Review of the Effectiveness of Recovery Activities for North Atlantic right whales

Table of Contents

• Complete Text
• 1. Background
• 2. Objective of this Review
• 3. Sources of Information
• 4. Methods for Assessing Effectiveness of Recovery activities
• 5. Review of Recovery activities
  • 5.1. Recovery Objectives
  • 5.2. Threats
  • 5.3. Review of Recovery activities
• 6. Effectiveness of Recovery Activities
  • 6.1. Vessel Strikes
  • 6.2. Fishing-Gear Entanglements
  • 6.3. Disturbance and Habitat Reduction or Degradation
    • 6.3.1. Contaminants
    • 6.3.2. Acoustic Disturbance
    • 6.3.3. Vessel-presence disturbance
    • 6.3.4. Changes in Food Supply
• 7. Indirect Recovery Activities: Monitoring and Stewardship
• 8. Threat-Based Recommendations
  • 8.1. Vessel Strikes
  • 8.2. Fishing-Gear Entanglements
  • 8.3. Disturbance and Habitat Reduction or Degradation
  • 8.4. Required Research and Monitoring
• 9. Conclusions
• 10. Literature Cited
• Appendix A: Acronyms
• Appendix B: Defining Risk
• Appendix C: Summaries of Recovery Activities

1. Background

In November 2016 Canada’s Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) was announced, which outlined several new initiatives aimed at addressing the threats to marine mammals in Canadian waters including the threats of contaminants, prey availability, and underwater noise. Under the OPP, the Government of Canada will take action to address the cumulative effects of shipping on marine mammals and work with partners to implement a real-time whale detection system to alert mariners of the presence of whales. As part of OPP, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) was tasked with launching a science-based review of the effectiveness of the current management and recovery actions for three at-risk whale species in Canada: the Southern Resident Killer Whale (Orcinus orca), the St. Lawrence Estuary Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) and the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). The review seeks to identify areas for immediate improvement in recovery efforts and priorities for new or enhanced actions. DFO adopted a phased approach for this review, and this document represents the first phase in that process and is focused on the recovery activities for North Atlantic right whale from a scientific perspective.

The North Atlantic right whale is considered one of the most endangered of all large whale species (Caswell et al. 1999, Kraus et al. 2005), and is federally protected under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in Canada and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the United States of America (USA). Right whales throughout the Atlantic Ocean were considered a single species and first designated as endangered in 1980, and were re-assessed and confirmed as endangered in 1985 and again in 1990 (COSEWIC 2003). In 2003, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) recognised right whales in the North Atlantic as a separate wildlife species from those in the South Atlantic (Southern right whales; E. australis) and designated North Atlantic right whales as endangered (COSEWIC 2003). North Atlantic right whales were listed as an endangered species under the SARA in 2005 (COSEWIC 2013), and they are also listed as endangered under the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) red list of threatened species (IUCN 2008). The species was re-evaluated by COSEWIC in 2013 and once again designated endangered (COSEWIC 2013).

Historically, intense whaling greatly diminished the number of North Atlantic right whales throughout their range (Aguilar 1986). Despite being internationally protected since 1935 (IWC 2001), the population has yet to increase to more than a few hundred individuals. This is in sharp contrast to southern right whales, whose numbers were also considerably reduced due to whaling, and have since exhibited an annual population growth rate estimated at 7% (Best 1990, Cooke et al. 2001) and are listed as “least concern” under the IUCN’s red list of threatened species (IUCN 2008).

The population estimate for North Atlantic right whales was approximately 350 individuals in the mid-2000s (Kraus and Rolland, 2007). The population in 2015 was estimated to be 524 individuals based on the number of individually-identified photographed whales (Pettis and Hamilton 2016). The ‘minimum number alive population index’ (the minimum number of live whales in the population calculated from the individual sightings database) provides an estimated average population growth rate of 2.8% for the 1990-2011 period (Waring et al. 2016). However, due to a 40% decrease in the estimated calving rate since 2010 (Kraus et al. 2016), population growth rate in recent years (2012-2015) appears to be declining (Pace, 2016) and two out of the three population assessment methods demonstrate a decline in North Atlantic right whale abundance (Kraus et al. 2016 and references therein).

It has been hypothesized that the limited recovery of North Atlantic right whales may be due to decreased reproductive rates (Knowlton et al. 1994, Kraus et al. 2001), low genetic variability (Waldick et al. 2002), prey-field dynamics and reduced access to prey (Kenney 2001, Baumgartner et al. 2007, Michaud and Taggart 2007), and deleterious human activities such as vessel strikes and fishing-gear entanglement (Kraus 1990, Knowlton and Kraus 2001, Kraus et al. 2005, van der Hoop et al. 2013, Kraus et al. 2016). However, the only hypothesis that we can directly address is deleterious human activities to reduce mortalities and promote recovery.

2. Objective of this Review

This document provides a summary of recovery activities (measures) that have been developed and implemented to support the conservation and protection of North Atlantic right whales throughout their range (but with a focus on Canadian efforts) and aims to assess their overall effectiveness for achieving population recovery. Recovery activities are assessed from a scientific perspective only, and effectiveness of recovery activities are considered in terms of their ability to reduce threats that have been identified and associated with the endangered status of the population. This document also aims to identify how recovery objectives can be better achieved by accelerating implementation of recovery activities already identified but not underway, by identifying possible new measures, and by providing guidance on the relative priority of the measures intended to reduce risk of the identified threats to North Atlantic right whales.

3. Sources of Information

The Recovery Strategy for North Atlantic right whales in Atlantic Canadian Waters (hereafter referred to as the “Recovery Strategy”) was published in 2009 (Brown et al. 2009) and amended in 2014 (DFO 2014). The Recovery Strategy outlines the interim recovery goal for the species, recovery objectives, and broad strategies that should be implemented to achieve recovery, and performance indicators for the recovery strategies. The proposed Action Plan for North Atlantic right whale in Canada: Fisheries Interactions (“hereafter referred to as the “Action Plan”; DFO 2016a) outlines specific recovery activities needed to address the threat of fishing-gear interactions. The Report on the Progress of the Recovery Strategy Implemented for the North Atlantic right whale in Canadian Waters for the Period 2009-2014 (hereafter referred to as the “Progress Report”; DFO 2016b) describes recovery activities that have been completed or are underway. All three of these SARA recovery documents were consulted for the development of this review. The majority of the recovery activities presented here were obtained from the Action Plan and Progress Report. Other sources of information used include scientific primary literature, and reports from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

4. Methods for Assessing Effectiveness of Recovery activities

The interim recovery goal for North Atlantic right whales is:

“To achieve an increasing trend in population abundance over three generations” (DFO 2014).

In the context of this review, assessing the effectiveness of recovery activities is to be understood as examining the degree to which activities currently underway as well as those proposed in existing recovery documents have, or will, directly contribute to abating threats to North Atlantic right whales to reduce further population decline and help achieve the recovery goal for the population. Recovery activities already completed or underway since 2005 (the year of the SARA listing) will be considered; however, important activities prior to 2005 are also presented as historically significant actions contributing to the assessment of mitigation measures, and in some cases demonstrate previous actions that were ineffective for reducing the impact of threats on the North Atlantic right whale population.

North Atlantic right whale generation time is estimated to be approximately 20 years thus three generations spans approximately 60 years (DFO 2014). This review assesses if the recovery of North Atlantic right whales is on track to reach the interim recovery goal within this longer timeframe, in approximately 50 years.

The recovery objectives included in the recovery documents (DFO 2014, 2016a, 2016b) were developed at a time when the understanding of SARA was different than it is today and did not take into consideration the 2016 tri-departmental Proposed Policy on Survival and Recovery (Government of Canada 2016); therefore, neither does this review.

5. Review of Recovery activities

5.1. Recovery Objectives

This review considers recovery activities to address each recovery objective outlined in the North Atlantic right whale Recovery Strategy (DFO 2014). The Recovery Strategy describes seven objectives to achieve recovery:

1. Reduce mortality and injury as a result of vessel strikes;
2. Reduce mortality and injury as a result of fishing-gear interactions (entanglement and entrapment);
3. Reduce injury and disturbance as a result of vessel presence or exposure to contaminants and other forms of habitat degradation;
4. Monitor population and threats;
5. Increase understanding of life history characteristics, low reproductive rate, habitat, and threats to recovery through research;
6. Support and promote collaboration for recovery between government agencies, academia, environmental non-government groups, Aboriginal groups, coastal communities, and international agencies and bodies; and,
7. Develop and implement education and stewardship activities that promote recovery.

Objectives 1-3 directly address reducing identified threats to North Atlantic right whales. Objectives 4-7 describe research and monitoring approaches that could further contribute to addressing threats, but only indirectly. As this review is focused on assessing effectiveness of recovery activities that directly reduce threats to North Atlantic right whales, only measures listed under Objectives 1-3 are evaluated (Section 6), while other relevant measures listed under Objectives 4-7 are considered separately (Section 7).

5.2. Threats

To review the effectiveness of recovery activities towards achieving the interim recovery goal, the efficacy of the measures towards reducing threats to the population was considered. The Recovery Strategy identifies three major threats to North Atlantic right whales: vessel strikes, fishing-gear entanglement, and disturbance and habitat degradation. The latter is further divided into four threats: contaminants, acoustic disturbance, vessel-presence disturbance, and changes in food supply (DFO 2014). Recovery activities to address these threats are considered in this review.

5.3. Review of Recovery activities

To address identified threats to North Atlantic right whales, several conservation initiatives and recovery activities have been implemented throughout Canada and the USA, and are presented in Table 1 and discussed in more detail in Section 6. In some cases, recovery activities implemented prior to 2005 are also discussed as they highlight important accomplishments or recovery activities that were unsuccessful in reducing threats.

6. Effectiveness of Recovery Activities

In the following sections, for each identified threat (Objectives 1-3) recovery activities implemented to reduce the threat are described in detail and any information available on population demography to illustrate the effectiveness of the measures is presented. As it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of individual recovery activities and their associated impacts on the population, all recovery activities for a specific threat are considered collectively to evaluate whether a specific threat has been reduced.

While Objectives 4-7 in the Recovery Strategy do not directly reduce threats to North Atlantic right whales, they are important for informing threat-based mitigation measures. The effectiveness of recovery activities implemented to more directly reduce or mitigate threats often relies on information obtained under these non-threat-based objectives. Additionally, knowledge gained through completing measures under Objectives 4-7 can be used to inform the development of new recovery activities to reduce the impacts of threats. As these objectives are not threat-based, nor directly related to recovery, a measure of their effectiveness is not possible; however, their importance for assessing recovery is further discussed in Section 7.

6.1. Vessel Strikes

Vessel strikes impact several marine species including sea turtles (Hazel et al. 2008), manatees (Laist and Shaw 2006), sharks (Speed et al. 2008), and cetaceans (Laist et al. 2001). Vessel strikes contribute to mortality of all large whale species in the Northwest Atlantic (van der Hoop et al. 2013). On a per capita basis the North Atlantic right whale is more prone to vessel strikes than all other large whale species (Vanderlaan and Taggart 2007) and vessel strikes have been documented throughout most of the North Atlantic right whale migratory range (Kraus and Rolland 2007, van der Hoop et al. 2014). Substantial conservation measures have been suggested and implemented worldwide to protect marine species from vessel collisions, and this is especially true for endangered North Atlantic right whales (e.g. Kraus et al. 2005, Laist and Shaw 2006, Panigada et al. 2006, NOAA 2008a).

Several recovery activities have been implemented in Canada and the USA to protect North Atlantic right whales from vessel strikes, including vessel re-routing and speed restrictions (Table 1). Vanderlaan et al. (2008) argues that vessel re-routing and speed restrictions are the two simplest and most practical methods to reduce the risk to whales from vessels (see Appendix B for definition of risk). The precedent setting recovery activity of amending the Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) in the Bay of Fundy to re-route the vessels around high use North Atlantic right whale habitat was proposed to IMO in 2002 by Transport Canada. The IMO amended the TSS in 2003, which was the first time the IMO adopted a change to their regulations to protect an endangered species. This TSS amendment reduced the probability of a vessel encountering North Atlantic right whales as the previous outbound lane of the TSS required vessels to transit directly through the Grand Manan Basin North Atlantic right whale Conservation Area; an area that served to warn mariners of the presence of North Atlantic right whales. It was estimated that this change resulted in a reduction of the relative risk of a lethal vessel collision by 90% in the area where the TSS intersected the North Atlantic right whale Conservation Area and 62% throughout the entire study area (Vanderlaan et al. 2008). It was also estimated that detected mortalities attributable to vessel strikes would change from one every four years to one every 12 years in the Bay of Fundy (Vanderlaan et al. 2008).

Similar re-routing has since taken place in USA waters with two amendments to the Boston TSS (IMO 2006a, 2008a). The first amendment in 2006 rotated the TSS 12 degrees to the north to avoid large aggregations of whales. This shift was estimated to result in a 58% ^{Footnote 3} reduction in risk of vessel strikes to North Atlantic right whales (IMO 2006b). The second amendment in 2008 (IMO 2008b) narrowed the lanes to further reduce to the relative risk of a vessel strike by 11% (Merrick et al. 2007). Both amendments reduced the spatial co-occurrence between vessel activity and North Atlantic right whales.

In the North Atlantic right whale's southern calving ground off the coasts of Georgia and Florida, as well as in Cape Cod Bay, recommended voluntary, seasonal traffic routes have been advised to shift the traffic patterns away from areas frequented by North Atlantic right whales (NOAA 2006). Lagueux et al. (2011) estimated that the recommended routing in the southern calving ground would reduce the probability of a North Atlantic right whale mortality from a vessel by ~72% from the pre-implementation period and measured compliance with the recommended routes at 96% by the end of their study.

Transport Canada proposed the adoption of a recommendatory, seasonal Area to be Avoided (ATBA) in Roseway Basin to the IMO to further reduce the risk of vessel strikes through re-routing of traffic around another North Atlantic right whale high-use area (IMO 2007). On 01 May 2008, Canada implemented the ATBA seasonally (June through December). Although recommended by the IMO, this recovery activity is completely voluntary, similar to the Roseway Basin Right Whale Conservation Area (implemented in 1993) that was designed to promote awareness and education among mariners (Brown et al. 1995). The Conservation Area also advised vessels to either re-route around the area or reduce vessel speed, but there was no evidence of compliance with the voluntary recommendations (Vanderlaan et al. 2008). The Taggart Lab (Dalhousie Oceanography) implemented the Vessel and Conservation Area Transit Experiment (VACATE) to measure compliance with and efficacy of the voluntary ATBA. Within the first year of implementation compliance stabilized at 71%, resulting in a reduction of relative risk across the study area of 82% (Vanderlaan and Taggart 2009). Compliance estimation continues in the area, as does the Canadian Whale Institute's (CWI) Marine Stewardship Recognition Program (MSRP) designed to improve compliance with the ATBA through direction communication with vessel operators that transit through the area. From 2008 through 2014, annual compliance averaged at 80% resulting in a reduction in risk to North Atlantic right whales of 92% ^{Footnote 4} (Vanderlaan and Taggart, unpublished data).

An IMO-adopted ATBA in the Great South Channel was implemented in 2009 and annually in effect from the 01 April through 31 of July (IMO 2008a). Similarly to the Roseway Basin ATBA, the Great South Channel ATBA adopted by the IMO recommends that vessels re-route around the ATBA to avoid areas of North Atlantic right whale persistence. It was estimated that the ATBA would result in a 63%3 reduction in relative risk of a vessel striking a North Atlantic right whale (Merrick et al. 2007) though no estimate of compliance with the voluntary ATBA has been measured thus far.
Seasonal vessel speed restrictions in various North Atlantic right whale habitats and along their migratory pathway have also been implemented in the USA (NOAA 2008a). Speed restrictions were mandatory for all commercial vessels greater than 65 feet (~20m) long in ten spatially and temporally defined Seasonal Management Areas (SMAs, Table 2). These restrictions were implemented on the 09 December 2008 with a 5-year sunset clause that has since been removed (NOAA 2008a, 2013). Vessel speed is restricted to 10 knots (18.5 km/h) in each of the areas. Compliance with mandatory vessel speed restrictions has been low with only 24% of vessel transits within the SMAs slowing to the required 10 knots (Silber et al. 2014). However, within the first five years of implementation no vessel-struck North Atlantic right whales were found in or near (within 45 nautical miles or ~83 km) active SMAs (Laist et al. 2014).

As identified in Table 1, a number of other programs exist in Canada to alert mariners of the presence of North Atlantic right whales to reduce potential vessel strikes. A Mariner’s Guide to Whales in the Northwest Atlantic was developed to promote awareness among mariners (http://www.shipfed.ca/data/News/2014-06-27EngMarinersWhaleGuide.pdf). Smart phone apps have been developed that focus on reducing lethal vessel strikes to whales and alerting mariners of the presence of North Atlantic right whales (e.g., Whale Alert; www.whalealert.org).

A near real-time whale alert system for eastern Canada is under development by researcher at Dalhousie University. Research has been conducted to determine the receptivity of the commercial fleet to information on whale locations as an early warning system (Reimer et al. 2016). Moving forward, this alert system will be based on the Automatic Identification System (AIS) that is required on all IMO vessels >300 gross tonnage and all passenger vessels. Whale sounds detected by passive acoustic packages on ocean gliders are transmitted by satellite to a ground station and then validated by an experienced analyst. Once the sounds have been confirmed as a North Atlantic right whale the associated locations are then broadcast as an AIS message in near real time from coastal AIS stations to all AIS vessels within VHF range. An operational trial on the coast of Nova Scotia is planned for summer 2017 (Christopher Taggart, Dalhousie University, personal communication).

Mandatory and voluntary conservation measures in Canada focus on re-routing vessels around high-use habitats to decrease the likelihood of a vessel strike, whereas in the USA the focus was on mandatory speed restrictions, to slow the vessels down to reduce lethality should a strike occur, and voluntary re-routing of vessels. Many of these measures are implemented in identified critical habitats (e.g., Grand Manan Basin, Roseway Basin, Great South Channel, and Cape Cod Bay) and as a result the spatial density of vessel-strike mortality to all large whales has shifted to outside the SMAs (van der Hoop et al 2014). Unlike other large whale species, over the long term the North Atlantic right whale’s leading anthropogenic cause of death has been vessel strikes (44% of the human-induced mortalities from 1970-2009 compared with 35% for fishing-gear entanglements; van der Hoop et al. 2013). Seven North Atlantic right whale mortalities have been positively identified as vessel-strikes deaths in Atlantic Canada since 1970 (Knowlton and Kraus 2001; Moore et al. 2004, 2007; Campbell–Malone et al. 2008; Figure 1). However, no documented mortalities where the cause of death was conclusively determined to be attributable to vessel strikes have occurred in Canada since 2006 (van der Hoop et al. 2014; Pettis and Hamilton 2014, 2015, 2016). Furthermore, North Atlantic right whale vessel strike mortalities throughout Canada and the USA have significantly declined from 2.0 (2000-2006) to 0.33 per year (2007-2012; van der Hoop et al. 2014).

Overall, the recovery activities that have been implemented to reduce the risk of lethal vessel strikes to North Atlantic right whales appear to be effective in reducing observed mortalities. It is important to note; however, that changes in the reporting of vessel-strike mortalities over time are unknown. Observed increases in vessel strike mortality over the last 40 years could be a function of increased detection and reporting, although these increases also parallel increases in the number, speed, and size of vessels fleet-wide (Vanderlaan et al. 2009). Detection probabilities are spatially dependent, with offshore vessel strikes less likely to be observed compared to a whale killed closer to shore. Wherever the whales and vessels co-occur, there is the risk of lethal vessel strikes, and Canada has only implemented recovery activities to reduce risk of vessel strikes in identified critical habitat areas. As right whales travel to and from critical habitats and other areas in Atlantic Canada, they are unprotected from the threat of vessel strikes. Additional mitigation should be put in place, particularly as our understanding of North Atlantic right whale distribution and movement patterns increases and new high-use areas are identified.

6.2. Fishing-Gear Entanglements

Any cetacean has the potential to become entangled in fishing gear and van der Hoop et al. (2013) identified entanglements as the primary cause of death among all large whale species with the exception of North Atlantic right whales during the period 1970 through 2009. Unlike small cetaceans that cannot escape entangling gear, entangled baleen whales are capable of dragging gear (Clapham et al. 1999), thus fishing-gear entanglements are not necessarily lethal for large whales. Many North Atlantic right whales appear to shed gear or self-disentangle (Johnson et al. 2007) and scarring analyses show approximately 82% of the North Atlantic right whale population have indications of at least one entanglement in fishing gear (Knowlton et al. 2012). Determining mitigation measures to decrease North Atlantic right whale entanglements is challenging (Knowlton et al. 2012) as North Atlantic right whale entanglement events are rarely directly observed (Weinrick 1999). The locations, in time and space, and the mechanics of fishing-gear entanglements remain largely unknown (Johnson et al. 2007). Unless gear can be attributable to a Canadian fisher, or the entanglement event is observed in Canadian waters, entanglement events cannot be assigned spatially, nor can the resulting statistics. Even if a whale is initially observed in Canadian waters with gear attached, it does not necessarily mean the whale was entangled in Canada, and vice versa for the USA. However, as USA fisheries continue to implement gear marking, it becomes easier to rule out entangling gear from the USA.

Recovery activities related to reducing entanglements include research to increase understanding of entanglement mechanisms, monitoring activities to identify when whales are present in areas and voluntary mitigation measures (Table 1). In the USA numerous mitigation measures have also been implemented both at the state and federal level (Table 3). The Canadian government, however, has yet to implement policies or regulations to reduce cetacean entanglements in fishing gear, including mitigation measures specifically for North Atlantic right whales.

The regulations that have been implemented in the USA to reduce large-whale interactions with commercial fisheries have aimed to reduce both lethal and non-lethal entanglements (Pace et al. 2014) mainly through gear modifications and select fishing closures (Table 3). Gear marking has also been implemented to gather information on the types and parts of gear involved in large-whale entanglements. Gear modifications include buoy line weak links, and net panel weak links with anchoring system, restriction of the number of buoy lines, and the implementation of broad-based sinking groundlines (Table 3). Weak links are hypothesized to increase the likelihood of self-disentanglement and sinking groundlines are hypothesized to reduce the probability of entanglement, but this has yet to be confirmed through quantitative analysis. Mandatory spatiotemporal closures have also been implemented in the USA, both in critical habitats and dynamic areas around observed aggregations of North Atlantic right whales. These fishing closures may reduce the threat of North Atlantic right whale fishing-gear entanglements. However, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of these closures due to a paucity of information regarding compliance.

There is one example of fishery exclusion in Canadian waters to reduce the entanglement risk of North Atlantic right whales. An exploratory whelk fishery was excluded from Roseway Basin to ensure trap gear did not entangle North Atlantic right whales in this critical habitat (DFO 2016b).

In Canada, two studies have been undertaken to evaluate the risk to North Atlantic right whales from fishing gear entanglements (Vanderlaan et al. 2011, Brillant et al. 2017). Both studies identify possible spatiotemporal closure as an efficient measure to reduce the probability of North Atlantic right whale fishing-gear entanglements. Brillant et al. (2017) estimated that a 30% reduction in encounter probability between North Atlantic right whales and fishing gear would prevent the death of two North Atlantic right whales every three years and as many as 32 fewer entanglements annually. These studies have not yet been used to inform policy or to implement mitigation or recovery activities to reduce the risk of lethal fishing gear entanglements of North Atlantic right whales. A third study is underway to identify additional priority areas on which to focus efforts for reducing North Atlantic right whale entanglements. DFO will examine the potential risk of lethal entanglements to North Atlantic right whales on the Scotia Shelf using Species Distributions Models (Gomez et al. 2017) to predict North Atlantic right whale suitable habitat and areas of co-occurrence with fishing activities.

Brillant and Trippel (2010) examined contemporary trap settings used by lobster fishery in the Bay of Fundy and suggested that groundlines may not contribute to the entangling factor of the gear due to the groundlines remaining below three meters; which is the hypothesized elevation that could entangle North Atlantic right whales. Validation of these results is required to verify the hypothesized elevation for entanglement, and to ensure that groundline elevation is consistently low across fishers (only two captains were included in the study), the amount of gear deployed, location, and season.

Voluntary standard practices have been established for the Scotia-Fundy Fixed Gear groundfish fishery as well as the lobster fishery in Lobster Fishing Areas (LFAs) 33, 34 (southwest Nova Scotia) and 41 (offshore area). The standard practices provide guidelines for the maximum lengths of endlines, trail/ground lines, and gangions, the use of sinking or neutrally buoyant lines, as well as best operating practices, such as avoiding setting and retrieving gear when whales are present in the area and reporting protocols if an entangled whale is observed. Although these guidelines have been established, there is currently no measure of their effectiveness in reducing the risk of a fishing-gear entanglement. Furthermore, there is no measure of compliance with recommended procedures. It is therefore unknown if these voluntary standard practices are actually implemented or effective.

The Grand Manan Fisherman's Association that operates in the Bay of Fundy (LFAs 36, 37, and 38), in partnership with DFO, conducts aerial surveys at the beginning of the lobster season in early November and fishers are instructed not to deploy or haul gear in the presence of North Atlantic right whales. These surveys have been operational since 2006 and can result in the delay of the fishing season. These data have not been examined to assess whether North Atlantic right whale presence continues into the start of the lobster fishing season and warrants further mitigation. 

The Grand Manan Whale and Seabird Research Station (GMWSRS) in collaboration with local fishers has developed a herring weir release manual to help weir operators release marine mammals, including North Atlantic right whales, with minimal damage to both the gear and the mammals. This recovery activity would be effective in reducing injury and mortalities to right whales entrapped in fishing weirs.

In Atlantic Canada, Quebec, and in the USA, regional response networks are in place to respond to marine mammals that are dead or in distress. These networks provide 24-hour hotlines, coordinate response among multiple partners, and their contact information is widely distributed to fishers and coastal communities. DFO's national Marine Mammal Response Program (MMRP) supports responses to marine-mammal incidents, including North Atlantic right whales entangled in fishing gear. This program also provides training for Conservation and Protection (C&P) Officers and provides resources and equipment in support of incident response in Atlantic Canada. C&P officers also conduct aerial surveys to verify North Atlantic right whale sightings and respond to reports of entangled or stranded whales. The Campobello Whale Rescue Team, a group of volunteers, is on call to lead disentanglement efforts in Bay of Fundy and have responded to over 20 cases of whales in distress. The Marine Animal Response Society (MARS) is a charitable organisation dedicated to the conservation of marine animals and also responds to whales in distress throughout the Maritime Provinces. In Quebec, the Marine Mammal Emergency Response Network, which includes representatives from DFO, Parks Canada, and several non-government organizations, also responds to whales in distress throughout the Estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence.

DFO and various non-government agencies, including World Wildlife Fund Canada (WWF), CWI, the Canadian Wildlife Federation (CWF), and GMWSRS continue to work with the fishing industry and coastal communities to educate people and provide information regarding species at risk, including the North Atlantic right whale, the threats they face and information on preventing fishing-gear entanglements as well as what to do if a whale is in distress or dead. However, marine education programs were deemed ineffective at reducing vessel strikes due to visibility constraints and the ability and/or willingness of mariners to follow precautionary advice (IMO 1999). It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of these indirect programs in reducing the threat of fishing gear.

There are two primary ways to directly reduce the risk and threat of fishing-gear entanglements to whales: 1) reduce the probability of a whale becoming entangled in the gear; and 2) reduce the probability of lethality, injury, or decreased fitness when an entanglement does occur. To reduce the probability of a whale becoming entangled in gear, i.e., preventing an entanglement, the amount of gear in the water at times and in areas where the whales are present must be decreased. This could be achieved through spatiotemporal-fishing closures, or ropeless fishing. To decrease the probability of lethality or injury, the breaking strength of ropes should be decreased to allow for whales to self-disentangle or for easier disentanglement by teams trying to free a whale from gear.

The North Atlantic right whale proposed Action Plan (DFO 2016a) focusses on fishery interactions; however, it does not "prescribe specific type of mitigation measures (voluntary or regulatory) needed to reduce the risk of entanglements". It does identify that specific future mitigation measures will rely on several other activities listed in the Action Plan, including conducting spatial analyses of entanglement risk associated with fishing gear. A total of 22 recovery activities are identified in the Action Plan, only three of which can directly reduce North Atlantic right whale entanglements (Table 4). Many of the activities are essential for informing potential policies, and thus indirectly contribute to North Atlantic right whale recovery. As the recovery activities listed in the Action Plan are broad in scope and mainly make indirect contributions to recovery, it is not possible at this time to assess the effectiveness of the proposed recovery activities.

Assessing the effectiveness of individual mitigation activities aimed at reducing the risk of entanglement to North Atlantic right whales from fishing gear is not possible. However, when examining the North Atlantic right whale population and interactions with fishing gear, it becomes clear that the measures implemented thus far have been ineffective at reducing the number of North Atlantic right whale entanglements. Between 2009 and 2013 an annual average of 4.3 North Atlantic right whales were killed by human activities, in both Canada and the USA, a level much higher than the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) ^{Footnote 5} level of one North Atlantic right whale (Waring et al. 2016). Of 24 records of mortality and serious injury from 2009 through 2013 (both from USA and Canada) 18 were attributable to fishing-gear entanglements (Waring et al. 2016). The average proportion of North Atlantic right whales with newly detected scars each year attributable to fishing gear has not significantly increased over the period of 1980 through 2009; however, a significant increase in the number of serious entanglements (deep wounds or whales carrying gear) over the same period was documented (Knowlton et al. 2012). Furthermore, there was a significant increase in the number of whales carrying gear that was attributed to an increasing difficulty for the whales to free themselves completely of gear (Knowlton et al. 2012). No reduction of serious or lethal entanglements of large whales, including the North Atlantic right whales, has been observed since North Atlantic right whales were listed as endangered in 2005 under SARA (Knowlton et al. 2012; van der Hoop et al. 2013; Pace et al. 2014).

Disentanglement response continues to be an option to reduce the risk of lethal fishing-gear entanglements until effective preventative measures are developed and implemented (Moore et al. 2013). However, several factors contribute to limiting the effectiveness of disentanglement in reducing serious injury and harm to entangled animals. The time between an entanglement occurring and the first observation of the entangled whale is typically unknown and further delays for disentanglement response may be caused by the location of the entangled whale, relaying the information to the proper authorities, and the disentanglement team finding the whale again. The location of the disentanglement team and the weather will also contribute to the amount of time a North Atlantic right whale is entangled. While entangled, a North Atlantic right whale has increased drag on its body because of the attached gear (van der Hoop et al. 2013) that will slowly reduce energy stores as they require ~2.2 Í1010 J more energy to swim and feed (van der Hoop et al. 2016). Furthermore, the most common point of attachment in North Atlantic right whales is the head region (Johnson et al. 2005), where the entangling rope often disrupts the baleen resulting in reduced feeding efficiency (Moore and van der Hoop 2012). The energy required to overcome the drag of the gear and the possibility for decreased feeding efficiency significantly contributes to the emaciation that is commonly seen with chronic entanglements (Cassoff et al. 2011). Lacerations and resulting infections are another cause of death in entangled whales as they can have severe tissue and bone damage (Moore and van der Hoop 2012). The length of the time whales are entangled can be years (Moore et al. 2013) and on average it can take six months for an entangled whale to die (Moore et al. 2006). Even if the disentanglement team locates the entangled whale and attempts disentanglement, there is a low probability of success. In a study of 53 North Atlantic right whale entanglements between 1995 and 2008 only 40% of the cases resulted in successful disentanglement (Robbins et al. 2015). Furthermore, sub-lethal entanglements can contribute to declining health and reproductive failure long after the whale is disentangled (Rolland et al. 2016; van der Hoop et al. 2016, 2017). The effectiveness of disentanglement efforts for reducing the threat of entanglement is thus limited. To ensure a healthy population of North Atlantic right whales, entanglement events should be prevented rather than relying on reacting to observed entangled whales and attempting disentanglements as the primary means of reducing the threat. Prevention rather than reaction is required for North Atlantic right whale recovery.

6.3. Disturbance and Habitat Reduction or Degradation

Disturbance and habitat reduction and/or degradation have been identified as a threat to North Atlantic right whales in the Recovery Strategy (DFO 2014). Contaminants, acoustic disturbance, vessel presence, and changes in food supply, have been identified as the main contributors to disturbance and habitat reduction or degradation. The effects of various types of degradation could be instantaneous or cumulative, or both, and it is extremely difficult, and in some cases not possible, to document these effects using empirical data.

Mortalities due to human activities are well documented (e.g., Moore et al. 2004; Cassoff et al. 2011, van der Hoop et al. 2013); however, attributing sub-lethal effects of disturbance to anthropogenic activities is much more difficult (Rolland et al. 2016). It is also challenging to distinguish and quantify the relative impact of different factors, both natural and anthropogenic, on the health and vital rates of North Atlantic right whales (Kraus and Rolland 2007). As it is difficult to measure the response of the population or of individuals to the impacts of habitat loss, pollutants, acoustic disturbance, or climate change (Kraus and Rolland 2007), measuring the effectiveness of recovery activities addressing disturbance and habitat degradation (Sections 6.3.1-6.3.4) will be extremely difficult.

Contaminants, acoustic disturbance, vessel presence, and changes in food supply, are unlikely to result directly in the death of individuals although these threats have implications for the health of North Atlantic right whales. North Atlantic right whale health can be considered to assess the effectiveness of recovery activities that address these threats and indicate that the recovery activities listed below have not been effective, acknowledging that sub-lethal vessel strikes and fishing-gear entanglements will also affect the health of an individual. The annual average estimated health scores of all demographic groups in the population has declined over the period 1980 through 2008 (Rolland et al. 2016), although it was not determined if this observed decline was statistically significant.

6.3.1. Contaminants

Compared to all other wildlife worldwide, marine mammals are subject to the highest levels of environmental contaminants, some of which may suppress their immune function (Desforges et al. 2016). Contaminants and pollutants have been measured in North Atlantic right whales; however, the effects are generally unknown and causal links between health and reproduction have not been identified (Kraus and Rolland 2007). There have been a few studies on North Atlantic right whales and organochlorine and metal contaminants (Woodley et al. 1991; O'Shea et al. 1994; Montie et al. 2010). O'Shea et al. (1994) concluded that there was no definite basis for concluding that pollutants reviewed affected baleen whale populations, and research and management priorities should focus on reducing anthropogenic mortalities. Prohibition and/or reductions of some contaminants have been implemented under programs unrelated to Species at Risk species including the Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2012 (Canada Gazette 2016), Products Containing Mercury Regulations (Canada Gazette 2014), and PCB Regulations, 2008. Further reductions in contaminants will be achieved as owners and operators of wastewater systems that are subject to the Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations (which entered into force June 2012) comply with the effluent quality standards indicative of secondary wastewater treatment. Internationally, the Government of Canada has been working with other countries under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and the Minamata Convention on Mercury to minimize exposure to contaminants from foreign sources.

North Atlantic right whales are also exposed to naturally occurring toxins such as paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) toxins. In the Bay of Fundy PSP toxins have been found in North Atlantic right whale feces and could have sub-lethal health effects on individuals (Doucette et al. 2006).

6.3.2. Acoustic Disturbance

Acoustic disturbance is generally attributable to two types of anthropogenic noise: impulsive sounds such as seismic airgun operations and military sonar (noise with high peak sound pressure, short duration, fast-rise time, and broad-frequency content); and non-impulsive (i.e., steady-state) noise, such as that produced during shipping activities (NMFS 2016). Both seismic operations and shipping activities produce sounds that have been shown to interfere with normal activities and movements of cetaceans (Richardson et al. 1995).

There has been little progress in directly addressing anthropogenic noise threats to North Atlantic right whales in Canadian waters. The changes in vessel traffic due to recovery activities focused on reducing vessel strikes in the Bay of Fundy and Roseway Basin regions may have reduced noise in North Atlantic right whale critical habitat, but this has not been studied or quantified. Some passive acoustic monitoring studies that measure baseline noise levels within the distributional range of North Atlantic right whales are currently underway. DFO, JASCO Applied Sciences, and other organizations are collecting data and characterising the soundscape, including natural and ambient noise levels, throughout Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the St. Lawrence estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence waters. Some, but relatively limited monitoring of noise levels in and around identified critical habitats has occurred.

The recovery activities outlined in the Progress Report related to acoustic disturbance focus on reviews of environmental assessments of oil and gas exploration and seismic exploration programs (DFO 2016b). DFO completed a review of the mitigation and monitoring measures used for seismic airgun activities in and near the habitat of cetacean species at risk, identifying enhanced and additional mitigation measures that should be implemented for Species at Risk (DFO 2014b).

The Recovery Strategy identified shipping noise as a threat to North Atlantic right whales; however, it does not propose mitigation measures from this disturbance. Rolland et al. (2012) demonstrated that a 6 dB reduction in background noise (50Hz – 20 kHz) in the Bay of Fundy was associated with a reduction in the hormones associated with stress in North Atlantic right whales. Little effort has been made to monitor sound levels associated with shipping noise within North Atlantic right whale critical habitat even though the outbound lane of the Bay of Fundy TSS intersects the critical habitat (Figure 2). Not only are large vessels required to transit through the TSS, but transit at a higher speed compared to the inbound lane of the TSS (Vanderlaan et al. 2008) making the critical habitat for North Atlantic right whales a potentially noisy area. On Stellwagen Bank, an area also intersected by the Boston TSS, Hatch et al. (2012) estimated at 63-67% loss in North Atlantic right whale communication space due to vessel noise. Clark et al. (2009) postulated that North Atlantic right whales are particularly vulnerable to communication masking as a result of chronic noise from vessel traffic. Vessel noise could be increasing stress levels in North Atlantic right whales, masking their "contact calls", and decreasing their communication space. 

On Roseway Basin the majority of vessels transit around North Atlantic right whale critical habitat, as the critical habitat has the same boundaries as the IMO-adopted ATBA. However, non-compliant vessels still transit through the critical habitat possibly leading to acoustic and vessel-presence disturbance. Vessel noise can travel great distances and even vessels transiting near but not within Grand Manan and Roseway Basins can potentially impact the acoustic environment within these critical habitat areas. In the Recovery Strategy, acoustic disturbance has been identified as having the potential to result in destruction of North Atlantic right whale critical habitat (DFO 2014) and it is not known if the level of noise generated by vessels transiting in or near the TSS or ATBA could be considered destruction of North Atlantic right whale critical habitat.

One study monitored noise levels in the Bay of Fundy to compare among other North Atlantic right whale critical habitats (Parks et al. 2009). Parks et al. (2009) determined that the Bay of Fundy was the loudest of the three areas studied that also included Cape Cod Bay and the southern calving ground off the coast of Georgia. This research has not continued, therefore it is not possible to determine if noise has changed in the Bay of Fundy critical habitat. Further studies are required to monitor this threat and determine if noise is increasing, decreasing, or remaining constant. One option to monitor noise, both contemporary levels and historic levels, could be to use vessel presence and the number and type vessels as a proxy for noise levels, ensuring to explicitly state the caveats and assumptions associated with using these data. Vessel data are available to monitor the number and type of vessels in coastal areas, some starting as early as 2007, through DFO's Canadian Coast Guard terrestrial network of AIS receivers and the Taggart Lab (Dalhousie Oceanography) AIS network.

6.3.3. Vessel-presence disturbance

Vessel-presence disturbance has been identified as a threat in the Recovery Strategy; however, there is no performance indicator associated with vessel-presence disturbance (Appendix C, Table C3). The potential harmful effects of vessel-presence disturbance are unknown and this threat represents a large knowledge gap. Further research is needed to determine the effects on the health and survival of North Atlantic right whales attributable to vessel-presence disturbance to inform the design of effective threat-based recovery activities. As no measures are in place to reduce the unknown effects of this threat, effectiveness of the Recovery Strategy relating to vessel-presence disturbance cannot be evaluated.

6.3.4. Changes in Food Supply

North Atlantic right whale occupancy in critical habitats has been linked to food supply (Patrican & Kenney 2010; Davies et al. 2015a). Adequate food resources are directly connected to fitness of individuals and the viability of the North Atlantic right whale population (Schick et al. 2013; Rolland et al. 2016) and there is some evidence that nutritional stress may be limiting recovery (Greene and Pershing 2004; Fortune et al. 2013). Changes in food supply have been identified as a threat to North Atlantic right whales and prey removal from identified critical habitats has the potential to result in the destruction of critical habitat (DFO 2014). Changes in food supply that threaten North Atlantic right whales include decreases in food availability and condition (i.e., nutritional value) and shifts in distribution, especially shifts that move food supplies outside of critical habitats that offer some protection to North Atlantic right whales from other threats. Several studies are completed or underway to examine the factors affecting Calanus distribution (e.g., Michaud and Taggart 2007, 2011; Davies et al. 2015b; Albouy-Boyer et al. 2016). At this time, there is no fishery for Calanus and therefore no competition for this food resource other than other marine animals that also prey on copepods. As such, little is being done to address this threat other than research that examines the variation in distribution and abundance of Calanus.

As critical habitat for this species was originally defined as "areas that possess the environmental, oceanographic and bathymetric conditions that aggregate concentrations of right whale prey, especially stage-C5 Calanus finmarchicus copepodites, at interannually predictable locations" (Brown et al. 2009), activities around critical habitat are discussed here. Critical habitat has been defined in both Canada (DFO 2014) and the USA. USA recently identified the Gulf of Maine as critical habitat that includes the previously defined critical habitat in Cape Cod Bay and in the Great South Channel. The Southern calving ground was also expanded to include all coastal waters of Georgia, South Carolina, and part of North Carolina; increasing the identified critical habitat area by ~5-fold, from 1,611 nm2 to 8429 nm2 (NOAA 2016b). In the Recovery Strategy, the Roseway Basin critical habitat was identified as possibly requiring refinement of the geospatial boundaries pending further research and scientific review. Davies et al. (2014) proposed that the critical habitat should be expanded based on oceanographic and bathymetric conditions that support the aggregation of copepods at depth. Refinement of currently identified critical habitat, and identification of new critical habitat in areas being more frequently used by right whales, could provide further protection of North Atlantic right whales.

7. Indirect Recovery Activities: Monitoring and Stewardship

Through research and monitoring efforts many recovery activities under Objectives 4-7 are being addressed (Table 1). When counting the number of activities that have been completed or are underway listed in the Progress Report (DFO 2016b) that apply to each objective, it becomes evident that most activities thus far focus on Objectives 4-7, with each of these objectives having at least double the number of activities as compared with Objectives 1-3 (Appendix C, Table C1). Similarly, when examining the performance indicators in the Recovery Strategy, only the first nine performance indicators address Objectives 1-3, and these have a lower number of activities associated with them when compared to the other 11 performance indicators that address Objectives 4-7 (Appendix C, Table C2).

As previously discussed, this is a threat-based assessment of the effectiveness of recovery activities that have been implemented to directly reduce threats North Atlantic right whales. As Objectives 4-7 are not directly associated with identified threats, they will not be evaluated here for their effectiveness on North Atlantic right whale recovery. However, it is important to recognize that many of the activities listed under Objectives 4-7 may indirectly affect the effectiveness of, and are important for informing, threat-based recovery activities. For example, without research and monitoring of the population to increase knowledge of their abundance, distribution, seasonal occurrence and habitat use (such as surveys undertaken by the New England Aquarium, NOAA, CWI, DFO, Dalhousie University, and others), it would be difficult to implement effective spatiotemporal threat-based recovery activities, such as the amendment to the Bay of Fundy TSS and the Roseway Basin ATBA. The science justification for many of these measures relied on data generated through activities that support Objectives 4-7. As well, some of the stewardship activities listed under Objectives 4-7 are needed to promote and encourage the continuing success of implemented recovery activities. Furthermore, many research and monitoring activities, particularly those related to monitoring population health, abundance and trends, are required to evaluate the effectiveness of any threat-based recovery activities implemented, as has been evidenced in the previous section of this review. It is imperative to better identify the high priority activities within Objectives 4-7 that have a direct impact on the implementation of management measures to ensure that they are supported.

8. Threat-Based Recommendations

The following sections present recommendations about the most effective (and thus high priority) recovery activities to reduce threats to North Atlantic right whales and reduce risks to the population, based on this review that was made under a limited time frame and a limited review process. These recommendations should therefore be considered with these caveats in mind, noting that it is possible that with a more extensive scientific review process, different recovery activities might be recommended.

There is considerable evidence that vessel strikes and fishing-gear entanglements are the primary and immediate concerns for North Atlantic right whale recovery as they are the leading cause of documented human-induced deaths (van der Hoop et al. 2013), are known to cause serious injury and harm, and consequently have resulted in population-level impacts as the PBR has been exceeded every year except one between 1995 through 2009 (van der Hoop 2013) There is less evidence of direct impacts on North Atlantic right whale recovery from disturbance and habitat degradation threats, largely due to the difficulty in assessing the likely sub-lethal impacts from these threats on individuals and populations. The extent and severity that the negative effects of threats related to disturbance and habitat degradation have on health and long-term survival represent a knowledge gap for cetaceans in general.

In most cases, the most effective recovery activity would be to remove the threat from areas where North Atlantic right whales are present - i.e., spatiotemporal avoidance (Table 4). To accomplish this we need to know (1) where the North Atlantic right whales are in space and time; (2) where the threat is in space and time; and (3) areas, in space and time, where the two intersect. Much of the work to assess the risk of vessel strikes and fisheries interactions within identified North Atlantic right whale critical habitat in Canadian waters has been completed, and has demonstrated that removing these activities from the critical habitats will reduce the risk of lethal vessel strikes and fisheries interactions (Vanderlaan et al. 2008, Vanderlaan and Taggart 2009, Vanderlaan et al. 2011). Given that the identified critical habitat supports important life functions for North Atlantic right whales and represents areas where the majority of right-whale sightings in Canadian waters have occurred, little additional research is needed to support that implementing spatiotemporal-avoidance measures in these areas will reduce the risk to the population. Spatiotemporal-avoidance measures should also be considered for other North Atlantic right whale high-use areas (for example, potentially in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence); however, further work is required to define these other areas. Considerable research is required to explain the variation in North Atlantic right whale movements and residency patterns, thus continued studies focusing on distribution and habitat use are a high priority to support implementation of effective spatiotemporal-avoidance measures.

The following sections provide a more detailed description of spatiotemporal-avoidance measures and other recovery activities that must be undertaken to reduce the threats of vessel strikes, fishing-gear entanglements, and disturbance and habitat destruction for North Atlantic right whales, as well as research and monitoring activities required for implementing the measures and assessing their effectiveness. Table 5 presents a summary of the recommended recovery activities, including anticipated effectiveness from implementing such measures towards reducing risk and the estimated timelines for conducting the scientific research required to support successful implementation of the measures.

8.1. Vessel Strikes

 Several successful recovery activities have been implemented to reduce the risk of vessel strikes to North Atlantic right whales in both Canada and the USA, and a significant decrease in number of observed deaths of North Atlantic right whales attributable to vessel strikes has been documented. However the risk of lethal vessel strikes to North Atlantic right whales has not been eradicated. This threat still exists and does cause mortalities and serious injuries. Further measures could be implemented in Canada to reduce the risk of lethal vessel strikes, especially in identified critical habitats as well as in new areas where aggregations of North Atlantic right whales are being observed (e.g., the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

Although the 2003 modification to the Bay of Fundy TSS has reduced the risk of lethal vessel strikes, the amended TSS still intersects North Atlantic right whale critical habitat and not only puts North Atlantic right whales at risk of lethal vessel strikes but also exposes them to acoustic and vessel-presence disturbance. This has the potential to destroy critical habitat (DFO 2014) which is prohibited under the SARA. The TSS could be amended to further remove vessel transits from the critical habitat, also reducing vessel-presence disturbances and potentially vessel noise levels in the critical habitat.

The Roseway Basin critical habitat has the same boundaries as the recommendatory ATBA that was implemented to reduce the risk of lethal vessel strikes. The ATBA is a voluntary measure and the compliance with this recovery activity must continue to ensure sustained effectiveness. Compliance appears to be decreasing in 2016 (Vanderlaan and Taggart, unpublished data), and this suggests that further outreach to mariners must be conducted to ensure awareness of the ATBA and the IMO recommendations.

Vessels should also be removed from other North Atlantic right whale high-use areas. These may include relatively newly described aggregation areas such as those observed off the coast of the Gaspé Peninsula in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Again, reducing the number of vessels in North Atlantic right whale high-use areas also decreases potential vessel-presence and acoustic disturbances. This recovery activity would require further research to find and define other North Atlantic right whale high-use areas.

In addition to spatiotemporal-avoidance measures, speed restrictions in the vicinity of critical habitats, in areas between the two identified critical habitats, and high-use areas when whales are present would also reduce the risk of lethal vessel strikes. North Atlantic right whales are highly mobile and although they tend to aggregate in specific areas, individuals are constantly on the move. By implementing a speed restriction, if a vessel were to strike a whale the probability of killing the whale is decreased (Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007). Speed restrictions could be implemented as SMAs, similar to the USA, or in response to real-time detections or observations during surveys.

8.2. Fishing-Gear Entanglements

Contrary to the observed relative success of reducing the threat of vessel strikes, the threat of fishing-gear entanglement continues to be an urgent concern for North Atlantic right whales. Thus far, Canada has had a reactionary approach to fishing-gear entanglements focusing on disentanglement effort performed by various non-government agencies. Few proposed recovery activities focus on entanglement prevention (e.g., spatiotemporal closures) and mitigation (e.g., decreased breaking strength in rope). Many knowledge gaps remain about fishing-gear entanglements, such as the mechanisms of entanglement, the level of threat associated with each type of line in fixed fishing gear (e.g., groundlines versus endlines), and the threat level associated with different fisheries. Nonetheless removing fishing activities from the Grand Manan and Roseway Basin critical habitats when the whales are present (i.e., spatiotemporal closures) would reduce the risk of lethal fishing-gear entanglements as demonstrated in previous studies (Vanderlaan et al. 2011; Brillant et al. 2017). These studies are based on historical fishing data and Vanderlaan et al. (2011) aggregated the fishing data across several years to capture the spatiotemporal variation in fixed fishing gear deployments. Fishing gear should also be removed from other high-use areas; however, this does require research to define the boundaries of these areas. Reducing the spatiotemporal co-occurrence of North Atlantic right whales and fishing gear would reduce the probability of a whale encountering gear and becoming entangled. This recovery activity would prevent entanglements from occurring thus there are no associated reductions in health due to increased drag on the whale or injuries as a result of an entanglement. Spatiotemporal-fishing closures also may have the added benefit of reducing other threats to the population such as acoustic disturbance and vessel-presence disturbance.

The USA Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) began in 1997 and NOAA and the USA fishing industry has implemented approximately 20 years of gear modifications implemented with little testing and little success in reducing fishing-gear entanglements. The failure of gear modifications as a recovery activity for North Atlantic right whales stems from the inability to effectively test proposed solutions prior to their deployment (Moore 2014). Knowlton et al. (2015) recently recommended decreasing the breaking strength of ropes to ≤ 7.56 kiloNewtons (≤ 1700 pound-force) to reduce the number of life-threatening entanglements. This modification could be developed and tested to determine the feasibility of using such rope in Canadian fisheries. Alternatively (or additionally), removing gear, specifically lines, from the water column would also decrease the threat of entanglements. Development and testing of ropeless gear, and its feasibility for use in a variety of Canadian fisheries, should also be considered. However, until gear modifications are developed, tested, and put into place, the immediate focus should be on keeping gear and whales separate in time and space (Moore 2014).

Disentanglement does not prevent entanglement, rather it is reactionary. Its effectiveness is limited due to challenges associated with disentangling North Atlantic right whales. Furthermore, even if disentangled, a whale could still suffer from long-term health effects from the entanglement. Despite these limitations, with such a small population where the death of two females each year can jeopardize recovery of the species (Fujiwara and Caswell 2001), every effort should be made to reduce the effects of fishing-gear entanglements on individual whales when they occur. Thus when North Atlantic right whales become entangled in fishing gear, disentanglement efforts should be a priority. Gear retrieval and protocols for storing and examining gear should also be a priority as this provides further insights into the types of gear and the identity of fisheries causing entanglements.

Gear marking and gear reporting, though not preventative recovery activities, should be implemented to increase the probability of identifying the source of the gear involved in entanglements (e.g., endlines versus groundlines and specific fishery). Gear reporting (including when, where, and how much gear is being set) should be a requirement for industry as detailed location data allow for more accurate risk estimation and the development of recovery activities. Locational data are generally spatially aggregated for these types of analyses and unique identifiers are not used (Vanderlaan et al. 2011, Brillant et al. 2017). Data should be standardised across all regions within DFO and for appropriate analyses specific latitudes and longitudes are required rather than low resolution reporting polygons. Detailed information on vessel location and speed was necessary to mitigate the threat of vessel strikes in North Atlantic right whale critical habitats and mitigation would not have been possible without these data. Similarly, detailed information on fishing activities are required to develop effective mitigation to reduce risk of entanglement to North Atlantic right whales.

8.3. Disturbance and Habitat Reduction or Degradation

There is a lack of information that exists about the threats from disturbance and habitat reduction or degradation. While the direct effects of these threats on individual North Atlantic right whale health and population dynamics are generally unknown, recovery activities could be implemented to reduce potential impact on individuals and the population.

As previously noted, moving vessel traffic and fishing activities outside identified critical habitat and high-use areas would decrease vessel-presence disturbance and acoustic disturbance. Reducing vessel speed could also potentially reduce the noise from container ship (McKenna et al. 2013) and would also decrease the probability of a lethal injury if a vessel were to hit a whale (Vanderlaan and Taggart 2007). If speed restrictions were to be implemented to reduce acoustic disturbances, they would have to be balanced with the potential effects of increased disturbance due to prolonged vessel presence. Until more is known about which threat, acoustic disturbance or vessel-presence disturbance, is more harmful to North Atlantic right whales, it is challenging to design effective recovery activities to address these disturbances through speed restrictions.

Threat-based measures for directly reducing the impacts of contaminants cannot be recommended at this time due to existing knowledge gaps; therefore, research and monitoring are required to address this threat.

Changes in food supply could also be affecting the health of North Atlantic right whales and their distribution. Several studies are assessing variability in Calanus aggregations, distribution, condition, and have been trying to identify areas outside the critical habitat that could support North Atlantic right whale feeding aggregations. However, no threat-based measures for changes to food supply can be implemented at this time.

8.4. Required Research and Monitoring

For all of the recovery activities described above, population monitoring is required to determine if the measures have been effective in reducing the targeted threat. Population monitoring studies assess abundance, survivorship, and health of the animals. It is a high priority for such population monitoring studies to continue.

As well, monitoring scarring rates and injured or dead animals (necropsies) provides further insights into the causes of health declines and/or increases in mortalities. Documentation of all incidents involving North Atlantic right whales (and other cetacean species) should continue in support of tracking threats and learning more about how incidents occur. Data on marine mammal incidents are currently scattered throughout different organizations making comprehensive analysis difficult – data collection of incidents should be standardized nationally and made available for analyses (DFO 2016c). Necropsies should be performed on dead North Atlantic right whales whenever safe for the necropsy team. Necropsies provide crucial information on threats and are the only method that has a high probability to make a specific determination of the cause of death (Campbell-Malone et al. 2008); including ruling out some causes. Necropsies also provide valuable statistics to scientists and agencies responsible for North Atlantic right whale protection and recovery. Data collected from North Atlantic right whale carcasses are the primary source of information on human-induced mortalities and is therefore essential for tracking causes of serious harm and mortality. Such data can also inform the development of future recovery activities. For example Vanderlaan and Taggart's (2007) study estimating the probability of a lethal injury to a large whale as a function of vessel speed at the time of collision was based on published reports documenting vessel strikes (e.g., Laist et al. 2001; Jensen and Silber 2003). This study was used, in part, to justify the 10 knot speed restriction in the USA and would not have been possible if necropsies were not done to determine the cause of death, and if the data were not amalgamated into a centralized database.

Managing human activities that threaten North Atlantic right whales requires knowledge of times and locations where the whales and the threats co-occur. Survey effort has generally focused on known seasonal aggregations of the North Atlantic right whales and only covers a fraction of their distribution (Brillant et al. 2015). Their movement patterns have implications for conservation patterns (Schick et al. 2009), especially as recovery activities, proposed and implemented, focus on critical habitats. Further research is required to detect, survey, and study North Atlantic right whales outside their traditional areas of occurrence. This research could identify high-use area and migratory pathways where further recovery activities should be implemented.

Rate of interactions in Canadian waters is a performance indicator for the threat of vessel strikes and fishing-gear entanglements in the Recovery Strategy. The data available for measuring fisheries interactions with large whales are frequently too limited to support strong, statistically-significant conclusions about the efficacy of recovery activities (Pace et al. 2014). This is often true in conservation biology and van der Hoop et al. (2014) attributed their inability to detect significant interactions in space and time following the implementation of speed restrictions in the USA, to low compliance; insufficient time and/or monitoring to examine effectiveness; or the SMAs being too short in duration and/or too small. A simulation study concluded that rates of detected mortalities attributable to fishing gear must be decreased by at least 50% to be able to detect a change within 10 years (Pace et al. 2014). Although the abatement of threat is listed as immediate in many of recovery activities proposed, it will take a much longer time period to be able to detect changes within the population. 

Monitoring and evaluating compliance are a crucial component of any conservation initiative (Stem et al. 2005). Monitoring allows for an accurate evaluation of the effectiveness of recovery activities, including determination of reasons (such as lack of compliance with mandatory and voluntary measures) why implemented recovery activities may be ineffective. For any recovery activity implemented, it is imperative that a monitoring plan is developed and implemented to determine compliance and effectiveness of the measure.

9. Conclusions

Since the Recovery Strategy was first published in 2009, the observed serious injuries and mortalities of North Atlantic right whales from fishing-gear entanglements appear to be increasing and may be overwhelming recovery efforts (Kraus et al. 2016). Between 1995 and 2009 the average per cent that the PBR (average PBR/year 0.1±0.2 standard deviation) was exceeded by human-induced mortalities per year (3.1±0.5 standard deviation) was 650 (± 379 standard deviation; van der Hoop et al. 2013). Two out of the three population assessment methods used for North Atlantic right whales demonstrate a decline in North Atlantic right whale abundance (Kraus et al. 2016 and references therein), therefore threats to the species collectively have not been sufficiently reduced to allow for continued population growth and the interim recovery goal stated in the Recovery Strategy is not being achieved.

In the Recovery Strategy (DFO 2014), Objectives 1-3 address mortalities, serious injuries, and the health of individual North Atlantic right whales in the population through directly addressing identified threats to the population (Table 1). While important and informative, Objectives 4-7 do not directly reduce threats to individuals in the population, rather they describe approaches that are needed to address the identified threats and thus support the first three objectives. The Progress Report (DFO 2016b) highlights that, to date, the majority of the effort on North Atlantic right whale recovery focuses on Objectives 4-7 rather than direct threat based measures of Objectives 1-3. This highlights the need to refocus recovery efforts to reducing the identified threats to North Atlantic right whales.

The proposed Action Plan is timely and focuses exclusively on fishing-gear entanglements as the majority of recent mortalities and serious injuries have been attributed to this threat. However, this Action Plan does not recommend recovery activities that would remove gear for entanglement prevention and thus reduce the risk of a lethal entanglement. To ensure a healthy population of North Atlantic right whales, the focus should be on preventing entanglement events rather than relying on gear modification and disentanglement efforts. The simplest, most direct and practical means of reducing risk to the North Atlantic right whales would be to remove fishing activities within critical habitats (i.e., spatiotemporal closures; Table 5, Vanderlaan et al. 2011, Brillant et al. 2017). Furthermore, the Action Plan only address one of the identified threats to North Atlantic right whales and further action plans should be developed to address the remaining and any new emerging threats.

Twice members of the scientific community have published reports declaring there is an urgent need for immediate management intervention to reduce human-induced mortalities of North Atlantic right whales (Kraus et al. 2005, 2016). Kraus et al. (2005) address threats from vessel strike and fishing gear, while Kraus et al. (2016) address the threat of fishing gear (Kraus et al. 2016). With only limited recovery of the population over the past several decades and recent declines observed in population health and growth (Kraus et. al. 2016; Rolland et al. 2016; Pace 2016), implementation of recovery activities that will reduce threats to North Atlantic right whales in the short-term is imperative for the long-term survival of this endangered species.

10. Literature Cited

Aguilar, A. 1986. A review of old Basque whaling and its effect on the right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) of the North Atlantic. Report of the International Whaling Commission (10): 191-199.

Albouy-Boyer, S., Plourde, S., Pepin, P., Johnson, C.L., Lehoux, C., Galbraith, P.S., Hebert, D., Lazin, G. and Lafleur, C. 2016. Habitat modelling of key copepod species in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean based on the Atlantic Zone Monitoring Program. J. Plankton Res. 38(3): 589-603.

Baumgartner, M.F., C.A. Mayo, and Kenney, R.D. 2007. Enormous carnivores, microscopic food, and a restaurant that's hard to find, p. 138-171. In S. D. Kraus and R. Rolland [eds.], The urban whale: North Atlantic right whales at the crossroads. Harvard University Press.

Best, P.B., 1990. Trends in the inshore right whale population off South Africa, 1969–1987. Mar. Mam. Sci. 6(2): 93-108.

Brillant, S.W., and Trippel, E.A. 2010. Elevations of lobster fishery groundlines in relation to their potential to entangle endangered North Atlantic right whales in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 67: 355–364.

Brillant, S.W., Vanderlaan, A.S.M., Rangeley, R.W. and Taggart, C.T. 2015. Quantitative estimates of the movement and distribution of North Atlantic right whales along the northeast coast of North America. Endanger. Species Res.27(2): 141-154.

Brillant, S.W., Wimmer, T., Rangeley, R.W. and Taggart, C.T., 2017. A timely opportunity to protect North Atlantic right whales in Canada. Mar. Policy. 81:160-166.

Brown, M. W., Allen, J.M., and Kraus, S.D. 1995. The designation of seasonal Right Whale conservation areas in the waters of Atlantic Canada, p. 90-98. In Shackell N.L. and J.H.M. Willison [eds.], Science and Management of Marine Protected Areas Association.

Brown, M.W., Fenton, D., Smedbol, K., Merriman, C., Robichaud-Leblanc, K., and Conway, J.D. 2009. Recovery Strategy for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in Atlantic Canadian Waters [Final]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. vi + 66p.

Campbell-Malone, R., Barco, S.G., Daoust, P.Y., Knowlton, A.R., McLellan, W.A., Rotstein, D.S., and Moore, M.J. 2008. Gross and Histologic evidence of sharp and blunt trauma in North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) killed by vessels. J. Zoo Wildlife Med. 39: 37-55.

Canada Gazetter (Part II). 2013. 147(1): pp. 2-240.

Cassoff, R.M., Moore, K.M., McLellan, W.A., Barco, S.G., Rotstein, D.S. and Moore, M.J. 2011. Lethal entanglement in baleen whales. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 96(3):175-185.

Caswell, H., Fujiwara, M. and Brault, S. 1999. Declining survival probability threatens the North Atlantic right whale. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. 96(6): 3308-3313.

Clapham, P.J., Young, S.B. and Brownell, R.L. 1999. Baleen whales: conservation issues and the status of the most endangered populations. Mammal Rev. 29(1): 37-62.

Clark, C.W., Ellison, W.T., Southall, B.L., Hatch, L., Van Parijs, S.M., Frankel, A. and Ponirakis, D., 2009. Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 395: 201-222.

Cole, T.V., Hamilton, P., Henry, A.G., Duley, P., Pace III, R.M., White, B.N. and Frasier, T. 2013. Evidence of a North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis mating ground. Endanger. Species Res, 21(1):55-64.

Cooke, J.G., Rowntree, V.J. and Payne, R., 2001. Estimates of demographic parameters for southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) observed off Península Valdés, Argentina. J. Cetacean. Res. Manag. 2(Spec. Issue): 125-132.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2003. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa vii+28 pp.

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2013. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa xi+58 pp.

Davies, K.T., Taggart, C.T. and Smedbol, R.K. 2014. Water mass structure defines the diapausing copepod distribution in a right whale habitat on the Scotian Shelf. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.497: 69-85.

Davies, K.T.A., Ross, T., and Taggart, C.T. 2013. Tidal and sub-tidal current influence on deep copepod aggregations along a shelf-basin margin. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 479: 263-282.

Davies, K.T.A., Vanderlaan, A.S.M., Smedbol, R.K., Taggart, C.T. 2015a. Oceanographic connectivity between North Atlantic right whale critical habitats in Canada and its influence on whale abundance indices during 1987–2009. J. Mar. Syst. 150:80-90.

Davies, K.T.A., Taggart, C.T., and Smedbol, R.K. 2015b. Interannual variation in diapausing copepods and associated water masses in a continental shelf basin, and implications for copepod buoyancy. J. Mar. Syst. 151:35-46.

Desforges, J.P.W., Sonne, C., Levin, M., Siebert, U., De Guise, S. and Dietz, R., 2016. Immunotoxic effects of environmental pollutants in marine mammals. Environ. Int. 86: 126-139.

DFO. 2013. Marine species identification guide common to the Bay of Fundy and Scotian shelf region. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Maritimes Region. 2 pp. ISBN 978-1-100-22452-7 .

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2014. Recovery Strategy for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in Atlantic Canadian Waters [Final]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. vii + 68 pp.

DFO(Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2015. Review of Mitigation and Monitoring Measures for Seismic Survey Activities in and near the Habitat of Cetacean Species at Risk. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2015/005.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2016a. Action Plan for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in Canada: Fishery Interactions [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. v + 35 pp.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2016b. Report on the Progress of Recovery Strategy Implementation for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in Canadian Waters for the Period 2009-2014. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. iii + 48 pp.

Doucette, G.J., Cembella, A.D., Martin, J.L., Michaud, J., Cole, T.V.N. and Rolland, R.M. 2006. Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) toxins in North Atlantic right whales Eubalaena glacialis and their zooplankton prey in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 306: 303-313.

Duff, J., Dean, H., Gazit, T., Taggart, C.T., and Cavanagh, J.H. 2013. On the right way to right whale protections in the Gulf of Maine – Case study. J. Int. Wildl. Law. Policy. 16:229-265

Fisheries Act (R.S. 1985, c.F-14) (Canada)

Fonnesbeck, C.J., Garrison, L.P., Ward-Geiger, L.I. and Baumstark, R.D. 2008. Bayesian hierarchichal model for evaluating the risk of vessel strikes on North Atlantic right whales in the SE United States. Endanger. Species Res. 6(1):87-94.

Fujiwara, M. and Caswell, H. 2001. Demography of the endangered North Atlantic right whale. Nature. 414(6863: 537-541.

Gillett, R.M., Frasier, T.R., Rolland, R.M. and White, B.N. 2010. Molecular identification of individual North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) using free‐floating feces. Mar. Mam. Sci., 26(4): 917-936.

Gomez C., Lawson J., Kouwenberg A.L., Moors-Murphy H.B., Buren A., Fuentes-Yaco C., Marotte E., Wiersma Y.F., Wimmer T. 2017. Predicted distribution of whales at risk: identifying priority areas to enhance cetacean monitoring in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Accepted in Endanger. Species Res.

Government of Canada. 2016. Policy on Survival and Recovery [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act: Policies and Guidelines Series. Government of Canada, Ottawa. 8 pp.

Hatch, L.T., Clark, C.W., Van Parijs, S.M., Frankel, A.S. and Ponirakis, D.W., 2012. Quantifying loss of acoustic communication space for right whales in and around a US National Marine Sanctuary. Conserv. Biol. 26(6): 983-994.

Hazel, J., Lawler, I.R., Marsh, H., and Robson, S. 2007. Vessel speed increases collision risk for the green turtle Chelonia mydas. Endanger. Species Res.3: 105-113.

Hunt, K.E., Rolland, R.M., Kraus, S.D. and Wasser, S.K. 2006. Analysis of fecal glucocorticoids in the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 148(2): 260-272.

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 1999. Ship strikes of endangered North Atlantic right whales in the waters of eastern Canada. NAV 45/INF.3 IMO, London.

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2003. New and amended traffic separation schemes. REF T2/2.07, COLREG.2/Circ.52. IMO, London.

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2006a. New and amended traffic separation schemes. Ref T2-OSS/2.7.1, COLREG.2/Circ.58. IMO, London.

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2006b. Routing of ships, ship reporting and related matters. NAV 52/3 IMO, London

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2007. Routeing measures other than traffic separation schemes. Ref. T2-OSS/2.7, SN.a/Circ.263. IMO, London.

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2008a. Routeing measures other than traffic separation schemes. Ref. T2-OSS/2.7.1, SN.1/Circ.272, IMO, London.

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2008b. Routeing of ships, ship reporting, and related matters. Amendment to the Traffic Separation Scheme "In the Approach to Boston, Massachusetts". Ref. NAV 54/3/XX, IMO, London.

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2014. Guidelines for the reduction of underwater noise from commercial shipping to address adverse impacts on marine life. MEPC.1/Circ.833, IMO, London

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2008. Red list of threatened

species. IUCN Red List Unit, IUCN, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

IWC (International Whaling Commission). 2001. Report of the workshop on status and trends of western North Atlantic Right Whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. Special Issue 2: 61-87.

Jensen, A. S., and Silber, G.K. 2003. Large whale ship strike database. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration . Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-. 37 pp

Johnson, A. J., Kraus, S.D., Kenney, J.F., and Mayo, C.A. 2007. The entangled lives of right whales and fisherman: can they coexist?, p. 380-408. In S. D. Kraus and R. Rolland [eds.], The urban whale: North Atlantic right whales at the crossroads. Harvard University Press.

Johnson, A., Salvador, G., Kenney, J., Robbins, J., Kraus, S., Landry, S. and Clapham, P. 2005. Fishing gear involved in entanglements of right and humpback whales. Mar. Mam. Sci. 21(4): 635-645.

Kaplan, S. and Garrick, B.J. 1981. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal. 1: 11-27.

Kenney, R.D., 2001. Anomalous 1992 spring and summer right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) distributions in the Gulf of Maine. J. Cetacean. Res. Manag. 2(Spec. Issue): 209-223.

Knowlton, A. R. and Kraus, S.D. 2001. Mortality and serious injury of northern right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. J. Cetacean. Res. Manag. 2(Spec. Issue): 193-208.

Knowlton, A.R., Hamilton, P.K., Marx, M.K., Pettis, H.M. and Kraus, S.D. 2012. Monitoring North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis entanglement rates: a 30 yr retrospective. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 466: 293-302.

Knowlton, A.R., Kraus, S.D. and Kenney, R.D. 1994. Reproduction in North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Can. J. Zoo. 72(7): 1297-1305.

Knowlton, A.R., Robbins, J., Landry, S., McKenna, H.A., Kraus, S.D. and Werner, T. 2015. Effects of fishing rope strength on the severity of large whale entanglements. Conserv. Biol. 30(2): 318-328

Koopman, H.N., Westgate, A.J., Siders, Z.A. and Cahoon, L.B. 2014. Rapid subsurface ocean warming in the Bay of Fundy as measured by free-swimming basking sharks. Oceanography, 27(2), pp.14-16.

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

Kraus, S.D., Brown, M.W., Caswell, H., Clark, C.W., Fujiwara, M., Hamilton, P.K., Kenney, R.D., Knowlton, A.R., Landry, S., Mayo, C.A. and McLellan, W.A. 2005. North Atlantic right whales in crisis. Science, 309(5734): 561-562.

Kraus, S.D., Hamilton, P.K., Kenney, R.D., Knowlton, A.R. and Slay, C.K., 2001. Reproductive parameters of the North Atlantic right whale. J. Cetacean. Res. Manag. 2(Spec. Issue): 213-236.

Kraus, S.D., Kenney, R.D., Mayo, C.A., McLellan, W.A., Moore, M.J. and Nowacek, D.P. 2016. Recent Scientific Publications Cast Doubt on North Atlantic Right Whale Future. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, p.137.

Kraus, S.D. and Rolland, R.M. 2007. Right whales in the urban ocean, p 1-38. In S.D. Kraus and R.M. Rolland [eds.], The Urban Whale: North Atlantic right whales at the crossroads. Harvard University Press.

Lagueux, K.M., Zani, M.A., Knowlton, A.R. and Kraus, S.D. 2011. Response by vessel operators to protection measures for right whales Eubalaena glacialis in the southeast US calving ground. Endanger. Species Res. 14(1): 69-77.

Laist, D. W. and Shaw, C. 2006. Preliminary evidence that boat speed restrictions reduce deaths of Florida manatees. Mar. Mam. Sci. 22: 472-479.

Laist, D. W., Knowlton, A.R., Mead, J.G., Collet A.S., and Podesta, M. 2001. Collisions between ships and whales. Mar. Mam. Sci. 17: 35-75.

Laist, D.W., Knowlton, A.R. and Pendleton, D. 2014. Effectiveness of mandatory vessel speed limits for protecting North Atlantic right whales. Endanger. Species Res. 23(2): 133-147.

Lawson. J.W., and Gosselin, J.-F. 2009. Distribution and preliminary abundance estimates for cetaceans seen during Canada's marine megafauna survey - A component of the 2007 TNASS. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2009/031. vi + 28 p.

McKenna, M.F., Ross, D., Wiggins, S.M. and Hildebrand, J.A. 2012. Underwater radiated noise from modern commercial ships. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131(1): 92-103.

Merrick, R.L. and Cole, T.V.N., 2007. Evaluation of northern right whale ship strike reduction measures in the Great South Channel of Massachusetts. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE, 202. p. 1-12

Michaud, J. and Taggart, C.T., 2007. Lipid and gross energy content of North Atlantic right whale food, Calanus finmarchicus, in the Bay of Fundy. Endanger. Species Res. 3: 77-94.

Michaud, J. and Taggart, C.T. 2011. Spatial variation in right whale food, Calanus finmarchicus, in the Bay of Fundy. Endanger. Species Res. 15:179-194.

Montie, E.W., Letcher, R.J., Reddy, C.M., Moore, M.J., Rubinstein, B. and Hahn, M.E. 2010. Brominated flame retardants and organochlorine contaminants in winter flounder, harp and hooded seals, and North Atlantic right whales from the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bulletin, 60(8): 1160-1169.

Moore, M. J., Knowlton, A.R., Kraus, S.D., McLellan, W.A. and Bonde, R.K. 2004. Morphometry, gross morphology and available histopathology in North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) mortalities (1970-2002). J. Cetacean. Res. Manag. 6: 199-214.

Moore, M., Andrews, R., Austin, T., Bailey, J., Costidis, A., George, C., Jackson, K., Pitchford, T., Landry, S., Ligon, A. and McLellan, W., 2013. Rope trauma, sedation, disentanglement, and monitoring‐tag associated lesions in a terminally entangled North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Mar. Mam. Sci. 29(2):E98-E113

Moore, M.J. and van der Hoop, J.M., 2012. The painful side of trap and fixed net fisheries: chronic entanglement of large whales. J. Mar. Biol. 2012:4.

Moore, M.J., Bogomolni, A., Bowman, R., Hamilton, P.K., Harry, C.T., Knowlton, A.R., Landry, S., Rotstein, D.S. and Touhey, K. 2006, September. Fatally entangled right whales can die extremely slowly. In OCEANS 2006: 1-3.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2016. Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing: Underwater Acoustic Thresholds for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts. U.S. Dept. of Commer., NOAA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-55, 178 p

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 1994. Designated Critical Habitat; Northern Right Whale. Federal Register 59:28805-28834.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 1997. North Atlantic Right Whale Protection. Federal Register 62:6729-6738.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 1999. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations. Federal Register 64:7529-7556.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 2000. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations. Federal Register 65:80368-80381.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 2002a. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations. Federal Register 67:1133-1142.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 2002b. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations. Federal Register 67:1300-1314.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 2002c. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations. Federal Register 67:1142-1160.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 2002d. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations. Federal Register 67:59471-59477.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 2003. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations. Federal Register 68:51195-51201.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 2006. News From NOAA For Immediate Release, November 17, 2006.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 2007a. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations. Federal Register 72:57104-57194.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 2007b. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations; Correction. Federal Register 73:19171.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 2008a. Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Final Rule To Implement Speed Restrictions to Reduce the Threat of Ship Collisions With North Atlantic Right Whales. Federal Register 73:60173-60191.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 2008b. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations. Federal Register 73:51228-51242.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 2013. Endangered fish and wildlife; final rule to remove the sunset provision of the final rule implementing vessel speed restrictions to reduce the threat of ship collisions with North Atlantic right whales. Federal Register 78: 73726-73736.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 2014. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations and Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; American Lobster Fishery. Federal Register 79: 73848-73852.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 2016. Fish and Fish Product Import Provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Federal Register 81: 54390-54419.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association). 2016b. Endangered and threatened species; critical habitat for North Atlantic right whale. Federal Register 81: 4838-4872.

O'Shea, T.J. and Brownell, R.L. 1994. Organochlorine and metal contaminants in baleen whales: a review and evaluation of conservation implications. Sci. Total Environ. 154(2): 179-200.

Pace III, R.M., Cole, T.V. and Henry, A.G. 2014. Incremental fishing gear modifications fail to significantly reduce large whale serious injury rates. Endanger. Species Res. 26(2): 115-126.

Pace, R.M. III. 2016. A Hierarchial bayesian, state-space model to estimate North Atlantic right whale abundance. Abstract in the North Atlantic right whale Consortium Meeting, New Bedford, MA, USA, November 3-4, 2016.

Pace, R.M. III, Silber, G. 2005. Simple analysis of ship and large whale collisions: does speed kill? Poster paper. In: The 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Society for Marine Mammalogy, San Diego, CA, USA, December 12–16.

Panigada, S., Pesante, G., Zanardelli, M., Capoulade, F., Gannier, A. and Weinrich, M.T., 2006. Mediterranean fin whales at risk from fatal ship strikes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 52(10): 1287-1298.

Parks, S., Conger, L., Cusano, D., and Van Parijs, S. 2014. Variation in the acoustic behavior of right whale mother-calf pairs," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 135:2240.

Parks, S.E., Urazghildiiev, I. and Clark, C.W. 2009. Variability in ambient noise levels and call parameters of North Atlantic right whales in three habitat areas. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125(2): 1230-1239.

Patrician, M.R. and Kenney, R.D. 2010. Using the Continuous Plankton Recorder to investigate the absence of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) from the Roseway Basin foraging ground. Journal of plankton research, 32(12): 1685-1695

Pettis, H. M., and Hamilton, P. K. (2014). North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2014 Annual Report Card. Report to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium, November 2014. Available online at: https://www.narwc.org/uploads/1/1/6/6/116623219/2014_report_card.pdf

Pettis, H. M., and Hamilton, P. K. (2015). North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2015 Annual Report Card. Report to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium, November 2015. Available online at: https://www.narwc.org/uploads/1/1/6/6/116623219/2015_report_card.pdf

Pettis, H. M., and Hamilton, P. K. (2016). North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2016 Annual Report Card. Report to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium, November 2016. Available online at: https://www.narwc.org/uploads/1/1/6/6/116623219/2016_report_card_final.pdf

Pettis, H.M., Rolland, R.M., Hamilton, P.K., Brault, S., Knowlton, A.R. and Kraus, S.D. 2004. Visual health assessment of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) using photographs. Can. J. Zoo. 82(1): 8-19.

Reimer, J., Gravel, C., Brown, M.W. and Taggart, C.T. 2016. Mitigating vessel strikes: The problem of the peripatetic whales and the peripatetic fleet. Mar. Policy. 68: 91-99.

Richardson, W.J., Greene Jr, C.R., Malme, C.I. and Thomson, D.H., 1995. Marine mammals and noise. Academic press.

Robbins, J., Knowlton, A.R. and Landry, S. 2015. Apparent survival of North Atlantic right whales after entanglement in fishing gear. Biol. Conservation. 191: 421-427.

Rolland, R.M., Hamilton, P.K., Kraus, S.D., Davenport, B., Gillett, R.M. and Wasser, S.K. 2007. Faecal sampling using detection dogs to study reproduction and health in North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis). J. Cetacean. Res. Manag. 8(2): 121.

Rolland, R.M., Parks, S.E., Hunt, K.E., Castellote, M., Corkeron, P.J., Nowacek, D.P., Wasser, S.K. and Kraus, S.D. 2012. Evidence that ship noise increases stress in North Atlantic right whales. Proc. R. Soc. Ser. B-Bio. 279(1737): 2363-2368.

Rolland, R.M., Schick, R.S., Pettis, H.M., Knowlton, A.R., Hamilton, P.K., Clark, J.S. and Kraus, S.D., 2016. Health of North Atlantic right whales Eubalaena glacialis over three decades: From individual health to demographic and population health trends. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 542: 265-282.

ROMM (Le Réseau d'observation de mammifères marins). 2014. A Mariner's Guide to Whales in the Northwest Atlantic. Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec. Shipping Federation of Canada and Dalhousie University. 74 p. Available at: A Mariner’s Guide to Whales in the Northwest Atlantic

Schick, R.S., Halpin, P.N., Read, A.J., Slay, C.K., Kraus, S.D., Mate, B.R., Baumgartner, M.F., Roberts, J.J., Best, B.D., Good, C.P. and Loarie, S.R., 2009. Striking the right balance in right whale conservation. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 66(9), pp.1399-1403.

Schick, R.S., Kraus, S.D., Rolland, R.M., Knowlton, A.R., Hamilton, P.K., Pettis, H.M., Kenney, R.D. and Clark, J.S. 2013. Using hierarchical Bayes to understand movement, health, and survival in the endangered North Atlantic right whale. PloS one, 8(6): e64166.

Silber, G.K., Adams, J.D. and Fonnesbeck, C.J. 2014. Compliance with vessel speed restrictions to protect North Atlantic right whales. PeerJ, 2: e399.

Silber, G.K., Vanderlaan, A.S.M., Tejedor Arceredillo, A., Johnson, L., Taggart, C.T., Brown, M.W., Bettridge, S. and R. Sagarminaga. 2012. The role of the International Maritime Organization in reducing vessel threat to whales: Process, options, action and effectiveness. Mar. Policy. 36(6):1221-1233

Silber, G.K., L.I. Ward, R. Clarke, K.L. Schumacher, and A.J. Smith. 2002. Ship traffic patterns in right whale critical habitat: Year one of the Mandatory Ship Reporting System. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS OPR 20, 27 pp.

Speed, C., M. Meekan, D. Rowat, S. Pierce, A. Marshall and Bradshaw, C. 2008. Scarring patterns and relative mortality rates of Indian Ocean whale sharks. J. Fish Biol. 72:1488-1503.

Stem, C., R. Margoluis, N. Salafsky, and Brown, M.W. 2005. Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: a review of trends and approaches. Conserv. Biol. 19: 295309.

van der Hoop, J.M., Corkeron, P., Henry, A.G., Knowlton, A.R. and Moore, M.J., 2016. Predicting lethal entanglements as a consequence of drag from fishing gear. Mar. Poll. Bulletin, 115: 91-104

van der Hoop, J.M., Moore, M.J., Barco, S.G., Cole, T.V., Daoust, P.Y., Henry, A.G., McAlpine, D.F., McLellan, W.A., Wimmer, T. and Solow, A.R. 2013. Assessment of management to mitigate anthropogenic effects on large whales. Conserv. Biol. 27(1): 121-133.

van der Hoop, J.M., Nowacek, D.P., Moore, M.J. and Triantafyllou, M.S, 2017. Swimming kinematics and efficiency of entangled North Atlantic right whales. Endanger. Species Res. 32: 1-17.

van der Hoop, J.M., Vanderlaan, A.S.M., Cole, T.V., Henry, A.G., Hall, L., Mase‐Guthrie, B., Wimmer, T. and Moore, M.J. 2015. Vessel strikes to large whales before and after the 2008 Ship Strike Rule. Conserv. Lett. 8(1): 24-32.

van der Hoop, J.M., Vanderlaan, A.S.M. and Taggart, C.T., 2012. Absolute probability estimates of lethal vessel strikes to North Atlantic right whales in Roseway Basin, Scotian Shelf. Ecol. Appl. 22(7): 2021-2033

Vanderlaan, A.S.M., Corbett, J.J., Green, S.L., Callahan, J.A., Wang, C., Kenney, R.D., Taggart, C.T. and Firestone, J. 2009. Probability and mitigation of vessel encounters with North Atlantic right whales. Endanger. Species Res. 6:273–285.

Vanderlaan, A.S.M., Smedbol, R.K. and Taggart, C.T., 2011. Fishing-gear threat to right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in Canadian waters and the risk of lethal entanglement. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 68(12): 2174-2193.

Vanderlaan, A.S.M. and Taggart, C.T. 2007. Vessel collisions with whales: the probability of lethal injury based on vessel speed. Mar. Mam. Sci. 23(1): 144-156.

Vanderlaan, A.S.M. and Taggart, C.T. 2009. Efficacy of a voluntary area to be avoided to reduce risk of lethal vessel strikes to endangered whales. Conserv. Biol. 23(6): 1467-1474.

Vanderlaan, A.S.M., Taggart, C.T., Serdynska, A.R., Kenney, R.D. and Brown, M.W. 2008. Reducing the risk of lethal encounters: vessels and right whales in the Bay of Fundy and on the Scotian Shelf. Endanger. Species Res. 4: 283-297.

Wade, P. (1998). Calculating limits to the allowable human-caused mortality of cetaceans and pinnipeds. Mar. Mam. Sci. 23. 14(1): 1–37

Waldick, R.C., Kraus, S., Brown, M. and White, B.N. 2002. Evaluating the effects of historic bottleneck events: an assessment of microsatellite variability in the endangered, North Atlantic right whale. Mol. Ecol. 11(11): 2241-2249.

Waring, G. T., Josephson, E., Maze-Foley, K., and Rosel, P. E. (eds.). 2016. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2015. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-238.

Weinrich, M. 1999. Behavior of a humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) upon entanglement in a gillnet. Mar. Mam. Sci. 15: 559−563

Wiley, D.N., Thompson, M., Pace, R.M. and Levenson, J., 2011. Modeling speed restrictions to mitigate lethal collisions between ships and whales in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, USA. Biol. Conserv. 144(9): 2377-2381.

Williams, R. and O'Hara, P. 2010. Modelling ship strike risk to fin, humpback and killer whales in British Columbia, Canada). J. Cetacean. Res. Manag. 11(1):1-8.

Woodley, T.H., Brown, M.W., Kraus, S.D. and Gaskin, D.E. 1991. Organochlorine levels in North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) blubber. Arch. Environ. Con. Tox. 21(1): 141-145.

Appendix A: Acronyms

The following is a list of acronyms used throughout this document:

ATBA

Area to be Avoided

ALWTRP

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan

COSEWIC

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

CWF

Canadian Wildlife Federation

CWI

Canadian Whale Institute

CWRT

Campobello Whale Rescue Team

C&P

Conservation and Protection

DFO

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

ESA

Endangered Species Act

GMWSTS

Grand Manan Whale and Seabird Research Station

IMO

International Maritime Organization

IUCN

International Union for Conservation of Nature

MARS

Marine Animal Response Society

NOAA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OPP

Oceans Protection Plan

PBR

Potential Biological Removal

SARA

Species at Risk Act

SMA

Seasonal Management Areas

TSS

Traffic Separation Scheme

USA

United States of America

WWF

World Wildlife Fund

Appendix B: Defining Risk

The terms "risk" and "risk assessment" have been widely used in conservation biology (Harwood 1999) and various definitions exist throughout the published literature. Specifically within the North Atlantic right whale literature, various definitions of risk are used, even when quantifying the risk from a specific threat. For example, Fonnesbeck et al. (2008) defined risk as the co-occurrence (in time and space) of whales and vessels. Similarly, Williams and O'Hare (2010) estimate risk by multiplying their predicted whale density estimate by a measure of shipping intensity. Vanderlaan et al. (2008) defined relative risk of a lethal collision as the relative probability that a vessel will encounter a whale (in time and space) multiplied by probability of a lethal collision given an encounter, which was estimated as a function of vessel speed (Vanderlaan and Taggart 2007). Wiley et al. (2011) estimate the risk of lethal collisions as the probability of lethality associated with specific speeds using Pace and Silber's (2005) lethality model. In this report, unless specifically stated otherwise, a specific definition of risk, proposed initially by Kaplan and Gerricks (1981) is used. Kaplan and Gerricks (1981) definition of risk answers three questions or the "set of triplets":

1. What can happen or what can go wrong?
2. How likely is it that it will happen?
3. If it does happen, what are the consequences?

The answer to the first question, what can go wrong, is often referred to as an event. In the context of North Atlantic right whales and the threats that they face, a North Atlantic right whale can be struck by a vessel, or entangled in fishing gear, or can be injured or disturbed from vessel presence, anthropogenic noise, or contaminants. The third question addresses the consequence and in many risk analyses in other disciplines the consequence is usually a monetary value. In this case it can be thought of from the perspective of the whale, i.e., the probability that the whale will die or have decreased health as a result of an event. Therefore, to reduce the risk to North Atlantic right whales from specific threats, the probability of an event must decrease, and/or the probability of death or injury must decrease. In the case of vessel strikes, to reduce the risk to North Atlantic right whales, vessels can be re-routed around the areas occupied predictably by whales to decrease the probability of a vessel striking a whale, and/or decrease the vessel speed thereby decreasing the probability of a lethal injury given that a vessel struck a whale.

Appendix C: Summaries of Recovery Activities