UNITE0 STATES OEPARTMENT OF COIMMERCE 

National Ooeank: ad Atxnospheric Adminiatration 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

1335 East-West Mghway 

Sdver m. MO 20910 

THE DIRECTOR 

on Merchant 

~ Dear sirs : 

I am ple sed to submit the biennial report of the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the status of efforts to 

.develop nd implement recovery plans for species listed pursuant 

to secti n 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The report 

includes the status of all species for which recovery plans have 

been developed, as required by section 4(f)(3) of the ESA, as 

well as the status and trends of all listed species under NMFSf 

jurisdi ! tion. 

Sincerely, 

William 

U& 

W. Fox, Jr. 

Enclosu e r 

THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

FOR FISHERIES 
1 Table of Contents 

ndangered and Threatened Species Under NMFS 

iction ............................................. 6 

ue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) ............................ 7 

whead Whale (Balaenza mysticem) ............................ 8 

Whale (Balaenroptera plzysalus) ............................ 10 

y Whale (Esclzriclrtius robustus) ............................. 11 

le (Megaptera novaeangliae) ..................... 12 

ern Right Whale (Eubalaenzu glacialis) ..................... 16 

hale (Balaerwptera borealis) ............................. 20 

Whale (Plyserer catodoiz) ................................ 21 

Turtle (Cltelorzia mydas) ............................... 22 

bill Turtle (Eretmoclzelys imbricata) ....................... 26 

Ridley Turtle (~e~idochel~s kempi) ...................... 28 

ack Turtle (Demochelys coriacea) ...................... 31 

ad Turtle (Carerra caretta) ............................ 35 

ley Turtle (Lepidoclzelys olivacea) ...................... 39 

*Monk Seal (Monzuclzus tropicalk) ...................... 41 

Fur Seal (Arctoceplzalus townciendi) ................... 42 

onk Seal (Monaclzus schauinslartdi) ................... 43 

hem) Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) ................. 47 

iver Winter-Run Chinook Salmon (01zcorlzynzclzu.s 

ts~zawyrsc~zo) ........................................... 52 

eon (Acipenser brevirostrum) ..................... 55 
lntrodu 

Backgr 

Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery Program 

FY 1989-1 991 

ti0n During the 1988 reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(ESA), an' amendment was added to the Act requiring the Secretaries of 

Commerce and the Interior to prepare a biennial report "on the status of 

efforts to develop and implement recovery plans for all species listed 

pursuant to this section and on the status of all species for which such 

plans have been developed." 

To satisfy this reporting requirement, a summary of recovery efforts fix 

species under National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) jurisdiction :ior 

the period of 1989 through 1991 has been prepared Included in this 

repon is the most current species status and trends information available. 

dund Comprehensive Federal efforts to protect endangered and threatened 

species began with the passage of the Endangered Species Preservation 

Act of 1966. The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 

strengthened the initial provisions. International conservation efforts 

mandated under the 1969 Act provided the impetus for .the 1973 

Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 

(CITES). Congress recognized that a more comprehensive effort than1 

authorized in these Acts was needed in order to avoid continued 1osse.s 

of species. Passage of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 enllanced 

Federal abilities to protect endangered species and to develop measurts 

for their recovery. 

During each reauthorization of the Act, amendments have been added 

reflecting experience gained in administering its provisions. The 197:B 

amendments contained a requirement that the U.S. Elsh and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) in the Department of the Interior and the NMFS in 

the Department of Commerce develop and implement recovery plans for 

species under their jurisdiction. 

On February 9, 1987, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries 

and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment of the House ComrnjStee 

on Merchant Marine and Fisheries requested a General Accounting 

Office (GAO) evaluation of progress by NMFS and USFWS in the 

implementation of domestic recovery programs. nus study was 

completed in 1988. The report stated that recovery plans had not been 

prepared for many listed species, and responsible agencies had not 
always implemented completed recovery plans. Neither USFWS nor 

NMFS had tracking mechanisms for updating the status of species. As a 

partial result of this study, Congress amended the ESA in 1988 requiring 

NMFS and USFWS to prepare biennial reporls summarizing recovery 

efforts. 

Endangered 

Status oif 

Species Act Biennial Report 

Recovery Program - N 1989-1991 - 

Recov ry 

Priorit f es 

I 

Speci€ts 

Recovery 

Tracki 

Syster? 

Plans ?he ESA requires the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior to 

develop and in~plement recovery plans unless they find that such pl:ms 

will not promote the conservation of the species. Although the Act does 

not differentiate between domestic and foreign species in this regard, 

specific management actions are often not feasible for species whose 

range is either totally.or primarily outside of U.S. jurisdiction. The 

range of a number of listed marine species is totally outside U.S. 

jurisdiction. In other cases, the range in ateas under the jurisdiction of 

the United States is limited, and management actions in the U.S. portion 

'of their range are not likely to contribute to recovery. Therefore, NMFS 

has focused recovery plans to those species under U.S. jurisdiction. 

- 

One of the recommendations of the GAO study was (hat NMFS and 

Plan USFWS develop a means of tracking status of stocks and 

ig impleme~tation of recovery plans. NMFS is developing an information 

management system that will track: (1) the status of endangered or 

threatened marine species; (2) the development and implementation of 

recovery plans to promote survival of species; and (3) expenditures and 

resources utilized in these efforts. This system is expected to be 

completed in FY 1992. 

The Act also requires that priorities be established for development of 

recovery plans. On June 15, 1990, NMFS published its method of 

determining priorities in the Federal Register (55 FR 24296). Priorities 

are based on three criteria: magnitude of threat, recovery potential, :md 

conflict with construction or other developmental projects or other forms 

of economic activity. 

The first criterion, magnitude of threat is divided into three categories: , 

high, moderate, and low. A high designation means extinction is almost 

certain in the immediate future because of a rapid population decline or 

habitat destruction. Moderate means the specics will not face extint:tion 

if recovery is temporarily delayed, although there is a continuing 

population decline or threat to its habitat. Taxa jn the low category are 

rare or are facing a population decline wl~ch may he a short-tcrm, selfcorrecting fluctuation, or the impacts of threats to the species' habiclt 

are not fully known. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery Program - ff 1989-1!39f 

The second criterion, recovery potential, assures that resources are used 

in the most cost-effective manner within each magnitude of threat 

ranking. Priority for preparing and implementing recovery plans wou1.d 

go to species with the greatest potential for success. Recovery potential 

is based on how well biological and ecological limiting factors and 

threats to the species' existence are understood, and the extent and 

feasibility of necessary management .actions. A species has a high 

recovery potential if the limiting factors and threats to the species are 

well understood, and the needed management actions are known and 

have a high probability of success. A species has a low-to- moderate 

recovery potential if the limiting fac€ors or threats to thespecies-are 

poorly understood or if the needed management actions are not known, 

are cost-prohibitive, or are experimental with an uncertain probability of 

success. 

The third criterion reflects the Act's requirement that recovery priority 

be given to those species that are, or may be, in conflict with 

construction or oU1er developmental projects or other forms of econonlic 

activity. Thus, species judged as being in conflict with such activities 

will be given higher priority for recovery plan development and 

implementation than nonconflict species within the same magnitude of 

threatfrecovery potential ranking. 

A Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in the Atlantic was approved by the 

.4ssistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS, on September 19, 1984. 

This plan included the green, hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, leatherback arid 

Actions loggerhead sea turtles, and a recovery plan in the context of internationalcooperation for the olive ridley sea turtle. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service share responsibility for management of sea turtles. To better 

coordinate recovery efforts, both Services recognized the need to update 

the original recovery plan and to consider new biological information 

that had become available since the first plan was developed. To 

accomplish these objectives, a LoggerheadlGreen Turtle Recovery Team, 

a HawksbilVLeatherback Recovery Team, and a Kemp's Ridley 

Recovery Team were established in 1989. The teams were assigned the 

task of developing separate plans for each species to account for the 

uniqueness of the species and provide a greater focus to recovery efforts. 

Draft revised recovery plans have been completed for the Atlantic 

populatjons of green, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead sea 

turtles. The draft revised recovery plan for the Atlantic population of 

hawksbill sea turtles is in preparation. 
Endangerec 

Status of R8 

Species Act Biennial Report 

:overy Program - FY 1989-1991 - 

A final recovery for the Hawaiian monk seal was completed in 

March 1983. In 1989, a recovery team was reconstituted to review the 

initial recovery plan and to make recommendations for revisions. 

Instead of updating the initial plan, the team has recommended attaching 

the results of its program review to the original plan. 

Draft recovery plans have been completed for two of the eight whales 

species. The major cause of the decline of these species was 

commercial whaling, and prohibitions on their harvest by the 

International Whaling Commission (IWC) have reduced the magnitude 

of the threat Domestic management activities would have .a significant - 

effect on only four of these species: humpback, northern right, gray, and 

bowhead. Significant portions of the life histories of populations of 

these species are in areas under U.S. jurisdiction. Draft recovery plans 

have been prepared for the humpback and northern right whales. The 

most recent status report indicates that the population of gray whales off 

the west coast h& recovered, and a recovery plan will not be prepared. 

A draft recovery plan has also been prepared for the Steller sea lion. A 

final recovery plan should be in place for this species by the end of 

1991. 

Draft recovery plans are being prepared for the shortnose sturgeonmd 

the Sacramento River winter-run population of chinook salmon. 

In addition to the four whale species for which recovery plans are a low 

priority, recovery plans for the Guadalupe fur seal and the Carib.bean 

monk seal are considered to he low priorities. The Caribbean monk se:al 

is probably extinct. ?he major portion of the range of the Guadalupe 

fur seal is outside of U.S. jurisdiction, and there is no evidence that 

activities in areas subject to domestic management are likely to 

jeopardize the species. 

In addition to conducting Section 7 consultations on all of the listed 

species, NMFS has funded recovery activities for all of the species for 

which development,of recovery .plans is a priority. The activities are . 

discussed in the portion of the report covering the individual species. It 

should be noted, however, that even for species without final recovery 

plans, the agency has identified information needs and conducted 

projects consistent with either draft recovery plans or identified 

priorities. These projects have covered such subjects as monitoring 

populations, determining basic biological parameters, and habitat 

requirements. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery Program - N 1989-1991 - 

Some recovery actions can be applied to more than one species. In the 

northeast censusing operations have included fin, humpback, and 

northern right whale populations. Studies of-habitat needs have also 

included all three of the species. 

Similarly, some of the sea turtle projects have not been species specific. 

NMFS has provided funding to analyze stranding trends and causes andl 

to determine the effects of pollution on sea turtles generally. Perhaps 

the best example of a recovery action that affects more than one species 

is the effort made to reduce sea turtle mortality in the shrimp fishery. 

NMFS has funded projects for We Excluder Device ('JED) technology 

transfer, evaluation, and certification; economic analysis of TEDs; 

evaluation of tow times; and economic analysis of EDs. 
Species Act Biennial Report 

very Program - FY 1989-1991 , - 

Domestic Endangered and Threatened 

Species Under NMFS Jurisdication 

Species 

-- -- 

Status Recovery Plan 

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) ............... E ....... No 

Bowhead whale (Balaena rnysticetus) .............. E ....... No 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) ................ E ....... No 

Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustcrs) ................ E ....... No 

Humphack whale (Megaptera novaeungline) ......... E ....... Draft 

Northern right whale (Eubaherta glacialis) .......... E ....... Draft 

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) ................ E ....... No 

Sperm whale (Pltyseter catodort) .................. E ....... No 

Sea Tu I€?s Green turtlc (Cl~elonia mydas) ................... E./Th ..... Yes 

........... ....... n 1 

Hawksbill turtle (Eretmockelys inibricala) E Yes 

........... ....... 

1 

Leatherback turtlc (Dennochelys conacea) E Yes 1 

Logger1~a.d turtle (Caretta caretta) Th Yes 1 ................ ...... Kemp's ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kernpi) ........... E ....... Yes 1 

Olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) ........... E ....... Yes 1 

ds Caribbean monk seal (Monachus tropicalis) .......... E ....... No 

........ ...... 

....... ....... 

Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) Th No 

Hawaiian monk seal (Monac~~us schauinslandi) E Yes 

Stellcr (Northern) sea lion (Ewnetopias jubatus) ....... Th ...... Draft 

Fish ......................................... Sacramento River 

(Oncorhynckus tsltawytscha) .................... Th ...... NO^ 

Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrunl) ......... E ....... NO* 

I Final d ecovery Plan for Atlantic populations only. Pacific Basin Recovery Plan is in preparation. 

Draft Recovery Plan is in preparation. 
A. Reco 

Team / F 

Status 

B. Reca 

Actions 

lmpleme 

C. Spec 

1 Status / 

Endangered Species Act Biennial Repa'rt 

Status of Recovery Program - N 1989-19!?1 

- 

The Btue Whale 

(Balaenoptera musculus) 

erY No recovery plan for this species has been prepared, nor has a recovery 

an team been established. Tl~e principal cause of the decline in blue whales 

was commercial whaling, and prohibitions on their harvest by IWC have 

reduced the magnitude of the threat. No activities in waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States are known to be adversely affecting 

recovery of this species at the present-time. Therefore, management . 

activities in the U.S. portion of its range are not likely to contribute 

substantial1 y to recovery. 

- -- 

erY Through interagency coordination under Section 7 of the ESA, the . 

Plan species is protected from Federal actions that are likely to jeopardize the 

tation species. No other specific actions necessar). for the recover)' of thc 

species have been identified, and no direct recovery actions are being 

implemented. 

?S The blue whale was listed as endangered throughout its range on June :2, 

rends 1970. Blue whales are severely depleted in all oceans of the world. 

llle status of blue whales in the northern hemisphere is unknown. 

Sightings have increased off central California and on the Pacific side of 

Mexico and Central America, but these increases may be attributable to 

increased observer effort rather than trends in abundance. Blue whales 

have been studied in Ule Gulf of California, Mexico and the Gulf of St 

Lawrence, Canada, but trends in abundance were not apparent. An 

increasing trend in abundance of 5.1 percent was reported between 1979 

and 1988 west of Iceland. L 

The status of blue whales in the soutllern hemisphere is uncertain. Only 

. seven sightings of calves have been made south of 60" S. since 1965. 

An analysis of 6 years of sightings in Antarctic waters conducted under 

the auspices of the IWC suggests that blue whales may not be 

recovering from commercial whaling. However, the consensus of 

opinion on abundance of blue whales in the Antarctic is that stocks are 

certainly larger than 500, and considerably larger for the Southern 

Oceans. 
The Bowhead Whale 

Endangerec 

Status of 

(Balaena 'mys ticetus) 

Species Act Biennial Report 

R(ecovery Program - N 1989-1991 

- 

A. 

Team / 

Status 

Although a recovery plan has not been prepared, .NMFS has sponsored a 

number of basic biological studies to gain information on this species. 

During the last 2 years, aerial surveys have been conducted to determiine 

population abundance, and studies have been conducted on population 

dynamics and life history. During 1990, an analysis of data accumula.ted 

between 1984 and 1990.on life history and ecology was initiated. 

- 

Recovery No recovery plan for this species has been prepared, nor has a recovery 

Plan team been established. The principal cause of the decline in bowhead 

whales was commercial whaling;and the IWC has placed a prohibitio~l 

on commercial harvest of this species. Although there is a limited 

subsistence take, the magnitude of the threat from direct takes is low. 

Exploitation of energy resources within its range may present a conflict 

with this species. 

B. 

Actions 

Implementation 

C. species 

Status I Trends 

- 

Recovery Through interagency coordination under Section 7 of the ESA, the 

/ Plan species is protected from Federal actions that are likely to jeopardize the 

species. Regulations that allow a take of bowhead whales incidental to 

energy exploration in the Arctic include requirements to monitor the 

effects of these activities on bowhead whales. Research on the reaction 

of whales to drilling noise has been required. 

The bowhead whale was listed as endangered throughout its range on 

June 2, 1970. The status of the bowhead whale stocks in the Okhotsk: 

Sea (North Pacific Ocean), and Spitsbergen-East Greenland, Davis 

Strait-Bafin Bay, and Hudson Bay-Foxe Basin (North Atlantic Ocean), 

is unknown. Infrequent sightings of bowheads in these areas in recent 

years suggest that these stocks are very small, perhaps in the low 

hundreds. 

The western Arctic stock of bowheads in the Bering, Chukchi, and 

Beaufort Seas has inaeased since commercial whalinz ended in aboul: 

1914, but at an unknown rate. Ice-bawd census sightings data collccl.cd 

between 1978 and 1988 suggest that the current rate. of population 

growth is approximately 3.1 percent per year. The present stock size is 

estimated to be 7,800 animals. The initial stock size in 1148 is 

estimated to have been 18,000-20,000. Since &e late 1970s, the take of 

bowhead whales by Alaskan Eskimos (including whales struck but lo:;[) 

has been 25-40 animals per year. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery Program - N 1989-1991' 

The Fin Whale 

~ (Balaenoptera physalus) 

B. Recov ry P Tluough interagency coordination under Section 7 of the ESA, the 

.Actions / Ian species is protected from Federal actions that are likely to jeopardize the 

lmplemen ation species. 

A. Recovery 

Team / Pk¶n 

Status 

Although a recovery plan has not been prepared, NMFS has sponsored 

research during the last 2 years off the coast of New England to 

determine species abundance and habitat utilization as part of general 

surveys of whale species in the area. 

I 

No recovery plan for this species has been prepared, nor has a recovery 

tcam bccn cstablishcd. Thc principal cause of the decline in fin whales 

was commercial whaling, and prohibitions on their harvest by the IWC 

have reduced the magnitude of the threat Although fin whales are 

known to compete with commercial fisheries for common prey species 

such as herring, anchovies, pollock, and capelin. this interaction will 

only be a problem if these prey species are severely overfished or if 

incidental take by fishing gear poses a threat. Management activities in 

the U.S. portion of the species' range could only make a minimal 

contribution to species recovery. 

The fin whale was listed as endangered throughout its range on June 2, 

1970. The status of stocks of fin whales is unknown, but the species 

Status 1 Trends was severely depleted by commercial whaling activities. In this century., 

over 700,000 animals were landed in all oceans of the world. The 

present world population estimate is 120,000 individuals. While the 

species is depleted relative to historical levels, it is considered abundant 

compared to other large whale species. No trend analyses for this 

species are available. 
Species Act Biennial Report 

very Program - N 1989-1991 

- 

The Gray Whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus) 

r A. Re 0very No recovery plan for this species has been prepared, nor has a recovery 

Team / Plan team been established. Preparation of a recovery plan for this species is 

Status not considered of high priority because the species appears to have Eully 

recovered. from commercial whaling. 

lluough interagency coordination under Section 7 of the ESA, the 

species is protected from Federal actions that might adversely affect 

recovery. in 1989, NMFS sponsored research to update estimates of' 

population abundance. 

C. species 

Status 1 Trends 

The gray whale was listed as endangered throughout its range on June 2, 

1970. Two stocks of gray whales occur in the North Pacific Ocean. 

The status of the western North Pacific (Korean) stock of gray whales is 

uncertain, but is thought to be severely depleted. The eastern North 

Pacific (California) stock of gray whales has fully recovered and is ;it or 

above its initial stock size. 'Ihis stock is increasing at a rate of 3.2 

percent per year. The stock has increased in spite of direct competition 

with humans for coasd habitat, and a subsistence catch of 167 whales 

per year (5,006 total) by the Soviet Union during the past 30 years. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery Program - N 1989-1991 

The Humpback Whale 

~ (Megaptera no vaeangliae) 

A. Rec 

Team 1 

Status 

During 198811989, the Humpback Whale.Recovery Team developed a 

draft recovery plan, which was distributed to the public for comment in 

October 1989. Comments were received from Federal and state 

government agencies, academia, scientific and environmental 

communities and the public. .The recovery team reviewed and 

incorporated comments received and submitted a draft final plan to 

NMFS. NMFS is reviewing the draft and anticipates final approval in 

Novemher 1991. Once it is approved, the plan will be printed and 

distributed to the public. 

1 The major actions recommended in the plan are listed below: 

1. Maintain and Enhance Habitats Used by Humpback 

Whales Currently or Historically. 

~ 4 Identify and designate critical habitat. 

4 Examine history of occupancy and potential for repopulation 

of important habitats. 

4 Identify and minimize possible adverse impacts of human 

activities and pollution on important habitat. 

4 Monitor parasite load, biotoxins and anthropogenic 

contaminant level in tissues of whales and prey. 

1 4 Provide adequate nutrition. 

+ Develop Federal-state-local partnerships for protecting 

humpback whale habitats. 

4 Encourage multinational cooperation to protect humpback 

whale habitats. 
4 Continue prohibition on commercial hunting of humpback 

whales. 

Endangered 

Status of 

+ Continue to identify sources and rates of human-induced 

injury and mortality and use information to reduce those 

factors. 

Species Act Biennial Report 

Recovery Program - N 1989-1991 

- 

2. Identify and Reduce Direct Human-Related Injury and' 

Mortality. 

~ 3. Measure and Monitor Key Population Parameters. 

1 + Estimate and reevaluate historic population sizes. 

+ Improve current population estimates by evaluating and 

reanalyzing existing data with improved techniques. 

+ Systematize sampling methods for estimating population 

size. 

+ Maintain .and develop facilities for obtaining, archiving, and 

analyzing data on humpback whales. 

~. + Perform new field studies on population dynamics. 

~ + Assess population status and trends. 

4. Improve Administration and Coordination of Recovery 

Program for Humpback Whales. 

1 + Select Director and implement recovery plan. 

1 + Improve governmental coordination. 

~ + Improve coordination with non-governmental agencies. 

+ Expand or reconstitute a recovery implenlentation team, 

update the recovery plan #and prepare comprellensive work 

plans for each stock. 

+ Collect and archive available information on humpback 

whales, including translation of foreign literature. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery Program - N 1989-1991 

- 

4 Improve process for obtaining permits to do research on 

marine mammals and make appropriate changes. 

~ 4 Maintain coordination with other recovery programs. 

~ 4 Reassess, as appropriate, the goals for population recovery. 

4 Develop educational materials in support of recovery plan 

objectives. 

4 ?he Humpback Whale Recovery Plan recommends actions 

designed to help the humpback whale populations to grow to 

at least 60 percent of their pre-whaling abundance and to 

expand into formerly occupied ranges. Since it is not 

possible to accurately estimate pre-hunting population sizes, 

an interim goal that populations double in size within the 

next 20 years is recommended. The plan contains four 

major objectives: (1) maintain and enhance habitat; (2) 

identify and reduce human-related mortality, injury and 

disturbance; (3) measue and monitor key population 

parameters to determine if recommended actions are 

successful; and (4) improve administration and coordination - 

of the overall recovery effort for this species. 

4 The plan summarizes the team's understanding of the status 

of those humpback whale populations wholly or partly under 

U.S. jurisdiction. It recommends management activities to 

assist those and other populations to increase in numbers, 

and research activities to measure rates of population 

change. It emphasizes two major ways to achieve 

population growth: (1) protection of habitats and (2) 

reduction of human activities that interfere with annual life 

cycle processes. 

Specific actions necessary for the recovery of the species have been 

identified, and many direct recovery actions are being implemented. 

During the last 2 years, projects have included: maintenance of an 

individual photo-identification system on both coasts so that such things 

as reproductive rates can be determined; a project to estimate abundancie 

on the east coast; a project to determine genetic relationslups among 

whales; and a study of habitat requirements and utilization. Proposed 

B. Recovery 

Actions / 

Implementation 

- 

Through interagency coordination under Section 7 of the ESA, the 

Plan species is protected from Federal actions that are likely to jeopardize the 

species. 
Species Act Biennial Report 

Program - N 1989-1991 

regulations on wlrdewatching designed to reduce harassment will be 

published in tile Federal Register by the end of 1991. 

The humpback whale was listed as endangered throughout its range cln 

June 2, 1970. As a species. humpback whales are probably the fourtlh 

most numerically depleted large cetacean worldwide, trailing the right 

whale (Eubalacna glacialis), blue whale (Balaenontera musculus), ancl 

bowhead whale (Balaena mvsticetus). Prior to commercial whaling the 

worldwide population is thought to have been in excess of 125,000. 

American whalers alone killed 44,164 - 18,212 humpbacks between 

1805-1907 and the total North Pacific kill was estimated to be about 

28,000. Today, perhaps no more than 10,000 to 12,000 exist, about 10 

percent of the estimated initial abundance. 

Although hunting caused the major decline in all humpback whale 

populations, they are no longer endangered by that activity. However, 

humphack whales occur adjacent to human population centers and ane 

affected by human activities throughout their range. Both habitat and 

prey are affected by human-induced factors that could impede recove.ry. 

These factors include subsistence hunting, incidental entrapment or 

entanglement in fishing gear, collision with ships, and disturbance or 

displacement caused by noise and other factors associated withdipping, 

recreational boating, high-speed thrill craft, whale watching or air traffic. 

Introduction and/or persistence of pollutants and pathogens from waste 

disposa1;~disturbance andlor pollution from oil, gas or other mineral 

exploration and production; habitat degradation or loss associated with 

coastal development; and competition with fisheries for prey. species 

may also impact the whales. These factors could affect individual 

reproductive success, alter survival. and/or limit availability of needed 

habitat. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Reporrt 

Status of Recovery Program - N 1989-199;f 

The Northern Right Whale 

(Eobalaena glacialis) 

~p -- 

The Northern Right Whale Recovery Team was appointed in July 1987. 

A Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale was distributed for 

Status public comment in February 1990. Comments were received from 

Federal, state and local governments, conservation .organizations, and 

private individuals. Appropriate comments have been incorporated into 

the plan. The revised plan will be submitted for agency review. 

I 

I The draft recovery plan recommends the following actions: 

1. Reduce or eliminate injury or mortality caused by ship 

collision. 

4 Identify the causes of ship collisions with northern right 

whales and implement measures to reduce ship collisions. 

2. Reduce or eliminate .injury and mortality caused by 

fisheries and fishing gear. 

4 Develop or modify fishing gear to reduce the threat of 

entrapment or entanglement. 

4 Implement appropriate seasonal or geographic regulations .for 

use of certain fishing gear in northern right whale habitats. 

4 Improve procedures for reporting and rescuing northern right . 

whales entangled in fishing gear. 

3. Protect habitats essential to the survival and recovery of 

the northern right whale. 

4 Characterize habitats of special importance to the northern 

right whale and protect habitats already known to be of 

special importance to the northern right whale. 

4 Improve knowledge of how northern right whales utilize 

their habitats. 

I 

4 Identify other habitats used by the northern right whale and 

protect these newly discovered habitats. 
4 Dcterminc tlic effects of whale watching on northern right 

whales and propose regulations as necessary. 

~ndan~ered 

Status of 

4 Establish a program to improve the educational aspects of 

whale watching. 

Species Act Biennial Report 

Rlecovery Program - N 1989-1991 - 

4. Minimize effects of vessel disturbance. 

+ ' Implement appropriate controls on other vessel activities. 

5. Continue international ban on hunting and other 

directed take. 

6. Monitor the population size and trends in abundance of 

the northern right whale. 

4 Maintain the northern right whale photo-identification 

catalog and sighting database. 

1 + Continue a program to monitor annual reproductive success. 

+ Design and implement other programs for population 

monitoring: 

+ Identify pre-exploitation population numbers for the westwn 

North Atlantic stock. 

+ Encourage development of new technology useful for 

population monitoring. 

7. Maximize efforts to free entangled or stranded northern 

right whales and acquire scientific information from 

dead specimens. 

+ Improve and maintain the system for reporting stranded c~r, 

distressed northern right whales. 

+ Develop an improved program for handling live stranded or 

distressed northern tight whales. 

4 Improve the existing program to maximize data collected 

from dead northern right whales. 
B. Reco 

Actions l 

lmpleme~ 

C. Speci 

Status 1 ' 

Endangered Species Act Biennial Repott 

Status of Recovery Program - FY 1989-1991 

+ Establish or identify funding sources for emergency rescue 

and rehabilitation efforts. 

- 

erY Through interagency coordination under Section 7 of the ESA, northern 

Plan right wllales are protected from Federal actions that might jeopardize the 

tation species. A portion of the recommended recovery actions is being 

implemented through the section 7 (Interagency Cooperation) 

consultation process. Dredge projects along the southeast coast are 

required to have observers on board to watch for northern right whales 

when the dredges are transiting to and from spoil dump sites. The 

designation of EPA dump sites are also subject to consultation, as are 

Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas activities. 

NMFS has been petitioned by the recovery team to designate three areas 

along the Eastern Seaboard (Cape Cod Bay, Great South Channel, and 

the calving ground off the Florida/Georgia coast) as critical habitat for 

the northern risht whale. The petition was determined to contain 

substantial information. Comments and further information were 

solicited from the public in July 1990. The comments received arc 

being reviewed and a final determination on the petition will be made in 

1991. 

Although a final recovery plan has not been approved, a number of 

rewvery actions identified in the draft recovery plan..have been 

implemented during the last 2 years. Research has been conducted on 

population dynamics and migration patterns. The agency has also 

provided funding for the maintenance of an individual photoidentification system. Research has also been conducted on habitat 

requirements and utilization. Proposed regulations on whale watching 

designed to reduce harassment will be published in the Federal Registler 

by the end of 199 1. 

S The northern right whale was listed as endangered throughout its range 

rends on June 2, 1970. Current estimates of the northern right whale 

populations indicate that there are no more than 600 individuals, with 

300-350.found in the North Atlantic Ocean and 250-300 in the North 

Pacific Ocean. There are no other known northern right whale 

populations. 

Commercial whaling was the major reason for the decline of the 

northern right whale. For a period that started more than 800 years ago 

and lasted well into the 20th century, the species was hunted 

extensively, primarily for its oil and baleen plates. The animal's 

commercially valuable products, slow swimming speed, the characteris;tic 
Endangc 

Status c 

Observers noted that the northern right whale was in trouble as early as 

the 19th century. By 1935, the species had declined to such low 

numbers that the League of Nations was able to get most whaling 

nations to agree to stop hunting the northern right whale. Since that 

time, hunting or other purposeful take has been responsible for the death 

of only a few additional animals, and is no longer a serious threat to thc 

species. 

~f 

The northern right whale remains in a precarious position because a 

combination of human actions and natural forces appears to be 

preventing significant increases in the number of animals. The 

preponderance of evidence suggests that certain human actions are 

significantly impeding the recovery of this species. Principal among 

these are (in decreasing order of importance) ship 

collisions, entanglement in certain types of fishing gear, degradation of 

the northern right whale's habitat (especially the areas where they feed), 

and disturbance. 

xed Species Act Biennial Report 

Recovery Program - M 1989-1991 

- 

of floating when dead, and generally coastal distribution combined to 

make this whalc the "righl" whale to kill - hence its common name. 

Hunting was largely resuicrcd to the eastern north Atlantic at first. As 

that population was depletcd and knowledge.of the world's oceans 

increased, hunting pressure shifted to the western north Atlantic and then 

to the Pacific, eventually encompassing the species' entire range. 

There is reason to believe that if the human actions having a negative 

effect on the species were reduced or eliminated, the chance for recnvery 

would be significantly improved. Limits of knowledge of the genetic 

restrictions imposed upon the species by its present low numbers prevent 

NMFS from declaring with certainty that, even if all adverse affects 

caused by humans were eliminated, the northern right whale would 

recover. In any case, recover). will be not he quick. Even in the best of 

circumstances, rapid recovery cannot be anticipated. It is not expected 

that the northern right whale will increaqe in numbers in the next 75 

years to a point where effom can be relaxed. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery Program - FY 1989-1991 

The Sei Whale 

(Balaenoptera borealis) 

Through interagency coordination under Section 7 of the ESA, sei ' 

whales are protected from Federal actions that are likely to jeopardize 

the species. No other specific actions necessary for the recovery of thc 

species have been identified, and no direct recovery actions are being 

A. Recovery 

Team / 

Status 

1 implemented. 

No recovery plan for this species has been prepared, nor has a recovery 

Plan team been established. The principal cause of the decline in sei whales 

was commercial whaling, and prohibitions on their harvest by the IWC 

have reduced the magnitude of the threat, No activities in waters under 

U.S. jurisdiction are known to be adversely affecting recovery of this 

species at the present time. ?herefore, management activities in the 

U.S. portion of its range are not likely to contribute substantially to 

recovery. 

Status spec+S I rends 

?he sei whale was listed as endangered throughout its range on June 2, 

1970. The status and recovery of sei whales is unknown anywhere in 

the world. 'Tile species was severely depleted by commercial whaling 

primwily in the 1950s-1970s. Although the sei whale does.not appear 

to be in immediate danger of extinction, no relevant new informa;tion on 

any stock is available. 
Species Act Biennial Report EndangereL Status of R very Program - N 1989-1991 

The Sperm Whale 

(Physeter catodon) 

No recovery plan for this species has been prepared, nor has a recovery. 

team been established. The principal cause of the decline in sperm 

Status whales was commercial whaling, and prohibitions on their harvest by the 

IWC have reduced the magnitude of the threat. No activities in waters 

under U.S. jurisdiction are known to be adversely affecting recovery of 

this species at the present time. Therefore, management activities in the 

U.S. portion of its range are not likely to contribute substantially to 

recovery. 

implemented. 

B. 

Actions 

lmplem 

- 

Recovery lluough interagency coordination under Section 7 of the ESA, sperm 

I Plan whales are protected from Federal actions that are likely to jeopardize: 

mtation the species. No other specific actions necessary for the recovery of the 

species have been identified, and no direct recovery actions are being 

over eight times greater than the combined total of the other seven large 

whale species. On the basis of total abundance, the species is not in 

danger of extinction, nor is it threatened with becoming endangered in 

the foreseeable future. 

C. Species 

Status / 

- 

'Ihe sperm whale was listed as endangered throughout its range on June 

Trends 2, 1970. During the past 2 centuries, commercial whalers took about 

1,000,000 sperm whales. Despite this high level of take, the sperm 

whale remains the most abundant of the large whale species. The 

present world abundance is estimated at 2,000,000 individuals, which is 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Reporl: 

Status of Recovery Program - N 1989-19911 

The Green Turtle 

(Chelonia mydas) 

The draft of the revised Atlantic recovery plan recommends the 

following actions: 

A. Recovery 

Team 1 Plan 

Status 

~ 1. Protect and manage nesting habitat. 

A recovery plan for the Atlantic population of the green sea turtle was 

approved in September 1984. A new recovery team was established in 

1989 to revise the plan. In September 1990, the draft Green Turtle 

Recovery'Plan for the Atlantic was completed and made available for 

public comment. Comments on the recovery plan have been provided tc) 

the recovery team, and appropriate revisions have been completed. In 

1991, a recovery team for the Pacific Basin was established. 

4 Ensure that beach nourishment projects are compatible with 

maintaining good quality nesting habitat. 

+ Prevent degradation of nesting habitat from seawalls, 

revetments, sand bags, sand fences, or other erosion control 

measures. 

+ Acquire or otherwise ensure the long-term protection of key 

nesting beaches. 

+ Remove exotic vegetation and prevent its spread to nesting 

beaches. 

1 2. Protect marine habitat. 

1 + Identify important habitat. 

4 Prevent degradation and improve water quality of important 

turtle habitat. 

+ Prevent destruction of habitat from fishing gears and vessel 

anchoring. 

4 Prevent destruction of marine habitat from oil and gas 

activities. 
1 + Restore important foraging habitats. 

.Endangered 

Status of 

1 3. Protect and manage populations on nesting beaches. 

Species Act Biennial Report 

Recovery Program - FY 1989-1991 

- 

.+ Prcvcnt dcsmction of habitat from dredging activities. 

+ Monitor trends in nesting activity by means of standardized 

surveys. 

+ Evaluate 'nest success and implement appropriate nest 

protection measures. 

4 Determine influence of factors such as tidal inundation anld 

foot traffic on hatching success. 

4 Reduce effects of artificial lighting on hatchlings and nesting 

females. 

+ Ensure beach nourishment and coastal construction activities 

are planned to avoid disruption of nesting and hatching 

activities. 

+ Ensure law enforcement activities eliminate poaching and 

harassment. 

+ Determine natural hatchling sex ratios. 

+ Define geographical boundaries of breeding aggregations. 

4. Protect and manage populations in the marine 

environment. 

+ Determine green turtle distribution, abundance and status in 

the marine environment. 

+ Monitor and reduce mortality from commercial and 

recreational fisheries. 

+ Monitor and reduce mortality from dredging activities. 

4 Monitor and prevent adverse impacts from oiI and gas 

activities. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Repo~t 

Status of Recovery Program - N 1989-1991 

- 

+ Reduce impacts from entanglement and ingestion of 

persistent marine debris. 

+ Maintain law enforcement efforts to reduce poaching in 

U.S. waters. 

I + Determine etiology of fibropapillomatosis. 

+ ' Centralize administration and coordination of tagging 

programs. 

I + Ensure proper care of sea turtles in captivity. 

B. Reco ery X Tluough interagency coordination under Section 7 of the ESA, green sea 

Actions Plan turtles are protected from Federal actions that are likely to jeopardize the 

Impleme tation species. Minerals Management Service oil and gas activities, U.S. Arniy 

Corps of Engineers oil and gas and dredging activities, U.S. Navy 

1 explosive testing programs, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - designations.of dredged material disposal sites have been subject to 

consultations. 

Although the revised recovery plan has not been finalized, many of the 

tasks identified in the original plan and identified in the revised draft 

have been initiated in the last 2 years. NMFS has made a major effort 

to reduce greeri turtle mortality in the shrimp fishery. During 1989, 

regulations requiring the use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) In 

certain areas became effective. Resources have also been devoted to 

TED evaluations and certification, TED technology transfer, economic 

evaluation of TEDs, and research on tow times. 

NMFS has provided the resources to collect a range of basic biological 

information on sea turtles. It is supporting the Marine Turtle 

Cooperative Tagging Program and analyzing tag-recapture data Proje'cts 

are being conducted to determine species composition, relative 

abundance, and seasonal disuibution .of sea. turtles in the inshore waters . 

(?f North Carolina and South Carolina. .A continuing project to 

determine distribution and species composition is being carried out in 

the Cedar Key area of Florida's WSS~ coast. Historically, this area 

supported large aggregations of green sea turtles. A similar study has 

been initiated to determine distribution and sizdspecies composition in 

pelagic watcrs. 
Analyses of sea turtle strandings have been conducted for the purpose: of 

monitoring the level of strandings and possible causes of mortality. 

Endangered 

Status of 

Research has been conducted on the effects of pollutants on sea M1e:s. 

Species Act Biennial Report 

Recovery Program - N 1989-1991 

- 

NMFS lahordtories are conducting research on sea turtle habitat 

utilization in the Gulf of hlexico. The project f<~uses on known sea 

turtle "hor spots." 

In December 1990, NMFS sponsored a workshop on fibropapillomatosis. 

The workshop was set up to review existing knowledge of the disease 

and to develop research priorities in determining the cause of the distze 

and possible methods of reducing the impact of the disease on green 

turtle populations. 

C. Sp cies 3 The green turtle was listed as endangered/threatened on July 28, 19723, 

Status Trends bui populations have continued to decline. Tile breeding populations off 

Florida and the Pacific coast of Mexico are'listed as endangered while . 

all others are threatened. 

Population estimates for the green turtle are unavailable, and trends :we 

particularly difficult to assess because of wide 

year-to-year fluctuations in numbers of nesting females, inaccessibili,ty 

of the early life stage, and long generation time. The number of nests 

has increased on Hutchinson Island, Florida, over the period 1971 - 

1989, although nesting -levels have been low on other. nesting beaches. . - .. 

Populations in Surinam, and Tortuguero, Costa Rica, may be stable, 

although there are insufficient data collected in other areas to confirm a 

trend. The recovery team for the green turtle concluded that the species 

status has not improved appreciably since listing. 

The greatest cause of decline in green turtle populations is commercial 

harvest for eggs and food. Other turtIe parts are used for leather and 

jewelry, and small turtles are sometimes stuffed for curios. Incidental 

catch by commercial shrimp uawlers is a continuing source of mortality 

that adversely affects recovery. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery Program - N 1989-1991 

The Hawksbill Turtle 

( Eretmochelys imbricata) 

A recovery plan for the Atlantic population.of Che hawksbill sea turtle 

was approved in September 1984. A new recovery team was established 

Status in 1989 to revise the plan. The draft of the revision of the recovery 

plan for the Atlantic population is in the final stages of preparation. In 

1991, a recovery team for the Pacific Basin was established. 

Vuough interagency coordination under Section 7 of the ESA, hawksbill 

sea turtles are protected from Federal actions that are likely to jeopardize: 

the species. 

Although the revised recovery plan has not been completed, some 

recovery actions identified in the original plan and being considered in 

the revised plan have been initiated in the last 

2 years. 

In order to reduce the pressure of commercial trade on hawksbill 

populations, the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior utilized the 

Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967. On 

March, 20, 1991, Japan was certified as engaging. in .activities that 

diminish the effectiveness of CITES. The Pelly amendment prov,ides 

that upon receipt of such a certification, -the President may prohibit the 

importation of all or some wildlife products from the offending country. 

Subsequently, Japan announced on June 19, 1991, that it would end all 

trade in hawksbill sea turtles by the end of 1992 and withdraw its 

CITES reservation for hawksbills on July 1, 1994. 

NMFS is involved with protecting nesting beaches and conducting 

surveys on primary hawksbill nesting areas in the Caribbean. 

NMFS has made a major effort to reduce hawksbill turtle mortality in 

the shrimp fishery. During 1989, regulations requiring the use of TEDs 

in certain areas became effective. Resources have also been devoted to 

TED evaluations and certification, TED technology transfer. economic 

evaluation of TEDs, and research on tow times. 

NMFS has provided resources to collect a range of basic biological 

information on sea turtles. It is supporting the Marine Turtle 

Cooperative Tagging Program and analyzing tag-recapture data. A stud'y 

is heing conducted to determine distribution and sizelspccies 

composition in pelapic waters. 
NMFS laboratories are conducting research on sea turtle habitat 

utilization in the Gulf of Mexico. The project focuses on known turtle 

"hotspots." 

Endangered 

Status of 

Analyses of sea turtle strandings have been conducted for the purpose of 

monitoring the level of strandings and possible causes of mortality. 

Species Act Biennial Report 

Recovery Program - N 1989-1991 

Research also has been conducted on the effects of pollutants on sea 

turtles. 

- 

The hawksbill sea turtle was listed as endangered throughout its range 

on June 2, 1970. Since the time of listing its status has not changed. 

The hawksbill turtle is a solitary nester. Thus, population trends'or 

estimates are difficult to determine. The decline of nesting populations 

is accepted by most researchers. In 1983, the only known apparent 

stable populations were in Yemen, northeastern Australia, the Red Sea, 

and Oman. Commercial exploitation is the major cause of the continued ... 

decline of the hawksbill sea turtle. There is a continuing demand for the 

hawksbill's shell %.well as other products including leather, oil, 

perfume, and cosmetics. Until the June agreement, Japan had been 

importing -about 20 metric tons of hawksbill shell per year..representing 

approximately 19,000 turtles. The hawksbill shell commands high 

prices (currently.$225/kilogram), a major factor preventing effective 

protection. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Reporl. 

Status of Recovery Program - N 1989-1991' 

The Kemp's Ridley Turtle 

( Lepidochelys kernpi) 

1 ?he draft of the revised identifies the following priorities: 

A. Recovery 

Team / P1.m 

Status 

1. Identify important marine habitat and investigate 

juvenile/subadult habitat use. 

A recovery plan for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle was approved in 

September 1984. A new recovery team was established in 1989 to revise the plan. A draft of the revised recovery plan has been completed 

and was made available for public comment in August 1991. The 

recovery team will incorporate appropriate comments into a final plan. 

2. Protect nesting females and their nests, and increase 

hatchling protection. 

3. Monitor population trends. 

4. Investigate migrations and foraging of adults. 

1 5. Enforce and expand TED regulations. 

6. Prohibit trawling near Rancho Nuevo and promote TED 

use in Mexico. 

~ 7. Maintain sea turtle stranding and salvage network. 

B. ~ecoderv Through interagency coordination under Section 7 of the ESA, Kemp's . 

Actions I plan n ridleys are from Federal actions that are likely to jeopardize 

lmpleme tation the species. Minerals Management Service oil and gas activities, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers oil and gas and dredging activities, U.S. Navy . 

explosive testing programs, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

designations of dredged material disposal sites have been subject to 

consultations. 

Although the revised recovery plan has not been finalized, many of the 

tasks identified in the original plan and identified in the revised draft 

have been initiated in the last 2 years. NMFS has made a major effort 

to reduce Kemp's ridley mortality in the shrimp fishery. During 1989, 

regulations requiring the use of TEDS became effective. Resources hatre 

also been devoted to TED evaluations and certification, TED technolog:y 
Act Biennial Report 

- N 1989-1991 

trdrlsfer, econonlic evaluation of TEDs, and research on tow times. In 

addition, NMFS has providctl technical assistance to the Government of 

Mexico on TED utilization. 

NMFS has provided die resources to collect a range of basic biological 

information on sea turtles. It is supporting the Marine Turtle 

Cooperative Tagging program and analyzing tag-recapture data. 

Technical assistance is being provided to Mexican scientists to evaluate 

tag-recapture data on nesting female Kemp's ridleys. 

Projects are being conducted to determine species composition, relative 

abundance, and seasonal distribution in the inshore waters of North . 

Carolina and South Carolina. A continuing project to determine 

distribution and species composition is being carried out in the Cedar 

Kcy area of Florida's west coast. Historically, this area supported large 

aggregations of Kemp's ridleys. A similar study has been initiated to 

determine distribution and size/species composition in pelagic waters. 

NMFS laboratories are conducting research on sea turtle habitat 

utilization in the Gulf of Mexico. The project focuses on known sea 

turtle "hotspots." Kemp's ridleys are equipped with radio and sonic tags 

in order to determine ranges and residency time within these areas. 

Analyses of sea turtle strandings have been conducted for the purpose: of 

monitoring the level of strandings and possible causes of mortality. 

Research has been conducted on the effects of pollutants on seaturtles. 

In order to attempt to create a second nesting beach at Padre Island, 

Texas, a headstart program has been conducted. A second nesting site 

would reduce the vulnerability of the species. 

The Kemp's ridley was listed as endangered throughout its range on 

ds December 2, 1970, and its status has remained unchanged. The 

population.of Kemp's ridleys fell from an estimated 40,000 nesting 

females in 1947 to an average of slightly over 500 during the last 13 

years. Since 1978 the number of nests have declined at a rate of 

approximately 14 nests per year. Numbers continue to decline despilc 

protection of the Kemp's ridley primary nesting beach. The decline *of 

thlis species was primarily due to human activities including collecuon of 

eggs, fishing for juveniles and adults, killing of adults for nleat an< 

other products, and direct take for indigenous use. In addition to tllese 

sources of mortality. Kemp's ridleys have been subject to ligh levels; of 

incidental take by shrimp trawlers which is believed to have adverseliy 

affected recovery. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery .Program - f3' 1989-1991 

The Leatherback Turtle 

(Dermochelys coriacea) 

A recovery plan for the Atlantic population of the leatherback sea turtle 

was approved in September 1984. A new recovery team was established 

Status in 1989 to develop a revised recovery plan. In January 1991, a draft of 

the revised recovery plan was completed and made available for public 

comment. Comments on the recovery plan have been provided .to the 

recovery team. They made appropriate revisions and are preparing a 

final plan for agency approval. In 1991, a recovery team for the Pacific 

Basin was established. 

The draft of the revised Atlantic recovery plan recommends the 

following actions: 

~ 1. Protect and manage nesting habitat. 

4 Ensure beach replenishment projects are compatible with 

maintaining good quality nesting habitat. 

4 Prevent degradation of msting habitat from seawalls, 

revetments, sand bags, .or other erosion control measures. 

4 Identify and ensure long-term protection of important nesting 

beaches. 

2. Protect marine habitat. 

4 Identify important habitat. 

4 Prevent degradation of habitat from oil and gas 

developments, refining and trans-shipment activities. 

+ Prevent degradation of coastal habitat from industrial and 

sewage effluents. 

4 Identify other threats to marine habitat and take appropriate 

actions. 
3. Protect and manage populations on nesting beaches. 

Predators, poaching, tidal inundation, artificial lighting, 

and human activities on nesting beaches diminish 

reproductive success. 

Endangered 

Status of 

4 Monitor nesting activity trends on important nesting beaches 

with standardized surveys. 

Species Act Biennial Report 

Recovery Program - FY 1989-1991 - 

+ - Evaluate nest success and implement appropriate nest 

protection measures. 

4 Reduce effects of artificial lighting on hatchlings and nesting 

females. 

4 Eliminate vehicular traffic on nesting brdches during nesting 

and hatching season. 

4 Ensure beach replenishment and coastal construction 

activities are planned to avoid disruption of nesting and 

hatching activities. 

~ Prevent waste disposal on nestin2 beaches. 

Ensure adequate law enforcement activities prevent poaching 

and harassment. 

Determine natural hatchling sex ratios at selected nesting 

beaches. 

+ Determine genetic relationship of U.S. Caribbean 

populations to other major nesting populations. 

4. Protect and manage populations in the marine 

environment. 

+ Determine distribution, abundance and status in the marine 

environment. 

+ Monitor and reduce mortality from commercial and 

recreational fisheries. 

+ Prevent oil spills, and monitor and prevent adverse imp:acts 

of oil spills and gas activities. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery Program - N 1989-1991 

+ Reduce impacts from entanglement and ingestion of 

persistent marine debris. 

4 Centralize administration and coordination of tagging 

programs. 

+ Ensure proper care of rehabilitating sea turtles in captivity. 

-- 

B. ~ecovbry Through interagency coordination under Section 7 of the ESA, 

Actions 1 lan P leatherback sea turtles are protected from Federal actions that are likely 

lmplemen ation to jeopardize the species. Minerals Management Service oil and gas 

activities. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oil and gas and dredging 

activities. U.S. Navy explosive testing programs, and U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency designations of dredged material 

disposal sites have been subject to consultations. 

Altllougl~ the revised recovery plan lias nor been finalized, some of dic 

tasks identified in rlle original plan and identified in the revised drafr 

have been initiated. 

NMFS has provided he resources to collect a range of basic biological 

information on sea turtles. It is supporting the Marine Turtle 

Cooperative Tagging Program and analyzing tag-recapture data. Projects 

are being conducted to determine species composition, relative 

abundance, and seasonal distribution of sea turtles in the inshore waters 

of North Carolina and South Carolina. A similar study has been 

initiated to determine distribution and size/species composition in pelagic 

waters. 

Analyses of sea turtle strandings have been conducted for the purpose o:f 

monitoring the levels of strandings and possible causes of mortality. 

Research has been conducted on the effects of pollutants on sea turtles. 

In addition, NMFS has conducted research on the amounts and sources 

of plastic marine debris. 

Tllc leatherback sea turtle was Listed as endangered througliout its range 

on June 2, 1970. Nesting populations for leatherback sea turtles are 

especially difficult to discern because the females frequently shift 

bcaches, and some ncsting populations are strays from larser population< 

located elsewhere. Leatherbacks do not nest frequently enough in the 

United States to assess an accurate trend. The draft recovery plan for 

the leatherback sea turtle concludes that nesting trends in the United 
Species Act Biennial Report 

Status EndangereL) of R very Program - M 1989-1 991 

States appear st;lhle, but the population faces significant threats from 

incidental take in commercial fishcrics and plastics pollution. 

In other parts of the world, populations have declined in Malaysia, Inclia, 

Sri Lanka, Thailand, Trinidad, Tobago, and French Guiana Habitat 

destruction, incidental catch in commercial fisheries, the harvest of eggs 

and flesh are the greatest threats to the survival of the leatherback. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery Program - ff 1989-19Sl1 

- 

The Loggerhead Turtle 

(Caretta caretta) 

- 

A recovery plan for the Atlantic population of the loggerhead sea turtle 

was approved in September 1984. A new recovery team was estab1ishe:d 

Status in 1989 to develop a revised recovery plan. In September 1990, a drafr: 

of the revised recovery plan was completed and made available for 

public comment. Comments on the recovery plan have been provided 1:o 

the recovery team. They made appropriate revisions appropriate 

revisions and are preparing a final plan for agency approval. In 1991, :a 

recovery team for the Pacific Basin was established. 

The draft of the revised Atlantic recovery plan recommends the 

following actions: 

1 1. Protect and manage nesting habitat. 

4 Ensure that beach nourishment projects are compatible witti 

maintaining good quality nesting habitat. 

4 Prevent degradation of nesting habitat from seawalls, 

revetments, sand bags, sand fences, or other erosion control 

measures. 

4 Evaluate and implement measures to enhance important 

nesting habitat where erosion or tidal inundation destroy 

over 40 percent of nests in a typical year. 

4 Acquire or otherwise ensure the long-term protection of 

important nesting beaches. 

4 Remove exotic vegetation and prevent spread to nesting 

beaches. 

1 2. Protect marine habitat. 

1 4 Identify important habitat. 

+ Prevent degradation and improve water quality of importalt 

turtle habitat. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of R b overy Program - FY 1989-1991 

+ Prevent destruction of habitat from fishing gears and vessel~ 

anchoring. 

4 Prevent destruction of marine habitat from oil and gas 

activities. 

+ Prevent destruction of habitat from dredging activities. 

3. Protect and manage populations on nesting beaches. 

4 Monitor trends in nesting activity by means of standardized 

surveys. 

+ Evaluate nest success and implement appropriate nest 

protection measures. 

4 Determine influence of factors such as tidal inundation and 

foot traffic on hatching success. 

+ Reduce effects of artificial lighting on hatchlings and nesting 

females. 

4 Eliminate vehicular traffic during nesting and hatching 

season. 

+ Ensure beach nourishment and coastal construction activities 

are planned to avoid disruption of nesting and hatching 

activities. 

+ Ensure that law enforcement activities eliminate poaching 

and harassment. 

4 Determine natural hatchling sex ratios. 

4 Define geographical boundaries of breeding aggregations. 

4. Protect and manage populations in the marine 

environment. 

+ Determine loggerhead distribution, abundance and status in 

the marine environment. 

-+ Monitor and reduce mortality from commercial and 

recreational fisheries. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery -- Program - N 1989-1991 

+ Monitor and reduce mortality from dredging activities. 

+ Monitor and prevent adverse impacts from oil and gas 

activities. 

+ Reduce impacts from entanglement and ingestion of 

persistent marine debris. 

+ ' Maintain law enforcement efforts to reduce poaching in 

U.S. waters. 

+ Centralize administration and coordination of tagging 

programs. 

+ Ensure proper care of sea turtles in captivity. 

B. Recov ry i Tllrough interagency coordination under Section 7 of the ESA, 

Actions1 Ian loggerhead sea turtles are protected from Federal actions that are.li;kely .. - 

lmplemen ation to jeopardize thespecies. Minerals Management Service oil .and gas 

activities, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oil and gas and dredging 

activities, U.S. Navy explosive testing programs, and U.S. 

1 Environmental Protection Agency designations of dredged material 

1 disposal sites have been subject to consultations. 

Although the revised recovery plan has not been finalized, many of tile 

tasks identified in the original plan and identified in the revised draft 

have been initiated in the last 2 years. NMFS has made a major effort 

to reduce loggerhead sea turtle mortality in the shrimp fishery. During 

1989, regulations requiring the use of TEDs in certain areas became 

effective. Resources have also been devoted to TED evaluations and 

certifications, TED technology transfer, economic evaluation of TEDs, 

and research on tow times. 

NMFS has provided the resources to collect a range of basic biological 

information on sea turtles. It is supporting the Marine Turtle 

Cooperative Tagging Program and analyzing tag-recapture data Projects 

are being conducted to determine species composition, relative 

abundance, and seasonal distribution of sea turtles in the inshore waters 

of North Carolina and South Carolina. A similar study has been 

initiated to determine distribution and sizeispecies composition in pelagic 

waters. 
NMFS laboratories are conducting research on sea turtle habitat 

utilization in the Gulf of Mexjco. The project focuses on known seil 

turtle hotspots. 

Endangerled 

Status of 

Analyses of sea turtle strandings have been conducted for the purpo:je of 

monitoring the level of strandings and possible causes of mortality. 

Species Act Biennial Report 

Recovery Program - FY 1989-1991 

- 

Research has been conducted on the effects of pollutants on sea Mles. 

The loggerhead sea turtle was listed as threatened throughout its range 

on June 2, 1970. and its status has not changed. Most recent evidence 

suggests that the number of nesting females in Soh Carolina and 

Georgia may be declininz, while the number of nesting females in 

Florida may he stable or increasing. 

Current trends indicate that over the last 20-30 years on some nesting 

heaches (South Carolina and Geor~ia), the population is declining ar an 

alarming rate. However, Florida's Melbourne Beach and Hutchinson 

Island populations have not declined and may possibly be increasing. 

The recovery team concluded that nesting trends for the loggerhead are 

generally declining with the most significant threats being coastal . 

development, commercial fisheries, and pollution. 

Loggerhead populations in Honduras, Mexico, Colombia, Israel, Turkey, 

Bahamas, Cuba, Greece, Japan, and Panama were reported to have 

declined in a previous status review. This decline continues and is 

primarily attributed to shrimp trawling, coastal development, increased 

human use of nesting heaches, and pollution. Loggerheads are the lmost 

abundant species in U.S. coastal waters, and are often captured 

incidently in shrimp trawls. Shrimping is dlought to have played a 

significant role in the population declines ohserved for the loggerhe,ads. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery Program - N 1989-1991 

The Olive Ridley Turtle 

( Lepidochelys olivacea) 

-- 

A recovery plan for olive ridley sea turtles was approved in September 

1984. This original plan included suggestions in the context of 

Status international cooperation. 

Future recovery actions for the olive ridley will be addressed in the 

Pacific Basin Sea Tbrtle Recovery Plan. This effort will incorporate a 

draft Hawaiian Sea Turtle Recovery Plan. Expansion of the geographic 

range of recovery efforts is based on research documentin2 the 

widespread pelagic distribution of sea turtles and the need for 

coordinated research and management measures. This plan is expected 

to he completed within 2 years. 

B. Recov ry f Although the Pacific Basin Recovery Plan has not been completed, 

Actions / Ian actions have been underway to aid in the protection and recoveq of . - 

lmplemen ation olive ridley turtles. Since olive ridleys are seldom found in U.S. waters,. 

most of the recovery actions occur at an international level. NMFS 

supports the activities of the Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Recovery 

~ - - 

Team and Network to protect these turtles on their nesting beaches in 

Surinam and Costa Rica. Bilateral agreements with Mexico have 

resulted in some efforts to protect the east pacific population of olive . . 

ridleys. In addition, interagency coordination under Section 7 ofthe 

ESA, consultations are conducted whenever Federal activities may 

jeopardize the species. 

In order to reduce the pressure of commercial trade on olive ridley 

populations, the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior utilized the 

Pelly amendment to the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967. On 

March 20, 1991, Japan was certified as engaging in activities that 

diminish the effectiveness of CITES. The Pelly amendment provides 

that upon receipt of such a certification, the President may prohibit the 

importation of all or some wildlife products from the offending country. 

Japan has announced that it will prohibit all importation of olive ridley 

products and withdraw its CITES reservation on the species. 

The olive ridley sea turtle was listed as endangered for the "Mexican 

nesting population" and threatened for all other populations on July 28, 

1978. Since listing, there has been a decline in abundance of this 

species, and it is recommended that the olive ridley be reclassified as 

endangered throughout the western hemisphere. The need for thus 
Endanger6 

Status of 1 

Act Biennial Report 

Program - N 1989-1991 

classification is based on continued direct and incidental rake, and 

information showing that they move along the eastern Pacific coast f'rc~m 

Mexico as far south as Ecuador and mix with other Central American 

populations. This mixing makes it impossible to differentiate among 

separate populations. 

A decline in the number of nesting females and the low frequency of 

encounters with wild turtles indicates that populations are declining. 

Both eggs and adults are being heavily exploited. Olive ridleys in 

Mexico have been overharvested for international trade with Japan. 

There is evidence that the turtles are being taken in shrimp trawls and 

gill nets. In comments submitted to NMFS, reference is made to data 

from Fretey (1990) showing that olive ridleys appear to be attracted to 

trawling areas due to tile abundance of discarded prey. The turtles an: 

often captured and drowned in these trawls suggesting that trawling 

could be a significant source of mortalities. 

Olive ridleys have been observed and captured in the Eastern Tropical 

Pacific as part of the Tuna Vessel Observer Program. Of the 63 turtles 

caught between March 1 - April 1, 1990, 75 percent were olive ridleys. . 

The catch rate in 1990 is lower than in 1975 (the only other year of 

incidental catch data). The lowcr catch rate suggests that fewer turt1e:s 

are in thc area, or that their distribution has changed. 

The population of olive ridleys in Surinam and adjacent waters in 

aorthern South America has also declined by more than 80-percent si.nce 

1967. The count of females nesting on beaches in Surinam annually 

between 1977 and 1982 was estimated at 400-600. The number of nests 

has declined in recent years indicating a reduction in nesting females. It 

has also been well documented that nesting females in the Guianas have 

declined over the last 20 years. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery Program - f Y 1989-1991 

The Caribbean Monk Seal 

( Monachus tropicalis) 

No recovery plan for this species has been prepared, nor has a recovery 

team been established. 

Status 

I 

8. 

Actions 

Implementation 

C. Speclies 

Status / 

- 

Recovery No specific actions necessary for .the recovery of the species have been 

/ Plan identified, and no direct recovery actions are being implemented, 

- 

The Caribbean monk seal was listed as endangered throughout its range 

Trends on April 10, 1979. The last reliable sighting of a Caribbean monk scad 

occurred in 1952. None were seen in aerial surveys in 1973, and no 

confirmed sightings have been reported since then. Many scientists 

believe that the species has been extinct since the early 1950s. 
pecies Act Biennial Report 

very Program - N 1989-1991 

The Guadalupe Fur Seal 

(Arctocephalus to wnsendi) 

B. Rec very 4 Tllrough interagency coordination under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Actions Plan Species Act, Guadalupe fur seals are protected from Federal actions that 

implementation are likely to jeopardize the species. No other specific actions necessary 

for the recovery of the species have been identified, and no direct 

recovery actions are being implemented. 

A. ~ecober~ 

Team / 

Status 

C. Spec 

Status 1 

- - - 

No recovery plan for this species has been prepared, nor has a recovery 

Pian team been established. me principal cause of the decline in Guadalupe: 

fur seals was commercial sealing. The species is now protected from 

such activity throughout its range, and the magnitude of the threat to the 

species is considered.to be .low. The portion of the Guadalupe fur sea1"s 

range which is under U.S. jurisdiction is at the limit of the species 

range. No activities in areas under U.S. jurisdiction are known to be 

adversely affecting recovery of this species at the present time. 

Therefore, management activities in the U.S. portion of its range are not 

likely to contribute substantially to recovery. 

ies The Guadalupe fur seal was listed as threatened throughout its range on 

Trends December 16, 1985. Although a systematic survey of population 

abundance has not been conducted for some time, there is anecdotal 

evidence that the population continues to increase. Mexican scientists 

have indicated that the numbers of animals on Guadalupe Island seem to 

be increasing. In addition, the species seems to be expanding its range. 

In addition to regular sighting of animals on San Miguel and San 

Nicolas Islands off the southern California coast, animals were observed 

hauled out on San Clemente Island during 1991. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery Program - N 1989-1991 

The Hawaiian Monk Seal 

(Monachus schauinsiandi) 

A new Hawaiian monk seal recovery team was appointed by NMFS in 

Team / Pla 1989. The first team, appointed in 1980, did not continue meeting after 

Status submitting its final recovery plan to NMFS in 1982. The plan, which 

includes a- comprehensive research and management plan for the 

recovery of the Hawaiian monk seal, was published by NMFS in March 

1983. The new recovery team is reviewing the plan, making 

recommendations for implementing it, and evaluating current research 

and management activities. 

1 The following actions were recommended in the recovery plan: 

1. Identify and, where possible, mitigate the natural factors 

causing or contributing to the decreased survival and 

productivity of monk seals. 

2. Characterize the marine and terrestrial habitat 

requirements of the monk seal, including use patterns 

and feeding habits. 

3. Assess the monk seal population and monitor 

population trends. 

4. Document, and where possible, mitigate the direct and 

indirect effects of human activities on monk seals. 

5. Implement appropriate management actions leading to 

conservation and recovery of the species. 

6. Develop an education program to foster greater 

conservation efforts among the users of the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and the public. 

After the new recovery team's first meeting in 1989, recommendations 

were submitted to NMFS. Subjects addressed included research 

programs, data analyses, the Kure Atoll Head Start Project, a male 

mobbing problem, population monitoring, recovery actions at Midway 

Island, the repair of facilities at Tern Island, defining the point at which 

monk seals may be considered recovered, and priorities for the 1990 

field season. At its 1990 meeting, the team reviewed plans for the 

coming field seasons, and made recommendations to NMFS concerning 
ecies Act Biennial Report 

Program - N 1989-1991 

a need for observers aboard long-line swordfish vessels operating near 

the northwest Hawaiian Islands. 

The recovery team concluded that the 1983 plan still provides a useful 

guide to overall recovery needs. Instead of updating the plan, the team 

has recommended attaching the results of its program review to the 1983 

plan. 

In May 1988, NMFS designated critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk 

seal out to 20 fathoms in 10 areas of the northwestern Hawaiian .Islands. 

~n NMFS believes these areas require special management consideration or 

protection now and in the reasonably foreseeable future. Critical habitat 

designation directly affects only federal agencies and those who need 

Federal authorization or funding for their actions. The agencies most 

likely to be affected by this designation include the U.S. Coast Guard, 

U.S. Navy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minerals Management 

Service, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, and 

NMFS. 

Using the 1983 recovery plan, the recommendations of the recovery 

team, and the recommendations of the Marine Mammal Commission; 

NMFS has developed a draft 3-year comprehensive work plan that will 

serve as the mechanism for identifying funding needs for fiscal years 

1991, 1992 and 1993. The identified tasks focus on recovery of monk 

seal populations in the western end of the species' range, resolution of 

the mobbing problem at Laysan and Lisianski islands and monitoring 

monk seal populations at the five major breeding locations of French 

Frigate Shoals, Laysan Island, Lisianski Island, Pearl and Hermes Reef, 

and Kure Atoll. It also identifies a need to continue the Head Start 

Project at Kure Atoll in 1991 and 1992 and Midway Island in 1992 and 

1993. 

Since 1985, NMFS has been studying abnormal mobbing behavior by 

adult male seals at some islands. This behavior can result in the death 

or serious injury of adult females and young animals. Preliminary 

studies are being completed before implementing any type of action . 

plan. NMFS' goal is to identify a method of controlling tlus behavior 

for field use in 1991. There were 21 known mortalities from mohhin_es 

at Laysan Island in 1988 and 1989. 

In 1981, NMFS began a Head Start Project to help rebuild a breeding 

population at Kure Atoll. The program involves removing newly 

weaned female pups from the beaches of Kure, placing them in an 

enclosed pen on the shoreline, raising them through their first summer of 

life, and then releasing them at Kure. From 1981 to 1989, 25 pups wc:rc 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Reporl: 

Status of Recovery Program - N 1989-1991' 

headstarted. In 1990, three more pups were collected and released. To 

supplement these efforts, pups unlikely to survive on their own were 

taken from French Frigate Shoals, rehabilitated at facilities in Honolulu, 

and released at Kure. Eleven rehabilitated pups were released between 

1985 and 1989, and three were released in 1990. Also, five healthy 

female pups were taken from French Frigate Shoals after weaning and 

released at Kure in 1990. The efforts to rebuild the Kure population 

have been successful. All but 2 of the 13 seals released during the first 

5 years of the program have been resighted annually at Kure through 

1990, and one of two not resighted at Kure was seen in 1990 at nearby 

Midway Island. Average beach counts at Kure have increased from 

about 22 animals per count in 1981 to 31 animals per count in 1990. 

Between 1987 and 1990, 13 pups were born to female seals that had 

been headstarted. 

Based on recommendations made in the recovery plan, NMFS has . 

monitored populations of monk seals at all primary breeding locations 

since 1933. Each site requires individual attention since each sho\frs a 

wide spectrum of differences. Tagging of seals on these five sites has 

shown high survival of immature monk seals, but three island 

populations are not growing. Some counts include information on the 

age and sex composition of the population which helps to predict future 

trends. The ratio of juveniles and subadults to adults varies significantly 

among atolls. 

In response to reports of Hawaiian monk seals being incidentally taken 

by long-line swordfish operations off French Frigate Shoals, NMFS 

investigated island beaches for interactions between monks seals and 

fishing operations. Enforcement agents interviewed all long-line, 

lobster, and bottomfish fishermen returning from fishing trips. In 

November 1990, NMFS published an emergency rule submitted by the 

Western Pacific fishery Management Council that requires any fishing 

vessel operating within 50 miles of the Northwest Hawaiian Island to 

notify NMFS who will then determine whether that vessel should carry 

an observer. It also requires long-line vessels to obtain permits from 

NMFS and submit daily fishing logs on interactions with monks seals 

and other protected species. A final rule will-be published in October " 

1591. 

Because of the limited terrestrial habitat available to the Hawaiian monk 

seal, any loss of pupping, nursing and haulout areas is critical to the 

survival of the species. Also, any former hahitat than can be resained 

will promote recovery. Recently, monk seals have been sighted 

regularly around Kauai, the westernmost of the main Hawaiian Islands. 

The boundaries of the small Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge 

which serves as monk seal habitat on the island, do not extend seaward 
Act Biennial Report 

- FY 1989-1991 

of the shoreline. At the request of the Marine Mammal Commission, 

the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources is taking steps lo 

designate about 650 acres of nearshore waters off Kilauea Point as a 

State Marine Life Conservation District. 

Tern Island, which has served as a permanent field station for the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service since 1979, provides an essential base for 

NMFS to monitor all islands in French Frigate Shoals. These shoals 

provide habitat for more than half of the total population of Hawaiian 

monk seals. In the late 1980s. USFWS considered abandoning the 

station because of the expense involved in its operation and 

maintenance. However, after completing recommendations for a longterm course of action on the field station at Tern Island, USFWS has 

begun to develop a plan to completely restore and refurbish the islandqs 

facilities. Restoration will require the cooperation of the State of 

Hawaii, USFWS, the Navy, the Corps of Engineers, and the Coast 

Guard. 

C. species 

Status / Trends 

The Hawaiian monk seal was listed as endangered throughout its range 

on November 23, 1976. Counts have been made at the atolls, islands 

and reefs where they haul out in the northwest Hawaiian Islands since 

the late 1950s. In 1982, the highest count for all atolls was about 50 

percent of the highest counts made in 1957-58. NMFS estimates that 

the monk seal population is slightly more than 1,000 animals. It is not 

known whether the population is increasing, decreasing, or stable. 

However, based on data collected at the five major haulouts, the number 

of births recorded in 1990 declined by 23 percent from the average 

annual levels recorded between 1983 and 1989. 

The Hawaiian monk seal is most abundant on Kure Atoll, Midway 

Islands, Pearl and Hermes Reef, Lisianski Island, Laysan Island, Maro 

Reef, Gardner Pinnacles, French Frigate Shoals, ~ecker' Island and 

Nihoa Island. This species is vulnerable to human disturbance on 

pupping and haulout beaches, entanglement in marine debris, incidental 

take in commercial fisheries, possible die-offs from disease and natucally 

occurring biotoxins, male mobbing otfemale seals, and shark predation. 
1 Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery Program - N 1989-j991 

The Steller (Northern) Sea Lion 

( Eumetopias jubatus) 

A. Recove y 1 On November 21, 1989, the Environmental Defense Fund and 17 other 

Team / Pla environmental organizations petitioned NMFS to publish an emergency 

Status rule listing the Steller sea lion as an endangered species and to initiate a 

rulemaking to make the listing permanent. On February 22, 1990, 

NMFS determined that under Section 4 of the ESA, the petition 

presented substantial information indicating that the action may be 

warranted and requested comments. (55 FR 6301) On April 5, 1990, 

NMFS issued an emergency interim rule (55 FR 12645) listing the 

Steller sea lion as threatened. 

On July 20, 1990, NMFS proposed listing the Steller sea lion as a 

threatened species. (55 FR 29793) On the same date, NMFS also issued 

an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (55 FR 29792) requesting 

public comments to assist NMFS in its efforts to develop separate, more 

comprehensive protective regulations and critical habitat designation. 

NMFS took this dual-track rulemaking approach because it wanted .to 

avoid any lapse between the expiration of the emergency interim listing 

and the final listing. There was not sufficient time to issue a proposed 

rule with comprehensive protective regulations including a proposed 

critical habitat designation, solicit public comments, provide an 

opportunity for public hearings, conduct the required regulatory and 

economic analyses, and issue a final rule by the tinre the emergency 

listing expired at the end of the 240 days on December 3, 1990. 

Further NMFS believed that it was preferable to consider the 

information provided in the recovery plan prior to publi.shing 

comprehensive protective regulations. Therefore, NMFS listed the 

Steller sea lion as a threatened species on November 26, 1990 (55 FX 

49204) wit11 a limited set of protective measures and will propose more 

comprehensive protective regulations and critical habitat in a separate 

rulemaking. 

Lastly, the specification of critical habitat, as required under the ESA, 

will be proposed at the earliest possible date as part of the 

comprehensive protective regulations which will be published in a 

separate later rule. NMFS will consider physical and biological factors 

essential to the conservation of the species that may require special 

manazement consideration or protection including breeding rookeries, 

haulout sites, feeding areas, and nutritional requirements. Additionally, 

NMFS will consider terrestrial habitars adjacent to rookeries and their 
Endangered kpecies Act Biennial Report 

need for protection from development and other uses, such as logging air 

mining. 

status of 

In March 1990, NMFS appointed.the Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team 

which is responsible for drafting a recovery plan and providing 

recommendations to NMFS on necessary protective regulations for the 

Steller sea lion. The draft Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan was 

completed and made available for public comment on March 15, 1991 

(56 FR 11204). The comments have been reviewed and the draft 

recovery plan is being revised. A final recovery plan should be 

submitted to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries for .final approyal 

by the end of 199 1. 

Recovery Program - N 1989-1 991 

-- 

I The draft recovery plan recommends the following actions: 

1. Identify species habitat requirements and protect areas; 

of special biological significance. 

2. Identify specific management stocks. 

3; Monitor population status and trends. 

4. Conduct age and sex class studies on rookeries and tag 

animals for future studies. 

5. Determine and minimize causes of mortality. 

6. Investigate feeding ecology and factors affecting 

energetics. 

B. ~ecober~ Through interagency coordination under Section 7 of the ESA, Steller 

Actions / Plan sea lions are protected from Federal actions that are likely to jeopardii!e 

lmplemdntation the species. Activities that present a potential conflict include fisheries 

and oil exploration. The species is also protected under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). 

Although a final recovery plan has not been approved, a number of 

recovery actions identified in the draft recovery plan have been initiated. 

Population surveys and research on population dynamics have 

conducted. Research to determine primary prey species haq been 

conducted. Analyses of tissues have been done to determine levels of 

organochlorine pollutant residues and levels of heavy metals. Satellit~e 

tag studies are being conducted to monitor movement and possibly to 

identify areas to be designated as critical habitat. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery Program - N 1989-1991 

The following protective regulations were adopted as limited protective 

measures until the final recovery plan and designation of critical habitat 

are completed. 

1. Discharge of a firearm at or within 100 yards of a Steller 

sea lion is prohibited with certain exceptions. 

+ Exceptions include: for permits issued under subpart C of - ESA; for government officials if taking is in a humane 

manner, for the protection or welfare of the animal, the 

protection of the public health and welfare, or the nonlethal 

removal of nuisance animals; and for subsistence purposes. 

2. Buffer zones of 3 nautical miles were established 

around all principal Steller sea lion rookeries in the Gulf 

of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. 

4 Generally, no vessel will be allowed to operate within the 3- 

mile buffer zones and no person will be allowed to approach1 

on land closer than one-half mile with certain exceptions. 

+ Exceptions include: for permits issued under subpart C of 

ESA; for government officials if taking is in a humane 

manner, for the protection and welfare of the animal, the 

protection of the public health and welfare, or the nonlethal 

removal of nuisance animals; for government officials 

conducting activities necessary for national defense or the 

performance of other legitimate government activities; and 

for emergency situations that present a threat to the health, 

safety or life of a person or a significant threat to a vessel or 

property. Additionally, a mechanism is provided where the 

Alaska Regional Director may issue exemptions for 

traditional or historic activities (including subsistence taking) 

that do not have a significant adverse effect on sea lions and 

for which there is no readily available and acceptable 

alternative. Notice of all such exemptions will he published 

in the Federal Register. 

3. An annual incidental kill quota of 675 Steller sea lions 

was established for Alaskan waters and adjacent areas 

of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) west of 141 W. 

Longitude. 

+ To monitor this quota, NMFS retained the observer authority. 

of he emergency rule to allow the Alaska Regional Director 
to place an observer on any vessel. If collected data indicatc 

that the quota is being approached, NMFS will issue 

emergency rules to close areas to fishing, allocate the 

remaining quota among fisheries, or take other action to 

ensure that coimercial fishing operations do not exceed the 

quota. 

Endangered 

Status of 

The Steller (northern) sea lion was listed as threatened throughout its, 

range on becember 4, 1990. The Steller (northern) sea lion ranges from 

Hokkaido, Japan, through the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk Sea, the 

Aleutian Islands, and central Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, southeast 

Alaska, and south to central California There is not sufficient 

information to consider animals in different geographic regions as 

separate populations. The centers of abundance and distribution are the 

Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands, respectively. Rookeries (breeding 

colonies) are found from the central Kuril Islands to Ano Nuevo Island, 

California; most large rookeries are in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian 

Islands. More than 50 Stellcr sea lion rookeries and a great number of 

haulout sites have been identified. 

Species Act Biennial Report 

Recovery Program - N 1989-1991 

- 

During the 1985 breeding season, 68,000 animals were counted on 

Alaska rookeries from Kenai Peninsula to Kiska Island, compared to 

140,000 counted in 1956-60. A 1988 Status Report concluded that the ' 

population size in 1985 was probably below 50 percent of the historic 

population size in 1956-60 and below the lower bound of its-Optimum 

Sustainable Population level under the MMPA. A comparable surve.y 

conducted in 1989 showed that the number observed on rookeries from 

Kenai to Kska declined to 25,000 animals. This indicates a decline of 

about 82 percent from 1956-60 to 1989 in this area. Preliminary results 

from the 1990,Steller sea lion survey show that about 25,000 adult and 

juvenile sea lions were counted, similar to the 1989 count. These results 

indicate that tile population has not declined further in areas where the 

decline has been significant, and that the 1989 counts were not 

anomalous. The counts are not an estimate of total numbers of aninnals 

but include only those animals on the beach (excluding pups) at the time 

of the survey. As such, they can be used to indicate trends in 

abundance, rather than to estimate total species abundance. 

Species abundance estimates during the late 1970s ranged from 245,000- 

290,000 adult and juvenile animals. A current total population estimate 

is not available. However, counts at rookeries and haulout sites 

tluoughout most of Alaska and the USSR in 1989, plus estimates fr~om 

surveys conducted in recent years at locations not counted in 1989. 

provide a minimum number for the species during 1989. The 

summaries of these counts and estimates are: Alaska - 53,0@0 anin-lals; 
I Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery Program - N 1989-1991 

- 

Washington, Oregon and California - 4,000 animals; British Columbia - 

6,000 animals; and USSR - 3,000 animals for a total population estimatt: 

of 66,000 animals. 

Based upon this evidence, NMFS determined that the Steller sea lion is 

likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of R & very Program - N 1989-1991 

The qacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon I (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

- -- - - 

The Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon was listed as 

Team Rec$ery / Ian threatened November 30, 1990. It had been listed on an emergency 

Status basis since August 4, 1989. A recovery team has been appointed and 

will draft-a recovery plan. At its first meeting, the team reviewed an 

interagency 10-point Restoration Plan as a basis for a more 

comprehensive recovery plan. 

B. Recdvery Because of dus species' dependence on an adequae flow of water at a 

Actions J Plan specific temperature in the Sacramento River where drought conditions 

lrnplemantation have existed for the past 5 years, most of the recovery actions for the 

winter-run clunook salmon concern consultarions under section 7 of the 

ESA will] Fcderal asencies that cithcr conlrol the diversion of watcr in 

the river or permit activities by other water users. 

NMFS is a member of the Bureau of Reclamation's temperature 

advisory committee, and is working with the Bureau on temperature 

management strategies for attracting winter-run as far up tile Sacrame~lto 

River as possible and increase the amount of spawning in the reach of 

the river that the Bureau can protect with available water. NMFS is.atlso 

working with the State of California by reviewing impacts of state 

actions on the winter-run chinook. 

In 1988, NMFS, the State of California, USFWS, and the Bureau of 

Reclamation signed a cooperative agreement to restore the winter-run 

clunook in the Sacramento River. The Ten-Point Winter-Run 

Restoration Plan includes actions such as raising the ptes at the 

Bureau's Red Bluff Diversion Dam from December 1 through April 1 to 

allow free passage of adult winter-run chinook to suitable spawning 

habitat and maintaining water temperatures at levels below letllal limits 

in the reach of river above Red Blufi Dm1 that is used for spawning. 

In June 1991, NMFS issued a biological opinion to the Army Corps of 

Engineers that issuance of a permit to the Glenn-Colusa Irrigatjon 

Disuict would likely jeopardize the continued existence of the winter-run 

clunook because the Disuict did not plan to install new fidi screens lhai 

\vnuld cxcludc fish when water is diverted from thc Sacrl!mcr.to Rix: 

NMFS requested that the District take immediate action ro prevent n 

take of juvenile winter-run chinook before they would pas the District's 

putnpiq station. NMFS requested the Department of Jusrjce to move to 

enjoin the operation of the pumping plant when the fish arc likely lo hc 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

I Status of Recovety Program - FY 1989-1991 

taken. A Federal District c0u1-1 Judzc issued a temporary restraining 

order against the District whicli was effective on August 19 and cuts 

diversion of water by ahout 50 percent. The Tenlporary Resuaining 

Order will he in place until November 1991 when a hearing on a 

preliminary injunction has been scheduled. 

NMFS has consulted under section 7 with the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council and issued a biological opinion to the Council. 

Because a direct take of winter-run chinook salmon by sport or 

commercial fishermen is not allowed, the biological opinion includes 

measures in the incidental take statement that decrease the potential 

incidental take of tllc species. Ttlese measures include nor approving an 

early opening of the commercial fishery south of Point Arena, 

California, and delaying Ihe recreational fishery for 2 weeks and closing 

it 2 weeks early south of Point Arena. 

Currently, NMFS is consultin_g with the Bureau of Reclamation on the 

opcra~ion of its Cenual Valley Pro-iecl, and lilt: Arn~) Corps of 

Engineers on gravel mining operations, dredging. and flood control 

projects in Uie Sacramento River. 

The Army Corps of Engineers ha5 been consulting with NMFS on 

permit applications for disposal of dredge material at a site in San 

Francisco Bay near Alcatraz Island. NMFS is concerned about the 

effects of disposing of contaminated dredge material at the site because 

juvenile chinook spend time in the Bay afrer migrating downsueanl 

before entering the Pacific Ocean. 

Although a recovery plan has not hcen prepared, NhfFS has sponsored 

basic hiological studies to gain information on this species. In FY 1989, 

research was conducted to determine habitat needs. In n' 1990, 

research was conducted to determine the effects of predation and levels 

of temperature tolerance on developing eggs. 

- -- - 

C. Species Winter-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River. California, are a 

Status / Trends unique population of chinook salmon, and are distin_cuishahle from the 

other ttuee runs in the river on the basis of timing of their upstream 

migration and spawning season. For the most part, the winter-run 

chinook salmon population is conlprised of rluee year-classes that return 

to spawn as 3-year-old fish. NMFS determined that the winter-run 

chinook salmon should he listed as threatened under the ESA because 

the run has declined more than 97 percent over a period of less than 

20 years. From 1967 through 1969, average run size was ahout 84,000 

fish: in 1982 througll 1984, the averaze waq ahout 2,000 fish. In 1989, 
Species Act Biennial Report 

Program - FY 1989-1991 

- 

only 550 stlmon rclurned ro Ule rivcr; in 1990, the return was around 

450 fish; and in 1'13 1, 3ht;ut 200 fish returned. 

The winter-run clunook has declined in the Sacramento River primarily 

due to the actions of water management projects. These projects have 

modified the rivcr and taken away spawning habitat in the upper 

Sacrunento River through water diversion which lowers water level in 

the river and raises the temperature to a level that is lethal to salmon 

eggs. Winter-run clunook spawn from nud April to mid August with 

peak spawning in May and June. The eggs incubate and hatch in about 

2 months. If the water teniperature is too high (especially during the 

peak incubation and hatclung months of July Uuou$~ September), tllc 

eggs do not hatch. Juveniles migrate to the sea from Au_rust into the 

spring montlls. 1i;l;aler diversions and otllcr water management action'; 

such as inadequate fish screens at diversion facilities can he lethal to 

migrating juveniles. Adult fish begin returning from the sea during the 

winter. While at sea, they may be taken incidentally to commercial 2nd 

rccrcational fishing for other spccics of salmon. 

The continuing drought in California, contracts for water that the Bureau 

believes it is obligated to fulfill, the water management practices of local 

and state water districts, and actions that have not been taken at water 

diversion facilities to allow the passage of juvenile fish all combine to 

make restoration of the winter-run cllinook salmon a difficult process. 
Endangered Species Act Biennial Report 

Status of Recovery Program - FY 1989-19!?1 

- 

The Shortnose Sturgeon 

(Acipenser brevirostrum) 

A. Recovery A new shonnose sturgeon recovery team was appointed by NMFS in 

Team / Pian 1988. The first team, appointed in the late 1970s, did not continue 

Status meeting after submitting a draft recovery plan to KMFS in 1981. The 

19S8 team is reviewing new information on the species and will 

recommend whether there should be a change in the status of the 

species. Also, the team is revising and updating the recovery plan 

submitted by (he first team. 

Tlic team expects to complete revision of the plan in 1992. 

B. Recovery While die recovery plan is being revised, KhlFS is taking recovery 

Actions / Plan acric\~is tilrough liie ESA section 7 consulta~ion pn~chb arid ha\ ibbucd 

lmplemettltation scientific research permits directed at recovery of the species. 

Recently issued scientific research permits allour studies in the southern 

rivers where there is the greatest lack of informaion on shortnose 

sturgeon. Current research is being conducted by the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources, the South Carolina Wildlife and 

Marine Resources Department, USFWS, and the North Carolina State 

Universiry. 

C. Speci~es 

Status 1 Tren 

Tile shortnose sturgeon was listed as endangered tluoughout its range on 

ds March 11, 1967. It is an anadromous fish that spawns in the coastal 

rivers along the east coast of North America from the St. John's river in 

Canada to the Saint John's river in Florida. It prefers tfie nearshore 

marine, estuarine and riverine habitat of large river systems. Unlike the 

more typical anadromous species such as salmon and shad that are found 

in the same river systems, the shortrlose sturgeon is not known to use 

the offshore marine environment. 

No estimate of the historical population size of shonnose sturgeon is 

available. While the shonnose sturgeon was rarely the target of a 

commercial fishery, it was often taken incidcntall>, to die commercial 

fi~hery for Atiantic stur,ceon. In the 195Os, sturgeon fisheries declined 

on the ea5t coast which resi~ltcd in a lack of records of shortnose 

srurgcon. This led the USFllS to conclude that the fish had been 

eliminated from the rivers in its previous mgc (except the Hudson 

River) and was in danscr of extinction. USFb'S believed the population 
Species Act Biennial Report 

w very Program - FY 1989-1991 

I - 

level of the sl~oanosc sturgeon had deciined because of pollution and 

overfishing, both directly and incidentally in shad gillnets. 

Placing the species on the endangered species list resulted in a great deal 

of research on the species in the northern river systems. 

By the mid 1980s, NMFS had enough information on population levels 

in one mid-Atlantic and four northern rivers to recommend changes in 

the listing of the shortnose sturgeon. Also, in its 1987 status review, 

NMFS recommended listing the species according to river specific 

populations rather than as a single species. In the St. John's River in 

Canada, and the Kennebec River in Maine, NMFS recommended 

removing the sturgeon from the ESA list because the population 

numbers were stable and the species faced few adverse impacts to its 

habitat. Although the population levels are known and considered stable 

in the Connecticut, Hudson and Delaware Rivers, NMFS recommended 

listing as threatened (rather than delisting) due to some remaining habitat 

tlueats and a need for further information on population levels. In all 

other river systems, mainly southern rivers, NMFS recommended 

maintaining the endangered listing until further information on 

population levels could be obtained.