from 1988 

1

Data are not available for the North Atlantic and western North Pacific stocks. 

2

Data are not available for the Nova Scotia stock. 3

Data are not available for the North Pacific stock. 
 

16

Table 2. Examples of wild populations that have recovered from extremely low population sizes, 

with ( ) or without the assistance of captive/assisted breeding programs ( ) indicates 

that additional animals survive in captivity. 

Species, stock, or population 

Estimate of minimum 

population size 

(approximate date) 

Estimate of 

current wild 

population size 

Source(s) of 

information

Marine mammals 

Northern elephant seal 

(Mirounga angustirostris)

20–100 

(1890) >175,000 

Bartholomew and 

Hubbs 1960, Stewart et 

al. 1994 

Southern sea otter 

(Enhydra lutris nereis)

50

(1938) >2,500 Riedman and Estes 1990

Guadalupe fur seal5

(Arctocephalus townsendi)

70–75 

(1955) >7,000 Hubbs 1956, Gallo 1994

Southern right whale 

(Eubalaena australis)

<300

(1920) >7500 Baker and Clapham 

2004

Juan Fernandez fur seal 

(Arctocephalus philippii)

700–750 

(1970) >12,000 Hubbs and Norris 1971, 

UNEP6

Terrestrial mammals 

Black-footed ferret 

(Mustela nigripes)

18

(1987) 650+ Black-footed ferret 

recovery team7

Tule elk 

(Cervus elaphus nannodes)

28

(1895) 3,200 McCullough et al. 

1996, NPS 1998 

Przewalski horse 

(Equus ferus przewalskii)

31

(1945) 175+ Wakefield et al. 2003 

European bison 

(Bison bonasus)

54

(1918) 1700+

 Pucek 2004

Golden lion tamarin 

(Leontopithecus rosalia)

<200

(1970s) 1,500+ Smithsonian Natl. 

Zoological Park8

Birds

Mauritius kestrel 

(Falco punctatus)

4

(1974) 800–1,000 Birdlife International9

Chatham island black robin 

(Petroica traversi)

5 – one breeding pair 

(1979) 250 NZ DOC 200110

 

5

 Considered extinct in the 1930s and early 1940s 

6

 United Nations Environment Programme; http://www.unep-wcmc.org/species/data/species_sheets/juanfern.htm 

7

 http://www.blackfootedferret.org/ 

8

 http://nationalzoo.si.edu/ConservationAndScience/EndangeredSpecies/GLTProgram/default.cfm 9

 http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/index.html 

10 also see: http://www.doc.govt.nz/Conservation/001~Plants-and-Animals/001~Native-Animals/Black-Robin.asp 
 

17

Table 2, continued. 

Species, stock, or population 

Estimate of minimum 

population size 

(approximate date) 

Estimate of 

current wild 

population size 

Source(s) of 

information

Whooping crane 

(Grus americana)

21

(1944) >300+ CWS and FWS 2005 

California condor 

(Gymnogyps californianus)

25–35 

(1979) 127+ California Dept. of Fish 

and Game11

Seychelles warbler 

(Acrocephalus sechellensis)

50

(1965) >2,000 Birdlife International5

Guam rail 

(Gallirallus owstoni)

100

(1983) 400+ Smithsonian Natl. 

Zoological Park12

 

11 http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/t_e_spp/tebird/condor.shtml

12 http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Support/AdoptSpecies/AnimalInfo/Guamrail/default.cfm 
 

18

Table 3. A theoretical decision tree and analytical recommendations for listings under the 

Endangered Species Act 

Decision Tree Categories PVA Model Recommendation 

Populations that are too 

small 

When a species or population is already known to be too small 

(through obvious proxy measures), then no PVA is necessary; 

the population should be listed.

Populations that are nearly 

too small 

When a population is nearly too small, the important question is 

whether the population is likely to become too small. In that 

case, a simple PVA model could be designed to test whether the 

current or foreseeable population trend is, or is likely to be, 

negative.

Populations that are large, 

but declining 

When a population is large but declining, the important question 

is whether the population could decline too much. In that case, a 

population viability model could be designed to test whether the 

current or foreseeable trend is likely to cause the population to 

become too small. The model would need to be slightly more 

complex because it must evaluate the possibility that the 

population decline could halt before the population became too 

small. 

Populations that are large, 

but have volatile 

population dynamics 

When a population is large but volatile (highly variable), the 

important question is whether the volatility in population 

dynamics is large enough to cause the population to become too 

small. For populations with a high degree of variability, a model 

could be designed to test whether the population could reach a 

critical threshold size as a result of random fluctuations. Such 

models must accurately represent the variability in various 

population parameters. 
 

19

APPENDIX I 

Examples of Existing Marine Mammal Population Models

North Atlantic Right Whales (Presented by Hal Caswell, Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution) 

Background and purpose: The North Atlantic right whale is the least abundant species of large 

whale in the world. It occurs primarily along the East Coast of the United States and Canada. It 

was reduced to levels approaching extinction by centuries of commercial whaling and is listed as 

endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Current abundance is about 300 to 350 whales. 

Entanglement in fishing gear and collisions with ships are the major factors impeding recovery. 

A model was developed to estimate the population’s reproductive, survival, and population 

growth rates; predict extinction risks; and evaluate hypotheses about factors influencing 

population trends, including potential effects of variable oceanographic conditions. 

Approach: The matrix population model is based on biologically defined life history stages. It 

incorporates environmental and demographic variability by using observed variations in vital 

rates over the past 20 years. Parameters (e.g., stage-specific reproductive and survival rates) are 

estimated using mark-recapture methods (Caswell 2001, Fujiwara and Caswell 2002, Caswell 

and Fujiwara 2004). The estimation procedure automatically incorporates effects of uncertainty 

in the data and provides confidence intervals around parameter estimates. 

Data: The model uses data from 1980 through 1998 on age, sex, and reproduction for individual 

whales documented in a photo-identification catalog of the population. The catalog is believed to 

include at least some records for most of the individuals in the population, although the number 

of resighting records varies greatly among individual whales. The data are subjected to a multistage mark-recapture analysis to estimate parameters under a variety of statistical hypotheses that 

consider variation over time and the effects of environmental variables. Information-theoretic 

criteria are used to select the statistical hypotheses that are most highly supported by the 

available data. 

Results: The analysis suggests that the population was increasing at about 4 percent per year in 

the early 1980s, but that the growth rate declined until it became negative in the mid-1990s. The 

decline appears to be due to a declining trend in birth rates and survival of mothers and calves 

between 1980 and 1998. The rate of decline has varied with the North Atlantic Oscillation, 

suggesting that the population’s dynamics are affected by changing atmospheric and 

oceanographic conditions. By the late 1990s the estimated population growth rate was below 

replacement level, indicating that the population would not persist without mitigation of human 

impacts. As for all marine mammals, population growth is most sensitive to the survival of 

mature females. All other things equal, a reduction of human-related mortality by two adult 

females per year could return the population growth rate to replacement level. Further reduction 

would allow recovery, albeit at a slow rate. 
 

20

Recent publications using the model:

Caswell, H., M. Fujiwara, and S. Brault. 1999. Declining survival probability threatens the North 

Atlantic right whale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 96:3308–3313. 

Fugiwara, M., and H. Caswell. 2001. Demography of the North Atlantic right whale. Nature 

414:537–541.

Caswell, H., and M. Fujiwara. 2004. Beyond survival estimation: mark-recapture, matrix 

population models, and population dynamics. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 

27:471–488.

Kraus, S. D., M. W. Brown, H. Caswell, C. W. Clark, M. Fujiwara, P. K. Hamilton, R. D. 

Kenney, A. R. Knowlton, S. Landry, C. A. Mayo, W. A. McLellan, M. J. Moore, D. P. 

Nowacek, D. A. Pabst, A. J. Read, and R. M. Rolland. 2005. North Atlantic right whales 

in crisis. Science 309:561–562. 

Caswell, H. 2006. Applications of Markov chains in demography. Pages 319–334 in (A. N. 

Langville and W. J. Stewart, eds.) MAM2006: Markov Anniversary Meeting. Boson 

Books, Raleigh, NC, USA. 

Caswell, H. 2007. Sensitivity analysis of transient population dynamics. Ecology Letters 10:1–

15.

Southern Resident Killer Whales (Presented by Paul Wade, National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service) 

Background and purpose: Southern resident killer whales comprise three distinct pods, identified 

as J, K, and L pods, that occur principally in Washington’s Puget Sound and southern British 

Columbia, Canada. Historically, the population may have included more than 200 individuals. In 

the mid-1960s the stock was thought to number at least 100 animals, but it then declined sharply 

in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a result of live captures for aquaria. By 1995 abundance had 

recovered to 98 animals. Since then, the stock first declined to 81 animals in 2001 and then 

increased to 88 animals in 2004. The declining trend seems to have been driven primarily by 

changes in the largest pod, L pod. The recent increase, however, has been driven primarily by an 

increase in J and K pods. Pod-specific trends are important because males rarely mate with 

females from their own pod (and resident killer whales in the North Pacific mate only within 

their ecotype). As a result, the reproductive success of a resident pod is determined not only by 

the fecundity of the females within that pod but also by the availability of fertile males from 

other resident pods. Three potential factors may be impeding recovery of southern resident killer 

whales: high contaminant loads; declines in available prey, particularly salmon; and disturbance 

by whale-watching ventures and other vessel activity. The purpose of this model was to estimate 

extinction risks for southern resident killer whales as part of a status review to inform decisionmakers regarding listing of the stock as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species 

Act.
 

21

Approach: The analysis used a sex-, age- and pod-structured model that allowed for (1) 

demographic variability, (2) environmental variability, (3) potential catastrophes, (4) Allee 

effects, and (5) variation in carrying capacity. Variation in survival rates was based on observed 

rates over the past 30 years, with an apparent 6-year cycle. Allee effects were imposed using 

social constraints on reproduction: females in a pod could not become pregnant unless another 

pod included an adult male. Carrying capacity was allowed to vary with values ranging from 100 

to 400 animals. 

Data: Demographic parameters for the model were estimated using censuses of southern resident 

killer whales conducted annually since 1974. Parameters included age and sex composition, 

survival, fecundity, and reproduction of each of the population’s three pods. Initial parameters 

and ranges for environmental variability, catastrophes, and carrying capacity were based on a 

literature review and expert judgment. The model was initialized with the known 2003 age, sex, 

and pod composition and was projected into the future for 100, 200, and 300 years. Because 

survival rates varied throughout the 29-year census record, the model was run using survival 

estimates from three subsets of the data: the most recent 10 years (with the lowest survival rates), 

the most recent 14 years, and all 29 years. 

Results: Scenarios using survival estimates from the preceding 29 years of data resulted in 0.1 to 

3 percent likelihood of extinction in 100 years and 2 to 42 percent in 300 years. Scenarios using 

survival estimates from the most recent 10 years resulted in 1 to 19 percent likelihood of 

extinction in 100 years and 68 to 94 percent in 300 years. Survival rates in all three pods 

followed a similar pattern; the largest pod, which occurs farthest from shore, was the most 

severely affected by changes in survival. In addition, changes were evident in all age and sex 

classes, but old males appeared to be most affected. The results suggest that the patterns in 

survival may be caused by environmental factors (e.g., changes in prey availability through 

time). Results of the analysis supported a 2006 decision to list southern resident killer whales as 

endangered.

Recent publications using the model:

Krahn, M. M., M. J. Ford, W. F. Perrin, P. R. Wade, R. P. Angliss, M. B. Hanson, B. L. Taylor, 

G. M. Ylitalo, M. E. Dahlheim, J. E. Stein, and R. S. Waples. 2004. Status review of 

Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. 

Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-62. 73 pp. 

Cook Inlet Beluga Whales (Presented by Daniel Goodman, Montana State University) 

Background and purpose: Data from National Marine Fisheries Service aerial surveys indicate 

that the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock declined from an estimated 653 individuals in 1994 to 347 

in 1998, and then declined at a lower rate to 278 in 2005. The decline from 1994 to 1998 was due 

primarily to subsistence harvesting by Alaska Natives. After the harvest was brought under 
 

22

management control in 1998 (only three whales were harvested between 1999 and 2004), the 

stock was expected to recover at a rate of 2 to 6 percent annually. Its failure to recover suggests 

that other factors also are affecting this stock. Its summer range contracted concurrently with the 

decline, and beluga whales now are rarely seen in offshore waters or the lower reaches of the 

inlet. Because their remaining habitat is near Anchorage, the largest urban area in Alaska, the 

whales are exposed to a range of human activities. An analysis was conducted to characterize the 

trend to date and project whether the population is likely to decline further. 

Approach: The analysis fits an exponential population growth model to past survey estimates 

and produces a distribution of possible growth rates, including negative values consistent with a 

decline. The distribution of growth rates is then used to predict the trend in the near future. The 

model does not include the effects of subsistence harvest (which may be negligible at present) or 

environmental variability. 

Data: The analysis used annual abundance estimates (and variances of those estimates) from 

aerial surveys conducted between 1994 and 2004. 

Results: The results suggest that even without environmental variation and harvests, the 

likelihood of continuing decline is 45 percent. The National Marine Fisheries Service currently 

is reviewing a petition to list the Cook Inlet beluga whale stock as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Recent publications using the model:

Lowry, L., G. O’Corry-Crowe, and D. Goodman. 2006. Delphinapterus leucas (Cook Inlet 

population). In 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN–The World 

Conservation Union. 

Florida Manatees (Presented by Michael Runge, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, U.S. 

Geological Survey) 

Background and purpose: The West Indian manatee, listed as endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act, is comprised of Antillean and Florida subspecies. The Florida subspecies occurs in 

rivers and coastal waters of the southeastern United States. Because of their limited tolerance for 

cold temperatures, most Florida manatees winter near warm-water discharges from natural 

springs or power plant outfalls located in the southern two-thirds of the Florida peninsula. The 

anticipated loss of discharge sites as a result of power plant closures represents a long-term threat 

that would reduce available habitat and lower the effective environmental carrying capacity for 

manatees. At present, the largest source of direct human-related manatee mortality—and 

 

 A more recent analysis using the same model and data from 1994 to 2006 suggests an 81 percent probability that the 

population is declining (i.e., the growth rate is negative). 

1

1
 

23

probably the most significant factor impeding population recovery—is collisions with boats. 

Watercraft-related deaths typically account for a quarter to a third of all manatee deaths annually. 

Since 1985 population models have been used to assess trends in manatee abundance. More 

recently, modeling objectives have focused on evaluation of negative and positive effects of 

specific threats and management actions. At the Savannah workshop, the model’s utility for 

predicting population trends and estimating the effects of changes in carrying capacity were 

described. The model will be used to inform reclassification decisions under the Endangered 

Species Act and Florida state statutes. 

Approach: The model projects population trends based on reproduction and survival 

probabilities for each of several life history stages, such as calves, juveniles, adult males, and 

adult females. The model accounts for variability in demographic parameters and the largely 

independent dynamics of four relatively discrete manatee subpopulations in Florida. The model 

incorporates catastrophes (e.g., red tide bloom, disease epidemic), density dependence, and 

changes in habitat availability (e.g., availability of winter warm-water refuges). Additional 

factors can and will be added to address specific questions that arise, such as the effects of 

specific management actions, hurricanes, and climate change. 

Data: Extensive data were used to develop model parameters (e.g., survival rates, reproductive 

rates, carrying capacity), including 10 to 25 years (depending on subpopulation) of photoidentification mark-recapture data on more than 1,000 animals. Estimates for model parameters 

such as carrying capacity and density dependence were based on the advice of an expert panel. 

Results: The model has been used to estimate population trends for each of four regional 

subpopulations in Florida. When based on data from the last 10 years, the model indicates that 

manatees are increasing in three regions: the northwest (growth rate [Ȝ] = 1.037), upper St. Johns 

River (Ȝ = 1.062), and Atlantic (Ȝ = 1.010). Manatees in the southwest region appear to be 

declining (Ȝ = 0.989), based on the most recent 10 years of data. Further analysis suggests that 

management actions should focus on increasing adult survival rates and that improved 

monitoring of those rates would reduce the overall uncertainty in model results. 

Recent publications using the model:

Runge, M. C. 2003. A model for assessing incidental take of manatees due to watercraft-related 

activities. In U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Impact Statement: 

Rulemaking for the incidental take of small number of Florida manatees (Trichechus

manatus latirostris) resulting from government programs related to watercraft access and 

watercraft operation in the state of Florida, Appendix I (March 2003) U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Jacksonville, FL. 

Runge, M. C., C. A. Langtimm, and W. L. Kendall. 2004. A stage-based model of manatee 

population dynamics. Marine Mammal Science 20:361–385. 
 

24

Haubold, E. M., C. Deutch, and C. Fonnesbeck. 2006. Final biological status review of the 

Florida manatee, Trichechus manatus latirostris. Florida Wildlife Research Institute, 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. St. Petersburg, FL. 

Hawaiian Monk Seals (Presented by Albert Harting, Harting Biological Consulting) 

Background and purpose: The Hawaiian monk seal is the most endangered seal in U.S. waters. 

Hawaiian monk seals occur almost entirely in the Hawaiian archipelago, where about 90 percent 

of all animals live on and around the remote Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The majority of 

pups are born at six relatively discrete breeding subpopulations located at French Frigate Shoals, 

Laysan Island, Lisianski Island, Pearl and Hermes Reef, Midway Atoll, and Kure Atoll. Since 

the late 1950s when Hawaiian monk seals were first studied, beach counts at these six major 

pupping colonies have declined by more than 60 percent. The total population is currently 

estimated to number fewer than 1,300 animals and is declining at a rate of about 4 to 5 percent 

per year. 

Threats to monk seal recovery include both human-related and natural factors that have varied 

over time and by colony. The human-related factors include disturbance and displacement of 

hauled-out seals by people and animals, entanglement in derelict fishing gear, depletion of prey 

resources by commercial fishing, interactions with recreational and commercial fishing gear, and 

oil spills. Natural factors include shark predation; naturally occurring biotoxins; disease; 

aggressive behavior by some adult male seals toward pups, juveniles, and adult females; the 

effects of oceanographic changes on prey resources; and the loss of pupping beaches to erosion. 

In general, the small, isolated nature of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands makes their local 

ecosystems exceedingly vulnerable to both natural and human impacts. 

A metapopulation model was developed to predict population abundance over relatively short 

time horizons (5 to 20 years), assess the sensitivity of the population to natural or managementinduced perturbations, and perform long-range projections for risk assessments and population 

viability analyses. 

Approach: The metapopulation model represents the species as a group of spatially distinct and 

largely independent breeding subpopulations. The primary events during each simulation year 

are births and deaths, both of which could be affected by simulated catastrophes. The simulation 

also can include specific natural perturbations (e.g., adult male aggression and shark predation), 

migration between subpopulations, and management actions (e.g., captive rearing or 

translocation of pups and removal of aggressive adult males). Density-dependent regulation of 

reproductive and survival rates also can be incorporated in simulations. 

Data: The model uses the life history and demographic data collected through an intensive 

program of cohort tagging and replicate seasonal counts of each subpopulation. These efforts, 

conducted since the early 1980s, provide detailed data for estimating age-specific survival and 
 

25

reproductive rates, current age/sex structure, inter-site movement rates, and the effects of specific 

natural perturbations (e.g., shark predation rates). 

Results: This model has been used for analyzing the impact of shark predation on monk seal 

recovery at French Frigate Shoals, conducting National Environmental Policy Act assessments, 

analyzing potential impacts of an epizootic outbreak in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, and 

assessing the likely benefits from proposed management interventions. Further development of 

this model will include linking the model to oceanographic data, analyzing historical data for 

evidence of density-dependent regulation to refine the density-dependence formulation now used 

in the model, and adding the main Hawaiian Islands monk seal subpopulation to the model. 

Due primarily to poor juvenile survival rates, long-term projections using survival rates derived 

from observations in recent years (2001–2005) indicate a decline at all subpopulations except 

Laysan Island, with French Frigate Shoals declining most precipitously. Projections utilizing 

survival rates (and variances) from all data years (1985–2005) again predict a marked decline at 

French Frigate Shoals, with a gradual decline at Kure Atoll (remaining subpopulations stable or 

increasing).

Recent publications using the model:

Harting, A. L. 2002. Stochastic simulation model for the Hawaiian monk seal. Ph.D. thesis, 

Montana State University, Bozeman. 328 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Draft recovery plan for the Hawaiian monk seal, 

Monachus schauinslandi. National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, MD. 148 pp. 

Steller Sea Lions — Western Stock (Presented by Daniel Goodman, Montana State 

University) 

Background and purpose: Over the past three or four decades, Steller sea lions have declined 

precipitously throughout portions of their range, and the species was listed as threatened under 

the Endangered Species Act in 1990. In 1997 the species was determined to consist of at least 

two distinct population segments. The western population segment, occurring from the central 

Gulf of Alaska and westward, was listed as endangered, while the eastern segment, occurring 

from California through Southeast Alaska, remained listed as threatened. The decline of the 

western stock slowed during the 1990s, and since 2000 its abundance may have stabilized. The 

cause or causes of decline have been a matter of extensive debate and controversy. Leading 

hypotheses include nutritional stress as a result of competition with commercial fisheries and/or 

shifting environmental conditions, and predation by killer whales. The marked changes observed 

in western Steller sea lion abundance in recent decades suggest that the population may face 

significant extinction risks even at relatively high abundance. A population viability analysis was 

undertaken to estimate the population’s extinction risk. 
 

26

Approach: The PVA for western Steller sea lions simulated a random population growth regime 

based on observed, unexplained variation over recent decades, with the assumption that such 

variation would continue into the future. The results were summarized in terms of probability of 

extinction over time and were used to inform efforts by the Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team to 

develop recovery criteria (National Marine Fisheries Service 2006). 

Data: Available data consist of 45 years of episodic census figures. Additional information on 

environmental variation also was used in the model. 

Results: The analysis concluded that in the next 100 years the population has a 37 percent chance 

of declining to an effective population size of 1,000 animals, which equates to a total population 

size of 4,743 animals. 

Recent publications using the model:

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Steller sea lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 

Steller Sea Lions — Eastern Stock (Presented by Daniel Goodman, Montana State 

University) 

Background and purpose: The eastern stock of Steller sea lions, a distinct population segment 

from California through Southeast Alaska, has increased steadily in size since the 1980s. It is 

recovering from human-caused mortality from the late 1800s to the 1970s. A population growth 

model was developed to determine whether the population is still growing. 

Approach: The analysis fits an exponential growth model to past survey estimates to produce a 

distribution of possible growth rates. The distribution indicates the likelihood of continued 

increase. The residuals of the growth model are random and relatively small, suggesting that 

neither external factors (e.g., environmental variation) nor density dependence is altering the 

population dynamics appreciably, and those factors need not be incorporated into the model. 

Data: The available data were drawn from annual censuses conducted from 1976 to 2002. 

Results: The exponential growth model fits the population data well and indicates that the 

population is still growing. 

Recent publications using the model:

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Steller sea lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 
 

27

California Sea Otters (Presented by Martin Tinker, Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary 

Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz) 

Background and purpose: Over-exploitation for the fur trade in the 18th and 19th centuries 

brought sea otters in the North Pacific to near-extinction by the early 1900s. When commercial 

harvesting was banned by an international treaty in 1911, only a small remnant population of 

what is now recognized as the southern sea otter subspecies survived in California along the 

coast between Monterey and Big Sur. Recovery of the subspecies after 1911 was extraordinarily 

slow, and in 1977 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the subspecies as threatened under 

the Endangered Species Act. In the late 1980s a translocation program was implemented to 

establish southern sea otters at San Nicolas Island off southern California and thereby provide 

another colony that could serve as a source for recovery efforts if the still-small mainland 

population were to be affected by a large catastrophe, such as an oil spill. At the same time, the 

Service established a management zone south of Point Conception where sea otters were to be 

excluded to prevent a southward expansion of the sea otter range and thereby protect commercial 

shellfish fisheries in southern California. 

Recent surveys indicate that the population is increasing but still at a slower rate than expected. 

The population also has been expanding its range northward as well as southward into the 

management zone. In the late 1990s the number of otters in the management zone increased, and 

efforts to remove them were limited and largely unsuccessful. In addition, the translocated 

population failed to increase as expected and currently numbers just a few tens of animals. As a 

result, the Fish and Wildlife Service is considering steps to declare the translocation program a 

failure and to allow the mainland population to continue its expansion southward. 

A population model was developed at the request of the Fish and Wildlife Service to project the 

rate of population recovery and range expansion over time. It provides a general framework for 

evaluating management options and conservation strategies for the southern sea otter. 

Approach: The model is stage-based and incorporates spatial structure, movement rates, and 

demographic information. The model begins by estimating survival rates by location and time for 

each age/sex class (stage). The survival rates are then combined with stage-specific dispersal 

kernels to parameterize a multi-state matrix model for the entire population (structured by spatial 

region and allowing for inter-regional movements), which utilizes stage-structured difference 

equations to predict annual rates of range expansion into unoccupied habitat. Uncertainty is 

explicitly incorporated by using Monte Carlo simulations that allow all parameters to vary within 

the full range of previously observed values, and simulations include variance due to 

measurement and process error. 

Data: The model uses survey data from the past 20 years (including total counts and counts of 

mature animals and dependent pups), age-at-death data from beach-cast carcasses, and radio 

telemetry data from free-ranging sea otters. From these data sources, estimates are derived (using 

maximum likelihood methods) for stage-specific reproduction, survival, and annual individual 
 

28

movement distances for identified age and sex components of regional subpopulations, as well as 

associated variance estimates for each parameter. 

Results: Survival rates vary regionally, with lowest survival in the north and highest in the south. 

Female survival decreased in the mid-1990s. Sea otters are expanding their range southward at a 

rate of about 6 km/year. 

Recent publications using the model:

Tinker, M. T., D. F. Doak, J. A. Estes, B. B. Hatfield, M. M. Staedler, and L. Bodkin James. 

2006. Incorporating diverse data and realistic complexity into demographic estimation 

procedures for sea otters. Ecological Applications 16:2293–2312. 

Tinker, M. T., J. A. Estes, K. Ralls, T. M. Williams, D. Jessup, and D. P. Costa. 2006. Population 

Dynamics and Biology of the California Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) at the Southern 

End of its Range. MMS OCS Study 2006–2007. Coastal Research Center, Marine 

Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, California. MMS Cooperative 

Agreement Number 14-35-0001-31063. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on 

the Translocation of Southern Sea Otters. Ventura, California. 242 pp + appendices. 
 

29

APPENDIX II 

Workshop Attendees

Presenters 

Hal Caswell Wood Hole Oceanographic Institution 

Jean Cochrane U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Deborah Crouse Endangered Species Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Daniel Goodman Montana State University, Bozeman 

Albert Harting Harting Biological Consulting 

Lloyd Lowry Marine Mammal Commission, Committee of Scientific Advisors 

Marta Nammack National Marine Fisheries Service 

Michael Runge Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Barbara Taylor Southwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service 

Martin (Tim) Tinker Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa 

Cruz

Paul Wade National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service 

Michael Weber Consultant 

Attendees

Steven Beissinger University of California, Berkeley 

Daryl Boness Marine Mammal Commission, Committee of Scientific Advisors 

Douglas Burn U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Therese Conant National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources 

Paul Dayton Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego 

Daniel Doak Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa 

Cruz

Thomas Eagle National Marine Fisheries Service 

David Gouveia National Marine Fisheries Service 

Dawn Jennings U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Craig Johnson National Marine Fisheries Service 

Rosa Meehan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Katherine Ralls Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Conservation & Research Center 

Randall Reeves Okapi Wildlife Associates 

Gregory Silber National Marine Fisheries Service 

Robert Small Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

James Valade U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Marine Mammal Commission and SRA Staff 

David Cottingham Marine Mammal Commission 

David Laist Marine Mammal Commission 

Linda Manning SRA International 

Regan Maund SRA International 

Timothy Ragen Marine Mammal Commission 

Michael Simpkins Marine Mammal Commission 

Elizabeth Taylor Marine Mammal Commission 
 

30

APPENDIX III 

Workshop Agenda

Workshop bjectives 

x Review efforts to use PVA and other types of population models for endangered, 

threatened and depleted marine mammals occurring substantially in U.S. waters; 

x Evaluate the extent to which PVA or other types of models can be relied upon for 

determining population status and predicting population trends for ESA classification 

listing decisions; and 

x Evaluate the ability of PVA or other types of models to improve the decision-making 

process with regard to developing and selecting potential management actions other than 

ESA classification listing decisions. 

________________________________________________________________________

Day ne Review e isting efforts to use P A and other types of population models for 

endangered, threatened and depleted marine mammals 

8:30 9:00 Opening Remarks, Introductions, and Agenda Review (David Cottingham) 

9:00 10:30 Current Approaches to the Assessment and Management of Listed Species 

under U.S. Law 

x Overview of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Decision-making Processes from Listing through 

Delisting — Current Approaches (Deborah Crouse) 

x Overview of National Marine Fisheries Service Decision-making Processes from Listing 

through Delisting — Current Approaches (Marta Nammack) 

x Cases of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Use of Decision-Making Tools Including PVA 

( ean Cochrane) 

x Current Tools and New Approaches at the National Marine Fisheries Service (Barbara

Taylor and Paul Wade 

10:30 10:45 Break 

10:45 5:00 Reviewing Existing Marine Mammal Population Models

x Florida Manatees (Mike Runge) 

x Hawaiian Monk Seals (Albert Harting) 

x North Atlantic Right Whales (Hal Caswell) 

x Southern Resident Killer Whales (Paul Wade) 

x California Sea Otters (Tim Tinker) 

x Steller Sea Lions and Cook Inlet Beluga Whales (Daniel Goodman) 
 

31

Day Two Evaluate the e tent to which P A or other types of models can be relied upon 

for determining population status and predicting population trends for ESA 

classification listing decisions 

8:30 9:00 Opening Remarks/Agenda Review 

9:00 9:45 Overview of Available Information on the Status of Listed Marine Mammals 

 (Lloyd Lowry) 

9:45 10:00 Break 

10:00 12:30 Panel Session IA: What steps could or should be taken to better use or develop 

PVA models or other types of models to improve ESA classification decisions for 

“data rich” species? 

12:30 2:00 Lunch break 

2:00 5:00 Panel Session IB: What steps could or should be taken to better use or develop 

PVA models or other types of models to improve ESA classification decisions for 

“data poor” species? 

5:00 - 5:30 Closing Remarks 

Day Three Evaluate the ability of P A methods to improve decision making processes for 

developing and selecting potential management actions other than ESA 

classification decisions 

8:30 9:30 Overview of the Status of Protection Programs for Listed Marine Mammals 

(Michael Weber) 

9:30 11:00 Panel Session II What steps could or should be taken to develop or improve 

population models for use in making routine/operational management decisions 

for the endangered, threatened, and depleted species?

11:00 11:15 Break 

11:15 1:00 Panel Session II, continued 

1:00 2:00 Closing Remarks and Next Steps 

57

APPENDIX 5

Report of the 

North Atlantic Right Whale 

Program Review

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. 

iii

Table of Contents 

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

II. Introduction and Pro ect 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 
iv

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
1

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. 

3

II. INTRODUCTION AND PRO ECT 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: 

x 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. 

x 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. 
4

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

representatives to develop the workshop format and logistics. 

x 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.

x 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:

x 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 
5

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. 

x 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. 

x 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. 

x 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 
6

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:

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

above, that can be very difficult. 

x 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. 

x 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: 

x 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. 

x 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. 
7

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.

9

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. 
10

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 
11

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 
12

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.
13

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 
14

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. 
15

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 
16

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 
17

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 
18

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. 
19

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 
20

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 
21

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 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 

NMFS $561,000 $425,000 $321,000

Woods Hole Oceanographic 

 Institution/Ocean Life Institute 

0 88,044 92,444

TOTAL $561,000 $513,044 $413,444
22

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. 
23

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 
24

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 
25

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. 
26

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 
27

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. 

29

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: 

x 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 NAVTE , 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). 

x 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. 

x 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. 

x 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. 

x 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 
30

in areas where, or at times when, the risks of ship strikes on right whales are considered 

especially high. 

x Interagency collaboration, especially with the Coast Guard, Navy, and Canada’s 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, on right whale conservation measures. 

x 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 
31

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 
32

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 
33

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. 
34

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. 
35

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. 
36

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 
37

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 
38

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 
39

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 
40

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 
41

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. 
42

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): 

x No buoy lines floating at the surface; 

x All gear must be hauled from the water at least once every 30 days; and 

x 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: 

x Prohibition on the use of floating ground lines and/or buoy lines; 

x Weak links required at buoys and net panels; and 

x 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: 

x Expansion of the use of weak links;

x Requirement to use neutrally buoyant or sinking ground line; and

x Inclusion of several other fisheries under the plan. 
43

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. 
44

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 40 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:

x require removal of gear for a 15-day period; 

x request voluntary removal of gear in the area for a 15-day period; and/or 

x 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 
45

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 
46

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: 

x 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. 

x 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. 

x 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. 

x 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. 

x 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. 

x 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.

x 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: 
47

x development of a method to chemically sedate or restrain entangled whales; 

x development of a more effective telemetry system that can be securely attached to trailing 

gear and provide real-time monitoring data; and 

x 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.
48

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. 
49

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.
50

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 
51

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 
52

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. 
53

IV. 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 
54

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 
55

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 
56

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
57

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. 
58

V. 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.
59

VI. 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. 
60

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. 
61

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 
62

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 
63

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 
64

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 
65

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 6528 

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
66

im 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

ohn 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

ohn 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
67

LT eff 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

amison 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 oodsma – Presenter

NOAA/NMFS-SERO 

904.321.2806 

barb.zoodsma noaa.gov

59

APPENDIX 6

Expenditures on Protection 

Programs and Levels of 

Effectiveness

61

No overarching review mechanism or central source of data exists for tracking actual expenditures on specifi c research 

and management activities for endangered, threatened, and depleted marine mammals and assessing the effectiveness and 

impact of those activities. Furthermore, responsibility for recovery activities often is shared among different agencies or 

parts of agencies, and in some cases non-governmental organizations. Absent an effective accounting mechanism at the 

appropriate level of detail, the Commission gathered data on expenditures for various protection programs to illustrate 

varying degrees of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in addressing recovery-related issues.

Issue of concern 

(approximate 

cost and level of 

effectiveness)

Recovery action(s)

Commercial whaling

$300,000 to $360,000 

annually from 2002 

to 2006

Highly effective

Management of commercial whaling through the International Whaling Commission (IWC) 

has been highly effective. Commercial whaling prior to the 1970s left many large whale 

populations severely depleted if not close to extinction. The Marine Mammal Protection 

Act and the Endangered Species Act effectively banned commercial whaling in U.S. waters, 

but migratory large whale populations continued to be exposed to commercial whaling 

outside U.S. waters. Various actions taken by the IWC, leading up to and including a global 

moratorium on commercial whaling after 1986, provided nearly complete protection for 

large whales. However, some IWC member countries continue hunting, either by objecting 

to restrictive measures, or by establishing national research programs that involve lethal 

sampling—with meat from carcasses sold commercially. Aboriginal subsistence whaling 

is allowed for bowhead whales by the United States and Russia, minke and fi n whales by 

Greenland, and humpback whales by St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

At least some populations of large whales that occur in U.S. waters, including those of gray, 

bowhead, humpback, blue, and fi n whales, have progressed toward recovery as a result of 

protections conferred by the U.S. government as well as the IWC and governments of other 

nations. Recovery may require 100 years or more because some populations were severely 

depleted, have inherently low reproductive rates, and/or are still subject to other threats 

(e.g., ship collisions and entanglements in fi shing gear). In addition, changes in ecosystem 

conditions, either through natural mechanisms or human infl uence, may affect the recovery rate 

of these populations.

The Department of State has delegated the lead for representing the United States at IWC 

meetings to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Major costs include 

membership dues, travel, and staff time. Management through the IWC has prevented the 

deaths of tens of thousands of whales over the past twenty years and, again, has been highly 

effective.
62

Subsistence whaling 

for bowhead whales

$310,000 to 610,000 

annually from 2000 

to 2005

Highly effective

Co-management of subsistence hunting for bowhead whales off the north slope of Alaska 

has been highly effective. For centuries, Alaska Natives have hunted bowhead whales for 

subsistence. The Marine Mammal Protection Act allowed them to continue whaling. In 1978 

the IWC recommended quotas for aboriginal subsistence whaling. That same year the National 

Marine Fisheries Service established a cooperative agreement with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission (an organization of whalers representing the various Native villages that take 

bowhead whales) allowing the Commission to manage the hunt by assigning portions of the 

quotas to the villages and establishing a system for reporting and enforcing violations, among 

other things. For its part, the Service would seek quotas from the IWC consistent with the 

subsistence needs of Alaska Natives and would help monitor the status and trend of the whale 

population. Major costs include funding for the Commission to carry out its responsibilities, 

Service oversight of the bowhead whale management program, and research.

The bowhead population is estimated to exceed 10,500 animals, has been growing at 3.5 

percent per year, and appears capable of recovery with the harvest (current quota is 67 

strikes per year). The Marine Mammal Commission considers the management program for 

the western Arctic bowhead whale to be highly effective and cost-effective in terms of both 

assuring population recovery and meeting Alaska Native traditional subsistence hunting needs3

.

Subsistence hunting 

of Cook Inlet beluga 

whales

About $400,000 

annually

Ineffective

In contrast to the bowhead whale situation, management of subsistence hunting of Cook 

Inlet beluga whales was not effective before 2000, and management of the stock generally 

has not been effective. Subsistence harvesting of these whales increased during the 1980s 

and early 1990s and by 1998 the population had declined from about 1,300 in 1979 to about 

350. The National Marine Fisheries Service did not have the authority to regulate the hunt 

because the population was not offi cially designated as depleted. In 1999 Congress temporarily 

banned the deliberate taking of Cook Inlet beluga whales for subsistence, and in 2000 the 

Service designated the population as depleted, entered into a cooperative agreement with 

an organization of Cook Inlet Native marine mammal hunters, and began to develop hunt 

regulations. From 2000-2005, an average of one whale was taken per year. Despite those 

measures, the 2006 estimate of abundance was 302, indicating further decline and suggesting 

that factors other than hunting are now inhibiting recovery.

Funding for Cook Inlet recovery efforts include annual surveys (about $150,000 annually), 

management actions including preparation of recovery related documentation (conservation 

plan, environmental impact statements), and costs for about 2.5 full-time management staff. 

The Service has not initiated an effective research program to investigate the additional factors 

that may be precluding recovery. This situation exemplifi es ineffective management that 

will likely delay time to recovery, expose the affected population to added risk of extinction, 

and result in excessive and unnecessary recovery costs. The limited funding that has been 

provided has been crucial for assessing abundance and trends, and those funds have been 

spent effectively. Annual survey results indicate that the population is not recovering and 

more research and management are needed to identify, characterize, and manage the factors 

impeding recovery.
63

Southern sea otter 

vulnerability to oil 

spills

Preparation for 

translocation

$670,000;

annual costs from 

1988 to 1990 

for research and 

management

$660,000 to 

$986,000; combined 

costs in 2003 to 2005 

were estimated at 

about $311,000

Ineffective

Management of southern sea otters included a translocation program to protect the population 

from a large-scale oil spill. This well-intentioned effort has been of limited effectiveness, at 

best. In the mid-1980s, at the recommendation of the Marine Mammal Commission and others, 

the Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a translocation program to establish a second sea otter 

population at San Nicolas Island (in the Channel Islands). The aim was to reduce the possibility 

that a single oil spill could eliminate all sea otters in California waters. The new population 

also could provide a source of otters for restocking the mainland population if such an event 

occurred. The Service established a “management zone” south of the existing sea otter range 

to address fi shermen’s concerns; otters entering this zone were to be captured and returned to 

north of Point Conception.

Between 1987 and 1990, the Service moved 139 sea otters to San Nicolas Island. Most 

either disappeared or returned to their mainland range and growth of the San Nicolas Island 

population was unexpectedly slow. In the late 1990s, large numbers of sea otters from the 

mainland population began moving south into the management zone, and moving them 

back north proved more diffi cult than expected. The Fish and Wildlife Service currently is 

considering whether to declare the translocation program a failure and terminate efforts to 

restrict the sea otters’ southern range expansion. Toward that end, Service staff drafted a review 

of the translocation program, published a policy statement announcing plans to suspend efforts 

to remove otters from the management zone, prepared a draft supplemental environmental 

impact statement on the translocation program, and held numerous public hearings and 

meetings with stakeholder groups. The Service estimates the cost of developing the draft 

supplemental environmental impact statement at about $311,000 spread over fi scal years 2003 

through 2005, with staff requirements of 1.6 FTEs in 2003 and 2004 and 0.75 in 20052

.

A population of about 30 animals still inhabits the waters off San Nicolas Island, but the 

translocation did not achieve its goals. The reasons for the failure of this population to grow 

are not yet known. The attempt to establish a new population was reasonable and intended to 

address a real population need, although in the end the effort was not effective.

Incidental take of 

southern sea otters 

off California

Expenditures

unknown

Highly effective

Management of the incidental taking of sea otters off the coast of California is an example of 

highly effective management by a state. Commercial hunting in the 1700s and 1800s reduced 

sea otters to near-extinction throughout the North Pacifi c. An international treaty in 1911 

banned such hunting, but the southern sea otter (between southeast Alaska and Mexico), was 

thought to have been extirpated. In the 1930s, a colony of about 50 otters was discovered near 

Big Sur, California. By 1977, when the subspecies was listed as threatened, its range included 

160 miles of central California coastline and its numbers were about 1,800. Population growth 

then stopped or slowed due to mortality in a trammel net (a type of gillnet) fi shery for halibut, 

which was killing up to 150 sea otters per year.

The state of California took a series of steps between 1982 and 1990 to prohibit trammel 

nets and other gillnets in areas inhabited by sea otters. The closed area increased in size with 

each step and by 1990, incidental takes of sea otters by gillnets in California had been nearly 

eliminated without appreciable effect on commercial halibut landings. Concurrently, sea 

otters increased in number and expanded their range. The associated costs are not known but 

included funds for public hearings, development of management measures, observer programs, 

and enforcement. The fi shery closures imposed by the state of California have been highly 

effective.
64

Incidental take of 

Hawaiian monk 

seals in pelagic 

longline fi shery

Expenditure

unknown

Highly effective

Management of incidental taking of Hawaiian monk seals in a pelagic longline fi shery provides 

an example of quick and effective action by the National Marine Fisheries Service with the 

Western Pacifi c Fishery Management Council. In 1990 and early 1991, nine Hawaiian monk 

seals were found on NWHI beaches with longline hooks embedded in their skin, fi shing line 

trailing from their mouths due to ingested hooks, and blunt-trauma injuries on their heads 

suggesting they had been struck. The observations coincided with a rapid increase in Hawaiibased longline vessels (from about 50 in 1988 to over 140 in 1991) fi shing for swordfi sh in the 

central North Pacifi c.

The National Marine Fisheries Service adopted a recommendation by the Western Pacifi c 

Fishery Management Council to establish a protected species zone within 50-nautical-miles of 

the NWHI and to prohibit longline fi shing inside the zone. Subsequent to the fi shing closure, 

observations of monk seals with embedded longline hooks ceased. The cost to implement those 

measures is unknown, but appears to have been limited almost entirely to staff time for Council 

and Service personnel, placement of observers on a sample of longline fi shing vessels, and 

enforcement. The evidence strongly suggests that the regional expansion of longline fi shing 

operations was responsible for the monk seal hookings and that the protection measures taken 

in response were well chosen and effective.

Hawaiian monk seal 

entanglement in 

marine debris

$2.6 million 

annually for initial 

cleanup, $0.5 million 

projected for annual 

maintenance

Partially effective

The effort to remove fi shing and other debris from the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

provides an example of partially effective management action. Since 1982, more than 250 

monk seals have been observed entangled in derelict trawl netting and line (mostly from 

elsewhere in the North Pacifi c), and other types of debris. Entangling debris can impede 

movement and animals may be unable to forage or evade predators, may drown, or may 

sustain lethal wounds from the abrasive cutting action of the entangling material. Between 

1982 and 2005, researchers disentangled and released 179 seals, 69 seals managed to extricate 

themselves, and 8 seals are known to have died. The interventions undoubtedly prevented 

more serious injuries or deaths. However, researchers are present in the NWHI for only a few 

weeks to months at a time and observe only a portion of entangled seals. In addition, seals that 

are entangled in the water may not be able to return to land where they can be observed and 

disentangled. Thus, the full extent of this problem is unknown.

In 1996 teams of divers from the National Marine Fisheries Service began surveying NWHI 

reefs to estimate the amount of debris and its accumulation rate. They found up to 94 nets or 

net fragments per square kilometer in the most heavily fouled reef areas. Between 2001 and 

2005 the Coral Reef Conservation Program of the National Ocean Service funded an intensive 

clean-up effort; 400 metric tons of derelict netting were removed from offshore reefs and an 

additional 45 metric tons were picked up from beaches. International education and outreach 

efforts have not been successful at curtailing net debris at its source and an estimated 52 tons of 

additional debris drifts into the NWHI each year.

Although some monk seal deaths and injuries have been prevented, entanglements continue 

and the underlying cause of the problem persists. Until international measures are taken to 

reduce the careless disposal and loss of nets, lines and other debris, disentanglement and cleanup efforts will need to continue, and probably intensify, at considerable cost.
65

Mortality of Florida 

manatees

About $5 million 

annually

Highly effective

Research and management efforts to respond to and investigate manatee deaths have been 

highly effective in providing information essential to identify and characterize threats to 

manatees and guide recovery actions. Every year, scores of injured or distressed manatees 

are reported to Federal, state, and local authorities. The animals have been hit by boats, 

entangled in fi shing line, caught in various structures, or stressed by exposure to red tides or 

cold temperatures. Since the early 1980s, more than 800 rescues have been attempted and, at 

the end of 2005, 385 manatees had been brought into captivity for treatment and released back 

into the wild. Many others had been assisted and released directly at rescue sites. Preliminary 

indications are that rehabilitated animals successfully readapt to the wild; several rehabilitated 

and released females are known to have produced calves.

The major costs of this program include sending trained responders and equipment to rescue 

sites, transporting animals, providing medical care and food to recovering animals, and 

assessing status of released animals. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that overall 

costs in 2005 totaled at least $5 million: $3.4 million of that was provided by cooperating 

oceanaria, $1.5 million by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, and $51,000 by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Considering the results, in-kind services and contributions, and ancillary 

benefi ts for public education, the Commission considers these efforts to have been highly costeffective, but the larger problem of substantial numbers of manatees being killed annually by 

vessel strikes continues, and merits additional action.

Mortality of Florida 

manatees in water 

control structures

$7.2 million to date,

about $14.6 million 

when completed

Effective

Measures to address manatee mortality in water control structures illustrate recovery efforts 

that require considerable initial investment but that will become increasing effective and costeffective over time. Between 1991 and 2000 an average of 10 manatees were killed every year 

in water control structures. Manatees trapped between closing doors or pinned against narrow 

openings by strong currents were crushed or drowned. Most deaths occurred at a few specifi c 

gates and locks operated by the South Florida Water Management District and the Army 

Corps of Engineers. After attempts to modify opening and closing procedures failed to solve 

the problem, the two agencies, in cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, began installing reversing mechanisms that 

operate like elevator doors to prevent manatee entrapment. From 2001 to 2005 the average 

number of deaths was reduced to four a year, with those deaths occurring either at structures 

that had not yet been equipped with protection devices or where the devices had malfunctioned. 

When installation is completed, these devices could prevent an average of 10 deaths a year. 

Although initially costly, maintenance fees for these modifi cations should be considerably less, 

and the Commission believes these modifi cations will prove to be increasingly cost-effective 

over time.

1 The Marine Mammal Commission is planning a 2008 review of co-management efforts to assess progress since the 1994 amendments to the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act and identify directions for the coming decade.

2 S. Henry, personal communication. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Offi ce. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ventura, CA. November 2006.

The Marine Mammal Commission

4340 East-West Highway, Room 700

Bethesda, MD 20814

www.mmc.gov