Large Whales and Vessel Strikes

Why are large whales at risk and what can be done to help them?

Large whales are vulnerable to being struck and killed or injured by vessels of all sizes. This is an issue of great concern to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Congress, the media, and the public, especially when it involves endangered whale populations or impacts the operations or safety of mariners. It is important to understand how much of a threat vessel strike is to large whales and what options can effectively reduce the risk of injury and death.

Is vessel strike a big threat to whales?

Even though whales are large animals, collisions with boats of all sizes can injure and kill them. In the U.S., vessel strike has been identified as a major threat to many large whale species, including North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales, Rice’s whales, blue whales, humpback whales, gray whales, and fin whales.

How do we learn about vessel strikes?

Information regarding vessel strikes is obtained when mariners or others observe and report a vessel strike event, a floating or beached whale carcass, or an injured whale. Vessel strikes can kill or injure large whales in two ways. Blunt force trauma, which occurs when the whale is hit by the bow or hull of a ship, is often not apparent on intact stranded whales but is detected by internal examination after death. Signs of blunt force trauma include bruising and hemorrhage in the blubber and muscle and broken bones. If a carcass is too decomposed, scientists may not be able to detect signs that a vessel strike occurred. Acute trauma, when a whale is hit by the propeller of a vessel, often results in a series of parallel lacerations that can usually be seen by external examination of a carcass or live whale, as seen in the photo below. Analysis of the wounds can help estimate the size of the vessel that was involved in the collision.

Because not all deaths are observed (for example, when a whale is struck offshore and the carcass sinks rather than washing up onshore), scientists use the term cryptic mortality to refer to whale deaths that go undetected. The percentage of undetected deaths due to vessel strike can vary between species depending on distribution and monitoring frequency. For example, North Atlantic right whales are found close to shore, are frequently monitored, and healthy right whales are fairly robust, making them more likely to float after death. Despite these factors increasing the likelihood of detection, approximately 64% of right whale deaths by whatever cause are never observed. Cryptic mortality of other large whale species is likely much higher.

What options are there to reduce the risk of a strike?

Depending on the specific needs and behavior of the species at risk, the pattern of vessel traffic, and the areas of highest risk, several options can help reduce the risk of vessel strikes in U.S. waters: Traffic separation schemes and routing measures, Areas To Be Avoided, and Speed Limits.

Traffic separation schemes and routing measures are measures that require an analysis of whale distribution and movements, vessel traffic patterns, and navigational hazards. Once a route has been identified that reduces the potential for overlap between whales and vessels, the proposed new routing is considered through a public review and comment process that is initiated by the U.S. Coast Guard, in consultation with NOAA. Once the proposed measures have been adopted domestically, they are taken to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for review and final approval. The new shipping lanes or routes are then incorporated into navigational charts and advisories for both foreign and domestic vessels traversing U.S. waters.

Areas To Be Avoided are areas that require special protections from vessel traffic due to frequent and persistent use by large whales. Once identified, they go through a similar public review and approval process, by the U.S. Coast Guard and then IMO, as routing measures. They can apply to all or certain classes of vessels, can be voluntary or mandatory, and can be implemented year-round or seasonally. Informal areas to be avoided can also be identified and implemented in U.S. waters outside of the formal U.S. Coast Guard and IMO process.

Vessel speed limits can be voluntary or mandatory and implemented in specific places of high vessel strike risk year-round, seasonally, at certain times of day, or as needed when whales are present. Studies have shown that 10-knot speed limits are the most effective in reducing risk of vessel strike mortality and serious injury of large whales. Exceptions to the speed limits are permitted as necessary to ensure human safety and safety of navigation.

Are small boats part of the problem?

Yes, small boats can also injure and kill whales, especially calves. In fact, five of the 12 North Atlantic right whale deaths in U.S. waters that were caused by vessel strike from 2008-2022 were caused by vessels smaller than 65 feet in length.

Do vessel strike reduction measures prioritize whales over human safety?

Human safety and safety of navigation are always a top priority. Vessel speed rules implemented on the U.S. East Coast to reduce strikes of North Atlantic right whales, for example, allow deviations from the 10-knot speed limit whenever situations or conditions threaten human or navigational safety. It should be noted, however, that speed limits, especially for smaller vessels, may actually increase human safety. For example, in cases when small boats have struck North Atlantic right whales, the vessel operators often did not see the whale prior to the strike, or if they did, it was too late to avoid a collision. Collisions at high speeds can damage vessels and cause serious or fatal injuries to the people onboard.

Where have vessel strike reduction measures been implemented?

U.S. East Coast

After Canada implemented routing measures in the Bay of Fundy in 2003, NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard implemented recommended routing for vessels traveling through important right whale habitats in Cape Cod Bay and near ports in Georgia and Florida in 2006. In the following years, with approval from the IMO, the shipping lanes into and out of Boston were shifted further north to reduce overlap with whale foraging grounds. The IMO also designated the Great South Channel, off of Cape Cod, as a voluntary Area to be Avoided from April through July.

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) adopted vessel speed measures in 2008 to reduce vessel strikes of North Atlantic right whales. The rule requires that vessels 65 feet and longer travel at speeds no greater than 10 knots when transiting designated seasonal management areas (SMAs). SMAs are only active in certain places and times of year when right whales are present. At the same time, NMFS implemented a separate dynamic management area program that would allow for voluntary speed restrictions to be established in areas and at times when right whales are detected outside of active SMAs. In 2022, after reviewing the data on right whale vessel strikes, NMFS proposed changes to the vessel speed rule to provide greater protections. Those changes included replacing the SMAs with five Seasonal Speed Zones, expanding the rule to include vessels between 35 and 65 feet in length, making speed limits in dynamic speed zones mandatory, and enhancing data collection in support of safety deviations.

Final action by NMFS on the proposed amendments is still pending.

U.S. West Coast

In 2013, recommendations made by the U.S. Coast Guard and NOAA prompted the IMO to shift shipping lanes off San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Long Beach into areas with less overlap between vessels and large whales. In addition, the NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries established voluntary speed reduction zones from May through December. During those times, vessels 300 gross tons and larger are requested to travel 10 knots or less. The vessel speed reduction zones now include the traffic separation schemes off San Francisco and southern California, the Greater Farallones, Cordell Bank, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries, and an expanded Area to be Avoided that encompasses the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and adjacent waters.

Alaska and the Arctic

Although not specifically developed to address vessel strikes of large whales, the U.S. Coast Guard and the IMO adopted voluntary routing measures, including recommended routes, precautionary areas, and Areas to be Avoided in the Bering Strait and Bering Sea in 2017. The U.S. Coast Guard is currently developing similar routing measures for the Arctic Ocean, north of the Bering Strait. In response to the U.S. Coast Guard’s 2018 request for information, the Commission recommended routing measures and vessel speed restrictions in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas that would decrease the risk of vessel strikes of large whales that migrate through the Bering Strait, along the western Alaska coast, and Barrow Canyon. The Commission recommended also that vessels avoid the Hanna Shoal area in the Chukchi Sea, a summer foraging area for walruses. In Southeast Alaska, vessel speed measures are in place in Glacier Bay National Park to reduce the likelihood of vessels striking humpback whales.

International

Vessel strike reduction measures are not unique to the United States. Other countries, including Canada and Panama, have implemented similar measures to protect marine mammals. Vessels also have been requested to transit further offshore around the southern coast of Sri Lanka in order to reduce the risk of vessel strikes for blue whales. Voluntary mitigation measures also have been established in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea. In 2024, Greece committed to establishing a monitoring and early warning system that detects whales in real-time and urges ships to slow down or change course to avoid collisions.

Have vessel strike reduction measures been successful?

Vessel strike reduction measures, including speed limits, have been successful in reducing the likelihood and lethality of vessel strikes of large whales. On the East Coast, the vessel strike mortality rate of right whales decreased from 10 deaths in the 10 years prior to implementation of the rule to four deaths in the 10 years after the rule was implemented. There was an apparent increase in the number of serious and non-serious injuries after the rule was implemented; however, this may have been influenced by increased reporting during that time. On the West Coast, vessel strike reduction efforts may have reduced vessel-strike mortalities by 9 to 13%.

The success of vessel strike reduction measures depends on operator compliance, which has been a challenge. Compliance with voluntary measures has been low, and in some areas on the West Coast, resulted in little to no reduction in the estimated vessel strike mortality. Mandatory measures have achieved up to 88% compliance on the East Coast, and incentive measures have achieved 78% compliance on the West Coast. Ensuring compliance with, and ultimately the effectiveness of, future measures is essential to reducing injury and mortality.

What about technologies to detect whales?

Aerial and vessel-based surveys and passive acoustic monitoring technology are used to identify and track the presence of large whales. In some cases, these technologies can detect whales in near real-time and it is possible to alert mariners to their presence. Additional technologies, including satellite detection and thermal imagery, are being developed to further enhance whale detection capabilities. NOAA’s ASTER^3 program was recently established to advance the conservation and recovery of protected species through innovative technology.

Each tool has limitations, so managers will likely use a combination of tools to build whale detection capability as these new technologies advance. For example, visual surveys only detect animals near the surface and rely on observer presence and good weather conditions, while passive acoustic monitoring can detect whales subsurface when observers are not present, but requires whales to be vocalizing. Multiple technologies, used in combination with traditional vessel strike reduction measures, will likely be the most effective way to reduce the risk of vessel strike to large whales.

How will climate change affect risk and the effectiveness of reduction measures?

Climate change and warming ocean temperatures can cause shifts in the distribution of marine mammals and their prey. As marine mammals move into new areas without established protections, they may be at a higher risk from human activities. This phenomenon was observed as North Atlantic right whales moved into the Gulf of St. Lawrence in search of their copepod prey. Following that shift in whale distribution, increases in vessel strike mortalities were observed. Similar situations are likely to continue occurring in the future. We need to ensure that marine mammal monitoring programs and modelers have the capacity to detect or predict these changes in distribution as early as possible, and that managers are able to quickly and adaptively implement and amend protection measures as necessary.

North Atlantic Right Whale Tagging Workshop

Co-hosted by the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), NOAA Fisheries (NMFS), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

September 12-14, 2023

Post-Workshop Updates

A copy of the workshop report is available here. Please scroll down to the bottom of this page to learn more about post-workshop research and analyses.

Workshop Objectives

1.) review key knowledge gaps and data needs regarding the movements, life history, and ecology of North Atlantic right whales (NARWs);

2.) review the history of satellite telemetry and evaluate progress in tag attachment technologies and follow-up studies; and

3.) generate knowledge to inform planning and permitting decisions regarding potential tagging of NARWs

Workshop Structure

Day 1 consisted of an open session with presentations to the assembled experts and virtual attendees on research needs for NARWs, the history of telemetry tag development and use for large whales, the permitting environment in the U.S. and Canada, and tagging best practices.

Days 2 and 3 were closed sessions where invited experts engaged in-depth on key information that can be gained from tagging, the evolution of tag technology and design, follow-up studies to examine the effects of tagging on baleen whales, and the utility of different tag types with respect to identified research questions. Invited experts also considered potential future NARW tagging and  follow-up monitoring to address important data deficiencies.

Day 1 Recordings

Day 1 Agenda

Welcome and introduction – Frances Gulland (MMC) and Mike Weise (ONR)

Introductory talk: Telemetry data and the conservation and management of NARWs – Greg Donovan (International Whale Commission, retired)

Facilitated panel discussion on gaps in knowledge of NARW ecology and movements pertinent to management needs, with emphasis on information that could be provided by telemetry data – Véronique Lesage (DFO), Colleen Coogan (NMFS-Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office), Clay George (NMFS-Southeast Regional Office), Sean Hayes (NMFS-Northeast Fisheries Science Center), Amy Knowlton (New England Aquarium), Erin Meyer-Gutbrod (University of South Carolina)

Permitting environment: Government officials will summarize the U.S. and Canadian regulatory context when contemplating tagging endangered large whales – Amy Sloan (NMFS-Office of Protected Resources), Laurence Denault-Tremblay (DFO)

Brief overview of best practice guidelines for cetacean tagging – Mike Weise (ONR)

History of NARW tagging – Dave Weller (NMFS-Southwest Fisheries Science Center)

Review of types of tags used to date on baleen whales: Experts in tagging and tag development will provide an overview of different telemetry tag types and on which species they have been deployed, deployment durations, anchor design, target locations on animals, any known and/or suspected effects based on follow-up studies, data to be gathered from the tags, and overall challenges and opportunities

• Suction cup – Alex Shorter (University of Michigan) and Susan Parks (Syracuse University)
• Type A Anchored – Russ Andrews (MarEcoTel) and John Calambokidis (Cascadia Research)
• Type C Consolidated – Alex Zerbini (Cooperative Institute for Climate, Ocean, and Ecosystem Studies-University of Washington) and Daniel Palacios (Oregon State University)

Discussion and Q&A session – Peter Thomas (MMC)

Wrap-up public session – Adèle Labbé (DFO)

Additional presentations and meeting recordings will be added as they become available. Please contact the presenters for permission to use any images or data from their slides.  Note: embedded videos and animations have been disabled.

For a copy of the public agenda, please click here. The list of expert participants can be found here.

A summary of the tagging workshop was presented by Kim Damon-Randall (NMFS) at the 2023 North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium meeting in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Post-Workshop Research and Analyses

• Journal of Cetacean Research and Management has created a Special Issue and is accepting submissions for articles on Cetacean Tagging: Advances and Insights
• April 20, 2024 – an article by Gulland et al. was published on Effects of satellite-linked telemetry tags on humpback whales in the Gulf of Maine: Photographic assessment of tag sites
• The NARW Tagging Workshop identified next steps that included a retrospective analysis of the effects of tagging on NARW health, reproduction, and survival for historical tag types (used between 1988-2001). The Commission requested that this analysis be conducted using an existing Population Consequences of Multiple Stressors (PCOMS) model for NARW (Pirotta et al. 2023, 2024). A report assessing the effects of the historical use of implantable tags on NARWs is now available(posted July 11, 2024). Researchers from the New England Aquarium also prepared a report summarizing the historical tagging events and including demographics and information on tag transmission and implantation duration(posted September 13, 2024). As noted in the workshop report, the results may not be applicable to current tag designs as technology has advanced significantly in recent years, and the analysis only included whales tagged prior to 2010. The 2019 Best practice guidelines for cetacean tagging (Andrews et al. 2019) provides the tagging community with current best practice protocols and recommendations for minimizing effects on individual animals.

For more information, contact Brady O’Donnell (bodonnell@mmc.gov)

The Value of Marine Mammals

Why should we conserve and protect marine mammals? What is the value of a blue whale to the average American? What is the intrinsic worth of a sea lion? How does a walrus contribute to Alaska Native food security and cultural self-identity?

Conserving marine wildlife can benefit communities all across America in a variety of ways. Studies have shown that certain species of marine wildlife, including whales and dolphins, are increasingly important drivers of economic growth for tourism and related industries. Marine mammals also provide value through “ecosystem services” – benefits that people receive from healthy ecosystems, including tourism revenue, carbon sequestration, and even increased ocean productivity in some regions. Marine species also have inherent cultural value to the American public and many people want to know that these animals exist, even if they never see them in the wild.  Furthermore, many Alaskan Native communities depend on marine mammals for food and cultural continuity and identity. These intertwined benefits provide a strong economic incentive to preserve and conserve marine mammals.

Ecosystem Benefits

Marine mammals play important roles in coastal and ocean ecosystems, from a local to global scale. The benefits of conserving marine species stem in part from the value of the ecosystem services provided by the species.

Cetaceans

For example, large whales have been shown to have a role in enhancing primary productivity of marine ecosystems by bringing nitrogen and other nutrients to the ocean surface through their excretions, a process known as “the whale pump.” These nutrients support phytoplankton growth, which provides food for a variety of marine organisms, including marine mammals. The enhancement of primary productivity in coastal waters is a type of ecosystem service that can result in a more productive ocean, which may ultimately increase revenues and employment in the fisheries sector.

Due to its huge size, the carbon stored in a whale’s body can also be important to carbon sequestration. When a whale dies, its carcass can sink and create a “whale fall,” taking the stored carbon within it to the ocean depths. While some of the carcass supports benthic ecosystems, some of the carbon is buried in the sediment, sequestered for millennia. Reducing carbon in our atmosphere is a critical aspect of fighting climate change, something that whales help with in both life and death. The International Monetary Fund estimated the ecosystem services of one whale could be valued at over $2 million, with a combined worth of all large whales estimated at over $1 trillion. Other researchers caution that there are many assumptions which go into such estimates and discussion about carbon credits and climate change policy require further refinement.

Sea Otters

Sea otters, beloved for their fuzzy and charismatic appearance, also make substantive contributions to coastal health. Perhaps the most well-known example is sea otter consumption of urchins, which in turn reduces urchin predation on kelp, allowing kelp forest habitats to thrive, reducing shoreline erosion and promoting biodiversity. However, sea otters are proving to be important to other habitats as well – in some parts of British Columbia sea otters dig for clams in seagrass beds, creating disturbance that promotes seagrass reproduction and enhanced genetic diversity. In Elkhorn Slough, California, ecosystem effects of predation on crabs by recovered sea otter populations have resulted in healthier seagrass beds and greater resilience against human-caused nutrient loading of Elkhorn Slough. Sea otter presence promotes healthy and resilient eelgrass beds, which, like kelp forests, are important nearshore habitats and key to preventing shoreline erosion and sequestering carbon. Eelgrass beds also serve as habitat for diverse species, including a nursery environment for commercially valuable finfish (e.g., salmon and rockfish).

Contributions to Coastal Economies and Ecotourism

Marine mammals also serve an economic role by attracting tourists and associated revenues in coastal economies.

Marine mammal viewing in the wild is part of the lucrative ocean-based tourism and recreation industry. The most recent available data (NOAA 2018) reports a coastal tourism and recreation contribution of $143 billion GDP to the national economy, out producing GDP contributions from commercial ($67 billion) and recreational ($41 billion) fisheries combined ($108 billion) the same year. In 2012, the whale-watching industry generated approximately 2 billion dollars in revenue and supported roughly 13,000 jobs worldwide. Recent location-specific analyses show the importance of whale and dolphin watching and ecotourism to coastal communities. A 2020 study conducted by the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary reported that whale watching contributed $76 million in labor income and $182 million in sales annually to the sanctuary and surrounding community. On the other side of the country, a NOAA-funded study found that whale watching in 2019 supported 850 jobs and $23.4 million in labor income for the state of Alaska. Southern Resident Killer Whale viewing in San Juan County, Washington, contributes over $12 million in state revenue and 1,800 jobs. In Bali, Indonesia, dolphin watching attracts at least 37,000 tourists per year, supports above-average incomes for tour boat operators, and generates substantial profits for local businesses. Ecotourism has thus become a vital contributor to many coastal economies and has fostered public appreciation for marine wildlife while simultaneously providing local communities with a long-term source of jobs and revenues.

Marine mammals also help to drive business in educational, public-display facilities such as aquariums and zoos. In 2016, over 90 million people in the U.S. paid an average admission price of $22 to visit institutions accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums that housed marine mammals. In a 2018 survey, AZA-accredited institutions contributed more than $22.5 billion to the U.S. economy and supported 198,000 full-time jobs, a reflection of the value of being able to see and learn more about marine mammals, and wildlife in general, in the United States.

Marine mammal viewing in the wild must be done with care, as it can lead to unintended ecological consequences for certain species. For example, dolphin-watching tours in Hawaii that target resting spinner dolphins may be compromising the health of individual dolphins as well as the population as a whole. This issue was discussed at length during the Commission’s 2019 annual meeting in Kona. Strong support was voiced from numerous stakeholders, including tour operators, for the establishment of minimum approach distances to spinner dolphins and area closures for swimmers and vessels during critical spinner dolphin resting hours. Learn more about these protections on the NMFS website.

Cultural Significance

Many Americans support actions to protect our oceans and coasts and preserve biodiversity, including marine mammals.

A 2011 study focused on public willingness to pay to “down-list” or “delist” species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Three endangered marine mammal species found in U.S. waters were included in that study—the North Atlantic right whale, North Pacific right whale, and Hawaiian monk seal. The study estimated that U.S. households are willing to pay an average of $71.62 and $73.16, respectively, for the recovery of the two right whale species, and $66.31 for the recovery of Hawaiian monk seals. A case study in Florida found residents of Citrus County were willing to donate an average of $10.25 a year to protect the manatees in their county, and that the manatees contributed ~$8.2 million to the county in tourism-related and ecosystem services value. This type of study builds our understanding of people’s perspectives regarding the inherent value of recovering marine species as we seek to balance the costs and benefits of conserving marine species with the economic needs and values of coastal communities.

Americans who have grown up on the coast watching marine mammals may have an emotional investment in the survival of species associated with a geographic location and ecosystem, as part of the human connection to the environment referred to as a “sense of place.” These connections are evident through various citizen-science groups across the country, dedicated to observing and protecting marine mammals, such as Gotham Whale in New York City, or the Hawaiian monk seal volunteers in Hawaii.

Cultural and social values are an important consideration in marine mammal conservation. The North Atlantic right whale, for example, has a long and difficult history of co-existence with humans. The right whale was aggressively hunted by European and early American whalers, and by the end of the 19th century the population was severely depleted. The right whale was hunted for oil which helped to fuel the Industrial Revolution and American economy at the expense of the species’ population health. The potential extinction of a species like the North Atlantic right whale from the threats of fishing gear entanglement and ship strike would be a loss on many fronts, including disruption to ecosystem health and a reduction in biodiversity. But it would also represent a loss in our centuries old history of human-whale interactions and a failure to recover a species decimated by the quest for economic gain.

Marine Mammals and Alaska Native Peoples

Marine mammals hold strong cultural and social significance to Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Native Americans who have long histories of sharing coastal landscapes with marine mammals – the archaeological record shows these histories stretch back thousands of years. In addition, marine mammals hold a significant place in the Arctic Indigenous worldview and Alaska Native communities rely on them for food and cultural identity, including the creation and selling of handicrafts and clothing. The MMPA recognizes the importance of traditional hunting and cultural practices involving marine mammals by Alaska Natives. Alaska Native Organizations (ANOs) have partnered with federal agencies to ensure that hunting of marine mammals by their member communities is sustainable and contributes to knowledge of the species and their importance to Alaska Native communities, under a process known as “co-management.” Nine ANOs currently maintain marine mammal co-management agreements with Federal agencies. Those agreements are guided by the recognition that the best way to conserve marine mammal populations in Alaska is to provide full and equal participation by Alaska Natives in decisions affecting the subsistence management of marine mammals.

Conservation of marine mammals in Alaska is important not only to the continuation of traditional lifeways and cultural identities to Alaska Native peoples, but as an essential component of Alaska Native food sovereignty and food security. While definitions of food sovereignty and food security are culturally-specific, they can be generally described as “the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and the right to define their own food and agriculture systems” and “when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life,” respectively.

The value that marine mammals represent to Alaska Native and other Indigenous societies cannot be concisely calculated or described. Assigning a dollar value to a walrus, for example, neither accounts for, nor accurately describes, the interconnectedness of different dimensions of lifeways, cultural identity, and environmental, nutritional, and cultural health embodied by the walrus.

Marine Mammal Stranding Response, Health Surveillance, and Conservation Webinar

Hosted by the Marine Mammal Commission

View the webinar recording on zoomgov.com! Passcode: C?nzx=i1

2:00-4:30PM EST on February 8, 2023

Objective: Provide an overview of the National Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program and the legislation that gives authority to NOAA to implement the stranding response program, introduce new legislation and the concept of a Marine Mammal Health Monitoring and Analysis Platform (Health MAP), and review how data from stranding networks enable effective marine mammal health surveillance and inform management and conservation efforts.

View the agenda, click here.

Presentations:

Overview and purpose of the National Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program – Sarah Wilkin, National Stranding and Emergency Response Coordinator at the Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

Regional efforts to use stranding network data for conservation of marine mammals – Ainsley Smith, Marine Mammal Stranding Coordinator at the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, NMFS

Case studies on how stranded marine mammals can inform conservation efforts – Laura Engleby, Branch Chief at the Southeast Regional Office, NMFS

An academic perspective: what can we learn from multi-year, cross-institutional collaborations that focus on marine mammal health surveillance? – Dr. Wendy Puryear, Senior Research Associate, Department of Infectious Disease and Global Health, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University

Overview of recent legislation related to stranding networks – Brady O’Donnell, Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer, Marine Mammal Commission

Health MAP: A vision for marine mammal stranding response, health surveillance, science, and management – Dr. Frances Gulland, Chair, Marine Mammal Commission

Panel Discussion – The panel will address questions on stranding network data sharing and  collaboration for the purpose of more effective marine mammal health surveillance and conservation.

For more information, contact Brady O’Donnell (bodonnell@mmc.gov). 

Equal Employment Opportunity and Other Related Policies

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Policies

The Marine Mammal Commission has adopted and fully supports a policy against discrimination of any employee or applicant for employment because of age, race, religion, color, disability, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), genetic information, and national origin. This policy includes, but is not limited to, the following: recruitment and employment, promotion, demotion, transfer, compensation, selection for training including apprenticeship, layoff, and termination. The Commission ensures equal employment opportunities. The Commission’s EEO and Affirmative Action Policy is available here.

Other policies under EEO can be found below.

No Fear Act Policy

The Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), which became effective in 2003, requires federal agencies to take certain actions. These actions are designed to reinvigorate agencies’ longstanding obligation to provide a work environment free of discrimination and retaliation. Under the Act, federal agencies must:

• Post on their website a notice apprising federal employees, applicants, and former employees of their rights and the remedies available under the Act. This notice is available here.
• Submit annual reports setting forth information about their efforts to improve compliance with the employment discrimination and whistleblower protection laws and detailing the status of complaints brought against the agency under these laws.
• Every fiscal quarter, post on their public websites summary statistical data pertaining to EEO complaints filed with the agency over the past five fiscal years.

Click here for the Commission’s latest summary of statistical data under the No Fear Act.

Federal Agency Approaches to Reducing Vessel Strike of Cetaceans

Meeting of the Marine Mammal Commission and Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals

Federal Agency Approaches to Reducing Vessel Strike of Cetaceans

April 12, 2022

Objective: The Commission and Committee of Scientific Advisors will meet to consider actions for reducing vessel strike of large cetaceans. Specifically, meeting  participants will review Federal vessel-routing and speed-reduction programs, their elements and effectiveness, identify locations where additional measures are or may be needed, and consider recommendations for next steps. To view the agenda, click here.

Presenter Biographies

Presentations:

Welcome and Commission Business – Daryl Boness, Commission Chairman, Marine Mammal Commission

Introduction and Overview of Vessel Strikes to Large Cetaceans – Frances Gulland, Commissioner, Marine Mammal Commission & UC Davis

Large Whale Vessel Strike Mitigation Efforts: Progress and Lessons Learned – Caroline Good, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

Vessel/Whale Strike Reduction: United States Coast Guard – Ready, Relevant, Responsive – Katie Moore, United States Coast Guard (USCG)

Whale Strike Research and Mitigation Efforts: Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary – Dave Wiley, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Voluntary Vessel Speed Reduction (VSR) in California National Marine Sanctuaries – Michael Carver, Greater Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries & Sean Hastings, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

Whale Strike Avoidance in Southeastern Alaska: Charting a Course for the Future – Chris Gabriele, Glacier Bay National Park

Panel Discussion – question and answer, major findings, and next steps

For more information, contact Brady O’Donnell (bodonnell@mmc.gov).

Effects of Climate Change on Marine Mammals

Commission scientists have published a review of the evidence for effects of climate change on marine mammals that occur in U.S. waters.

The fundamental driver of climate change in the global oceans is increasing atmospheric carbon, which results in increased air and ocean temperatures, ocean acidification, loss of sea ice, and increased fresh-water discharge from melting ice and river outflows (IPCC). These changes foster both abiotic (sea-level rise, altered storm activity) and biotic (food web) ecosystem responses. Marine mammal responses to food web alterations (e.g., shifts in range, distribution, phenology, migration routes, diet) have physiological consequences (e.g., changes in body condition, health), as well as influencing individuals’ exposure to predation, pathogens, toxins, and risks associated with human activities, and this ultimately can affect reproductive success and survival. It is important to recognize that while climate change-related ecosystem alterations may have negative effects on some species, they can benefit others.

Climate change impacts on marine mammal are best known in the Arctic, but have also been documented throughout US waters, including temperate and sub-tropical regions.  While many of the observed effects had been predicted, some unforeseen effects have also been documented, such as the dramatic loss of pupping/nursing habitat for endangered Hawaiian monk seals due to sea level rise and severe storms. Other examples of marine mammal species in U.S. waters for which effects of climate change have been documented include humpback whales, North Atlantic right whales, and polar bears.

Many suspected effects of climate change remain unconfirmed; modifications to research and monitoring efforts could reveal the full scope and significance of current and future impacts on marine mammals. Commission scientists concluded that detecting and mitigating the threats to marine mammals from climate change will require some realignment of research and monitoring priorities, coupled with rapid and flexible management that includes both conventional and novel conservation interventions.

The paper can be read online for free in the Journal of Climate Change Ecology.

Marine Mammal Education Resources

Why education?

We recognize the value of educating individuals of all ages about the natural world and hope to make marine science, particularly marine mammal science, more accessible to people everywhere. At the Commission, we do this regularly by participating in school visits and public outreach events and by involving high school and undergraduate interns in marine mammal science and policy. We are hopeful that these educational resources will be used by teachers during everyday lessons as well as by scientists conducting outreach in the classroom. Each PowerPoint and lesson plan is designed for a different age group (K-12) to tailor the content to the students.

                 PowerPoint Presentations & Lesson Plans

Grade Level: K-2

Lesson Plan K-2

Grade Level: 3-5

Lesson Plan 3-5

Grade Level: 6-8

Lesson Plan 6-8

Grade Level: High School

Lesson Plan High School

About the Commission

The Marine Mammal Commission is an independent government agency charged by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to further the conservation of marine mammals and their environment. We work to ensure that marine mammal populations are restored and maintained as functioning elements of healthy marine ecosystems in the world’s oceans. We provide science-based oversight of domestic and international policies and actions of federal agencies with mandates to address human impacts on marine mammals and their ecosystems. Our role is unique—we are the only U.S. government agency that provides comprehensive oversight of all science, policy, and management actions affecting marine mammals.

Who We Are

The Commission consists of three Commissioners appointed by the President, a nine-member Committee of Scientific Advisors, and 14 employees.

To learn more, meet our Commissioners, Scientific Advisors, and staff.

What We Do

As an independent oversight agency, we are positioned to affect the evolution of policy decisions and help develop consensus among competing interests on controversial issues surrounding marine mammal science and conservation. We review proposed actions by federal agencies and others and provide recommendations to minimize the impacts of such actions on marine mammals and their environment.

Multiple human-related risk factors affect marine mammals, including direct and indirect effects of fisheries, underwater sound, contaminants and disease, harmful algal blooms and dead zones, vessel strikes, and impacts of climate change. We regularly consult with other federal agencies to understand, monitor, and mitigate these risk factors. Our work is centered on five strategic goals outlined in our FY2022–2026 Strategic Plan, and we pay special attention to species considered to be most vulnerable to human-related activities.

We carry out several activities to help ensure that the protection and conservation of marine mammals is reflected in a wide array of actions. Such activities include:

• reviewing permit and incidental take authorization applications, proposed regulations, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents (e.g., draft environmental assessments and impact statements), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing proposals;
• developing and/or reviewing marine mammal policy and guidance documents;
• producing periodic reports of particular importance to the conservation of marine mammals and maintenance of healthy ecosystems for Congress and relevant agencies;
• reviewing results of research, providing funding for research, and identifying significant gaps in research and seeking ways to close such gaps;
• participating in scientific and policy organizations and meetings, both domestic and international; and
• conducting the Commission’s Annual Meeting and producing reports on an annual basis highlighting the Commission’s performance and accomplishments.

We provide comments and recommendations regarding marine mammal protection and conservation to federal agencies and others through regular contact and meetings, as well as through formal letters. In these letters, we identify actions that agencies could take to conserve and manage marine mammals.

We are also periodically called upon to brief Capitol Hill staff and, less frequently, to present testimony to Congress regarding marine mammal protection and conservation issues.

Cross-Agency Collaborations

The Commission helps develop and coordinate multi-agency research and management initiatives to facilitate marine mammal protection and conservation, working closely with those agencies most directly carrying out the mandate of the MMPA. Key partners include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and National Ocean Service (NOS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) of the Department of Interior, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). We also work closely with the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, and other branches of the military on their activities that may impact marine mammals and their habitats.

Collaboration regularly involves support and coordination on basic research. Through our grants and research program, we seek to identify key research priorities and help coordinate this work to eliminate duplication and ensure effective use of scarce research funds. We also work to ensure that scientific results are rigorously reviewed and used in management to develop, improve, or evaluate mitigation measures to benefit marine mammals.

Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Research and Monitoring Meeting – Summary and Presentations

April 7-8, 2015

New Orleans, Louisiana

Meeting summary report

Full meeting program and project descriptions

Welcome and Introductions

• Welcoming Remarks (Vicki Cornish, Marine Mammal Commission)

Overview of Marine Mammal Stocks and Human Activities

• The Big Picture – Marine Mammals and Threats in the Gulf of Mexico (Laura Engleby, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southeast Regional Office)

Current Research and Monitoring Programs

I. Abundance, Distribution, and Stock Structure

• NMFS Research on Cetacean Abundance, Distribution and Stock Structure in the Gulf of Mexico (Keith Mullin, NMFS Pascagoula Laboratory)
• Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Marine Mammals in the Gulf of Mexico (John Hildebrand, Scripps Institution of Oceanography)
• Sperm Whale Dive Behaviors Reveal Changes in Benthic Foraging Around Macondo Spill Site (Bruce Mate, Oregon State University)
• Monitoring Population Dynamics of the Florida Manatee (Leslie Ward, Florida Wildlife Research Institute)

II. Health, Strandings, and Life History

• Overview of the Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stranding Network (Erin Fougeres, NMFS Southeast Regional Office)
• Overview of Cetacean Stranding Data from the Gulf of Mexico, 2000 – 2014 (Jenny Litz, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center)
• Bottlenose Dolphin Research on Florida’s West Coast: Four Decades of Research, Five Generations of Dolphins, and Three Generations of Scientists (Randy Wells, Chicago Zoological Society / Sarasota Dolphin Research Program)
• Bottlenose Dolphin Health Assessment Studies in the Gulf of Mexico (Lori Schwacke, NOAA National Ocean Service)

III. Understanding Effects of Human Activities

• Requirements for Epidemiological Studies to Understand Biological and Chemical Effects on Cetaceans (Teri Rowles, NMFS Office of Protected Resources)
• Variability in the Gulf of Mexico’s Marine Acoustic Environment (Chris Clark, Cornell University)
• Recreational interactions – Growing Threats to Gulf Marine Mammals (Katie McHugh, Chicago Zoological Society/Sarasota Dolphin Research Program)
• Commercial Fisheries and Marine Mammal Bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico (Lance Garrison, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center)

Priority Information Needs and Knowledge Gaps – Recent Assessments

• Gulf of Mexico Long-Term Monitoring Programs Case Study: Assessment of Marine Mammal Monitoring Programs and Gap Analysis (Libby Fetherston, Ocean Conservancy)
• Summary of 2013 Gulf of Mexico Regional Workshops: Cooperative Conservation for Marine Mammals in the Gulf (Laura Engleby, NMFS Southeast Regional Office)
• Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System (GCOOS) Build-out Plan and Marine Mammal Monitoring (Barb Kirkpatrick, GCOOS)
• Mammal Monitoring for Geological and Geophysical Activities in the Gulf of Mexico (Jennifer Bosyk, Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM))

Evening Poster/Social Session

• Archiving and Accessing a ‘DNA Register’ for Individual Identification and Stock Structure of Sperm Whales in the Gulf of Mexico (Scott Baker, Oregon State University)
• Various posters – species demographics and distribution (Ruth Carmichael and Noel Wingers, Dauphin Island Sea Lab):
  • Sighting Demographics of the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) in Alabama and Mississippi waters
  • Modeling West Indian Manatee Movements Informs Space Use Patterns and Phenology in the Northern Gulf of Mexico
  • Distribution of Stranded Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Alabama Waters from 2004-2013
• Gulf of Mexico Dolphin Identification System (GoMDIS) – A Collaborative Tool for Bottlenose Dolphin Conservation & Monitoring (Carolyn Cush, Chicago Zoological Society)
• An Apparent Increase in Bottlenose Dolphins in Upper Galveston Bay: City Slickers or Tourists? (Kristi Fazioli, University of Houston – Clear Lake Environmental Institute of Houston)
• Long-term Passive Acoustic Monitoring of Dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico (Kaitlin Frasier, Scripps Institution of Oceanography)
• Assigning Tursiops Strandings to Stock Using Stable Isotope Ratios (Aleta Hohn, NMFS Beaufort Laboratory)
• Marine Mammal Toxicological Research and Education: Five summers in the Gulf of Mexico in Response to the Deepwater Horizon Disaster (Iain Kerr, Ocean Alliance)
• Various posters – biological monitoring and habitat characterization (Ibiza Martinez-Serrano, Universidad Veracruzano):
  • Biological Monitoring Program Based on Indicator Species of Ecological Integrity in the National Park “Sistema Arrecifal Veracruzano” (Veracruz Reef System)
  • Use and Characterization of Habitat by the Antillean Manatee (Trichechus manatus manatus) in the South of Veracruz, Mexico
• Various posters – marine mammal assessment (Paula Moreno, USM Gulf Coast Research Laboratory):
  • Independent Advisory Team for Marine Mammal Assessment
  • Gulf Coast Research Laboratory: Marine Mammal Research
• Passive Listening, Active Mitigation: Passive Acoustic Monitoring and Mitigation of Oceanic Delphinids during Mid-Water Net Trawl Sampling on NOAA’s R/V Pisces (Thomas Norris, Bio-Waves, Inc.)
• Predictive Spatial Modeling of Seasonal Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Distributions in the Mississippi Sound (Jonathan Pitchford, Institute for Marine Mammal Studies)
• Can Simple Tackle Modifications and Use of Fish Descenders Decrease Harmful Fishery Interactions with Bottlenose Dolphins? (Steve Shippee, Marine Wildlife Response)
• USGS Manatee Research in the Gulf of Mexico: Movement and Habitat Use in the Northern GOM to Assist BOEM with Management of Coastal Resources (Dan Slone, U.S. Geological Survey)
• Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Stranding Response and Research (Moby Solangi, Institute for Marine Mammal Studies)
• Bile Collection Technique in Subsistence Harvested Beluga Whales (Delphinapterus leucas): Proof of Concept Study (Raphaela Stimmelmayer, North Slope Borough)

Data Sharing as a Mechanism for Collaboration and Capacity Building

• Data Sharing 101- The 5 W’s and Some Existing Opportunities to Share Marine Mammal Data (Samantha Simmons, Marine Mammal Commission)
• GRIIDC: Establishing a Gulf of Mexico Data Cooperative (Jim Gibeaut, GRIIDC/Harte Research Institute)

Developing a Monitoring Framework for the Gulf

• Towards a Gulf-wide Bird Monitoring Network: Identifying Objectives to Prioritize Action (John Tirpak and Randy Wilson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Funding Opportunities in the Gulf

• Funding Opportunities in the Gulf (Kathryn Mengerink, Environmental Law Institute)
• Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Natural Resource Damage Assessment Overview (Jean Cowan, NOAA Restoration Center)
• Restoration Trust Fund Allocations (John Ettinger, RESTORE Act Ecosystem Restoration Council)
• NOAA-led RESTORE Act Science Program (Roger Helm, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/ RESTORE Act Science Program)
• Centers of Excellence and Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (Andy Shepard, Florida Institute of Oceanography/RESTORE Act Centers of Excellence/Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative)
• Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund (Jon Porthouse, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund)
• National Academy of Sciences Gulf Research Program/Ad‐hoc Research Funders Forum  (LaDon Swann, Auburn University and NAS Gulf Research Program Advisory Board)
• BOEM Environmental Studies Program (Rodney Cluck, BOEM Environmental Studies Program)
• Joint Industry Program – Research Program Update (Gary Wolinsky, Chevron/Sound and Marine Life Joint Industry Program)