Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
135838664
label
JGR/Marine Mammal Commission (2 of 3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135838664
contentType
document
title
JGR/Marine Mammal Commission (2 of 3)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
135838664
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
16bed69c68e51994
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: JGR/Marine Mammal Commission
(2 of 3)
Box: 32
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
-
MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION
1625 EYE STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
3 February 1986
H. Lawrence Garrett, III, Esq.
Associate Counsel to the President
The White House
Room 106
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Larry:
I enclose copies of our Annual Report for
Calendar Year 1985 and of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act as amended through 1985.
Sincerely,
John
John R. Twiss, Jr.
Executive Director
Enclosures
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE
MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION, CALENDAR YEAR 1985
A REPORT TO CONGRESS
Marine Mammal Commission
1625 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006
31 January 1986
CONTENTS
I.
Introduction
1
Background
1
Personnel
1
Funding
2
II.
Research and Studies Program
3
Survey of Federally-Funded Marine Mammal
Research
3
Research Program Reviews, Workshops, and
Planning Meetings
4
Commission-Sponsored Research and Study
Projects
5
Special Research Concerns for FY 1986
20
III.
International Aspects of Marine Mammal Protection
and Conservation
22
Conservation and Protection of Marine Mammals
in the Southern Ocean
22
International Whaling Commission
32
Interim Convention on Conservation of
North Pacific Fur Seals
40
Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora
51
IV.
Marine Mammal Management in Alaska
53
Marine Mammal Working Groups
53
Background Information on Transfer
of Management
55
Federal Marking and Tagging Regulations
57
Native Taking of Sea Otters
57
Litigation
58
V.
Marine Mammal/Fisheries Interactions
60
Background
60
Interactions off California
62
Interactions in the Southeastern Bering Sea
and Other Areas off Alaska
65
Interactions off Hawaii
66
Interactions off the U.S. East Coast
66
i
VI.
Entanglement in Marine Debris
68
Background
68
Implementation of the Fiscal Year 1985
Entanglement Program
70
Planning for the Fiscal Year 1986
Entanglement Program
72
Related Commission Activities
73
VII.
Incidental Take of Marine Mammals in the Course
of Commercial Fishing Operations
76
The Tuna-Porpoise Issue
76
The Dall's Porpoise Issue
82
VIII.
Species of Special Concern
86
West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus)
86
Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi)
93
Caribbean Monk Seal (Monachus tropicalis)
98
The California Sea Otter Population
(Enhydra lutris)
99
Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
107
Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus)
109
Right Whale (Eubalena glacialis)
113
Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus)
115
Gulf of California Harbor Porpoise
(Phocoena sinus)
118
Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)
119
Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)
122
Guadalupe Fur Seal (Arctocephalus townsendi)
125
IX.
Outer Continental Shelf oil and Gas Development
127
Proposed Lease Sales
127
The Minerals Management Service's Regional
Environmental Studies Program
130
X.
Marine Mammals in Captivity
132
XI.
Permit Process
135
Application Review
135
Working Group on Permit System
136
Permit-Related Litigation
137
XII.
Endangered Species Act Reauthorization
138
Appendix A:
Commission Recommendations:
Calendar Year 1985
140
Appendix B:
Reports on Commission-Sponsored Activities
Available from the National Technical
Information Service
157
Appendix C:
Selected Literature Published Elsewhere
Resulting from Commission-Sponsored
Activities
172
ii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background
This is the thirteenth Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, covering the period from 1 January through
31 December 1985. It is being submitted to Congress pursuant
to Section 204 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.
Established under Title II of the Act, the Marine Mammal
Commission is an independent agency of the Executive Branch.
It is charged with the responsibility for developing, review-
ing, and making recommendations on actions and policies for
all Federal agencies with respect to marine mammal protection
and conservation, and for carrying out a research program.
Personnel
The Commission consists of three Commissioners who are
appointed by the President. The Marine Mammal Protection Act
requires that Commissioners be knowledgeable in marine ecol-
ogy and resource management. Throughout 1985, the Commis-
sioners were: William E. Evans, Ph.D. (Chairman), San Diego,
California; Robert Elsner, Ph.D., Fairbanks, Alaska; and
Karen Pryor, North Bend, Washington. Dr. Evans' nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on 5 April 1984, Ms. Pryor's on
14 November 1985, and Dr. Elsner's on 12 December 1985.
The Commission's senior staff members are: John R.
Twiss, Jr., Executive Director; Robert J. Hofman, Ph.D.,
Scientific Program Director; David W. Laist, Program Offi-
cer; Donald C. Baur, General Counsel; Douglas P. DeMaster,
Ph.D., Deputy Scientific Program Director; Nancy L. Creason,
Administrative Officer; and Jeannie K. Drevenak, L. Diane
Roberts, and Eileen Shoemaker, Staff Assistants.
The Commission Chairman, with the concurrence of the
other Commissioners, appoints the nine members of the Com-
mittee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals, a committee
of scientists statutorily mandated to be knowledgeable in
marine ecology and marine mammal affairs. At the end of
1985, its members were: Robert L. Brownell, Jr., Ph.D., U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; William W. Fox, Jr., Ph.D., Uni-
versity of Miami; Joseph R. Geraci, D.V.M., Ph.D., University
1
of Guelph; Daniel Goodman, Ph.D., Montana State University;
Murray L. Johnson, M.D. (Chairman), University of Washington;
Jack W. Lentfer, Alaska Environmental Consulting, Juneau,
Alaska; George A. Llano, Ph.D., Naples, Florida; Jane M.
Packard, Ph.D., Texas A&M University; and Forrest G. Wood,
San Diego, California. During 1985, several individuals
completed their terms of service on the Committee. They
were: David G. Ainley, Ph.D., Point Reyes Bird Observatory;
Douglas G. Chapman, Ph.D. (former Chairman), University of
Washington; Paul K. Dayton, Ph.D., Scripps Institution of
Oceanography; Douglas P. DeMaster, Ph.D., National Marine
Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Center; Daryl P.
Domning, Ph.D., Howard University; James G. Mead, Ph.D.,
National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution;
and William Medway, D.V.M., Ph.D., University of Pennsyl-
vania.
Funding
The Marine Mammal Commission came into existence during
the second half of Fiscal Year (FY) 1974 and was appropriated
$412,000 for that period. Subsequent appropriations were:
FY 75:
$750,000
FY 76:
$900,000
FY 77:
$1,000,000
FY 78:
$900,000
FY 79:
$702,000
FY 80:
$940,000
FY 81:
$734,000
FY 82:
$672,000
FY 83:
$822,000
FY 84:
$929,000
FY 85:
$929,000
In FY 1986, the Commission was appropriated $900,000.
In its report on the appropriations, the Senate Appropri-
ations Committee cited the need for adequate funding to allow
the Commission to carry out its basic statutory responsi-
bilities to affect national and international policies and
actions related to marine mammals as well as to conduct a
research program. The report cited the need to provide
support to the Commission to allow it to develop and imple-
ment programs to protect endangered and threatened marine
species, programs to facilitate the compilation and evalua-
tion of data needed to make reliable stock determinations as
an element in developing ecologically sound management stra-
tegies, and programs to improve methods and procedures for
collecting and analyzing marine mammal data.
2
CHAPTER II
RESEARCH AND STUDIES PROGRAM
The Marine Mammal Protection Act requires that the
Commission: maintain a continuing review of research pro-
grams conducted or proposed to be conducted under the
authority of the Act; undertake or cause to be undertaken
such other studies as it deems necessary or desirable in
connection with marine mammal conservation and protection;
and take every step feasible to prevent wasteful, duplicative
research. To accomplish these tasks, the Commission: con-
ducts an annual survey of Federally-funded marine mammal
research; reviews and recommends steps that should be taken
to prevent duplication and improve the marine mammal research
programs conducted or supported by the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Minerals Management Service, and other Federal agencies;
convenes meetings and workshops to review, plan, and coor-
dinate marine mammal research; and contracts for studies to
help define and develop solutions to domestic and inter-
national problems affecting marine mammals and their habitats
SO as to facilitate and complement the other agencies' acti-
vities.
Survey of Federally-Funded Marine Mammal Research
Research directly or indirectly relevant to the conser-
vation and protection of marine mammals and their habitats is
conducted or supported by a broad range of Federal depart-
ments and agencies. To determine the precise nature of this
research, to examine ways in which it can best be used to
facilitate marine mammal conservation and protection, and to
prevent wasteful duplication, the Commission annually
requests and reviews information on the marine mammal
research programs being conducted, supported, or planned
elsewhere in the Federal Government.
In 1985, the Commission requested information from 21
Federal agencies and departments, at least 14 of which are
known to be conducting or supporting research relevant to the
conservation and protection of marine mammals. Those agen-
cies and departments are the Department of Agriculture, the
Department of State, the Minerals Management Service, the
National Institutes of Health, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the National Marine Pollution Program Office, the
3
National Sea Grant College Program, the National Science
Foundation, the Naval Ocean Systems Center, the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, the Office of Ocean-
ography and Marine Assessment, the Office of Naval Research,
the Smithsonian Institution, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The Minerals Management Service, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service have had the largest and most diverse marine mammal
research programs.
Information from the 1985 survey is due early in 1986.
After it has been compiled and verified, the Commission, in
consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, will
evaluate the information and make such recommendations as may
be appropriate to better develop, focus, and coordinate
agency programs.
Research Program Reviews, Workshops,
and Planning Meetings
In 1985, the Commission, in consultation with its
Committee of Scientific Advisors, reviewed, commented on,
and/or made recommendations concerning: the tuna/porpoise,
harbor porpoise, bottlenose dolphin, Hawaiian monk seal,
North Pacific fur seal, Steller sea lion, bowhead whale,
right whale, gray whale, and Antarctic marine living re-
sources research programs being planned, conducted, or sup-
ported by the National Marine Fisheries Service; the research
on southern sea otters, bowhead whales, gray whales, and
other marine mammals being planned and supported by the
Minerals Management Service; the manatee, sea otter, walrus,
and polar bear research programs being conducted by the Fish
and Wildlife Service; and the program being developed by the
Air Force to verify predictions concerning Space Shuttle
launch and landing effects on pinnipeds that haul out and
breed on San Miguel Island. The Commission also convened,
co-sponsored, or participated in meetings and workshops to:
(1) describe research, education, and other programs neces-
sary to better assess and resolve problems caused by lost and
discarded fishing gear and other potentially hazardous marine
debris; and (2) to better define and decide how best to meet
essential information and management requirements relating
to: bowhead whales; gray whales; right whales; porpoise
affected by the yellowfin purse seine fishing in the eastern
tropical Pacific; marine mammal/fisheries interactions in
California coastal waters; polar bears; sea otters; walrus;
and other marine mammals in Alaska; Mediterranean monk seals;
and conservation of seals and whales in the seas surrounding
Antarctica.
4
Commission-Sponsored Research and Study Projects
The Departments of Commerce and the Interior have pri-
mary responsibility under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
for acquiring the biological and ecological data needed to
protect and conserve marine mammals and the ecosystems of
which they are a part. This responsibility has been dele-
gated to the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish
and Wildlife Service, respectively.
As noted earlier, the Commission convenes workshops and
contracts for research and studies to identify and evaluate
threats to marine mammal populations. It also supports,
within its budget limitations, such other research as it
deems necessary to further the purposes and policies of the
Act. Since it was established, the Commission has contracted
for 526 projects, ranging in amounts from several hundred
dollars to $150,000. The average contract has been for about
$7,500. The total amounts of contracts awarded have been:
$258,787 in FY 1974; $446,628 in FY 75; $497,449 in FY 76;
$132,068 in the FY 76-77 three-month transition period;
$523,504 in FY 77; $407,678 in FY 78; $219,897 in FY 79;
$396,640 in FY 80; $173,652 in FY 81; $107,117 in FY 82;
$211,982 in FY 83; $327,854 in FY 84; and $226,160 in
FY 85.1
From time to time, the Commission's investment in
research activities is in the form of transfers of funds to
other Federal agencies, particularly the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. When
such funds are transferred, the Commission provides detailed
scopes of work which describe precisely what the agency is to
do or to have done and the requirements for reporting on
progress to the Commission. In many instances, this approach
has made it possible for agencies to start needed research
sooner than might otherwise have been possible and then to
subsequently support the projects on their own for as long as
necessary. The Commission believes that it is valuable to
maintain agency involvement to the greatest extent possible
and that such transfers provide a useful means of doing so.
Projects undertaken by the Marine Mammal Commission in
1985 are summarized below. In those cases in which the
Commission has jointly supported the work with other agen-
cies, it is so noted in the project summary.
Final reports from Commission-sponsored studies com-
pleted in 1985 and earlier are available from the National
1
This includes $20,000 transferred to the Commission from the
National Marine Pollution Office of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
5
Technical Information Service; they are listed in Appendix B
of this Report. Papers resulting from Commission-sponsored
activities and published elsewhere are listed in Appendix c.
Survey of Federally-Funded Marine Mammal Research
(G. H. Waring, Ph.D., Southern Illinois University)
Each year the Commission identifies and publishes a
report on the marine mammal research conducted or supported
by other Federal agencies in the preceding fiscal year and
that which is expected to be conducted or supported by those
agencies in the current fiscal year. At the end of 1985, the
contractor was preparing a report summarizing information
being provided by the agencies on their Fiscal 1985 and
Fiscal 1986 marine mammal research programs. The proof copy
of this report, to be completed early in 1986, will be sent
to the agencies to verify the accuracy of reported data on
their marine mammal research programs. After verification,
the Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scien-
tific Advisors, will review the report and, as appropriate,
recommend actions to agencies for better developing, focus-
ing, and coordinating their research programs. Copies of the
final report will be provided to agencies conducting or
supporting marine mammal research and will be available to
other interested persons and organizations through the
National Technical Information Service.
Update of the Commission's Bibliography of Selected Marine
Mammal Literature
(R. R. Reeves, Okapi Wildlife Associates, Como, Quebec,
Canada)
The Commission receives numerous requests from the
general public for information about marine mammals and
related conservation issues. To help respond to these
requests, the Commission publishes an annotated bibliography
of selected books, scientific papers, and other literature of
general interest that generally can be found in public and
university libraries. This contractor is revising and up-
dating the bibliography which was last published in July
1981. The revision, expected to be completed early in 1986,
will be available from the Commission on request.
Development of a Long-Range Plan to Protect and Conserve
Marine Mammals in Alaska
(J. W. Lentfer, Juneau, Alaska)
A diverse assemblage of marine mammals inhabit the
coastal waters of Alaska. Many of these species, some of
which are hunted by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes,
6
are being or could be affected by coastal and offshore devel-
opment, fisheries, and other human activities. The purpose
of this project, begun in 1984, is to organize species-
oriented working groups, comprised of informed represen-
tatives of relevant State agencies, Federal agencies, Native
groups, the academic community, and public interest groups,
to cooperatively undertake status reviews and develop recom-
mended research and management plans for those species most
likely to be affected by human activities (walrus, polar
bear, sea otter, Steller sea lion, ringed seal, bearded seal,
harbor seal, spotted seal, ribbon seal, and beluga whale).
To facilitate the operation of these working groups, the
Commission contracted with several experts (see below) to
compile, synthesize, and evaluate available life history,
demographic, and management data. By the end of 1985, draft
reports on eight species had been completed and submitted to
the working groups and to the Commission for review. Draft
reports on the remaining two species are expected to be
completed by the end of February 1986. Final species
accounts, which will include recommended research and manage-
ment programs, are expected to be completed by mid-1986.
They are intended to provide useful guidance to the State and
Federal agencies with research and management responsibili-
ties for these species and will be incorporated into a com-
prehensive research and management plan.
Review of Information Concerning Steller Sea Lion and Harbor
Seal Populations in Alaska
(A. A. Hoover, Pacific Rim Research, Seward, Alaska)
The contractor is compiling, synthesizing, and evalu-
ating available information on the biology, demography,
exploitation, and management of Steller sea lion and harbor
seal populations in Alaska coastal waters. Draft reports
submitted in August and September of 1985 indicate that both
harbor seal and Steller sea lion populations are declining in
certain areas of Alaska. While the causes of the decline are
not known, it could be due to factors such as entanglement in
lost and discarded fishing gear, entanglement in active
fishing gear, and depletion of important food species as a
result of fishing. The drafts were reviewed and currently
are being revised to take account of comments and questions
raised by members of the Commission, its Committee of Scien-
tific Advisors, and members of the species working groups
constituted pursuant to the preceding contract. The final
species reports, expected to be completed by mid-1986, will
contain recommendations on priority research and management
needs.
7
Review of Information Concerning Bearded and Spotted Seal
Populations in Alaska
(University of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and
Data Center, Anchorage, Alaska)
The contractor is compiling, synthesizing, and evalu-
ating available data on the biology, demography, exploi-
tation, and management of bearded and spotted seal popula-
tions in Alaska coastal waters. In August 1985, a draft
report was completed and sent to working group members and
the Commission for review and comment. Although the draft
report indicates that Soviet and U.S. subsistence harvests
are a significant source of bearded and spotted seal mortal-
ity in the Bering and Chukchi Seas, these populations appear
sufficiently large to sustain current harvest levels without
causing substantial declines. The draft report also notes
that Bering Sea fisheries may affect and be affected by
bearded and spotted seals and that planned oil and gas
exploration and development in the Bering and Chukchi Seas
could harm both species. The final report, expected to be
completed by mid-1986, will contain recommendations on prior-
ity research and management actions. It will be included in
the comprehensive research and management plan on Alaska
marine mammals.
Review of Information Concerning Ringed and Ribbon Seals in
Alaska
(B. P. Kelly, Institute of Marine Science, University of
Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska)
The contractor is compiling, synthesizing, and evalu-
ating available data concerning the biology, demography,
exploitation, and management of ringed and ribbon seal popu-
lations in Alaska coastal waters. A draft report on ringed
seals, with research and management recommendations, was
completed and sent to working group members and the Commis-
sion for review and comment in October 1985. A draft report
on ribbon seals will be distributed for review in January
1986. The draft ringed seal report indicates that ringed
seals have been harvested for thousands of years by Eskimos
throughout the Arctic rim, that knowledge of ringed seal
population dynamics is limited because of the species' wide
distribution in mostly ice covered areas and that, while the
best available population estimates suggest that subsistence
harvesting or other activities are not causing population
declines, the estimates are based upon a number of unverified
assumptions. Both reports are expected to be in final form
early in 1986 for inclusion in the comprehensive research and
management plan for Alaska marine mammals.
8
Review of Information Concerning Beluga Whales in Alaska
(K. W. Hazard, Juneau, Alaska)
The contractor is compiling, synthesizing, and evalu-
ating available data concerning the biology, demography,
exploitation, and management of beluga whales in Alaska
coastal waters. A draft report was sent to the Commission
and members of the beluga whale working group in October 1985
for review. The draft report indicates that abundance in
some areas is far below historical levels, due probably to
poorly documented subsistence harvests, and that salmon and
other fisheries in areas such as Bristol Bay affect and are
affected by beluga whales. The final report, to be completed
in mid-1986, will incorporate recommendations on research and
management needs and will be a part of the comprehensive
research and management plan for Alaska marine mammals.
Update of 1978 Report on World Catches of Marine Mammals
1966-1975
(R. R. Reeves, Okapi Wildlife Associates, Como, Quebec,
Canada)
In 1976 and 1977, the Commission funded a project to
compile and summarize information on worldwide catches of
marine mammals. The project report, published by the
National Technical Information Service in January 1978,
included information on worldwide catches of cetaceans,
pinnipeds, and other marine mammals for the years 1966
through 1975. Under the present contract, the contractor is
beginning to compile information on world catches of marine
mammals since 1975 in order to update the 1978 report. The
balance of funding necessary to finish the project is
expected from the United Nations Environment Programme. The
updated report itself should be finished in 1987. As with
the past report, it should prove useful in evaluating the
effectiveness of marine mammal conservation programs in other
countries and for identifying additional conservation needs.
Atlas of Baleen Whale Catch Distribution in the Southern
Ocean
(National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, Washington)
From 1931 to 1980, a combined total of more than one
million blue, fin, sei, minke, and humpback whales were taken
from the Southern Ocean, the seas surrounding Antarctica.
During 1985, the Commission and the National Marine Fisheries
Service jointly supported this effort to produce a series of
computer-generated maps depicting the locations of catches by
species, month, and year. The resulting maps, which have
been incorporated into a "Preliminary Atlas of Balaenopterid
Whale Distribution in the Southern Ocean," indicate striking
differences in the latitudinal distribution of catches of the
9
different species, suggesting species-specific differences in
distribution patterns and/or periodic shifts in the geo-
graphic focus of whaling operations. Further analysis of the
maps and related data sets currently being carried out by
National Marine Mammal Laboratory scientists may indicate
likely feeding areas, breeding areas, or other areas of
similar biological importance that may merit special protec-
tion. If so, the Commission will work with the Department of
State and the National Marine Fisheries Service to see that
appropriate conservation measures are adopted internationally
under the International Convention for the Regulation of
Whaling and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources.
Special International Whaling Commission Publication on Right
Whales
(International Whaling Commission)
Although commercial harvesting of right whales has been
prohibited for approximately 50 years, right whale popu-
lations remain at extremely low levels and there is uncer-
tainty as to whether they are increasing, decreasing, or
remaining stable. At its 1982 meeting, the Scientific Com-
mittee of the International Whaling Commission recommended
that a workshop be held to assess available data on the
status of various right whale populations, particularly those
in the Okhotsk Sea and Sea of Japan, the northwest Atlantic,
the southwest Atlantic, and the South Pacific. The workshop,
sponsored by the Marine Mammal Commission, the International
Whaling Commission, and several other organizations, was held
at the New England Aquarium in June 1983. Money was not
available to publish the workshop report or the more than 25
scientific background papers prepared for this meeting.
Under this contract, partial funding was provided to publish
the papers in a special IWC Volume on Right Whales to be
available in the summer of 1986. This will ensure that those
data, models, and analyses considered by the workshop parti-
cipants are readily accessible to scientists, administrators,
and the interested public throughout the world. Such infor-
mation also can assist U.S. efforts in management of the
closely related bowhead whale (see Chapter VIII of this
Report).
Southeast Atlantic Right Whale Workshop
(The Georgia Conservancy, Savannah, Georgia)
Available data indicate that at least part of the small,
remnant population of right whales in the western North
Atlantic inhabits the coastal waters of Georgia and north-
eastern Florida during the winter months. They also indicate
that these waters may be the population's principal calving
ground. At this workshop, to be held 18-20 February 1986,
10
participants will review steps that have been and are being
taken to protect right whales and possibly critical right
whale habitats in the coastal waters of the southeastern
United States. They will identify additional research,
monitoring, and protective measures that may be required to
protect and encourage recovery of the population. The work-
shop report will be used by the Marine Mammal Commission, in
consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, as a
key background document in recommending measures that respon-
sible regulatory agencies should take to better protect right
whales and their habitat in U.S. waters.
Reproductive Parameters and Status of the Western Arctic
Bowhead Whale Population
(SOHIO Petroleum Company)
The small remnant population of bowhead whales in the
Western Arctic, important to the subsistence and cultural
heritage of Alaska Eskimos, could be adversely affected by
oil and gas exploration and development in Arctic coastal
waters. The purpose of this project, supported cooperatively
by the Marine Mammal Commission, the National Marine Fish-
eries Service, and several U.S. oil companies, is to obtain
more reliable information on the distribution, size, age
structure, and annual calf production of the western Arctic
bowhead population. Photographs of bowhead whales taken
during aerial surveys conducted in the fall of 1985 are now
being analyzed with the survey data to estimate abundance and
to identify and determine the relative lengths (ages) of
individual whales. Preliminary study results, which should
be available in the spring of 1986, will help in assessing
the adequacy of and continuing need for existing monitoring
programs and regulatory measures.
Survey of Humpback Whales Wintering in Hawaiian Coastal
Waters
(P. H. Forestell, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii)
A substantial proportion of the North Pacific humpback
whale population inhabits Hawaiian coastal waters during the
winter months (December-March) Although the number, distri-
bution, and movements of these whales are not well docu-
mented, there is increasing concern that recreational boating
and other activities in certain areas are having a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the whales. Since the National Marine
Fisheries Service had been unable to either conduct or sup-
port needed research and monitoring programs, the Marine
Mammal Commission, as an interim measure, provided funds for
the contractor to carry out biweekly aerial surveys from
January through April 1985. The purposes were (1) to deter-
mine the distribution and numbers of humpback whales in the
nearshore waters of the Hawaiian Islands of Molokai, Lanai,
11
Kahoolawe, and Maui, and (2) to note the frequency of occur-
rence of boats within one-quarter mile of individual humpback
whales or groups of whales. The results of this survey and
the study described below, will be examined by the Commis-
sion, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, to determine what, if any, additional measures may
be necessary to protect humpback whales and their habitat in
Hawaiian coastal waters.
Review of Existing Information and Programs Bearing on the
Protection of Humpback Whales and their Habitat in Hawaii
(R. T. Tinney, Washington, D.C.)
As noted above, it is not clear how recreational boating
and other activities may be affecting humpback whales and
their habitat in Hawaii. Nor is it clear what measures could
or should be taken to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts.
Under this contract, existing regulatory authorities, moni-
toring and enforcement programs, and data concerning possible
interactions between whales and humans in Hawaiian coastal
waters are being reviewed and evaluated. The report should
be finished by May 1986. The Commission, in consultation
with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, will review the
report to help in determining what additional actions may be
needed to adequately protect the whales and their habitat
without unduly restricting economic development.
Survey of Gray Whales in San Ignacio Lagoon, Baja California,
Mexico
(S. L. Swartz, Cetacean Research Associates, San Diego,
California)
Census and other data collected in conjunction with gray
whale acoustic studies conducted by National Marine Fisheries
Service scientists in San Ignacio Lagoon in 1983 and 1984
indicated that fewer whales, particularly females with
calves, appeared to be wintering in the lagoon than in the
previous five years. They also indicated that winter vessel
traffic within the lagoon had increased significantly between
1982 and 1983. Because the National Marine Fisheries Service
was unable to support follow-up studies in 1985, the Marine
Mammal Commission provided funds for the contractor to con-
duct periodic surveys in February, March, and April 1985 in
an effort to determine the distribution and numbers of gray
whales in the lagoon and whether the distribution and abun-
dance were being affected by vessel traffic associated with
fishing, research, or other activities. Preliminary analysis
of the results indicates that fewer females with calves were
present in 1985 than during the 1978-82 period and that the
decline was greatest in the upper lagoon where development of
a scallop fishery caused a significant increase in vessel
traffic in 1982 and 1983. The final report and the report of
12
the workshop described below are both expected early in 1986.
They will be reviewed by the Marine Mammal Commission, in
consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, to
determine if additional research, educational, or regulatory
measures may be needed to effectively conserve gray whales
and their essential habitats in the eastern Pacific.
Workshop on Gray Whale Research Needs and Opportunities
(S. L. Swartz, Cetacean Research Associates, San Diego,
California)
Gray whales annually migrate along the west coast of the
United States between the summer feeding grounds in the
Bering and Chukchi Seas and the winter breeding and calving
grounds in the lagoons of Baja California. More than 150
gray whales are being taken each year by a directed Soviet
hunt in the Chukchi Sea, and, in a number of areas, fishery
development, whale watching, offshore oil and gas exploration
and development, and other activities may be affecting both
the whales and the habitats essential to their survival. The
purposes of this workshop, held in Monterey, California, on
16-18 October 1985, were: (1) to review and evaluate data,
models, and procedures being used to assess the status of the
eastern Pacific gray whale population and (2) to describe
research that should be carried out over the next five years
to better monitor population trends and detect unforeseen or
cumulative effects of human activities, throughout the popu-
lation's range. The workshop report will be reviewed by the
Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, early in 1986. As appropriate, the Commission will
use it in advising the National Marine Fisheries Service and
the Minerals Management Service on measures needed to better
monitor and conserve the eastern Pacific gray whale popula-
tion.
Field Tests of Cetacean Radio Tags
(J. A. Guerrero, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, Moss
Landing, California)
If functioning properly and attached safely and
securely, radio tags can help to obtain needed information on
the behavior, activity patterns, and movements of cetaceans
and other marine mammals. The purpose of this study, con-
ducted in May and June 1985, was to field-test radio tags and
different attachment techniques to determine whether radio
tags could serve to enhance studies of the movements,
activity patterns, and feeding behavior of gray whales in the
southeastern Bering Sea. Preliminary findings are that
attachments using probes that penetrate the whale's skin are
more effective than suction cup attachments, and that radio
tags attached with either technique provide useful data. The
report, expected to be available early in 1986, will help in
13
describing the next steps needed to develop a safe and effec-
tive system for radio tagging and tracking gray whales.
Monitoring Gill and Trammel Net Fisheries in Central
California
(California Marine Mammal Center, Fort Cronkhite,
California)
Since June 1982, there has been a substantial increase
in gill and trammel net fisheries off San Mateo, San Fran-
cisco, Marin, and Sonoma Counties in California. The con-
current increase in numbers of dead harbor porpoise, harbor
seals, and sea birds washing up on the beaches of the four-
county area suggests that a variety of marine mammals and sea
birds are being caught incidentally during fishing opera-
tions. In 1983, the California Department of Fish and Game
started a fishery observer program to better assess the
fisheries and the incidental take of marine mammals and sea
birds. Unfortunately, program development was constrained by
funding limitations, hiring freezes, and State policies
concerning employment of temporary personnel. Therefore, the
Marine Mammal Commission provided money to hire suitably
qualified observers for the 1985 and, to the extent possible,
the 1986 fishing seasons to augment the State's program.
Information obtained by the observers will be used to help
determine whether changes in fishing gear, fishing practices,
fishing regulations, or some combination of these may be
necessary to prevent or reduce incidental take of non-target
species.
Recovery and Necropsy of Marine Mammal Carcasses In and Near
the Point Reyes National Seashore
(R. L. Deiter, D.V.M., Mobile Veterinary Service, Bolinas,
California)
The contractor is examining and, when possible, doing
thorough necropsies of marine mammal carcasses found washed
up on the beaches of the Point Reyes National Seashore. From
1 January 1985 to 17 October 1985, thirteen California sea
lions, eleven harbor seals, three harbor porpoise, and one
Steller sea lion were found dead between Bodega Bay and Fort
Funston, San Francisco. of those for which the cause of
death could be determined, seven apparently died from shoot-
ing, three from entanglement in gill nets, and one from being
struck by a boat propeller. The final report, due in
February 1986, will be used in assessing the effectiveness of
existing measures and the possible need for other steps to
prevent the incidental take and malicious shooting of marine
mammals.
14
Shore-based Observations of Gill and Trammel Net Fisheries in
the California Sea Otter Range
(M. E. Henry, Los Osos, California)
Observations made by California Department of Fish and
Game personnel and others since 1982 indicate that signifi-
cant numbers of sea otters have been caught and killed in
California set net fisheries and that this incidental take
may be responsible for the failure of the California sea
otter population to grow measurably since the early 1970s.
Although the California Department of Fish and Game and the
Fish and Wildlife Service have supported observer programs in
recent years, the level of effort has been insufficient to
obtain reliable estimates of the numbers of sea otters and
other marine mammals being killed in these fisheries. This
contractor made shore-based observations of set net fisheries
at times and in places not adequately covered by other
observers. From June through September 1985, the contractor
observed 203 nets being pulled and documented the incidental
catch of four, possibly, five sea otters, sixty-four harbor
seals, nine California sea lions, one elephant seal, one
harbor porpoise, and three pinnipeds that could not be iden-
tified. These observations indicate that new State regu-
lations prohibiting set net fishing in waters less than 15
fathoms within the sea otter range have not eliminated inci-
dental take problems.
Photographic Survey of Kelp Canopies in the California Sea
Otter Range
(R. F. VanWagenen, Freedom, California)
The distribution and behavior of sea otters are related
to the distribution, density, species composition, and
seasonal changes in kelp canopies. In 1983, Fish and Wild-
life Service scientists began periodic surveys of kelp
canopies in the California sea otter range to document
seasonal and annual changes in the kelp canopy and to better
determine the relationship between seasonal changes in kelp
canopies and seasonal changes in the distribution and beha-
vior of sea otters in California. In 1985, there was an
unexpected funding shortfall, and the Marine Mammal Commis-
sion supported a late-summer photographic survey of nearshore
kelp canopies from Pigeon Point to Pismo Beach, California,
to maintain continuity of observations. The photographs and
flight report, provided to Fish and Wildlife Service scien-
tists in October 1985, are now being analyzed. The infor-
mation gained will be useful in designing future sea otter
censuses and in better determining the effects of sea otters,
storms, and other environmental factors on kelp distribution
and dynamics.
15
Manatee Mortality and Movements Subsequent to Record
Breaking Cold Weather in Florida
(Sirenia Project, Denver Wildlife Research Center, Denver,
Colorado)
During January and February 1985, record breaking cold
weather caused significant increases in mortality of the
endangered manatee as well as shifts in manatee distribution
in several parts of Florida. To accurately document the
effects of the cold weather, the Marine Mammal Commission
helped pay for unusual expenses incurred in recovering and
doing necropsies on 32 dead manatees -- more than double the
number usually recovered during this period in an average
year. Commission funding also made it possible to document
the movements of manatees relative to water temperature in
the Fort Myers area. Knowledge gained will be useful in
assessing how manatee population dynamics may be affected by
severe weather conditions and in determining steps that might
be taken to mitigate the effects of unusually cold temper-
atures.
Investigation of Possible Sightings of Caribbean Monk Seals
(C. A. Woods, Ph.D., Florida State Museum, Gainesville,
Florida)
Although there have been no verified sightings of Carib-
bean monk seals for nearly 30 years and many consider the
species extinct, there has been at least one unconfirmed
sighting off the north coast of Haiti in the past four years.
The investigator is interviewing fishermen and other resi-
dents of that area to assess the reliability of this sighting
as well as the nature, frequency, locations, and reliability
of any other recent sightings in the area. If the interviews
indicate that monk seals may still be extant, the Commission
will work with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
Department of State to see that appropriate steps are taken
to protect the seals and the habitats in which they survive.
Examination of Carcasses of the Endangered Gulf of
California Harbor Porpoise
(L. T. Findley, Ph.D., Instituto Technologica y de Estudios,
Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico)
The vaquita or Gulf of California harbor porpoise is a
rare and endangered species whose range appears to be limited
to the northern Gulf of California. In the spring of 1985,
seven animals were caught and killed incidental to fishing
operations in the northern Gulf. The Marine Mammal Commis-
sion paid for postmortem examinations of these animals.
There are only about 40 confirmed records of the species, and
the examinations contributed substantially to knowledge of
16
the species' morphology and probable life history. In addi-
tion, Commission support of this study made it possible to
train several students in methods of small cetacean identifi-
cation, collection, and museum preparation.
Compilation of Information on the Sources, Fates, and Effects
of Marine Debris
(B. Heneman, Bolinas, California)
As described in Chapter VI, substantial numbers of
marine mammals and other marine organisms are dying as a
result of either becoming entangled in or ingesting various
sorts of plastics and other marine debris. The problem was
first recognized and has been investigated primarily in the
North Pacific Ocean. One objective of this project, sup-
ported cooperatively by the Marine Mammal Commission and the
National Marine Pollution Program Office of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is to obtain avail-
able information concerning the sources, fates, and effects
of potentially hazardous marine debris in the northwest
Atlantic, the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean
Sea, and the west coast of Baja California. Another objec-
tive is to determine what measures, if any, are being taken
by nations in these areas to document and prevent or mitigate
problems being caused by marine debris. The project report,
to be done by January 1987, will be of use in determining
what actions should be taken domestically or internationally
to address marine debris problems more effectively.
Public Awareness and Beach Clean-Up
(Oregon Wildilfe Heritage Foundation, Portland, Oregon)
Participants in the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of
Marine Debris (Hawaii, 27-29 November 1984) concluded that
effective resolution of problems caused by marine debris
would require, among other things, removal of potentially
hazardous materials accumulating on beaches and education of
those responsible for discarding potentially hazardous
materials at sea and on beaches. Towards this end, the
Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation organized volunteer
programs to clean up beaches in Oregon, Washington, Cali-
fornia, and the New England states as well as to make the
general public more aware of problems being caused by plastic
bags, plastic "six pack" holders, and other non-degradable
debris. The Marine Mammal Commission made the initial com-
mitment of funds in 1985 to start the project. The report,
expected in the spring of 1986, will be reviewed by the
Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, to assess the worth of such programs as instruments
of public information, as sources of information on the
types, quantities, and distribution of beach-cast plastics,
17
and as a determinant in selection of methods to address the
problem.
Training of Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Inspectors
(J. R. Geraci, D.V.M., Ph.D., Ontario Veterinary College,
University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada)
As noted in Chapter X, a three-day seminar was held in
Florida on 9-12 April 1985 to train veterinarians of the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of
Agriculture, in the art and science of inspecting marine
mammal holding facilities. The training was given to assist
veterinarian inspectors in interpreting and enforcing the
Service's standards and regulations as well as in assessing
the health of captive marine mammals. The contractor pro-
vided instruction and answered questions about the general
anatomy, physiology, feeding, nutrition, diseases, and
general care of marine mammals held captive for public dis-
play and scientific research. The specialized training
enables inspectors to better detect and suggest measures to
correct problems in maintenance and husbandry that may jeop-
ardize the welfare of captive marine mammals.
Assessment of Marine Research Needs in the Arctic and Sub-
Arctic Seas
(Polar Research Board, National Academy of Sciences)
The Polar Research Board of the National Academy of
Sciences was asked by the National Science Foundation (lead
agency for implementing the Arctic Research and Policy Act of
1984) to help develop a comprehensive five-year plan for
Federal research in the Arctic. The plan is to include an
assessment of national needs and problems regarding the
Arctic. In partial response, the Polar Research Board con-
stituted an ad hoc committee to review past and ongoing
marine research programs in the Arctic and the sub-Arctic,
identify major information gaps and priority research needs,
and describe the research areas that could be fruitfully
addressed using new technological advances and a dedicated
polar research ship. Funding for travel, support services,
report preparation, and related activities is being provided
by a variety of Federal agencies and private groups including
the Marine Mammal Commission, the National Science Foun-
dation, and the Mellon Foundation. The report will be used
to help develop a coordinated, national plan for Arctic
research.
18
Bibliography of Documents Relating to Marine and Coastal
Habitat Protection
(Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, D.C.)
Effective, long-term conservation of marine mammals will
depend to a great extent on identification and protection of
feeding areas, breeding areas, and other habitat of similar
importance. The contractor is to prepare a comprehensive
bibliography of domestic authorities, international author-
ities, and other published material that bear on the protec-
tion of marine and coastal areas. In the process, a determ-
ination will be made as to whether any published material
satisfactorily summarizes all available means of protecting
habitat as well as the relative strengths and weaknesses of
each approach. The Commission, in consultation with its
Committee of Scientific Advisors, will use the report as the
starting point for such a review if one is needed as well as
in refining its strategy for identifying and protecting
important marine mammal habitats.
Science and Marine Mammal Conservation
(Society for Marine Mammalogy)
A symposium on "Science and Marine Mammal Conservation"
was held at the Society for Marine Mammalogy's Sixth Biennial
Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 22-26 November
1985, in Vancouver, Canada. Papers covered a variety of
subjects including: implications of physiological research
on captive marine mammals, detecting and assessing the
effects of environmental pollutants, determining the nature
and effects of competition between seals and commercial
fisheries in the North Atlantic and the Antarctic, scientific
requirements for the long-term conservation of whales, and
the use of captive marine mammals in behavioral studies. The
papers address important subject areas, and the Commission
provided funds to help ensure their prompt publication and
dissemination.
Estimating Recovery Times for Depleted Marine Mammal
Populations
(D. Goodman, Ph.D., Montana State University, Bozeman,
Montana)
An objective of the Marine Mammal Protection Act is to
prevent depletion of marine mammal populations while facili-
tating the recovery of those populations that have been
depleted as a result of human activities. The contractor is
developing a stochastic population model that uses infor-
mation on population growth rates, level of take, and current
and desired population levels to estimate the likelihood that
a depleted population will survive and recover, given various
levels of take. The model should help scientists and
19
managers better assess the possible consequences of different
management strategies with regard to the time needed for
exploited populations to recover to desired levels. It
should be particularly relevant for managing bowhead whales,
monk seals, manatees, and other endangered marine mammals.
Analysis of Cloned Dolphin Mitochondrial DNA
(S. O. Lucas, Ph.D., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La
Jolla, California)
Variation in mitochondrial DNA may be useful for deter-
mining whether local concentrations of dolphins, pinnipeds,
and other marine mammals constitute independent breeding
populations or are part of larger breeding populations -- an
important consideration in providing adequate protection.
The objectives of this project, completed in June 1985, were
to: characterize mitochondrial DNA from two dolphin species
using restriction mapping; map the mitochondrial DNA from the
two dolphin species using characterized human mitochondrial
genes as genetic probes; and, as possible, test and use
cloned dolphin mitochondrial DNA as a radio labeled hybrid-
ization probe to determine divergence between different
populations and species of dolphins and other cetacea. The
project results were promising, and the investigator has
provided cloned dolphin mitochondrial DNA to other investi-
gators to facilitate research directed at determining the
discreteness of apparently local and regional populations of
bottlenose dolphins and other marine mammals.
Electrophoretic Evaluation of Tissue Samples from Spinner
and Spotted Dolphins
(A. W. Erickson, Ph.D., Fisheries Research Institute,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington)
Electrophoresis can be used to detect certain types of
protein polymorphisms and, like the analysis of mitochondrial
DNA, may be useful for determining the relative discreteness
of local concentrations of dolphins and other marine mammals.
The investigator is electrophoretically evaluating tissue
samples from spinner and spotted dolphins killed incidentally
in the eastern tropical Pacific. If one or more protein
polymorphisms are detected, they may be useful for deter-
mining the relative discreteness of spinner and spotted
dolphin stocks in different geographic areas.
Special Research Concerns for FY 1986
As noted in other parts of this Report and in previous
Annual Reports, substantial additional research is needed to
more effectively assess and determine how best to deal with a
number of problems affecting the conservation and protection
20
of marine mammals worldwide. Among other points, additional
research is needed to:
determine the cause of the continuing decline of certain
fur seal, harbor seal, and Steller sea lion populations
in the North Pacific and the Bering Sea;
better determine the nature, scope, and possible solu-
tions to problems being caused by lost and discarded
fishing gear and by other potentially hazardous and
persistent debris;
test and evaluate possible non-lethal means for avoiding
or reducing marine mammal/fisheries conflicts; and
develop better methods for assessing and monitoring
marine mammal populations and habitats.
As noted at the beginning of this chapter, agencies such
as the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wild-
life Service, and the Minerals Management Service have pri-
mary responsibility for assuring that needed research is
done. In FY 1986, the Commission will continue, within its
funding constraints, to convene workshops, to hold planning
meetings, and to contract for studies to help define and
develop solutions to these and other problems. In particu-
lar, the Commission hopes to: (1) support such additional
efforts as may be necessary to complete development of a
comprehensive research and management plan for species of
marine mammals in Alaska; (2) organize and convene workshops,
program reviews, and/or planning meetings to describe and
agree upon actions necessary to (a) resolve marine mammal/
fisheries conflicts in California, (b) identify and determine
how best to eliminate or mitigate the cause of the continuing
decline of the Pribilof Islands fur seal population,
(c) facilitate the successful propagation of bottlenose
dolphins and other marine mammals in captivity; (3) invest in
efforts to better determine the nature and scope of conser-
vation problems being caused by lost and discarded fishing
gear and other persistent marine debris; (4) support innova-
tive studies, such as further evaluation of the potential use
of mitochondrial DNA for determining the relative discrete-
ness of local concentrations of bottlenose dolphins and other
marine mammals; and (5) begin a radio-tagging and tracking
study to assess the effects of interactions between harbor
porpoise and set net fisheries off central California.
21
CHAPTER III
INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION
AND CONSERVATION
Section 108 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act directs
that the Departments of Commerce, the Interior, and State, in
consultation with the Commission, seek to further the pro-
tection and conservation of marine mammals under existing
international agreements and take such initiatives as may be
necessary to negotiate additional agreements required to
achieve the purposes of the Act. In addition, Section 202 of
the Marine Mammal Protection Act directs that the Marine
Mammal Commission recommend to the Secretary of State and
other Federal officials appropriate policies regarding exist-
ing international arrangements for the protection and conser-
vation of marine mammals.
The Commission's activities in 1985 with respect to
conservation and protection of marine mammals in the Southern
Ocean, the International Whaling Commission, the Interim
Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals, and
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora are discussed below.
Conservation and Protection of
Marine Mammals in the Southern Ocean
At least thirteen species of seals and whales inhabit or
are present seasonally in the Southern Ocean, the seas sur-
rounding Antarctica. Although several of these species have
been brought to near-extinction by unregulated or poorly
regulated sealing and whaling, direct threats from commercial
exploitation have been eliminated, at least for the immediate
future. No commercial sealing has occurred in the Antarctic
for more than twenty years. However, were it to resume, it
would be regulated under the Convention for the Conservation
of Antarctic Seals, which entered into force in March 1978.
With respect to whales, a moratorium on commercial whaling is
scheduled to begin in 1986. This is discussed in the next
section. Serious threats could be posed, however, by devel-
oping fisheries, particularly the fishery for Antarctic krill
(Euphausia superba), and growing interest in possible off-
shore oil and gas resources. These activities could in fact
constitute more serious long-term threats to marine mammals
22
and other components of the Southern Ocean ecosystem than the
direct harvests of the past.
As noted in previous Commission reports, Antarctic krill
occupies a central role in the Southern Ocean food web. It
is one of the dominant herbivores and the principal component
in the diets of numerous species including: fin, blue,
humpback, and minke whales; crabeater and Antarctic fur
seals; Adelie, chinstrap, macaroni, and rockhopper penguins;
several other sea birds; and several species of fish and
squid. Some of these species are eaten in turn by sperm
whales, killer whales, leopard seals, and other higher order
predators.
Because of the possible direct and indirect effects of
fisheries and offshore oil and gas development on marine
mammals, the Marine Mammal Commission has, since 1974, under-
taken a continuing review of matters that might affect krill
or other important components of the Southern Ocean eco-
system. It has made numerous recommendations on the need for
basic and directed research and monitoring programs, and for
international agreements to effectively regulate fisheries
and offshore oil and gas exploration and development in the
Southern Ocean. Activities before 1984 have been reported in
previous Annual Reports. A brief summary of these earlier
activities as well as a description of 1985 activities are
provided below.
Activities Related to Living Resources
Parties to the Antarctic Treaty recognized the potential
adverse effects of the developing krill fishery and other
fisheries on the Antarctic marine ecosystem and, at the IXth
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting held in London in 1977,
agreed that a Special Consultative Meeting should be held to
elaborate a regime which would provide for the effective
conservation of all living resources in the Antarctic marine
ecosystem. Negotiation of the regime was initiated at a
Special Consultative Meeting in Canberra, Australia, in
February and March 1978 and was continued at formal and
informal sessions held in Buenos Aires, Argentina (July
1978) ; Washington, D.C. (September 1978) ; Bern, Switzerland
(March 1979) ; and Washington, D.C. (September-October 1979).
The resulting regime - the Convention on the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources -- was concluded at a
Diplomatic Conference held in Canberra in May 1980 and came
into force on 7 April 1982. To carry out its objectives, the
Convention establishes the Commission and the Scientific
Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Pesources and a Secretariat to support both, all head-
Buartered in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
The Marine Mammal Commission's activities regarding the
agotiations and the first three meetings of the Commission
23
and the Scientific Committee established by the Convention
are described in previous Annual Reports, particularly those
for 1980, 1982, 1983, and 1984.
Meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Ecosystem Moni-
toring -- At its third annual meeting, which was held in
Australia in September 1984, the Scientific Committee for the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources established
an ad hoc working group to formulate and recommend actions
for planning, implementing, and coordinating multi-national
research programs necessary to effectively assess and monitor
key components of the Antarctic marine ecosystem. This group
met at the Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, Seattle,
Washington, on 6-11 May 1985. Commission representatives
participated in the meeting and the Commission's Scientific
Program Director chaired a subgroup on pinnipeds, seabirds,
and cetaceans. The meeting report1, which was accepted and
endorsed by the full Scientific Committee at its fourth
meeting (see below), identified six species (crabeater and
Antarctic fur seals; Adelie, chinstrap, and macaroni pen-
guins; and minke whale) most likely to be useful indicators
of the indirect or second order effects of krill harvesting.
The report recommended that high priority be placed on the
initiation of integrated ecosystem monitoring programs in
three areas -- Prydz Bay, the Bransfield Strait, and the area
around South Georgia Island.
The Fourth Meetings of the Commission and Scientific
Committee Established under the Convention on the Conser-
vation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources -- The fourth
annual meetings of the Commission and the Scientific
Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources were held in Australia, 2-13 September 1985. To
help prepare for these meetings and facilitate development of
the research plan required by the legislation implementing
the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention (see below),
the National Marine Fisheries Service, in consultation with
the Marine Mammal Commission, the Department of State, and
the National Science Foundation convened an ad hoc group of
U.S. scientists in Rhode Island on 24-25 June 1985. At the
meeting, information and views were sought and exchanged on
scientific and technical issues on the agenda for the 2-13
September Convention meetings and on research which the U.S.
should carry out to facilitate implementation of the Conven-
tion. Marine Mammal Commission representatives helped to
prepare for and participated in the June preparatory meeting,
as well as the September meetings of the Antarctic Living
Resources Commission and Scientific Committee.
1 This and other reports of the Commission and the Scientific
Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources can be obtained from: The Executive Secretary,
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources, 25 Old Wharf, Hobart, Tasmania, 7000, Australia.
24
During their September 1985 meetings, the Antarctic
Living Resources Commission and Scientific Committee con-
sidered a wide range of issues including: measures needed to
better assess and conserve exploited fish stocks; data re-
quirements and possible methods for assessing and monitoring
the status of krill stocks; the status and role of squid in
the Antarctic marine ecosystem; development of a coordinated,
multi-national plan for ecosystem monitoring; and measures
needed to detect and avoid accidental or incidental take of
non-target species. Although absence of detailed catch and
effort data limited the types of analyses that could be done,
it was determined that several fish stocks, particularly the
Notothenia rossii stock in the South Georgia area, had been
severely overfished and that additional conservation measures
were needed to protect and permit recovery of the stocks.
Accordingly, the Commission adopted measures prohibiting
directed fishing for Notothenia rossii around South Georgia
and limiting the by-catch of Notothenia rossii in directed
fisheries for other species around South Georgia. The Com-
mission also recommended, as a precautionary measure, that
all parties refrain from directed fisheries for Notothenia
rossii in the vicinity of the Antarctic peninsula and around
the South Orkney Islands and that the by-catch of Notothenia
rossii in directed fisheries for other species in these areas
be reduced to the lowest level possible.
Catches of Antarctic krill have declined from an esti-
mated high of about 528,000 tons in the 1981/82 fishing
season to about 128,000 tons in the 1983/84 fishing season,
apparently due to technical problems related to processing
and marketing of krill. These problems no doubt can be
solved and, when this happens, the Antarctic krill fishery
very likely will expand. To be better prepared if this
happens, the Scientific Committee has initiated a study,
expected to be completed in April 1987, to determine whether
and how krill catch and effort data may be combined with
independent survey data in order to obtain reliable indices
of krill abundance.
Data considered during the September meetings indicate
that there currently are commercial squid fisheries in
several areas immediately north of the Convention Area but
none in the Convention Area itself. The Soviet delegation
indicated that there are significant differences in the
species composition and the distribution of squid north and
south of the Antarctic Convergence, and, because of this
difference, they thought it unlikely that a significant squid
fishery would develop in the Convention Area in the fore-
seeable future. However, squid is a key component in the
diets of several seal, whale, and seabird species, and, for
this reason, the Scientific Committee urged that research on
squid biology and ecology be strongly encouraged.
25
The Scientific Committee considered and endorsed the
report from the meeting of the Ad hoc Working Group on Eco-
system Monitoring, which, as noted earlier, had met in the
United States on 6-11 May 1985. The Committee recognized the
need to assess and monitor selected non-target species, such
as seals, seabirds, and whales, as well as the need to assess
and monitor harvested species such as krill, fish, and squid.
It recommended that a permanent working group be established
to design, recommend, coordinate, and ensure the continuity
of an effective, multi-national ecosystem monitoring program.
An intersessional meeting of the Working Group on Eco-
system Monitoring will be held in La Jolla, California, in
late June or early July 1986. Since Working Group actions
will profoundly affect efforts to implement the Convention,
the Marine Mammal Commission is consulting with the National
Marine Fisheries Service to facilitate preparation of working
papers on: (1) possible use of satellites for monitoring
oceanographic and ice features; (2) management of integrated,
multi-disciplinary data bases for large ecosystems; (3) use
of models for developing and evaluating research and manage-
ment strategies; and (4) methods for sampling key ecosystem
components including phytoplankton, seals, whales, and birds.
The Commission also will be working with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the Department of State, and other appro-
priate agencies to develop positions and working papers on
issues to be considered during the fifth meetings of the
Antarctic Living Resources Commission and Scientific Com-
mittee in Australia, 8-19 September 1986.
Development of a Directed U.S. Antarctic Marine Living
Resources Research Program - In late 1984, the Congress
passed and the President signed into law the Antarctic Marine
Living Resources Convention Act of 1984. This Act estab-
lishes the domestic authority necessary to allow the United
States to fully participate in and comply with the terms and
provisions of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources. The Act, among other things,
directs that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with
the Secretary of State, the Director of the National Science
Foundation, and appropriate officials of other Federal agen-
cies, such as the Marine Mammal Commission, prepare and
annually update a plan for conducting directed research
necessary to effectively implement the Convention.
In response to this directive, the National Marine
Fisheries Service prepared and, in June 1985, distributed a
draft Antarctic Marine Living Resources Program Development
Plan for review and comment. The draft Plan was reviewed
during the previously mentioned meeting of the Ad hoc U.S.
Scientific Working Group, held in Rhode Island on 24-25 June
1985. The Marine Mammal Commission, in consultation with its
Committee of Scientific Advisors, subsequently reviewed the
draft and provided detailed comments in a 17 July 1985 letter
26
to the Service. The Commission also commented on the draft
Program Development Plan in letters of 22 July 1985 to the
Deputy Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and to the Director of the National Science
Foundation's Division of Polar Programs. These letters noted
the importance of maintaining a strong, well-balanced basic
research program and of developing and implementing a
directed research program. The Commission offered to provide
whatever assistance might be helpful to facilitate develop-
ment and coordination of the marine research programs being
planned and conducted or supported by the two agencies.
The National Marine Fisheries Service addressed comments
by the Marine Mammal Commission and other reviewers in a
revised draft of the Program Development Plan, which was
distributed and briefly summarized at a 13 November 1985
meeting of the Working Group of the interagency Antarctic
Policy Group. The Commission, in consultation with its
Committee of Scientific Advisors, reviewed the revised draft
and, by letter of 10 December 1985, advised the Department of
State of its concurrence that the Plan should be endorsed by
the Antarctic Policy Group. The Marine Mammal Commission
also suggested a number of ways to improve the Plan and
pointed out that the proposed program's success would depend,
to a great extent, on the adequacy of ship support and close
coordination with the National Science Foundation's basic
research program. The Commission further noted that it would
not be possible to fully implement the program in FY 1987 as
proposed unless steps are taken immediately to secure the
necessary ship support.
In 1986, the Marine Mammal Commission will continue to
work with the Department of State, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the National Science Foun-
dation to help develop both basic and directed research
programs that address whales, seals, and other components of
the Antarctic marine ecosystem.
Activities Related to Non-Living Resources
As noted earlier, there is growing interest in potential
non-living resources in Antarctica, particularly offshore oil
and gas. Activities associated with exploration for and
exploitation of offshore oil and gas and possibly other non-
living resources could have direct and indirect effects on
whales, seals, krill, and other living organisms in the
Antarctic marine ecosystem. The Antarctic Treaty Consul-
tative Parties have recognized this possibility, as they
recognized the possible adverse effects of fishing and
related activities. At the XIth Antarctic Treaty Consul-
tative Meeting held in Argentina in July 1982, they agreed
that a regime on Antarctic mineral resources should be elabo-
rated and that the regime should provide means for:
27
(1) assessing the possible impact of mineral resource activi-
ties on the Antarctic environment in order to provide for
informed decision-making; (2) determining the acceptability
of possible mineral resource activities; and (3) governing
those activities determined to be acceptable. Negotiation of
the regime began at a Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative
Meeting in New Zealand in June 1982, and it has continued at
formal and informal sessions in New Zealand (January 1983) ;
Federal Republic of Germany (July 1983) ; Washington, D.C.
(January 1984) ; Japan (May 1984) ; Brazil (February 1985) ; and
France (September 1985).
The negotiations initially involved only the Antarctic
Treaty Consultative Parties, which presently include Argen-
tina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, the Federal
Republic of Germany, India, Japan, New Zealand, Norway,
Poland, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom,
Uruguay, and the United States. Beginning with the meeting
in Rio de Janerio in February 1985, the negotiations have
been open to observers from acceding states to the Antarctic
Treaty. These presently include Bulgaria, Cuba, Denmark,
Finland, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Papua-New Guinea,
Peru, Romania, Spain, and Sweden.
Negotiations will continue in April 1986 in Australia.
The Marine Mammal Commission has provided and will continue
to provide advice and assistance to ensure, insofar as is
possible, that the regime is ecologically sound and not to
the disadvantage of marine mammals and other living organisms
of the Southern Ocean.
Proposed Ocean Drilling Program
The National Science Foundation plans to initiate a ten
year or longer ocean drilling research program to succeed the
recently completed Deep Sea Drilling Project. The new pro-
gram would use a more modern research vessel (the Joides
Resolution) for drilling into deep sedimentary sequences on
continental margins. Drilling would take place throughout
the world's oceans, including one or more sites in Antarc-
tica. It would provide core samples and data necessary to
improve current understanding of seafloor speading, plate
tectonics, the structure of the earth's interior, and related
geologic conditions and phenomena.
To facilitate consideration of the potential impacts of
the proposed action, the National Science Foundation has
prepared and sought comments on a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement that evaluates the possible consequences of drill-
ing in four representative areas -- Georges Bank, the East
Pacific Rise, the Mid-American Trench, and the Weddell Sea.
The Marine Mammal Commission, in consultation with its
Committee of Scientific Advisors, reviewed the draft state-
ment, paying particular attention to the sections dealing
28
with the possible impacts of the proposed action on marine
mammals in the Weddell Sea and on Georges Bank.
In its letter of 29 August 1985 to the National Science
Foundation, the Commission noted that while the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement provided a generally thorough
assessment of the possible effects of the proposed action on
marine mammals, it did not recognize that the occurrence of
marine mammals in many areas is seasonal and that the nature
and extent of possible impacts on marine mammals would depend
upon the timing as well as the location of activities. The
Commission also noted that the section of the draft statement
identifying applicable laws and regulations should be
expanded to identify relevant provisions of the Convention
for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, the Endangered
Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Further,
the Commission pointed out that it would be inappropriate, as
proposed in the draft statement, to use the same standards
used to judge the possible effects of fisheries -- i.e.,
those set forth in Article II of the Convention on the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources -- to judge
the significance of the possible effects of the drilling
program on Antarctic marine living resources.
The XIIIth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting
The Thirteenth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting
took place in Brussels, Belgium, from 7-18 October 1985. Two
new Consultative Parties, the People's Republic of China and
the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, attended for the first
time, bringing the total number of Consultative Parties to
18.
Marine Mammal Commission representatives helped develop
U.S. positions relative to items on the meeting agenda and
participated in the meeting. Agenda items included operation
of the Antarctic Treaty System and protection of the Antarc-
tic environment. With regard to the latter, a joint U.S./
Australian recommendation was approved which requests the
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) to consider
and provide advice on the need for a new category of pro-
tected area and steps that might usefully be taken to develop
a system for more effectively compiling, storing, and acces-
sing information on the Antarctic. Recommendations also were
approved designating three new Specially Protected Areas and
thirteen new Sites of Special Scientific Interest, including
one site of long-term Weddell seal studies being conducted by
U.S. investigators.
There was much discussion of the need to establish
formal procedures for assessing the possible adverse effects
of research and related support activities in Antarctica.
However, because of the financial implications and practical
problems faced by parties that presently do not have well
29
defined environmental impact assessment procedures, it was
not possible to reach agreement on a recommendation. It was
agreed that the Consultative Parties would further evaluate
and, as possible, implement environmental impact assessment
procedures using the guidelines set forth in the SCAR docu-
ment entitled "Man's impact on the Antarctic environment: A
procedure for evaluating impacts from scientific and logistic
activities." It also was agreed that environmental impact
assessment procedures would be included on the agenda for
further consideration at the XIVth Consultative Meeting to be
held in Brazil in 1987.
These actions complement the ongoing efforts to imple-
ment the Living Resources Convention and to develop a regime
to govern possible mineral activities. Collectively, they
contribute to the development of a system for assuring the
conservation of the Antarctic ecosystem and its component
elements.
New International Interest in Antarctica
The basic purpose of the Antarctic Treaty, which entered
into force in 1961, is to assure that the Antarctic is
reserved exclusively for peaceful purposes. To this end,
military activities, nuclear explosions, and the disposal of
radioactive waste in Antarctica are prohibited. The Treaty
also guarantees freedom of scientific research in Antarctica
and establishes the basis for international cooperation
therein. To accomplish these objectives, the Treaty incor-
porates juridical provisions which permit its parties to
agree or disagree over the legal and political status of
Antarctica. (Of its original twelve parties, seven claim
territorial sovereignty over parts of Antarctica; the remain-
ing parties, including the U.S., neither assert nor recognize
such claims.) The Treaty also makes provision for regular
consultative meetings, which have evolved into a mechanism
for dealing with new issues as and when they arise.
In recent years, there has been growing international
interest in Antarctica. Since the Treaty entered into force,
twenty additional nations have acceded to it, bringing the
total to thirty-two parties. As noted earlier, eighteen of
these are Consultative Parties, which participate in the
regular meetings held under the Treaty. The remaining four-
teen non-consultative parties attend such meetings as ob-
servers. This growth and increasing interest reflects, in
part, recognition of the importance of scientific research in
Antarctica, which remains the primary focus of human activity
there.
The growing interest also derives from speculation about
the resource potential of Antarctica. This latter perception
appears to have been a factor in the initiative taken by
Malaysia in 1983 to stimulate United Nations' consideration
30
of Antarctica. Acting on Malaysia's proposal, the United
Nations General Assembly inscribed an item on Antarctica on
the agenda of its 38th Session in 1983. As a result, the
General Assembly adopted a resolution that called upon the
Secretary-General to "prepare a comprehensive, factual and
objective study of all aspects of Antarctica."
The Secretary-General's study was completed in November
1984 and, following further consideration of the matter, the
United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution that:
(1) affirmed the conviction that, "in the interest of all
mankind, Antarctica should continue forever to be used exclu-
sively for peaceful purposes and that it should not become
the scene or object of international discord" and (2) agreed
to inscribe an item entitled "Question of Antarctica" in the
provisional agenda for the 40th Session of the General
Assembly in 1985.
Although the question of Antarctica had been previously
treated on a consensus basis in the United Nations, this
pattern was broken during the 40th Session of the General
Assembly. Malaysia and its supporters chose to push through
three resolutions by vote. In the view of the U.S. and the
other Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties, the resolutions
incorporate elements which seek unjustifiably to call into
question the Antarctic Treaty system and to create an artifi-
cial dichotomy between that system and the United Nations'
system. For these reasons, they took the general position of
non-participation in the votes on the three resolutions.
The first resolution, sponsored by Bangladesh, Brunei
Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Nigeria, Oman,
Pakistan, Rwanda, and Sri Lanka, requests that the Secretary-
General "update and expand the study on the question of
Antarctica by addressing questions concerning the availa-
bility of information from the Antarctic Treaty Consultative
Parties to the United Nations on their respective activities
in, and their deliberations regarding Antarctica, the in-
volvement of the relevant specialized agencies and inter-
governmental organizations in the Antarctic Treaty System and
the significance of the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea in the Southern Ocean."
The second resolution, sponsored by Bangladesh, Brunei
Darussalam, Malaysia, Mali, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Rwanda,
and Sri Lanka, calls attention to the ongoing negotiation of
the minerals regime, affirms that any exploitation of
resources in Antarctica should ensure the international
management and equitable sharing of the benefits of such
exploitation, and invites the Antarctic Treaty Consultative
Parties to "inform the Secretary-General of their negoti-
ations to establish a regime regarding Antarctic Minerals."
31
The third resolution, sponsored by Mauritius, notes the
apartheid regime of South Africa and urges the Antarctic
Treaty Consultative Parties to exclude South Africa from
participation in meetings of the Consultative Parties.
In explaining their position, Australia, speaking before
the General Assembly on behalf of the Consultative Parties,
expressed regret that the consensus tradition had been
abandoned and indicated that the nature of the resolutions
and the way in which they had been adopted would call into
question future consultative party participation in the
Antarctic agenda item until consensus was restored.
The Marine Mammal Commission believes that the Antarctic
Treaty and the related agreements that form the Antarctic
Treaty System provide an essential basis for effectively
protecting and conserving marine mammals, the Continent
proper, and the surrounding seas. In 1986, the Commission
will continue its efforts to strengthen and facilitate effec-
tive implementation of the Antarctic Treaty, the Convention
on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, and
other elements of the Antarctic Treaty System.
The International Whaling Commission
Representatives of the Marine Mammal Commission con-
sulted with the U.S. Commissioner to the International
Whaling Commission (IWC) and others to help plan for U.S.
participation in the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the IWC
in Bournemouth, United Kingdom, and they attended the
meetings of the IWC and its Scientific Committee during 1985.
A summary of the Marine Mammal Commission's activities during
1985, as well as a summary of the IWC meetings and related
U.S activities, follows.
The July 1985 Meeting
Membership and Participation -- Between the 1984 and
1985 meetings, two more nations, Ireland and the Solomon
Islands, joined the IWC thereby increasing its total member-
ship to forty-one nations. Representatives of thirty-eight
of those nations participated in the 1985 meeting.
Moratorium on Commercial Whaling -- As discussed in the
Marine Mammal Commission's previous Annual Reports, the IWC
adopted a new provision to its Schedule of regulations in
1982 which provides that catch limits for all commercial
whaling will be set at zero for the 1985/86 pelagic and 1986
coastal whaling seasons and thereafter. The new provision,
Schedule paragraph 10 (e), also provides that, by 1990 at the
latest, the IWC will undertake a comprehensive assessment of
the effect of this decision on whale stocks and consider
modification of this provision and the establishment of other
32
catch limits. No action was taken during the 1985 meeting to
amend or modify Schedule paragraph 10 (e) and therefore,
pursuant to its provisions, catch limits for the coming year
for all stocks of whales were automatically set at zero for
purposes of commercial whaling. Catch limits for commercial
whaling will remain at zero unless and until a three-quarters
majority of the IWC members votes to modify Schedule para-
graph 10 (e).
Three nations (Japan, Norway, and the Soviet Union)
maintain objections to Schedule paragraph 10 (e). Under the
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, this
action removes the obligation of their respective governments
to comply with the requirements of this provision. Notwith-
standing the objection maintained by the Soviet Union, how-
ever, its representative stated at the 1985 meeting that, for
technical reasons, the U.S.S.R. would temporarily stop com-
mercial whaling, beginning with the 1987/88 Antarctic whaling
season.
Catch Limits -- As noted above, all catch limits for
purposes of commercial whaling were set at zero for next
year's whaling seasons. The Scientific Committee did, how-
ever, review stock assessments in order to provide management
advice with respect to priority stocks where there is a
likelihood of continued exploitation. Based on that assess-
ment, the Scientific Committee recommended, and the IWC
adopted, proposals to reclassify the following stocks as
Protected Stocks in the IWC Schedule of regulations: the
northeastern Atlantic minke whale stock, the Sea of Japan/
Yellow Sea/East China Sea minke whale stock, and the East
China Sea Bryde's whale stock. The IWC also reclassified the
Western Division North Pacific sperm whale stock as a
Protected Stock effective from the beginning of the 1988
whaling season.
Aboriginal/Subsistence Whaling -- In 1983, the IWC
implemented a new scheme for establishing catch limits for
aboriginal/subsistence whaling. At the 1985 meeting, abori-
ginal catch limits were set for the Bering Sea stock of
bowhead whales, the eastern North Pacific stock of gray
whales, and West Greenland stocks of minke, fin, and humpback
whales. With respect to bowhead whales, the Scientific
Committee of the IWC reported that improved population esti-
mates suggest its size is larger than had previously been
suspected and that the best estimate of abundance was 4,417
animals (range 2,613 - 6,221 animals). No new information
was available concerning natural mortality rates or annual
net recruitment, and the Committee recommended that any catch
limits be set with caution. The IWC adopted a three-year
block quota for bowhead whales of 26 strikes per year for the
years 1985 to 1987. Strikes not used in any one year, how-
ever, may be used in the following year provided that no more
than 32 whales are struck in any one year. Aboriginal catch
33
limits set for other whale stocks for 1985 were as follows:
179 eastern North Pacific gray whales; 10 West Greenland fin
whales; zero West Greenland humpback whales; and 130 West
Greenland minke whales. Further, with respect to West Green-
land minke whales, the adopted IWC quota also provided that
up to 220 whales could be taken in the years 1986 and 1987.
Future Activities of the IWC -- During the 1984 meeting,
the U.S. proposed that a working group be constituted to
consider possible operational adjustments that the IWC should
consider in view of the implications of the impending mora-
torium on commercial operations and financial constraints.
That working group met twice prior to the 1985 IWC meeting
and prepared a report, which was adopted by the IWC, out-
lining priority tasks for the coming years. Among the list
of priority actions identified were the following: (a) moni-
toring any commercial catch taken under objections to
Schedule paragraph 10 (e) and compliance with applicable
regulations other than catch limits; (b) conducting the
comprehensive assessment; (c) establishing aboriginal/subsis-
tence catch limits; (d) considering revisions of the present
management procedures; and (e) reviewing special permits
proposed by party governments for purposes of scientific
research.
The IWC also adopted a resolution proposed by Brazil and
the Philippines establishing an ad hoc working group to draft
terms of reference for use in evaluating the socio-economic
implications of zero catch limits for those countries that
have adhered to and been affected by them. The working group
will meet prior to the next IWC meeting and the draft terms
of reference will be considered during the 38th Annual
Meeting.
Special Permits for Scientific Research -- Article VIII
of the Whaling Convention provides that any member nation may
grant a special permit to its citizens to take whales for
purposes of scientific research and that the whales taken may
be processed and sold in accordance with that party govern-
ment's directions. Party governments, however, must provide
the IWC and its Scientific Committee an opportunity to review
proposed special permits, which are to include certain infor-
mation concerning proposed activities, before they are
issued. The Governments of Iceland and Korea put forward
proposed permits involving the taking of whales and, to help
ensure that these and any other research proposals are well
conceived and effectively meet data needs, the Scientific
Committee formulated a series of guidelines with which to
review proposed permits. With respect to Iceland's research
proposal, which provides for an annual take of 80 fin whales,
40 sei whales, and 80 minke whales during the years 1986 to
1989, the Scientific Committee provided detailed comments but
was unable to reach agreement on the extent to which the
34
proposal satisfied its new guidelines. The Korean research
proposal did not meet IWC information requirements.
During the 1985 meeting, the IWC adopted a resolution
establishing a working group that will meet prior to the next
IWC meeting to further define the parameters for research
conducted under special permits and to develop recommended
guidelines for the international trade of products derived
from whales taken during the research activities. The reso-
lution also calls upon party governments to take account of
the serious concerns expressed by the IWC and the advice and
guidelines developed by the Scientific Committee and to avoid
research activities during the period of the moratorium that
assume characteristics of commercial whaling.
Related Activities
Certification and Sanctions under the Pelly and
Packwood-Magnuson Amendments -- As discussed in previous
Annual Reports, whaling carried out under objections to
provisions of the IWC Schedule may trigger certain actions
under two U.S. laws -- the Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen's
Protective Act and the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment to the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Under the
former, the U.S. may embargo imports of fish products from
countries whose nationals are certified by the Secretary of
Commerce as conducting fishing operations (including whaling)
in a manner or under circumstances which diminish the effec-
tiveness of international conservation* programs such as the
IWC. The Packwood-Magnuson Amendment mandates a reduction by
at least 50 percent in the allocation of fish that may be
caught within the U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone by any
nation so certified.
In 1984, the IWC established a quota of 4,224 whales for
the commercial harvest of minke whales in the Southern Hemi-
sphere. Brazil, Japan, and the Soviet Union harvest minke
whales in the Antarctic and, applying past practices used to
divide the Southern Hemisphere minke whale quotas among the
three countries, the 1984/85 IWC quota would have allowed
Japan and the Soviet Union each to take 1,941 whales and
Brazil to take 342 whales. All three nations objected to the
IWC quota and, recognizing that these countries might take
whales in excess of the established IWC quota, the U.S.
advised each of the three countries that it might consider
the take of whales above the aforementioned levels to
diminish the effectiveness of IWC conservation standards and
thereby require the U.S. to consider possible sanctions under
applicable U.S. laws.
During the 1984/85 Antarctic whaling season, the Soviet
Union took more than 1,941 minke whales, causing the overall
IWC Southern Hemisphere minke whale quota to be exceeded.
35
Therefore, on 1 April 1985, the Secretary of Commerce certi-
fied to the President that nationals of the Soviet Union were
conducting whaling operations that diminish the effectiveness
of the IWC's conservation program. As required by the
Packwood-Magnuson Amendment, the Secretary of State, in
consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, immediately took
steps to reduce by half the allocation of fish that would
have otherwise been provided to Soviet fishermen fishing in
the U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone. If, after one year, the
Soviet Union continues to take whales in excess of adopted
IWC quotas, no fishery allocation may be provided to the
Soviet Union. No trade sanctions were authorized under the
Pelly Amendment, however, as it was determined that an
embargo of fish products from the Soviet Union would have a
negligible effect on the Soviet Union, which could easily
market such products elsewhere, and such action could result
in unemployment of U.S. workers who depend on the U.S.-
U.S.S.R. joint venture company. No action was taken to
certify Japan or Brazil, as whalers from those countries did
not exceed their share of the 1984/85 IWC Antarctic minke
whale quota. The certification of the Soviet Union was the
first time any nation has been certified under the Packwood-
Magnuson Amendment for the whaling practices of its
nationals.
The U.S.-Japanese Agreement -- As noted in the Marine
Mammal Commission's previous Annual Report, the U.S. and
Japan reached an understanding in November 1984 under which
Japan would file prospective withdrawals of its objections to
an IWC sperm whale quota and the moratorium provision and
thereby end all of its commercial whaling activities on or
before April 1988. The U.S. would, in turn, refrain from
certifying Japan for certain limited whaling activities that
would be contrary to established IWC quotas. Among other
things, the agreement called for filing a prospective with-
drawal of Japan's objection to the sperm whale quota by 13
December 1984 and a prospective withdrawal of its objection
to the moratorium provision by 1 April 1985.
The Ambassador of Japan advised the Secretary of
Commerce by letter of 11 December 1984 that the prospective
withdrawal of its objection to the sperm whale quota had been
filed. By means of an exchange of letters on 5 April 1985
between Japan's Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Secretary
of Commerce, it was agreed that Japan would file a prospec-
tive withdrawal of its objection to Schedule paragraph 10 (e)
within five days of a final unappealable decision in favor of
the U.S. Government in the court case American Cetacean
Society et al. V. Baldrige (see below). In the interim, the
Minister indicated that Japanese whaling activities would be
guided by the understanding reached with the U.S. in November
1984.
36
Litigation -- As noted in the Annual Report for
Calendar Year 1984, a number of environmental organizations
brought suit against the Secretaries of Commerce and State
seeking to prevent the Secretaries from entering into an
agreement with the Government of Japan whereby Japan would
not be certified under the Pelly and Packwood-Magnuson Amend-
ments for non-compliance by Japanese whalers with established
IWC quotas. The suit sought, among other things, a declara-
tory judgment that the Secretary of Commerce is required to
certify Japan if Japanese whalers exceed such established
quotas. on 5 March 1985, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and
ordered the Secretary of Commerce to certify Japan for taking
sperm whales in numbers that were in excess of the applicable
IWC quotas to which Japan had objected but which were contem-
plated under the U.S. -Japanese agreement negotiated in
November 1984 (see above).
The U.S. immediately obtained a stay of the ruling
pending an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. The Appeal was heard by a
three-judge panel and, on 16 May 1985, a decision was
rendered upholding the District Court's ruling. Another stay
was obtained, and the Justice Department requested a
rehearing en banc before the Court of Appeals (i.e., before
all 11 members of the District of Columbia Circuit). This
request was denied on 11 October 1985.
In a final attempt to overturn the lower court ruling,
the Justice Department obtained another stay and filed a
petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. This
petition was filed on 4 December 1985 and, as of the end of
1985, a decision on whether the Supreme Court would hear the
case had not been made. If the Supreme Court denies the
request to hear the case or if it fails to overturn the Court
of Appeals' decision, the Secretary of Commerce will be
required to certify Japan under the Pelly Amendment for
having taken whales in excess of established IWC quotas and
the Secretary of State will be required to reduce Japan's
U.S. fishery allocation by at least 50 percent.
Other Matters In the fall of 1985, Dr. John V. Byrne
submitted his resignation as U.S. Commissioner to the IWC, a
post which he had filled since the 1982 IWC meeting. His
tenure as U.S. Commissioner paralleled the critical
transition period between the adoption and onset of the
moratorium on commercial whaling. By the end of 1985, an
announcement as to his replacement had not been made.
Recognizing the transitions within both the IWC as it
looked forward to the initiation of a moratorium on commer-
cial whaling and within the U.S. IWC leadership, the Marine
Mammal Commission began a review of IWC issues in 1985 in
37
order to assist U.S. efforts to evaluate future policy direc-
tions and activities. A preliminary analysis of IWC issues
was completed late in 1985, and the results of that review
should be sent to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration and the State Department early in 1986. Based on
its preliminary analysis, the Commission expects to recommend
that:
as a guiding principle, the U.S. take all feasible steps
to insure the long-term future of the Whaling Convention
and improve the effectiveness of the IWC;
the U.S. continue its support of the moratorium pro-
vision at least until such time as the comprehensive
assessment is completed and the provisions governing
commercial take are re-examined;
the U.S. make certain that post-comprehensive assessment
management decisions do not neglect uncertainties in
available data and/or population models which might, if
disregarded, allow whale stocks to be reduced to or
maintained at unacceptable levels, and that catch limits
other than zero for commercial whaling be supported only
if whale stocks are determined with certainty to be at a
level which could sustain such exploitation;
three or four U.S. scientists be immediately designated
to represent the U.S. at IWC meetings bearing on the
comprehensive assessment and that this group meet with
other appropriate U.S. scientists by mid-March to con-
sult on positions and develop scientific background
papers on: (a) procedures and timetables affecting the
comprehensive assessment, and (b) potential revision of
the IWC's present management procedures;
the U.S. participate in IWC meetings, including those
scheduled for 7-11 April in England and 6 June in
Sweden, bearing on the comprehensive assessment, as well
as meetings such as the one scheduled for 2 June in
Sweden on socio-economic aspects of IWC whaling
decisions;
the U.S. continue to consider and, as appropriate,
invoke sanctions available under the Pelly and Packwood-
Magnuson Amendments against nations whose citizens (a)
engage in commercial whaling contrary to the moratorium
provision or (b) take whales under special permits for
scientific research which are issued without required
notification to the IWC or which clearly disregard such
advice as may be provided by the IWC;
the U.S. participate in the 2 June 1986 working group
meeting and any other IWC meetings to consider matters
38
relating to the issuance of special permits for
scientific research;
the U.S. continue to support IWC actions which reflect
legitimate subsistence needs of Alaska Eskimos;
the U.S. maintain appropriate arrangements with the
Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission to ensure that the
Alaska Eskimo bowhead whale hunt is conducted in a
manner consistent with adopted IWC quotas and related
provisions;
the National Marine Mammal Laboratory continue its past
practice of convening annual meetings to review and
coordinate bowhead whale research supported by Federal
agencies, State agencies, Native organizations, and
industry groups by convening such a meeting as early as
possible in 1986;
money be provided to the National Marine Mammal Labora-
tory to sustain efforts to better determine the net
recruitment rate for the Bering Sea bowhead whale popu-
lation as recommended by the IWC's Scientific Committee;
and
the U.S. continue its support for development and use of
the most humane killing techniques available, including
efforts to improve techniques for the taking of bowhead
whales for subsistence purposes.
As noted above, the Government of Iceland advised the
IWC during the 1985 meeting that it intended to issue a
special permit to take a certain number of fin, sei, and
minke whales in the North Atlantic during the years 1986 to
1988 for purposes of scientific research. The IWC Schedule
requires that scientists from other countries be afforded an
opportunity to participate in any such proposed research
program and, following the 1985 IWC meeting, the Marine
Research Institute of Reykjavik, Iceland, (i.e., the recipi-
ent of the proposed special permit) distributed an outline of
its research program to various marine institutes and organi-
zations interested in marine mammal research. The proposed
research outline was transmitted by letter of 20 September
1985, and both the Marine Mammal Commission and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration received copies. By
letter of 6 December 1985, the Administrator of NOAA re-
quested comments from the Commission on the research proposal
in order to assist with its evaluation of related policy
considerations. At the end of 1985, the Commission was
completing its review and anticipated returning detailed
comments early in 1986.
The Commission will continue to consult and cooperate
with other agencies and interested groups and individuals
39
during 1986 concerning these and other issues related to the
IWC.
Interim Convention on Conservation
of North Pacific Fur Seals
The Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific
Fur Seals calls for cooperative research and management
efforts by Japan, Canada, the U.S.S.R. and the United States
to achieve the maximum sustainable productivity of the fur
seal populations of the North Pacific Ocean. Among other
things, the Convention prohibits pelagic sealing and provides
for the sharing of pelts from commercial land-based harvests
carried out by the United States on the Pribilof Islands and
by the U.S.S.R. on the Commander and Robben Islands. The
Convention entered into force in 1957 and has been extended
by a succession of Protocols, the most recent of which was
signed by the four parties on 12 October 1984 and would
extend the Convention through October 1988. During 1985, the
Protocol was submitted to the United States Senate for its
advice and consent. However, as of the end of 1985, the
Senate had not taken final action on the matter.
During recent years, the Pribilof Islands fur seal
population has been declining at a rate of about 6.5 percent
per year. The current population, estimated to be about
819, animals, is less than half of its estimated popu-
lation size of two million animals in the early 1950s. While
the cause or causes of this decline are uncertain, mortality
resulting from entanglement in lost or discarded fishing gear
and other debris appears to be at least a contributing factor
if not the major contributing factor. The entanglement issue
as it relates to fur seals and other marine mammals is dis-
cussed in greater detail in Chapter VI of this Report.
The ongoing population decline and issues related to the
harvest of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands raised difficult
research and management questions during 1985 and make the
future of the Convention uncertain. The following provides a
review of actions taken in 1985 by the Marine Mammal Commis-
sion and others concerning the Interim Convention and the
conservation of the fur seal population.
The 1984 Protocol to Extend the Convention
As noted in the Commission's previous Annual Report, a
Protocol to extend the Interim Convention through October
1988 was signed by the four Party Governments on 12 October
1984 and is subject to ratification or other forms of accep-
tance by the Governments involved. In a joint statement
accompanying the signed Protocol, the parties made particular
note of their concern about the decline of the fur seal
population, current economic conditions, and other problems
40
of fur seal conservation and utilization. In the statement,
the parties indicated that: (1) additional research is needed
on the problem of entanglement of fur seals in lost or
discarded fishing nets, fishing gear, and other debris; (2)
in accordance with the London Dumping Convention and in
comformity with their respective national laws, the Party
Governments will take appropriate measures to prohibit the
disposal at sea in the Convention area of synthetic
materials, such as fishing nets and gear, ropes, packing
bands, and other debris that might lead to the entanglement
of fur seals; (3) in the event of unforeseen circumstances,
the countries of fur seal origin may take measures as neces-
sary for the conservation and management of fur seals, after
consultation with other parties; and (4) within two years,
all parties will review the Convention in light of issues
raised in the statement to determine if either modifications
or renegotiation of the Convention are desirable.
The 1985 Meeting of the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission
Although the 1984 Protocol to extend the Convention
had not been ratified by April 1985, the involved parties
agreed to meet in anticipation of the possibility that the
Protocol would be approved prior to the 1985 harvest. The
Fur Seal Commission meeting was held on 15-18 April in Tokyo,
Japan. That meeting was preceded by a meeting of its
Committee of Scientists on 4-11 April, also in Tokyo.
Prior to the Fur Seal Commission's meeting, the National
Marine Fisheries Service consulted with the Marine Mammal
Commission on development of U.S. positions with respect to
the subsistence harvest of fur seals on St. George Island,
the possible resumption of pelagic sealing, the entanglement
of fur seals in marine debris, and future commercial harvest-
ing. By letters of 22 March and 5 April 1985 to the Service,
the Commission recommended that the draft U.S. positions
concerning these issues be revised to provide more definitive
statements and instructions for the U.S. delegation to follow
during the meeting.
For example, with respect to the entanglement issue, the
Commission recommended, among other things, that the proposed
position be revised to direct that the U.S. delegation:
advise other parties of the specific actions and commit-
ments which the U.S. is undertaking to assess and
resolve the entanglement problem;
ensure that other parties are aware of relevant findings
and conclusions resulting from the November 1984 Work-
shop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris and that
they are provided copies of the Executive Summary of the
report from the Workshop;
41
advise other parties that the U.S. will include explicit
"no discard" provisions in permits for foreign vessels
allowed to fish in U.S. waters;
request that, prior to the next meeting of the Fur Seal
Commission, the parties exchange: (a) information about
their domestic laws, regulations, and penalties pertain-
ing to discarding fishing gear and other debris at sea,
and (b) descriptions of research that has been or is
being conducted to improve understanding of the entan-
glement problem;
request that other parties reassess and, as possible,
strengthen their domestic programs for educating fisher-
men and other vessel operators in the North Pacific
Ocean as to effects and legal sanctions associated with
disposal of debris at sea; and
propose that a workshop be held in advance of the next
Fur Seal Commission meeting to review actions that have
been taken and to determine additional cooperative
measures that might be taken to expedite identification
and elimination or mitigation of the cause or causes of
the continuing decline of the Pribilof Islands fur seal
population.
As indicated below, some of these points were raised by
U.S. participants to the meeting of the Fur Seal Commission's
Committee of Scientists. However, most of these points were
not raised during the meeting of the Fur Seal Commissioners,
and it was not clear what further research and management
steps, if any, other parties to the Convention would take.
Representatives from all four contracting nations to the
Convention attended the 1985 meetings of the Committee of
Scientists and the Fur Seal Commission. With respect to the
harvest of subadult male fur seals on St. Paul Island, the
report of the Committee of Scientists predicted that, if a
commercial harvest were to be conducted in 1985, 23,499 seals
would be taken. During the Fur Seal Commission meeting, the
U.S. Commissioner proposed, and the Commission agreed, that
an upper limit of 22,000 subadult male fur seals be estab-
lished for the 1985 harvest. The U.S. Commissioner also
proposed to shorten the harvest season by one week and
requested authority to take as few as 15,000 animals if
economic circumstances warranted a reduced harvest. While
the Commission agreed to shortening the harvest season, it
did not agree to authorize a reduced harvest. The U.S.S.R.
indicated its intent to harvest 5,100 seals on the Commander
Islands and 2,000 seals on Robben Island.
In order to meet the subsistence needs of residents on
St. George Island not met by carcasses provided from the
commercial harvest on neighboring St. Paul Island, the U.S.
42
Commissioner noted that a subsistence take of up to 329 seals
would be permitted. Noting, however, that this still might
not be sufficient to meet the food requirements of the
St. George Island residents, he also requested and was
granted authority to authorize a harvest of up to 500 animals
on St. George Island for that purpose.
With respect to the entanglement issue, the parties
exchanged relevant data and information on ongoing research
during the course of the meeting of the Committee of
Scientists. U.S. representatives distributed copies of the
Executive Summary of the November Workshop on the Fate and
Impact of Marine Debris and there was discussion of the
results and recommendations resulting therefrom. During the
Commission meeting, the U.S. Commissioner noted the signifi-
cance of entanglement as a cause of the fur seal population
decline and urged all participating nations to continue to
support cooperative international efforts to study and solve
the problem of marine debris. There was no reported discus-
sion and no agreement on specific actions that should and
would be taken to establish and eliminate or mitigate the
cause or causes of the continuing population decline.
U.S. Deliberations on Extension of the Convention
As noted in the Commission's previous Annual Reports,
the National Marine Fisheries Service prepared a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement on extension of the Interim
Convention in 1983. The Commission provided the Service
detailed comments on the draft Statement by letter of 11
January 1984. Among other things, the Commission's letter
noted its belief that the proposed action to extend the
Interim Convention would be the preferred action if, in fact,
it were to lead to the establishment of research, education,
and enforcement programs which would assure prompt resolution
of uncertainties concerning the rate and possible causes of
the ongoing decline in the Pribilof Islands fur seal popula-
tion and if it were to assure that appropriate and necessary
steps would be promptly taken to effectively stop and reverse
the decline.
On 2 April 1985, the National Marine Fisheries Service
issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement on extending
the Interim Convention. The final Statement indicated that
the Departments of Commerce and State would recommend to the
Senate that it give its advice and consent to ratification of
the 1984 Protocol. The Protocol was transmitted to the
Senate for advice and consent on 20 March 1985, where it was
referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
A hearing on ratification of the Protocol was conducted
by the Committee on 13 June 1985. During the hearing, the
Commission provided testimony indicating its concern about
the population decline and the lack of information on the
43
cause of that decline. Among other things, the Commission
noted that if the Interim Convention were not extended, there
would be considerable risk that it would not be possible to
develop international agreements that would be effective in
implementing needed research and conservation measures,
including a prohibition on pelagic taking. In light of this
concern, the Commission expressed its support for extension
of the Convention but recommended that the United States
propose a suspension of further commercial harvests of fur
seals pending an evaluation of the effectiveness of those
steps being taken to address the population decline. In its
testimony, the Commission also referenced and reiterated the
view expressed in its 17 August 1984 letter to the National
Marine Fisheries Service that steps should be taken to pre-
pare and implement a conservation plan for North Pacific fur
seals that is similar in form and content to recovery plans
required by the Endangered Species Act.
Testimony also was presented by representatives of other
Federal agencies, environmental organizations, the State of
Alaska, the Aleut community, and the U.S. Senate. With
respect to testimony by Federal agencies, representatives of
the Commerce Department and the State Department supported
ratification of the Protocol and extension of the Convention.
In doing so, they pointed out the value of the Convention for
promoting and coordinating international cooperation on
necessary research, management, and conservation tasks, and
they indicated that the commercial harvest of fur seals
continues to meet important economic and subsistence needs of
Aleuts who reside on the Pribilof Islands. The represen-
tative of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and
Atmosphere, summarizing the results of its 1985 study on the
Interim Convention, expressed, among other things, the view
that: the U.S. Government should immediately and permanently
cease entrepreneurial participation in the commercial fur
seal harvest; the Senate should ratify the Convention; the
Secretaries of Commerce and State should direct the U.S.
Commissioner to urgently consider the desirability of
suspending the commercial harvest in light of the best scien-
tific information available; and a portion of the funds saved
by terminating U.S. Government involvement in the commercial
harvest should be reallocated to augment the U.S. fur seal
research program.
Environmental organizations offered divergent views on
the Convention. Groups such as the Animal Protection
Institute, Friends of Animals, Greenpeace, and the Humane
Society of the United States objected to ratification,
arguing that the Convention was no longer needed to protect
fur seals from pelagic sealing and that the commercial
harvest cannot be justified on economic, ethical, or scien-
tific grounds. Support for ratification was provided by the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the
National Audubon Society, the Wildlife Management Institute,
44
and the World Wildlife Fund. These groups acknowledged the
need to maintain an international agreement that prohibits
pelagic sealing and provides a resource management and scien-
tific research mechanism, however, they offered differing
reasons for their support. For example, the National Audubon
Society supported ratification contingent upon the adoption
of scientific management principles that would ensure that
problems confronting the fur seal population would be
resolved in a timely fashion.
Support for ratification also was voiced by residents of
the Pribilof Islands and their representatives. They empha-
sized the cultural, economic, social, and subsistence signif-
icance of the annual harvest as an integral part of their way
of life and set forth their views that the commercial harvest
of subadult male fur seals is not a contributing factor in
the fur seal population decline. With respect to the latter
point, they noted that the decline may instead be due to
fundamental changes that appear to be taking place in the
Bering Sea ecosystem.
Following the hearing, representatives of the Aleuts and
various environmental organizations met on several occasions
to resolve their differences concerning extension of the
Convention. These meeting did not result in agreement
although a possible compromise was proposed and considered
in July. Under that compromise, Senate advice and consent
was to be provided on the Protocol, subject to the following
conditions: (1) the U.S. Commissioner to the Fur Seal
Commission would oppose any recommendation to take fur seals
for commercial purposes within the jurisdiction of the United
States; (2) during the period of the Protocol, North Pacific
fur seals within the jurisdiction of the United States would
be conserved, managed, and protected pursuant to U.S.
domestic laws to the extent that they are more restrictive
than the Convention; (3) the Secretary of Commerce would
implement a cooperative Bering Sea ecosystem research program
to help determine the cause or causes of the ongoing fur seal
population decline and to increase the health and viability
of the Bering Sea ecosystem, giving special emphasis to the
problems of entanglement of fur seals in lost and discarded
fishing gear and other debris and the reproductive failure of
other species within that ecosystem; and (4) the subsistence
take of fur seals would be at no cost to the U.S. Government
and all pelts held by the U.S. as a result of the 1984
harvest would be transferred to the village corporation on
St. Paul.
As of the end of 1985, the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations had not reported the matter to the full Senate for
its consideration and, as a result, the 1984 Protocol did not
receive Senate advice and consent in 1985. Canada, Japan and
the Soviet Union did, however, ratify the Protocol during
1985.
45
The 1985 Harvest
As noted above, the U.S. did not ratify the Protocol to
extend the Fur Seal Convention prior to the 1985 July-August
harvest season for fur seals. Thus, in the absence of an
international agreement binding upon the U.S., management
authority for fur seals on the Pribilof Islands reverted to
domestic legal authorities including the Marine Mammal
Protection Act and the Fur Seal Act. Pursuant to these laws,
the taking of fur seals for commercial purposes is pro-
hibited. A take by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes
is, however, permitted with certain restrictions. Under the
authority of these two laws, the National Marine Fisheries
Service published emergency interim regulations in the
Federal Register on 8 July 1985 for the purpose of governing
the 1985 subsistence take of fur seals by the Aleut residents
of the Pribilof Islands.
The regulations specified that the 1985 fur seal harvest
on the Pribilof Islands was to be conducted for subsistence
purposes only. They further specified that it was to end
either on 5 August 1985 or when the Assistant Administrator
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
determined that the harvest was being conducted in a wasteful
manner, whichever occurred first. With respect to the har-
vest on St. Paul Island, the regulations established require-
ments concerning the method of harvest, the locations where
harvesting could occur, the disposal of fur seal parts, and
cooperation with Federal officials monitoring the harvest.
With respect to St. George Island, a harvest limit of 329 fur
seals was set. The regulations provided for air transpor-
tation of seal meat from St. Paul Island to St. George Island
and specified that no part of a fur seal taken for subsis-
tence uses could be sold or transferred to a non-Native
unless it was: (1) a non-edible by-product that had been
transformed into an article of handicraft, (2) being sent by
a Pribilovian to a registered tannery, or (3) a skin to be
transferred to the U.S. for holding pending a determination
of its "final disposition."
A one-day emergency extension of the harvest season was
authorized on 6 August 1985 and published in the Federal
Register on 9 August. During the authorized harvest season,
3,385 fur seals were taken.
By letter of 24 July 1985, the Commission provided the
Service with comments on the emergency interim regulations.
In its letter, the Commission supported the regulations,
noting that without them there would be no restrictions on
taking fur seals by Alaska Natives and that an unregulated
harvest could have a severe, adverse effect on the declining
Pribilof Islands fur seal population. Among other things,
the Commission's letter recommended that the Service monitor
how fur seal parts taken for subsistence purposes are
46
actually used. It also recommended that the number of skins
to be preserved by the U.S. to satisfy any rejuvenated obli-
gations under the Convention should be limited to 6,600
skins. That is, if and when the U.S. decides to ratify the
Convention, these skins would be used to meet U.S. obliga-
tions for transferring the 3,300 skins that would be owed to
each of Canada and Japan if the 1985 harvest had been
conducted under the Convention.
Recognizing that the Convention might not be ratified by
the U.S. and that management of fur seals therefore might
remain subject to domestic authorities, the Service's 8 July
rulemaking also requested comments on the procedures that
should be used to (a) promulgate permanent regulations for
the subsistence harvest and (b) designate North Pacific fur
seals as "depleted" under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The Commission responded to this request by letter of 7
August 1985 to the Service. In its letter, the Commission
recommended that, to reconcile requirements of the Fur Seal
Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the more stringent
rulemaking requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
should be followed. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
permanent regulations restricting Native take would have to
be promulgated on the record after opportunity for an agency
hearing. Although the Service stated in its 8 July rule-
making that it would indicate which approach it would use for
developing permanent regulations in September 1985, a deci-
sion on this matter had not been announced as of the end of
1985. The Service's failure to initiate rulemaking proce-
dures to address this point creates a risk that permanent
regulations will not be in place in time for the 1986 subsis-
tence harvest. The Commission's concerns on this point were
conveyed to the Service by letter of 29 November 1985, in
which it recommended that procedures for promulgating perma-
nent regulations be initiated in December 1985.
With respect to the question of designating the Pribilof
Islands fur seal population as "depleted" under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, the Commission's 7 August 1985 letter
recommended that the Service do so immediately. The letter
also noted that the Commission had notified the Service on
three previous occasions that this action was appropriate.
Although the Service acknowledged in its 8 July rulemaking
that the Pribilof Islands fur seal population qualifies for
depleted status, no action had been taken by the end of 1985
to implement a formal designation as such and no response to
the Commission's recommendation had been received.
The Petition to List North Pacific Fur Seals as Threatened
As noted in the Commission's previous Annual Report, a
petition was submitted to the National Marine Fisheries
Service in early 1984 on behalf of several environmental
organizations requesting that the North Pacific fur seal
47
(Callorhinus ursinus) be listed as a threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. By Federal Register notice of 11
April 1984, the Service announced its determination that the
requested action may be warranted and requested data to
assist in its evaluation of the most appropriate course of
action.
The Commission provided the Service comments by letter
of 17 August 1984. Among other things, the Commission noted
that: the Pribilof Islands fur seal population is below its
optimum sustainable population level; if it continues to
decline at its present rate, the population would be half its
1984 population size in seven to ten years; although the
precise cause or causes of the population decline are not
known, entanglement in lost and discarded fishing gear and
other debris appears to be at least a contributing factor;
and new threats to Pribilof Islands fur seals may develop
from onshore and offshore oil and gas development and tanker
traffic in the vicinity of the Islands and elsewhere in the
population's range. The Commission concluded that, if steps
currently being taken by the U.S. and other parties to the
Convention are insufficient to identify and mitigate the
cause of the population decline soon, the population could
decline to a point where it would be in danger of extinction
in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the Commission also
concluded that designation as threatened would be appropriate
and that development of a recovery plan, which would be
required by such designation, would be beneficial.
On 6 March 1985, the National Marine Fisheries Service
published a notice in the Federal Register determining that
listing North Pacific fur seals as a threatened species was
not warranted at that time. In support of its determination,
the Service noted that: (1) although the Pribilof Islands
fur seal population is declining at a rate of about 6.5 per-
cent annually, the herd is not at or near a critical popu-
lation level at which it would be in danger of extinction;
(2) the Fur Seal Commission's Committee of Scientists, as
well as other fur seal biologists, believes that the harvest
of fur seals probably is not a factor contributing to the
population decline; (3) since the cause of the decline has
not been conclusively determined, the underlying need is to
intensify efforts to identify causal factors; and (4) contin-
uation of the current management regime under the Convention
provides the greatest protection available since the species
also occurs outside of U.S. jurisdiction.
By letter of 11 March 1985, the Service responded to the
Commission's letter of 17 August 1984 commenting on the
proposed listing. The Service indicated the seriousness with
which it viewed the ongoing population decline and recounted
the reasons set forth in the Federal Register notice as to
why it had determined that listing is not warranted. It also
stated that the most appropriate action at this time is to
48
continue investigations to determine the cause of the
decline.
Fur Seal Research and Management Needs
During the early part of 1985, the Commission became
concerned that the Service might not be doing everything
possible to address the problem of the continuing fur seal
population decline. This concern was intensified by the
Service's response to the Commission's comments on the
petition to list fur seals as endangered, and the Commission
therefore advised the Service of these concerns by letter of
24 April 1985. Referring to the position set forth in its
17 August 1984 letter on the listing question, the Commission
noted that it assumed that the Service's decision not to list
the North Pacific fur seal as threatened was based on a
determination that the steps currently being taken by the
Service and other parties to the Convention would be suf-
ficient to identify and eliminate or mitigate the cause or
causes of the population decline in the near future. The
basis for such a determination was not clear and, since the
Commission was uncertain as to the precise steps that were
being taken by the Service and other parties to the Conven-
tion to address this point, the Commission requested that the
Service provide: (1) a list of hypotheses concerning pos-
sible causes of the decline; (2) a list of hypotheses
concerning the likely effectiveness of measures that could be
taken to reverse the decline; and (3) a description of the
studies required to test those hypotheses, the funds that
would be required, the relative importance or priority which
the Service attaches to those studies, and an indication of
which studies would or would not be undertaken within the
next three years.
By letter of 12 July 1985, the Service responded to the
Commission's 24 April letter. The Service reiterated the
reasons for denying the petition and enclosed a nine page
research planning memorandum prepared by the Service's North-
west and Alaska Fisheries Center. The material enclosed with
the Service's letter outlined the broad range of studies that
would be required to evaluate virtually all possible causes
of the population decline and the general categories of
studies planned for the next several years. However, the
material did not indicate either the measures that the
Service thought might be taken to stop and reverse the fur
seal population decline or precisely what studies the Service
considered necessary and which it was prepared to undertake
during the next three years.
The Commission, therefore, invited representatives of
the Service to participate in the meeting of the Commission
and its Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals on
24-26 October 1985 in San Diego, California to discuss fur
49
seal related issues. Based on an evaluation of those discus-
sions as well as recent correspondence between the Service
and the Commission and other related materials, the Commis-
sion wrote to the Service on 29 November 1985 recommending
additional steps that should be taken to identify and either
eliminate or diminish the impact of the cause or causes of
the continuing population decline. In its letter, the
Commission recommended that:
the Service promptly convene a North Pacific fur seal
research program review and schedule subsequent reviews
annually, at least until the ongoing decline has been
reversed;
the Service and the Commission enter into a cooperative
agreement to constitute and convene a working group of
scientific and resource management experts on North
Pacific fur seals to write and help implement a long-
term fur seal conservation plan similar in scope and
format to the recovery plans prepared for a species
listed under the Endangered Species Act;
the U.S. seek the cooperation of other countries in
efforts to implement the long-term fur seal conservation
plan;
the Service immediately designate the Pribilof Islands
population of fur seals as "depleted" under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act; and
the Service promulgate permanent regulations governing
the taking of North Pacific fur seals for subsistence
purposes.
With respect to its recommendation that a working group
be constituted to develop a long-term fur seal conservation
plan, the Commission noted that a well-conceived conservation
plan, which sets forth logical steps and the supporting
rationale for identifying and attacking the cause or causes
of the population decline, would provide a substantially
improved basis for identifying, scheduling, and evaluating
essential fur seal related research and management acti-
vities. Furthermore, such a plan would help facilitate
agreement on ways to strengthen and expand cooperative inter-
national support of critical research and management tasks.
In addition to representatives of the Service and the Commis-
sion, the Commission's letter noted that appropriate parti-
cipants on the working group would include representatives
from the Aleut community, the State of Alaska, the environ-
mental community, the academic community, and the fishing
industry.
In order to help clarify the scope and intent of its
recommendation concerning the prepara+
of a fur seal
50
conservation plan, the Commission followed up its 29 November
letter by forwarding a preliminary discussion draft of an
outline for a Pribilof Islands fur seal conservation plan to
the Service on 6 December 1985. The draft outline iden-
tifies, as the ultimate objective, restoration and main-
tenance of the Pribilof Islands fur seal population at its
optimum sustainable population level. Intermediate goals
would be to: (1) identify and eliminate or mitigate the
population decline; (2) assess and avoid or mitigate the
possible adverse effects of offshore oil and gas development
and other future activities on the Pribilof Islands popu-
lation and its habitat; and (3) continue and, as necessary,
expand programs to detect changes and monitor trends in the
Pribilof Islands population and its habitat.
As of the end of 1985, the Commission looked forward to
a response from the Service to its 29 November 1985 letter
and to working closely with the Service, the Aleut community,
the environmental community, and others on efforts to convene
a working group, to prepare a long-term fur seal conservation
plan, and to otherwise assist in efforts to identify and
reverse the ongoing decline in the Pribilof Islands fur seal
population.
Convention On International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
The United States is party to the. Convention on Inter-
national Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,
a Convention designed to control trade in animal and plant
species that are or may become threatened with extinction.
The extent of trade control depends upon the extent to which
the species is endangered, as reflected by inclusion on one
of three appendices to the Convention. Changes in the
species listed in the appendices can be made by agreement of
the Parties and, in the case of Appendix III, by individual
Parties.
Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction
that are or may be affected by trade. Appendix II includes
species that, although not necessarily currently threatened
with extinction, may become so unless trade in them is
strictly controlled. Appendix II also includes non-
endangered species that must be regulated so that trade in
"look-alike" species that are threatened with extinction may
be brought under effective control. Appendix III includes
species that any Party identifies as being subject to regula-
tion within its jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing or
restricting exportation and for which the party needs the
cooperation of others Parties in controlling trade.
Overall responsibility for coordinating the development
of U.S. positions and implementation of the provisions of the
51
Convention is vested in the Fish and Wildlife Service.
During 1985, the Service consulted with the Commission and
with others in preparation for the Fifth Biennial Meeting of
the Parties to the Convention.
The Fifth Biennial Meeting was held from 22 April to 3
May 1985 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. At the meeting, the
Parties considered three proposals concerning marine mammal
species. The Federal Republic of Germany proposed that the
narwhal, Monodon monoceros, should be transferred from
Appendix II to Appendix I. Sweden proposed that the hooded
seal, Cystphora cristata, should be added to Appendix II, and
the United States proposed that the northern elephant seal,
Mirounga angustirostris, should be deleted from Appendix II.
On 7 February 1985, the Fish and Wildlife Service pub-
lished a Federal Register notice and request for comments on
these and other proposed amendments to the Convention. In
the notice, the Service announced that it was the tentative
U.S. position that narwhal and hooded seals proposals should
be supported. Tentative adoption of these positions was
based on information submitted by the proponents of each
proposal.
By letter of 15 March 1985, the Commission, in consul-
tation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, supported
the tentative U.S. positions on the narwhal and hooded seal
proposals and the U.S. proposal to delete the northern
elephant seal from Appendix II. Final.U.S. negotiating
positions for the meeting were published in the Federal
Register on 12 April 1985. In that notice, the tentative
U.S. positions for all three marine mammal species were
affirmed.
At the Fifth Biennial Meeting, the United States dele-
gation altered its negotiating position on the hooded seal
proposal. Based upon information provided by Canada, the
U.S. delegation concluded that the hooded seal did not
qualify for inclusion on Appendix II. The proposal was
rejected by the Parties. Canada also presented information
supporting its position that the narwhal should not be
included on Appendix I, and the Federal Republic of Germany's
motion to add the species to Appendix I was defeated by
secret ballot. Finally, the U.S. withdrew its proposal to
delete the northern elephant seal from Appendix II.
The decisions of the Parties to the Convention on these
and other issues were announced by the Fish and Wildlife
Service in the Federal Register on 14 June 1985, with a
request for comments. The resulting amendments, none of
which concerned marine mammals, entered into force on
1 August 1985.
52
CHAPTER IV
MARINE MAMMAL MANAGEMENT IN ALASKA
Marine Mammal Working Groups
Since the enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
in 1972, issues concerning marine mammals in Alaska have
assumed greater significance and have been the focus of more
attention than those of any other state. A number of states
are confronted with important conservation problems that
involve one or more species of marine mammals. Alaska,
however, by virtue of the large number of marine mammal
species found there, its extensive coastline, the use of
marine mammals for subsistence purposes by Alaska Natives,
and the many other management issues concerning marine
mammals, presents extraordinary conservation challenges.
In recognition of this fact, the Commission has made
marine mammal issues in Alaska a matter of high priority. In
1984 and 1985, for example, the Commission devoted 16 percent
and 28 percent of its research budgets, respectively, to
marine mammal issues in Alaska. Central to the Commission's
efforts in this regard was the establishment of the Alaska
Marine Mammal Working Groups (discussed below) at the July
1984 meetings of the Commission and its Committee of Scien-
tific Advisors in Fairbanks, Alaska.
These Groups were created for several reasons. As
recounted elsewhere in this Report and in previous Annual
Reports, the Federal Government has never fully met its
obligations as the steward of marine mammals in Alaska. In
some measure, this lack of commitment resulted from the
belief that the State of Alaska would request and receive the
authority to re-assume management responsibility for many of
the species in question. Such has not been the case although
the State did at one time briefly have authority over walrus.
Another such request may be made by the State in 1986,
depending upon the resolution of subsistence and other issues
in the Alaska Legislature.
From the Commission's point of view, the issue of who
has management authority, while important, could not be
allowed to further thwart the development of sound research
and management programs. It was the Commission's belief that
no matter who has the responsibility, certain basic facts
were clear: (a) the development of research and management
53
plans will always be heavily dependent upon the existence of
carefully developed and generally agreed-upon species
accounts and problem descriptions as base documents;
(b) research upon which to base conservation and management
of marine mammals can and must be carefully described;
(c) the same holds true for needed management actions; and
(d) to be useful, these species accounts, research recommen-
dations, and management recommendations should be developed
in cooperation with representatives of all interested groups.
The Commission has given attention to the development of
these important research and management plans because they
will provide the rational basis for addressing many of the
urgent resource-related issues in Alaska, such as marine
mammal harvests and marine mammal interactions with
fisheries.
To bring together the species accounts and essential
research and management information, the Commission, in
cooperation with representatives of the Eskimo community, the
State, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the academic community, and private
groups, established seven Working Groups composed of
biologists, biometricians, Native and non-Native coastal
residents, representatives of the conservation community, and
representatives of State and Federal agencies. The Groups
are charged with preparing: (1) comprehensive species
accounts that summarize available information on population
status and threats; (2) summaries of research activities that
are either underway or planned; (3) summaries of existing and
proposed management programs; (4) descriptions of recommended
research activities; and (5) descriptions of recommended
management programs. The final reports, which address the
ten species for which the State had at one time planned to
seek management authority, should be of equal value to either
State or Federal agencies.
For purposes of facilitating and coordinating the
efforts of these working groups, the Commission entered into
a contract in 1984 with a marine mammal and resource manage-
ment specialist in Juneau, Alaska. Under the contract, which
was extended in 1985, the contractor has lead responsibility
for overseeing the development of the Working Groups' compre-
hensive reports. To further the effort, the Commission
entered into additional contracts in 1985 with persons to act
as lead writers for the reports on harbor seals, ringed and
ribbon seals, bearded and spotted seals, sea lions, and
beluga whales. (See Chapter II for a more complete discus-
sion of relevant contracts.) Draft reports containing
species accounts, research recommendations, and management
recommendations for polar bears and sea otters are being
prepared by agency representatives and therefore do not
require the support of additional contracts.
54
When completed, the comprehensive reports on all ten
species are expected to serve as the action plans for future
marine mammal conservation, management, and research efforts
in Alaska whether management authority resides with the
Federal government, the State of Alaska, or is a responsi-
bility shared according to species.
Background Information on Transfer of Management
To make clear the context within which the Marine Mammal
Commission's actions to constitute and support working groups
have taken place, the following background information and
discussion of the transfer of management requirements of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act may be useful.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act sets forth certain
procedures whereby the Secretaries of Commerce and the
Interior may, in response to a properly submitted request,
take actions that would lead to the transfer of management
authority from the Federal Government to a state for marine
mammals found in that state. In order to transfer Federal
management authority, the Secretary with jurisdiction over
the species in question must determine, after notice and
opportunity for public comment, that the state has developed
and will implement a program for the conservation and manage-
ment of the affected species that satisfies the requirements
of Section 109 of the Act. In making this determination, the
Secretary must issue a finding that the state has, among
other things, established a process to determine the optimum
sustainable population of each affected species and the
maximum number of animals that may be taken without reducing
the species below that level.
Certain additional points are germane to requests for
transfer of management to the State of Alaska. For example,
the State of Alaska's conservation and management program
must include mechanisms whereby: determinations of optimum
sustainable population levels are made; allowable take levels
for species above the minimum levels are established; and,
for each species that is below its optimum sustainable popu-
lation level, a determination must be made as to the maximum
numbers of animals that can be taken for subsistence while
still allowing that species to increase towards its optimum
sustainable population. Furthermore, Alaska's program must
include a State statute and regulations requiring that sub-
sistence takings shall not be wasteful and that priority
shall be given to subsistence rather than other consumptive
uses of the species. Federal regulations implementing the
transfer of management requirements were promulgated by both
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service in 1983.
55
During 1982 and 1983, the State of Alaska took prelimi-
nary steps to request a transfer of management for ten
species of marine mammals. Early in 1984, however, the State
determined that it would be appropriate to conduct a public
education and comment process prior to making a final deci-
sion on whether to proceed with such a request. As a part of
the process, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game conducted
forty-nine formally announced public meetings to provide
information on the transfer process requirements, to explain
the likely consequences of a State management program, and to
solicit comments from coastal residents and other affected
parties. These meetings were completed early in 1985.
At the 24 October 1985 meeting of the Commission and its
Committee of Scientific Advisors in San Diego, the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game indicated that an analysis of the
issues raised during the public review process would be
completed and presented to the Governor by the end of 1985.
It was further indicated that a final decision on whether to
proceed with a request for a transfer of management would be
made by the Governor early in 1986.
The State's review of the transfer of management issue
was made more complex on 22 February 1985 when the Alaska
Supreme Court, in its decision in Madison V. Alaska Depart-
ment of Fish and Game, invalidated a Board of Fisheries
regulation designed to identify eligibility for subsistence
fishing in the Cook Inlet region. The decision called into
question the sufficiency of the State's subsistence statute
and regulations under the transfer of management requirements
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The inconsistency between State law and Federal subsis-
tence requirements is noted in a 23 September 1985 letter
from the Department of the Interior's Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks to the Governor of Alaska. In
the letter, it is stated that, as a result of the Madison
decision, the State is no longer in compliance with the
subsistence standards of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act. Those requirements are virtually identical
to the provisions of Section 109 (f) (1) of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act that must be satisfied before a transfer of
management can be accomplished. Questions generated by the
Madison decision must, therefore, be resolved before the
State can proceed with a request for a transfer of manage-
ment.
During the 1985 session of the Alaska State Legislature,
the Governor of Alaska introduced a bill intended to bring
the State statute into compliance with Federal requirements.
Although passed by the House, no action was taken by the
State Senate, and hearings on the subsistence issue were held
by the Senate State Affairs Committee during the summer of
56
1985. A Senate bill amending the State subsistence statute
is expected to be introduced in 1986.
Federal Marking and Tagging Regulations
In 1981, the Marine Mammal Protection Act was amended to
provide the Fish and Wildlife Service with authority to
promulgate regulations requiring the marking, tagging, and
reporting of animals taken by Alaska Natives. Through these
regulations, useful information on the numbers of marine
mammals taken for subsistence and handicraft purposes should
be obtained. On 3 December 1985, the Fish and Wildlife
Service published proposed marking and tagging regulations in
the Federal Register. Hearings on the proposed regulations
will be held in affected areas of Alaska during 1986.
Native Taking of Sea Otters
Concerned about the inadequacy of information available
to Alaska Natives on the restrictions that apply to the
taking of sea otters, the Commission wrote to the Eyak
Village Corporation, in Cordova, Alaska, on 23 December 1985.
The purpose of the letter was to provide information on the
Native take requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
and its implementing regulations. The letter was necessi-
tated by the incomplete nature of the information that had
been given to Alaska Natives with respect to taking sea
otters and by the interest in taking a significant number of
sea otters for handicraft purposes.
In the letter, the Commission explained the limitations
that apply to the taking of sea otters and other marine
mammals for subsistence and handicraft purposes. The letter
also encouraged Natives planning to take sea otters to con-
sult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if the
take is authorized and to identify the steps that should be
taken to ensure that sea otter populations would not be
adversely affected.
On 23 December, the Commission also wrote to the Fish
and Wildlife Service, transmitting a copy of its letter to
the Eyak Village Corporation and informing the Service of its
concerns. Specifically, the Commission pointed out that the
Fish and Wildlife Service Fact Sheet on the taking of sea
otters by Alaska Natives that had been issued in 1985 did not
provide all relevant information on the requirements of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act and the regulations governing
Native take. The Commission recommended that steps be taken
to: (a) assess the level of sea otters taken by Alaska
Natives and determine if those takes are lawful; (b) better
inform Natives of limitations on taking for subsistence and
57
handicraft purposes; (c) pursue enforcement action in appro-
priate cases; (d) determine what effect such takings are
having on sea otter populations; and (e) take appropriate
measures to protect the affected populations.
Litigation
Killer Whales
In 1985, significant developments occurred in two law-
suits concerning marine mammals in Alaska. On 16 January
1985, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
issued a decision on Jones V. Gordon. In the lawsuit,
several environmental groups, tour boat operators, and the
State of Alaska challenged a 1983 permit issued to Sea World,
Inc. to collect killer whales in Alaska for public display
and scientific research purposes. The plaintiffs alleged
that the permit had been unlawfully issued as a result of the
National Marine Fisheries Service's failure to prepare an
environmental impact statement on the permit application.
Ruling for the plaintiffs, the District Court determined
that the action requested in the permit application raised
questions concerning the unknown effects of the takings on
killer whale pod structure, reproductive capacity, and over-
all population levels. The Court concluded that these uncer-
tainties and the substantial public controversy associated
with the permit required the preparation of an environmental
impact statement. The Court therefore invalidated the permit
and enjoined Sea World, Inc. from proceeding with the collec-
tion.
On 25 September 1985, the United States appealed this
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
An appeal also was filed by the intervenor, Sea World, Inc.
In the appeal brief, the Federal appellants argued that the
lawsuit should have been dismissed for plaintiffs' failure to
file a complaint within 60 days of the issuance of the per-
mit, as required by Section 104 (d) (6) of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. They also argued that the review of the Sea
World permit application was a categorically exempt action
for which an environmental impact statement is not required.
At the end of 1985, all pleadings for the appeal had been
filed, and oral argument before the Ninth Circuit is expected
early in 1986.
Sea Otters
In a second lawsuit, Katelnikoff V. U.S. Department of
the Interior, an Alaska Native challenged the validity of the
Fish and Wildlife Service's regulatory definition of "authen-
tic Native articles of handicraft and clothing." That defi-
nition requires that, in order to qualify for the Marine
58
Mammal Protection Act's Native take exemption, handicraft
articles fashioned from marine mammal parts and products must
have been "commonly produced on or before December 21, 1972."
In the plaintiff's complaint, it is alleged that the cut-off
date has no basis in the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The litigation arose as a result of the seizure by Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
enforcement agents of several handicraft articles manu-
factured by the plaintiff out of sea otter skins. The items
involved -- teddy bears, hats and mittens, fur flowers, and
pillows -- were confiscated from gift shops in Kodiak,
Alaska, because there is no record indicating that such
articles were commonly produced by Alaska Natives before the
regulatory cut-off date. The plaintiff claimed that, by
seizing these items, the Federal Government deprived her of
her right to take marine mammals for handicraft purposes.
The plaintiff's amended complaint was filed on 26 August
1985 and the Department of Justice filed an answer to that
complaint on 30 September 1985. Dispositive motions are to
be filed early in 1986 at which time the Federal defendants
are expected to call upon legislative history in order to
argue that Congress intended to limit takings for handicraft
purposes to those Alaska Native cottage industries that
existed before enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
in 1972.
59
CHAPTER V
MARINE MAMMAL/FISHERIES INTERACTIONS
Interactions among marine mammals, fisheries and fish,
squid, shellfish, and other marine biota present complex
problems for those responsible for conserving and managing
marine mammals, fisheries, fishery resources, and the eco-
systems of which they are a part. One of the most widely
known examples of these problems -- the interactions between
porpoises and the yellowfin tuna purse seine fishery in the
eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (discussed in Chapter VII) --
was among the things that led Congress to pass the Marine
Mammal Protection Act.
The Commission, in consultation with its Committee of
Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals, has devoted consid-
erable attention and funding to efforts to identify, assess,
and resolve problems caused by marine mammal/fisheries inter-
actions. Activities before 1985 have been reported in pre-
vious Annual Reports. A brief summary of these earlier
efforts and a description of 1985 activities are provided
below.
Background
Interactions between marine mammals and fisheries can
take various forms -- sometimes to the detriment of the
involved marine mammal population and other times with more
impact on the involved fishery. In the former case, marine
mammals can be killed or injured, accidentally or deliber-
ately, during fishing operations or by becoming entangled in
lost and discarded fishing gear. In the latter case, fisher-
men can be affected when marine mammals damage or take fish
from hooks, traps, and nets and when they damage or destroy
fishing gear. Further, marine mammals and fishermen may
compete in some areas for the same fish and shellfish
resources. This can cause or contribute to depletion of the
fish and shellfish resources and result in fundamental
changes in the marine food web as well as affect the com-
peting marine mammals and fisheries.
Prior to enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
in 1972, regulated and unregulated hunting, bounty programs,
and various forms of harassment were used in a number of
areas to control the distribution, abundance, and behavior of
60
marine mammals and thus eliminate or reduce damage and loss
of gear and catch caused by marine mammals. The Act imposed
a moratorium on such activities and, in the ensuing years,
marine mammals have become more numerous in certain areas
and/or less likely to avoid fishing boats and gear.
Many of the reports of increasing interactions between
marine mammals and fisheries came from the Pacific Northwest
and, in December 1977, the Commission convened a workshop to
gather and review available information on the nature and
extent of marine mammal/fisheries interactions in Oregon,
Washington, California, Alaska, and Hawaii. (For details,
refer to the workshop report [Mate 1980, Appendix B]).
Workshop participants concluded that the most acute problems
seemed to involve seals, sea lions, and the salmon gill net
fisheries in the Copper River Delta of Alaska and the Colum-
bia River in Washington and Oregon. Following the workshop,
the Commission, among other things, provided funds to ini-
tiate investigation of the interactions problem in the Copper
River Delta and to begin development of a plan to investigate
and, as necessary, resolve the interactions problem in the
Columbia River and adjacent areas. The details and results
of these and related studies are described in the Annual
Reports for Calendar Years 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1982.
In 1978-1981, additional studies were initiated by the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council, and the States of Alaska, Washington,
Oregon, and California to better determine the nature and
extent of certain marine mammal/fisheries interactions in the
Bering Sea, along the U.S. coast from Washington to Cali-
fornia, and off the New England coast. The Commission,
concerned that these studies might not be providing either
comparable data or the types and quality of data needed to
define and resolve problems, convened a follow-up workshop in
October 1981 to review and determine what steps should be
taken to improve and coordinate ongoing and planned studies.
The report of that workshop (Contos 1982, Appendix B)
published in April 1982, notes that: (1) broad generali-
zations about marine mammal/fisheries interactions in dif-
ferent areas are not possible and each situation must be
considered individually; (2) because of the potentially
complex nature of indirect (trophic) interactions among
marine mammals, fisheries, and fish and shellfish stocks,
there is a substantial risk of making bad management deci-
sions; (3) to minimize the risk of making bad management
decisions, marine mammals and fisheries should be managed
cooperatively in areas where they may be competing for or
otherwise affecting the same fish or shellfish stocks;
(4) because funding is limited, and because direct inter-
actions are less complex and easier to document, higher
priority initially should be afforded to research on direct
rather than indirect interactions; (5) ongoing efforts to
61
determine and document the nature and extent of impacts on
both the involved fisheries and marine mammal populations
should be expanded to identify and evaluate possible miti-
gation measures; and (6) when remedial measures are deter-
mined to be necessary, first consideration should be given to
possible non-lethal measures.
The workshop findings have guided subsequent Commission
activities, as described below.
Interactions off California
Efforts to determine the nature and extent of marine
mammal/fisheries interactions in California coastal waters
have been under way since 1979 as a cooperative project of
the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California
Department of Fish and Game. These investigations, reviewed
during the previously mentioned workshop in October 1981,
indicate that marine mammals are affecting a number of Cali-
fornia fisheries including the commercial salmon troll
fishery, the commercial passenger fishing vessel ("party
boat") fishery, the Pacific herring seine fishery, the market
squid dip net fishery, the drift net fishery for sharks, and
the set net fisheries for halibut, croaker, and rockfish.
They also indicate that substantial numbers of sea otters,
harbor porpoise, sea lions, harbor seals, and other non-
target species are being caught and killed, particularly in
gill net fisheries.
As noted in the previous Annual Report, gill netting is
a relatively cheap, non-labor-intensive way of fishing that
has attracted many immigrant as well as established fisher-
men. The amount of fishing effort with gill and trammel net
gear and the number of fishermen using entangling nets has
increased dramatically in northern and central California
since 1979 and there has been a corresponding increase in the
catch of marine mammals, sea birds, and other non-target
species.
Because of the large number of sea birds being caught
and killed in nets set in Monterey Bay, the California
Department of Fish and Game prohibited set net fishing in the
Bay for a limited time in 1982. This apparently caused a
number of gill net boats to shift fishing efforts north to
Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties and resulted in
a substantial increase in the number of harbor porpoise being
caught and killed (see Chapter VIII of this Report, Species
of Special Concern, for more information). At the same time,
observations conducted by State biologists and others indi-
cated that substantial numbers of sea otters and other marine
mammals were being caught and killed in set net fisheries
along the coast from Morro to Monterey Bays.
62
Neither the State, the National Marine Fisheries Serv-
ice, nor the Fish and Wildlife Service was able to implement
the comprehensive observer program necessary to accurately
determine when, where, how, and how many sea otters, harbor
porpoise, and other marine mammals were being caught and
killed in coastal set net fisheries. Therefore, as noted in
previous Annual Reports, the Commission provided funds to the
California Department of Fish and Game in 1982 and, in 1983
and 1984, contracted with independent investigators to aug-
ment the limited observation programs being conducted by the
responsible management agencies.
In July 1984, the State of California enacted legis-
lation restricting the use of gill nets in certain areas from
Point Reyes to Monterey Bay. Subsequent fishery observations
and marine mammal stranding data indicated that the restric-
tions did not eliminate and may not have reduced the inciden-
tal take of harbor porpoise and other marine mammals in the
affected areas. In addition, the restrictions did not apply
to most of the California sea otter range, which is south of
Monterey Bay.
It was determined early in 1985 that incidental take
could be having a significant adverse effect on the Cali-
fornia sea otter population and, as discussed in Chapter VIII
of this Report, the California Department of Fish and Game
promulgated emergency regulations on 25 January 1985 prohibi-
ting the use of gill and trammel nets in waters less than
15 fathoms deep from Waddell Creek, Santa Cruz County, to
Point Sal, Santa Barbara County. On 24 May 1985, the Cali-
fornia Legislature passed a law establishing a permanent 15-
fathom closure along this section of coast. In July and
August 1985, at least seven and possibly three more sea
otters were observed caught in nets set in waters 15 fathoms
or greater in depth. In response, the California Department
of Fish and Game promulgated new emergency regulations pro-
hibiting use of gill nets in waters less than 20 fathoms
along 17 miles of coast between Cape San Martin and Piedras
Blancas. This emergency closure expired on 20 December 1985.
The need for further emergency closures and/or a permanent 20
fathom closure will be considered in the first half of 1986.
In an effort to address some of the problems that have
resulted from interactions between commercial passenger
fishing vessels, or party boats, and marine mammals, the
National Marine Fisheries Service published regulations on
4 December 1985 that allow the owners and operators of such
vessels to apply for a general permit and certificates of
inclusion to incidentally take marine mammals by specified
non-lethal means. This result was achieved through a modifi-
cation of the definition of the term "commercial fishing
operation" in the Service's Regulations Governing the Taking
and Importing of Marine Mammals in 50 C.F.R., Part 216, to
include this category of fishing vessel, the establishment of
63
a corresponding gear category, and the creation of a new
General Permit Category with regulatory restrictions and
certification requirements.
These regulations were in response to a petition sub-
mitted on 2 November 1983 by the Sportfishing Association of
California. The Association contended in its petition that
California sea lions were depredating the catch of customers
on party boats, damaging fishing gear, and causing substan-
tial economic losses to the party boat fleet. Notice of the
petition was published in the Federal Register on 15 December
1983, and, on 30 January 1985, the Service proposed regula-
tions to authorize the incidental take of California sea
lions by commercial passenger fishing vessels.
In its letter of 18 March 1985, the Commission commented
on the proposed regulations. In that letter, the Commission
emphasized the need to restrict the take to non-lethal, non-
injurious methods, requested that authorized methods of take
be specified more clearly, recommended that detailed report-
ing requirements be established, and asked for either the
establishment of a quota or a more accurate estimation of the
number of animals that are expected to be taken.
In the final regulations, to become effective on 3 Janu-
ary 1986, the Service limited the authorized methods of take
to seal bombs, cracker shells, and acoustic harassment de-
vices. These methods are to be used only for harassment
purposes. The Service declined to establish a quota, noting
that "the number of California sea lions that may be harassed
cannot be accurately determined in advance." Reporting
requirements were established, and the Service indicated that
the need to establish a quota would be determined after "the
NMFS has had the opportunity to review the certificate
holders' take reports."
Because of the apparent effects on both fishermen and
marine mammals, the Commission and its Committee of Scien-
tific Advisors devoted considerable time during their 24-26
October 1985 meeting in San Diego to consideration of prob-
lems and issues related to marine mammal/fisheries inter-
actions in California. Representatives of the affected
fishermen, the California Department of Fish and Game, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and several environmental groups were invited to
attend the meeting and participate in the discussions. In
addition, on 25 October 1985, a Commission representative
attended a symposium on California gill net fisheries spon-
sored by the Southern California District of the American
Institute of Fishery Research Biologists.
Information presented during the Commission's meeting
and the Fishery Research Biologists' Symposium indicated that
the nature and general effects of the interactions between
64
various marine mammals and fisheries in California coastal
waters have been reasonably well documented. It also indi-
cated that relatively little has been and is being done to
identify and evaluate possible measures for avoiding or
reducing impacts on both fishermen and marine mammals, and
that present fishery and marine mammal survey programs in
California may not be adequate to determine and monitor the
effectiveness of existing and future management programs.
Because of the uncertainties, the Commission initiated
discussions with the California Department of Fish and Game
on the need to seek new ways to address the issues. Both
agencies agreed to cooperate on sponsoring a workshop in 1986
to determine and describe such additional measures as may be
necessary to assess, avoid, and reduce impacts on both the
involved fisheries and marine mammals. At the end of 1985,
the Commission was finishing the draft terms of reference,
the provisional agenda, a tentative list of participants, and
the gathering of background information for discussion in
January.
Interactions in the Southeastern Bering Sea
and Other Areas off Alaska
The southeastern Bering Sea and other areas off Alaska
include some of the world's richest fishing grounds and
support a diverse assemblage of marine mammals. The con-
tinued expansion of both domestic and foreign fisheries in
these areas since the mid-1960s has increased the potential
for marine mammal/fisheries interactions and has focused
attention on possible competition between marine mammals and
fishermen for some of the same fish and shellfish resources.
Because of the potential interactions, the Commission
and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council initiated
cooperative efforts in 1980 to develop and implement an
ecosystem approach to the management of marine mammals and
fisheries resources in areas under Council jurisdiction. As
part of this effort, the Commission and the Council jointly
supported a workshop in October 1983 to review available
information concerning biological interactions among marine
mammals and commercial fisheries in the southeastern Bering
Sea, and to determine whether existing data, theory, models,
management techniques, and research/monitoring programs were
sufficient to develop and implement ecosystem-oriented
research and management programs for both marine mammals and
fisheries in the area. The Commission also provided funds to
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in 1983 to help
support a survey of Steller sea lion colonies being impacted
by the winter joint venture fishery for pollock in Shelikof
Strait, Alaska (for more information, see previous Annual
Reports for Calendar Years 1983 and 1984).
65
A number of marine mammals, in addition to Steller sea
lions, affect and are affected by fisheries in the south-
eastern Bering Sea and other areas offshore Alaska. Beluga
whales, for example, affect and are affected by salmon gill
net fisheries in areas such as Bristol Bay. Likewise,
expanding sea otter populations in areas near Kodiak Island
and Prince William Sound appear to be affecting certain crab
fisheries. Also, there are reports that killer whales are
taking sable fish caught on long lines in Prince William
Sound and that fishermen are shooting and sometimes killing
the whales in an effort to protect their gear and catch.
The Alaska Marine Mammal Species Working Groups,
described in Chapter IV of this Report, are reviewing avail-
able information and will recommend steps that should be
taken to better define and/or resolve problems being caused
by marine mammal/fisheries interactions in Alaskan coastal
waters. The reports of the working groups, expected to be
completed by mid-1986, will describe actions necessary to
assess and resolve the broad range of problems and issues
affecting the conservation and protection of marine mammals
in Alaska, including but not limited to those related to
marine mammal/fisheries interactions.
Interactions off Hawaii
Information reviewed during the Commission-sponsored
workshop on marine mammal/fisheries interactions held in
December 1977 indicated that several species of porpoise
occasionally take bait and damage or take caught fish. In
these or other ways, they may interfere with long line, hand
line, and troll fisheries for tuna and other fish in waters
around the main Hawaiian Islands. More recently, it has
also become apparent that efforts to develop spiny lobster
and bottomfish fisheries in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands
may have an adverse effect on the endangered Hawaiian monk
seal and/or habitat critical to its survival.
Commission efforts to evaluate and determine possible
means for preventing or reducing the adverse effects of
marine mammals on fisheries around the main Hawaiian Islands
are described in previous Annual Reports. Ongoing Commission
efforts to assure that fishery development does not jeopar-
dize the survival or recovery of the endangered Hawaiian monk
seal are described in Chapter VIII of this report.
Interactions off the U.S. East Coast
It is known that humpback, right, fin, and other
endangered large cetaceans are occasionally caught and
injured or killed in fish weirs, gill nets, trawl nets, and
other gear used to catch fish, squid, and lobster off the
66
east coast of the United States and Canada. It also is known
that pilot whales, harbor porpoise, gray seals, harbor seals,
and other marine mammals are being caught and killed inciden-
tally in several fisheries off the New England coast.
Further, as noted in the Commission's previous Annual Report,
there have been a number of unsubstantiated reports, in
recent years, that bottlenose dolphins and other marine
mammals are affecting and are being affected by fisheries in
the coastal waters of the southeastern and Gulf states.
Neither the nature nor the extent of the marine mammal/
fisheries interactions off the U.S. east coast has been well
documented. The Northeast Fisheries Center of the National
Marine Fisheries Service has initiated studies to gather and
assess information concerning the nature and effects of
interactions on the involved fisheries and marine mammal
populations in New England waters. The Commission, as noted
in its previous Annual Report, provided funds in 1984 to
carry out a survey to determine the nature, location, and
scope of possible problems being caused by interactions
between bottlenose dolphins and fisheries in the coastal
waters of the southeastern and Gulf states.
The report from the Commission-sponsored study, sub-
mitted in September 1985, indicates that bottlenose dolphins
are caught incidentally in sturgeon and shad gill net
fisheries off the Carolinas, in the menhaden purse seine
fishery throughout the southeastern United States, in the
tuna purse seine fishery offshore Florida and Georgia, and in
the shrimp trawl fishery in the western Gulf of Mexico. The
report also indicates that bottlenose dolphins may adversely
affect a number of fisheries by damaging gear, stealing fish,
causing fish to scatter, and causing loss of work time while
damaged gear is repaired or replaced. The available data
were insufficient, however, to accurately estimate the number
of bottlenose dolphins being killed or injured, or to accur-
ately estimate the economic impacts on the involved
fisheries.
In 1986, the Commission, in consultation with its Com-
mittee of Scientific Advisors, will review the information
provided by the aforementioned studies and, as appropriate,
will advise the National Marine Fisheries Service of any
follow-up studies or mitigation measures that appear
necessary.
67
CHAPTER VI
ENTANGLEMENT IN MARINE DEBRIS
The tendency of marine mammals and other marine
species to become entangled in net fragments, packing
bands, and other debris lost and discarded at seà has been
recognized for many years. Although entanglement is a
worldwide problem affecting a number of species, it appears
to be particularly acute in the North Pacific Ocean where
at least two marine mammal species, the North Pacific fur
seal and the Hawaiian monk seal, are being affected as are
other species of marine organisms.
Since the significance of the problem was first docu-
mented at the beginning of this decade, the Marine Mammal
Commission has played a major role in efforts to assess the
extent and impact of entanglement on marine mammals and to
identify ways to reduce or eliminate the problem. A brief
summary of the Commission's past efforts, which have been
discussed in detail in previous Annual Reports, is provided
here. This is followed by a discussion of the Commission's
1985 activities.
Background
Beginning in the early 1970s, the Standing Scientific
Committee of the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission repeat-
edly noted its concern about the increasing incidence of
entanglement of fur seals in materials lost and discarded
by fishermen. Although the nations party to the Fur Seal
Convention -- Canada, Japan, the United States, and the
Soviet Union -- were somewhat responsive to this concern,
efforts to address the problem were limited primarily to
attempts to encourage fishermen not to discard fishing gear
into the ocean and enjoyed little, if any, success.
By 1982, it was apparent that the rate of fur seal
entanglement had not diminished and that the impact of such
entanglement was much more serious than had been realized.
A data analysis carried out at that time indicated that
entanglement of fur seals was possibly the primary cause of
the ongoing decline in the North Pacific fur seal popu-
lation and could represent an annual mortality rate of more
than five percent of the population as a whole.
68
The Marine Mammal Commission, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the Department of State, and others,
gravely concerned by these estimates, encouraged the North
Pacific Fur Seal Commission to address the problem more
vigorously than it had in the past. At about the same
time, it became apparent that Hawaiian monk seals were also
becoming entangled in lost and discarded fishing gear and
other debris and that this could be contributing signifi-
cantly to monk seal mortality. Elsewhere, data were being
collected that indicated that lost and discarded fishing
gear and other marine debris were global problems affecting
many marine species.
In August 1982, participants in a National Marine
Fisheries Service program review, which the Commission had
requested, discussed the problem and agreed it would be
valuable, as recommended by the Commission, to promptly
convene a workshop to address the issue. Although the
Service offered to proceed with planning such a workshop
and despite the Commission's repeated offers of support and
concrete recommendations with respect to the form, content,
and objectives of such a workshop, the workshop was not
held until late in 1984. The Workshop on the Fate and
Impact of Marine Debris was held 27-29 November 1984 in
Honolulu, Hawaii. Consistent with the Marine Mammal
Commission's recommendation, responsibility for the Work-
shop was transferred to the Honolulu Laboratory of the
National Marine Fisheries Service. The Laboratory deserved
praise for the quality of this useful Workshop, which it
organized and convened. (See previous Annual Reports.)
Purposes of the Workshop, as noted in the previous
Annual Report, were to: (1) review the state of knowledge
on the fate and impact of marine debris to determine the
extent of the problem; (2) identify and make recommen-
dations on possible mitigating actions; and (3) identify
and make recommendations on future research needs. Work-
shop participants divided into four working groups to
consider: the origin of marine debris, its impact on
marine species, its fate in the marine environment, and
tools for addressing and managing the problem. The conclu-
sions and recomendations of the four working groups were
discussed in detail in the Annual Report for Calendar Year
1984.
In July 1985, the National Marine Fisheries Service
published the complete Proceedings of the November 1984
Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris. As noted
in the Executive Summary, a number of common conclusions
and similar recommendations emerged from the individual
working groups. The groups agreed, for example, on the
need for extensive efforts to educate the public on the
marine debris problem; the need for quantitative data to
assess the impact of debris on marine resources; and the
69
need for increased information to determine the sources and
distribution of debris. The working groups also agreed
on the need to improve and facilitate the exchange of
relevant ideas, data, and techniques for assessing and
addressing the problems. It was also recommended by one of
the groups that the National Marine Fisheries Service
designate a program manager for marine debris activities.
Workshop participants further agreed that: despite
insufficient data, available evidence shows that marine
debris now threatens a number of marine species, including
marine mammals, sea birds, marine turtles, and fish, and
that it presents a hazard to vessel operations. The
participants also pointed out the potential positive bene-
fits from marine debris, such as a tendency to concentrate
finfish, and recommended that these benefits be investi-
gated.
The report of the Service's Workshop on the Fate and
Impact of Marine Debris was made available to the Commis-
sion and others in draft form early in 1985. Its conclu-
sions and recommendations provided an excellent basis from
which to proceed with planning during 1985.
Implementation of the Fiscal Year 1985 Entanglement Program
Recognizing the need for prompt constructive action to
better determine and mitigate the problem of entanglement
of marine mammals and other marine animals in lost and
discarded fishing gear and other marine debris, Congress
directed that $1,000,000 be appropriated to the National
Marine Fisheries Service in Fiscal Year 1985 to develop a
comprehensive research and management program addressing
the issue. Congress also directed that the Service develop
this program in consultation with and with the concurrence
of the Marine Mammal Commission.
On 8 February 1985, the Service convened a meeting of
representatives of the Commission, Congress, and the envi-
ronmental community to discuss allocation of the special
appropriation among needed research and management tasks.
During the meeting, representatives of the Service advised
the other participants that the Service would only invest
$750,000 of the $1,000,000 mandated by Congress. The
purpose of the reduction was to make $250,000 available to
cover Service expenditures unrelated to the entanglement
issue. The Service used $50,000 of the remaining $750,000
to cover costs of the November 1984 Workshop on the Fate
and Impact of Marine Debris. These actions were taken
without consulting with or receiving the concurrence of
either Congress or the Commission. On 25 February 1985,
the Commission wrote to the Service referencing the Con-
gressional directive and noting that the Commission did not
70
concur with the $250,000 reduction and allocation of the
funds to other purposes. In its letter, the Commission
also urged that a high level scientist/administrator be
appointed to run the entanglement program and that a
research advisory group be appointed promptly to help
develop a plan for allocating the special appropriation.
In response to the Commission's recommendation on the
need for a single person to oversee the entanglement pro-
gram, the Service designated, in April 1985, a member of
the Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center staff to manage
the program. Although the Service also agreed with the
Commission on the need to convene a meeting of experts to
help organize and guide the entanglement program, it was
the Commission that assumed the initiative for holding such
a meeting in La Jolla, California, on 18-19 March 1985.
Participants, including representatives from the Commis-
sion, the Service, the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council, and the environmental community, reviewed the
results of the November 1984 Workshop on the Fate and
Impact of Marine Debris and identified priority project
needs for addressing the entanglement problem.
Based on the results of this meeting, the Commission
prepared an annotated program outline which included a
description of identified priority projects. By letter of
3 April 1985, the Commission transmitted the recommended
program outline to the Service. On 19 April, the Commis-
sion completed its work by providing the Service with
detailed scopes of work and estimated costs for each of the
projects identified in the annotated program outline. The
recommended program and scopes of work considered allo-
cations of $950,000 assuming that $50,000 of the special
appropriation had already been spent on the November 1984
Workshop.
The program outline included provisions for the fol-
lowing: (1) development and implementation of an infor-
mation and education program; (2) a West Coast/New England
Coast September 1985 beach clean-up; (3) research on entan-
glement of North Pacific fur seals; (4) research on entang-
lement of northern sea lions; (5) establishment of a refe-
rence collection and development of expertise to identify
sources of marine debris; (6) a study to determine accumu-
lation and disappearance rates of marine litter on Alaska
beaches; (7) a compilation and analysis of data concerning
marine debris reported by U.S. fishery observers during
groundfish fishing operations in the Bering Sea; (8) a
survey of the high seas squid gill net fishery; (9) identi-
fication of sources of fishing debris affecting endangered
marine animals in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands; (10) a
study of the dynamics of derelict gill net gear in the
North Pacific; (11) studies of the impact of ingested
debris on sea turtles and sea birds; (12) development of
71
methods for surveying the distribution and abundance of
marine debris at sea; (13) expanding efforts to collect
relevant data from marine animals which strand on beaches;
(14) development of new means to reduce the disposal of
refuse into the marine environment; (15) research on the
use of biodegradable materials; and (16) development of
regulatory approaches to the problem of marine debris.
On 3 May 1985, the Service wrote to the Commission
requesting comments on its plans to proceed with a proposed
$750,000 spending plan for the entanglement program.
Although the Service's plan was based on the program out-
line provided it by the Commission in April, it called for
eliminating support for research on the use of biodegrad-
able materials and on development of regulatory approaches
and for reducing support for certain other identified
projects. In its letter of 8 May to the Service, the
Commission recommended that: (1) the full $1,000,000
mandated and appropriated by Congress be invested so that a
coherent research program as originally developed would be
supported; (2) if full funding could not be restored, the
Service reprogram funds from its Dall's porpoise research
program (which the Marine Mammal Commission believes the
Japanese government is obligated to pay for under an exist-
ing agreement), from the St. George Island fur seal
studies, and, if necessary, from part of the northern sea
lion research envisioned under the Bering Sea ecosystem
study; and (3) in the future, the Service better integrate
related research programs concerning North Pacific fur
seals and northern sea lions so as to address the most
critical issues first.
On 21 May 1985, the Service advised the Commission
that it would not be able to restore full funding to the
entanglement program and that it was too late in the Fiscal
Year to reprogram funds to make up the shortfall, as recom-
mended in the Commission's letter. The Service indicated,
however, that it would immediately start looking for ways
to redirect funds in Fiscal Year 1986 into entanglement
studies related to fur seals and sea lions. The Service
proceeded with efforts to implement the program described
above at the reduced level of $750,000. On 22 August 1985,
the Acting Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration restored $150,000. This increase to
$900,000 was distributed in accordance with the recommended
plan developed in cooperation with the Marine Mammal Com-
mission. At the end of 1985, results from most of the
projects supported during the year were not yet available.
Planning for the Fiscal Year 1986 Entanglement Program
Recognizing the seriousness of the problem and the
fact that only a modest start had been made to address the
72
issues, Congress directed the National Marine Fisheries
Service to continue its entanglement program. For this
purpose, Congress appropriated $750,000 to the Service for
Fiscal Year 1986. In addition, Congress directed that the
Service develop its 1986 entanglement program under the
guidance of and with concurrence of the Marine Mammal
Commission.
On 25 June 1985, the Commission recommended to the
National Marine Fisheries Service that the working group
which had developed the program plan for Fiscal Year 1985
be reconvened by the Service in July or August to do the
same thing for Fiscal Year 1986. In response to this
recommendation, the National Marine Fisheries Service
convened a second meeting of the ad hoc advisory committee
on the entanglement program on 20-21 August 1985 in
Seattle, Washington. During the meeting, participants
reviewed the status of projects being funded by the Fiscal
Year 1985 appropriation, ranked proposed scopes of work
that had been developed by the Service for funding in
Fiscal Year 1986, and identified additional priority tasks
for which scopes of work had not yet been developed.
Based on the meeting, subsequent deliberations, and
the Commission's recommendation that draft plans of differ-
ing costs be developed, the Service prepared entanglement
program plans ranging in value from $500,000 to $1,000,000
in the hope that the Fiscal Year 1986 appropriation would
thus be covered. In fact, $750,000 was appropriated and,
on 31 December 1985, the Service transmitted the recom-
mended program plan to the Commission for its review and
concurrence. The recommended plan, the product of some
care and effort, would continue a number of studies initi-
ated in 1985 and also support a number of new projects. At
the end of 1985, the Commission looked forward to reviewing
the proposed Fiscal Year 1986 program and providing the
Service with comments and recommendations in early 1986.
Related Commission Activities
As noted in its previous Annual Report, the Commission
contracted for a study of domestic and international
authorities that might be useful in efforts to resolve the
entanglement problem. The report of that study (see Bean,
1985, Appendix B), given the Commission in October 1984,
was made available to participants at the November 1984
Workshop in Hawaii. Among other points, the report recom-
mended that (a) the entanglement problem be factored into
the development of the next edition of the five-year
"Federal Plan for Ocean Pollution Research, Development,
and Monitoring," a plan mandated under the National Ocean
Pollution Planning Act, and (b) the President seek the
advice and consent of the Senate to ratify Annex V of the
73
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships in
that such action would provide an international authority
prohibiting the disposal of all plastics including, but not
limited to, synthetic ropes, fishing nets, and plastic
garbage.
Another significant element in this issue is the
efforts being undertaken by the National Marine Pollution
Program Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. On 22-24 May 1984, the Office convened a
workshop in Easton, Maryland, to assist it in identifying
priority marine pollution issues to be addressed in the
next edition of the Federal marine pollution plan. Repre-
sentatives of the Marine Mammal Commission were invited and
participated in the workshop at which they identified the
issues of entanglement of marine mammals, sea birds, and
turtles in ghost nets, traps, and other debris as one which
the five-year plan should address. Other workshop parti-
cipants, representing a broad spectrum of Federal, State,
local, and private ocean interests, were unfamiliar with
the issue and rated the entanglement issue low on its list
of 50 ocean pollution issues.
Following the workshop, the National Marine Pollution
Program Office distributed the preliminary workshop report
to all participants for review and comment. The report
reflected the low ranking assigned to the entanglement
issue by participants. By letter of 25 March 1985, the
Commission commented on the report noting that the partici-
pants developed a useful list of significant national
pollution issues and that the report provided an accurate
reflection of workshop results. With respect to the entan-
glement issue, however, the Commission commented that the
low ranking vastly underestimated the issue's true impor-
tance. It also noted that the low ranking was not surpris-
ing since most workshop participants, unfamiliar with
recently available information on the subject, could not be
expected to fairly evaluate their significance. The
Commission recommended that the National Marine Pollution
Program Office reassess the low ranking assigned to the
entanglement issue in light of recent information, and, to
assist in this process, the Commission provided the Office
with additional material describing the nature and magni-
tude of the problem.
By letter of 1 April 1985, the National Marine Pollu-
tion Program Office responded to the Commission's comments
indicating that it agreed that the importance of the issue
had been underestimated and that it would address the issue
in the forthcoming edition of the Federal ocean pollution
program plan. The Commission looks forward to receiving a
draft of the plan for review and comment in 1986.
74
In its 1 April letter, the National Marine Pollution
Program Office also indicated that it would welcome recom-
mendations from the Commission on activities which it might
support in furtherance of developing and disseminating
information on the entanglement issue. After several
discussions, the Commission wrote to the Office on
28 August 1985 proposing a transfer of funds from the
Office to the Commission in support of a study to expand
the information base on problems of entanglement and inges-
tion of non-degradable marine debris in the Gulf of Mexico,
the Caribbean, the northwest Atlantic, the North Sea, and
Australasia. Subsequently, the transfer of funds was
executed and a description of activities supported under
the project is provided in Chapter II of this report.
On 21 November 1985, Commission representatives parti-
cipated in a meeting convened by the U.S. Coast Guard to
prepare for U.S. participation in the 22nd session of the
International Maritime Organization's Marine Environment
Protection Committee to be held in London on 2-6 December
1985. Among other things, the Committee was scheduled to
consider matters pertaining to Annex V of the Protocol
Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). As indicated above, this
Annex, which is not yet in force, would provide an inter-
national authority for prohibiting the discard of plastics,
net materials and other debris which are the source of the
entanglement problem.
Since the U.S. had not acted to ratify Annex V of
MARPOL, Commission representatives, as well as participants
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
and the environmental community, urged during the meeting
that the U.S. actively consider ratification of the Annex.
As a result of these discussions on 21 November, it was
agreed that representatives of concerned Federal agencies
would meet following the 2-6 December Committee meeting to
consider appropriate U.S. action. The Commission looks
forward to this meeting in early 1986, at which time it
expects to continue to work for agreement on ratifying
Annex V of the Convention and putting it before the Senate
for its consideration.
75
CHAPTER VII
INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS IN THE COURSE
OF COMMERCIAL FISHING OPERATIONS
The Marine Mammal Protection Act directs the Secretaries
of Commerce and the Interior, in consultation with the Com-
mission, to develop regulations governing the incidental
taking of marine mammals by persons subject to the juris-
diction of the United States and to develop effective inter-
national arrangements, through the Secretary of State, for
the purpose of reducing the incidental taking of marine
mammals to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality
and serious injury rate.
Although the incidental taking of marine mammals occurs
in the course of several fisheries and involves several
different species of marine mammals, the "tuna-porpoise"
issue involving the incidental mortality and serious injury
of porpoises entrapped in purse seine nets used by commercial
yellowfin tuna fishermen has, over the past years, been the
subject of the most intense concern, attention, and contro-
versy. of more recent concern has been the incidental taking
of Dall's porpoises in the course of the Japanese salmon gill
net fishery in the North Pacific Ocean, a portion of which
occurs within the United States' 200-mile Fishery Conser-
vation Zone, and the incidental take of southern sea otters
in gill and trammel nets. The Commission's activities during
1985 related to the tuna-porpoise and Dall's porpoise issues
are discussed below. A discussion on the incidental take of
southern sea otters is included in Chapter VIII of this
Report.
The Tuna-Porpoise Issue
Discussions of the Commission's past activities and a
historical summary of the efforts to resolve this problem are
presented in the Commission's previous Annual Reports. As
discussed below, the Commission, the National Marine Fish-
eries Service, the U.S. tuna industry, and others continued
to devote substantial attention to the issue in 1985.
76
The 1985 Fishing Season
The National Marine Fisheries Service issued final
regulations on 31 October 1980 establishing an annual allow-
able take (quota) of 20,500 animals for each of the five
years, 1981-1985. On 7 December 1980, a general permit to
take porpoise in compliance with the final regulations and
quotas was issued to the American Tunaboat Association. The
overall quota and individual stock quotas as well as the
regulations and general permit were extended by Congress in
the 1984 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Estimates of the annual incidental take of porpoise by
the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet since passage of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act are listed below.
Estimated Kill
Year
and Serious Injury
1972
368,600
1973
206,697
1974
147,437
1975
166,645
1976
108,740
1977
25,452
1978
19,366
1979
17,938
1980
15,305
1981
18,780
1982
22,736
1983
9,589
1984
17,732
1985
(preliminary estimate) 19,173
The estimated mortality and serious injury in 1983 was
well below the average of the preceding five years and may
have been due to a decline in the total number of U.S. purse
seiners fishing in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. The
estimate for 1984 and the preliminary estimate for 1985 (a
final estimate will not be available until May 1986) indicate
that the levels of mortality and serious injury in those two
years were nearer the levels in the years 1978-1982, but
still below the aggregate quota established in 1980.
The increase in the mortality and serious injury of
porpoise in 1984 and 1985, compared to 1983, was due at least
in part to the return of much of the U.S. tuna purse seine
fleet to the eastern Pacific in 1984. At the same time,
there has been a continuing increase in the number of foreign
flag purse seiners fishing in the eastern tropical Pacific.
Although there is no reliable information on the species
being set on and the number of porpoise being killed or
injured by a large part of the foreign fleet, there are
77
indications that the mortality and injury of porpoise by
foreign flag vessels now exceeds that by U.S. vessels. In
this regard, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
estimates that the total (foreign plus U.S.) porpoise kill in
1984 was 43,984.
To help address this problem, the Marine Mammal Protec-
tion Act was amended in 1984 (see below) to require that each
foreign nation exporting tuna to the United States provide
documentary evidence that it has adopted a regulatory program
comparable to that of the U.S., and that the rate of inciden-
tal marine mammal mortality by its fishing vessels is compar-
able to that of U.S. vessels.
Research Activities and Research Planning
The Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibits the inciden-
tal take as well as the deliberate taking of marine mammals
that are below their optimum sustainable population level.
Therefore, before issuing a general permit or certificates of
inclusion authorizing the incidental take of porpoises by
U.S. tuna purse seiners, the National Marine Fisheries Serv-
ice must assess the status of the affected porpoise stocks to
assure that they are at optimum sustainable levels and will
not be reduced below optimum levels as a result of the
authorized taking.
The National Marine Fisheries Service did assessments in
1976 and 1979 of the status of porpoise populations affected
by the yellowfin tuna purse seine fishery. As noted in the
Annual Reports for Calendar Years 1983 and 1984, the Service
established four scientific panels in 1983 to compile and
analyze information in preparation for further stock assess-
ments to be done prior to considering renewal in 1985 of the
general permit issued to the American Tunaboat Association.
Because of questions and differing views concerning the
reliability of data and the validity of assumptions upon
which the stock assessments necessarily would be based,
Congress amended the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1984 to,
among other things, legislatively reauthorize the general
permit issued to the American Tunaboat Association. Further-
more, because of uncertainty concerning the status of several
of the affected porpoise stocks and the possible effects of
continued incidental take, the Act was amended to require
that the National Marine Fisheries Service undertake a moni-
toring program to verify expected trends in the size of the
affected porpoise populations. The amendment requires that
the monitoring program commence by 1 January 1985 and con-
tinue for at least five consecutive years. It also requires
that the status of the monitoring effort be discussed in the
Service's Annual Reports to Congress, beginning with the 1985
Report. Expenditures of up to $4,000,000 were authorized for
the period 1 October 1984 to 30 September 1988 to carry out
78
the monitoring program. Funding was not requested of
Congress for this purpose, and no appropriation was made.
As an initial step towards developing the required
monitoring program, the Service's Southwest Fisheries Center
held workshops on 19 September and 1-2 November 1984 to
consider related policy issues and logistical requirements.
On 6-8 February 1985, a third workshop was held at the South-
west Fisheries Center to review preliminary plans for
research vessel surveys scheduled to begin in 1985 and to
determine the sampling effort and time that likely would be
required to detect various levels of change in the size of
the affected porpoise populations. Representatives of the
Marine Mammal Commission participated in these workshops.
By letter of 25 April 1985, the Director of the South-
west Fisheries Center advised the Commission that, because of
funding and logistic constraints, he had decided not to begin
the vessel surveys in 1985 as originally planned, but to
initiate the program in 1986. Commission representatives met
with the Director and staff of the Center in May and June
1985. The Commission was advised that the Service was devel-
oping a monitoring program consisting of three elements:
(1) surveys of affected porpoise populations using dedicated
research ships of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration; (2) analyses of data collected by observers aboard
tuna purse seiners; and (3) analyses of biological and behav-
ioral data collected from both research and fishing vessels.
The Commission was also advised that the Service planned to
begin a two-vessel, 240-day survey in August 1986 and to hold
a workshop in March 1986 to consider the use of observer data
for detecting and monitoring population trends.
The Commission had a number of questions concerning
funding and other aspects of the planned program and wrote to
the Director of the Southwest Fisheries Center on 2 August
1985 to request clarification. In his 28 August 1985 re-
sponse, the Director confirmed that the planned five-year
program consisted of three elements as described earlier and
noted that actual operational planning was awaiting final
Congressional action on the Fiscal Year 1986 funding levels.
He also indicated that: (1) the Southwest Fisheries Center
had held preliminary discussions with the Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission on 25 July 1985 to review procedures
for collecting observer data and to enlist the Tuna Commis-
sion's cooperation in analyzing and evaluating the utility of
observer data; (2) another jointly sponsored meeting would be
held sometime in the fall to develop an operational plan for
assessing and analyzing observer data; (3) biological studies
were being continued, as a matter of priority, to better
determine the discreteness and vital rates of porpoise popu-
lations affected by the fishery; (4) the Center's staff had
investigated several options but had not yet made arrange-
ments for necessary helicopter support; (5) the first
79
research vessel surveys were planned for July-December 1986;
(6) the recommended survey plan called for annual surveys
using two vessels and one helicopter for 120 days each per
vessel for five years; and (7) although current planning is
for five years, it could take eight years to obtain adequate
resolution of abundance trends, depending on the desired
level of precision.
The information provided in the 28 August letter raised
a number of additional questions and, by letter of 16 October
1985, the Commission conveyed these questions to the Service.
A general review of the tuna-porpoise problem was held during
the 24-26 October 1985 meeting of the Marine Mammal Commis-
sion and its Committee of Scientific Advisors and, during
this review, the Director of the Southwest Fisheries Center
addressed these and other questions asked by the Commission
and the Committee.
On 13 November 1985, the Service convened a workshop at
the Southwest Fisheries Center to determine if and how obser-
ver data can be used to detect and monitor trends in affected
porpoise populations. During the meeting, Commission repre-
sentatives noted that the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Com-
mission had designated staff to work on the problem, but that
the National Marine Fisheries Service had not yet done so.
They also noted the importance of proceeding as quickly as
possible to determine if and how observer data can be used
and expressed the view that the Service's Southwest Fisheries
Center should designate appropriate personnel to begin work
on this problem as soon as possible.
Commission representatives commented on the draft work-
shop report sent to participants in December 1985. The final
report, expected to be completed early in 1986, will be
reviewed by the Commission, in consultation with its Commit-
tee of Scientific Advisors, to determine what additional
measures may be needed to derive the maximum possible benefit
from observer data.
Proposed Regulatory Amendments
As noted earlier, Congress reauthorized and amended the
Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1984. One aspect of the 1984
amendments concerned the general permit issued to the Ameri-
can Tunaboat Association in 1980 to incidentally take marine
mammals in the course of purse seine fishing for tuna.
Through the amendments, Congress extended that general permit
indefinitely, subject to conditions concerning the use of
safety techniques and equipment and to quotas on the level of
take. The amendments also authorized the Secretary of Com-
merce to make appropriate adjustments to the permit terms and
conditions that are set forth in the tuna-porpoise regu-
lations and pertain to fishing gear, fishing practice
requirements, and permit administration. In authorizing
80
those adjustments, Congress explained through legislative
history that it would be consistent with the amendments for
the Secretary to change a number of regulations and permit
requirements to guidelines provided that those changes would
further the goals of the Act.
On 2 May 1985, the National Marine Fisheries Service
published in the Federal Register proposed amendments to the
marine mammal regulations pertaining to U.S. vessels using
purse seine gear to fish for tuna associated with porpoise in
the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. The purpose of the
proposed amendments is to provide greater flexibility in the
application of porpoise saving gear and techniques by either
amending or deleting gear and procedural requirements that
have been found to be unnecessary or unworkable.
Specific proposals include: a waiver system to be
applied to the two speedboat limit for boats in transit
through the general permit area; deletion of the daily log
requirement; technical modifications to the requirements for
safety panels; allowance for the optional use of either a
"super apron" or fine mesh net to minimize porpoise mortal-
ity; deletion of requirements concerning the placement of
bunchlines; allowance for the use of non-rubber rafts and
viewboxes instead of rubber rafts and facemasks and snorkels;
deletion of the currently suspended prohibition on sundown
sets; deletion of certain requirements on the use of speed-
boats and hand rescue techniques; addition of a prohibition
on bringing live porpoise on board the vessel during
retrieval of the bow ortza; and technical amendments to
requirements pertaining to certificates of inclusion, depar-
ture notification, inspections, trial sets, and the use of
lights.
By letter of 1 July 1985, the Commission, in consul-
tation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, submitted
comments on the proposed amendments. The Commission endorsed
the effort to enhance the flexibility and effectiveness of
the regulations. It pointed out, however, that the relevant
goal of the Marine Mammal Protection Act is not merely com-
pliance with the taking quotas but the reduction of the inci-
dental kill or incidental serious injury of marine mammals to
insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious
injury rate. It recommended that the final regulations
emphasize this objective.
The Commission also recommended a more complete discus-
sion of the data, analyses and assumptions that were used to
support the conclusion set forth in the Federal Register
publication that certain stocks of eastern tropical Pacific
porpoise are increasing. The Commission noted that the
proposed regulations may have set forth an overly optimistic
assessment of the trends of the affected population stocks.
81
Finally, several specific recommendations were made with
respect to the proposed amendments, including the recom-
mendation that rather than deleting the sundown set prohi-
bition the Service should retain it as a suspended provision
of the regulations until ongoing research on the effective-
ness of new lighting systems has been completed.
At the end of 1985, final amendments had not been pub-
lished. Concurrent with the publication of those amendments,
the National Marine Fisheries Service is expected to issue
guidelines on porpoise saving techniques intended for use by
owners and operators of U.S. vessels involved in commercial
purse seine fishing for tuna. Draft guidelines were submit-
ted to the Commission for review in October and comments were
provided by letter of 7 November 1985, in which the Commis-
sion recommended, among other things, that the guidelines
discuss both the importance of the observer system and the
Act's goal of bringing about insignificant mortality and
serious injury rates.
A second aspect of the 1984 amendments to the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, as noted earlier, concerns the ability
of the U.S. to influence the commercial fishing practices of
foreign vessels involved in purse seine fishing for tuna. By
letter of 21 July 1984, the Commission asked the National
Marine Fisheries Service how it intended to implement the
comparability requirements of the 1984 amendments. Discus-
sions on this issue between the Commission and the Service
were confirmed in the Commission's letter of 23 November
1984, in which it was indicated that the foreign nation
comparability and reporting requirements would be implemented
by regulation.
At the end of 1985, the Service had not issued proposed
regulations for this purpose. Publication in 1986 is anti-
cipated.
The Dall's Porpoise Issue
Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) become entangled
and die in gill nets used by Japanese salmon fishermen in the
North Pacific Ocean. Pursuant to the International Conven-
tion for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific, the
Japanese are permitted to fish for salmon inside the U.S.
200-mile Fishery Conservation Zone. As noted in previous
Annual Reports, the fishery is also subject to provisions of
a Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and
Japan on coordinated research efforts, the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, the North Pacific Fisheries Act, and general
permit requirements.
A general permit authorizing the Federation of Japan
Salmon Fisheries Cooperative Association to incidentally take
82
up to 5,500 Dall's porpoise, 450 northern fur seals, and 25
northern sea lions per year was issued for the 1981-1983
fishing seasons. Through the 1982 amendments to the North
Pacific Fisheries Act, which implements the Convention in the
United States, the general permit was extended until 9 June
1987. The amendments required the Japanese to adopt new
fishing gear and techniques to reduce the incidental take of
porpoise. In addition, the National Marine Fisheries Service
is required annually to prepare a detailed action plan con-
cerning monitoring, research, development, and other neces-
sary actions.
In May 1984, the Service completed and released its
"Final Action Plan for the Dall's Porpoise Program, 1984."
During an 11-15 November 1984 review of the National Marine
Mammal Laboratory's research program, the Commission con-
sidered the Action Plan and other recent information related
to the Dall's porpoise program. The Commission's comments on
that program were provided to the Service by letter of 11
December 1984. In that letter, the Commission requested:
(1) a list of critical questions likely to be raised when
renewal of the Dall's porpoise permit is considered in 1986;
(2) an assessment of the likelihood that the current research
program will provide answers to each of those questions; (3)
a description of additional research requirements, if any,
that cannot be answered by the current research program
within the required time frame; and (4) a budget breakdown
indicating funding, logistic support, and services being
provided by Japan and by the United States.
On 13 March 1985, the National Marine Fisheries Service
responded to the Commission's 11 December 1984 letter. In
its response, the Service provided a Dall's porpoise popula-
tion estimate of 1.0 to 1.5 million animals for the U.S.
population, and reported on the status of efforts to deter-
mine historical abundance, net recruitment, optimum sustain-
able population level, and the level of incidental take. The
Service identified these issues to be among the principal
questions to be addressed in the context of a renewal of the
Dall's porpoise incidental take permit. In addition, the
Service indicated that for 1985, Japan would contribute
$242,000 toward the U.S. portion of research on Dall's por-
poise.
Under Section 14 (a) (2) of the North Pacific Fisheries
Act, Japan is required to have introduced new gear or fishing
techniques into at least 50 percent of its drift gill net
fleet by the 1985 fishing season. The National Marine Fish-
eries Service has authority under the Act to determine what
types of fishing gear or techniques offer the most practical
and effective opportunity for reducing porpoise mortality and
to specify which of those must be adopted by the Japanese
fleet. Although it concluded that more research on gear
modifications is required, the Service determined in 1984
83
that three-strand, air-tube thread should be used in the gill
nets employed by 50 percent of the Japanese catcherboats in
1986 and by 75 percent in 1986. It is hoped that this gear
modification will make it easier for porpoise to detect and
avoid gill nets through echolocation. The Japanese complied
with the 50 percent requirement in 1985.
The National Marine Fisheries Service's 1985 Action Plan
for Dall's porpoise calls for the United States to: (1)
monitor the level of incidental take; (2) collect sighting
data for estimating abundance; and (3) collect specimen
material for biological studies. The Plan also indicates
that Japanese efforts to obtain data on gear improvements and
to conduct biological research from a dedicated vessel would
continue. For purposes of monitoring incidental take, the
Service placed 12 U.S. marine mammal observers on the mother-
ship/catcherboat fleet in 1985.
During 1985, the incidental take of Dall's porpoise
reported by the salmon mothership fishery was 2,424 animals
inside the U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone. The estimated
level of take is 2,760 animals. This level is below the
annual quota of 5,500 animals. A take rate of 0.43 porpoise
per gill net operation inside the U.S. Fishery Conservation
Zone was reported in 1985. The estimated take rate for 1985
is 0.49 porpoise per gill net operation.
On 9 October 1985, the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation conducted oversight hearings on
high seas drift net fisheries, including the Japanese mother-
ship and land-based salmon drift net fisheries in the Bering
Sea and northern Pacific Ocean. The hearing focused on the
interception of North American-source salmon, the incidental
take of marine mammals and sea birds in actively-fished gear,
and the entanglement of fish, marine mammals, and birds in
derelict gill nets. Testimony was presented by represen-
tatives of the State Department, the National Marine Fish-
eries Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Japanese
fishery interests, the State of Alaska, the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council, and several environmental organi-
zations and fishery associations.
With respect to the impact of the drift net fishery on
marine mammals, it was noted by several witnesses that, in
addition to the incidental take of Dall's porpoise, consider-
able numbers of fur seals are entangled and killed each year
in lost or discarded fishing gear. It also was indicated
that common dolphins and right whale dolphins are taken
incidentally in the squid drift net fishery. Witnesses
recommended a number of possible solutions related to the
drift net fishery, including the implementation of net mark-
ing requirements, the establishment of an international
convention for the conservation of living resources in the
84
North Pacific, and the curtailment or phase-out of drift gill
nets.
In 1986, the Federation of Japan Salmon Fisheries Coop-
erative Association is expected to request renewal of its
general permit to incidentally take Dall's porpoise. If a
request is filed, the National Marine Fisheries Service will
issue an environmental impact statement and undertake rule-
making procedures as required by Section 103 of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act. The Commission will participate in
all aspects of the review of a permit renewal request.
5% estimate
will to at
and at bron't Empañam on to
BE respital
et en add acquiried
Janal to redien of with
and sade designe state
add Instruction
seates STADY at
off to INVITION
missingoq shiroly and
$11100 bedelcoses brus
to bad
seedife D
add bite
85
CHAPTER VIII
SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN
The Marine Mammal Commission, in consultation with its
Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals, reviews
the status of marine mammal populations and makes recommen-
dations on necessary research and management actions as well
as on designations with respect to the status of species or
populations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
Endangered Species Act. During 1985, the Commission con-
tinued to concentrate efforts on several species of marine
mammals designated as endangered or threatened, including the
West Indian manatee, the Hawaiian monk seal, the California
sea otter, the Gulf of California harbor porpoise, the bow-
head whale, the right whale, the gray whale, and the humpback
whale. Attention was also focused on the endangered, and
perhaps extinct, Caribbean monk seal, the bottlenose dolphin
populations in the southeastern United States, the Guadalupe
fur seal, and the harbor porpoise population off the coast of
California. A review of the Commission's activities regard-
ing these species and populations follows.
West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus)
The West Indian manatee is one of the most endangered
species of marine mammal found in the coastal waters of the
United States. The largest concentration in the United
States, and perhaps the world, is found in Florida where the
population is estimated to number at least 1,200 animals.
Although recent data suggest that the Florida population may
be larger than previously estimated, the high level of
manatee mortality in recent years raises serious doubts about
the long-term survival of the population. Among the most
serious threats to the Florida population are increasing
levels of boat traffic and associated collisions between
manatees and the hulls and propellers of boats, the loss of
large numbers of manatees to thermal stress during periods of
exceptionally cold winter weather, and the continuing degra-
dation and destruction of essential manatee habitat due to
coastal development and other human activities.
The known level of annual manatee mortality in U.S.
waters since 1977 is presented in the following table. The
figures include the number of manatee carcasses recovered by
86
year and the number of animals known to have died but which
were not recovered.
Manatee
Manatee
Manatee
Mortality
Mortality
Mortality
Year
Within Florida
Outside Florida
U.S. Total
1977
113
1
114
1978
84
0
84
1979
77
1
78
1980
63
4
67
1981
113
3
116
1982
117
6
123
1983
80
0
80
1984
128
3
131
1985
120
9
129
The high mortality level in 1982 was largely related to
an occurrence of red tide in the Caloosahatchee River and its
estuary in southwest Florida. The high levels of manatee
mortality in 1977, 1981, 1984, and 1985 are related to ex-
tended periods of intense cold winter weather that occurred
in Florida during those years. In addition, 1984 and 1985
were the two years with the highest recorded level of boat
kills.
State and Private Activities
During 1985, the State of Florida continued to expand
its efforts to protect manatees and their habitat. As noted
in the Commission's previous Annual Report, the Florida State
Legislature authorized for the first time, a withdrawal of
$250, from the State's Motorboat Revolving Trust Fund for
Fiscal Year 1984-85 for State manatee-related work. The same
amount was authorized for Fiscal Year 1985-86. The funds
have enabled the Division of Marine Resources in the Florida
Department of Natural Resources to support an expanded
manatee program and to increase the staff size to four during
1985.
In addition to continuing its ongoing enforcement,
public education, and research efforts, the State initiated a
number of new manatee-related activities during 1985. Among
its new efforts, the State: assumed responsibility for
operating the manatee salvage and necropsy programs, which
had previously been carried out by the Fish and Wildlife
Service; cooperated with the Gainesville Field Station of the
Fish and Wildlife Service in supporting and carrying out
radio-tracking studies to improve information on the distri-
bution and movements of manatees; initiated aerial surveys in
several areas of Florida to improve information on the dis-
tribution and abundance of manatees for use in reviewing
dredge and fill permit applications and identifying potential
boat speed regulatory zones; and established two new boat
87
speed regulatory zones to reduce the risk of collisions
between manatees and boats. In addition, as discussed below,
the State made substantial progress in its efforts to acquire
and protect habitats of critical importance to manatees in
the Crystal River area of northwest Florida.
Substantial activities were also undertaken on behalf of
manatees by the Florida Power and Light Company, a company
with a history of sustained efforts to protect and conserve
manatees. For economic reasons, Florida Power and Light has
been considering suspending or modifying certain power plant
operations at stations including those at Riviera Beach and
Fort Myers, Florida. Warm-water effluent at these stations
create winter refuges upon which manatees have come to depend
during cold winter months. Recognizing the potential effect
of its operating decisions on manatees, Florida Power and
Light took steps to ensure that warm-water refuges continue
to be available at these stations for use by manatees during
cold winter periods.
At its Riviera station, the operation of one of the
stations three electrical generating units was suspended in
1985. In order to maintain the temperature and size of the
warm-water area traditionally used by manatees, Florida Power
and Light installed a siphon which is successfully diverting
warm-water effluent from station units remaining in opera-
tion. At its Fort Myers station, three wells are being
developed to tap a warm-water aquifer which could be used
during cold periods to provide a source of warm water for
manatees when this station is not in operation. Although the
wells were not fully operational at the end of 1985, the
station was operated during cold periods in November and
December and was expected to continue to operate during cold
periods at least through the first several months of 1986.
The Florida Power and Light Company also supported aerial
surveys of manatees at certain warm-water refuges for the
eighth year in a row and continued to produce and distribute
manatee-related information to educate the public. Among
other materials, Florida Power and Light has produced and
printed a booklet describing the biology and conservation of
manatees, a boaters guide to State manatee sanctuaries, and a
manatee conservation bumper sticker. Over 100,000 copies of
each have been distributed.
Protection of Essential Manatee Habitat
As noted in the previous Annual Report, a report en-
titled "Habitat Protection Needs for the Subpopulation of
Manatees in the Crystal River Area of Northwest Florida" was
completed in 1984 by the Manatee Working Group of the Commis-
sion's Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals.
The purpose of the report was to assess habitat protection
needs for the subpopulation of manatees that winters in the
Crystal and Homosassa Rivers along Florida's west coast.
88
This particular area was selected for careful analysis be-
cause: more manatees depend upon the warm-water springs in
Kings Bay at the head of the Crystal River than on any other
natural warm-water refuge in Florida; the regional subpopu-
lation of manatees presently numbers more than 150 animals
and is one of the only groups known to have been increasing
in size in recent years; more is known about habitat use
patterns of manatees in this area than any other area of
Florida; the coastline is much less developed than most other
parts of coastal Florida; and the Federal and State refuges
and reserves which now exist in the region provide a good
base for developing an integrated network of protected areas
that could provide effective long-term protection for the
regional ecosystem of which manatees are a part.
To assess habitat protection needs, the report compared
information on regional manatee habitat requirements and
habitat use patterns with information concerning the existing
and planned system of Federal, State, and private habitat
protection efforts. Based on that assessment, the report
concluded that many of the most essential habitats for this
subpopulation of manatees are not included within the
regional habitat protection programs (e.g., refuges and
reserves) which afford the greatest assurance of long-term
habitat protection. Therefore, the report included a number
of specific recommendations for expanding and otherwise
strengthening the regional network of Federal and State
habitat protection efforts.
Following review of the report by the full Committee of
Scientific Advisors, the report was considered and accepted
by the Commission and forwarded to the Fish and Wildlife
Service by letter of 31 October 1984. Among other things,
the Commission recommended that, as a first priority, steps
be taken by the Fish and Wildlife Service to: (a) survey and,
as appropriate, incorporate certain lands along the Crystal
and northern Salt Rivers into the National Wildlife Refuge
System as part of a new "Crystal River Manatee National
Wildlife Refuge, " and (b) complete the proposed Lower Suwan-
nee National Wildlife Refuge, which contains essential summer
habitat for the Crystal River manatee subpopulation. The
Commission also recommended that, in cooperation with appro-
priate State agencies and private organizations, the Service
develop and implement a long-range plan for acquiring and
protecting certain essential manatee habitat such that the
full range of the subpopulation's habitat requirements (e.g.,
winter refugia, summer feeding breeding and calving areas,
and necessary migratory corridors) receive adequate levels of
protection. At the same time the report was sent to the
Service, the Commission also sent it to the Florida Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and the Florida Game and Freshwater
Fish Commission.
89
In response to the Commission's recommendations, repre-
sentatives of the Jacksonville Endangered Species Field
Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service convened a meeting of
Federal and State agency representatives on 14 March 1985 in
Homosassa Springs, Florida. The purpose of the meeting was
to: (a) review recent progress by State and Federal agencies
to acquire habitat essential to the subpopulation of manatees
in the Crystal River area; (b) assess regional habitat pro-
tection needs and recommendations identified in the Commis-
sion report; and (c) develop and agree upon a cooperative
plan of action to serve as the basis of a long-term Federal-
State program to acquire and protect habitat essential for
the survival and growth of the regional manatee subpopu-
lation. Meeting participants included representatives of the
Service, the Commission, and the Florida Department of
Natural Resources.
During the meeting, a representative of the Florida
Department of Natural Resources noted that: the State had
several land acquisition projects in varying stages of devel-
opment along the Crystal River and it had recently acquired
several large tracts of land along the upper Crystal River
and Kings Bay; receipt of the Commission's report coincided
with a Department effort to develop an expanded land acqui-
sition program along the Crystal River, and the report helped
reinforce the State's interest in pursuing that effort; and
the Department's preliminary plan was almost identical to the
recommendation in the Commission's report concerning the
acquisition of lands along Crystal River.
Representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service noted
that they shared the Commission's concern for protecting
manatee habitat along the lower Suwannee River and they
reported that several thousand acres had been acquired in
recent months, in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy, as
an addition to the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge.
They also said that the Service was committed to completing
acquisitions for the Refuge as soon as possible. Service
representatives further noted that, pursuant to a recommen-
dation in the "Proposed Research/Management Plan for Crystal
River Manatees," (a recent review jointly supported by the
Commission and the Service), it was anxious to strengthen
protection of manatees in Kings Bay by acquiring a site on
the Bay which would provide a base for public education and
enforcement efforts as well as a headquarters for its
regional refuge staff.
Considering these and other recent developments, meeting
participants reviewed the analyses and recommendations con-
tained in the Commission's report and developed an agreed-
upon outline of cooperative Federal-State actions, ranked in
priority order, to protect the most important manatee
habitats. Among the identified actions were: the State
would proceed with efforts to develop and implement its
90
expanded land acquisition project along the Crystal and
northern Salt Rivers; the Service would pursue efforts to
consider the acquisition of a site on Kings Bay to serve as
an interpretative center and headquarters for the Service's
regional refuge staff; the Service would continue efforts to
complete acquisitions for the proposed 56,000 acre Lower
Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge; the State would investi-
gate and, as possible, consider acquisition of lands sur-
rounding the warm-water spring and spring run at the head-
waters of the Homosassa River, the source of a second major
warm-water refuge used by the regional manatee subpopulation;
the Service would assess potential acquisitions to expand the
northern boundary of the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife
Refuge northward to include portions of the middle and lower
Homosassa River; and the Service would contact the State's
Suwannee River Water Management District to discuss acquisi-
tion of riparian lands along the Suwannee River upstream from
the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge. In considering
its recommended action plan, participants noted that intense
development pressure in this area of coastal Florida made
prompt action a matter of special urgency.
Following its review of the meeting report, in consul-
tation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, the Commis-
sion wrote to the Fish and Wildlife Service on 29 August
1985. In its letter, the Commission commended the Service on
its progress towards completion of the proposed Lower Suwan-
nee National Wildlife Refuge and on its efforts to coordinate
and develop cooperative Federal-State actions to protect
habitats essential to the survival of the regional manatee
subpopulation. The Commission noted that the actions out-
lined in the report of the 14 March meeting were both appro-
priate and necessary and that they offered a blueprint for
what could be one of the nation's foremost examples of a
constructive, cooperative Federal-State program for protect-
ing and managing habitat essential for an endangered marine
mammal population in particular and for regional wildlife
resources in general.
The Commission's 29 August letter also noted that the
State's efforts to consider land acquisition in the Crystal
River area appeared to obviate the need for the Service to
act on the Commission's 31 October 1984 recommendation to
expand the Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge. The
Commission, therefore, recommended that the Service redirect
its land acquisition efforts to carry out the actions identi-
fied in the meeting report, particularly those related to the
northward expansion of the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife
Refuge and the acquisition of an interpretative center/
headquarters site on Kings Bay. The Commission requested
that the Service advise it of steps being taken to ensure
that the Service's responsibilities under the cooperative
plan of action would be actively pursued and met.
91
Also following the 14 March meeting, the Commission
received a copy of the Annual Report of the State of
Florida's Conservation and Recreational Lands Selection
Committee. This Committee is responsible for identifying and
ranking lands which might be purchased by the State for
recreational or conservation purposes. The recommended list
of projects is subsequently approved by the State's Governor
and Cabinet. The Report noted that the Conservation and
Recreational Lands Selection Committee recently had acted to
include an expanded Crystal River project and the site at the
headwaters of the Homosassa River on its list of recommended
State land acquisition projects. The new additions, however,
were not ranked high on the revised State list.
After reviewing the State's Report, the Commission wrote
to the Florida Department of Natural Resources on 2 October
1985 commending it and the other State agencies represented
on the Conservation and Recreational Lands Selection Com-
mittee for its accomplishments in adding the new areas to the
State's recommended land acquisition list and for its recent
acquisition of Crystal River area lands already listed.
However, recognizing that listing alone did not guarantee
eventual acquisition and that the State list included many
other land acquisition projects which were undoubtedly impor-
tant in their own right, the Commission urged that the State
continue to give favorable consideration to the Crystal River
area projects as other higher priority projects are com-
pleted. In particular, the Commission noted the special
benefits and opportunities which would be afforded by comple-
mentary Federal-State acquisitions in the region, the impor-
tance of the Crystal River land acquisition projects for
ensuring the long-term survival and growth of the regional
manatee subpopulation, and the importance of prompt action
due to the escalating pace of regional development.
The Florida Department of Natural Resources responded to
the Commission by letter of 21 October 1985. In its letter,
the Department thanked the Commission for its past and con-
tinuing support of cooperative efforts to encourage recovery
of the manatee population in Florida. Noting its continuing
commitment to support manatee protection, the Department also
expressed confidence that, through the emerging combination
of State and Federal funding sources for the Crystal River
area, substantial progress would be made on additional land
acquisition in near future.
On 17 December 1985, the Fish and Wildlife Service
convened a second meeting in Homosassa Springs, Florida, to
review progress on land acquisition efforts concerning the
Crystal River manatee subpopulation. Participants included
representatives of the Service, the Commission, the State of
Florida, the Suwannee River Water Management District, and
The Nature Conservancy. During the meeting, Fish and Wild-
life Service representatives reported that: the Service had
92
obtained options to purchase a site on Kings Bay which could
be used as an interpretative center/refuge headquarters; with
the assistance of The Nature Conservancy, it had purchased
additional lands for the Lower Suwannee National Wildlife
Refuge expanding Refuge holdings to more than 35,000 acres;
and steps were being taken to initiate preparation of an
assessment concerning the possible expansion of the Chassa-
howitzka National Wildlife Refuge northward to include
portions of the lower Homosassa River. In addition, a repre-
sentative of the Florida Department of Natural Resources
reported on progress being made to list and acquire projects
on the State's recommended Conservation and Recreational
Lands acquisition list. The representatives of the State's
Suwannee River Water Management District noted that planning
efforts were underway for assessing land acquisition prior-
ities along both the lower and upper Suwannee River.
The cooperative and complementary steps now being taken
by Federal and State agencies and private organizations to
acquire and protect manatee habitat in the Crystal River area
may offer the best hope for the long-term protection of
manatees as well as many other species of fish and wildlife
indigenous to the coastal region of northwest Florida. The
ambitious plan of actions as described above reflects an
enlightened ecosystem approach to regional habitat protec-
tion. During 1986, the Commission looks forward to further
cooperation with Federal and State agencies and private
organizations on these and other actions pertaining to the
protection of manatees in Florida and elsewhere.
Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi)
The Hawaiian monk seal occurs in a limited area around
the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and is in serious danger of
extinction. Harassment and over-exploitation by sealers
brought the species to the brink of extinction during the
19th century. Its survival is due in part to the cessation
of sealing and in part to the isolation of its habitat in the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. However, the population has
declined since the first systematic counts were made in the
1950s. In 1983, the estimated population size was roughly
half the estimated population size in 1958. The total pup
production in 1983 was only about 160 animals. Without a
sustained and vigorous effort by the responsible Federal and
State agencies, the public, and regional industry groups, the
Hawaiian monk seal may soon share the fate of the Caribbean
monk seal, which is thought to be extinct, and the Mediter-
ranean monk seal, which now occurs only in a small fraction
of its historic range.
Protection and conservation of the Hawaiian monk seal is
the responsibility of the National Marine Fisheries Service
under provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
93
Endangered Species Act. Because the species' range includes
the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, the Fish and
Wildlife Service shares responsibility for protecting the
Hawaiian monk seal and its habitat.
The Commission's efforts during the past several years
to promote the protection of the monk seal have been des-
cribed in past Annual Reports. Congressional concern for
survival of the species has been evident from the special
funding and attention it has directed to monk seal issues
since Fiscal Year (FY) 1981. For that fiscal year, the
Commission received a special $100,000 appropriation to aid
in developing and implementing an effective research and
management plan. In FY 1982, Congress directed the National
Marine Fisheries Service to invest $400,000 in monk seal work
and, in the following year, the Service was directed to
budget $150,000 for that purpose. Congress also provided the
Commission $150,000 for monk seal efforts in FY 1983, and,
after identifying and developing a recommended plan for
accomplishing priority research and management tasks, the
Commission transferred the entire $150,000 to the Service to
carry out its recommended program. In FY 1984 and FY 1985,
Congress increased the Service's appropriation for monk seal
work to $300,000 and $350,000, respectively.
As noted in the previous Annual Report, in 1984, the
Fish and Wildlife Service completed a draft master plan for
management of the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge.
The Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scien-
tific Advisors, reviewed the draft plan and forwarded com-
ments and recommendations to the Service on 9 November 1984.
In its comments, the Commission questioned whether continued
and expanded support of fishery development in the North-
western Hawaiian Islands, as proposed in the draft plan, was
compatible with other higher priority Refuge objectives, such
as protecting endangered and threatened species. The Commis-
sion particularly questioned proposed use of Tern Island as a
site for recreational activities, gear storage, and aircraft
operations in support of a multi-species mothership fishery
in the area, as proposed as part of the draft plan's Pre-
ferred Alternative. The Commission recommended that, if the
Service had not already done so, it undertake consultations
with the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to ensure that the
proposed action would not jeopardize the Hawaiian monk seal
or habitat critical to the species' survival.
On 27 February 1985, the Fish and Wildlife Service wrote
to the National Marine Fisheries Service requesting formal
Section 7 consultations on the proposed Master Plan for the
Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge. The resulting
Biological Opinion, issued by the National Marine Fisheries
Service on 14 August 1985, concluded that most of the manage-
ment strategies under the Preferred Alternative would promote
94
the conservation of the Hawaiian monk seal and the green sea
turtle, another endangered species. The Biological Opinion
stated, however, that increased human activity on Tern Island
for recreational purposes, gear storage, and aircraft opera-
tions would adversely affect reproduction, recruitment, and
distribution of Hawaiian monk seals and would likely jeopar-
dize the continued existence of the species. In the Biologi-
cal Opinion, the National Marine Fisheries Service recom-
mended that Tern Island logistical support for fishing acti-
vities be limited to current levels.
As noted in previous Annual Reports, the National Marine
Fisheries Service issued a Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment in 1980 proposing that certain waters and lands in the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands be designated as critical
habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act. A Final Environmental Impact Statement has not
been issued and the Service has not made a final determi-
nation with respect to the 1980 proposal. However, in Decem-
ber 1984, the Service issued a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement proposing that waters and lands within the
10-fathom isobath surrounding the islands and atolls in the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands be designated critical habitat
for the Hawaiian monk seal.
The Commission, in consultation with its Committee of
Scientific Advisors, reviewed the Supplemental Statement and,
by letter of 15 February 1985, provided comments and recom-
mendations to the Service. In its letter, the Commission
reiterated the conclusion put forth in its 14 May 1980 com-
ments on the Statement that the preferred and best supported
alternative was to designate critical habitat out to the 20-
fathom isobath rather than to the 10-fathom isobath, as
proposed in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
The Commission also noted that the Hawaiian Monk Seal
Recovery Team had concluded in 1980 that critical habitat
should include waters out to the 20-fathom isobath around the
islands and atolls of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, plus
the submerged lands shallower than 20 fathoms at Maro Reef.
Therefore, the Commission recommended that Alternative
One, which would extend habitat boundaries to the 20-fathom
isobath, be modified to include submerged areas around Maro
Reef shallower than 20 fathoms and that the Service adopt
this alternative as the Preferred Alternative. The Commis-
sion further recommended that: (1) if the Service had not
already done so, it ask the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team
to review the Supplemental Statement and other relevant
information and that the results of this review as well as
the Recovery Team's 1980 statement on critical habitat be
included in the Service's Final Environmental Impact State-
ment; and (2) the Supplemental Statement be expanded to
include a more complete and accurate analysis of available
95
information on diving behavior and habitat use patterns of
monk seals at sea.
At the end of 1985, the National Marine Fisheries Serv-
ice had not yet announced its final determination on desig-
nation of monk seal critical habitat. Under the provisions
of the Endangered Species Act, the Service has one year from
the time of its proposed rulemaking in which to announce a
final decision. It is expected that such a decision will be
announced early in 1986.
On 2 April 1985, the National Marine Fisheries Service
forwarded to the Commission a Combined Draft Fishery Manage-
ment Plan, Environmental Assessment, and Regulatory Impact
Review for the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries
of the Western Pacific Ocean, prepared by the Western Pacific
Fishery Management Council. The Commission, in consultation
with its Committee of Scientific Advisors, reviewed the
document and, by letters of 12 April and 7 May 1985, provided
comments and recommendations. In its 12 April letter, the
Commission noted that, based on a preliminary review of the
draft plan, the basis for the plan's determination that the
proposed action would not jeopardize Hawaiian monk seals was
not apparent. The Commission further noted that it was not
clear whether all relevant information had been considered.
Therefore, the Commission recommended that, if the Service
had not already done so, it enter into immediate consultation
with the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team to determine if the
proposed action was likely to adversely affect Hawaiian monk
seals. The Commission also recommended that, if the Service
or the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council had not
already initiated formal Section 7 consultations under the
Endangered Species Act, further consideration of the draft
plan be suspended until such consultations were completed.
By letter of 12 April, the Service advised the Commission
that the Service's Southwest Regional Office was in the
process of preparing a Biological Opinion as required by
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Following a more extensive review of the draft plan, the
Commission, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, forwarded additional comments and recommendations
to the Service on 7 May. In the letter, the Commission
endorsed the proposed permit system and the proposed restric-
tion on use of nets as a means of increasing protection of
monk seals. The Commission noted, however, that the bottom-
fish fishery could affect monk seals in a number of ways not
considered in the Environmental Impact Assessment. For
example, the Commission pointed out that monk seals that feed
in the same areas where fishing occurs might be killed or
injured while attempting to take hooked bait or hooked fish.
The Commission also pointed out that seals could damage or
destroy deployed gear and/or hooked fish. The Commission
recommended that the likelihood of such interactions be
96
considered during the Section 7 consultations and that the
management plan be revised to reflect any relevant findings
and any reasonable and prudent alternatives identified as a
result of the consultation.
The Commission further recommended that the environ-
mental assessment be expanded to: (a) provide additional
information on the at-sea movements and habitat use patterns
of Hawaiian monks seals and to compare that information with
the expected distribution of bottomfish fishing off the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; (b) provide a more complete
analysis of possible impacts from monk seal/bottomfish fish-
ery interactions; (c) identify research and monitoring
measures that would be undertaken to ensure that possible
adverse effects on monk seals and other endangered species
are avoided or detected and mitigated; and (d) identify steps
that would be taken to ensure that all fishermen permitted to
fish for bottomfish in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are
aware of potential interactions and relevant regulations
necessary to protect Hawaiian monk seals and other endangered
and non-endangered species. Finally, since the Service's
12 April letter made no mention of consultations with the
Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team, the Commission restated its
earlier recommendation that the Service consult with the
Recovery Team during the Section 7 review process to ensure
that all relevant information on monk seals was identified
and appropriately considered.
On 4 October 1985, the National Marine Fisheries Service
sent the Commission a revised Combined Draft Fishery Manage-
ment Plan for the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fish-
eries of the Western Pacific Region. The revision differed
from the earlier draft in that it: (1) recommended estab-
lishing an experimental fishing permit system to authorize
fishing in areas or with certain gear that would otherwise be
prohibited; and (2) eliminated previously proposed restric-
tions that limited access to the bottomfish fishery in the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
The Commission reviewed the revision and, by letter of
31 October 1985, forwarded its comments to the National
Marine Fisheries Service. In its letter, the Commission
expressed concern that the proposed changes would seriously
compromise efforts to control growing fishing pressure and to
protect the endangered Hawaiian monk seal. The Commission
recommended a number of additional steps that should be taken
to ensure, insofar as possible, that bottomfish fisheries in
the western Pacific region do not adversely affect the
Hawaiian monk seal population or its habitat. Specifically,
the Commission recommended that the management plan:
(a) identify the steps to be taken to ensure that bottomfish
fishermen are aware of and understand applicable laws, regu-
lations, and reporting requirements concerning interactions
with Hawaiian monk seals and other endangered or threatened
97
species; (b) provide for the establishment of criteria and
procedures for issuing experimental fishing permits; (c) en-
sure that the annual reviews to be conducted by the Bottom-
fish Monitoring Team address information and problems con-
cerning fishery interactions with endangered or threatened
species as well as problems concerning the stocks of target
fish species; and (d) identify the research and monitoring
programs needed to resolve uncertainties concerning possible
direct and indirect effects of bottomfish fishing operations
and related activities on monk seals and other endangered
species. With respect to the last point, the Commission
recommended that the Fishery Management Plan specify the need
for controlled experiments to determine whether, where, and
how monk seals and other endangered or threatened species
might be affected by permitted fishing activities.
During 1986, the Commission will continue to work with
the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team to evaluate
the effectiveness of steps that have been and are being taken
to protect and encourage recovery of the Hawaiian monk seal
and to identify additional measures that may be necessary.
Caribbean Monk Seal (Monachus tropicalis)
Historically the Caribbean monk seal occurred primarily
in the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico; prehistorically
it apparently ranged as far north as South Carolina. While
the species is thought to have once been abundant, over-
exploitation by hunters and loss of habitat resulting from
human activities reduced the monk seal to perilously low
levels as early as 1851. The last confirmed sighting of the
species in the United States was in 1922. The last verified
record of the species was a small monk seal colony on
Seranilla Bank, between Honduras and Jamaica, in 1952.
Although it was possible that the species might already
be extinct, the Caribbean monk seal was listed in 1979 as
endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The listing was
considered necessary to protect any individual animals that
might still survive.
During 1985, the National Marine Fisheries Service
reviewed available information on the Caribbean monk seal as
part of its five-year status review pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act. The Service concluded that, on the
basis of the best available evidence, the species is extinct.
The Service therefore recommended that the Caribbean monk
seal be removed from the Endangered Species List.
Despite a widespread belief that the species is extinct,
there have been unconfirmed reports as recently as the early
1980s of sightings of what may be Caribbean monk seals along
98
the north coast of Haiti. In an attempt to verify these
sightings, the Commission contracted in 1985 for a survey of
fishermen and other residents of the area to identify, docu-
ment, and assess the reliability of recent and past sight-
ings. The resulting report is expected to be available early
in 1986.
As part of its continuing review of the status of marine
mammal populations, the Marine Mammal Commission's Working
Group on Endangered Species reviewed available information on
the Caribbean monk seal during 1985. The Working Group
concluded that, although prospects for the species continued
existence are exceedingly small, there remains a faint hope
that some animals may still survive. The Working Group
recommended that, as long as such hope remains, the Caribbean
monk seal should remain listed on the Endangered Species
List. In addition, it recommended that efforts should be
made to alert residents in the species' historic range of the
possible existence of surviving monk seals and that infor-
mation should be made available to help them recognize and
differentiate the species from other species of pinnipeds,
such as California sea lions, that may have been released in
the area.
During 1986, the Commission will review any new evidence
in a continuing effort to determine whether any individuals
of this species survive.
The California Sea Otter Population (Enhydra lutris)
Because of its small size and limited distribution, the
remnant sea otter population in California is vulnerable to
oil spills and other catastrophic events. Primarily for this
reason, the population was designated as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act in January 1977. The most effective
way to reduce the threat from such events is to establish one
or more sea otter colonies outside the population's present
range. While such an action could adversely affect commer-
cial and recreational fisheries for abalone, clams, and other
invertebrate species eaten by sea otters, it also could
reduce populations of sea urchins and other herbivores that
sea otters eat, and thus enhance the growth of kelp, a
product of commercial significance that also provides habitat
for certain finfish species of recreational and commercial
importance.
To facilitate protection and recovery of the California
sea otter population, while minimizing possible adverse
impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries, the Commis-
sion, in December 1980, recommended that the Fish and Wild-
life Service adopt and implement a management strategy recog-
nizing the ultimate need for "zonal" management of sea otters
and the need to establish one or more sea otter colonies at a
99
site or sites not likely to be affected by an oil spill in or
near the population's present range. The Fish and Wildlife
Service concurred with the Commission's recommendation and
incorporated the zonal management concept into the Southern
Sea Otter Recovery Plan, which it adopted in February 1982.
Past Commission efforts to facilitate development and
implementation of an effective Southern Sea Otter Recovery
Plan are described in previous Annual Reports. The Commis-
sion's activities in this regard in 1985 are summarized
below.
Incidental Take
The incidental take of sea otters was either insignif-
icant or unrecognized when the California sea otter popu-
lation was designated as threatened in 1977. The first
documentation of the existence and possible significance of
the problem was provided by the California Department of Fish
and Game and others in 1982. In that year, the Commission
provided funds to the California Department of Fish and Game
to augment ongoing studies of the problem and to help coor-
dinate work being supported by various organizations in order
to expedite collection of needed data.
In addition, in 1983, the Commission provided funds to
continue and expand observations of gill and trammel net
fisheries in and near Morro Bay and Monterey Bay. The
Commission continued funding for this work during 1984 and
the major portion of 1985. By letter of 25 November, how-
ever, the Commission advised the Fish and Wildlife Service
that the Commission contract for these observations had
expired on 31 October 1985 and that the California Department
of Fish and Game no longer had funds available for this work.
In its letter, the Commission stated that continued use of
observers is critical for enforcement as well as for asses-
sing the effectiveness of measures taken to prevent the
incidental take of sea otters. The Commission recommended
that the Service place high priority on continuation of the
observer program. The Commission added that, while it no
longer had funds available for this work, it was willing to
assist the Service in exploring options for support of this
important aspect of the sea otter recovery effort.
As was noted in the previous Annual Report, the report
submitted by Commission-funded observers and the studies
undertaken by the California Department of Fish and Game,
provided the first reasonably good documentation of the
magnitude of the incidental take problem in 1984. In a draft
report issued in September 1984 by the California Department
of Fish and Game, it was estimated that between 1973 and 1983
an average of 105 otters were killed annually through entan-
glement in gill and trammel nets. Available information
indicates that most losses due to incidental take occur in
100
large mesh nets that are set for halibut within the 15-fathom
depth curve. A complete breakdown of incidental take mor-
tality for the period from 1973 through 1983 is shown in the
following table prepared by the California Department of Fish
and Game:
Estimates of incidental take of sea otters in set nets
calculated from estimates of set net effort 1973-19831
Year
Number of Landings
Estimated Mortality
1973
457
49
1974
645
69
1975
[no data provided]
69
1976
980
105
1977
663
71
1978
874
93
1979
1449
154
1980
1407
150
1981
1578
168
1982
1057
113
1983
696
74
As the data set forth in the California Department of
Fish and Game report indicate, the incidental take problem is
a substantial threat to the continued existence and recovery
of the California sea otter population. In recognition of
the severity of this threat, the Commission has taken an
active role in seeking solutions to the problem. Details on
Commission efforts in this regard prior to 1985 are described
in previous Annual Reports.
Thousands of sea birds also are caught in gill and tram-
mel nets and, to avoid or reduce the incidental take of
seabirds, as well as sea otters, the State of California
enacted legislation in July 1984 prohibiting fishing with
gill and trammel nets inside the 15-fathom depth contour in
certain areas including Monterey Bay. Preliminary monitoring
surveys indicate that this action has been effective in
reducing the number of sea otters entangled in gill and
trammel nets in Monterey Bay. It is possible, however, that
this closure may have shifted fishing efforts to other areas
and increased the level of incidental take of sea otters and
other marine mammals in those locations.
At the end of 1984, the California Department of Fish
and Game initiated a public review process to determine what
action, either regulatory or legislative, would be appro-
priate to address the incidental take of sea otters in areas
1
Estimate of effort is based on the number of landings
of set net boats within the sea otters' range.
Estimated take is based on the rate of take observed
in 1983.
101
beyond Monterey Bay in a manner that would not be unneces-
sarily restrictive on fishing interests.
In a 2 January 1985 letter to the California Secretary
of Resources, the Fish and Wildlife Service identified the
very serious nature of the incidental take problem and urged
the State to undertake immediate legislative and regulatory
action that would eliminate the incidental take of sea
otters. By letter of 16 January 1985, the Fish and Wildlife
Service informed the California Department of Fish and Game
that it supported an emergency closure to prohibit set net
fishing activities within the sea otter range. In this
letter it was observed that, unless the problem could be
dealt with quickly and effectively, there was a substantial
likelihood that the population would have to be reclassified
as endangered. The Service stressed the importance of law
enforcement efforts and indicated its willingness to assist
in enforcement and public information activities.
As a result of this review, an emergency regulation was
promulgated on 25 January 1985 to prohibit use of gill and
trammel nets in waters less than 15 fathoms deep from Waddell
Creek, Santa Cruz County, to Point Sal, Santa Barbara County.
Prior to the expiration of this regulation, the California
General Assembly, on 24 May 1985, passed a law establishing a
permanent 15-fathom closure. This closure was co-extensive
with the emergency regulation and prohibited set net fish-
eries within a 220-mile stretch of the California coast.
Notwithstanding this action, sea otter mortalities
incidental to gill and trammel net fishing continued to be
reported. In July and August 1985, seven confirmed and three
probable deaths were observed in waters 15 fathoms or greater
in depth. In response, the California Department of Fish and
Game promulgated another emergency regulation that estab-
lished a 20-fathom closure for the 17 miles of coast between
Cape San Martin and Piedras Blancas. This closure took
effect on 22 August 1985 and expired on 20 December 1985.
Subsequent to the closure, one additional net-related mortal-
ity was observed in Monterey Bay in waters deeper than 15
fathoms. Taking two January 1985 mortalities into account,
ten confirmed and three probable deaths were observed in
1985.
During their meeting in San Diego, California, on 24-
26 October 1985, the Marine Mammal Commission and its Commit-
tee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals devoted a full
day to consideration of issues related to sea otters in
Alaska and California. A considerable portion of this dis-
cussion focused on fishery interaction problems and inci-
dental take. As a result of the discussions during this and
other sessions of the meeting, the Commission and the Cali-
fornia Department of Fish and Game agreed to work together to
convene a workshop on marine mammal/fisheries interactions in
102
California during 1986. In late 1985, the Commission was
completing the necessary preparatory steps to organize the
workshop.
Translocation Decision-Making Process
In a Federal Register notice published on 27 June 1984,
the Fish and Wildlife Service announced its intention to
prepare an environmental impact statement on a proposal to
translocate a portion of the California sea otter population
to a site within the species' historic range off the Pacific
coast of the United States. This action is called for in the
Southern Sea Otter Recovery Plan and has been recommended by
the Marine Mammal Commission on several occasions. As des-
cribed in the Federal Register notice, the proposal would
involve the issuance of experimental population regulations
under the Endangered Species Act, permits under both the
Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
and compliance with a number of Federal and State laws.
Details of the Fish and Wildlife Service's translocation
proposal are set forth in the previous Annual Report.
As part of the environmental impact statement prepara-
tion process, the Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a
formal scoping process and held public scoping meetings on 23
and 24 July 1984 in Santa Barbara and Monterey, California,
respectively. In addition, the Service established an Inter-
agency Project Review Team, as recommended by the Council on
Environmental Quality, to participate in the scoping process
and otherwise assist the Service in preparation of the envi-
ronmental impact statement. The Review Team is composed of
representatives from the California Department of Fish and
Game, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Marine Mammal Com-
mission, the Minerals Management Service, and other inter-
ested Federal and State agencies. Public meetings of the
Review Team were held on 4 June, 6 August, and 4 October
1984. Non-governmental participants in these meetings have
included representatives of environmental groups, the oil and
gas industry, and sport and commercial fishing organizations.
The meetings have been used to discuss a variety of issues
related to translocation, including the topics to be
addressed in the environmental impact statement, alternatives
to the proposed action, the time schedule and procedures for
drafting the environmental impact statement, U.S. Coast Guard
vessel routing procedures, and oil spill risk analysis
issues.
Early in 1985, a determination was made by the Fish and
Wildlife Service that it would not be possible to complete
the decision-making process in time for a translocation in
1985. Anticipating that a translocation would take place in
1986, the Service distributed a preliminary draft environ-
mental impact statement to the Interagency Project Review
Team and other interested parties for review and comment.
103
Comments were received during February and March 1985, and
the Service undertook the preparation of a revised preli-
minary draft environmental impact statement.
The Fish and Wildlife Service's translocation proposal
was given Congressional consideration during 1985 hearings on
reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. These
hearings took place on 14 March 1985 before the Subcommittee
on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment of
the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and on
18 April before the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution
of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Testimony was presented by interested parties on the need for
one or more translocations and the resource management con-
flicts that are likely to be associated with translocation.
In an effort to achieve a consensus on how the trans-
location decision-making process should be carried out and
what some of the legal consequences would be if the trans-
location were successful, the House Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries convened several meetings of involved
agencies and interested parties. In part as a result of
these meetings, the Committee approved H.R. 1027, a bill
reauthorizing the Endangered Species Act. On 27 July 1985,
the House of Representatives passed the bill, Section 5 of
which addresses the translocation of sea otters.
Section 5 is intended to serve as a free-standing pro-
vision of the Endangered Species Act. This means that its
requirements would continue to apply even if the sea otter
were to be delisted under the Act. The purpose of the amend-
ment is to encourage the development and implementation of a
plan for the establishment of at least one additional popula-
tion of sea otters at another location. Within that context,
it seeks to resolve resource management conflicts that could
arise as a result of a translocation.
If enacted, Section 5 of H.R. 1027 would require the
development by regulation of a plan that includes pertinent
information on the manner in which the translocation will be
carried out. That plan would be required to specify a trans-
location zone that would meet the habitat needs of the trans-
located animals and provide a buffer from the possible ad-
verse effects of activities that may occur outside the zone.
Animals found within this zone would be subject to all appli-
cable protections of the Endangered Species Act and the
Marine Mammal Protection Act. The plan also would be
required to specify a management zone. This area is to
surround the translocation zone and represents the area from
which sea otters are to be excluded. Sea otters found within
this zone are to be removed by feasible, non-lethal means and
are provided with fewer legal protections than those that are
found within the translocation zone. The final significant
component of the translocation plan is to be a general
104
description of the expected relationship between the success-
ful establishment of a translocated population and the status
of the species under the Endangered Species Act.
In order to remove constraints under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act that sea otters be taken only for research
purposes, Section 5 provides that actions necessary to effect
the relocation or management of sea otters under the plan
shall not be considered violations of either the Endangered
Species Act or the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In an
effort to provide as much certainty as possible concerning
the possible effects of the translocation on fisheries,
offshore oil and gas development, and other activities, the
proposed amendment provides for an early consultation proce-
dure to be initiated and completed prior to the translo-
cation. Only those activities that had advanced to a stage
where, in the judgment of the Secretary, meaningful consulta-
tion could take place would be subject to this requirement.
Anticipating implementation of a translocation plan in 1986,
the House bill set 1 April 1986 as the deadline for requests
for early consultation.
On 4 December 1985, the Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works approved a reauthorization bill that did not
include the House-passed amendment. At the end of 1985, no
action had been taken by the full Senate on Endangered
Species Act reauthorization. Resolution of differences
between H.R. 1027 and the Senate bill, S. 725, therefore must
await further action in 1986.
On 7 August 1985, the Fish and Wildlife Service wrote to
the Commission providing information on baseline ecological
studies being conducted at San Nicolas Island, California,
and observing that, due to events related to Endangered
Species Act reauthorization, it might not be possible for the
Service to complete the translocation decision-making process
in time for implementation in 1986. The Commission responded
by letter of 30 August, explaining that translocation could
be accomplished in 1986 if final action on Endangered Species
Act reauthorization were taken by Congress in 1985.
At the 24-26 October 1985 meeting of the Commission and
its Committee of Scientific Advisors, representatives of the
Fish and Wildlife Service stated that the Service was commit-
ted to bringing about a translocation in 1986, provided that
Congress indicates in a timely fashion whether it will amend
the Endangered Species Act to address sea otter transloca-
tion. By letter of 25 November 1985, the Commission stated
its support for this approach and urged the Service to make
the necessary funds available.
The lack of final Congressional action on Endangered
Species Act reauthorization by the end of 1985 makes it
unlikely that the decision-making process can be completed in
105
time for a translocation in 1986. To plan for translocation
in 1987, the Service is expected to call upon the Interagency
Project Review Team early in 1986 for further review of draft
decision-making documents with publication of a draft envi-
ronmental impact statement to follow.
General Program Review
On 14 September 1983, the Commission advised the Fish
and Wildlife Service of the steps it considered necessary to
carry out an adequate program for the protection and recovery
of the California sea otter population. The principal recom-
mendations set forth in that letter are as follows:
(1) expedite assessment of incidental take and proceed with
actions to reduce or eliminate the problem; (2) determine the
optimal design and establish agreed-upon schedules and pro-
cedures for conducting periodic population surveys; (3) com-
plete the Sea Otter Mapping Project; (4) select a trans-
location site or sites and develop a proposed translocation
plan or plans that can be subjected to legal, environmental,
and economic evaluation and assessment; (5) develop and begin
implementing an agreed-upon plan for assessing alternative
methods for protecting and containing sea otters in desig-
nated zones; (6) facilitate the compilation, evaluation, and
publication of existing survey, tagging, and mortality data;
(7) update the Southern Sea Otter Recovery Plan and initiate
development of a Comprehensive Work Plan; and (8) engage a
full-time Sea Otter Activities Coordinator.
Considerable progress has been made in meeting these
objectives. During 1984 and 1985, the Fish and Wildlife
Service took actions on each of the recommendations set forth
in the Commission's 1983 letter. Significant developments
include the initiation of the translocation decision-making
process, the completion of the Mapping Project, ongoing
efforts to resolve incidental take problems, the 1984 con-
tainment workshop, and the hiring of a full-time Fish and
Wildlife Service Sea Otter Coordinator.
For purposes of obtaining information on the progress
that has been made on these general program objectives, one
entire day of the 24-26 October 1985 meeting of the Marine
Mammal Commission and its Committee was devoted to sea otter
issues. Testimony was presented by the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, the
Minerals Management Service, the Friends of the Sea Otter,
commercial and sport fishing interests, the oil and gas
industry, and others. Through these presentations, up-to-
date information was provided on population status, inci-
dental take, translocation, marine mammal/fisheries inter-
actions, oil spill risks, the recovery plan and related
issues, and problems and opportunities concerning sea otters
in Alaska. The discussion on each of these topics laid the
106
groundwork for further action in 1986 on the objectives set
forth in the Commission's 1983 letter.
Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
Humpback whales, which are found throughout the world's
oceans, are among the several species of great whales that
have been severely reduced in number as a result of past
commercial whaling. Since 1966, commercial exploitation of
the species has been prohibited by the International Whaling
Commission. In the United States, it is listed as endangered
under the Endangered Species Act. However, humpback whales,
still taken by subsistence whalers in Greenland, may also be
threatened in other areas by human activities such as commer-
cial shipping, recreational boating, offshore oil and gas
development, commercial fisheries, and coastal development.
As noted in the Commission's previous Annual Report, the
Commission participated in a review of the National Marine
Mammal Laboratory's research programs, including its cetacean
research program, on 13-15 November 1984. By letter of 11
December 1984, the Commission provided the Service with
comments on the review noting, among other things, that it
was apparent that funding and logistic support for the ceta-
cean research program was not adequate to effectively meet
all relevant data needs and that, because all necessary
research needs had apparently not been fully described,
available funding might not be being used to the best pos-
sible advantage. As an example, the Commission noted that
there was no plan for long-term studies to assess and monitor
the North Pacific population of humpback whales and its
habitat or to identify and evaluate needed conservation
measures. The Commission therefore asked to be advised of
steps being taken or contemplated by the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for humpback whales, and for
right whales, bowhead whales, and other endangered cetaceans
as required by the Endangered Species Act.
On 13 March 1985, the Service wrote to the Commission in
response to the 11 December letter. With respect to the
aforementioned comments, the Service noted, among other
things, that: it had not yet developed recovery plans for
the eight species of whales listed as endangered; recovery
plans for endangered and threatened species may not be
required if such a plan is not likely to promote conservation
of the species; it is uncertain whether or how a recovery
plan would enhance the protection of endangered whales;
priority attention for developing recovery plans and estab-
lishing recovery teams is being given to species which it
considers more likely to benefit from such a plan, including
Hawaiian monk seals and various sea turtles; and once it
proceeds with developing recovery plans for endangered
whales, it would give particular attention to humpback,
107
right, and bowhead whales. The Commission continues to
believe that preparation and implementation of recovery plans
for endangered whales, whose range is primarily or substan-
tially within U.S. jurisdiction, would be both useful and
appropriate and, as noted in the section on right whales, it
formally recommended by letter of 31 December 1985 that the
Service develop, adopt, and implement recovery plans for
populations of endangered humpback, right, and bowhead
whales.
During 1985, the Commission received the final report of
a project that it had supported on identification, behavior,
reproduction, and distribution of humpback whales in Hawaii.
Among other things, the results of that study suggest that
the use by mothers and calves of nearshore waters off the
west coast of Maui had decreased substantially during the
period 1977-79 to 1983. The report also suggested that
increasing human activities, including direct interactions
between whales and vessels, increased use of specific areas
by boaters and concessionaires, increased land runoff, and
the occurrence of changing water quality and pollution, could
be significant factors contributing to the apparent change in
the distribution of mothers and calves.
Concerned about possible long-term implications of
increasing levels of human activity on the future availa-
bility and use of an important nursery area for the North
Pacific population of humpback whales, the Commission con-
tracted for a study to determine the distribution and number
of humpback whales and their relationship to boating activity
in nearshore Hawaiian waters from January through April 1985.
The Commission also contracted for a study in 1985 to review
available information bearing on the conservation and protec-
tion of humpback whales in Hawaii. These studies are
described in Chapter II of this Report. The Commission looks
forward to receiving the results of these studies, at which
time it will consider further actions that may be necessary
and appropriate to assure protection of the humpback whales
which winter in Hawaiian waters.
Also during 1985, the National Park Service published
final rules and regulations for the protection of humpback
whales in Glacier Bay in southeast Alaska. Published on
10 May 1985 in the the Federal Register, the final rules
reflect the Commission's 18 May 1984 comments and recommen-
dations on the proposed regulations. These are described in
the Commission's previous Annual Report. The regulations
establish: a permit system for vessels entering the Bay;
vessel operating restrictions; a mechanism for designating
whale waters and vessel limits to respond to special whale
protection needs which may arise; and protection for species
of fish and crustaceans on which humpback whales feed.
108
During 1986, the Commission will continue to work with
the National Marine Fisheries Service, the States of Hawaii
and Alaska, the National Park Service, and others on matters
concerning the protection of humpback whales and their
habitat.
Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus)
It is thought that at least five or six separate bowhead
whale populations once existed. Over-exploitation by commer-
cial whalers between 1600 and 1900 reduced these populations
to extremely low levels throughout the species' ranges. The
largest surviving population is the Bering Sea population,
which occurs in the Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering Seas off
Alaska and Canada. This population is of great importance to
Alaska Eskimos, who continue to hunt bowhead whales for
subsistence and cultural purposes.
Consideration by the International Whaling Commission
As described in the Marine Mammal Commission's previous
Annual Reports, the International Whaling Commission (IWC)
reviews information on the status of the Bering Sea stock of
bowhead whales and establishes quotas on the aboriginal/
subsistence take of whales from this as well as other whale
stocks. In 1977, the IWC adopted a total ban on the take of
bowhead whales by Alaska Eskimos. Later that same year, it
modified its ban in recognition of Eskimo subsistence and
cultural needs. Since 1977, a series of limited quotas have
been adopted by the IWC to meet the needs of Alaska Eskimos
while allowing the bowhead whale stock to increase towards
its maximum sustainable yield level. In 1983, the IWC
adopted a two-year block quota of 43 strikes for the 1984 and
1985 bowhead whaling seasons with a stipulation that no more
than 27 strikes be made in either year. As noted in Chapter
III of this Report, the IWC again considered aboriginal/
subsistence whaling quotas for bowhead whales during its 1985
meeting.
During the 1985 meeting, the IWC was advised by its
Scientific Committee that, based on improved information
concerning the size of the stock, the best estimate of abun-
dance for the Bering Sea stock of bowhead whales had been
revised upward to 4,417 animals (range 2,613 to 6,221). No
new information, however, was available on the natural mor-
tality rate or annual net recruitment rate for the popula-
tion, and the Scientific Committee therefore recommended to
the IWC that any new catch limits be set with caution. In
view of this and other information on the take of whales by
Alaska Eskimos, the IWC adopted a three-year block quota
which modified its previous quota covering the 1985 bowhead
whaling season and set new quotas for the 1986 and 1987
seasons. The new block quota provides that 26 whales may be
109
struck in each of the three years and that strikes not used
in any one year may be used during the following year. No
more than 32 strikes, however, are to be made in any one
year.
Eskimo Whaling
In order to provide Alaska Eskimo whalers with sub-
stantial opportunity and responsibility for regulation,
monitoring, and enforcement of the bowhead whale hunt, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission signed a cooperative agree-
ment in 1981, recognizing each party's responsibility for
bowhead whale management. In particular, the agreement
recognized the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion's primary responsibility for managing the bowhead whale
stock while also recognizing the responsibility of the Alaska
Eskimo Whaling Commission to allocate a mutually agreed quota
among Alaska's whaling villages and to monitor the hunt for
compliance with the regulations. The quotas set by the IWC
and the results of the Eskimo hunts since 1977 are shown in
the table below.
Quotas and Catch of Bowhead Whales
By Alaska Eskimos, 1977-1987
Quota*
Actually
Struck
Total
Year
Landings
Strikes
Landed
But Lost
Whales
Struck
1977
[No quota]
26
82
108
1978
14
20
12
6
18
1979
18
27
12
15
27
1980
18
26
16
18
34
1981
17
11
28
1982
45**
65**
8
11
19
1983
9
9
18
1984
43
12
13
25
1985
11
6
17
1986
26
1987
*
In general, in establishing quotas on both the number
of whales landed and the number of strikes, the IWC
stipulated that whaling should cease whenever the
number of whales landed or the number of strikes
reached the specified number, whichever came first.
In 1980, a block quota was set for the three years
1981 to 1983, with a further stipulation that, in any
one year, the number landed should not exceed 17 and
the number of strikes should not exceed 27.
In 1983, a block quota was set on strikes alone for
1984 and 1985, with the further stipulation that the
number of strikes in any year may not exceed 27.
In 1985 a block quota was set for the three years 1985
to 1987, with the stipulation that strikes not used in
any one year may be used the following year, provided
that no more than 32 strikes occur in any one year.
110
Research Planning and Coordination
When the IWC modified its total ban on the subsistence
take of bowhead whales in December 1977, it acted in part
on a pledge by the U.S. Commissioner to the IWC that the
United States would undertake a comprehensive research
program on the species. Responsibility for planning and
implementing the U.S. bowhead whale research program has
been carried out by the National Marine Mammal Laboratory
of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Additional
research concerning bowhead whales has also been conducted
or supported by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, the
North Slope Borough, the oil and gas industry, the State of
Alaska, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Minerals
Management Service. Since 1977, IWC action to adopt sub-
sistence whaling quotas for bowhead whales has carefully
considered and reflected research results.
The role of the Marine Mammal Commission in developing
a comprehensive research plan and initiating efforts to
coordinate related bowhead whale research projects has been
described in its Annual Reports for Calendar Years 1977
through 1979. Since 1981, the National Marine Mammal
Laboratory has assumed responsibility for annually organ-
izing and convening the necessary coordination meetings
involving the agencies mentioned above. In 1985, the
bowhead whale research coordination meeting was held on 24-
25 January 1985 in Anchorage, Alaska. Marine Mammal Com-
mission representatives participated in the meeting.
During the meeting, the groups involved in field
research summarized the results of 1984 activities and
discussed plans for 1985. In general, activities planned
for 1985 continued the research conducted in 1984, with
slight modifications. The principal bowhead whale research
efforts include the following.
(1) Visual and acoustic censuses during the spring
migration in the vicinity of Barrow (North Slope Borough)
During the bowhead spring migration, a visual census is
conducted from ice camps; however, not all the whales can
be seen. An acoustic census procedure is being developed
to help determine the number of whales that are not
detected, thereby providing a more accurate index of the
size of the bowhead population. Although the acoustic
census procedure is providing useful information, poor
weather conditions in 1985 seriously hampered both the
visual census and the calibration between visual and
acoustic censuses.
(2) Photo-identification and photogrammetric aerial
surveys (National Marine Fisheries Service) Information
from these studies will provide details on the relative
numbers of animals within different size categories of the
111
population and ultimately may help determine the age struc-
ture and an estimate of net recruitment for the bowhead
whale population. In 1985, the Service changed the time
and location of its aerial surveys from late summer/early
autumn in the eastern Beaufort Sea to late spring off
Barrow. In order to collect additional data and to provide
continuity with data collected in past years, a photogram-
metric study was conducted in the eastern Beaufort Sea
during late summer/early autumn of 1985. This work was
supported by the oil and gas industry, with partial funding
provided by the Marine Mammal Commission and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (see Chapter II of this Report for
additional details). At the end of 1985, the results of
both surveys were still being analyzed.
(3) Impact of oil and gas exploration and development
(Minerals Management Service) : To better determine how
offshore oil and gas activities may affect bowhead whales,
the Service is supporting distributional surveys and field
studies of bowhead whale feeding. The latter studies,
started late in 1985, will help determine the location and
importance of summer feeding grounds off the North Slope of
Alaska.
(4) Improvement in the techniques used to take bow-
head whales for subsistence purposes (Alaska Eskimo Whaling
Commission) During 1985, efforts were continued to
improve the equipment and methods used in the annual bow-
head whale hunt so as to reduce the number of animals
struck but lost and to develop the most humane whaling
techniques possible. Results from the 1985 efforts are not
yet available.
As a related matter, also noted in Chapter III of this
Report, the Marine Mammal Commission initiated a thorough
analysis of U.S. IWC-related policies late in 1985. Among
other things, the Commission's analysis considered U.S.
obligations to the IWC with respect to bowhead whale
research. Based on a preliminary review completed before
the end of 1985, the Commission concluded that the National
Marine Mammal Laboratory should continue to convene annual
meetings to review and coordinate bowhead whale research
and should convene a meeting of involved Federal and State
agencies, Native groups, and industry early in 1986. The
Commission also concluded that continued National Marine
Fisheries Service funding of research to better determine
the net recruitment rate for the Bering Sea stock of bow-
head whales was of critical importance for the U.S. to meet
its obligations to the IWC and to provide information
essential for managing the bowhead population. As noted in
Chapter III, the Commission expects to forward these and
other recommendations concerning both bowhead whales and
the IWC to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion early in 1986.
112
Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis)
The right whale is the world's most endangered large
whale. Over-exploitation by commercial whalers in the 19th
and early 20th centuries reduced the species to a fraction
of its original size and only a few small groups of animals
remain. Along the northeast coast of the United States and
Canada, for example, the right whale population has been
estimated to number in the low hundreds and perhaps fewer
than 200 animals. While the taking of right whales has
been prohibited for nearly 50 years, the species' prefer-
ence for coastal areas exposes it to a number of human
activities that pose new threats to the whales and their
habitats.
The Commission's efforts prior to 1985 to enhance
protection of right whales and their habitat in the western
North Atlantic and to encourage the species' recovery are
described in past Annual Reports. Briefly, these have
included: a Commission-sponsored workshop in 1979, which
resulted in the development of a general plan for East
Coast cetacean and pinniped research; Commission funding to
help implement portions of that plan; Commission support
for an international workshop on right whales in 1983,
which further identified priority research and management
needs for the species throughout its worldwide range; and
the provision of funds to establish a right whale sighting
network in the southeast United States. In 1984, the
Commission provided funds to support: aerial surveys of
right whales in the Great South Channel east of Cape Cod,
Massachusetts; aerial and shipboard surveys to better
document the number and movements of right whales in the
Bay of Fundy; and two workshops to develop a research and
management plan identifying steps that should be taken to
protect and encourage recovery of the northwest Atlantic
right whale population.
The workshops, sponsored cooperatively by the Commis-
sion and the Habitat Protection Branch of the National
Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, were held at
the New England Aquarium in Boston, Massachusetts, on 11-
12 February and 10-11 June 1985. The report of the work-
shops was submitted to the Commission in December 1985. It
summarizes available information on the natural history,
current and former distribution and abundance, and poten-
tial threats to the western North Atlantic right whale
population. The report notes that fisheries development,
offshore oil and gas development, environmental pollution,
and a number of other factors could affect the whales
and/or habitats essential to the survival and recovery of
the population. It outlines and indicates the relative
priority of actions that should be taken to (a) better
determine and monitor the status of the population and
habitats necessary to its survival and (b) better assess
113
and eliminate or mitigate threats to the population and its
essential habitats.
The Commission, in consultation with its Committee of
Scientific Advisors, reviewed the report and, on 31 Decem-
ber 1985, forwarded it to the National Marine Fisheries
Service. In its transmittal letter, the Commission out-
lined six tasks that it considered to be of greatest imme-
diate importance. These are efforts to: (1) continue and
expand aerial and shipboard surveys in the area offshore
Cape Hatteras to central Florida, in the Great South
Channel, and in the Bay of Fundy in order to (a) better
locate and define probable wintering grounds, (b) obtain
more accurate estimates of population size, age/sex compo-
sition, and annual calf production, and (c) determine when,
where, how, and how frequently to conduct surveys to most
cost-effectively detect and monitor population trends;
(2) continue and expand efforts to establish, maintain, and
use a photo-identification system to facilitate documen-
tation of habitat-use patterns and identification of areas
of special importance to right whales and to better deter-
mine the size, age/sex composition, and productivity of the
right whale population in the western North Atlantic;
(3) expedite development of standard and/or satellite-
linked radio tags to facilitate documentation of winter
distribution patterns and obtain more reliable information
on daily activity patterns, seasonal movements, and migra-
tory routes of right whales; (4) complete compilation and
analysis of historic catch, sighting, and other relevant
records to provide better estimates of former distribution
and abundance; (5) review and evaluate available data on
fisheries and fish resources, marine debris, and other
environmental contaminants and on the physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics of areas where right whales
are regularly observed to better determine and identify
critical data gaps; and (6) continue and expand investi-
gation and necropsy of beach-cast whale carcasses to better
determine and monitor the frequency and causes of mortal-
ities and the levels of potentially harmful contaminants
present in the tissues of beach-cast right whales and other
large cetaceans.
In its 31 December letter, the Commission noted that
the Endangered Species Act requires the National Marine
Fisheries Service to develop recovery plans for listed
species, such as the right whale. To fulfill this require-
ment, the Commission recommended that the Service:
(1) adopt the recommended research and management plan
included in the workshop report as a preliminary recovery
plan; (2) review the recommended research and management
plan to determine those tasks that should be carried out or
supported by the Service and those that should be carried
out or supported by other agencies; (3) convene a meeting
of Canadian and U.S. agency representatives, no later than
114
March 1986, to consider ways to implement the recommended
research and management plan; (4) constitute a recovery
team to complete and oversee implementation of the recovery
plan; and (5) adopt and periodically review and update the
recovery plan.
The Commission further recommended that, if it had not
already done so, the Service take such steps as are neces-
sary to develop, adopt, and implement recovery plans for
populations of humpback whales, bowhead whales, and any
other endangered cetaceans that occur primarily or substan-
tially in waters under U.S. jurisdiction.
In 1986, the Commission will help support and partici-
pate in a workshop being organized by the Georgia Conser-
vancy to review and identify additional steps that may be
necessary to assess and protect possible right whale
calving grounds off the coasts of Georgia and northern
Florida. (See Chapter II, Research and Studies Programs,
for additional information on this workshop.) The Commis-
sion also will continue to work with the National Marine
Fisheries Service and other Federal agencies and organi-
zations to ensure that urgent research and management needs
for right whales are identified and carried out as promptly
and as efficiently as possible.
Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus)
The gray whale occurs in coastal waters of the North
Pacific Ocean. Like other species of great whales, gray
whales were reduced to low levels by intense whaling pres-
sure prior to the mid-1900s. Two separate stocks are
currently recognized, a Korean or western Pacific stock,
which may be extinct or close to extinction, and a Cali-
fornia or eastern Pacific stock, which has made perhaps the
most remarkable recovery of any depleted great whale popu-
lation and which many biologists believe is at or near its
pre-exploitation population level. Each year, members of
the eastern Pacific population migrate as much as 10,000
miles along the North American coast between winter calving
grounds off Mexico and summer feeding grounds off Alaska
and the Soviet Union. Archaeological and historical evi-
dence suggests that gray whales once existed in the North
Atlantic Ocean but have apparently been extinct since the
seventeenth century.
Commercial exploitation of the eastern Pacific gray
whale population began in 1845, at which time its size is
estimated to have been about 15,000 animals. It is pos-
sible, however, that aboriginal whaling prior to 1845
already may have reduced the population from a level of
perhaps 24,000 animals. By 1900, the population was at or
near economic extinction and commercial whalers turned
115
their attention to other species. In 1946, commercial
whaling for gray whales was prohibited under the Inter-
national Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Limited
whaling to meet aboriginal/subsistence needs, however, was
and continues to be permitted. As noted in Chapter III of
this Report, during its 1985 meeting the IWC set a subsis-
tence whaling quota of 179 gray whales for this purpose in
1986. In 1970, additional protection was provided for gray
whales when the species was designated as endangered under
the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, the prede-
cessor to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Under this
protection, the California gray whale population has
recovered to a level currently estimated at about 16,000
animals.
The gray whale calves, breeds, and migrates near shore
and, although commercial whaling does not pose a threat,
the whale's nearshore presence exposes it to an increasing
number of new threats associated with human activities.
Such activities include shoreline development, dredging,
coastal gill and trammel net fisheries, offshore oil and
gas exploration and production, salt mining, and whale
watching. To provide a better basis for identifying and
evaluating the possible adverse effects of increasing human
activities, particularly in the calving/breeding lagoons of
Baja California, Mexico, the Commission sponsored a series
of studies beginning in 1974. These are described in
previous Annual Reports.
Under the Endangered Species Act, the National Marine
Fisheries Service is required to review the status of
listed whales and seals at least once every five years. In
1984, the Service completed a five-year status review for
gray whales and announced the availability of the results
in the Federal Register on 9 November 1984. The Service's
review concluded that the California gray whale population
has been increasing at a rate of about 2.5 percent per year
and has recovered to a level near its pre-exploitation
population level. However, because of its limited calving
grounds and dependence on nearshore coastal waters, which
are subject to increasing human development and use, the
Service's review concluded that the stock should be listed
as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The Service also concluded that the Korean stock has not
recovered and should remain listed as endangered.
Anticipating that the Service might request comments
on an action to reclassify the status of the gray whale
under the Endangered Species Act, the Working Group on
Endangered Species of the Commission's Committee of Scien-
tific Advisors undertook a review of information on the
status of gray whales during 1985. The Working Group's
draft report, which also considered species other than gray
whales, was presented to the Commission and its Committee
116
of Scientific Advisors at their meeting in San Diego,
California, on 24-26 October 1985. Based on its analysis,
the Working Group concluded that: the California stock is
near the level it was at in 1845 and is increasing; as the
California population continues to expand towards its
carrying capacity level, animals may move to the western
Pacific and help repopulate the Korean stock; and, while
there is some basis for removing the California population
from the list of species covered by the Endangered Species
Act, the Commission should support reclassification of the
population as threatened because of its dependence on
coastal waters which are subject to increasing human devel-
opment and use.
As of the end of 1985, the National Marine Fisheries
Service had not proposed any change in the gray whale's
status under the Endangered Species Act. During 1986, the
Commission's Working Group expects to complete its report
and provide formal recommendations on the status of gray
whales and certain other marine mammals. During the pro-
cess of completing its report, the Working Group will
consider any new information that becomes available and
will revise its conclusions and recommendations appro-
priately.
In addition to the Working Group's status review, the
Commission sponsored a workshop in Monterey, California, on
16-18 October 1985 to determine and describe research needs
and opportunities relative to the conservation and protec-
tion of gray whales. The objectives of the workshop were
to: (a) review current knowledge and ongoing and planned
research concerning the biology, ecology, and conservation
of gray whales; (b) identify human activities that could
have significant adverse effects on gray whales or habitats
essential to their survival and productivity; (c) identify
critical gaps in existing knowledge of the biology and
ecology of gray whales; (d) determine how gray whale
studies might contribute to understanding and resolving
methodological and management problems involving other
species of cetaceans; (e) describe the types of research
needed to fill the critical data gaps, and the time, money,
or other resources that would be required to do the needed
research; (f) identify the types of monitoring programs
needed to detect and determine population trends; and
(g) prepare a report that can be used as a basis for
developing a five-year plan for meeting key research need
and opportunities. Participants included scientists from
Mexico and the United States.
A draft report on the workshop is expected to be
available early in 1986. The Commission anticipates that
this report will provide the basis for the development of a
long-term research plan needed to direct and coordinate
gray whale research and management. The Commission looks
117
forward to working with the National Marine Fisheries
Service and with scientists and administrators from Mexico,
Canada, and the Soviet Union to develop and implement this
plan.
Gulf of California Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena sinus)
The Gulf of California harbor porpoise, also known as
the vaquita in Mexico, is one of the smallest and least-
known cetaceans. There are only about 40 confirmed records
of the species, including 14 during the past year. Its
range is thought to be limited to the northern portion of
the Gulf of California, Mexico. Field surveys of the area,
supported by the Commission in 1976 and again in 1979,
resulted in only a few probable sightings.
As noted in the Commission's past two Annual Reports,
a petition was submitted to the National Marine Fisheries
Service by Defenders of Wildlife in 1983, proposing that
the Gulf of California harbor porpoise be listed as threat-
ened under the Endangered Species Act. In response, the
Service published a Federal Register notice on 3 June 1983
in which it noted that the action may be warranted and
solicited any additional information that might help in
evaluating the status of the species. The Commission
responded to that request by letter of 14 September 1983.
In its letter, the Commission provided an analysis and
recommendation supporting action by the Service to list the
species as endangered, rather than threatened. The Service
concurred with the Commission's analysis and, on 25 April
1984, it proposed that the Gulf of California harbor por-
poise be listed as endangered. On 29 June 1984, the Com-
mission wrote to the Service noting that the proposed
action was consistent with its earlier comments and that it
supported the proposal.
On 9 January 1985, the National Marine Fisheries
Service determined that the Gulf of California harbor
porpoise was endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act, and, effective 8 February 1985, the species was added
to the Endangered Species List. In support of its action,
the Service noted that the determination was based on the
following: (a) the presumed low number of animals; (b) the
known mortality associated with incidental taking in fish-
eries for more than 40 years in the Gulf of California; and
(c) the continuation of similar fisheries. In addition,
there is concern over the possible adverse effects of
increased pesticide runoff into the Gulf of California and
the reduction in the flow of water into the Gulf resulting
from the damming of the Colorado River.
The primary concern for this species is related to the
level of incidental take in the gill net fishery for
118
totoaba (Cynoscion macdonaldi). This fishery operated from
the late 1940s through 1975 in the Gulf of California. In
1975, the fishery was closed due to depletion of totoaba
stocks, but there has been recent interest in reopening the
fishery. An experimental gill net fishery for totoaba was
operated during 1985, and thirteen harbor porpoise were
taken incidental to those activities.
In 1985, the Commission contracted for an examination
of carcasses of harbor porpoise taken incidentally to the
totoaba fishery and to train students in methods of small
cetacean identification, collection, and museum prepa-
ration. A final report is expected early in 1986. Preli-
minary results indicate that the training program has
helped bring to light a number of new specimens of this
poorly known species, thereby confirming its continued
existence and adding valuable new information concerning
its biology and ecology.
During 1986, the Commission will continue to assist,
as possible, in efforts to increase knowledge and enhance
the protection of this species.
Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)
Central California Population
The harbor porpoise, one of the smallest cetaceans,
occurs in temperate coastal areas throughout most of the
world, including the waters off Europe, the Far East, and
both coasts of North America. Because of its nearshore
distribution, the species is particularly vulnerable to
water pollution and coastal set net fisheries.
As noted in previous Annual Reports, it became
apparent in 1983 that the rapidly growing use of gill and
trammel nets off northern and central California was
causing a large incidental kill of harbor porpoise and
other non-target marine species. The Commission, as also
noted in previous Annual Reports, called the problem to the
attention of the National Marine Fisheries Service in
November 1983. By letter of 12 January 1984, the Service
advised the Commission that: it had been working with
researchers from the California Department of Fish and Game
to determine the extent of the problem; the level of inci-
dental mortality had increased off San Mateo, San Fran-
cisco, and Marin Counties; existing data indicated that
interactions with fisheries were occurring primarily at the
southern part of the harbor porpoise range; the seasonal
abundance of harbor porpoise in this portion of the range
is at a minimum when fishing effort is maximum; an aerial
survey of the Farallon Basin conducted in October 1983
indicated that harbor porpoise abundance in this area was
comparable to that observed during surveys in 1980, 1981,
119
and 1982; and the California Department of Fish and Game
was proposing legislation to prohibit net fishing in
affected areas off San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin
Counties.
The State, as noted in the Commission's 1984 Annual
Report, subsequently enacted legislation, which went into
effect in July 1984, to restrict the use of gill nets off
San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Counties. In addition,
the California Department of Fish and Game increased its
fishery observer program. In September 1984, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, in cooperation with the Cali-
fornia Department of Fish and Game, the Oregon Department
of Fish and Game, and the Washington Department of Game,
conducted a combined aerial/shipboard survey to census
harbor porpoise in coastal waters from Point Conception,
California, to Cape Flattery, Washington.
The restrictions on the use of gill nets did not
eliminate and may not have reduced the incidental take of
harbor porpoise, sea birds, and other non-target species.
Consequently, Representative Barbara Boxer and four other
California Representatives wrote to the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service on
21 February 1985 expressing their concern about the poten-
tially harmful effects of gill and trammel net fisheries
along the central and northern California coast. The
National Marine Fisheries Service's 3 April 1985 response
to this letter did not address a number of critical issues
and, by letter of 23 July, Representative Boxer requested
additional information. The Service's 27 September 1985
response to this second letter indicated, among other
things, that: (a) the Southwest Fisheries Center's budget
for harbor porpoise work was being reduced in 1986 since
more extensive Fiscal Year 1984-85 survey work was being
completed and carried forward by less expensive data analy-
sis and monitoring programs, and (b) the Service would
continue to work with the State to collect and analyze data
and take steps to resolve the problem rather than using
Federal authority to further restrict fishing areas or
prosecute fishermen for incidentally taking porpoise with-
out proper authorization under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act.
In 1985, the National Marine Fisheries Service con-
ducted two additional harbor porpoise surveys -- one in
late January/early February and one in September, the
latter in cooperation with several agencies. The Cali-
fornia Department of Fish and Game also continued its
fishery observer program begun in 1983, but was unable to
expand the program to the desired level. To help offset
this, the Commission, as described in Chapter II, provided
funds to the California Marine Mammal Center to hire quali-
fied observers to augment the State's observer program.
120
The Commission also contracted with a veterinarian to
recover and do necropsies on marine mammal carcasses found
washed up on beaches in the Point Reyes National Seashore.
During the 1983/1984 fishing season, observers watched
1,312 nets being pulled off central California and saw 27
harbor porpoise caught in those nets. During the period
July through October 1983, 42 harbor porpoise carcasses
were found on beaches in Marin, San Francisco, and San
Mateo Counties. Only a fraction of the total net pulls
were observed and California Department of Fish and Game
biologists estimate that approximately 300 harbor porpoise
were caught incidentally during the 1983/1984 fishing
season.
In 1984, observers watched 629 nets being pulled off
central California and saw 21 harbor porpoise caught in
those nets. In 1985, 26 harbor porpoise were caught in 266
observed net pulls. Although the analyses have not yet
been completed, these data suggest that the incidental take
of harbor porpoise may have increased in both 1984 and
1985.
The impact of incidental take depends, in part, upon
the size and age/sex composition of the population or
populations being affected. Analysis of the data collected
during the aforementioned aerial/shipboard surveys con-
ducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service will pro-
vide estimates of harbor porpoise abundance in different
areas along the coast from Point Conception to Cape Flat-
tery. However, it is not known whether harbor porpoise in
the survey area are part of a single population or consti-
tute several more or less discrete local populations.
Assessing annual and seasonal changes which may occur
in the distribution, movements, abundance, and age/sex
composition of harbor porpoise in the areas of set net
fisheries may be the only way to determine whether the
harbor porpoise are either part of one or more relatively
small resident populations or part of a large panmictic
population whose range may extend throughout the rim of the
North Pacific Basin. Radio-tagging and tracking a repre-
sentative sample of harbor porpoise in or near the area
affected by the fisheries may be the most practical way to
determine annual and seasonal changes in distribution and
movements. To facilitate development and implementation of
a radio-tagging and tracking program, the Commission, in
consultation with its Committee of Scientific Advisors,
developed and, on 6 December 1985, forwarded a program
scope of work to the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The described work will take at least two years to
complete and will cost about $75,000. Recognizing that the
121
Service may be unable to provide all of the funding neces-
sary to initiate the project in Fiscal Year 1986, the
Commission indicated that it was prepared to transfer funds
to the Service to help fund the first phase of the project,
with the understanding that the Service would provide the
funding in subsequent years necessary to complete the
project.
At the end of 1985, the Commission was awaiting the
Service's response. The Commission also was waiting to
receive and review the results of a Service-sponsored
feasibility study to determine whether there are differ-
ences in the ratios of chemical pollutants in blubber
samples from harbor porpoises found washed up on beaches in
Washington and California. If there are significant dif-
ferences, it will support the hypothesis that harbor por-
poise off California and Washington do not have overlapping
distributions and may be part of separate and discrete
populations.
Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)
The bottlenose dolphin is the most common cetacean in
the coastal waters of the southeast United States and is
the cetacean species most frequently maintained in capti-
vity for public display and scientific research. Capture
of bottlenose dolphins for these purposes began early in
the 1900s and as many as 1,800 animals appear to have been
taken from coastal U.S. waters prior to passage of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972. In the waters of
Florida alone, at least 600 animals were taken from 1970 to
1972. Since that time, authorizations have been granted to
collect 591 bottlenose dolphins in U.S. waters, of which
423 were actually collected as of the end of 1985.
Despite the considerable number of animals that have
been removed from U.S. waters, these removals probably have
not had a significant adverse effect on the species as a
whole. However, the species does not occur uniformly
throughout its range and a number of more or less discrete
"local" populations may exist. If so, repeated captures
and removal of animals from certain geographic areas could
have an adverse effect on these local populations. Such
effects could be compounded by incidental take in fisheries
and by disturbance and environmental degradation resulting
from coastal development, offshore oil and gas development,
and other human activities.
The National Marine Fisheries Service is responsible,
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, for assuring that
live-capture and removals do not have significant adverse
effects on individual bottlenose dolphins or the popula-
122
tions of which they are a part. To help meet this respon-
sibility, the Service, in consultation with the Commission,
developed and, in 1977, adopted a system for regulating the
number of bottlenose dolphins authorized to be taken
annually from specified management areas. The following
year, again in consultation with the Commission, the
Service convened a workshop to determine the information
necessary to (a) accurately identify and assess the status
of populations that may have already been affected by the
removal of animals and (b) better determine the number of
animals, by age and sex, that could be taken from various
management areas without causing possible local populations
to be reduced below their optimum sustainable levels.
Subsequently, the Southeast Fisheries Center of the
National Marine Fisheries Service developed and initiated a
long-range program for assessing and monitoring the number,
age/sex composition, and productivity of dolphins in areas
where past and current collection activities were concen-
trated.
Although funding has been limited, the program has
been carried out effectively. Following a program review
in February 1983, the Commission recommended that the
Southeast Fisheries Center be commended for its continuing
efforts to develop an effective research and monitoring
program. The Commission also recommended: (a) that avail-
able survey data be assessed for evidence of seasonality;
(b) where such seasonality is found, that quotas for live
captures and removals be based upon the minimum, rather
than the average, counts or estimates; and (c) that planned
aerial and vessel surveys be modified or expanded to better
monitor bottlenose dolphin abundance in areas where live
captures and removals are being permitted as well as to
provide better information on regional distribution, abun-
dance, and productivity.
The Service responded positively to these recommen-
dations. It also adopted the Commission's 15 May 1984
recommendation that permits be revised to reflect all forms
of taking, not just permanent removal of individual
animals. The latter recommendation reflected the Commis-
sion's concern that more animals are chased and encircled
than are actually removed and that disturbance from
repeated chase and capture could be having effects beyond
those of actual removals.
The Service has not been able to conduct or support
the complete range of research and monitoring programs
necessary to assess and monitor the status of all poten-
tially affected dolphin populations in waters off the
southeastern United States. Nor has the Service been able
to determine whether the existing management program is
unnecessarily restrictive or not restrictive enough. To
help expedite development of the needed information base,
123
the Commission transferred funds to the Southeast Fisheries
Center in 1984 to help pay for monthly boat surveys of the
Mississippi Sound to determine whether the authorized
removal of 25 animals from the Sound had any effect on the
ratio of marked to unmarked dolphins, and thus any effect
on local population size. The Commission also organized
and convened a workshop on 30 October 1984 to determine
whether recently developed techniques for detecting vari-
ation in mitochondrial DNA might be useful for determining
the relative discreteness of local concentrations of
bottlenose dolphins and other marine mammals.
Workshop participants concluded that analysis of
variation in mitochondrial DNA very well could provide a
useful means for identifying discrete marine mammal popula-
tions, particularly if useful information could be derived
from small samples of blood or other tissues from living
animals. Following the workshop, the Commission contracted
with investigators from the University of Michigan and
Scripps Institution of Oceanography to conduct preliminary
feasibility studies (see Chapter III in the Commission's
Annual Report covering Calendar Year 1984 and Chapter II in
this Report). The results of these preliminary studies,
completed in 1985, indicate that useful information can be
obtained from small blood samples and other tissues from
living animals. Although the sample sizes were very small,
the preliminary study results also indicated that there are
significant differences in the mitochondrial DNA from
bottlenose dolphins collected in different parts of the
Gulf of Mexico and off the east coast of Florida. The
Commission therefore expects to support additional work in
1986 to further evaluate the potential utility of this
analytical technique.
Although the Commission is generally aware of the
bottlenose dolphin research and monitoring programs that
have been carried out by the Southeast Fisheries Center
since the program review in 1983, it lacks complete infor-
mation on the precise nature and results of the studies
that have been completed, what research and monitoring
programs are ongoing, and what further research or monitor-
ing programs are being contemplated for the next three to
five years. Therefore, by letter of 12 December 1985 to
the Service, the Commission requested that it be advised
of: (1) the studies that have been carried out since 1983;
(2) the results of those studies; (3) the nature, extent,
and anticipated utility of ongoing studies; (4) the nature,
extent, and anticipated utility of studies and/or monitor-
ing programs being planned or contemplated for the next
three to five years; (5) the nature of any problems that
have been encountered in carrying out the work to date; and
(6) how study results have been and will be used to evalu-
ate and further refine the strategy for managing bottlenose
dolphin populations so as to avoid or minimize the adverse
124
effects of chase, capture, and removal for purposes of
public display and scientific research.
At the end of 1985, the Commission looked forward to a
response to its letter and to continuing cooperative
efforts with the Service and others to ensure the protec-
tion of bottlenose dolphins and their habitats in waters
under U.S. jurisdiction.
Guadalupe Fur Seal (Arctocephalus townsendi)
The Guadalupe fur seal is named for its primary
pupping and breeding site on Isla de Guadalupe, 140 miles
west of Baja California, Mexico. The species' historical
distribution and abundance are unknown because commercial
sealers and other observers failed to distinguish between
it and the northern fur seal in their records. Once
thought to be extinct, the Guadalupe fur seal population
was estimated in 1984 to number about 1,500 to 2,000
animals, with an annual production of approximately 200
pups. Although the primary breeding colony is on Isla de
Guadalupe, recent sightings of adult and juvenile seals on
some of the Channel Islands off southern California suggest
the possibility that recolonization of that area may occur
in the future.
As noted in the Commission's previous Annual Report,
in 1983, the National Marine Fisheries Service received a
petition to list the species as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act. On 6 February 1984, the Service
requested additional information and data for use in evalu-
ating the status of the Guadalupe fur seal. In response to
that request, the Commission, in consultation with its
Committee of Scientific Advisors, wrote to the Service on 9
April 1984 recommending that the species be designated as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The recom-
mendation was based on the Commission's conclusion that,
while the population could become endangered within the
foreseeable future, it currently does not appear to be in
danger of extinction. The Commission further recommended
that, if new information becomes available indicating that
possible threats to the species' breeding grounds are
increasing and/or the trend in population growth is halted
or reversed, the status of the populations should be
promptly reassessed to determine whether it should be
reclassified as endangered.
On 3 January 1985, the National Marine Fisheries
Service published in the Federal Register a proposed deter-
mination to list the Guadalupe fur seal as threatened under
the Endangered Species Act. On 16 December 1985, the
Service published a final rule listing the species as
threatened, to become effective 15 January 1986.
125
During 1986, the Commission and its Committee of
Scientific Advisors will continue to review the status of
the population and to assist the National Marine Fisheries
Service and others in further efforts to determine appro-
priate actions with regard to conservation and protection
of this species.
State
to
126
CHAPTER IX
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
Activities and accidents associated with the exploration
and development of non-living resources of the Outer Conti-
nental Shelf, including oil and gas deposits, have the poten-
tial for adversely affecting marine mammals and the eco-
systems of which they are a part. Under the Outer Conti-
nental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, the Department of the
Interior's Minerals Management Service is responsible for
predicting, detecting, and mitigating the adverse effects of
OCS exploration and development. The National Marine
Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service are
responsible, under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
Endangered Species Act, for reviewing proposed actions and
advising the Minerals Management Service of measures that may
be needed to assure that those actions will not be to the
disadvantage of marine mammals and other wildlife. The
Commission reviews relevant policies and activities of these
agencies and recommends actions that appear necessary to
conserve marine mammals and their habitats. The Commission's
activities in this regard in 1985 are discussed below.
Proposed OCS Lease Sale #92
North Aleutian Basin
Lease sale #92, tentatively scheduled for early in 1986,
involves up to 990 blocks (approximately 5.6 million acres)
of submerged lands in the southeastern Bering Sea off the
Alaska Peninsula. The species of marine mammals likely to be
found in the proposed sale area include sea otters, five
species of pinnipeds, at least ten species of non-endangered
cetaceans, and as many as eight species of endangered whales.
The Minerals Management Service's Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on the proposed action concludes that the sea otter
is the marine mammal most vulnerable to effects of an oil
spill in the area and that the sea otter population in the
area could sustain moderate impacts if a large spill
occurred. The draft Statement also concludes that impacts on
pinnipeds, non-endangered cetaceans, and endangered gray,
fin, right, and humpback whales are likely to be minor and
that impacts on endangered bowhead, blue, sei, and sperm
whales would be negligible.
127
The Commission, in consultation with its Committee of
Scientific Advisors, reviewed the draft Statement and pro-
vided comments to the Service by letter of 13 March 1985.
The Commission noted that the draft Statement provided a
reasonably thorough review and analysis of available infor-
mation regarding the types of impacts, particularly from oil
spills, noise, and disturbance, that could affect marine
mammals, and an accurate and useful review of information on
the marine mammal populations found in the proposed lease
area. The Commission noted that most of the conclusions on
the expected impacts on marine mammal species seemed justi-
fied, but that the potential effects on northern fur seals,
Steller sea lions, gray whales, and right whales seemed to be
underestimated.
With respect to northern fur seals, the Commission
pointed out that the draft Statement did not consider recent
information on the size and ongoing decline of the Pribilof
Islands fur seal population or the status of recent proposals
to list the species as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act. The Commission also pointed out that the draft
Statement did not fully consider the likelihood or potential
significance of disrupting or inhibiting gray whale feeding
in the sale area or the implications of the ongoing decline
in the Steller sea lion population. The Commission recom-
mended that, if the Minerals Management Service had not
already done so, it consult with the National Marine
Fisheries Service to ensure that: (a) information and
impact assessments concerning the northern fur seal, the
Steller sea lion, and the gray whale are accurate and com-
plete; and (b) all measures to detect and mitigate potential
unforeseen effects on these species are identified and
addressed. With respect to the latter point, the Commission
recommended that certain potential mitigation measures iden-
tified in the draft Statement including stipulations for an
orientation program, protection of biological resources, and
information to lessees on bird and marine mammal protection,
endangered whales, and a Bering Sea Biological Task Force, be
incorporated as part of the proposed action.
The Commission further recommended that the draft State-
ment be modified to: (a) provide additional discussion and
analysis of possible cumulative effects on northern fur
seals, gray whales, and other important living marine
resources in the Bering Sea area; (b) identify the post-sale
research and monitoring responsibilities of the Service's
Environmental Studies Program as a potential mitigating
measure and describe its role in ensuring that lease managers
have the environmental information necessary for predicting,
avoiding, and detecting possible adverse impacts on
endangered and non-endangered marine mammals and the eco-
systems of which they are a part; (c) expand the oil spill
trajectory analysis to consider additional hypothetical spill
points and additional oil spill targets adjacent to the
128
Alaska Peninsula; (d) indicate that impacts on gray whales,
northern fur seals, and Steller sea lions could be moderate
to major and that impacts on right whales, while unlikely due
to the rare occurrence of right whales in the sale area,
could be major if any right whales are affected; and (e)
indicate what was done to take account of the results of
consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Proposed OCS Lease Sale #100
Norton Basin
Proposed Lease Sale #100, tentatively scheduled for
March 1986, involves up to 1,755 blocks (approximately 9.8
million acres) of submerged OCS lands in the Norton Basin off
the west coast of Alaska. The Minerals Management Service's
draft Statement on the proposed sale addresses possible
effects associated with four alternative actions and provides
information on 14 species of marine mammals likely to occur
in the proposed sale area, including four species of
endangered whales (bowhead, gray, humpback, and fin whales).
The draft Statement concluded that, under the proposed and
alternative actions, possible effects on gray and bowhead
whales are likely to be minor and possible effects on hump-
back and fin whales are expected to be negligible. It
further concluded that possible effects on non-endangered
marine mammals are likely to be minor under all of the alter-
natives except alternative V, which would defer block offer-
ings in the western part of the sale area and reduce the
possibility of affecting any of the species.
The Commission, in consultation with its Committee of
Scientific Advisors, reviewed the draft Statement and pro-
vided comments to the Service by letter of 14 May 1985. The
Commission noted that the draft Statement provided a useful
review of information on the marine mammal species likely to
be affected and a reasonably thorough review and analysis of
available information on the possible impacts of oil spills
and acoustic disturbances on these species. The Commission
also noted that the potential effects on gray and bowhead\
whales may have been underestimated. In this regard, the
Commission pointed out that the Biological Opinion on the
proposed sale, prepared by the National Marine Fisheries
Service pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
had concluded that major oil spills or noise associated with
the proposed sale could jeopardize the continued existence of
bowhead and gray whales if they were to adversely affect the
migration and/or reproductive activities of bowhead whales or
interfere with gray whale feeding activities.
The Commission recommended that the draft Statement be
modified to indicate that possible effects on bowhead and
gray whales are uncertain but could be substantial rather
129
than "minor." The Commission also recommended that the
conclusion and summary statements in the draft Statement be
changed to indicate that possible adverse effects from alter-
native V (deferral of the western tracts) would be unlikely
and less significant than those that might occur under the
other leasing alternatives outlined in the draft Statement ,
The Commission further recommended that potential mitigating
measures concerning an orientation program, the protection of
biological resources, the protection of bowhead whales, and
certain "information to lessees" notices identified in the
draft Statement be incorporated as part of the proposed
action and other leasing alternatives. Finally, the Commis-
sion recommended that, as an additional mitigating measure,
the Minerals Management Service identify a program of post-
sale studies and monitoring activities to ensure that lease
managers have the environmental information necessary for
detecting and avoiding or mitigating possible adverse impacts
on endangered and non-endangered marine mammals and the
ecosystems of which they are a part.
The Minerals Management Service's
Regional Environmental Studies Program
As noted above, the Minerals Management Service is
responsible for assessing and mitigating the possible adverse
effects of offshore oil and gas exploration and development.
To help meet this responsibility, the Service has established
Regional Environmental Studies Programs, which are admin-
istered by its OCS offices in Metairie, Louisiana; Los
Angeles, California; Anchorage, Alaska; and Vienna, Virginia.
The Service also has contracted with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Office of Oceanography and
Marine Assessment to plan and administer the Alaska Outer
Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program (OCSEAP).
To help the Service meet its responsibilities with
regard to the conservation and protection of marine mammals,
the Commission: reviews and provides comments on regional
studies plans, environmental impact statements, and requests
for proposals related to marine mammal research developed by
the Service; participates in meetings of Technical Proposal
Evaluation Committees convened by the Service to review
research proposals; and helps plan and participates in
meetings and workshops to review and coordinate relevant
research programs being conducted or planned by the Minerals
Management Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and other Federal, State, and
private agencies and organizations.
In 1985, Commission representatives participated in an
24-25 January meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, to review, plan,
and coordinate bowhead whale research being conducted or
supported by the Minerals Management Service, the National
130
Marine Fisheries Service, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commis-
sion, the North Slope Borough, and the Alaska oil and Gas
Association. Commission representatives also participated in
meetings to review plans and preliminary results of sea otter
population studies being carried out by Minerals Management
Service contractors to obtain information necessary to better
determine how the California sea otter population likely
would be affected by oil spills in or near its range.
In 1985, the Commission staff consulted with the Marine
Management Service staff concerning the development of
regional environmental plans and the development of requests
for proposals for additional studies needed to better deter-
mine the possible indirect and cumulative effects as well as
the direct effects of offshore oil and gas activities on sea
otters, gray whales, and other marine mammals. The Commis-
sion staff also provided detailed comments to the Minerals
Management Service staff on a draft report describing the
results of a Minerals Management Service contract study to
test and evaluate the effectiveness of different detergents
and procedures for cleaning and rehabilitating oiled sea
otters.
Minerals Management Service representatives attended the
24-26 October meeting 1985 of the Commission and its Com-
mittee of Scientific Advisors in San Diego, California, and
provided a briefing on the five-year lease schedule for the
U.S. Outer Continental Shelf and on studies that have been
and are being supported or planned by the Los Angeles
Regional Office to assess and determine how to avoid or
mitigate the possible effects of offshore oil and gas
development on sea otters and other marine mammals in
California waters.
131
CHAPTER X
MARINE MAMMALS IN CAPTIVITY
On 20 September 1979, the Department of Agriculture's
Standards and Regulations for the Humane Handling, Care, Treat-
ment, and Transportation of Marine Mammals went into effect.
These Standards were promulgated by the Department of Agri-
culture under the Animal Welfare Act in response to the Commis-
sion's recommendations of 20 October 1974. They were the
subject of lengthy and extensive correspondence, consultation,
and rulemaking, all of which are discussed in the Commission's
past Annual Reports.
The Standards require dealers, exhibitors, operators of
auction sales, carriers, and intermediate handlers to comply
with minimum standards relating to maintenance and transpor-
tation of marine mammals in captivity. The same Standards apply
to research facilities as well. All persons or facilities
maintaining marine mammals in captivity in the United States, be
they for purposes of public display or scientific research, must
obtain a license from the Department of Agriculture's Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service and must maintain those marine
mammals in compliance with the Standards unless a variance has
been obtained to allow a limited time for modification of exist-
ing facilities, construction of new facilities, or other actions
necessary to achieve full compliance.
During succeeding years, representatives of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service consulted with representatives
of the Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the American Association of Zoologi-
cal Parks and Aquaria, and others concerning the practical
effects of application of the Standards and the need for
changes.
On 28 June 1984, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service published amendments to the Standards in the Federal
Register. Significant areas covered by the final amendments
included space requirements for primary enclosures for certain
marine mammals, new procedures for the granting of variances,
construction requirements for housing marine mammals, require-
ments for accompanying pinnipeds during transport, and specifi-
cations for holding areas for marine mammals maintained in
transportation facilities.
132
In an effort to facilitate enforcement of the Standards and
to provide Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service inspectors
with information that is likely to assist them in performing
their responsibilities, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, in conjunction with the Commission, the Fish and Wild-
life Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service spon-
sored a three-day training seminar on 9-12 April 1985 in
Orlando, Florida.
The program included presentations on the requirements of
the Animal Welfare Act, the Standards for the Humane Handling,
Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Marine Mammals, and the
Marine Mammal Protection Act. Representatives of the Commission
and its Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals
instructed participants on marine mammal biology, including
species identification, behavior, general anatomy and physio-
logy, and the basic practices of marine mammal husbandry.
Representatives of the public display industry presented infor-
mation on handling and training methods and techniques, water
quality, and transportation methods and problems. The program
also included panel discussions on what to look for during
facility inspections, and on the permitting authorities and
responsibilities of the Commission, the Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The program
was concluded with an inspection tour of the Sea World facility
in Orlando.
In August 1985, the Commission convened a Working Group to
address the problems that are becoming apparent as a result of
additions to captive populations of marine mammals from captive-
born and beached/rehabilitated stock. Particular emphasis was
placed on behavioral, biological, and legal issues associated
with the release of captive-born marine mammals to the wild.
The Working Group was directed to collect relevant data and
information, identify and address behavioral and biological
issues, analyze related legal questions, and suggest needed
research, as well as desirable statutory, regulatory and admin-
istrative changes. Participants in the Working Group include
members of the Commission's staff and the Committee of Scien-
tific Advisors on Marine Mammals, and input will be requested
from other government agencies and interested parties. At the
end of 1985, the Working Group had completed its initial draft
report.
On 4 October, representatives of the Committee of Scien-
tific Advisors and the National Marine Fisheries Service
assisted the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in
an on-site inspection of a public display facility with a
history of compliance problems under the Standards for the
Humane Handling, Care, Treatment and Transportation of Marine
Mammals. The inter-agency team's findings and recommendations
were transmitted to the Department of Agriculture, Office of the
General Counsel, for action.
133
Also in 1985, the Commission staff, utilizing data obtained
from the National Marine Fisheries Service, began an analysis of
the survival patterns for three species of captive cetaceans.
The purpose of this study is to estimate the average annual
survival rate for each of the three species (bottlenose
dolphins, white whales, and killer whales) and to compare those
findings with the literature on the survival of captive and
free-ranging cetaceans. The final report based on this analysis
is expected to be completed early in 1986.
On 4 December 1985, the Fish and Wildlife Service published
in the Federal Register proposed regulations governing the
humane and healthful transport of wild animals and birds. These
regulations are intended to satisfy the requirements of the 1981
amendments of the Lacey Act, which governs the importation and
shipment of wild animals and birds in interstate commerce. The
1981 amendments required, among other things, the implementation
of transportation standards for all wild animals and birds.
Separate regulatory requirements have been proposed for the
transport of marine mammals. The Commission will comment on
these regulations early in 1986.
134
CHAPTER XI
PERMIT PROCESS
The Marine Mammal Protection Act places a moratorium,
with certain exceptions, on the taking and importing of
marine mammals and marine mammal products. One exception
is the provision for the issuance of permits by either the
Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior,
depending upon the species of animal involved, for the
taking of marine mammals for purposes of scientific
research or public display. Prior to the issuance of a
permit, an application is reviewed by the Marine Mammal
Commission in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors on Marine Mammals.
Application Review
The permit application and review process involves
three stages: (1) receipt and initial review of the appli-
cation at the Department, publication of a notice of
receipt of application in the Federal Register, and trans-
mittal to the Commission; (2) review of the application by
the Commission and transmittal of its recommendation to the
Department; and (3) final processing by the Department,
including consideration of all comments and recommendations
of the Commission and the public, resulting in the approval
or denial of the application. The following is a schematic
representation of this process.
Applicant
Application
Final Departmental Action
Dept. of
Dept. of
Dept. of
Dept. of
Commerce
Interior
Interior
Commerce
Complete Application
Commission Recommendation
Marine Mammal Commission
Committee of Scientific
Advisors on Marine Mammals
135
The total review time (initial receipt of application
until final Departmental action) depends on many factors,
including: the sufficiency of the information provided by
the applicant; special actions, such as inspection of an
applicant's marine mammal holding facilities, that may be
warranted before a decision can be reached; and the effi-
ciency and thoroughness of those responsible for the agency
review.
During 1985, the Commission made recommendations on 43
applications submitted to the Department of Commerce (in-
cluding nine applications that were received in 1984 but
which did not receive final action until 1985) and nine
applications submitted to the Department of the Interior.
The Commission's average review time for complete appli-
cations was 29 days (median, 30.5 days). Not included in
the preceding statistics are recommendations on three
applications that were awaiting final action by the Depart-
ment of Commerce at year's end and four applications that
were under Commission review at year's end. The Commis-
sion, in consultation with its Committee of Scientific
Advisors, also made recommendations on 20 requests to
modify permits and other related permit actions during
1985. The average time required for Commission review of
these matters was 32 days.
For the 43 applications processed by the Department of
Commerce during 1985, it took an average of 109 days
(median, 85 days) from the date the application was re-
ceived by the Department until final action was taken. The
nine permit applications submitted to the Department of the
Interior were processed in an average of 116 days (median,
109 days). If calculated from the date of receipt of a
complete application by the Departments, the average pro-
cessing times for the Departments of Commerce and the
Interior were 89 and 99 days, respectively, compared to 69
and 61 days, respectively, in 1984.
Working Group on Permit System
In July 1985, the Commission established a Working
Group composed of members of the Commission staff and the
Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals for
purposes of preparing a report on how the Marine Mammal
Protection Act permit system could be improved. The Work-
ing Group was asked to identify problems that have arisen
with regard to the review of applications and the issuance,
modification, and enforcement of marine mammal permits, as
well as to recommend such statutory, regulatory, and admin-
istrative changes as might be appropriate to address the
problems.
136
A draft version of the Working Group's report was
reviewed by the Committee of Scientific Advisors and con-
sidered during the October 1985 meeting of the Commission
and Committee in San Diego. Informal comments on the draft
report were also received from the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
and several non-governmental parties.
Based on those comments, the draft report is being
revised and is expected to be made available for formal
review early in 1986. The resulting comments will be
considered and incorporated, as appropriate, in the final
Working Group report.
Permit-related Litigation
On 1 November 1985, a permit was issued to Sea World,
Inc. for the collection of killer whales in Alaska.
Litigation leading to the invalidation of the permit by the
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska and
subsequent legal action are discussed in detail in Chapter
IV, Marine Mammals in Alaska, of this Report.
137
CHAPTER XII
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REAUTHORIZATION
In addition to the protection provided by the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, certain species of marine mammals
also are covered by the Endangered Species Act. In recent
years, concerns have been expressed about apparently
conflicting provisions of the two Acts and the need to
reconcile these differences. In 1985, some of these
concerns were addressed during Congressional deliberations
on the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act.
Reauthorization hearings were held on 14 March 1985
before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conser-
vation and the Environment of the House Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries. At the hearings, repre-
sentatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service identi-
fied the need to amend the Endangered Species Act to pro-
vide exception to the more stringent provisions of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act. Specifically, they proposed
amending the Endangered Species Act so as to establish a
procedure whereby the taking of endangered and threatened
marine mammals incidental to an otherwise lawful activity
can be authorized. Such authorizations would be permitted
when a determination has been made that the activity is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its
critical habitat. This authority already exists under the
Endangered Species Act, but cannot be extended to endan-
gered or threatened marine mammals because of the more
restrictive provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act.
The House Subcommittee also addressed issues related
to the southern sea otter recovery program. At the 14
March hearing, a panel of representatives of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, Friends of the Sea Otter, Save Our
Shellfish, and the Western oil and Gas Association dis-
cussed the matter. They presented testimony on a number of
issues, including the importance of translocating sea
otters and the need to address resource management con-
flicts related to that action. Some panel participants
questioned the Fish and Wildlife Service's legal authority
to translocate and contain sea otters under the taking
prohibitions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
138
Senate reauthorization hearings were held on 18 April
1985 before the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution of
the Committee on Environment and Public Works. As in the
House subcommittee hearing, a sea otter panel was convened
and concerns similar to those presented during the House
hearing were raised.
On 29 July 1985, the House of Representatives passed
H.R. 1027, a bill reauthorizing the Endangered Species Act
through 1988 and amending the Act to address both marine
mammal issues discussed above.
Section 2 of the House-approved bill sets forth
authority to allow the taking of endangered or threatened
marine mammals incidental to otherwise lawful activities
for which a no-jeopardy opinion has been issued. This
authorization may be granted only if a finding is made that
the taking would not contravene the purposes and policies
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In addition, reason-
able and prudent measures must be established to advance
those objectives and minimize the impact of such takings on
marine mammals used for subsistence purposes. Section 5 of
the bill sets forth an amendment on the translocation of
sea otters. The provisions of that section are discussed
in Chapter VIII of this Report (see the discussion of the
California Sea Otter Population).
On 4 December 1985, the Senate Committee on Environ-
ment and Public Works approved S. 725, a bill calling for a
three-year reauthorization of the Act with no amendments.
At the end of 1985, S. 725 had not been presented to the
full Senate for a vote. Final action by the Senate and
resolution of differences between H.R. 1027 and S. 725 are
expected early in 1986.
139
APPENDIX A
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: CALENDAR YEAR 1985
17 January
Commerce, collector of record appli-
cation, Richard Borguss.
22 January
Interior, modification of scientific
research permit, Mote Marine Laboratory.
24 January
Interior, scientific research permit
application, Hubbs-Sea World Research
Institute.
5 February
Interior, scientific research permit
application, Florida Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Unit.
5 February
Interior, scientific research permit
application, University of Michigan.
11 February
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, West Coast Whale Research
Foundation.
15 February
Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on the "Supple-
mental Environmental Impact Statement,
Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat
for the Hawaiian Monk Seal in the North-
western Hawaiian Islands" and recommend-
ing that the Statement be revised to
include a more complete and accurate
analysis of recent information on the
diving behavior and habitat use patterns
of monk seals at sea and that the pro-
posed action (designating critical
habitat out to the 10-fathom contour
around certain islands and atolls) be
changed to Alternative 1 (designating
critical habitat out to 20 fathoms around
certains islands and atolls) as pre-
viously recommended by the Hawaiian Monk
Seal Recovery Team.
140
25 February
Interior, recommending to the Fish and
Wildlife Service that the Service estab-
lish a policy of encouraging the use of
captive-bred marine mammals for public
display and, if appropriate, for scien-
tific research purposes.
5 March
Interior, modification of scientific
research permit, Fish and Wildlife
Service and Southwest Fisheries Center.
5 March
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Craig O. Matkin.
13 March
Interior, commenting to the Minerals
Management Service on the "Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement North Aleutian
Basin Sale 92" and recommending that, if
it had not already been done, the Service
consult with the National Marine Fish-
eries Service to ensure that information
and impact assessments concerning the
northern fur seal, the Steller sea lion,
and the gray whale are complete and
accurate and that all measures necessary
to detect and mitigate potential unfore-
seen effects on these species have been
identified and addressed, and further
recommending that the Statement be modi-
fied to: (a) provide additional discus-
sion concerning cumulative effects on
northern fur seals, gray whales, and
other important regional marine species;
(b) identify post-sale research and
monitoring responsibilities of the
Service's Environmental Studies Program
as a mitigating measure for ensuring that
lease managers have the types and quality
of environmental information necessary
for predicting, avoiding, and detecting
possible adverse impacts on marine
mammals and the regional ecosystem;
(c) expand the oil spill trajectory
analysis to better reflect oil spill
risks adjacent to the Alaska Peninsula;
(d) indicate that impacts on gray whales,
northern fur seals, and Steller sea lions
could be moderate-to-major and that
impacts on right whales could be major;
and (e) indicate what was done in
response to consultations with the
National Marine Fisheries Service pur-
suant to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act.
141
15 March
Interior, commenting to the Fish and
Wildlife Service on proposed amendments
to the appendices for the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora and recommending
that the United States support proposals
to transfer the narwhal from Appendix I
to Appendix II, add hooded seals to
Appendix II, and delete elephant seals
from Appendix II.
18 March
Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on proposed
"Regulations Governing the Taking and
Importing of Marine Mammals" and recom-
mending that, in its final regulations,
the Service: (a) restrict all taking
under general permits to non-lethal and
non-injurious methods; (b) specify which
methods of take are authorized and impose
appropriate restrictions on the manner in
which they are used; (c) include detailed
reporting requirements as a condition of
any general permit; and (d) establish
quotas for the numbers of sea lions and
other species that may be taken pursuant
to a general permit.
18 March
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Susan H. Shane.
18 March
Interior, modification of scientific
research permit, Donald B. Siniff.
22 March
Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on the draft
issue paper prepared for the 1985 meeting
of the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission,
and recommending, among other things,
that the Service examine the findings of
the November 1984 Workshop on the Fate
and Impact of Marine Debris and that the
proposed U.S. position on the entangle-
ment issue be expanded to indicate speci-
fic research and management proposals
that the United States will put forward
for consideration and action by parties
to the Convention.
142
25 March
Commerce, commenting to the National
Ocean Service on the draft report on the
Workshop on National Marine Pollution
Research and Monitoring Issues and recom-
mending that, in light of recent infor-
mation on the subject, the Service reas-
sess the low ranking assigned to the
issue of entanglement of marine organisms
in debris and that the importance of this
issue be clearly reflected in the next
edition of the Service's five-year
Federal Plan for Ocean Pollution
Research, Development, and Monitoring.
1 April
Commerce, collector of record appli-
cation, Richard Borguss.
1 April
Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, San Antonio Zoological Gardens.
2 April
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Center for Coastal Marine
Studies.
3 April
Commerce, forwarding a recommended
program outline for Fiscal Year 1985 net
entanglement research and management
activities.
3 April
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife.
3 April
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Alaska Maritime National
Wildlife Refuge.
4 April
Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, Northwest and Alaska
Fisheries Center.
4 April
Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Triple Five Corporation.
5 April
Commerce, further commenting to the
National Marine Fisheries Service on
position papers for the next meeting of
the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission and
recommending, among other things, that
the U.S. delegation propose that parties
exchange information on domestic laws
pertaining to the discard of marine
debris and that a workshop be held prior
to the next meeting to review past and
143
needed actions to identify and mitigate
the cause of the fur seal population
decline.
12 April
Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on the "Combined
Draft Fishery Management Plan, Environ-
mental Assessment and Regulatory Impact
Review for the Bottomfish and Seamount
Groundfish Fisheries of the Western
Pacific Region" and recommending that, if
the Service had not already done so, it
enter into immediate consultation with
the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team to
determine whether the proposed action
could adversely affect Hawaiian monk
seals, and further recommending that, if
such effects are possible and if the
Service and the Western Pacific Fishery
Management Council had not already done
so, they initiate Section 7 consultations
under the Endangered Species Act.
15 April
Interior, scientific research permit
application, Detroit Zoological Park.
18 April
Commerce, transmitting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service a recommended
plan of expenditures for Fiscal Year 1985
to address problems associated with
entanglement of marine mammals and other
marine species in lost and discarded
fishing gear and other marine debris.
19 April
Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Dolphin Research Center.
19 April
Commerce, forwarding copies of completed
scopes of work for recommended net
entanglement program.
19 April
Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Glen Oak Zoo.
22 April
Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Baltimore Aquarium.
24 April
Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on its decision
not to list the North Pacific fur seal as
"threatened" under the Endangered Species
Act and requesting that it provide the
Commission certain previously requested
information on measures the Service
144
considers necessary to halt the ongoing
decline of the North Pacific fur seal
population and the studies the Service
plans to undertake in the next three
years to assess and resolve the problem.
30 April
Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Singapore Zoological Gardens.
30 April
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Lewis Rigley.
30 April
Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, Richard H. Lambertson.
30 April
Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, Randall S. Wells.
30 April
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Jo Guerrero.
7 May
Commerce, further commenting to the
National Marine Fisheries Service on the
"Combined Draft Fishery Management Plan,
Environmental Impact Assessment and
Regulatory Impact Review for the Bottom-
fish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of
the Western Pacific Region" and recom-
mending, among other things, that the
Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team be
consulted as part of formal Section 7
consultations under the Endangered
Species Act and that the results of these
consultations and the Biological Opinion
be appended to the Fishery Management
Plan/Environmental Assessment. Further
recommending that the FMP/EA be expanded
to: (a) provide additional information
concerning the at-sea movements and
habitat-use patterns of Hawaiian monk
seals and compare that information with
information concerning the distribution
of bottomfish fishing off the Northwest
Hawaiian Islands; (b) provide a more
complete analysis of possible impacts
from monk seal-bottomfish fishery inter-
actions; (c) identify research and moni-
toring measures that would be undertaken
to ensure that possible adverse effects
on monk seals and other endangered
species are avoided or detected and
mitigated; and (d) identify steps that
would be taken to ensure that all bottom-
fish fishermen in the Northwestern
145
Hawaiian Islands are aware of potential
interactions and relevant regulations
necessary to protect Hawaiian monk seals
and other endangered and non-endangered
species.
8 May
Interior, public display permit appli-
cation, Seattle Aquarium.
8 May
Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on its proposal
to reduce funding for the entanglement
program, noting that research envisioned
under the entanglement program is essen-
tial for determining mitigating measures
necessary to halt the continuing popu-
lation declines of northern fur seals and
Steller sea lions, and recommending that:
the Service assign highest priority to
these research activities; if possible,
the Service restore the entanglement
program to its full funding level; and if
full funding cannot be restored, the
Service reprogram funds from its St.
George Island activities and/or the
Dall's porpoise research program.
9 May
Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Montreal Zoological Park.
10 May
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Howard E. Winn.
10 May
Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Sea World, Inc.
14 May
Interior, commenting to the Minerals
Management Service on the "Norton Basin
Sale 100 Draft Environmental Impact
Statement," noting that the Statement
provides a reasonably thorough review and
analysis of available information regard-
ing the effects of oil spills and
acoustic disturbances on marine mammals,
and recommending that: (a) certain
identified potential mitigating measures
aimed at protecting biological resources,
including bowhead whales, be incorporated
as part of the proposed action and other
leasing alternatives; and (b) a new
mitigating measure be added that identi-
fies a program of post-sale studies and
monitoring activities to ensure that
lease managers have the types and quality
146
of environmental information necessary
for detecting and avoiding or mitigating
possible adverse impacts on endangered
and non-endangered marine mammals and the
ecosystems of which they are a part.
15 May
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, John D. Hall.
24 May
Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Mystic Marinelife Aquarium.
24 May
Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation response to Service's 26 April
letter, recommending that the Service
seek the advice of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service on the type of
alternative support to be required if the
attending veterinarian is geographically
far distant.
24 May
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Dolphin Research Center.
28 May
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Michael Hunt.
31 May
Interior, modification of scientific
research permit application, Carle
Foundation Hospital.
6 June
Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, Southwest Fisheries
Center.
6 June
Interior, public display permit appli-
cation, Oregon University Visual Arts
Resources Center.
6 June
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Brent S. Stewart.
10 June
Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Baltimore Aquarium.
10 June
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, BBN Laboratories Inc.
17 June
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Los Angeles County Museum of
Natural History.
1 July
Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on its proposed
147
"Regulations Governing the Taking and
Importing of Marine Mammals" and recom-
mending, among other things, that the
regulations and accompanying environ-
mental impact statement be revised to
better indicate the continuing signifi-
cance of the objective for reducing
incidental kill and serious injury of
marine mammals "to insignificant levels
approaching a zero mortality and serious
injury rate" and explaining how the
proposed changes are expected to further
that goal, and further recommending that
the proposed regulations and Statement be
expanded to identify gaps and uncertain-
ties in available information and to note
that a more accurate assessment of the
present abundance and population trends
of the affected stocks is not yet
available.
2 July
Commerce, scientific research permit
applications, LGL Limited.
3 July
Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Ocean Action, Inc.
17 July
Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on ways to
improve the draft Antarctic Marine Living
Resources Program Development Plan being
prepared in partial response to the
Antarctic Marine Living Resources Act of
1984.
19 July
Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, Dolphin Plus
Human/Diving Operation.
22 July
National Science Foundation, providing
Commission comments on the draft Antarc-
tic Marine Living Resources Program
Development Plan and calling attention to
the importance of strengthening and
continuing the Foundation's basic marine
research program in the Southern Ocean.
22 July
Commerce, commenting to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on
the importance of developing and imple-
menting a directed research program on
Antarctic marine living resources.
148
24 July
Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on emergency
interim regulations governing the subsis-
tence taking of North Pacific fur seals,
noting that present circumstances justify
the promulgation of emergency regula-
tions, and providing further comments for
the Service's consideration in developing
proposed permanent regulations.
25 July
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Daniel H. Mann.
29 July
Interior, modification of scientific
research permit, Hubbs-Sea World Research
Institute.
29 July
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, California Department of
Fish and Game.
30 July
Interior, modification of scientific
research permit, Denver Wildlife Research
Center.
31 July
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Thomas F. Albert.
7 August
Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on rulemaking
approaches to be used in promulgating
permanent regulations governing the
subsistence take of North Pacific fur
seals and designating the North Pacific
fur seal as a depleted species under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, and recom-
mending, among other things, that:
(a) the Service use the rulemaking proce-
dures of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
for promulgating permanent regulations;
(b) the Service explore the prospects for
developing a cooperative agreement with
residents of the Pribilof Island to
govern the taking of fur seals for sub-
sistence purposes; and (c) action be
taken immediately to designate the
Pribilof Island population of North
Pacific fur seals as depleted through
informal rulemaking under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act.
9 August
Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, West Coast Whale
Research Foundation.
149
9 August
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Northeast Fisheries Center.
12 August
Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Hagenbeck Tierpark.
12 August
Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Stephen W. Mitchell.
13 August
Commerce and Interior, commenting to the
National Marine Fisheries Service and
the Fish and Wildlife Service on a peti-
tion to amend regulations under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act to require
that, among other things, the two Serv-
ices review the status of marine mammal
species at least once every five years to
determine if an existing moratorium on a
species should be waived, and recommend-
ing that the petition be denied on the
grounds that the actions requested are
unnecessary and, in some cases, possibly
unlawful.
27 August
Commerce, collector of record appli-
cation, Ron Hardy.
29 August
Interior, modification of scientific
research permit, Donald B. Siniff.
29 August
Interior, commenting to the Fish and
Wildlife Service on the report of its
recent meeting with Federal and State
agency representatives to review infor-
mation on habitat protection needs for
the Crystal River subpopulation of the
West Indian manatee, commending the
Service for its progress in this area,
and recommending that the Service take
such steps as are necessary to carry out
the actions identified in the meeting
report, including the need to: (a) ex-
pand the boundary of the Chassahowitzka
National Wildlife Refuge; and (b) acquire
a site on King's Bay for use as an inter-
pretative center/headquarters for public
information, administration, and enforce-
ment of the existing Crystal River
National Wildlife Refuge.
29 August
National Science Foundation, commenting
on the "Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment for the Ocean Drilling Program" and
recommending that, if the subject was not
150
previously considered during Section 7
consultation under the Endangered Species
Act, the Foundation reinitiate consul-
tation with the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Marine Fisheries Service
to: (a) revise the description for
selecting specific drilling sites so as
to ensure that drilling activities avoid
times and locations critical to
endangered and non-endangered marine
mammals and (b) to determine the applica-
bility of Section 101 (a) (5) of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act governing the
incidental, unintentional take of marine
mammals to the proposed Ocean Drilling
Program.
30 August
Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on the environ-
mental assessment and proposed regula-
tions concerning the take of non-
depleted marine mammals by the Depart-
ment of the Air Force during operations
of the space shuttle from Vandenberg AFB,
California; seeking confirmation of its
understanding that shuttle activities
would be prohibited over the Channel
Islands during certain periods of the
year unless the Service had determined
that such activities would have a
negligible impact on marine mammal
populations, and recommending that, if
this understanding was incorrect, further
consideration of the proposed action be
suspended pending further consultations.
Further recommending, among other things,
that the Service not authorize the
proposed taking until it has received
and, in consultation with the Commission,
reviewed and determined that the proposed
monitoring plan is adequate to detect and
measure the possible effects on pinnipeds
on San Miguel Island.
30 August
Interior, commenting to the Fish and
Wildlife Service on the San Nicolas
Island baseline studies and the time
table for the sea otter translocation
project and relaying the Commission's
expectation that the Service will be able
to complete its decision-making in time
for a trans-location in 1986 if Congress
acts to reauthorize the Endangered
Species Act.
151
3 September
Interior, public display permit appli-
cation, Otaru Public Aquarium.
3 September
Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Connyland.
9 September
Interior, public display permit appli-
cation, Miyajima Public Aquarium.
20 September
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Warren M. Zapol, Robert
C. Schneider, and Donald B. Siniff.
20 September
Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, Donald B. Siniff.
26 September
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Southeast Fisheries Center.
27 September
Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Pueblo Zoological Society.
27 September
Interior, modification of scientific
research permit, California Department of
Fish and Game.
1 October
Commerce, modification of scientific
research permit, Southwest Fisheries
Center.
2 October
Florida Department of Natural Resources,
commenting on the efforts of the Depart-
ment and other State agencies to acquire
and protect essential manatee habitat
areas; commending the Department on its
recent accomplishments to list certain
manatee habitat areas in the Crystal
River on the State's recommended land
acquisition list; and urging that the
State complete certain land acquisition
projects which complement land acqui-
sition efforts contemplated by the Fish
and Wildlife Service in the Crystal and
Homosassa River areas of northwest
Florida.
9 October
Interior, scientific research permit
application, David S. Bruce.
16 October
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, University of California,
Institute of Marine Sciences.
152
22 October
Interior, modification of scientific
research permit, Hubbs Marine Research
Institute.
30 October
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Steven D. Feldkamp.
31 October
Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on the revised
"Combined Draft Fisheries Management Plan
for the Bottomfish and Seamount Ground-
fish Fisheries of the Western Pacific
Region" and recommending that the draft
plan be strengthened to ensure protection
of the Hawaiian monk seal and other
endangered and threatened species,
including identification of research and
monitoring programs needed to resolve un-
certainties concerning possible direct
and indirect effects of bottomfish
fishing operations and related activ-
ities on such species.
7 November
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Jim Harvey.
7 November
Commerce, recommending revisions to the
draft procedural guidelines for porpoise
safety procedures.
7 November
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Hermann Gucinski.
15 November
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Duke University Marine
Laboratories.
18 November
Commerce, public display permit appli-
cation, Gulf World, Inc.
18 November
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, James T. Staley.
25 November
Interior, commenting to the Fish and
Wildlife Service on steps being taken to
promote recovery of the southern sea
otter population and recommending that
steps be taken immediately to ensure that
funding will be available for a trans-
location experiment to be carried out in
the fall of 1986 and that the Service
make continuation of the program for
observing set net fisheries within the
sea otter range a high priority.
153
29 November
Interior, modification of scientific
research permit, Denver Wildlife Research
Center.
29 November
Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service regarding the
North Pacific fur seal and recommending
that: (1) the Service promptly hold a
research program review and continue to
hold such reviews annually at least until
the ongoing population decline is re-
versed; (2) the Service cooperatively
constitute with the Commission a group of
experts to write and help implement a
conservation plan; (3) the Service seek
the cooperation of other countries in
efforts to implement the plan; (4) the
Service designate the Pribilof Islands
population of North Pacific fur seals as
depleted under the Marine Mammal Protec-
tion Act; and (5) the Service promulgate
permanent regulations governing the
taking of this species for subsistence
purposes.
6 December
Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on the need to
carry out research on the incidental take
of harbor porpoise in gill and trammel
nets off the coast of central California,
forwarding a proposed scope of work for
such research, and offering to transfer
funds to the Service to initiate the
work, with the understanding that the
Service would provide necessary funding
in subsequent years.
6 December
Commerce, commenting again on the need
for a conservation plan for the North
Pacific fur seal and enclosing the
Commission's draft of such a plan.
10 December
State, endorsing and suggesting ways to
improve the Draft Program Development
Plan for Antarctic Marine Living Re-
sources, drafted by the National Marine
Fisheries Service in response to the
Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conser-
vation Act of 1984.
11 December
Commerce, scientific research permit
application, Northwest and Alaska Fish-
eries Center.
154
12 December
Commerce, requesting that the National
Marine Fisheries Service provide certain
information on research and monitoring
programs for bottlenose dolphins.
23 December
Interior, commenting to the Fish and
Wildlife Service on the taking of sea
otters by Alaska Natives and recommending
that the Service: (a) make available to
Alaska Natives a thorough discussion of
legal provisions applicable to the taking
of sea otters; (b) assess past, ongoing,
and anticipated takings of sea otters by
Alaska Natives to determine if the tak-
ings are lawful; (c) assess the status of
sea otter populations affected by lawful
takings; and (d) as possible, determine
the impact that taking by Alaska Natives
is having on those populations.
31 December
Commerce, commenting to the National
Marine Fisheries Service on the report of
Commission- and Service-sponsored work-
shops on the northwest Atlantic right
whale population, noting that completion,
adoption, and effective implementation of
a recovery plan for the species is re-
quired under the Endangered Species Act,
outlining the tasks that it considers of
greatest immediate importance, and recom-
mending that the Service: (a) adopt the
recommended research and management plan
included in the workshop report as a
preliminary recovery plan; (b) review the
recommended research and management plan
to determine what tasks should be carried
out or supported by the Service and what
tasks should be carried out or supported
by other agencies; (c) organize and
convene a meeting of relevant Canadian
and U.S. agency representatives, no later
than March 1986, to discuss and, as
possible, agree upon steps to be taken,
independently or collectively, to adopt
and implement the recommended research
and management plan; (d) constitute a
recovery team to complete and oversee
implementation of the recovery plan; and
(e) adopt, periodically review, and
update the recovery plan. Further recom-
mending that, if the Service had not
already done so, it take such steps as
are necessary to develop, adopt, and
implement recovery plans for populations
155
of humpback whales, bowhead whales, and
any other endangered cetaceans that occur
primarily or substantially in waters
under U.S. jurisdiction.
156
APPENDIX B
REPORTS OF COMMISSION-SPONSORED ACTIVITIES
AVAILABLE FROM THE
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE (NTIS) 1
Ainley, D.G., H.R. Huber, R.P. Henderson, and T.J. Lewis. 1977.
Studies of marine mammals at the Farallon Islands,
California, 1970-1975. Final report for MMC contract
MM4AC002. NTIS PB-274 046. 42 pp. (A03)
Ainley, D.G., H.R. Huber, R.P. Henderson, T.J. Lewis, and S.H.
Morrell. 1977. Studies of marine mammals at the Farallon
Islands, California, 1975-1976. Final report for MMC
contract MM5AC020. NTIS PB-266 249. 32 pp. (A03)
Ainley, D.G., H.R. Huber, S.H. Morrell, and R.R. LeValley. 1978.
Studies of marine mammals at the Farallon Islands,
California, 1976-1977. Final report for MMC contract
MM6AC027. NTIS PB-286 603. 44 PP. (A03)
Allen, S.G., D.G. Ainley, and G.W. Page. 1980. Haul out patterns
of harbor seals in Bolinas Lagoon, California. Final report
for MMC contract MM8AC012. NTIS PB80-176 910. 31 pp.
(A03)
Balcomb, K.C., J.R. Boran, R.W. Osborne, and N.J. Haenel. 1980.
Observations of killer whales (Orcinas orca) in greater Puget
Sound, State of Washington. Final report for MMC contract
MM1300731-7. NTIS PB80-224 728. 42 pp. (A03)
Bean, M.J. 1985. United States and international authorities
applicable to entanglement of marine mammals and other
organisms in lost or discarded fishing gear and other
debris. Final report for MMC contract MM2629994-7. NTIS
PB85-160471. 65 pp. (A04)
1 Price codes for printed reports (including postage) are shown
in parentheses at the end of each citation. Microfiche
copies of the reports are also available (price code A01).
The key to the codes and ordering information can be found on
the last page.
157
Beddington, J.R., and H.A. Williams. 1980. The status and
management of the harp seal in the north-west Atlantic. A
review and evaluation. Final report for MMC contract
MM1301062-1. NTIS PB80-206 105. 127 pp. (A07)
Bengtson, J.L. 1978. Review of information regarding the
conservation of living resources of the Antarctic marine
ecosystem. Final report for MMC contract MM8AD055. NTIS PB-
289 496. 148 pp. (A08)
Bishop, J.B. 1985. Summary report of gill and trammel net (set-
net) observations in the vicinity of Morro Bay, California, 1
November 1983 - 31 August 1984. Final report for MMC
contract MM2629900-2. NTIS PB85-150076. 18 pp. (A02)
Bockstoce, J. 1978. A preliminary estimate of the reduction of
the western Arctic bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus)
population by the pelagic whaling industry: 1848-1915.
Final report for MMC contract MM7AD111. NTIS PB-286 797.
32 pp. (A08)
Brownell, R.L., Jr., C. Schoenwald, and R.R. Reeves. 1978.
Preliminary report on world catches of marine mammals 1966-
1975. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC002. NTIS PB-290
713. 353 pp. (A16)
Chapman, D.G., L.L. Eberhardt, and J.R. Gilbert. 1977. A review
of marine mammal census methods. Final report for MMC
contract MM4AC014. NTIS PB-265 547. 55 pp. (A04)
Clark, W.G. 1984. Analysis of variance of photographic and
visual estimates of dolphin school size. Southwest Fisheries
Center Admin. Report LJ-84-11C. Final report for MMC
contract MM2324792-1. 36 pp.2
Committee to Evaluate Antarctic Marine Ecosystem Research,
National Research Council. 1981. An evaluation of Antarctic
marine ecosystem research. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C. 99 pp. 3
Contos, S.M. 1982. Workshop on marine mammal-fisheries
interactions. Final report for MMC contract MM2079341-0.
NTIS PB82-189 507. 64 pp. (A04)
2 Available from Director, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southwest Fisheries Center, La Jolla, California 92038.
3
Available from Polar Research Board, National Academy of
Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20418.
158
Cornell, L.H., E.D. Asper, K.N. Osborn, and M.J. White, Jr. 1979.
Investigations on cryogenic marking procedures for marine
mammals. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC003. NTIS
PB 291 570. 24 pp. (A03)
Dayton, P.K., B.D. Keller, and D.A. Ven Tresca. 1980. Studies of
a nearshore community inhabited by sea otters. Final report
for MMC contracts MM6AC026 and MM1300702-9. NTIS PB81-
109 860. 91 pp. (A06)
DeBeer, J. 1980. Cooperative dedicated vessel research program
on the tuna-porpoise problem; overview and final report.
Final report for MMC contract MM8AC006. NTIS PB80-150 097.
43 pp. (A03)
Dohl, T.P. 1981. Remote laser branding of marine mammals. Final
report for MMC contract MM4AC011. NTIS PB81-213 449. 34 pp.
(A03)
Erickson, A.W. 1978. Population studies of killer whales
(Orcinus orca) in the Pacific Northwest: A radio-marking and
tracking study of killer whales. Final report for MMC
contract MM5AC012. NTIS PB-285 615. 34 pp. (A03)
Fay, F.H., H.M. Feder, and S.W. Stoker. 1977. An estimation of
the impact of the Pacific walrus population on its food
resources in the Bering Sea. Final report for MMC contracts
MM4AC006 and MM5AC024. NTIS PB-273 505. 38 pp. (A03)
Foster, M.A. 1981. Identification of ongoing and planned
fisheries in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Final report
for MMC contract MM1801069-7. NTIS PB81-207 516. 90 pp.
(A05)
Foster, M.S., C.R. Agegian, R.K. Cowen, R.F. Van Wagenen, D.K.
Rose, and A.C. Hurley. 1979. Toward an understanding of the
effects of sea otter foraging on kelp forest communities in
central California. Final report for MMC contract MM7AC023.
NTIS PB-293 891. 60 pp. (A04)
Fowler, C.W., W.T. Bunderson, M.B. Cherry, R.J. Ryel, and B.B.
Steele. 1980. Comparative population dynamics of large
mammals: A search for management criteria. Final report for
MMC contract MM7AC013. NTIS PB80-178 627. 330 pp. (A15)
Fowler, C.W., R.J. Ryel, and L.J. Nelson. 1982. Sperm whale
population analysis. Final report for MMC contract MM8AC009.
NTIS PB82-174 335. 35 pp. (A03)
Gaines, S.E., and D. Schmidt. 1978. Laws and treaties of the
United States relevant to marine mammal protection policy.
Final report for MMC contract MM5AC029. NTIS PB-281 024.
668 pp. (A99)
159
Gard, R. 1978. Aerial census, behavior, and population dynamics
study of gray whales in Mexico during the 1974-75 calving and
mating season. Final report for MMC contract MM5AC006.
NTIS PB-274 295. 18 pp. (A02)
Gard, R. 1978. Aerial census and population dynamics study of
gray whales in Baja California during the 1976 calving and
mating season. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC014. NTIS
PB-275 297. 20 pp. (A03)
Geraci, J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin. 1979. Biology of marine
mammals: Insights through strandings. Final report for MMC
contract MM7AC020. NTIS PB-293 890. 343 pp. (A16)
Geraci, J.R., S.A. Testaverde, D.J. St. Aubin, and T.H. Loop.
1978. A mass stranding of the Atlantic whitesided dolphin,
Lagenorhynchus acutus: A study into pathobiology and life
history. Final report for MMC contract MM5AC008. NTIS PB-
289 361. 141 pp. (A08)
Gerrodette, T. 1983. Review of the California sea otter salvage
program. Final report for MMC contract MM2629677-5. NTIS
PB83-262 949. 23 pp. (A03)
Gilbert, J.R., V.R. Schurman, and D.T. Richardson. 1979. Gray
seals in New England; present status and management
alternatives. Final report for MMC contract MM7AC002. NTIS
PB-295 599. 40 pp. (A03)
Glockner-Ferrari, D.A., and M.J. Ferrari. 1985. Individual iden-
tification, behavior, reproduction, and distribution of
humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in Hawaii. Final
report for MMC contract MM262975-5. NTIS PB85-200772. 41
pp. (A03)
Gold, J. 1981. Marine mammals: A selected bibliography. Final
report for MMC contract MM1801254-3. NTIS PB 82-104 282.
91 pp. (A05)
Gonsalves, J.T. 1977. Improved method and device to prevent
porpoise mortality: Application of polyvinyl panels to purse
seine nets. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC007. NTIS
PB-274 088. 28 pp. (A03)
Goodman, D. 1978. Management implications of the mathematical
demography of long lived animals. Final report for MMC
contract MM8AD008. NTIS PB-289 678. 80 pp. (A05)
Green, K.A. 1977. Antarctic marine ecosystem modeling revised
Ross Sea model, general Southern Ocean budget, and seal
model. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC032. NTIS
PB-270 375. 111 pp. (A06)
160
Green-Hammond, K.A. 1980. Fisheries management under the Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Final report for MMC
contract MM1300885-3. NTIS PB80-180 599. 186 pp. (A09)
Green-Hammond, K.A. 1981. Requirements for effective
implementation of the Convention on the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Final report for MMC
contract MM2079173-9. NTIS PB82-123 571. 36 pp. (A03)
Green-Hammond, K.A. 1982. Environmental aspects of potential
petroleum exploration and exploitation in Antarctica:
Forecasting and evaluating risks. Final report for MMC
contract MM2079173-9. NTIS PB82-169 772. 28 pp. (A03)
Green-Hammond, K.A., D.G. Ainley, D.B. Siniff, and N.S. Urquhart.
1983. Selection criteria and monitoring requirements for
indirect indicators of changes in the availability of
Antarctic krill applied to some pinniped and seabird
information. Final report for MMC contract MM2324753-6.
NTIS PB83-263 293. 37 pp. (A03)
Herman, L.M., P.H. Forestell, and R.C. Antinoja. 1980. The
1976/77 migration of humpback whales into Hawaiian waters:
Composite description. Final report for MMC contracts
MM7AC014 and MM1300907-2. NTIS PB80-162 332. 55 pp. (A04)
Hofman, R.J. (Editor). 1979. A workshop to identify new
research that might contribute to the solution of a tuna-
porpoise problem. Proceedings of a Marine Mammal Commission-
sponsored workshop held on 8-9 December 1975 at the
University of California, Santa Cruz. NTIS PB-290 158.
17 pp. (A02)
Hofman, R.J. 1982. Identification and assessment of possible
alternative methods for catching yellowfin tuna. NTIS PB83-
138 993. 243 pp. (All)
Hofman, R.J. (Editor). 1985. Workshop to assess methods for
regulating the distribution and movements of sea otters.
Report of a Marine Mammal Commission-sponsored workshop held
25-26 October 1984 in San Francisco, California. NTIS PB85-
229250. 39 pp. (A03)
Huber, H.R., D.G. Ainley, S.H. Morrell, R.R. LeValley, and C.S.
Strong. 1979. Studies of marine mammals at the Farallon
Islands, California, 1977-1978. Final report for MMC
contract MM7AC025. NTIS PB-111 602. 50 pp. (A04)
Huber, H.R., D.G. Ainley, S.H. Morrell, R.J. Boekelheide, and
R.P. Henderson. 1980. Studies of marine mammals at the
Farallon Islands, California, 1978-1979. Final report for
MMC contract MM1300888-2. NTIS PB80-178 197. 46 pp. (A04)
161
Huber, H.R., D.G. Ainley, R.J. Boekelheide, R.P. Henderson, and
B. Bainbridge. 1981. Studies of marine mammals at the
Farallon Islands, California, 1979-1980. Final report for
MMC contract MM1533599-3. NTIS PB81-167 082. 51 pp. (A04)
Hui, C.A. 1978. Reliability of using dentin layers for age
determination in Tursiops truncatus. Final report for MMC
contract MM7AC021. NTIS PB-288 444. 25 pp. (A03)
Irvine, A.B., M.D. Scott, R.S. Wells, J.H. Kaufmann, and W.E.
Evans. 1979. A study of the activities and movements of
the Atlantic bottlenosed dolphin, Tursiops truncatus,
including an evaluation of tagging techniques. Final report
for MMC contracts MM4AC004 and MM5AC018. NTIS PB-298 042.
54 pp. (A04)
Johnson, B.W., and P.A. Johnson. 1978. The Hawaiian monk seal on
Laysan Island: 1977. Final report for MMC contract
MM7AC009. NTIS PB-285 428. 38 pp. (A03)
Johnson, B.W., and P.A. Johnson. 1981. Estimating the Hawaiian
monk seal population on Laysan Island. Final report for MMC
contract MM1533701-4. NTIS PB82-106 113. 29 pp. (A05)
Johnson, B.W., and P.A. Johnson. 1981. The Hawaiian monk seal
on Laysan Island: 1978. Final report for MMC contract
MM8AC008. NTIS PB82-109 661. 17 pp. (A02)
Johnson, M.L., and S.J. Jeffries. 1977. -Population evaluation of
the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardi) in the waters of
the State of Washington. Final report for MMC contract
MM5AC019. NTIS PB-270 376. 27 pp. (A03)
Johnson, M.L., and S.J. Jeffries. 1983. Population biology of
the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardi) in the waters of
the State of Washington: 1976-1977. Final report for MMC
contract MM6AC025. NTIS PB83-159 715. 53 pp. (A04)
Kasuya, T., and Y. Izumizawa. 1981. The fishery-dolphin conflict
in the Iki Island area of Japan. Final report for MMC
contract MM1533791-7. NTIS PB81-171 357. 31 pp. (A03)
Katona, S.K. 1983. The Gulf of Maine Whale Sighting Network:
1976. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC018. NTIS PB83-151
290. 32 pp. (A03)
Katona, S.K., and S. Kraus. 1979. Photographic identification of
individual humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae)
Evaluation and analysis of the technique. Final report for
MMC contract MM7AC015. NTIS PB-298 740. 29 pp. (A03)
Kooyman, G.L. 1982. Development and testing of a time-depth
recorder for marine mammals. Final report for MMC contract
MM6AC019. NTIS PB82-257 932. 10 pp. (A02)
162
Leatherwood, J.S., R.A. Johnson, D.K. Ljungblad, and W.E. Evans.
1977. Broadband measurements of underwater acoustic target
strengths of panels of tuna nets. Final report for MMC
contract MM6AC020. Naval Ocean Systems Center Tech. Report
126. 19 pp. 4
Loughlin, T. 1978. A telemetric and tagging study of sea otter
activities near Monterey, California. Final report for MMC
contract MM6AC024. NTIS PB-289 682. 64 pp. (A04)
Marine Mammal Commission. 1974. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1973. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB-269 708. 14 pp. (A03)
Marine Mammal Commission. 1975. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1974. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB-269 710. 27 pp. (A04)
Marine Mammal Commission. 1976. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1975. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB 269-711. 50 pp. (A04)
Marine Mammal Commission. 1977. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1976. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB-269 713. 71 pp. (A06)
Marine Mammal Commission. 1978. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1977. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB-281 564. 101 pp. (A06)
Marine Mammal Commission. 1979. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1978. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB-106 784. 108 pp. (A06)
Marine Mammal Commission. 1980. Humpback whales in Glacier Bay
National Monument, Alaska. Final report for an interagency
review meeting. NTIS PB80-141 449 44 pp. (A03)
Marine Mammal Commission. 1981. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1979. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB81-247 892. 100 pp. (A06)
Marine Mammal Commission. 1981. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1980. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB81-247 884. 114 pp. (A06)
Marine Mammal Commission. 1982. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1981. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB82-221 425. 102 pp. (A06)
4 Available from the Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego,
California 92152.
163
Marine Mammal Commission. 1982. Report of a meeting to review
on-going and planned research concerning humpback whales in
Glacier Bay and surrounding waters in southeast Alaska.
Final report of an interagency meeting. NTIS PB82-201 039.
20 pp. (A02)
Marine Mammal Commission. 1983. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1982. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB84-132 216. 106 pp. (A06)
Marine Mammal Commission. 1984. Annual Report of the Marine
Mammal Commission, Calendar Year 1983. Report to Congress.
NTIS PB84-199 389. 118 pp. (A06)
Mate, B.R. 1977. Aerial censusing of pinnipeds in the eastern
Pacific for assessment of population numbers, migratory
distributions, rookery stability, breeding effort, and
recruitment. Final report for MMC contract MM5AC001.
NTIS PB-265 859. 67 pp. (A04)
Mate, B.R. 1980. Workshop on marine mammal-fisheries
interactions in the northeastern Pacific. Final report for
MMC contract MM8AC003. NTIS PB80-175 144. 48 pp. (A04)
Mathiesen, O.A. 1980. Methods for the estimation of krill
abundance in the Antarctic. Final report for MMC contract
MM7AC032. NTIS PB80-175 151. 26 pp. (A03)
Matkin, C.O., and F.H. Fay. 1980. Marine mammal-fishery
interactions on the Copper River and in Prince William Sound,
Alaska, 1978. Final report for MMC contract MM8AC013. NTIS
PB80-159 536. 71 pp. (A05)
Mayo, C.A. 1982. Observations of cetaceans: Cape Cod Bay and
southern Stellwagen Bank, Massachusetts 1975-1979. Final
report for MMC contract MM1800925-5. NTIS PB82-186 263.
68 pp. (A05)
Medway, W. 1983. Evaluation of the safety and usefulness of
techniques and equipment used to obtain biopsies from free-
swimming cetaceans. Final report for MMC contract MM2324809-
8. NTIS PB83-263 269. 14 pp. (A02)
Metleff, B.R., and D.H. Rosenberg. (Editors). 1984. Proceedings
of the Workshop on Biological Interactions Among Marine
Mammals and Commercial Fisheries in the Southeastern Bering
Sea, October 18-21, 1983, Anchorage, Alaska. Final report
for MMC contract MM2324802-7. 300 pp.
5 Available from the Alaska Sea Grant College Program,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701.
164
Miller, L.K. 1978. Energetics of the northern fur seal in
relation to climate and food resources of the Bering Sea.
Final report for MMC contract MM5AC025. NTIS PB-275 296.
27 pp. (A03)
Nolan, R.S. 1981. Shark control and the Hawaiian monk seal.
Final report for MMC contract MM1801065-5. NTIS PB81-201
808. 45 pp. (A03)
Norris, K.S., and J.D. Hall. 1979. Development of techniques for
estimating trophic impact of marine mammals. Final report
for MMC contract MM4AC013. NTIS PB-290 399. 16 pp. (A02)
Norris, K.S., and R.R. Reeves. (Editors). 1978. Report on a
workshop on problems related to humpback whales (Megaptera
novaeangliae) in Hawaii. Final report for MMC contract
MM7AC018. NTIS PB-280 794. 90 pp. (A05)
Norris, K.S., W.E. Stuntz, and W. Rogers. 1978. The behavior of
porpoises in the eastern tropical Pacific yellowfin tuna
fishery: preliminary studies. Final report for MMC contract
MM6AC022. NTIS PB-283 970. 86 pp. (A05)
Odell, D.K. 1979. A preliminary study of the ecology and
population biology of the bottlenose dolphin in southeast
Florida. Final report for MMC contract MM4AC003. NTIS PB-
294 336. 26 pp. (A03)
Odell, D.K., and J.E. Reynolds, III. 1980. Abundance of the
bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, on the west coast of
Florida. Final report for MMC contract MM5AC026. NTIS PB-
80-197 650. 47 pp. (A04)
Odell, D.K., D.B. Siniff, and G.H. Waring. 1979. Tursiops
truncatus assessment workshop. Final report for MMC contract
MM5AC021. NTIS PB-291 161. 141 pp. (A04)
Packard, J.M. 1982. Potential methods for influencing the
movements and distribution of sea otters: Assessment of
research needs. Final report for MMC contract MM2079342-3.
NTIS PB83-109 926. 51 pp. (A04)
Packard, J.M. 1984. Proposed research/management plan for
Crystal River manatees. Vols. 1-3. Tech. Report 7. Florida
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of
Florida, Gainesville. 31 pp.; 235 pp.; 346 pp. Prepared for
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Final report for MMC
contract MM1801024-4.6
6 Available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.
165
Payne, R., O. Brazier, E. Dorsey, J. Perkins, V. Rowntree, and A.
Titus. 1981. External features in southern right whales
(Eubalaena australis) and their use in identifying
individuals. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC017. NTIS
PB81-161 093. 77 pp. (A05)
Pitcher, K.W. 1977. Population productivity and food habits of
harbor seals in the Prince William Sound-Copper River Delta
area, Alaska. Final report for MMC contract MM5AC011. NTIS
PB-266 935. 36 pp. (A03)
Prescott, J.H., and P.M. Fiorelli. 1980. Review of the harbor
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the U.S. northwest Atlantic.
Final report for MMC contract MM8AC016. NTIS PB80-176 928.
64 pp. (A04)
Prescott, J.H., S.D. Kraus, and J.R. Gilbert. 1980. East Coast/
Gulf Coast cetacean and pinniped workshop. Final report for
MMC contract MM1533558-2. NTIS PB80-160 104. 142 pp. (A07)
Ralston, F. (Editor). 1977. A workshop to assess research
related to the porpoise/tuna problem, February 28, March 1-2.
Southwest Fisheries Center Admin. Report LJ-77-15. Final
report for MMC contract MM7AC022. 119 pp. 6 appendices.
7
Ray, G.C., R.V. Salm, and J.A. Dobbin. 1979. Systems analysis
mapping: An approach towards identifying critical habitats
of marine mammals. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC011.
NTIS PB80-111 594. 27 pp. (A03)
Reeves, R.R. 1977. Exploitation of harp and hooded seals in the
western North Atlantic. Final report for MMC contract
MM6AD055. NTIS PB-270 186. 57 pp. (A04)
Reeves, R.R. 1977. The problem of gray whale (Eschrichtius
robustus) harassment: At the breeding lagoons and during
migration. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC021. NTIS
PB-272 506 (Spanish translation PB-291 763). 60 pp. (A04)
Ridgway, S.H., and K. Benirschke. (Editors). 1977. Breeding
dolphins: Present status, suggestions for the future. Final
report for MMC contract MM6AC009. NTIS PB-273 673. 308 pp.
(A14)
Ridgway, S.H., and W.F. Flanigan, Jr. 1981. An investigation of
a potential method for the humane taking of certain whales
and seals used for food. Final report for MMC contract
MM6AC030. NTIS PB81-161 101. 12 pp. (A02)
7 Available from Director, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southwest Fisheries Center, La Jolla, California 92038.
166
Risebrough, R.W. 1978. Pollutants in marine mammals: A
literature review and recommendations for research. Final
report for MMC contract MM7AD035. NTIS PB-290 728. 64 pp.
(A04)
Risebrough, R.W., D. Alcorn, S.G. Allen, V.C. Anderlini,
L. Booren, R.L. DeLong, L.E. Fancher, R.E. Jones,
S.M. McGinnis, and T.T. Schmidt. 1980. Population biology
of harbor seals in San Francisco Bay, California. Final
report for MMC contract MM6AC006. NTIS PB81-107 963. 67 pp.
(A04)
Sawyer-Steffan, J.E., and V.L. Kirby. 1980. A study of serum
steroid hormone levels in captive female bottlenose dolphins,
their correlation with reproductive status, and their
application to ovulation induction in captivity. Final
report for MMC contract MM7AC016. NTIS PB80-177 199. 21 pp.
(A03)
Schmidly, D.J., and S.H. Shane. 1978. A biological assessment of
the cetacean fauna of the Texas coast. Final report for
MMC contract MM4AC008. NTIS PB-281 763. 38 pp. (A03)
Scott, G.P., and H.E. Winn. 1980. Comparative evaluation of
aerial and shipboard sampling techniques for estimating the
abundance of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Final
report for MMC contract MM7AC029. NTIS PB81-109 852. 96 pp.
(A06)
Shallenberger, E. 1981. The status of Hawaiian cetaceans. Final
report for MMC contract MM7AC028. NTIS PB82-109 398. 79 pp.
(A05)
Shane, S.H., and D.J. Schmidly. 1978. The population biology of
the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in the
Aransas Pass area of Texas. Final report for MMC contract
MM6AC028. NTIS PB-283 393. 130 pp. (A07)
Smith, T.D., and T. Polacheck. 1979. Uncertainty in estimating
historical abundance of porpoise populations. Final report
for MMC contract MM7AC006. NTIS PB-296 476. 59 pp. (A04)
Stoker, S.W. 1977. Report on a subtidal commercial clam fishery
proposed for the Bering Sea. Final report for MMC contract
MM7AD076. NTIS PB-269 712. 33 pp. (A03)
Stuntz, W.E. 1980. Preliminary investigations of the possible
relationship between passive behavior by spotted dolphins,
Stenella attenuata, and capture stress. Final report for MMC
contract MM7AC027. NTIS PB81-111 569. 13 pp. (A02)
167
Swartz, S.L. and W.C. Cummings. 1978. Gray whales, Eschrichtius
robustus, in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California, Mexico.
Final report for MMC contract MM7AC008. NTIS PB-276
319 (Spanish translation PB-288 636). 38 pp. (A03) (A04
Spanish)
Swartz, S.L. and M.L. Jones. 1978. The evaluation of human
activities on gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, in Laguna
San Ignacio, Baja California, Mexico. Final report for MMC
contract MM8AC005. NTIS PB-289 737 (Spanish translation
PB-299 598). 34 pp. (A03)
Swartz, S.L. and M.L. Jones. 1980. Gray whales, Eschrichtius
robustus, during the 1977-1978 and 1978-1979 winter seasons
in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Final
report for MMC contract MM1533497-8. NTIS PB80-202 989. 35
pp. (A03)
Swartz, S.L. and M.L. Jones. 1981. Demographic studies and
habitat assessment of gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, in
Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Final
report for MMC contract MM2079219-4. NTIS PB82-123 373. 56
pp. (A04)
Swartzman, G., and R. Haar. 1980. Exploring interactions between
fur seal populations and fisheries in the Bering Sea. Final
report for MMC contract MM1800969-5. NTIS PB81-133 688.
60 pp. (A04)
Swartzman, G. 1984. Factors bearing on the present status and
future of the Eastern Bering Sea fur seal population with
special emphasis on the effect of terminating the subadult
male harvest on St. Paul Island. Final report for MMC
contract MM2629737-6. NTIS PB84-172 329. 77 pp. (A05)
Taylor, L.R. and G. Naftel. 1978. Preliminary investigations
of shark predation on the Hawaiian monk seal at Pearl and
Hermes Reef and French Frigate Shoals. Final report for MMC
contract MM7AC011. NTIS PB-285 626. 34 pp. (A03)
Tinney, R.T., Jr. 1983. Assessment of past, present, and future
risks of oil spills in and near the present sea otter range
in California. Final report for MMC contract MM2324944-0.
NTIS PB83-216 069. 208 pp. (A10)
Tinney, R.T. 1984. Some factors affecting the oil spill risk to
sea otters in California. Final report for MMC contract
MM2910765-4. NTIS PB85-174035. 74 pp. (A04)
Waring, G.H. 1981. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal
research and studies FY70-FY79. Final report for MMC
contract MM1533588-3. NTIS PB81-174 336. 235 pp. (All)
168
Waring, G.H. 1981. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal
research and studies FY70-FY80. Final report for MMC
contract MM1801196-8. NTIS PB81-242 059. 43 pp. (A03)
Waring, G.H. 1982. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal
research and studies FY70-FY81. Final report for MMC
contract MM2079243-6. NTIS PB82-227 570. 65 pp. (A04)
Waring, G.H. 1983. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal
research and studies FY70-FY82. Final report for MMC
contract MM2324754-9. NTIS PB83-262 998. 83 pp. (A05)
Waring, G.H. 1984. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal
research and studies FY70-FY83. Final report for MMC
contract MM2629857-9. NTIS PB84-215 086. 84 pp. (A05)
Waring, G.H. 1985. Survey of federally-funded marine mammal
research and studies FY70-FY84. Final report for MMC
contract MM2910918-6. NTIS PB85-225613. 106 pp. (A06)
Wartzok, D., and G.C. Ray. 1980. The hauling-out behavior of the
Pacific walrus. Final report for MMC contract MM5AC028.
NTIS PB80-192 578. 46 pp. (A04)
Wells, R.S., B.G. Wursig, and K.S. Norris. 1981. A survey of the
marine mammals of the upper Gulf of California, Mexico, with
an assessment of the status of Phocoena sinus. Final report
for MMC contract MM1300958-0. NTIS PB81-168 791. 51 pp.
(A04)
Whitehead, H., and R. Payne. 1981. New techniques for measuring
whales from the air. Final report for MMC contract MM6AC017.
NTIS PB81-161 143. 36 pp. (A03)
Whitehead, H., K. Chu, P. Harcourt, and A. Alling. 1982. The
humpback whales off west Greenland: Summer 1981, with notes
on other marine mammals and seabirds sighted. Final report
MMC contract MM2079259-2. NTIS PB82-243 924. 25 pp. (A03)
Williams, T.D. 1978. Chemical immobilization, baseline
hematological parameters and oil contamination in the sea
otter. Final report for MMC contract MM7AD094. NTIS PB-283
969. 27 pp. (A03)
Wilson, S.C. 1978. Social organization and behavior of harbor
seals, Phoca vitulina concolor, in Maine. Final report for
MMC contract MM6AC013. NTIS PB-280 188. 103 pp. (A06)
Winn, H.E. 1984. Development of a right whale sighting network
in the southeastern U.S. Final report for MMC contract
MM2324805-6. NTIS PB84-240 548. 12 pp. (A01)
169
Winn, H.E., E.A. Scott, and R.D. Kenney. 1985. Aerial surveys
for right whales in the Great South Channel. Spring 1984.
Final report for MMC contract MM2910792-6. NTIS PB85-
207926. 18 pp. (A02)
Woodhouse, C.D., Jr., R.K. Cowen, and L.R. Wilcoxon. 1977. A
summary of knowledge of the sea otter Enhydra lutris, L., in
California and an appraisal of the completeness of the
biological understanding of the species. Final report for
MMC contract MM6AC008. NTIS PB-270 374. 71 pp. (A04)
Wray, P. 1978. The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus)
in Florida: A summary and analysis of biological,
ecological, and administrative problems affecting
preservation and restoration of the population. Final report
for MMC contract MM8AD054. NTIS PB-285 410. 89 pp. (A05)
Yellin, M.B., C.R. Agegian, and J.S. Pearse. 1977. Ecological
benchmarks in the Santa Cruz County kelp forests before the
re-establishment of sea otters. Final report for MMC
contract MM6AC029. NTIS PB-272 813. 125 pp. (A07)
170
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
CURRENT PRICE LIST⁸
Domestic
Foreign
Price Code
(U.S., Canada and Mexico)
(All Other Countries)
A01
(Microfiche)
$ 5.95
$ 11.90
A02
9.95
19.90
A03
9.95
19.90
A04
11.95
23.90
A05
11.95
23.90
A06
16.95
33.90
A07
16.95
33.90
A08
16.95
33.90
A09
16.95
33.90
A10
22.95
45.90
All
22.95
45.90
A12
22.95
45.90
A13
22.95
45.90
A14
28.95
57.90
A15
28.95
57.90
A16
28.95
57.90
A17
28.95
57.90
A18
34.95
68.90
A19
34.95
68.90
A20
34.95
68.90
A21
34.95
68.90
A22
40.95
81.90
A23
40.95
81.90
A24
40.95
81.90
A25
40.95
81.90
A99
[Write to NTIS for price quotation.]
8
Each report, regardless of length, is available in microfiche
at the base prices listed for code A01. All prices include
postage and are given in U.S. currency. In addition, there
is a $3.00 handling charge on domestic ($4.00 on foreign)
orders. When ordering, include the NTIS accession number
(e.g., PB-265 547). Make checks and money orders payable to
the National Technical Information Service. Address: 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, U.S.A.
171
APPENDIX C
SELECTED LITERATURE PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE
RESULTING FROM COMMISSION-SPONSORED ACTIVITIES
Ainley, D.G., C.S. Strong, H.R. Huber, T.J. Lewis, and S.H.
Morrell. 1980. Predation by Sharks on Pinnipeds at the
Farallon Islands. Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA), 78 (4) :941-945.
(MMC Contracts MM4AC002, MM5AC027, MM6AC007, MM7AC025, and
MM1300888-2).
Alexander, L.M., and L.C. Hanson. (Editors). 1985. Antarctic
Politics and Marine Resources: Critical Choices for the
1980s. Proceedings from the Eighth Annual Conference, 17-
20 June 1984, Center for Ocean Management Studies, University
of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island. 262 pp. (MMC
Contract MM2910791-3).
Allen, S.G., D.G. Ainley, G.W. Page, and C.A. Ribic. 1984. The
Effect of Disturbance on Harbor Seal Haul Out Patterns at
Bolinas Lagoon, California. Fishery Bulletin, California
Fish and Game, 82(3):6. (MMC Contract MM8AC012).
Baker, C.S., and L.M. Herman. 1981. Migration and Local
Movements of Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae)
through Hawaiian Waters. Canadian Journal of Zoology,
59 (3) :460-469. (MMC Contract MM7AC014).
Barham, E.G., J.C. Sweeney, S. Leatherwood, R.K. Beggs, and C.L.
Barham. 1980. Aerial Census of the Bottlenose Dolphin,
Tursiops truncatus, in a Region of the Texas Coast. Fishery
Bulletin, (NOAA), 77 (3) 585-595. (MMC Contract MM8AC011).
Bengtson, J.R. 1985. Monitoring Indicators of Possible
Ecological Changes in the Antarctic Marine Ecosystem. In
Selected Papers, 1982-1984 (Part II), Commission for the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, Hobart,
Australia. (MMC Contract 2629914-1).
Bengtson, J.L. 1985. Review of Antarctic Marine Fauna. In
Selected Papers, 1982-1984 (Part I), Commission for the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, Hobart,
Australia. (MMC Contract 2629914-1).
172
Blix, A.S., and L.K. Miller. 1979. Newborn Fur Seals
(Callorhinus ursinus) - Do They Suffer from the Cold?
American Journal of Physiology, 236:R322-327. (MMC Contract
MM5AC025).
Bockstoce, J. 1980. A Preliminary Estimate of the Reduction of
the Western Arctic Bowhead Whale Population by the Pelagic
Whaling Industry: 1848-1915. Marine Fisheries Review, 42 (9-
10) 20-27. (MMC Contract MM7AD111).
Breiwick, J.M. 1978. Reanalysis of Antarctic Sei Whale Stocks.
Report to the International Whaling Commission, 28:345-368.
(MMC Contract MM7AC012).
Breiwick, J.M., E.D. Mitchell, and D.G. Chapman. 1980.
Estimated Initial Population Size of the Bering Sea Stock of
Bowhead Whale, Balaena mysticetus: An Iterative Method.
Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA), 78(4):843-853. (MMC Contract
MM8AC007).
Burns, J.J., F.H. Fay, and G.A. Fedoseev. 1984. Craniological
Analysis of Harbor and Spotted Seals of the North Pacific
Region. Pp. 5-16. In F.H. Fay and G.A. Fedoseev (Editors).
Soviet-American Cooperative Research on Marine Mammals. Vol.
I-Pinnipeds. NOAA Tech. Report NMFS-12. (MMC Contract
MM4AC005).
Clark, W.G. 1981. Restricted Least-squares Estimates of Age
Composition from Length Composition. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 38:297-307. (MMC Contracts
MM1533439-2 and MM1801114-6).
Clark, W.G. 1982. Early Changes in the Recruitment Rates of
Antarctic Minke Whales Inferred from Recent Age
Distributions. Report to the International Whaling
Commission, 32:889-895. (MMC Contracts MM1533439-2 and
MM1801114-6).
Clark, W.G. 1982. Historical Rates of Recruitment to Southern
Hemisphere Fin Whale Stocks. Report to the International
Whaling Commission, 32. SC/33/Ba3:305-324. (MMC Contracts
MM1533439-2 and MM1801114-6).
Clark, W.G. 1983. Apparent Inconsistencies among Countries in
Measurements of Fin Whale Lengths. Report to the
International Whaling Commission, 33:431-434. (MMC Contracts
MM1533439-2 and MM1801114-6).
Clark, W.G. 1984. Recruitment Rates of Antarctic Fin Whales,
Balaenoptera physalus, Inferred from Cohort Analysis. In
W.F. Perrin, R.L. Brownell, Jr., and D.M. DeMaster (Editors).
Reproduction in Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises. Special
Issue 6. International Whaling Commission. Cambridge, U.K.
(MMC Contract MM1533439-2).
173
Coe, J.M., and W.E. Stuntz. 1980. Passive Behavior by the
Spotted Dolphin, Stenella attenuata, in Tuna Purse Seine
Nets. Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA), 78(2):535-537. (MMC
Contract MM6AC022).
Costa, D.P. 1978. The Sea Otter: Its Interaction with Man.
Oceanus, 21 (2) 24-30. (MMC Contract MM6AA053).
Costa, D.P. 1982. Energy, Nitrogen, and Electrolyte Flux and Sea
Water Drinking in the Sea Otter, Enhydra lutris.
Physiological Zoology, 55 (1) 35-44. (MMC Contract
MM6AA053)
Cowen, R.K., C.R. Agegian, and M.S. Foster. 1982. The
Maintenance of Community Structure in a Central California
Giant Kelp Forest. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology
and Ecology, 64:189-201. (MMC Contract MM7AC023).
Dayton, P.K. 1984. Processes Structuring Some Marine
Communities: Are They General? Pp. 181-197. In D.R.
Strong, et al. (Editors). Ecological Communities:
Conceptual Issues and the Evidence. Princeton University
Press. Princeton, N.J. (MMC Contract MM1300702-9).
Dayton, P.K., V. Currie, P. Gerrodette, B.D. Keller, R. Rosenthal,
and D. Van Tresca. 1984. Patch Dynamics and Stability of
Some California Kelp Communities. Ecological Monograph,
54 (3) 253-289. (MMC Contract MM1300702-9).
Dayton, P.K., and M.J. Tegner. 1984. The Importance of Scale in
Community Ecology: A Kelp Forest Example with Terrestrial
Analogs. Pp. 457-481. In P.W. Price, et al. (Editors). A
New Ecology: Novel Approaches to Interactive Systems. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. (MMC Contract MM1300702-9).
Eberhardt, L.L., D.G. Chapman, and J.R. Gilbert. 1979. A Review
of Marine Mammal Census Methods. Wildlife Monographs, No.
63. 46 pp. (MMC Contract MM4AC014).
Everitt, R.D., and R.J. Beach. 1982. Marine Mammal-Fisheries
Interactions in Oregon and Washington: An Overview. Pp.
265-277. In Transactions of the 47th North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management
Institute. Washington, D.C. (MMC Contracts MM2079345-2 and
MM2079357-5).
Fay, F.H. 1982. Ecology and Biology of the Pacific Walrus,
Odobenus rosmarus divergens Illigen. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. North American Fauna, No. 74. 279 pp. (Partial
support under MMC Contract MM1533576-0).
174
Fay, F.H., Y.A. Bukhtiyarov, S.W. Stoker, and L.M. Schulz. 1984.
Food of the Pacific Walrus in Winter and Spring in the Bering
Sea. Pp. 81-88. In F.H. Fay, and G.A. Fedoseev (Editors).
Soviet-American Cooperative Research on Marine Mammals. Vol.
1-Pinnipeds. NOAA Tech. Report NMFS-12. (MMC Contracts
MM4AC006 and MM5AC024).
Foster, M. 1982. The Regulation of Macroalgal Associations in
Kelp Forests. Pp. 185-205. In L. Srivastava (Edttor).
Synthetic and Degradative Processes in Marine Macrophytes.
W. de Gruyter & Company. Berlin. (MMC Contract MM7AC023).
Fowler, C.W. 1980. A Rationale for Modifying Effort by Catch,
Using the Sperm Whale of the North Pacific as an Example.
Pp. 99-102. In Report to the International Whaling
Commission, Special Issue 2. (MMC Contract MM8AC009).
Fowler, C.W. 1981. Comparative Population Dynamics in Large
Mammals. Pp. 437-455. In C.W. Fowler and T.D. Smith
(Edotors). Dynamics of Large Mammal Populations. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. New York. (MMC Contract MM1300730-4).
Fowler, C.W. 1981. Density Dependence as Related to Life History
Strategy. Ecology, 62:602-610. (MMC Contract MM7AC013).
Gaines, S.E., and D. Schmidt. 1976. Wildlife Management under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Environmental Law
Reporter. pp. 50096-50114. (MMC Contract MM5AC029).
Geraci, J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin. 1980. Offshore Petroleum
Resource Development and Marine Mammals: A Review and
Research Recommendations. Marine Fisheries Review, 42(11):1-
12. (Requested by the MMC).
Hall, J.D. 1977. A Non-Lethal Lavage Device for Sampling Stomach
Contents of Small Marine Mammals. Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA),
75 (3) : 653-656. (MMC Contract MM4AC013).
Herman, L.M. 1979. Humpback Whales in Hawaiian Waters: A Study
in Historical Ecology. Pacific Science, 33(1):1-16. (MMC
Contract MM7AC014).
Herman, L.M., and R.C. Antinoja. 1977. Humpback Whales in the
Hawaiian Breeding Waters: Population and Pod
Characteristics. Scientific Report of the Whales Research
Institute, No. 29:59-85. (MMC Contract MM7AC014).
Hofman, R.J. 1985. The Convention on the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Pp. 113-122. In L.M.
Alexander and L.C. Hanson (Editors). Antarctic Politics and
Marine Resources: Critical Choices for the 1980s.
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island.
175
Hofman, R.J., and W.N. Bonner. 1985. Conservation and Protection
of Marine Mammals: Past, Present and Future. Marine Mammal
Science, 1 (2) 109.
Huber, H.R., D.G. Ainley, and S.H. Morrell. 1982. Sightings of
Cetaceans in the Gulf of the Farallones, California, 1971-
1979. California Fish and Game, 68 (3) 183-189. (MMC
Contract MM1300888-2).
Hui, C.A. 1980. Variability of Dentin Deposits in Tursiops
truncatus. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Science, 37 (4) 712-716. (MMC Contract MM7AC021).
Irvine, A.B., M.D. Scott, R.S. Wells, and J.H. Kaufman. 1981.
Movements and Activities of the Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin,
Tursiops truncatus, Near Sarasota, Florida. Fishery
Bulletin, (NOAA), (4) 671-688. (MMC Contracts MM4AC004 and
MM5AC018).
Irvine, A.B., R.S. Wells, and M.D. Scott. 1982. An Evaluation of
Techniques for Tagging Small Odontocete Cetaceans. Fishery
Bulletin, (NOAA), 80 (1) 135-143. (MMC Contracts MM4AC004 and
MM5AC018).
Johnson, P.A., B.W. Johnson, and L.R. Taylor. 1981. Interisland
Movement of a Young Hawaiian Monk Seal between Laysan Island
and Maro Reef. 'Elepaio, 41(11):113-114. (MMC Contracts
MM7AC009 and MM8AC008).
Jones, M.L., and S.L. Swartz. 1984. Demography and Phenology of
Whale-Watching Activities in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja
California Sur, Mexico. Pp. 309-374. In M.L. Jones and S.L.
Swartz (Editors). The Gray Whale, Eschrichtius robustus.
Academic Press. New York. (MMC Contract MM8AC005).
Kooyman, G.L., J.O. Billups, and W.D. Farwell. 1983. Two
Recently Developed Recorders for Monitoring Diving Activity
of Marine Birds and Mammals. Pp. 197-214. In: A.G.
MacDonald and I.G. Priede (Editors) Experimental Biology at
Sea. Academic Press. New York. (MMC Contract
MM6AC019).
Kooyman, G.L., and L.H. Cornell. 1981. Flow Properties of
Expiration and Inspiration in a Trained Bottle-Nosed
Porpoise. Physiological Zoology, (1) 55-61. (MMC Contract
MM4AC012).
Kooyman, G.L., R.L. Gentry, and D.L. Urquhart. 1976. Northern
Fur Seal Diving Behavior: A New Approach to its Study.
Science, 193:411-412. (MMC Contract MM6AC019).
Kooyman, G.L., K.S. Norris, and R.L. Gentry. 1975. Spout of the
Gray Whale: Its Physical Characteristics. Science, 190:908-
910. (MMC Contract MM4AC012).
176
Kooyman, G.L., and E.E. Sinnett. 1977. Mechanical Properties of
the Harbor Porpoise Lung (Abstract). Proceedings
International Union Physiological Science, July 18-23, Paris.
(MMC Contract MM4AC012).
Kooyman, G.L., and E.E. Sinnett. 1979. Mechanical Properties of
the Harbor Porpoise Lung. Respiratory Physiology, 36:287-
300. (MMC Contract MM4AC012).
Krause, S.D., J.R. Gilbert, and J.H. Prescott. 1983. A
Comparison of Aerial, Shipboard and Land-Based Survey
Methodology for the Harbor Porpoise, Phocoena phocoena.
Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA), 81:910-912, (MMC Contract
MM1801023-1).
Leatherwood, S. 1975. Some Observations of Feeding Behavior of
Bottlenosed Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Northern
Gulf of Mexico and (Tursiops cf. T. gilli) off Southern
California, Baja California, and Nayarit, Mexico. Marine
Fisheries Review, 37(9):10-16. (MMC Contract MM6AC001).
Leatherwood, S., J.R. Gilbert, and D.G. Chapman. 1978. An
Evaluation of Some Techniques for Aerial Censuses of
Bottlenosed Dolphins. Journal of Wildlife Management,
42 (2) : 239-250. (MMC Contract MM8AC001).
Loughlin, T.R. 1979. Radio Telemetric Determination of the 24-
Hour Feeding Activities of Sea Otters, Enhydra lutris. Pp.
717-724. In C.J. Amlaner, Jr., and D.W. McDonald (Editors).
A Handbook on Biotelemetry and Radio-Tracking. Pergamon
Press. Oxford and New York. (MMC Contracts MM6AC004 and
MM6AC024).
Loughlin, T.R. 1980. Home Range and Territoriality of Sea
Otters near Monterey, California. Journal of Wildlife
Management, (3) : 576-582. (MMC Contracts MM6AC004 and
MM6AC024).
Lowry, L.F. 1982. Documentation and Assessment of Marine Mammal-
Fishery Interactions in the Bering Sea. Pp. 300-311. In
Transactions of the 47th North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute.
Washington, D.C. (MMC Contract MM1533596-4).
Mate, B.R., and J.T. Harvey. 1984. Ocean Movements of Radio-
Tagged Gray Whales. In M.L. Jones and S.L. Swartz (Editors).
The Gray Whale, Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press. New
York. (MMC Contract 1533416-0).
177
Mead, J.G. 1977. Records of Sei and Bryde's Whales from the
Atlantic Coast of the United States, the Gulf of Mexico and
the Caribbean. Pp. 113-116. In International Whaling
Commission, Special Issue No. 1. Report of the Special
Meeting of the Scientific Committee on Sei and Bryde's
Whales, La Jolla, California. December 1974. (MMC Contract
MM7AC007).
Miller, L.K. 1978. Energetics of the Northern Fur Seal in
Relation to Climate and Food Resources of the Bering Sea.
(Abstract). Proceedings, Second Conference on the Biology of
Marine Mammals, December 1977. San Diego, California.
(MMC Contract MM5AC025).
Nafziger, J.A.R. 1978. The Management of Marine Mammals After
the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Willamette Law
Journal, 14:153-215. (MMC Contract MM7AC001).
Norris, K.S., R. Goodman, B. Villa-Ramirez, and L. Hobbs. 1977.
Behavior of California Gray Whales (Eschrichtius robustus)
in Southern Baja California, Mexico. Fishery Bulletin,
(NOAA), (1) 159-172. (MMC Contract MM5AC007).
Odell, D.K. 1975. Status and Aspects of the Life History of the
Bottlenose Dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in Florida. Journal
of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, (7) 1055-1058.
(MMC Contract MM4AC003).
Odell, D.K. 1979. Distribution and Abundance of Marine Mammals
in the Waters of the Everglades National Park. Proceedings
of the First Conference on Research in National Parks.
USDI, NPS, Transactions Proceedings Series No. 5:673-678.
(MMC Contract MM4C003).
Payne, R., O. Brazier, E.M. Dorsey, J.S. Perkins, V.J. Rowntree,
and A. Titus. 1983. External Features in Southern Right
Whales (Eubalaena australis) and Their Use in Identifying
Individuals. Pp. 371-445. In R. Payne (Editor).
Communication and Behavior of Whales. AAAS Selected
Symposium 76. Westview Press, Inc. Boulder, Colorado. (MMC
Contract MM6AC017).
Pearse, J.S., D.P. Costa, M.B. Yellin, and C.R. Agegian. 1977.
Localized Mass Mortality of Red Sea Urchin,
Strongylocentrotus franciscanus, near Santa Cruz,
California. Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA), 75 (3) 645-648. (MMC
Contract MM6AC029).
Perrin, W.F., and A.C. Myrick, Jr. (Editors). 1980. Age
Determination of Toothed Whales and Sirenians. International
Whaling Commission, Special Issue No. 3. 229 pp. (MMC
Contract MM8AC004).
178
Perrin, W.F., R.L. Brownell, Jr., and D.P. DeMaster (Editors).
1984. Reproduction in Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises.
International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 6. 490 pp.
(MMC Contract MM2079356-2).
Pierotti, R.J., D.G. Ainley, T.S. Lewis, and M.C. Coulter. 1977.
Birth of a California Sea Lion on Southeast Farallon Island.
California Fish and Game, 63 (1) : 64-65. (MMC Contract
MM4AC002).
Pitcher, K.W. 1980. Food of the Harbor Seal, Phoca vitulina, in
the Gulf of Alaska. Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA),
78 (2) : 544-549. (MMC Contract MM5AC011).
Pitcher, K.W. 1980. Stomach Contents and Feces as Indicators of
Harbor Seal, Phoca vitulina, Foods in the Gulf of Alaska.
Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA), 78 (3) : 797-798. (MMC Contract
MM5AC011).
Ray, G.C., J.A. Dobbin, and R.V. Salm. 1978. Strategies for
Protecting Marine Mammal Habitats. Oceanus, 21 (2) : 55-67.
(MMC Contract MM6AC011).
Scott, G.P., and H.E. Winn. 1978. Assessment of Humpback Whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae) Stocks Using Vertical Photographs.
Proceedings PECORA IV Symposium, National Wildlife Science
and Technology Series, 3:235-243. (MMC Contract MM7AC029).
Sergeant, D.E., D.J. St. Aubin, and J.R. Geraci. 1980. Life
History and Northwest Atlantic Status of the Atlantic White-
Sided Dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus. Cetology, 37:1-12.
(MMC Contract MM5AC008).
Shallenberger, E.W. 1977. Humpback Whales in Hawaii: Population
and Distribution. Oceans '77 (Conference record), Marine
Technology Society, Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, p. Hawaii C-1-C-7. (MMC Contract MM7AC014).
Shane, S.H. 1980. Occurrence, Movements, and Distribution of
Bottlenose Dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in Southern Texas.
Fishery Bulletin, (NOAA), (3) : 593-601. (MMC Contract
MM6AC028).
Shaughnessy, P.D., and F.H. Fay. 1977. A Review of the Taxonomy
and Nomenclature of North Pacific Harbour Seals. Journal of
Zoology, London, 183 (3) : 385-419. (MMC Contract MM4AC005).
Shomura, R.S., and H.O. Yoshida. 1985. (Editors). Proceedings
of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-
29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-54.
580 pp. (MMC Contract MM2629949-7).
179
Smith, T.D. 1976. The Adequacy of the Scientific Basis for the
Management of Sperm Whales. Advisory Committee on Marine
Resources Research, Scientific Consultation on Marine
Mammals, 121, 31 August - 9 September 1976, Bergen, Norway.
15 pp. (MMC Contract MM6AD047).
Smith, T., and T. Polacheck. 1979. Analysis of a Simple Model
for Estimating Historical Population Sizes. Fishery
Bulletin, (NOAA), (4) 771-779. (MMC Contract MM7AC006).
Swartz, S.L. 1981. Cleaning Symbiosis between Topsmelt,
Atherinops affinis, and Gray Whales, Eschrichtius robustus,
in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Fishery
Bulletin, (NOAA), 79(2):360. (MMC Contracts MM8AC005 and
MM1533497-8).
Swartz, S.L., and M.L. Jones. 1983. Gray Whale (Eschrichtius
robustus) Calf Production and Mortality in the Winter Range.
International Whaling Commission Report, 33:503-508. (MMC
Contracts MM7AC009, MM1533497-8 and MM2079219-4).
Swartzman, G.L., and R.T. Haar. 1983. Interactions Between Fur
Seal Populations and Fisheries in the Bering Sea. Fisheries
Bulletin, (NOAA), 8 (1) :121-132. (MMC Contract MM1800969-5).
Tillman, M.F., and G.P. Donovan (Editors). 1983. Special Issue on
Historical Whaling Records. International Whaling
Commission, Special Issue 5. 269 pp. (MMC Contract
MM7AC017).
Tricas, T.C., L.R. Taylor, and G. Naftel. 1981. Diel Behavior of
the Tiger Shark, Galeocerdo cuvier, at French Frigate Shoals,
Hawaiian Islands. Copeia, 1981:904-908. (MMC Contract
MM7AC011).
Van Wagenen, R.F., M.S. Foster, and F. Burns. 1981. Sea Otter
Predation on Birds near Monterey, California. Journal of
Mammalogy, 62 (2) : 433-434. (MMC Contract MM7AC023).
Villa-R., B. 1976. Report on the Status of Phocoena sinus,
Norris and McFarland 1958, in the Gulf of California. An.
Inst. Biol. Univ. Nal. Auton. Mexico, Ser. Zoologia,
(2) :203-208. (MMC Contract MM6AD052).
Whitehead, H., K. Chu, J. Perkins, P. Bryant, and G. Nichols.
1983. Population Size, Stock Identity, and Distribution of
the Humpback Whales off West Greenland -- Summer 1981.
Report to the International Whaling Commission, 33:497-501.
(MMC Contract MM2079259-2).
180