Warine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

Annual Report 

January 1,1994 to December 31,1994 

Prepared by 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Protected Resources 
Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................... 1

Chapter I. Overview: Implementation and Effects of 1994 MMPA Amendments ................ 3

Marine Mammal/Fishery Interactions .............................................. 3

Stock Assessments; Status of Stock Reports ................................... 3

Scientific Review Groups ................................................... 4

Prohibition of Intentional Lethal Takes ....................................... 4

Registration and Reporting ................................................. 4

Monitoring of Incidental Takes .............................................. 4

Zero Mortality Rate Goal .................................................. 5

Take Reduction Teams/Plans ............................................... 5

Marine Ecosystem Protection ...................................................... 5

Bering Sea Ecosystem Study ................................................ 5

Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Workshop ......................................... 5

Regionwide Pinniped-Fishery Interactions Study .............................. 5

Interaction of California Sea Lions and Pacific Harbor Seals with Salmonid Stocks ... 5

Scientific Research, Public Display and Enhancement Permits ........................... 6

General Authorization for Scientific Research involving only 

Level B Harassment ................................................. 6

Exports ................................................................. 6

Public Display: Captive Care and Maintenance ................................ 6

Marine Mammals Held for Public Display .................................... 6

Inventory of Marine Mammals in Captivity ................................... 7

Photography Permits ...................................................... 7

Other Aspects of the Amendments ................................................. 7

Deterrence Guidelines ...................................................... 7

Small Incidental Take ...................................................... 7

Pinniped Removal Authority ............................................... 7

Gulf of Maine Task Force ................................................... 7

Marine Mammal Cooperative Agreements in Alaska ........................... 8

Indian Treaty Rights ....................................................... 8

i 
Table of Contents 

Chapter II. Interactions With Commercial Fishing Operations ............................... 9

Interim Exemption Program ....................................................... 9

Research and Monitoring ................................................... 9

Stock Assessment Program. ........................................... 9

Bycatch Reduction Studies. ........................................... 9

Registration and Reporting. ........................................... 9

Observer Program. ................................................. 10

Categorization of Fisheries ................................................. 11

New Regime to Govern Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals in Commercial Fisheries .... 12

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments Under the New Regime .......................... 13

Scientific Review Groups .................................................. 13

Stock Assessment Reports ................................................. 14

Potential Biological Removal ............................................... 14

Take Reduction Plans ..................................................... 14

Chapter III. Tuna Interactions With Commercial Fisheries in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. . . . 

.15 

Overview ..................................................................... 15

Tuna-Dolphin Legislation-- ...................................................... 15

Regulatory Actions-- ............................................................ 17

Dolphin-Safe Research-- ......................................................... 17

Chapter IV. Marine Mammal Interactions with Other Human Activities ..................... 19

Small Take Authorizations ....................................................... 19

Small Take Amendment ......................................................... 20

California Sea Lion Conflict with Steelhead at the Ballard Locks ........................ 20

Pacific Coast Task Force/Pinniped Removal Authority ............................... 21

Other Interactions .............................................................. 21

Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery Programs ......................................... 23

Harbor Seal in Gulf of Alaska ..................................................... 23

California Gray Whale ........................................................... 24

ii 
Table of Contents 

Northern Right Whale ........................................................... 24

Critical Habitat ........................................................... 24

North Atlantic Right Whale Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ............ 25

Regional Recovery Plan Implementation ..................................... 26

Southeastern Implementation Team. .................................. 26

New England Implementation Team. .................................. 27

Recovery Plan Research Program ........................................... 28

Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise ................................................... 28

Harbor Porpoise Bycatch Estimates .......................................... 30

GME Bycatch Estimates for 1990-93 Revised to Account for Fallout. ........ 30

Bycatch in U.S. Waters Outside the GME and not Accounted for in the GME

Estimate. ................................................... 30

Bycatch Outside U.S. Waters and Not Accounted for in the GME Estimate. . 31

Estimates of Porpoise Abundance Relative to Bycatch in the GME. ........ 31

Harbor Porpoise Bycatch Reduction Measures ................................ 32

New England Fishery Management Council Bycatch Reduction Plan

for the Gulf of Maine. ........................................ 32

Time-Area Closures. ................................................ 33

Mitigation Measures Taken by Canada to Reduce Harbor Porpoise Bycatch

in the Bay of Fundy . ......................................... 34

Protective Measures Being Taken to Reduce the Mortality of Harbor

Porpoise in U.S. Commercial Fisheries outside the Gulf of Maine. ... 35

Acoustic Deterrent Devices. .......................................... 36

Harbor Porpoise Bycatch Reduction and the Potential Biological Removal. ... 37

Northern Fur Seals .............................................................. 38

Research Activities Conducted on Northern Fur Seals during the 1994 

Summer-Fall Field Season ........................................... 38

Cooperative studies with other institu-tions during the 1994 field season ......... 38

Steller Sea Lion ................................................................. 39

Status Review ........................................................... 39

Protective Regulations .................................................... 39

Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team Meeting ..................................... 40

Coastal Stock(s) of Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin ..................................... 49

Status Review and Management Workshop .................................. 49

Hawaiian Monk Seal ............................................................ 49

Preliminary Results of 1994 Field Studies of the Hawaiian Monk Seal ............. 49

iii
Table of Contents 

Chapter VI. Ecosystem Activities ....................................................... 53

Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Workshop ............................................... 53

Bering Sea Ecosystem Study ...................................................... 53

California Sea Lion/Harbor Seal Impacts ........................................... 53

Pinniped-Fishery Interactions ..................................................... 53

Chapter VII. Alaska Native Take of Marine Mammals .................................... 55

Alaska Subsistence/Co-Management Issues ........................................ 55

Subsistence Take of Marine Mammals ............................................. 55

Bowhead Whales ......................................................... 55

Northern Fur Seals ....................................................... 56

Steller Sea Lions and Harbor Seals .......................................... 57

Beluga Whales ........................................................... 58

Chapter VIII. Permit Programs ......................................................... 59

Public Display, Scientific Research, and Enhancement Permits ......................... 59

Proposed Revisions to Permit Regulations .......................................... 59

1994 Amendments to the MMPA Permitting Process ................................. 59

Education Standards ...................................................... 60

Beached and Stranded Marine Mammals ..................................... 61

Exports ................................................................ 61

General Authorization .................................................... 61

Photography Permits ..................................................... 62

Swim-with-the-Dolphin Programs .......................................... 62

Marine Mammal Identification Study ........................................ 62

Notable Permit and Authorization Requests ........................................ 63

Dolphin Feeding Application ............................................... 63

Capture of White-sided Dolphins ........................................... 63

Reintroduction of Dolphins ................................................ 63

ATOC Off the Coasts of California and Hawaii ............................... 63

Feeding Marine Mammals in the Wild ............................................. 64

Report to Congress on Results of Feeding Wild Dolphins ....................... 64

Educational Efforts ....................................................... 65

iv 
Table of Contents 

Chapter IX. Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program ...................... 67

Background ................................................................... 67

Stranding Networks ............................................................ 67

Unusual Mortality Events ................................................. 68

Regional Stranding Networks .................................................... 69

Northeast Stranding Network .............................................. 69

Northern Right Whale in Delaware River. ............................. 69

Southeast Stranding Network .............................................. 70

Western Pacific Stranding Network ......................................... 70

California Stranding Network .............................................. 70

Gray Whale Rescue Effort. ........................................... 70

Northwest Stranding Network ............................................. 71

National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank ............................................. 72

Contaminant Monitoring .................................................. 72

Quality Assurance ........................................................ 74

Chapter X. International Programs and Activities ......................................... 75

The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources ............. 75

Antarctic Pack Ice Seal Program ........................................... 75

Working Group on Ecosystem Monitor-ing and Management (WG-CEMP) ........ 75

Assessment and Avoidance of Mortality Incidental to Fishery Operations ......... 75

Large-Scale High SeasDriftnet Fishing ............................................. 76

Current Status of the United Nations Driftnet Moratorium, UNGA Resolution 46/215 76

North Pacific Ocean. ................................................ 76

North Atlantic Ocean. ............................................... 77

Mediterranean Sea. ................................................. 77

United States Driftnet Actions .............................................. 78

International Whaling Commission ............................................... 79

Overview: 1994 Annual Meeting; Prep. for 1995 ............................... 79

Preparations for 1995 IWC Meeting ......................................... 80

Events Since the IWC Meeting .............................................. 80

Non-IWC Whaling Activities ............................................... 81

U.S.-Russia Marine Mammal Project, 02.05-61, under Area V of the Environmental Protection 

v 
Table of Contents 

Agreement .............................................................. 81

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ....... 82

Listing criteria ........................................................... 82

Downlisting of North Atlantic Minke Whales ................................. 82

Illegal Trade in Whale Meat ............................................... 82

Petition on Chilean Crab Fishery .................................................. 83

Chapter XI. Law Enforcement .......................................................... 85

Regional Trends ................................................................ 85

Noteworthy Enforcement Cases ................................................... 85

Chapter XII. Litigation ................................................................ 87

Ongoing Legal Actions .......................................................... 87

Chapter XIII. Publications ............................................................. 94

Appendix A: 1994 List of Category I-II Fisheries

Appendix B: Federal Observer Program Data--All Years

Appendix C: ETP Dolphin Mortalities Incidental to Tuna Operations

Appendix D: Public Display, Scientific Research and Enhancement Permit Requests and

Authorizations

Appendix E: Marine Mammal Strandings in 1994 

vi 

Executive Summary


This Annual Report to Congress regarding the 

administration of the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA or Act) has been prepared pursuant to 

sections 103(f), 104(h)(3)(C), 110(d) and 115(b)(3) of 

the MMPA. 

The MMPA is the principal Federal legislation 

that guides marine mammal species protection and 

conservation policy. The MMPA vests responsibility for most marine mammals in the 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under the 

MMPA, NMFS is responsible for the management 

and conservation of species of the order Cetacea 

(whales and dolphins) and species, other than 

walrus, of the order Carnivora, suborder 

Pinnipedia (seals and sea lions). The Department of 

the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) is responsible for the dugong, manatee, 

polar bear, sea otter, and walrus. 

Species management is administered through 

NMFS’ Regional Offices and Fisheries Science 

Centers in cooperation with States, conservation 

groups, the public, other Federal agencies, the 

Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), and 

constituents, including scientific researchers, the 

fishing industry, and the public display community. NMFS’ Office of Protected Resources oversees 

the administration of these activities. 

On April 30, 1994, the Act was reauthorized by 

the MMPA Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103­

238). These amendments introduce substantial 

changes to the provisions of the Act., incorporating 

recommendations from commercial fishers, conservation groups, public display institutions, 

scientific researchers, NMFS, USFWS, MMC, 

animal protection groups and the Alaska Native 

com-munity. 

One of the most notable amendments, and a 

primary focus of the 1994 MMPA Annual Report, 

involve the establishment of a new regime to 

govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to 

commercial fishing, replacing the Interim Exemption that has been in place since 1988. Three new 

sections have also been added to the Act to address 

commercial fishing and marine mammal incidental 

take, requiring : (1) the preparation of stock 

assessments for all marine mammal stocks in U.S. 

waters; (2) development and implementation of 

take reduction plans for stocks that may be 

reduced or are being maintained below their 

optimum sustainable population levels due to 

interactions with commercial fisheries; and (3) 

directed studies of pinniped-fishery interactions. 

Other significant changes to the MMPA 

include the revision to the permit provisions for 

public display and scientific research; 

establishment of permits for purposes of 

educational and commercial photography; 

establishment of procedures for authorizing the 

intentional lethal taking of individually identifiable 

pinnipeds having a significant negative effect on 

salmonid fishery stocks; elimination of NMFS 

jurisdiction over the care and maintenance of 

captive marine mammals held for purposes of 

public display at registered or licensed facilities; 

and the authority to provide grants to Alaska 

Native organizations for the purpose of developing 

co-management structures for marine mammal 

stock taken for subsistence. 

The 1994 report focuses on each of these 

amendments and their significance to the MMPA’s 

goals re: resource management and marine 

mammal protection, in addition to providing an 

annual update on the programs not revised by the 

1994 Amendments. Copies of the MMPA 1994 

Annual Report are available from the Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 1335 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, 

Maryland 20910. 

Page 1 
Page 2
Chapter I. Overview: Implementation and Effects of 


1994 MMPA Amendments


On April 30, 1994, the 1994 Amendments to 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA or the 

Act) were signed into law (Public Law 103-238). 

These amendments make substantial changes to 

numerous provisions of the Act, including: 

C significantly altering the current regime 

governing incidental takes of marine 

mammals in fisheries; 

C establishing scientific review groups (SRGs) 

and task forces to advise NMFS on the 

research and management of marine 

mammals; 

C highlighting existing authority in the MMPA 

to address impacts on the ecosystems 

associated with marine mammal stocks; 

C significantly reducing NMFS jurisdiction over 

marine mammal captive care and 

maintenance, particularly for public display 

purposes; 

C providing a General Authorization for nonintrusive scientific research on marine 

mammals; 

C establishing a new permit category for 

photographic purposes; and, 

C emphasizing and creating a mechanism for the 

creation of cooperative agreements with 

Alaska Native organizations to conserve 

marine mammals and provide comanagement of subsistence use. 

Marine Mammal/Fishery Interactions 

The 1994 amendments replace the Interim 

Exemption for Commercial Fisheries (section 114) 

with a long-term regime for governing interactions 

between marine mammals and commercial 

fisheries (sections 117 and 118). The following is a 

summary of the amendments and their application 

under the new regime. 

Stock Assessments; Status of Stock 

Reports 

The new law requires NMFS and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to develop stock 

assessment reports for all marine mammal stocks 

in waters under U.S. jurisdiction. Notice of 

availability of the 1994 draft stock assessment 

reports and the methodology used to determine 

each stock's potential biological removal (PBR) 

level was announced on August 9, 1994; the public 

comment period ended on December 1, 1994. 

The draft assessments include a wide variety 

of information about each stock, including its 

range, an estimate of minimum size and net 

productivity (population growth rate) of the 

population, estimates of human-caused mortalities 

within the stock, a description of the commercial 

fisheries that are likely to have contact with a 

particular stock, and an estimate of the PBR level 

for the stock. Ultimately, the assessment reports 

define "strategic stocks" as those stocks that have a 

level of human-caused mortality likely to reduce or 

maintain the stock below its optimum sustainable 

population. “Strategic stocks” are defined in the 

Act to also include those stocks that are listed as 

endangered or threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) or depleted under the MMPA, 

and those stocks that are declining and likely to be 

listed as threatened within the foreseeable future. 

Final stock assessments must be published 

90 days after the close of the public comment 

period for the draft stock assessment reports. Prior 

to publication of the final stock assessment report, 

Alaska Natives may request hearings before an 

Administrative Law Judge regarding the draft 

stock assessments. Stock assessments for strategic 

stocks must be reviewed at least annually; other 

Page 3 
Chapter I. Overview: Implementation and 

Effects of 1994 MMPA Amendments 

stocks must be reviewed at least once every three 

years. 

Scientific Review Groups 

Pursuant to the 1994 amendments and within 

60 days of their enactment (June 29, 1994), NMFS 

established three regional SRGs, representing 

Alaska, the Pacific Coast (including Hawaii) and 

the Atlantic Coast (including the Gulf of Mexico). 

The responsibilities of the SRGs include reviewing 

draft stock assessments and advising with regard 

to marine mammal population status, trends, stock 

identity, and dynamics; assessing research needs 

regarding the marine mammal stocks and the 

reduction of incidental mortality and injury; 

evaluating the impact of habitat degradation; and 

identifying the appropriate measures to reduce 

impacts. The review groups must consist of 

individuals with expertise in marine mammal 

biology and ecology, population dynamics and 

modeling, commercial fishing technology/practices, or subsistence practices, and 

must represent, to the extent feasible, a balance of 

viewpoints. 

Prohibition of Intentional Lethal Takes 

All intentional lethal killing or serious injury of 

marine mammals in the course of commercial 

fishing is now prohibited pursuant to section 102 

and 118(a)(5). However, section 101(a)(4) of the 

MMPA has now been expanded to authorize U.S. 

fishers and other citizens to non-lethally deter 

marine mammals from: damaging fishing gear 

and catch; damaging private property; 

endangering public safety; or damaging public 

property. The MMPA requires NMFS to publish a 

list of guidelines for use in safely deterring marine 

mammals and to prohibit deterrence measures that 

have a significant adverse impact on marine 

mammals. Additionally, section 101(c) specifically 

authorizes intentional lethal taking if imminently 

necessary in self-defense or to save the life of a 

person in immediate danger. 

Registration and Reporting 

Pursuant to the 1994 amendments and within 

90 days of enactment of the amendments (July 29, 

1994), NMFS published proposed revisions to the 

list of fisheries that interact with marine mammals, 

describing the marine mammal stocks involved 

and the number of vessels in each fishery. The 

amendments state that each fishery is to be 

categorized by whether its level of incidental 

mortality or serious injury to marine mammals is 

frequent, occasional, or has only a remote 

likelihood of occurring (corresponding to a 

Category I, Category II or Category III fishery, 

respectively). Vessels engaged in commercial 

fisheries included in Categories I or II are required 

to register with NMFS, which will authorize the 

take of non-listed marine mammals in the course of 

fishing. Each registered vessel will receive a decal 

that must be displayed while the registration is 

current. All owners or operators of commercial 

vessels in all fisheries must report the incidental 

death or injury of any marine mammals to NMFS 

on a postage-paid form within 48 hours after each 

fishing trip. 

Pursuant to the amendments, NMFS may also 

permit the taking of endangered and threatened 

marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing 

for three-year periods provided that, in addition to 

other restrictions, the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the stock, and that a recovery plan has 

been or is being developed for the species. 

Monitoring of Incidental Takes 

NMFS must establish a program to monitor 

marine mammal mortalities and serious injuries 

incidental to commercial fishing operations. The 

program will combine information from on-board 

Page 4 
Chapter I. Overview: Implementation and 

Effects of 1994 MMPA Amendments 

observers and voluntary reporting by vessel 

owners of incidental takes, as well as information 

collected on alternative platforms. The objectives of 

the monitoring program are to (1) obtain 

statistically reliable estimates of incidental 

mortality and serious injury; (2) determine the 

reliability of reports of incidental mortality and 

serious injury submitted by fishing vessel owners 

and operators; and, (3) identify changes in fishing 

methods or technology that may increase or 

decrease incidental mortality and serious injury. 

Zero Mortality Rate Goal 

Since it was first passed in 1972, one of the 

underlying goals of the MMPA has been that the 

incidental kill or incidental serious injury of marine 

mammals permitted in the course of commercial 

fishing operations be reduced to insignificant levels 

approaching a zero mortality and serious injury 

rate (section 101(a)(2)). The 1994 amendments 

reaffirm this Zero Mortality Rate Goal (ZMRG), 

requiring NMFS to begin review of each fishery’s 

progress toward the ZMRG within three years of 

enactment (April 30, 1997), and to report the results 

of the study to Congress within four years of 

enactment (April 30, 1998). The amendments also 

specify that all fisheries must attain this goal 

within seven years (April 30, 2001). 

Take Reduction Teams/Plans 

Also pursuant to the amendments, NMFS 

must establish take reduction teams to develop 

take reduction plans that will assist in the recovery 

or prevent the depletion of strategic stocks that 

interact with a Category I or Category II 

commercial fishery. Take reduction plans may also 

be developed for certain other marine mammal 

stocks that interact with commercial fisheries. The 

first take reduction teams must be convened within 

30 days of the issuance of final stock assessment 

reports. The take reduction teams must submit 

their plans within 6 months of their convening for 

strategic stocks and within 11 months for nonstrategic stocks. 

Marine Ecosystem Protection 

The 1994 amendments called for the initiation 

of several ecosystem-oriented studies, as 

authorized in sections 110 and 120. To follow is a 

summary of these new programs. 

Bering Sea Ecosystem Study 

By October 1994, NMFS was required to 

develop a scientific research program to monitor 

the health and stability of the Bering Sea 

Ecosystem. Consultation with the Secretary of the 

Interior, the Marine Mammal Commission, the 

State of Alaska and Alaska Native groups took 

place as part of the plan's development. 

Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Workshop 

No later than one year after enactment (April 

30, 1995), NMFS is required to convene a regional 

workshop for the Gulf of Maine to assess humancaused factors affecting the health of the ecosystem 

of which they are a part. A report of this 

workshop must be submitted to Congress by 

December 31, 1995. 

Regionwide PinnipedFishery Interactions Study 

NMFS may conduct a study on the interaction 

between pinnipeds and anadromous fish in at least 

three areas within the Northwest Region 

(Washington and Oregon) to evaluate 1) fish 

behavior in the presence of predators; 2) holding 

times and passage rates of anadromous fish in the 

presence and absence of predation; and 3) whether 

additional facilities exist, or can be modified to 

improve escapement. 

Page 5 
Chapter I. Overview: Implementation and 

Effects of 1994 MMPA Amendments 

Interaction of California Sea Lions and 

Pacific Harbor Seals with Salmonid 

Stocks 

NMFS must determine whether California sea 

lions and Pacific harbor seals are having: 1) a 

significant negative impact on the recovery of 

salmonid fishery stocks listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA or are approaching 

endangered or threatened status, and 2) broader 

impacts on coastal ecosystems of Washington, 

Oregon and California and where predation is 

occurring, 3) standardized measurements of 

scarring and predated fish species and, 4) tracking 

fish and pinnipeds as needed. The investigation 

must be concluded and the report must be 

prepared by October 1, 1995 for submission to 

Congress. 

Scientific Research, Public Display

and Enhancement Permits 

The amendments make significant changes to 

sections 102 and 104 of the MMPA which govern 

permits for public display, scientific research, and 

enhancement of species and stocks. Among other 

things, the amendments add new provisions for 

scientific research; substantially reduce NMFS's 

jurisdiction over marine mammals held in captivity 

for public display; establish a new prohibition on 

exports; and create a new permit category for 

photographing marine mammals. These 

amendments are summarized below. 

General Authorization for 

Scientific Research involving only

Level B Harassment 

Section 5 of the MMPA amendments 

eliminates the requirement that research not be 

duplicative and provides for a general 

authorization and im-plements regulations 

allowing Level B harassment of marine mammals 

for scientific research purposes. Level B 

harassment is defined as "any act of pursuit, 

torment, or annoyance which has the potential to 

disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption of 

behavioral patterns including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, 

or sheltering." The amendments define Level A 

harassment as "any act of pursuit, torment, or 

annoyance which has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild." Research conducted under the general 

authorization are subject to notification 

requirements. As of September 30, 1994, interim 

final regulations were filed with the Office of 

Federal Register for publication on October 3, 1994. 

The possibility of a joint Final Rule with the 

USFWS is under consideration. 

Exports 

The amendments add a new prohibition on the 

export of marine mammals and marine mammal 

parts. The amendments also provide specifically 

for the export of marine mammals for purposes of 

public display without further permit or 

authorization. Although no such specific provision 

was included for scientific research or 

enhancement activities, a general provision was 

included allowing exports that meet comparable 

standards. 

Public Display: Captive Care

and Maintenance 

Under the amendments, the former 

requirement that NMFS specify methods of 

supervision, care, and transport has been limited 

for public display permits to marine mammals 

being captured from the wild or imported for the 

first time without benefit of a previously issued 

permit. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, (APHIS), which previously had concurrent 

jurisdiction, now has sole responsibility over the 

Page 6 
Chapter I. Overview: Implementation and 

Effects of 1994 MMPA Amendments 

care and maintenance of marine mammals held in 

public display facilities. 

Marine Mammals Held for Public Display 

Under these amendments, recipients of captive 

marine mammals transported to them for public 

display are no longer required to have a permit. 

However, the recipient must: 1) offer a program 

for education or conservation based on 

professionally recognized standards of the public 

display community; 2) be registered or hold a 

license issued by APHIS under the Animal Welfare 

Act; and 3) maintain facilities for the public display 

of marine mammals that are open to the public on 

a regularly scheduled basis with access not limited 

or restricted other than by charging an admission 

fee. Public display permits are still required for 

collection from the wild or for imports. 

In general, the amendments allow persons 

holding marine mammals for public display, 

without any additional permit or authorization, the 

right to take, sell, export, or otherwise transfer 

possession of marine mammals, for public display, 

if the recipient meets the above public display 

criteria. A letter of notification is required 15 days 

in advance of any transportation, sale, purchase, or 

export of marine mammals for public display, 

scientific research, or enhancement purposes. 

Inventory of Marine Mammals

in Captivity 

The amendments require NMFS and the 

USFWS to maintain a basic inventory of marine 

mammals held in captivity, including the animal's 

name, sex, date of birth, source, acquisition, 

disposition, name of recipient and (if appropriate) 

its date of death and cause of death when 

determined. 

Photography Permits 

The amendments add a new category of 

permits to allow marine mammals in the wild to be 

photographed for educational and commercial 

purposes. These permits are limited to Level B 

harassment and require that the photographic 

products be made available to the public. 

Provisions for this new category of permit will be 

included with implementing regulations to be 

published in 1995. 

Other Aspects of the Amendments 

Deterrence Guidelines 

The amendments allow persons to prevent 

marine mammals from damaging private or public 

property, or from endangering personal safety, as 

long as the animal is not killed or injured. NMFS 

must, after consultation with experts and after 

notice and opportunity for comment, develop 

guidelines for use in deterring marine mammals, 

and may prohibit certain forms of deterrence that 

may significantly harm marine mammals. 

Small Incidental Take 

The amendments allow NMFS to authorize 

annually, through a permit-like system, the 

harassment of small numbers of marine mammals 

incidental to activities other than commercial 

fishing. Other forms of small, incidental take 

(other than fishing) remain subject to the act's 

previous requirement for rulemaking. 

Pinniped Removal Authority 

The amendments allow states to apply for 

permission to kill individually identified pinnipeds 

that are causing a decline or having a significant 

negative impact on the recovery of certain 

salmonid fishery stocks, and give NMFS the 

authority to allow such killing. Once a state's 

application is received, NMFS must determine 

Page 7 
Chapter I. Overview: Implementation and 

Effects of 1994 MMPA Amendments 

whether to establish a Pinniped-Fishery Interaction 

Task Force to re-commend to the agency whether 

to approve or deny the application and to suggest 

non-lethal alternatives. 

Gulf of Maine Task Force 

NMFS must establish a Pinniped-Fishery 

Interaction Task Force to advise NMFS on issues 

arising from pinnipeds acting in dangerous or 

damaging ways with aquaculture operators in the 

Gulf of Maine. NMFS must submit to Congress a 

report on interactions between pinnipeds and 

aquaculture activities by April, 1996. 

Marine Mammal Cooperative

Agreements in Alaska 

The amendments provide for cooperative 

agreements between NMFS and Alaska Native 

organizations to conserve marine mammals and 

provide co-management of subsistence use by 

Alaska Natives. The amendments specifically 

provide NMFS with the authority to provide grants 

to Alaska Native organizations to: 1) collect and 

analyze data on marine mammal populations; 2) 

monitor the harvest of marine mammals for 

subsistence use; 3) participate in marine mammal 

research; 4) develop co-management structures 

with Federal and state agencies. 

Indian Treaty Rights 

The amendments clarify that the MMPA does 

not alter or is not intended to alter any treaty 

between the United States and one or more Indian 

tribes. Based on this clarifying language, several 

Northwest treaty Indian tribes have advised NMFS 

that they intend to exercise their treaty rights to 

harvest local populations of marine mammals. 

NMFS is working with the Indian tribes as they 

develop tribal plans and regulations that will likely 

affect marine mammals. 

In 1994, two Pacific Northwest tribes, the 

Makah and Quileute, implemented regulations for 

ceremonial and subsistence harvests of marine 

mammals. The Makah adopted a plan to harvest 

up to 15 harbor seals annually. In addition to 

harbor seals, the Quileutes adopted a plan that 

included 10 California sea lions. Both plans 

specified harvesting to occur within the tribes’ 

Usual and Accustomed Areas (U&A). A third 

Pacific Northwest tribe, the Nooksack, amended 

their tribal fishing regulations to authorize lethal 

takes of harbor seals and California sea lions 

interfering with commercial fishing activities. 

Fishers were encouraged to retain any takes for 

purposes of biological sampling and subsistence. 

To NMFS’ knowledge, only the Makah 

tribe engaged in marine mammal harvesting 

activities in 1994, harvesting a total of 4 harbor 

seals. 

Page 8 
Chapter II. Interactions With Commercial


Fishing Operations


Interim Exemption Program 

The objectives of the Interim Exemption for 

Commercial Fisheries were to collect much-needed 

information on the status of marine mammal 

stocks and to understand the magnitude of marine 

mammal interactions with commercial fishers. The 

Interim Exemption program consisted of four 

major elements: stock assessments, categorization 

of fisheries, registration and reporting, and the 

observer program. 

Research and Monitoring 

Stock Assessment Program. The Interim 

Exemption stock assessment program provided 

NMFS with a means to monitor the status and 

trends of affected marine mammal populations. 

The stock assessment program has focused on 

collecting minimum abundance estimates for those 

stocks that lacked information on abundance and 

trends and had the potential for significant 

incidental take in commercial fisheries. 

Information on stock delineations and population 

trends has also been collected. Furthermore, 

NMFS conducted research to refine estimates of 

stock structure and to reduce mortality of marine 

mammals incidental to fishing operations. 

In 1994, stock assessments were conducted on 

a broad range of species in the Atlantic and Pacific 

Oceans. Abundances of marine mammal 

populations were estimated, and previous 

estimates were updated. NMFS developed a 

preliminary model to be used to statistically 

evaluate genetic information as relates to stock 

structure. NMFS convened a workshop consisting 

of population geneticists to examine the 

preliminary model and suggest refinements and 

revisions. 

Bycatch Reduction Studies. NMFS also 

supported four studies to reduce marine mammal 

mortality incidental to commercial fishing 

operations. Efforts were initiated to determine the 

behavior of cetaceans near fishing nets so that the 

chain of events leading to the entanglement of 

marine mammals could be determined; 

subsequently, this line of research could allow 

NMFS to exploit the weakest link in that chain to 

reduce marine mammal mortality and injury 

incidental to fishing operations. Finally, a study 

testing the use of acoustic deterrence devices to 

reduce marine mammal predation on steelhead 

trout at the Ballard Locks in Seattle, Washington 

was conducted in 1993/94. However, the results 

were not quantified and need to be examined 

further to assess effectiveness in this situation. 

All fishers who participate in Category I or II fisheries are required to 

register their vessels with NMFS and carry a valid exemption certificate. 

Photo credit: R.Angliss, F/PR. 

Registration and Reporting. Under the 

Interim Exemption, vessel owners lawfully 

participating in a Category I or II fishery have been 

required to register their vessels with NMFS and 

carry a valid Exemption Certificate (mailed to the 

fisher upon filing the registration with NMFS). 

Fishers participating in Category I and II fisheries 

Page 9 
Chapter II. Marine Mammal Interactions 

with Commercial Fishing Operations 

Figure 1 

Registered Fishing Vessels by Gear Type 

Registration Year 1994 

Gillnet 

66% 

Trawl

2% Troll 

19% 

Longline 

8% 

Other 

4% 

Purse 

Seine 

1% 

were also required to maintain daily logs of fishing 

effort and incidental takes of marine mammals. 

Although fishers participating in Category III 

fisheries need not register, reporting of all 

incidental lethal takings of marine mammals has 

been required within 10 days of the taking. For 

each day of 

fishing, category I and II fishers provided: the 

fishery currently being fished, fishing effort, gear 

type, fish species involved, marine mammal 

species or a description of the marine mammal if 

the species is unknown, number, date, and location 

of incidental takes, type of interaction and any 

injury to the marine mammal, a description of 

intentional takes, and loss of fish or gear caused by 

marine mammals. A copy of the fisher’s logbook 

has been required for submission to NMFS by 

December 31 of every year. 

Information submitted during the registration 

process has been catalogued into NMFS’s Marine 

Mammal Exemption Program data base and is 

used to examine the number and size of fishing 

vessels and types of gear used; it has also been an 

effective tool for communicating with fishers. 

However, the number of registrants has declined 

over the last 4 years with 15,756 in 1990, 12,156 in 

1991, 11,310 in 1992, and 10,432 vessel owners in 

1993. A comparison of logbook data and observer 

data entered through 1992 indicates that selfreporting (logbooks) is a relatively unreliable 

source of information with which to assess fishery 

effort and incidental mortality and injury of marine 

mammals. Therefore, the recording of information 

from log-books received became a secondary 

method for monitoring fishery effort and bycatch 

in 1994. Neverthe less, graphic summaries of the 

distribution of registered vessels by gear type in 

1994 is provided in Figure 1. Figure 2 represents a 

sum-mary of the distribution of 1994 registered 

vessels by region. 

Observer Program. Under the Interim 

Figure 2 

Registered Fishing Vessels by Region 

Registration Year 1994 

AKR 

33% 

NWR 

30% 

SWR 

20% 

NER 

13% 

SER 

4% 

Page 10 
Chapter II. Marine Mammal Interactions 

with Commercial Fishing Operations 

Exemption program, NMFS was required to place 

observers on Category I vessels to monitor 

between 20 and 35 percent of the fishing 

operations. The purpose of the observer coverage 

is to obtain statistically reliable information on the 

species and number of marine mammals 

incidentally taken in the fishery, to verify the 

adequacy of self-reporting by fishers, to identify 

possible means for reducing take, and to collect 

other biological information on marine mammals 

and the marine ecosystem. 

Eleven fisheries were observed in 1994: the 

Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea multispecies trawl 

fishery, the Puget Sound salmon net fisheries, the 

California thresher shark and swordfish drift 

gillnet fishery, the California halibut set gill net 

fishery, the California angel shark set gill net 

fishery, the California soupfin shark, yellowtail, 

and white sea bass set gill net fishery, the midAtlantic coastal gillnet fishery, the New England 

multispecies sink gillnet and small pelagic surface 

gillnet fishery, the Atlantic swordfish, tuna, and 

shark pair trawl fishery, the Atlantic swordfish 

drift gill net fishery, and the Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico longline fishery. However, compilation 

and analysis of the 1994 data is still in progress. 

Appendix B lists the fisheries observed in 1989­

1993, their associated levels of observer coverage, 

incidental takes by species, and estimated annual 

removal levels. 

Categorization of Fisheries 

Under the Interim Exemption, commercial 

fisheries were assigned to one of three categories 

based on whether the level of incidental interaction 

with marine mammals was frequent, occasional, or 

remote. Interpretation of Congressional intent 

resulted in a definition of frequent, occasional, and 

remote likelihood based on a per-vessel rate of 

incidental take. Based on these interpretations, 

internal discussions, and public comments, NMFS 

established the following criteria for classifying 

fisheries: 

Category I. There is documented information 

indicating a "frequent" incidental taking of 

marine mammals in the fishery. "Frequent" 

means that it is highly likely that more than 

one marine mammal will be incidentally taken 

by a randomly selected vessel in the fishery 

during a 20-day period. 

Category II. (1) There is documented 

information indicating an "occasional" 

incidental taking of marine mammals in the 

fishery, or (2) in the absence of information 

indicating the frequency of incidental taking 

of marine mammals, other factors such as 

fishing techniques, gear used, methods used 

to deter marine mammals, target species, 

seasons and areas fished, and species and 

distribution of marine mammals in the area 

suggest there is a likelihood of at least an 

"occasional" incidental taking in the fishery. 

"Occasional" means that there is some 

likelihood that any marine mammal will be 

incidentally taken by a randomly selected 

vessel in the fishery during a 20-day period, 

but that there is little likelihood that more 

than one marine mammal will be incidentally 

taken. 

Category III. (1) There is information 

indicating no more than a "remote likelihood" 

of an incidental taking of a marine mammal in 

the fishery, or (2) in the absence of 

information indicating the frequency of 

incidental taking of marine mammals, other 

factors such as fishing techniques, gear used, 

methods used to deter marine mammals, 

target species, seasons and areas fished, and 

species and distribution of marine mammals 

in the area suggest there is no more than a 

remote likelihood of an incidental take in the 

fishery. "Remote likelihood" means that it is 

Page 11 
Chapter II. Marine Mammal Interactions 

with Commercial Fishing Operations 

highly unlikely that a marine mammal 

will be taken in the course of fishing 

operations. 

The final List of Fisheries for 1994, as 

published on August 25, 1994, pursuant to the 

Interim Exemption categorization method, listed 

7 Category I fisheries, 39 Category II fisheries, and 

142 Category III fisheries. Specific changes to the 

1993 list are as follows: 

C The Alaska Copper River and Bering River 

(adjacent to Prince William Sound) salmon 

drift gill net fishery was recategorized from 

Category I to Category II. 

C The Washington and Oregon Lower 

Columbia River salmon drift gill net fishery 

was recategorized from Category I to 

Category III. 

C The Washington Willapa Bay salmon drift gill 

net fishery was recategorized from Category 

I to Category III. 

C The Washington Grays Harbor salmon set 

and drift gill net fishery was recategorized 

from Category I to Category III. 

C All California gill net fisheries, based on mesh 

size of net, were recategorized by redefining 

California set and drift gill net fisheries that 

use a stretched mesh size of greater than 3.5 

inches as Category I fisheries, and redefining 

set and drift gill net fisheries that use a 

stretched mesh size of 3.5 inches or less as 

Category III. This action made obsolete the 

following fishery designations for all 

California set and drift gill net fisheries, 

including: the California thresher shark and 

swordfish drift gill net fishery, the California 

halibut set gill net fishery, the California angel 

shark set gill net fishery, the California 

soupfin shark, yellowtail, white sea bass set 

gill net fishery, the California Klamath River 

gill net fishery, and the California white 

croaker, bonito, and flying fish gill net fishery. 

This action also redefined the Washington, 

Oregon, and California herring, smelt, shad, 

sturgeon, bottom fish, mullet, perch, rockfish 

gill net fishery to include only Washington 

and Oregon. 

C The Gulf of Maine salmon aquaculture (net 

pen) fishery was recategorized from Category 

III to Category II. 

Table A-1 in Appendix A presents the entire 

1994 list of Category I and Category II Fisheries. In 

addition, Figure 3 illustrates the percentage of 1994 

Figure 3 

Category I and Category II fisheries. 

Page 12 
Chapter II. Marine Mammal Interactions 

with Commercial Fishing Operations 

Registered Fishing Vessels by Category 

Registration Year 1994 

Both I & II 

4% Category I 

22% 

Category II 

74% 

New Regime to Govern Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals in 

Commercial Fisheries 

The 1994 amendments to the MMPA were 

enacted on April 30, 1994 (Public Law 103-238), 

after considerable input from all affected parties. 

The amendments replace the Interim Exemption 

for Commercial Fisheries (section 114) with a longterm regime for governing interactions between 

marine mammals and commercial fisheries 

(sections 117 and 118). The overall goal of section 

118 is to reduce the incidental mortality and 

serious injury occurring in the course of 

commercial fishing operations to insignificant 

levels approaching a zero mortality and serious 

injury rate. 

To implement the 1994 Amendments to the 

MMPA, the Secretary of Commerce must develop 

regulations governing the interactions between 

marine mammals and commercial fisheries. These 

new regulations will replace the current 

regulations authorizing commercial fisheries under 

the Interim Exemption at 50 CFR 229. The 

proposed regulations will implement new sections 

101(a)(5)(E) and 118 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371 

(a)(5)(E) and 1387, Public Law 103-238), which 

provide exceptions from the Act’s moratorium on 

the taking of marine mammals incidental to certain 

commercial fishing operations. These regulations 

will apply to all commercial fisheries operating in 

waters under the jurisdiction of the United States, 

except for vessels engaged in the purse seine 

fishery for tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific. 

Upon implementation, the provisions of section 

118 of the MMPA, and not sections 103, 104 or 114, 

will govern interactions between marine mammals 

and commercial fishing operations. The 

development of the proposed regulations has been 

characterized by public involvement throughout 

the process via public meetings, working sessions, 

and distribution of the MMPA Bulletin (a bimonthly news publication of the NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources). 

Regulations to implement section 118 must be 

issued by September 1, 1995. The first draft of the 

proposed regulations was informally presented to 

the NMFS MMPA Task Force in October 1994. The 

MMPA Task Force is composed of representatives 

from NMFS’ regions and science centers that are 

either involved in the research and management of 

marine mammals or fisheries, or responsible for 

interpretation or enforcement of the Act’s 

provisions. A series of conference calls with the 

Task Force resulted in general agreement with the 

revised structure of the regulations. There was 

also general agreement to conduct informal, 

regional working sessions to which representatives 

of the fishing industry, the environmental 

community, Congress, and other interested parties 

would be welcome. 

The second draft of the proposed regulations 

was distributed to and discussed with interested 

Page 13 
Chapter II. Marine Mammal Interactions 

with Commercial Fishing Operations 

parties at two MMPA working sessions held in 

November and December 1994 in Silver Spring, 

Maryland and in Seattle, Washington. The main 

topics of discussion were the definitions of the 

categories for commercial fisheries and the 

categorization of fisheries when incidental take 

data are scant. In addition, the work sessions 

addressed the registration and reporting 

requirements, the establishment of Take Reduction 

Teams and associated Take Reduction Plans and 

the definitions of “serious injury” and “zero 

mortality rate goal”. 

Proposed regulations are being prepared for 

publication and final regulations to implement 

section 118 are to be effective on or before 

September 1, 1995. 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments 

Under the New Regime 

Scientific Review Groups 

The 1994 MMPA amendments required 

NMFS to establish three independent, regional 

Scientific Review Groups. The review groups were 

intended by Congress to advise NMFS and USFWS 

on stock assessment research and monitoring, 

habitat conservation (including specific measures 

to reduce adverse impact to marine mammal 

habitat), and changes to fishing gear and practices 

that will reduce incidental mortality and serious 

injury of marine mammals. The groups, one each 

for the Atlantic (including Gulf of Mexico), Pacific 

(including Hawaii), and Alaska geographic areas, 

are composed of individuals with expertise in 

marine mammal population dynamics and 

modeling and in fishing technology and practices. 

They also reflect the theme of the amendments, 

requiring NMFS and USFWS to get the public 

involved in shaping management policies 

regarding marine mammals and human activity in 

the marine environment. 

NMFS established the review groups in June 

1994 after consulting with a variety of agencies and 

interest groups. NMFS has since met with the 

groups once in a combined session, and a second 

round of meetings (individual group sessions) was 

convened in mid-December 1994 and early January 

1995, to discuss and provide comments on the 

Stock Assessment Reports that NMFS and USFWS 

are required to prepare on the status of all marine 

mammal population stocks occurring in waters 

under U.S. jurisdiction. 

Stock Assessment Reports 

As mentioned above, NMFS and USFWS, in 

consultation with the Regional Scientific Review 

Groups, are required to prepare stock assessment 

reports that describe the status of each marine 

mammal stock which occurs in waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States. These reports 

include, among other things, a description of the 

marine mammal stock and its geographic range; 

several basic biological parameters of population 

dynamics; estimates of human-induced mortality, 

by source; a determination of the status of the stock 

(stocks which have a level of human-caused 

mortality that is likely to cause the stock to be 

reduced or kept below its optimum sustainable 

population would be classified as "strategic 

stocks"); and an estimate of a potential biological 

removal (PBR) level for the affected stock that, if 

not exceeded, would allow the stock to reach or 

maintain its optimum sustainable population. The 

reports are to be made available for public review 

and comment and will serve as the basis for Take 

Reduction Plans for strategic stocks that interact 

with category I and II fisheries. 

Potential Biological Removal 

NMFS convened a workshop of NMFS and 

USFWS scientists (primarily individuals charged 

with preparing stock assessment reports) and 

representatives from the Alaskan Native 

Page 14 
Chapter II. Marine Mammal Interactions 

with Commercial Fishing Operations 

community, held in La Jolla, California on June 27­

29, 1994, and referred to as the PBR workshop, to 

develop a set of preliminary guidelines for use in 

stock assessment report preparation. Specifically, 

NMFS and USFWS needed quantitative guidelines 

on which to base stock identification and determine 

the parameters used to calculate PBR levels, e.g., 

the maximum number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to 

reach or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population.) The report of the workshop was then 

used as guidance for preparing the draft stock 

assessments and was distributed to NMFS and 

USFWS staff for their use. 

The 131 NMFS draft stock assessment reports 

and the guidelines (the PBR workshop report) used 

for preparing them were completed on August 1, 

1994, and made available in the Federal Register 

for public review and comment (59 FR 40527). 

NMFS and USFWS both extended their comment 

periods through December 1, 1994. The final stock 

assessment reports will be completed and available 

to the public in early June 1995. 

Take Reduction Plans 

Take Reduction Teams consisting of 

representatives from all interested constituencies 

will be established to develop plans to reduce the 

incidental mortality and serious injury of marine 

mammals that interact with category I or II 

fisheries. The short-term goal of the plans is to 

reduce mortality and serious injury of s marine 

mammals incidental to commercial fishing 

operations to levels below the affected stock's PBR. 

The long-term goal of the plans is to reduce the 

rates of incidental mortality and serious injury of 

marine mammals to insignificant levels 

approaching a zero rate. 

Page 15 
Chapter III. Tuna Interactions with Commercial


Fisheries in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean


Overview 

The most widely known interaction between 

marine mammals and commercial fisheries is the 

incidental take of dolphins by yellowfin tuna purse 

seiners in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). 

For reasons not fully understood, schools of large 

yellowfin tuna (25 kg or larger) tend to associate 

with ETP dolphins. In the late 1950s, fishermen 

began exploiting this association by deploying 

large purse seine nets around the more readily 

observed dolphin schools to catch the tuna 

swimming below. Despite the fishermen's 

attempts to release the dolphins, many became 

trapped in the nets and drowned. 

Efforts to reduce dolphin mortality in the ETP 

have been a central focus of the MMPA since it was 

enacted in 1972. The 1994 efforts include continued 

implementation of the International Dolphin 

Conservation Act of 1992 (IDCA)(Public Law 102­

523), and continued research on methods of 

harvesting yellowfin tuna without encircling 

marine mammals. 

In 1992, efforts to reduce dolphin mortality in 

the ETP resulted in passage of the IDCA, which 

focuses on ways to eliminate rather than merely 

reduce dolphin mortality. The IDCA gave 

authority to the Department of State to enter into 

international agreements with other nations to 

institute, effective March 1, 1994, a 5-year 

moratorium on harvesting tuna by setting purse 

seine nets on marine mammals. It also amended 

the general permit issued to the American 

Tunaboat Association (ATA), reducing the dolphin 

mortality allowed under the permit from an annual 

quota of 20,500 dolphins to 1,000 for 1992 and to 

800 for the 14-month period from January 1993 to 

March 1994. The ATA general permit was 

scheduled to expire at that point. However, no 

major tuna fishing nation committed to the 5-year 

moratorium. Thus, the general permit continues in 

effect until December 31, 1999, with the additional 

requirement that annual incidental dolphin 

mortality not exceed the number of mortalities 

which occurred under the permit during the 

preceding year. Dolphin mortality under the ATA 

permit was 115 for the 1993 calendar year. Under 

IDCA requirements, authorized mortality for 1994 

could not exceed 114 animals. In early 1994, NMFS 

determined that mortality under the ATA permit 

was approaching 114. As a result, on February 8, 

1994, setting on dolphins under the ATA permit 

was prohibited for the remainder of the calendar 

year. Also in February, as a result of a court order, 

NMFS prohibited the taking of any of the 

northeastern stock of offshore spotted dolphin 

under the ATA permit. This prohibition was 

included as a new element in the U.S. marine 

mammal program, and, therefore, was also 

required of foreign programs in order for those 

programs to be comparable to the U.S. program. 

Tuna-Dolphin Legislation--

During 1994, a number of significant events 

occurred concerning changes to yellowfin purse 

seine fishing. The fishery was affected by Federal 

Court decisions, an early closure of the fishery, and 

international talks and agreements. In 1994, U.S. 

purse seine vessels made 79 sets in the ETP with 

100 percent observer coverage by NMFS observers 

for each set. Mortality for the U.S. fleet was 115 in 

1993, and 109 in 1994. In a fishery with only three 

vessels setting on dolphins and an allowable take 

of just over 100 mammals, this was a significant 

reduction from the previous year. However, the 

low quota was reached early. On February 8, 1994, 

setting on dolphins was prohibited for the 

remainder of 1994. The low quota contributed to 

an increase in overall kill-per-set (1.124) for the 

fishing year 1994, as there was no opportunity to 

Page 16 
Chapter III. Tuna Interactions with Commercial 

Fisheries in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean 

average sets with moderate kill with zero mortality 

sets over a longer fishing season. 

The MMPA was amended by the IDCA on 

October 26, 1992. The IDCA, among other things, 

established guidelines for a program that 

eliminated the practice of setting nets on marine 

mammals. Under the IDCA, the United States was 

to seek an agreement with one or more tuna 

fishing countries to establish a 5-year moratorium 

on intentionally deploying purse seine nets to 

encircle dolphins. However, no other harvesting 

country would agree to a moratorium. In the 

absence of a moratorium, the IDCA extended the 

general permit held by the American Tunaboat 

Association (ATA), allowing U.S. fishermen 

operating under the permit to take marine 

mammals incidental to their purse seine operations 

until 1999. The annual quota, according to the 

IDCA, can not exceed the number of dolphin 

mortalities which occurred under the permit 

during the preceding year, and must continue to be 

reduced by a statistically significant amount each 

year to levels approaching zero by December 31, 

1999. 

Under the MMPA, an "intermediary nation" is 

defined as a nation that exports yellowfin tuna or 

yellowfin tuna products to the United States and 

imports yellowfin tuna or yellowfin tuna products 

that are subject to a direct ban on importation into 

the United States. All yellowfin tuna exported 

from an intermediary nation is prohibited. At the 

end of 1994, only three nations, Italy, Japan, and 

Costa Rica, were listed as intermediary nations. 

A primary nation embargo is implemented 

when a nation whose purse seine vessels of larger 

than 400 short tons carrying capacity operate in the 

ETP without an "affirmative finding" from the 

United States. An affirmative finding is granted to 

a nation that demonstrates a marine mammal 

regulatory program and mortality rates that are 

comparable to the U.S. program. At the end of 

1994, five nations, Columbia, Mexico, Panama, 

Vanuata, and Venezuela, were embargoed as 

primary nations. All yellowfin tuna and yellowfin 

tuna products harvested in the ETP by purse seine 

is prohibited from these nations. 

In 1994 Spain and Ecuador received 

affirmative findings as nations that do not set on 

dolphins. The island nation of Vanuatu received an 

affirmative finding as a nation that intentionally set 

on dolphin. The Republic of Colombia, which 

began the year in an embargo status, demonstrated 

a regulatory program comparable to the U.S.and 

received an affirmative finding in March of 1994 

joining Vanuatu. However, both of these nations 

were embargoed in September 1994 for not 

incorporating the January 1994 Federal Court 

decision which prohibited intentional sets on the 

depleted stock of northeastern offshore spotted 

dolphin (Stenella attenuata). 

The United States, as a member of the InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), 

participates in the Commission’ s 

Intergovernmental Meetings, and meetings related 

to its International Dolphin Conservation Program 

(IDCP). The IDCP was adopted by international 

agreement at the Annual Meeting of the IATTC 

held in La Jolla, California, on June 16-18, 1992, to 

reduce progressively dolphin mortality in the ETP 

tuna fisheries to levels approaching zero through 

the setting of annual dolphin mortality limits 

(DMLs), with the goal of eliminating dolphin 

mortality in this fishery and seeking ecologically 

sound means of capturing large yellowfin tuna not 

in association with dolphins. The IDCP provided 

a DML for the international fleet in the ETP of 

19,500 for 1993, which would be lowered over a 7­

year period to less than 5,000 in 1999. An 

International Review Panel, on which the United 

States participates, was established to review and 

report on the compliance of the international fleet 

with these dolphin mortality limits. 

Page 17 
Chapter III. Tuna Interactions with Commercial 

Fisheries in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean 

The IDCP has enjoyed unexpected success to 

date. Total dolphin mortalities in the ETP tuna 

fishery in 1993 and 1994 were 3,609 and 4,095, 

respectively--well below the 1999 level. As 

mentioned earlier, U.S. purse seiners were 

prohibited from setting on dolphins after February 

8, 1994, for having attained the maximum dolphin 

mortality allowed under the IDCA. No U.S. tuna 

purse seine vessels applied for an ETP DML for the 

first half of 1995. 

Regulatory Actions--

In 1993, NMFS determined that the 

northeastern stocks of offshore spotted dolphins 

(Stenella attenuata) were depleted to levels less than 

their optimum sustainable population. On January 

27, 1994, the Federal District Court for the 

Northern District of California prohibited sets on 

schools of dolphins where any northeastern 

offshore spotted dolphins were seen prior to 

release of the net skiff. On October 20, 1994 NMFS 

published a final rule that prohibited sets on 

schools of dolphins in an area where any offshore 

spotted dolphins have been observed: between 5o 

N and 40o N, and east of 

120o

 W. 

In June 1994, NMFS published regulations 

implementing the dolphin safe requirements of the 

IDCA. These regulations prohibit tuna that is not 

dolphin safe from being sold, purchased, offered 

for sale, transported, or shipped in the United 

States after June 1, 1994. The purpose for these 

regulations is to deter the use of the U.S. market as 

an incentive for catching tuna in association with 

dolphins. 

In July 1994, NMFS published a final rule to 

define "import" as it pertains to tuna products 

affected by the MMPA. This is required to make 

consistent the treatment of tuna products that are 

entered into a country's Customs territory, rather 

than merely entering the country's territory for 

purposes of storage or trans-shipment. 

After February 28, 1994, in accordance with 

the MMPA, it became illegal for any person or 

vessel that is subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States, to intentionally set a purse seine net 

on or encircle any marine mammal unless under 

the general permit issued to the ATA, or as 

necessary for approved scientific research. NMFS 

published a proposed rule in October 1994 

explaining the geographical scope of this 

provision. 

Dolphin-Safe Research--

Following the second Dolphin-Safe Research 

Planning Workshop held in March 1994, the 

Dolphin-Safe Research Program in NMFS’ Office of 

Protected Resources, Marine Mammal Division 

began implementing the research program 

outlined by workshop participants. Contracts have 

been awarded to various researchers, primarily 

from the military sector, to characterize the 

physical environment of the eastern tropical Pacific 

Ocean (ETP) and the target signatures of large 

yellowfin tuna under three detection modes: 

acoustic, optical and radar. In addition to these 

contracts, the Dolphin-Safe Program cooperated 

with the SWC Coastal Division in a multidimensional field survey testing various types of 

optical detection devices, including both the 

LIDAR device tested last year by the Dolphin-Safe 

Program aboard a commercial purse-seiner's 

helicopter, and a passive imaging device being 

developed by a commercial organization under a 

Small Business Innovative Research grant awarded 

in response to the Dolphin-Safe Program's bid 

solicitation the previous year. Results from 

experiments with both the LIDAR and the passive 

imaging devices were promising enough that 

additional research is planned for the coming year. 

Page 18 
Chapter III. Tuna Interactions with Commercial 

Fisheries in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean 

In addition to these activities, Dolphin-Safe 

program personnel completed the workshop report 

from last year's research planning workshop and a 

report summarizing FADS research at SWC during 

1989-1994. Personnel from the InterAmerican 

Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the 

Dolphin-Safe Program personnel completed a 

cooperative project funded by the Dolphin-Safe 

Program in 1992, correlating environmental 

characteristics in the ETP with capture of medium 

and large yellowfin tuna not associated with 

dolphins. Captures were found to correlate 

strongly with a relatively narrow range of surface 

water temperatures, a result that will help tuna 

fishermen to target greater quantities of dolphinsafe (unassociated) tuna in the ETP. In 1995, work 

will continue on a second IATTC project funded by 

the Dolphin-Safe Program, to investigate trophic 

preferences of top predators in the ETP. 

Completion of this second project is expected in 

August 1995. 

Page 19 
Chapter IV. Marine Mammal Interactions with Other


Human Activities


Small Take Authorizations 

The MMPA provides a mechanism for 

authorizing, upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. 

citizens who engage in a specified activity (other 

than commercial fishing) for periods not to exceed 

five years per authorization. Before issuing 

regulations that allow the takes, NMFS must 

determine that the takes will not have more than a 

negligible impact on the species requested to be 

taken and will not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of the species for 

subsistence hunting. The regulations require the 

applicant to monitor the taking of marine 

mammals during the activity and to report the 

results to NMFS. 

In 1994, four specific activities had 

authorization to incidentally take marine mammals 

under this provision of the Act. The authorized 

activities included (1) the taking of ringed seals 

incidental to seismic activities on the ice in the 

Beaufort Sea; (2) the taking of six species of marine 

mammals incidental to energy exploration in the 

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas; (3) the taking of seals 

and sea lions incidental to the launching of Titan 

IV space rockets from Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

California and (4) the taking of a number of species 

of marine mammals during Navy ship shock trials 

off southern California. 

On May 13, 1993, NMFS received an 

application for a small take authorization from the 

U.S. Navy. The Navy sought authorization to 

incidentally take marine mammals while 

conducting military activities involving the 

underwater detonation of conventional explosives 

in the Navy's Outer Sea Test Range (OSTR), an 

area seaward of the Channel Islands in California. 

One such activity involved shock testing the U.S.S. 

John Paul Jones, an AEGIS-class destroyer. 

The Navy requested a take of four species of 

pinnipeds and 17 species of cetaceans by 

harassment, injury and death, mostly harassment. 

The Navy described in detail the efforts that will be 

made to minimize project-related impacts to 

marine mammals. It strongly believed that 

impacts could be held to an acceptably low level by 

mandating a conservative two nautical-mile safety 

zone for marine mammal exclusion and by 

incorporating an active aerial survey monitoring 

effort in the program both prior to, and after 

detonation of explosives. Aerial surveys were 

conducted by the SWC during 1993 and 1994 in 

cooperation with the Navy to determine the 

density and distribution of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the San Nicholas Island, California. The 

goal was to determine seasons and areas with 

lowest abundance of marine mammals so that ship 

shock trials could be conducted with minimal 

impact. A total of 13,734 km was surveyed within 

a 2,966 km2

 study area during a 17-month period 

resulting in 462 on-effort sightings of18 marine 

mammal species. The Navy stated that tests would 

not be conducted if marine mammals, sea turtles, 

seabird flocks or fish schools are detected during 

aerial overflights within the safety zone, or if 

weather and sea conditions preclude adequate 

aerial surveillance. Also, if post-test surveys 

determined that an observed injurious or lethal 

take of a marine mammal has occurred, the test 

procedure and the monitoring methods would be 

reviewed and appropriate changes made. 

On February 3, 1994, NMFS promulgated final 

regulations to govern this incidental take. 

Included in those regulations were, among other 

things, the mitigation and monitoring 

requirements described above. On April 12, 1994, 

NMFS issued a Letter of Authorization for shock 

testing the U.S.S. John Paul Jones and on that same 

day, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed 

a complaint against NMFS and the Navy in U.S. 

District Court in Los Angeles. After settlement 

Page 20 
Chapter IV. Marine Mammal Interactions with Other Human Activities 

(see Chapter XII - Litigation), the shock trial was 

allowed to proceed. 

The shock trial was conducted on the Navy's 

OSTR and included detonating two 10,000 lb. 

charges on June 9 and June 27, 1994. The shock 

trial resulted in no observed injurious or lethal 

takes of marine mammals. 

Small Take Amendment 

Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA was amended 

by the 1994 MMPA amendments (Public Law 103­

238) to establish an expedited process by which 

citizens of the United States can apply for an 

authorization to incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals by harassment. It established 

specific time limits for public notice and comment 

on any requests for authorization which would be 

granted under this paragraph. However, in 

circumstances where a request is identical to one 

considered in the previous year, Congress expects 

NMFS to act expeditiously in complying with the 

notice and comment requirements; no need exists, 

in such a case, for NMFS to use the full 120 days 

allowed. NMFS is using the general rulemaking 

authority available under section 112 of the MMPA 

to establish a process for granting authorization in 

the case of small takes by harassment in the Arctic 

Ocean. 

Under the new small take provisions, NMFS 

accepted an application on August 18, 1994, from 

the State of Washington Department of Corrections 

for the take of small numbers of harbor seals by 

harassment incidental to the demolition of an 

existing dock facility and the driving of 

approximately 152 new piles at the Still Harbor 

Dock Facility on McNeil Island in southern Puget 

Sound, WA. The demolition and pile driving 

activities are anticipated to be completed in two 

seasons’ specified work window from November 

1 to February 15, 1994/95 for demolition and 

November 15 to February 15, 1995/96 for pile 

driving. At the end of 1994, the authorization 

process was ongoing.

California Sea Lion Conflict with 

Steelhead at the Ballard Locks 

NMFS and the Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) continued a cooperative 

interagency program to minimize predation by 

California sea lion on Lake Washington wild 

winter-run steelhead at the Ballard Locks, Seattle, 

WA. during the 1993/1994 steelhead run 

(December 1993 through May 1994). The sea 

lion/steelhead conflict, commonly referred to as 

the “Herschel Problem”: (because of the nickname, 

“Herschel,” given to a large sea lion present in 

earlier years), was first noted in 1985 when serious 

declines in the wild winter-run steelhead were 

documented concurrent with research that 

documented that California sea lions were 

removing significant numbers of adult fish that 

were returning to spawn. A complete description 

of the sea lion/steelhead conflict can be found in 

the 1994 Environmental Assessment prepared by 

NMFS and WDFW. 

The 1994 program was a continuation of 

interagency efforts that commenced in 1985 by 

NMFS, WDFW, the Army Corps of Engineers and 

the Muckleshoot and Suquamish Indian tribes to 

protect and enhance this depressed run of wild 

steelhead that migrate through the Ballard Locks. 

Congress provided NMFS with sufficient funding 

to implement a predation control program using a 

phased approach with an acoustic deterrence 

device placed to create an "acoustic barrier" 

downstream of the fishway as the first phase, and 

a capture/relocation effort as the second phase 

applied only to sea lions that penetrated the 

acoustic barrier. Four sea lions were captured and 

translocated; one was transported to the outer 

coast of Washington and released, and three were 

relocated to southern California in April. In 

Page 21 
Chapter IV. Marine Mammal Interactions 

with Other Human Activities 

addition, one harbor seal was captured at the Locks 

and transported to Hood Canal. Total estimated 

predation amounted to 8 percent of the steelhead 

run. Although several sea lions penetrated the 

acoustic barrier, they exhibited different behavior 

when exposed to the acoustic noise and no 

predation was observed in the ensonified area. 

However, because the total run consisted of only 76 

wild steelhead, it is not possible to conclude that 

the reduced predation was attributable to the 

acoustic devices or if it was an artifact of the low 

run. The 1994 total spawning escapement was 70 

steelhead, the lowest ever, and cause for the State 

to request lethal removal authority under the 1994 

amendments to the MMPA. 

Pacific Coast Task Force/Pinniped Removal Authority 

The MMPA Amendments of April 1994 added 

a new section to the MMPA which, in addition to 

requiring NMFS to conduct two studies and report 

on interactions between Pacific Coast harbor seals 

and California sea lions and salmonid fish stocks, 

sets forth a process for authorization of intentional 

lethal taking of individually identifiable pinnipeds 

that are having a significant negative impact on 

salmonids that are either listed, approaching listing 

under the ESA or migrating through the Ballard 

Locks in Seattle, Washington. 

On July 12, 1994, NMFS received an 

application from the State of Washington to 

consider the lethal removal of California sea lions 

that are depredating a wild run of winter steelhead 

during their migration through the Ballard Locks. 

NMFS subsequently determined that the State's 

application provided sufficient evidence to warrant 

establishment of a Task Force. The Task Force was 

composed of 21 members consisting of scientists 

knowledgeable about the sea lion/steelhead 

conflict, representatives of conservation and fishing 

community organizations, the State, Indian tribes, 

NOAA and other Federal agencies involved in the 

conflict at the Locks. On September 30, 1994, the 

Task Force convened in Seattle, Washington and 

subsequently held three more meetings to consider 

pertinent data on California sea lions, winter-run 

steelhead, the nature and extent of the interaction 

at the Locks, the design and operation of the 

Locks/fishway facility, and past measures and 

considerations for reducing or eliminating the sea 

lion/steelhead interaction. 

The Task Force submitted its 

recommendations on November 25, 1994, with 

minority views being added to the report on 

December 5, 1994. By a 13 to 8 vote, the Task Force 

agreed to recommend approval of lethal removal of 

individually identifiable California sea lions 

provided that: (1) all practicable attempts are 

made to capture and place identified predatory sea 

lions in captivity during the duration of the run 

(lethal removal is to occur only if adequate holding 

facilities are unavailable); (2) the sea lion predation 

rate exceeds 10 percent of the steelhead run in any 

consecutive 7-day period after January 1, 1995; (3) 

acoustic deterrence devices are in place and 

feasibility of expanded efforts in conjunction with 

other methods of deterrence are investigated; (4) 

the Corps of Engineers provides a report to NMFS 

on their efforts to address fish passage issues; (5) 

lethal removal consists of capturing identifiable sea 

lions and implementing euthanasia under 

guidance of Animal Care Committee; (6) removals 

(lethal and non-lethal) are limited to 40 sea lions 

with the provision that lethal removal cease at 12 

animals at which time the Task Force will 

reconvene. Further, the Task Force wishes to 

reconvene if 20 removals (lethal and non-lethal) 

occur. At the end of 1994, NMFS was still 

considering the Task Force recommendations. 

Other Interactions 

Page 22 
Chapter IV. Marine Mammal Interactions with Other Human Activities 

The majority of northern elephant seals in the 

United States use the offshore Channel Islands in 

southern California for resting, breeding, molting 

and pupping. However, in 1994, a new mainland 

northern elephant seal colony (a few hundred 

animals) was established on a beach in San Luis 

Obispo County, central California. This site is 

close to a busy highway that is traveled by 

thousands of motorists each year. Since these seals 

are easily visible, motorists stop and observe the 

seals. More than a hundred people at one time 

have been observed on the beach, with over 60 cars 

parked on the nearby roadside. This has created a 

traffic safety hazard and is exposing those people 

who walk through the colony to the possibility of 

serious injury. Parents and very young children 

walk within a few feet of the seals. People have 

been observed petting seals and riding a seal, 

kicking sand at the seals, and a report of a seal 

biting someone in the leg has been received. 

In May 1994, an enforcement officer with the 

Office of Enforcement, Southwest Division, NMFS, 

patrolled the beach area to inform tourists about 

the laws protecting seals and of the dangers of 

approaching seals too closely. In June 1994, staff 

from the Southwest Region, NMFS, and the Office 

of Enforcement, Southwest Division, met with the 

California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), California Highway Patrol, County 

Sheriffs Office, California Department of Parks and 

Recreation, and U.S. National Biological Survey to 

discuss possible solutions to the problems at this 

new haul-out site. Caltrans agreed to post 

additional "no parking" signs. As an interim 

measure, the NMFS, SWC is developing 

educational signs to inform the public about the 

laws protecting seals, the potential biological 

impacts on the animals from disturbance or 

intentional feeding, and the safety hazards from 

approaching the animals too closely. As a long 

term measure, the State of California is exploring 

the possibility of developing an interpretive center 

at the site to allow motorists to park safely and 

observe the seals from a safe distance. 

The major non-fishery human-induced impact 

on several species of large whales is ship strikes. 

This issue is particularly significant for the 

extremely low population (300-350 animals) of 

North Atlantic right whales. Although the number 

of mortalities or debilitating injuries from ship 

strikes is small, these are still believed to be the 

principal factors retarding the growth and recovery 

of the right whale population. Areas of primary 

concern are the coastal waters of the southeastern 

U.S. where calving and wintering habitats co-occur 

with areas of high-use vessel traffic. A research 

and monitoring program has been initiated to 

eliminate/minimize potential impacts in these 

waters, i.e., the Early Warning Network, where 

aerial overflights advise local mariners of the 

presence of right whales to avoid collisions. 

Page 23 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery Programs


Harbor Seal in Gulf of Alaska 

Recent studies have shown statistically 

significant declines in the number of harbor seals in 

the central and western Gulf of Alaska and Prince 

William Sound. Counts on Tugidak Island, once a 

major haulout and breeding site, and other areas of 

the Kodiak Archipelago declined by 90 percent 

from the late-1970s to 1992. Although survey 

numbers in 1993 and 1994 increased slightly over 

1992, surveys conducted in Prince William Sound 

also indicated a 60 percent decline at trend sites 

between 1984 and 1994. 

Data from the eastern Bering Sea also indicate 

declines, but the trends are less clear than those in 

the Gulf of Alaska. In Bristol Bay, abundance 

along the north side of the Alaska Peninsula 

peaked in 1976 after fluctuating from 1966 to 1976, 

then declined 50 percent from 1976 to 1991. 

However, 1991 numbers were slightly higher than 

those from 1966. Counts at Nanvak Bay in 

northern Bristol Bay declined by 90 percent from 

1975 to 1991. 

NMFS surveyed the Aleutian Islands in 

August 1994, where a comprehensive population 

assess-ment had never before been completed. 

Detection of any trends in this area will not be 

possible until additional surveys are conducted. 

Harbor seal populations in southeastern 

Alaska are believed to be stable. The 1993 

Ketchikan trend route survey numbers were down 

by 54 percent of that counted in 1988; however 

these numbers may not be comparable as the 1993 

survey was conducted later in the year than the 

1988 survey. Data from the 1994 survey of 

Ketchikan trend sites are being analyzed and 

results are not yet available. 

Because of these observed trends toward 

declining numbers, NMFS, on April 11, 1994, 

initiated a formal status review of the harbor seal 

in Alaska to determine whether listing as a 

depleted species was warranted. NMFS 

acknowledged that a complete status review 

including a determination of optimum sustainable 

population will depend, at least in part, on 

defining the stock structure for harbor seals in 

Alaska. 

Concurrent with this status review, the 1994 

Amendments to the MMPA required NMFS to 

prepare a series of draft stock assessment reports 

for marine mammal stocks potentially affected by 

commercial fisheries throughout the United States, 

including Alaska. In order to provide a comprehensive review of these stock assessment 

reports, including the report on harbor seal in 

Alaska, the MMPA further directed NMFS to 

appoint a series of regional SRGs to comment on 

the draft stock assessments provided by NMFS. 

On August 1, 1994, the Alaska SRG met for 

the first time. It was recognized that a review of 

Alaska marine mammal stocks by the SRG would 

require more than one day of discussion. The SRG 

was not able to discuss the draft assessment report 

for harbor seals at this meeting, and it was decided 

that this species would be taken up at a second 

meeting of the SRG, which was to occur in January 

1995. 

NMFS decided that the draft stock assessment 

reports for harbor seals in Alaska, and the stock 

structures as presented in those reports, were 

necessary to complete the status review initiated in 

April 1994. As a result, a status determination was 

delayed until a review by the Alaska SRG could be 

completed. 

Independent of the status review and the 

review by the SRG, NMFS, the Alaska Department 

of Fish & Game and the National Park Service 

pursued research and monitoring efforts in 1994 to 

resolve the status issue. These efforts included 

population monitoring of trend sites, continuation 

Page 24 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery 

Programs and Other Species Management Actions 

of the state-wide survey, the development of 

survey correction factors for abundance 

monitoring, satellite tagging, hematological 

studies, demo-graphic studies, the establishment of 

observer programs for fisheries that may take 

harbor seals, the continued subsistence harvest 

monitoring and tissue sample collection, and by 

seeking cooperative management agreements with 

Alaska Natives through Section 119 of the 1994 

Amendments to the MMPA. 

California Gray Whale 

On June 16, 1994, the California gray whale 

was officially removed from the U.S. List of 

Endangered and Threatened by the USFWS, 

following a final determination by NMFS that the 

eastern Pacific stock is no longer in danger of 

extinction. While NMFS has authority to list 

species under the ESA, only USFWS can remove a 

species from the list. 

Under section 4(a) of the ESA, NMFS has the 

responsibility to monitor the status of the 

California gray whale for a period of at least 5 

years following delisting. The purpose of 

monitoring populations following delisting is to 

evaluate the validity of the status determination 

used in the delisting process and to determine 

whether the status of the population has 

deteriorated within a 5-year period subsequent to 

delisting. If at any time during this period NMFS 

finds that the species' well-being is at risk, the ESA 

(section 4(b)(7)) requires NMFS to issue emergency 

protective regulations to ensure the conservation of 

the species. 

On June 3, 1994, NMFS announced the 

availablility of its draft "5-Year Plan for Research 

and Monitoring of the Eastern North Pacific 

Population of Gray Whales." Two of the 

recommended research projects have been initiated 

by NMFS scientists. As a result of a survey during 

the winter of 1993/94 of the gray whales' 

southbound migration, NMFS estimates that the 

California gray whale population has increased to 

over 23,000 animals. Confirming earlier estimates 

of gray whale abundance, NMFS scientists 

presented this information at the International 

Whaling Commission annual meeting in Puerto 

Vallarta, Mexico. An estimation of gray whale calf 

production during the northbound migration was 

also initiated between March and June of this year 

by the SWFSC, however analysis of the data from 

this research has not been completed. A final 5­

year monitoring plan is expected to be released in 

April 1995. 

Northern Right Whale 

Critical Habitat 

Northern right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, 

are known to use five primary habitats during their 

annual migration, as described by Kenney, Winn 

and Macaulay (1994), including the following three 

areas off the eastern coast of the United States: (1) 

a winter calving ground in the coastal waters of the 

southeastern United States (SEUS), (2) a late 

winter/ spring feeding and nursery area for a 

small portion of the population in Cape Cod Bay 

(CCB) and (3) and a spring/early summer feeding 

and nursery area for a majority of the population 

in the Great South Channel (GSC). These high-use 

areas may comprise the minimal space required for 

normal calving and foraging behavior that will 

support a viable northern right whale population. 

On June 3, 1994, NMFS designated these three 

areas as critical habitat for the northern right whale 

(59 FR 28793). 

Southeast United States (SEUS): Between 

1989-1992, 31 calves were observed in the coastal 

waters off Georgia and northern Florida (the area 

described as the SEUS), representing 76 percent of 

the total number of calves (n = 41) reported from 

Page 25 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery Programs, 

and Other Species Management Actions 

the North Atlantic during that period (Kraus et al., 

1993). Based on the number of calves, and females 

with calves in the SEUS since 1980, Kraus et al. 

(1993) consider the SEUS as the primary calving 

area for the population. 

The area designated as critical habitat in these 

waters encompasses coastal waters between 

31E15'N. (approximately located at the mouth of 

the Altamaha River, Georgia) and 30E15'N. 

(approx-imately Jacksonville, Florida) from the 

coast out to 15 nautical miles offshore; and the 

coastal waters between 30E15'N. and 28E00'N. 

(approximately Sebastian Inlet, Florida) from the 

coast out to five nautical miles. 

Cape Cod Bay: Northern right whales were 

"rediscovered" in the CCB in the early 1950s. The 

CCB is a large embayment on the U.S. Atlantic 

Ocean off of the State of Massachusetts that is 

bounded on three sides by Cape Cod and the 

Massachusetts coastline from Plymouth, 

Massachusetts, south. To the north, CCB opens to 

Massachusetts Bay and the Gulf of Maine. Right 

whales have occurred in Massachusetts waters in 

most months; however, most sightings occur 

between February and May, with peak abundance 

in late March (Marx and Mayo, 1990). These 

authors suggested that after arrival in CCB when 

prey is at a maximum (or at least at a consistently 

acceptable level) the whales employ small-scale 

foraging movements to select the most dense 

patches of copepods. 

In addition to a foraging area, northern right 

whales use CCB as a nursery area. Schevill, 

Watkins and Moore (1986) reported 21 sightings of 

small calves in 12 or the 26 years of their CCB 

study, including two calves that may have been 

born in CCB. Therefore, the CCB may occasionally 

serve as a calving area, but it more recognized for 

being an important nursery for calves that enter 

into the area after being born in, or near, the SEUS. 

NMFS is soliciting public comment to assess the need for, as well as 

the types of conservation measures, that would be effective in minimizing human-induced disturbance of and potential interaction with 

northern right whales. Photo credit: International Wildlife Coalition. 

Great South Channel: The GSC is a large 

funnel-shaped bathymetric feature at the southern 

extreme of the Gulf of Maine between Georges 

Bank and Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and is one of 

the most used cetacean habitats off the 

northeastern United States. It is likely that a 

significant proportion of the western North 

Atlantic right whale population uses the GSC as a 

feeding area each spring, aggregating to exploit 

exceptionally dense copepod patches. Given that 

not all of the 300-350 right whales in the northwest 

Atlantic population are seen each season, it is very 

likely that most, if not all, of the population in U.S. 

Atlantic shelf waters use the GSC within any given 

season, and that over the course of every 2-3 years 

the entire population in the northwest Atlantic 

may pass through the GSC. 

North Atlantic Right Whale Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

On December 27, 1994, NMFS published an 

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) 

in response to a petition requesting the issuance of 

regulations that would establish specific portection 

zones around every north Atlantic right whale 

(and all other whales) (59FR66513). NMFS is 

Page 26 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery 

Programs and Other Species Management Actions 

soliciting public comment (60-day comment 

period) to assist in determining what, if any, 

conservation measures would be effective in 

minimizing the human-induced disturbance of and 

potential interaction with northern right whales. 

The ANPR comment period signifies a notable 

opportunity to introduce ANY ideas, recommendations, and commentary on potentially effective 

measures to reduce the effects of directed vessel 

interactions on right whales. NMFS will consider 

all suggestions and comments when determining 

what conservation measures, if any at this time, 

would provide feasible and effective protection to 

the northern right whale. 

Regional Recovery Plan Implementation 

Southeastern Implementation Team. In 

1993, NMFS convened a meeting in Brunswick, 

Georgia, to discuss a monitoring program that 

needed to be in place prior to protect northern 

right whales from ship strikes leading to mortality 

and injury on their winter ground, prior to their 

arrival. During this meeting, the Southeastern U.S. 

Right Whale Recovery Plan Implementation Team 

was formed. Members of this team recommended 

that the following monitoring efforts be considered 

to protect whales from December through March 

at the SEUS. 

(1) Daily aerial surveys during the right whale 

calving season; 

(2) Monitoring right whale movements, and 

habitat-use by mothers and calves during the 

right whale calving season; 

(3) Restriction of vessel speeds when right 

whales are known to be in an area and 

visibility is limited. The actual speed 

reduction necessary is defined as then 

minimum safe speed to insure the safety of 

the vessel; 

(4) Dedicated right whale observers that would 

accompany pilots on vessels as they enter and 

leave ports; 

(5) An education program of all Federal, state 

and local parties that might adversely affect 

the species. 

The 1993-1994 season was the first in which 

both large scale aerial surveys, and the Early 

Warning System established in 1993 by the 

Implementation Team, were combined in an effort 

to reduce collisions between vessels and right 

whales within the species high-use area off the 

Georgia-northern Florida coastlines. A report 

discussed at the spring 1994 meeting of the 

Southeastern Implementation Team discussed the 

success of this effort. The report noted that at least 

six times during the 1993-1994 winter season, 

vessels were diverted from potential collisions with 

whales. In addition, the presence of survey aircraft 

routinely reporting right whale sightings to large 

vessels, harbor pilots, and Federal and military 

authorities has raised awareness considerably 

throughout the region. This increased awareness 

was complemented by increased educational 

efforts of the Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources, the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, and the port authorities 

of Savannah, Brunswick, Fernandina Beach , 

Jacksonville and Port Canaveral. Commercial 

shipping interests have participated in the Early 

Warning System with great interest to insure that 

the potential for ship/ whale collisions is reduced. 

The result of these efforts is that no right whale 

mortalities due to collisions with large vessels were 

reported from the surveyed area during the 1994 

survey period. 

However, in February 1994, a right whale calf 

was injured off the Florida coastline south of the 

survey area. The calf was originally seen in the 

survey area, moved south and returned with cut 

flukes and head scars suggesting that the animal 

had been entangled in fishing gear and also struck 

Page 27 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery Programs, 

and Other Species Management Actions 

by a propeller. The animal was last seen in the 

survey area on February 23 east of Amelia Island, 

Georgia. Neither animal, mother or calf, was seen 

in northern waters during the summer 1994. 

The results of the near-daily surveys, the 

once-a-week surveys by Florida Department of 

Environment Protection, and the opportunistic 

survey efforts by Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources indicate that calving takes place 

throughout the area designated as critical habitat in 

1994, and not just in the high-use area in the 

central part of the survey. The movements of right 

whales during the survey period (as indicated by 

survey data) also suggested that some mother/calf 

pairs moved south of the surveyed habitat and 

returned north outside of the area surveyed, e.g., 

outside of the critical habitat. 

During 1994, the Southeast Implementation 

Team developed a quarterly newsletter with the 

intent of increasing the efficiency and effectiveness 

of recovery efforts for the northern right whale. 

The newsletter is edited by members of the team 

and participation in the newsletter is open to 

anyone actively involved in right whale 

conservation efforts including, to this point in time, 

ship operators, harbor pilots, port authorities, 

fishermen, educators, scientists, managers, policy 

makers, non-governmental organizations and other 

concerned citizens. Relevant information from 

areas other than the southeastern calving grounds 

is also included in the newsletter. The first 

newsletter was published in August 1994. 

On November 9, 1994, the Southeastern 

Implementation Team met in Brunswick, Georgia, 

to discuss the 1994-1995 season. Topics of 

discussion included the Early Warning System 

Surveys, training seminars, the development of 

recommended standard operating procedures for 

vessels in the vicinity of right whales, southeastern 

gillnet fisheries, and minimum approach distances 

(see the section on ANPR). A seven- man 

committee was designated to develop 

recommended standard operating procedures for 

vessels operating out of ports associated with the 

right whale calving area. 

New England Implementation Team. On 

January 3, 1994, NMFS received a letter from the 

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

House of Representatives, requesting that a right 

whale recovery plan implementation team be 

developed in the northeast, comparable to that 

developed in the southeast. The letter cited the 

success of the southeast implementation team and 

requested that a priority of the northeastern team 

be the development of a monitoring program that 

monitors the cumulative effects of several dredgedisposal and seer-discharge activities in Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay. 

Recovery Plan implementation for the 

northern right whale, as well as the humpback 

whale, has been ongoing at some level within the 

NMFS, Northeast Region (NER) since 1990, and 

has involved most of the key agency staff and 

scientific experts in the area. The most recent 

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority 

(MWRA) outfall Biological Opinion (issued 

September 8, 1993), and associated conservation 

recommendations, are a small part of the 

recommendations and programs that have been 

instituted in the NER that address Recovery Plan 

tasks from both plans, since 1990. NMFS 

coordinated a meeting of all interested individuals, 

and representatives from state and Federal 

agencies, to discuss agencies’ responsi-bilities and 

the formation of a New England Implementation 

Team. 

The meeting of this group was convened in 

Boston, Massachusetts on August 19, 1994. 

Representatives from each of the following 

agencies, organizations, were recommended as 

necessary components of a New England 

Implementation Team: the Massachusetts Water 

Resources Authority, the New England Fishery 

Page 28 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery 

Programs and Other Species Management Actions 

Management Council, the Outfall Monitoring Task 

Force, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency , 

NMFS/Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

(NEFSC) and Regional Office, Massachusetts 

Coastal Zone Management Office, the 

Massachusetts Office of Non-game and 

Endangered Species, the Center for Coastal 

Studies, the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA/ Sanctuaries 

and Reserves Division, Department of Fisheries 

And Oceans-Canada, the Marine Mammal 

Commission, MASSPORT, the New England 

Aquarium, and the University of Rhode Island. 

The group determined that an implementation 

team should not only focus on the northern right 

whale, but also address issues relative to other 

protected species including the humpback whale. 

As a priority, this team will address the possible 

cumulative impacts to right and humpback whales 

from all ongoing dredge-disposal and sewer 

discharge activities in Massachusetts Bay, and the 

potential effects of commercial fishing on protected 

whales. 

Subgroups were established with the 

following foci: research needs, reduction of 

mortality due to shipstrikes and fishing activities, 

and habitat needs and monitoring. The subgroups 

were tasked with developing a proposed plan that 

would address each of these issues prior to the 

next meeting, to be scheduled in early 1995. 

Recovery Plan Research Program 

On October 3-7, 1994, the NEFSC convened a 

workshop to review the right whale research 

program in the eastern United States. The report 

of the workshop, An Independent Scientific Peer 

Review of North Atlantic Right Whale Research 

Supported by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

(NEFSC Reference Document 95-01), reviews 

existing research, considers proposed research, and 

includes a prioritized listing of recommended 

research directions for the future. 

The Scientific Panel noted that recent 

observations included: (1) a drop in calf counts; (2) 

a possible increase in the average calving interval; 

(3) longer calving intervals on average than for 

southern hemisphere right whales; and (4) an 

appreciable proportion of apparently nonreproducing mature females. Anthropogenic 

influences, particularly ship strikes, constitute a 

major problem of total mortality and have the 

potential to increase. The significance (if any) of a 

recent and dramatic shift in summer distribution is 

unclear. All these factors make the northern right 

whale one of the most endangered of all 

populations of large whales. The Panel 

recommended a continuation and intensification of 

existing research, including the following elements: 

estimates of abundance, determining population 

status, long-term monitoring of population trends, 

and effects to reduce ship strikes and net 

entanglement. For each of these topics, the Panel 

provided details and recommendations. 

Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise 

NMFS proposed to designate the GME 

population of harbor porpoise as threatened under 

the ESA on January 7, 1993. This proposed ESA 

listing was, largely, based on the level of bycatch in 

the demersal gillnet fishery, and the lack of a 

regulatory mechanism to reduce this mortality in 

the commercial fishery, and a "species" determination for the GME harbor porpoise under the ESA. 

Due to numerous requests for public hearings, 

NMFS extended the comment period on this issue 

until August 7, 1994, to allow for a series of public 

hearings at several locations in Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire and Maine, and allow individuals 

to comment on the materials discussed at these 

hearings. Requests for public hearings were 

Page 29 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery Programs, 

and Other Species Management Actions 

received from the following organizations: the 

New Hampshire Commercial Fishermens 

Association, Rye, New Hampshire; the Maine 

Gillnetters Association, Stonington, Maine; the 

International Wildlife Coalition, North Falmouth, 

Massachusetts; and the New England Fishery 

Management Council (NEFMC), Saugus, 

Massachusetts. 

On February 23-25, 1994, NMFS conducted a 

second workshop to review the status of harbor 

porpoise in the eastern U.S. and Canada. During 

this workshop a potential bias in the estimation of 

harbor porpoise bycatch was discussed. It was 

noted that porpoises tend to fall out of the nets 

when they are being hauled back to the vessel, and 

hence are not brought on board. It was also 

discussed that observers tend to alternate 

responsibilities between hauls, from examining the 

net solely for porpoise to collecting samples on the 

finfish species. This raised the possibility that 

observers might not be seeing all by-caught 

porpoises, especially during those hauls when they 

are collecting other data, such as length 

composition of fish. As a result, these porpoises 

may not have been considered in determining the 

estimate of total bycatch. Such hauls are referred 

to as "offwatches", and the term "offwatch effect" 

describes the negative bias that results in the 

estimates of total bycatch. In response to concerns 

raised at the 1994 workshop, bycatch data for the 

years 1990-92 were reanalyzed for the offwatch 

effect and the previously published bycatch 

estimates for 1990-92 were adjusted accordingly. 

The 1990-92 bycatch estimates (and 95 percent 

CI's), rounded to the nearest 100 animals after the 

1990-92 data were re-estimated to take into account 

the offwatch effect, were 21 percent, 18 percent and 

33 percent higher than the previously published 

estimates for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992, 

respectively (NMFS 1994). The 1993 bycatch 

estimate, estimated taking into account the fallout 

effect, was not statistically different from the comparable estimate for 1992. 

The November 8, 1993, notice that extended 

the period of final determination on the proposed 

rule (58 FR 59230) also stated that, as data became 

available and following completion of the 1993 

bycatch analyses, NMFS would reopen the 

comment period to allow for public comment of 

these data. A summary of the 1990-93 bycatch 

estimates was made available in a letter on June 15, 

1994. Also as stated in the November 1993, Federal 

Register notice, and with the concurrence of the 

petitioners, NMFS reopened a comment period on 

the proposed rule on July 15, 1994 (at 59 FR 36158, 

July 15, 1994) to allow for public review and 

comment on the 1993 bycatch estimates, as well as 

on the 1990-92 estimates that were adjusted 

following comments received at a February 1994 

workshop on the status of harbor porpoise in the 

GME. 

Near the end of this comment period, NMFS 

received a request for additional time for comment 

on the revised bycatch estimates. The New 

England Harbor Porpoise Working Group (HPWG) 

met on July 21, 1994, along with staff from the 

NEFSC to discuss these data. The HPWG 

membership consists of gillnet fishermen 

throughout New England coastal states, NMFS and 

NEFMC representatives, environmental 

organizations, and several biologists from 

nongovernmental organizations who have studied 

the biology and fishery-interaction issues of harbor 

porpoise throughout the GME since 1990. During 

the meeting of the HPWG, they recommended that 

the revised bycatch estimates should be more fully 

explained so that public review and comment 

could provide more meaningful input to NMFS 

prior to the final determination. 

In response to the HPWG's recommendation 

the NEFSC prepared a document (NMFS/ NEFSC, 

94-24) which addressed their concerns and which 

became available in early August 1994. The 

HPWG further stated that if the public process was 

Page 30 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery 

Programs and Other Species Management Actions 

to be effective, more time would be needed for 

fishermen and other interested parties to consider 

the forthcoming information. Given that the 

comment period on the proposed rule was 

scheduled to close on August 11, 1994, and that 

this would not have allowed enough time to allow 

for public review of the document being prepared 

by the NEFSC, NMFS extended the comment 

period until September 11, 1994. NMFS further 

stated that this would be the final comment period 

on the proposed rule to list GME porpoise under 

the ESA. 

Harbor Porpoise Bycatch Estimates 

GME Bycatch Estimates for 1990-93 

Revised to Account for Fallout. A potential 

bias in the 1990-92 estimates of total porpoise 

bycatch in the GME was suggested and discussed 

at a February 1994 workshop conducted by NMFS. 

In that workshop it was noted that porpoises tend 

to fall out of the nets when they are being hauled 

back to the vessel, and hence are not brought on 

board. It was also noted that observers tend to 

alternate responsibilities between hauls, from 

examining the net solely for porpoise to collecting 

samples on the finfish species. This raised the 

possibility that observers might not be seeing all 

by-caught porpoises, especially during those hauls 

when they are collecting other data, such as length 

composition of fish. As a result, these porpoises 

may not have been considered in determining the 

estimate of total bycatch. Such hauls are referred 

to as "offwatches", and the term "offwatch effect" 

describes the negative bias that results in the 

estimates of total bycatch. In response to concerns 

raised at the 1994 workshop, bycatch data for the 

years 1990-92 were reanalyzed for the offwatch 

effect and the previously published bycatch 

estimates for 1990-92 were adjusted accordingly. 

The 1990-92 bycatch estimates (and 95 percent 

CI's), rounded to the nearest 100 animals after the 

1990-92 data were re-estimated to take into account 

the offwatch effect, were 21 percent, 18 percent and 

33 percent higher than the previously published 

estimates for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992, 

respectively (NMFS 1994). The new estimates of 

bycatch, consistent with earlier estimates, indicate 

a decrease in the total number of animals killed 

between 1991 and 1992 (Smith, Palka, and Bisack, 

1993). 

The 1993 bycatch estimate was also estimated 

taking into account the fallout effect. The 1993 

bycatch estimate corrected for fallout of 1,400 (CV 

= 18 percent) is not statistically different from the 

comparable estimate for 1992 (with a CV of 21 

percent). 

Bycatch in U.S. Waters Outside the 

GME and not Accounted for in the GME 

Estimate. Evidence was presented in 57 FR 1900 

(January 16, 1992) and in the proposed rule to list 

porpoise under the ESA, that porpoise have been 

taken incidental to coastal gillnet fisheries in 

southern New England/Mid-Atlantic waters 

(south of the GME), winter through spring. 

Further reports from strandings in the mid-Atlantic 

region (New Jersey south) have indicated that 

several of the carcasses incurred cuts and body 

damage indicative of net markings or other fishing 

mortality. Between 23 February and 15 May, 1993, 

another 50 porpoise strandings were reported from 

New York to North Carolina. Many of these 

strandings were reported from Virginia in April 

(Table 2 in Haley and Read, 1993). Due to the 

previous suggestions that fishing mortality may be 

a factor in the number of strandings, NMFS 

convened a workshop on porpoise mortalities and 

human interactions on May 19-20, 1993 

(proceedings at Haley and Read, 1993). Five of the 

specimens examined at this workshop (n = 8 

carcasses, and 15 heads) exhibited signs of human 

Page 31 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery Programs, 

and Other Species Management Actions 

interactions (net markings on skin and missing 

flipper or fluke). The condition of the remaining 

porpoises prevented making deter-minations as to 

the cause of death. 

During May 1994, a second necropsy 

workshop on causes of porpoise mortalities was 

convened at the Smithsonian Institution. Of the 66 

porpoises necropsied at the workshop, 35 were in 

sufficiently good condition to determine the cause 

of death. Twenty-one of the 35 had clear 

indications of human interaction, mostly marks 

from monofila-ment fishing nets. 

The combined information suggests that the 

GME porpoise population experiences a known, 

but not yet quantified, fishery(s) related mortality 

in mid-Atlantic waters of the eastern United States. 

The fisheries of primary concern consist of a series 

of coastal gillnet fisheries that begin in early or 

mid-February, and continue through mid-April or 

mid-May, and extend from New Jersey to, at least, 

North Carolina. 

Bycatch Outside U.S. Waters and Not 

Accounted for in the GME Estimate. From 

July 30 to September 10, 1993, Canada's 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) 

conducted a volunteer observer program in the 

BOF to get data on the extent of the porpoise 

bycatch in their gillnet fisheries. The results of the 

1993 observer program was presented at the 

February, 1994, workshop on the status of porpoise 

in eastern North America at NEFSC (Palka, 1994). 

However, at that time, the data had not undergone 

analytical review by DFO and were considered 

preliminary. The data have now been reviewed by 

DFO, and are available now. 

Porpoise were captured throughout the 

duration of the study. All five vessels participating 

in the Swallow Tail Region captured porpoise. The 

bycatch rate was greatest in the Swallow Tail 

Region off northern Grand Manan Island (3.20 

porpoise per trip). During the experiment there 

were 17 porpoise taken in the Grand Manan area. 

Porpoise were also captured between Campobello 

Island and the Wolves (0.39 porpoise per trip). In 

the Campobello and the Wolves Island Region, 

four of six vessels in the program captured 

porpoise. Also a high incidence of non-marketable 

fish (i.e., dogfish) were captured in nets with 

porpoise (as much as 90 percent of the total catch 

in Swallow Tail was non-marketable), while nets 

fishing in areas that had little or no porpoise 

bycatch, collected primarily marketable fish (less 

than 15 percent bycatch). 

There were no porpoise captured at more 

offshore sites, i.e., in Grand Manan Basin and at 

the Northeast Bank. The estimated bycatch during 

the study period was 424 porpoise; most (381) in 

the northeastern side of Grand Manan Island (the 

Swallowtail Region). 

The bycatch rate for Grand Manan during this 

study of 3.20 porpoise per trip per day was largely 

influenced by one day in which 10 porpoise were 

captured in one net. Excluding this large catch 

from the totals reduces the total bycatch estimate to 

222 for the study period. A similar value for 

Campobello area was 0.39 porpoise per day. 

During 1994, there were two observer 

programs going on in the BOF. Both of them were 

in operation from around July 15 through 

September 15, 1994. About one-half of the BOF 

gillnetters took part in an experiment conducted by 

Memorial University, St. Johns, Newfoundland. 

Gillnetters in this study have their gear equipped 

with acoustic deterrent devices ("pingers"). There 

were 500 pingers in total deployed throughout the 

experiment. Ten observers were placed on vessels 

whose nets were equipped with the pingers 

(approximately 50 percent effort coverage 

throughout this experiment). The remaining BOF 

fishermen (about 20) did not have gear that was 

equipped with pingers. The DFO placed five 

Page 32 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery 

Programs and Other Species Management Actions 

observers on these vessels (about 25 percent 

coverage). Considering both studies, there was 

approximately 20-30 percent observer coverage in 

the BOF gillnet fishery during 1994. Results of 

these studies were not available at the end of 1994. 

Estimates of Porpoise Abundance 

Relative to Bycatch in the GME. Preliminary 

estimates from the July and August 1991, NMFS 

sighting surveys in the offshore waters of the 

GME/lower BOF/southern Scotian Shelf (Palka, 

1992) and GME inshore waters (Read and Kraus, 

1992) were presented by Smith et al., (1991). A 

second porpoise sighting survey was conducted 

between July 29 and September 6, 1992 (Smith, 

Palka and Bisack, 1993). Field procedures were 

similar to those reported in Palka (1992) for the 

1991 survey. The 1992 abundance estimate was not 

significantly different than the 1991 estimate, but 

was substantially greater (approximately 67,500, 95 

percent CI 32,900 to 104,600). 

Smith, Palka, and Bisack (1993) suggested that 

if estimates of abundance were not significantly 

different, the average of available estimates of 

summer abundance would provide an appropriate 

basis for management. Since the estimates of 

abundance for each of the 1992 and 1991 surveys 

were not significantly different from each other, the 

results of the two surveys were combined by 

averaging the best estimates, weighted inversely 

by their estimated variances (Smith, Palka, and 

Bisack, 1993). The weighted average of the 1991 

and 1992 estimates of abundance was 47,200 (CV = 

19 percent, 95 percent CI 39,500 to 70,600) (Smith, 

Palka, and Bisack, 1993). The equation for 

determining the bootstrapped 95 percent CI for the 

combined estimate is provided in Smith, Palka, and 

Bisack (1993). 

Smith, Palka, and Bisack (1993) calculated the 

ratios of the annual bycatch estimates (K) to the 

1991-92 weighted average population abundance 

estimate (N). As a result of the discussions at the 

1994 workshop, NMFS believed that these 

estimated bycatch/ abundance ratios are likely 

downwardly biased due to "fallout effect" and 

needed to be recalculated to account for the known 

bias. These ratios were corrected, taking into 

account the increased bycatch due to the "fallout" 

effect, and presented in Table 1. 

These ratios include only incidental bycatch 

from the GME gillnet fishery, and do not include 

known bycatch that occurs in U.S. waters below 

the GME (during the winter-spring) by other 

gillnet fisheries, and in the BOF. If we include the 

estimated bycatch from the BOF in 1993 (423 

individuals) with the estimate of bycatch from the 

GME in 1992, then the estimated K/N ratio of 

bycatch to abundance increases from 2.5 to 3.4 

percent. A similar value for 1993 (after combining 

a GME bycatch estimate of 1,400 with the best 

estimate from the BOF) resulted in a K/N ratio of 

approximately 3.9 percent. If in 1990 and 1991, 

bycatches in the BOF were equal to that estimated 

for 1993, then the K/N ratios for these years would 

be 7.0 (1990) and 5.1 (1991). Therefore, the 

minimum bycatch estimate of the GME population 

(combined United States and Canada, but 

excluding the mid-Atlantic states for which there is 

not a good estimate of bycatch at this time) likely 

ranges from 3.4 to 7.0 percent of the best, available 

estimate of population abundance. 

Harbor Porpoise Bycatch Reduction

Measures 

New England Fishery Management 

Council Bycatch Reduction Plan for the 

Gulf of Maine. One of strongest recommendations from the May 1992 harbor porpoise 

assessment workshop was that the present level of 

bycatch of porpoise in the GME sink-gillnet fishery 

needs to be reduced. The workshop results 

determined that the bycatch levels may "have a 

significant adverse impact over a period of time 

longer than one year.” Therefore, independent of 

Page 33 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery Programs, 

and Other Species Management Actions 

the ESA, NMFS, under section 114(g)(3) of the 

MMPA, proceeded to address the bycatch problem. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, NMFS requested, in a 

letter dated October 15, 1992, that the New 

England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) 

introduce measures in Amendment 5 to the 

Northeast Multi-species Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP), or through development of an alternative 

bycatch reduction plan, that will reduce harbor 

porpoise mortality to acceptable levels. The 

NEFMC agreed to work on a management strategy 

to reduce porpoise mortality by integrating a plan 

with fishery management measures. The NEFMC 

adopted an amendment objective to reduce the 

annual take of porpoise in the GME sink gillnet 

fishery by the end of year four of plan implementation to a level not to exceed 2 percent of the 

population based on the best available estimates of 

abundance and bycatch. This simple 2 percent goal 

for the GME sink gillnet fishery, however, did 

not take into account the bycatch in the midAtlantic and the BOF. 

The NEFMC developed a measure through 

Amendment 5 of the FMP to remove all gillnets out 

of GME water for specified 4-day blocks of time (59 

FR 9872, March 1, 1994). During the first year of 

implementation, gear would have been removed 

for pre-specified four-day blocks of time each 

month. 

During the second year, gear would be 

removed for two blocks each month (or one 8-day 

block). The third year was scheduled as a "pause" 

year with no additional blocks taken out. During 

both the fourth and fifth years, an additional block 

was to be taken out resulting in a total of 16 days 

taken out of each month (192 days per year, or 53 

percent). Gillnet fishermen expressed their concern 

over this default protection measure. 

Time-Area Closures. Because of the 

imprecise nature of the blocks of time, the NEFMC 

began developing a time/area closure 

management plan based on the location and 

analyses of the porpoise bycatch data (i.e. location 

of takes in the gillnet fishery from the SSP 

program, the distribution of porpoise by location 

and season, and the extent of the gillnet fishery by 

location and season (data from the NMFS 

weighout database)). Results of these analyses 

were first brought before the NEFMC on 

September 14, 1993. In determining these areas, 

the NEFMC also took into account information and 

comments received at six NEFMC, Marine 

Mammal Subcommittee meetings held between 

August 1993 and March 1994; NEFMC meetings 

held on February 17, 1994, March 17, 1994, and 

April 6, 1994, and two public hearings on March 9, 

1994 (in Portsmouth, NH), and on March 10, 1994 

(in Ellsworth, ME). Additionally, discussions 

among the NEFMC, the fishing industry and 

NMFS biologists led to the development of the 

time-area closures. 

For purposes of the plan, the GME was 

divided into three areas: the Northeast (from 

Penobscot Bay to Eastport, ME); Mid-coast (from 

Cape Ann to Penobscot Bay); and Massachusetts 

Bay (from Cape Cod to Cape Ann)(Final 

Framework Adjustment 4 

to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management 

Plan, hereafter referred to as NEFMC, 1994). The 

NEFMC recommended 30-day closures for each of 

the areas that corresponded to periods when 

porpoise bycatch was most likely to occur. The 

duration (30-days) took into account the variability 

of porpoise movements. The NEFMC recognized 

that the Mid-coast and Northeast Areas account for 

much more of the bycatch than Massachusetts Bay. 

However, a 30-day closure for all areas, distributed 

the porpoise bycatch reduction plan equally across 

regions where takes are known to occur. 

The NEFMC approved the time/area closures 

for the Northeast and Mid-coast areas on March 17, 

1994. On April 6, 1994, the NEFMC adopted 

boundaries and a 30-day closure period for the 

Page 34 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery 

Programs and Other Species Management Actions 

Massachusetts Bay area. For more specific 

information on the closure dates and boundaries 

for each of these areas, (see NEFMC, 1994, 

approved by NMFS, May 20, 1994). 

The NEFMC program calls for a 20-percent 

reduction in the porpoise bycatch within the GME 

in Year 1 of plan implementation. To ensure 

continued efforts to reduce the bycatch, a Porpoise 

Review Team will meet each year to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the mitigation measures and, if 

necessary, recommend changes annually based on 

the goals outlined in the Final Framework 

Adjustment 4 document (NEFMC, 1994). In 

addition to the 20 percent target in Year 1 of the 

Plan, further management measures would be 

implemented to achieve a 60 percent reduction in 

Table 1. Estimates of the ratio K/N (estimated bycatch to abundance for 1990, 1991 and 1992) using 

the annual estimates of harbor porpoise bycatch corrected for the fallout and the 1991/1992 weighted 

average abundance estimate. Also shown are the lower and upper 95 percent confidence limits (LCL 

and UCL). 

YEAR K/N CV(%) LCL UCL 

1990 6.1 37.2 3.0 12.4 

1991 4.2 39.8 2.0 9.0 

1992 2.5 28.3 1.5 4.4 

1993 3.0 26.2 1.8 4.9 

the bycatch from current levels over a 3-year 

period. The NEFMC recommended a target of an 

additional 20 percent for both Year 2 and Year 3 of 

the plan. For example, 20 percent of 1,875 (the 

average annual bycatch estimate in the GME 

during 1990-93) is 375 animals. If this level of 

reduction is achieved and the Year 1 target is met, 

not more than 1,500 animals will be caught. Year 

2 would require an additional 20 percent reduction 

(i.e. the bycatch in Year 2 should not exceed 1,125 

animals, in Year 3 the bycatch should not exceed 

750 animals). If the 20 percent target is missed in 

any of the first three years, the program will shift 

that portion of the reduction not met to the target 

for the next year (NEFMC, 1994). 

Mitigation Measures Taken by Canada 

to Reduce Harbor Porpoise Bycatch in the 

Bay of Fundy. The Amendment 5 restrictions do 

not address bycatch in the BOF. The following is 

a narrative of the efforts being made by NMFS and 

Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans to 

reduce porpoise bycatch in Canada fisheries. 

Page 35 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery Programs, 

and Other Species Management Actions 

On April 5, 1994, NMFS forwarded a letter to 

DFO proposing that they and DFO cooperatively 

develop a bycatch reduction program that 

considers the bycatch in the BOF, as well as in the 

GME, that 

was comparable to that being developed by the 

NEFMC. 

Similarly, on April 19, 1994, the NEFMC 

forwarded a letter to the Regional Director, DFO, 

voicing the concerns of many GME fishermen that 

unrestricted or high takes of porpoise by Canadian 

gillnetters might negate the efforts that the GME 

gillnetters are being required to take to protect 

porpoises in the GME. The NEFMC urged DFO to 

take appropriate actions to minimize gillnet 

mortality for these marine mammals. 

On June 8, 1994, DFO replied to NMFS and 

suggested that the two agencies meet to review the 

work underway in Canada and the United States, 

and to coordinate plans on further measures to 

conserve porpoises in the GME/BOF. A meeting 

was convened in Boston, MA August 9, 1994, 

between NMFS, DFO, and the NEFMC to discuss 

a strategy whereby both countries would work 

toward the common objective of reducing the 

bycatch of porpoise in the GME/BOF gillnet 

fisheries. 

It was agreed at the August 9 meeting that 

both United States and Canada need to work 

towards reducing bycatch by a comparable amount 

or percentage. It was also agreed that the United 

States should continue to work through NEFMC to 

reduce bycatch, and that DFO-Canada should take 

actions through their own management entities. 

DFO suggested a number of management 

measures that could be taken in the BOF to reduce 

their incidental take of porpoises in gillnets. These 

include a reduction of fishery effort, closed times 

and areas, limiting the "soak" time, restricting 

fishing to night time when porpoises may be less 

active and restricting the depths at which 

nearshore gillnets may be set. All of these 

measures are dependent on scientific and research 

data being available to support any initiative to 

limit or restrict fishing effort that would mitigate 

the incidental take of porpoise. In an effort to 

establish a scientific database from which to 

develop management strategies, an observer 

program was initiated in 1993 and expanded in 

1994 which is the basis for the development of 

management options for mitigating the incidental 

catching of porpoise in the lower BOF. 

On October 7, 1994, NMFS received a Harbour 

Porpoise Conservation Plan (HPCP) for the BOF, 

drafted by DFO, for comment. The plan was 

developed to mitigate the incidental capture of this 

species and based on the discussions at the August 

9 meeting. Goals identified in the plan included a 

biological goal whereby the population is at a level 

necessary to sustain the population, and a 

numerical goal which will determine the "safe" 

removal level, and which will not result in conflict 

with a biological goal. NMFS reviewed this 

Conservation Plan and returned comments to the 

DFO. There has been no further action as of the 

time of this determination. It is the objective of 

DFO and NMFS to have this plan implemented 

prior to the 1995 gillnet season in the BOF. 

Harbor porpoises have also been trapped each 

summer in herring weirs in the western BOF and 

along the southwestern Nova Scotia (Smith, Read, 

and Gaskin, 1983). The DFO also stated at the 

August 9 meeting that they are testing a grate that 

is placed over the entrance to the weir in order to 

stop anything larger than herring (i.e., marine 

mammals, basking sharks, etc.) from entering 

through the entrance of the weir. 

Page 36 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery 

Programs and Other Species Management Actions 

Protective Measures Being Taken to 

Reduce the Mortality of Harbor Porpoise in 

U.S. Commercial Fisheries outside the Gulf 

of Maine. Amendment 5 restrictions do not 

address bycatch in fisheries outside the jurisdiction 

of the NEFMC. The following is a summary of the 

discussion that has been taking place between 

NMFS and other agencies to reduce porpoise 

bycatch in fisheries that occur outside the GME. 

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission (ASMFC) is developing standards 

and procedures to govern the preparation of 

coastal fishery management plans (FMP's) under 

the Atlantic States Fisheries Cooperative 

Management Act (ASFCMA). The standards to be 

used for the development of state FMP's were 

reviewed during the ASMFC's meeting in 

Washington, D.C., May 16-18, 1994. The standards 

will ensure that the plans are based on the best 

scientific information, promote the conservation of 

fish stocks, and provide adequate opportunity for 

public participation in the review process for each 

management plan. 

The MMPA requires NMFS to develop take 

reduction plans for any "strategic" stock or species 

of marine mammal that interacts with a 

commercial fishery. The MMPA further authorizes 

NMFS to develop take reduction teams whose 

members include, among others, a representative 

from each coastal state which has fisheries which 

interact with the species or stock. 

On September 18, 1994, NMFS met with the 

Management and Science Committee, ASMFC, to 

discuss the following recommendations for a stateFederal partnership, and further requested that the 

Committee take these recommendations to the 

ASMFC commissioners for their consideration: (1) 

State FMP's should include a standard that 

conservation programs and management measures 

should protect, to the maximum extent possible, 

those species protected under state and Federal 

legislation (all species, including harbor porpoise; 

(2) the ASFMC establish a committee that would 

review existing and future FMP's and make 

management recommendations relative to 

protected species issues; (3) NMFS would provide 

necessary funding to ASFMC for a staff position to 

work with the states on FMP's and protected 

species issues; and (4) since bycatch is known to 

exist at certain times and places, but the level is not 

yet determined, NMFS would also help the states 

develop pilot observer programs in several state 

fisheries to determine the extent of the perceived 

bycatch problem. 

It is not known to what extent the percentage 

of the total harbor porpoise bycatch is represented 

by the stranding data. Therefore, it was recognized 

that better information on bycatch rates (similar to 

that being collected in the GME under the Sea 

Sampling Program) needs to be collected in the 

mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries to identify more 

precisely when and where gillnet fisheries are 

operating, and to what extent porpoises are being 

incidentally taken in the mid-Atlantic area. 

It was also recognized that not all state 

fisheries interact with GME porpoise. However, it 

is known that all of the coastal Atlantic states have 

either marine mammals, turtles, or shortnose 

sturgeon present, at least seasonally, and that these 

species interact with one or more fisheries in most 

of the states represented in the ASMFC. It was 

apparent to all the participants that protected 

species considerations (i.e., fisheries related 

mortality through bycatch, including GME 

porpoise) will become increasingly significant to 

fishery management decisions at the state level. 

Therefore, the committee recommended that a 

Protected Species Subcommittee be formed and 

that this sub-committee work with NMFS to 

convene a 2-day workshop on protected species 

conservation and management issues in state 

waters. On December 12, 1994, NMFS met with 

the Protected Species Subcommittee to discuss the 

Page 37 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery Programs, 

and Other Species Management Actions 

agenda and timing of a workshop on protected 

species interactions in state waters. The workshop 

agenda was established and the meeting will be 

convened in July 1995. 

Acoustic Deterrent Devices. Several studies 

were conducted in 1992 and 1993 to test the 

effectiveness of acoustic devices (pingers) to reduce 

the rate of incidental take of porpoise in gillnet 

fisheries. Given the urgency of these studies, the 

New England HPWG requested that NMFS 

undertake an independent peer review of these 

experiments, and determine if there was sufficient 

evidence to warrant additional research on the use 

of acoustic alarms to reduce porpoise mortality in 

the sink gillnet fishery. As a result, NMFS 

convened a scientific review panel (Panel) on June 

9-10, 1994, to review the results of these 

experiments, to assess whether or not there was an 

indication that the use of these acoustic devices 

reduced porpoise entanglement rate and to 

recommend, as appropriate, future research to 

address this issue. 

The Panel was provided with copies of a draft 

report describing the results of acoustic alarm 

experiments in 1992 and 1993. The Panel 

concluded that testing the uses of acoustic alarms 

to reduce porpoise bycatch in this fishery has been 

of limited value due to low statistical power, 

largely due to problems with experimental design, 

design implementation, and the small numbers of 

porpoise entanglements in the experiments. The 

1992 and 1993 experiments were limited by a 

number of problemsthat made it impossible to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the acoustic alarms 

tested to reduce harbor porpoise bycatch. The 

bycatch events during theexperiment were so rare 

that a substantially larger sampling of more events 

would be needed to undertake a statistically 

reliable analysis. Furthermore, the 1993 

experiment mixed "alarmed" nets and "unalarmed" 

nets on the same strings. Because it cannot be 

assumed that the nets within a string are 

independent, it was not possible to determine the 

effect of the alarms. In this regard, the Panel 

generally favored the 1992 approach of placing 

alarms along an entire string, and comparing this 

with control strings with no alarms on any of their 

nets. 

While the use of acoustic alarms by 

themselves may or may not be the single solution 

to the bycatch problem, the Panel believed that 

there may some potential for acoustic devices to 

contribute to bycatch reduction. The Panel 

recommended that the future studies of the effects 

of acoustic alarms to reduce porpoise bycatch 

should be undertaken in closed areas where high 

porpoise takes occur and confounding factors 

could be controlled. This would maximize the 

likelihood of encounters and thus provide a 

sufficient sample size to support a meaningful 

statistical analysis. To that end, the Panel thought 

that the use of existing closed fishing areas (where 

sink gillnets are prohibited for designated time 

periods) should be considered. Because these areas 

were delineated by NMFS as areas of highest 

observed porpoise bycatch rates, they should allow 

the greatest sampling opportunity with which to 

test the effectiveness of acoustic devices. They did 

state that these areas should be opened selectively 

and exclusively to vessels agreeing to adhere to a 

controlled and standardized experimental design, 

and to carry an observer-technician to document 

the fishing efforts and to report the catch. 

As a result of Panel recommendations, NMFS 

approved a one-time, large-scale pinger 

experiment in the GME from mid-October through 

mid-December 1994 in the Mid-coast area. The 

experiment has been designed to determine the 

effectiveness of these "pingers" at reducing bycatch 

in the U.S. fishery. The survey design incorporated 

recommendations from the Panel and results of the 

Page 38 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery 

Programs and Other Species Management Actions 

study will be available early 1995. The results of 

the summer 1994 studies in the BOF and this fall 

1994 study in the GME should determine whether 

pingers are an effective alternative to time/area 

closures as a method of reducing porpoise 

mortality in gillnets. 

Harbor Porpoise Bycatch Reduction 

and the Potential Biological Removal. 

Pursuant to section 117 of the MMPA, NMFS was 

required to complete a draft stock assessment 

report on the status of GME harbor porpoise. The 

stock assessment must include a calculation of 

PBR, and an assessment of the significance of 

incidental fishery takes. 

Section 118(f) of the MMPA authorized NMFS 

to develop take reduction plans designed to assist 

in the recovery or prevent the depletion of each 

strategic stock which interacts with a commercial 

fishery. The immediate goal of a take reduction 

plan for a strategic stock is the reduction of 

incidental mortality or serious injury of marine 

mammals incidentally taken in the course of 

commercial fishing operations to levels less than 

the PBR level established for that stock under 

section 117. 

A PBR workshop was convened by NMFS and 

the USFWS on June 27-29, 1994. The term PBR was 

defined as "the maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may be removed 

from a marine mammal stock as a result of fishing 

mortality or other human-caused mortality while 

allowing that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population." PBRs were 

calculated as the product of the minimum 

population estimate (NMIN), half the maximum net 

productivity rate (0.5 RMAX) and a recovery factor 

(FR). Based on an (NMIN) of 39,670 (based on the 

lower 95 percent CI on the 1991 and 1992 average 

estimate) and a CV = 0.188, (0.5 RMAX) = (0.02), and 

a default recovery factor (FR) = (0.50), the estimated 

PBR for the GME harbor porpoise is 397 animals. 

During 1994, measures were initiated in the Gulf of Maine gillnet 

fishery to reduce the incidental bycatch of harbor porpoise. Photo 

credit: International Wildlife Coalition. 

Finally, section 120(j)(2) of the MMPA states 

that in developing a take reduction plan for Gulf of 

Maine harbor porpoise, the Secretary must 

consider all actions already taken to reduce 

incidental mortality and serious injury of such 

stock, and may, based on the recommendations of 

Page 39 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery Programs, 

and Other Species Management Actions 

the take reduction team for such stock, modify the 

time period required for compliance with section 

118(f)(5)(A), but in no case may such modification 

extend the date of compliance beyond April 1, 

1997. Therefore, based on the best calculable 

abundance estimate, the bycatch of porpoise in 

U.S. fisheries (GME and mid-Atlantic) has to be 

reduced to 397 animals, or approximately 22 

percent of the estimated bycatch in 1993 (1,823 

animals), by April 1, 1997. 

Northern Fur Seals 

Research Activities Conducted on 

Northern Fur Seals during the 1994 Summer-Fall Field Season 

During the 1994 summer breeding season, 

counts of northern fur seal males and studies 

designed to estimate fur seal pup production were 

conducted to assess trends ---in population growth 

on the Pribilof Islands. Assessment of fur seal 

population growth on San Miguel Island was 

obtained from counts of adults and pups. Mortality 

studies of adults and pups were conducted on the 

Pribilof Islands to assess trends and causes of fur 

seal mortality. Summer studies of fur seals on the 

Pribilof Islands also included the collection of fecal 

samples for evaluation of prey selection, and 

assessment of pup condition through 

measurements of weight and length. 

During the fall of 1994 fur seal researchers 

conducted an interdisciplinary study with other 

NOAA scientists to assess primary productivity in 

the region of frontal zones around the Pribilof 

Islands and its relationship to the distribution of 

juvenile walleye pollock and their predators. Fall 

studies also included the collection of fecal samples 

to evaluate prey selection and mortality studies of 

adults and pups. 

Cooperative studies with other institutions during the 1994 field season 

The subsistence harvest of juvenile males was 

monitored to assess the age structure and health of 

the fur seal population. Teeth were collected for 

determination of age, and serum and tissue 

samples were obtained for epidemiology and 

toxicology (NMML, Colorado State University and 

the Environmental Protection Agency). 

Foraging studies of female northern fur seal 

females were conducted to assess movement 

patterns at sea and diving behavior with the use of 

satellite transmitters and time depth recorders 

(National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries, 

Japan and NMML). 

Behavioral studies of northern fur seal 

communication were conducted to evaluate the 

importance of vocal cues between postpaturient 

females and their offspring (University of 

California at Davis and NMML). 

Reproductive and paternity studies based on 

genetic analysis of DNA were conducted to 

evaluate the importance of peripheral males in the 

fur seal social structure (National Research 

Institute of Far Seas Fisheries, Japan and NMML). 

The number of peripheral males on the rookeries 

has increased dramatically since the cessation of 

the commercial harvest after 1984. 

Studies of postparturient northern fur seal 

females were conducted to evaluate the 

relationship between variability in foraging 

behavior and the quality of milk provided to their 

offspring (University of California at Santa Cruz 

and NMML). 

Page 40 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery 

Programs and Other Species Management Actions 

Steller Sea Lion 

Status Review 

On November 1, 1993, NMFS initiated a 

formal review of available information on the 

Steller sea lion population to determine if its ESA 

listing status as a "threatened" species should be 

changed. In the Federal Register notice, NMFS 

indicated that a status determination would not be 

made until the 1994 sea lion population surveys 

were complete. Survey data are now available and 

indicate a continuing population decline in much 

of Alaska. 

To complete the status review, NMFS Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center summarized available 

information on the Steller sea lion population in a 

status review document, and prepared a revised 

population viability analysis that incorporated the 

1994 data. NMFS intends to issue a proposed 

status determination for Steller sea lions in 1995. 

The proposed determination will summarize the 

sup-porting biological information, proposed 

decisions relative to research and management 

programs, and respond to public comments 

received during the comment period on the 

November 1, 1993 notice. NMFS also plans to seek 

an independent peer review of questions regarding 

stock definition, population models, and 

supporting biological and ecological information 

for the listing status determination. 

Protective Regulations 

No changes in Steller sea lion protective 

regulations have been made since 1992. Protective 

regulations include: (1) a prohibition on shooting at 

or near Steller sea lions; (2) a 3 nm no-entry buffer 

zones around rookeries west of the Kenai 

Peninsula and no on-land approach within 1.5 

miles or in sight of these same rookeries; (3) a 10 

nm year round no-groundfish-trawl zones around 

these same rookeries; (4) a 20 nm seasonal buffers 

around 6 of these rookeries during the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Island winter pollock fishery; (5) 

spatial and temporal allocations of pollock harvest 

in the Gulf of Alaska; and (6) a reduction in the 

amount of incidental take allowable in commercial 

fisheries. NMFS research and management staff is 

reviewing Steller sea lion management regulations, 

with an aim of revising fishery and other protective 

regulations as needed. If necessary, formal 

reconsideration of the management program, in 

consultation with states and affected parties, will 

follow completion of the status review. 

Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team Meeting 

NMFS convened the Steller sea lion Recovery 

Team on November 29-30, 1994 to consider the sea 

lion population's listing status under the ESA, and 

to evaluate the direction and adequacy of research 

and management programs being conducted 

under the Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan. Probably 

the most significant item discussed at the meeting 

was the current listing status of sea lions under 

provisions of the ESA. The Team discussed ESA 

listings of Steller sea lions after hearing results 

from the extensive population monitoring and 

biological studies that have been conducted by the 

NMFS and the Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game during 1989-1994. Recommendations for 

listing changes were made by comparing available 

data on population status with the criteria 

proposed by the Team in the recovery plan, as with 

criteria for listing categories used by the 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature 

(IUCN). A summary of the Recovery Team 

meeting and agenda items follows: 

(A) Review of research and management actions 

under the Recovery Plan 

1. Identify habitat requirements and protect areas 

of special biological significance 

Page 41 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery Programs, 

and Other Species Management Actions 

(i) Rookery/haulout mapping: Using GIS 

software, ADFG and NMFS have mapped known 

Steller sea lion rookery and major haulout sites in 

Alaska. Other relevant data, e.g., buffer zones, 

count data, will also be catalogued on this data 

management system, which will aid research and 

management analysis and presentation of Steller 

sea lion related data. 

(ii) Seasonal habitat use patterns: In 1993, 

NMFS and ADFG flew aerial surveys of Alaska 

rookeries and haulouts in March to investigate 

winter on-land distribution of sea lions. The 

survey indicates that terrestrial habitat use during 

the non-breeding season differs from the breeding 

season. Forty-one percent fewer animals were 

observed on land in March 1993 than in June 1992. 

The number and percentage of observed animals 

on haulout sites were greater in March than June, 

whereas rookery numbers were lower in March. 

Not surprisingly, some rookeries were vacant in 

March. Larger proportions of all animals counted 

were observed in Southeast Alaska, the 

eastern/western Gulf of Alaska, and central 

Aleutian Islands in March than in June, whereas 

the proportions decreased in the central Gulf of 

Alaska and eastern/western Aleutian Islands. 

These results have implications for both future 

research investigations and management protective 

actions, but additional surveys are needed to 

obtain a more complete picture of seasonal 

terrestrial habitat, particularly annual variation. A 

statewide aerial survey was conducted in 

December 1994; results of that survey are currently 

being evaluated. 

(iii) Evaluate feeding areas: A brief overview 

of NMFS fishery assessments was given. In the 

Gulf of Alaska, NMFS conducts triennial summer 

bottom trawl surveys and annual winter mid-water 

hydroacoustic surveys in the Shelikof Strait area. 

On the eastern Bering Sea shelf, NMFS conducts 

annual summer bottom trawl surveys and annual 

winter hydroacoustic mid-water surveys on a 

portion of the southeastern Bering Sea shelf. In the 

Aleutian Islands, NMFS conducts triennial summer 

bottom trawl surveys. NMFS, in conjunction with 

University of Alaska, have also conducted prey 

surveys, both mid-water hydroacoustic and bottom 

trawls, around Steller sea lion rookeries in the 

eastern Aleutian Islands, Shumagin Islands, and 

North Kodiak area, in conjunction with June/July 

pup counts. 

2. Identify management stocks 

Using the phylogeographic method, NMFS 

has been able to delineate two discrete populations 

of Steller sea lions within their geographic range. 

Mitochondrial DNA analyses conducted on 

samples taken from newborn pups on rookeries 

from Oregon, Alaska, and Russia defined 52 

haplotypes, which could be further grouped into 8 

maternal lineages. Cluster analysis indicates that 

these lineages can be divided into two genetically 

differentiated stocks, an eastern and western stock 

with a separation at about Prince William Sound. 

Other supporting evidence for discrete stocks 

includes different population trends, rookery site 

fidelity of tagged/branded animals, and possible 

phenotypic differences, e.g., pup size, skull size. 

These results were presented at the September 1994 

Workshop on the Use of Genetics Data to Diagnose 

Management Units, and the conclusion of two 

stocks was endorsed by the workshop attendees. 

NMFS plans to continue genetics studies and 

will focus on nuclear markers in the future. Skull 

measurements will be completed and analyzed, as 

well. NMFS would like to determine if there are 

more than two stocks, as well as discern 

relationships among rookeries. 

3. Monitor status and trends 

(i) Develop statistically valid survey 

procedures: NMFS has reviewed aerial survey 

procedures (via internal NMFS meetings, a 

Page 42 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery 

Programs and Other Species Management Actions 

workshop of NMFS and outside experts, and by 

conducting replicate surveys in June 1992 (all 

Alaska), June 1994 (Aleutian Islands) and March 

1993) and has concluded that no change in current 

methods is needed. Overall, the coefficient of 

variation (CV) for all sites during summer surveys 

was <3 percent. Variability observed at individual 

sites was somewhat higher. As expected, 

variability was higher at haulout sites than at 

rookeries, and site variability was higher in March 

than June. 

As noted previously, NMFS/ADFG did not 

conduct aerial population surveys in 1993. The 

current thinking among researchers is that annual 

surveys are not necessary to discern population 

trends, and research dollars may be better spent on 

other investigations. The Recovery Team was 

asked to reconsider the monitoring program 

currently identified in the Recovery Plan. A 

subcommittee of three will reevaluate sampling 

protocol and report to the Team. 

NMFS and ADFG have also reviewed pup 

counting procedures. Typically, three independent 

counters count each rookery site and the mean of 

the counts is used. On average, the count CV has 

been <1 percent. No change in pup counting 

methods is necessary. However, pup counts show 

similar trends to aerial surveys, are costly in terms 

of time and costs, and cause some disruption on 

the rookeries. It may be appropriate to consider 

alternative monitoring schedules for pup counts, as 

well as other potential indices for pup production. 

(ii) Conduct surveys Alaska-wide every year: 

Alaska wide adult/juvenile aerial surveys were 

conducted in 1992 and 1994. Following the 

schedule in the Recovery Plan, pup counts have 

been conducted yearly at selected rookery sites, 

and in 1994, counts were made at most Alaska 

rookeries (a few sites were missed, including all of 

the western Aleutian Islands). 

Adults/juveniles: Between 1992 and 1994, 

declines were observed in overall (haulout and 

rookery) trend site numbers in all Alaska areas and 

regions, except Southeast Alaska and the western 

Gulf of Alaska. In the Kenai to Kiska area, overall 

trend site sea lion numbers declined by 9.6 percent 

(from 20,679 to 18,702) during 1992-94 (-4.9 

percent/year). This is a continuation of the decline 

rate observed during 1989-92. Declines were 

observed in rookery numbers in all Alaskan 

regions and areas except Southeast Alaska. 

Rookery numbers in the Kenai to Kiska area 

declined by 12.6 percent (from 16,589 to 14,500) 

during 1992-94 (-6.5 percent/year) This decline 

was greater than observed during the 1989-92 (-4 

percent/year). 

Pups: Pup numbers decreased in all regions 

from 1991/92 to 1993/94. Pup numbers from the 

central Gulf of Alaska to eastern Aleutian Islands 

decreased 19.5 percent from 1991/92 to 1993/94. 

These declines reverse apparent stability in pup 

numbers observed in 4 regions (SE AK, EGOA, 

WGOA, and EAI) from 1989/90 to 1991/92. Since 

the last range-wide survey (1989/90), there has 

been a 29.2 percent decline in Kenai to Kiska pup 

numbers. 

(iii) Conduct surveys in California and 

Oregon: Parts of California and all Oregon sites 

have been surveyed annually since 1990. In 

Oregon and most of California, sea lion 

adult/juvenile and pup numbers appear stable. 

(iv) Conduct a range-wide survey every 5 

years: For the U.S., the estimated number of 

adult/juvenile Steller sea lions declined from 

69,100 in 1989 to 52,200 in 1994. Complete surveys 

in Russia were not accomplished in 1994, and 

counts are not available. Discussions between U.S. 

and Russian researchers indicate that Kuril Islands' 

sea lion numbers may be unchanged since 1989, 

whereas Kamchatka and the Commander Islands 

appear down since 1990. 

Page 43 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery Programs, 

and Other Species Management Actions 

In British Columbia, 1994 Steller sea lion 

counts showed an increase over the 1992 survey 

(9,277 vs. 8,844). Overall, sea lion counts in British 

Columbia have shown an increasing trend since 

the 1970s. An aerial survey of Forrester Island was 

conducted on June 30 by Canadian researchers to 

investigate the feasibility/accuracy of aerial pup 

counts at this site. Aerial pup counts were 

compared with ADFG ground pup counts 

conducted on July 1, and the overall estimate from 

the air was about 25 percent lower than the ground 

count. Pup counts from the air may provide a 

reasonable pup production index at some sites 

with fewer costs in animal disturbance and 

research time and funds. 

(v) Population viability analysis: Models of 

the Steller sea lion population within the decline 

area were developed to provide an estimate of the 

likelihood of extinction given the available 

population data. The basic model used was a 

stochastic model of exponential growth, which 

requires only count data and count variance to 

predict future trends. One model (an aggregate 

Kenai-Kiska model) was based on the trajectory of 

the sum of the rookery populations within the 

area; the second model was based on a simulation 

of the population trajectories of individual 

rookeries in the Kenai-Kiska area. Each model was 

run using both the 1985-94 and 1989-94 population 

trends. All models predicted that the Kenai-Kiska 

population would be reduced to low levels (<500 

females) within 100 years from the present, if the 

1985-94 and 1989-94 trends persist into the future. 

Modelling results indicated that, if either trend 

persists, the next 20 years would be crucial to the 

survival of the western Alaska population. 

During that time period, populations on individual 

rookeries are predicted to be reduced to low levels 

(mean size <100 adult females). After 20 years, the 

models predict that rookeries would rapidly begin 

to disappear as the population contracts to the core 

of the range in the western Gulf of Alaska and 

eastern Aleutian islands. At about that time, most 

rookeries would be vacated, and extinction 

probabilities would increase rapidly. 

4. Monitor health, condition & vital parameters 

(i) Examine and sample dead animals: The 

few dead animals encountered in association with 

research efforts are routinely necropsied. Two 

dead juveniles found during the non-breeding 

season have appeared to be starvelings; a similar 

conclusion was reached for some of the dead pups 

found on rookeries during pup counts. One 

aborted fetus found on Cape St. Elias tested 

positive for Chlamydia, but it is not known 

whether Chlamydia was a factor in the abortion. 

The Alaska Region of NMFS coordinates a 

volunteer stranding network within Alaska, but 

the number of stranded sea lions found and 

sampled is typically low (< 5 animals/year). 

NMFS Alaska Region is working directly with 

Alaska Native subsistence hunters, and through a 

contract with ADFG, to obtain biological samples 

from Steller sea lions taken by subsistence hunters. 

The sampling protocol includes sampling for 

age/sex, genetics, tissue contaminant levels, 

reproductive status, stable carbon isotope studies, 

and stomach contents. A few samples have been 

obtained from hunters on St. Paul Island this year 

but organizational and communication difficulties, 

and a lack of dedicated funding impede progress. 

NMFS has obtained additional funding for this 

work in 1995, and it is expected that more 

biological samples will be available in the future. 

The expectation is that progress on this front will 

be slow. University of Alaska researchers have 

also been working directly with Alaska Native 

hunters to obtain samples. NMFS efforts will be 

coordinated with these and other interested 

parties. 

Page 44 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery 

Programs and Other Species Management Actions 

(ii) Conduct rookery studies: Intensive 

rookery studies at Marmot and Forrester Islands 

have continued, and a new study site has been 

established at Sugarloaf Island. Marmot Island has 

been an active research site since 1979; study 

results for the time period are being summarized 

and should be available in the next year. Research 

at these rookeries includes daily/weekly counts of 

animal composition by age/sex class on rookery 

beaches, pup counts, physiology studies, and 

behavioral observations. 

Eight hundred pups were branded and tagged 

at Marmot in 1987-88. Of these branded animals, 

about 90 animals should have been resighted as 

adult females returning to breed beginning in 1991. 

To date, only 23 animals have been resighted. 

These results indicate that juvenile recruitment at 

this site has been poorer than predicted. ADFG 

has begun a similar branding/tagging study at 

Forrester Island (400 pups branded in 1994, with 

another 400 planned for 1995). 

At Marmot Island, major demographic 

changes since 1979 include an overall decline in 

animal abundance on rookery beaches, a 

disproportionate decline in juvenile abundance, 

and an increase in the proportion of adult females. 

Per capita pup production, measured as the ratio of 

pups to adult females, remained about the same 

from 1979 to 1994. 

5. Assess and minimize causes of mortality 

(i) Fisheries: Observed incidental takes in the 

federally-managed groundfish fishery have been 

low in recent years. In 1993, 6 lethal takes were 

observed, which extrapolated to 8 takes for the 

entire fishery. Incidental and intentional takes 

undoubtedly occur in other, unobserved fisheries 

but the magnitude is not known. Recently there 

have been reports of Steller sea lion shootings in 

the crab fishery operating in the Pribilofs Island 

area. These reports have been assigned to NMFS 

Enforcement for investigation. 

(ii) Subsistence: A two-year study funded by 

NMFS has provided the first reliable estimate of 

the number of Steller sea lions taken by Alaska 

Native subsistence hunters. Annually, about 500 

Steller sea lions are taken, with virtually all of the 

harvest occurring west of Cape Suckling. This 

study will continue for at least two more years, and 

will be expanded to include biological sampling. 

Last year, NMFS met with the Indigenous People's 

Council on Marine Mammals and recommended 

that a Steller Sea Lion Commission be formed to 

serve as a focal point for discussions regarding 

Steller sea lion subsistence harvest management. 

NMFS also requested approval of biological 

sampling of animals taken by subsistence hunters. 

This past fall, an Alaska Native Steller Sea Lion 

Commission, consisting of Pribilof/Aleutian Island 

communities, was formed. This Commission is 

being expanded to include all the major 

communities that harvest sea lions. NMFS's goal 

is to work with the Commission to encourage the 

development of hunting guidelines to reduce 

strike/loss rates and to develop selfmonitoring/management of the harvest by local 

communities. 

(iii) Natural predators: Fish and Wildlife 

Service biologists recorded the presence of killer 

whales near Steller sea lion rookeries during 

August scat collections in the Aleutian Islands. 

Many sightings of killer whales were made within 

the vicinity of rookeries. The significance of these 

data is not known; it was noted that killer whales 

are frequently seen in the vicinity of rookeries but 

observed attacks are rare. 

6. Investigate feeding ecology 

(i) Foods eaten: In the Gulf of Alaska, walleye 

pollock was the most common prey of juvenile and 

adult sea lions collected in virtually all seasons and 

Page 45 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery Programs, 

and Other Species Management Actions 

areas sampled during 1975-78 and 1985-86. Other 

fish prey were only consumed on a seasonal basis. 

Juvenile sea lions consumed significantly smaller 

pollock than adult sea lions. A continued reliance 

on juvenile pollock as a major prey of sea lions in 

1985-86 occurred despite an apparent 48 percent 

decrease in abundance of age 2-3 juvenile pollock 

between 1975-78 and 1985-86. This may be 

explained by a disproportionate, simultaneous 

decrease in abundance of alternative small fish 

prey, such as capelin and sand lance. Researchers 

postulate that low abundance of juvenile pollock 

coupled with reduced alternative small prey may 

have contributed to the Steller sea lion population 

decline observed in the central Gulf of Alaska 

during the 1980s. Scat collections in the 1990s 

indicate that walleye pollock remains the most 

common prey in the Gulf; Atka mackerel has also 

appeared in the diet of Gulf sea lions for the first 

time since the 1970s. 

In the Aleutian Islands, sea lion scats have 

been collected annually since 1990 in the area from 

Ugamak Island to Agattu Island. Atka mackerel 

has been the dominant prey species identified in 

sea lion scats from the Aleutians, with an 

increasing frequency of occurrence of Atka 

mackerel in scats as one moves westward along the 

chain. Other species commonly found included 

pollock and salmon; pollock frequency decreased 

in the opposite direction from Atka mackerel, i.e., 

In Southeast Alaska, animals collected in the 

1980s and scats collected in the 1990s show walleye 

pollock as the predominate prey species. Other 

prey species identified included other gadids, 

herring, and salmon. 

New methods for identifying prey species are 

also being investigated, including stable carbon 

isotope analysis of different body tissues, genetic 

analysis of scats, and fatty acid analysis of blood 

samples. This work is ongoing, and provides 

opportunities to assess prey consumption over 

various time frames. 

(ii) Determine food and energy 

requirements: The North Pacific Universities 

Marine Mammal Research Consortium 

(NPUMMRC) currently has 5 juvenile Steller sea 

lions in captivity in Vancouver (collected in British 

Columbia in 1992). Ongoing studies include an 

assessment of digestive efficiency of various prey 

species, recoverability in scats of prey parts 

consumed, fatty acid analysis for prey 

determination, and development of a model of 

energy requirements of individual rookeries. A 

swim mill is planned so that metabolic studies can 

be conducted with animals that are physically 

stressed. 

(iii) Investigate feeding areas: Satellite-linked 

time depth recorders have been used to study 

foraging areas, depths, and effort by season for 

adult female and young-of-the-year sea lions. 

Instruments were deployed during 1990-1994 at 

rookeries and haulouts in Southeast Alaska, Gulf 

of Alaska, and the eastern Aleutian Islands. 

Generally during summer, adult female Steller sea 

lions with pups forage close to land (within 20 km), 

make brief trips (<2 days), and dive to shallow 

depths (<30m) In winter, trips by adult females are 

longer in distance and duration. Steller sea lion 

pups (n=5) tagged were able to range broadly by 

six months of age, but most dives remained 

shallow and brief. From these observations it 

appears that juvenile sea lions are more restricted 

in their foraging abilities than adult animals. 

(iv) Assess significance of various prey: The 

difficulty in obtaining research vessel time, etc., for 

conducting fish surveys, particularly in winter, was 

discussed, as well as the lack of focus on forage 

fish species in most fisheries surveys being 

conducted. More information on sea lion winter 

food habits is being obtained through scat 

Page 46 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery 

Programs and Other Species Management Actions 

collections, and NMFS has conducted prey surveys 

in the vicinity of rookeries during summer. 

(v) Nutritional value of prey: Calorimetry 

and elemental analysis for baseline values for 

pollock, myctophids, and other forage fish are 

being conducted. Fadely et al. (1994) studied 

assimilation efficiencies and maintenance intake 

requirements of California sea lions on herring and 

pollock diets. There was no significant difference 

in the assimilation efficiency of herring and 

pollock, and maintenance requirements on both 

diets were similar. 

(vi) Investigate relationships between prey 

abundance and sea lion growth and productivity: 

Research programs are in place to assess changes 

in local population size, pup condition, prey 

availability (limited surveys), food habits, and 

seasonal distribution. Some data suggest a 

relationship between prey availability and sea lion 

population dynamics. For example, in the eastern 

Aleutian Islands from 1989-92, the sea lion 

population was stable, pups were large, and pup 

numbers increasing. Fish surveys indicate that 

juvenile pollock and Atka mackerel were 

abundant. In the central Gulf of Alaska, from 1989­

92, the sea lion population was declining, pups 

were small, pup numbers were down, and there 

were reduced numbers of juveniles on Marmot 

Island. Fish surveys indicate that juvenile pollock 

was low in abundance in the Gulf of Alaska during 

this time period; data from shrimp and crab 

surveys indicate that other forage fish populations 

may have also been reduced. 

(vii) Determine effects of fisheries on sea 

lion prey: NMFS has reviewed all in-house 

fisheries data and Steller sea lion population data 

in an effort to discern possible relationships 

between the two. Ferrero and Fritz (1994) 

compared fishery catches of pollock and sea lion 

abundance on rookeries and found no correlation 

between the two with the available data sets. In 

the ESA Section 7 consultation on the Bering Sea 

and Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries, NMFS 

concluded that the spatial and temporal 

concentration of the fishery that occurred during 

the 1980s could have caused localized depletion of 

Steller sea lion prey resources. This hypothesized 

local prey depletion could have contributed to or 

exacerbated the sea lion population decline. Based 

on these conclusions, NMFS instituted 10 and 20 

nautical (nm) no-trawl zones around Steller sea 

lion rookeries west of 150oW longitude, and 

established spatial and temporal pollock 

allocations in the Gulf of Alaska. Since 1992, 

NMFS has not implemented any additional Steller 

sea lion related fisheries regulations; however, 

NMFS and the North Pacific Fisheries Management 

Council have instituted organizational changes so 

that Steller sea lion (and other marine mammal) 

concerns are now routinely considered in the 

fishery management decision making and quota 

specification process. 

General and projected trends in key fish 

stocks and fishery removals for the Bering Sea, 

Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska were 

reviewed. In the eastern Bering Sea, 3+ year old 

pollock biomass was about 14 million metric tons 

(mmt) in the 1980s and declined to about 7 mmt 

after 1991. Pollock removals within U.S. waters 

have remained fairly constant over the time period, 

but the exploitation rate has gone from about 10 to 

20 percent of the available biomass. Pollock 

removals from areas designated as Steller sea lion 

critical habitat have increased from about 200,000 

mt/year to >600,000 mt/year over this time period. 

In the Gulf of Alaska, pollock biomass is estimated 

at about 3 mmt in the early 1980s and declined to 

<1 mmt in 1994. Because of poor recruitment, the 

pollock stock in the Gulf continues to decline. 

Since the late 1980s, the pollock fishery exploitation 

rate has been about 10 percent of the estimated 

biomass (slightly higher in recent years). About 60 

to 80 percent of the Gulf pollock harvest comes 

Page 47 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery Programs, 

and Other Species Management Actions 

from within Steller sea lion critical habitat, mostly 

from areas around haulouts near Kodiak. 

Fishery stock assessments indicate that Atka 

mackerel stocks have shown a large increase in 

biomass from the 1980s to 1990s. Harvest 

allocations in the Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel 

fishery have been increasing, and are expected to 

continue to increase. Eighty to ninety percent of 

this fishery's harvest comes from within Steller sea 

lion critical habitat. Yearly Atka mackerel quotas 

are allocated spatially along the Aleutian Islands 

chain to avoid local stock depletions. Atka 

mackerel stocks are also apparently increasing in 

the Gulf. 

7. Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan Implementation 

(i) Recovery Team: It was recommended that 

the Recovery Team meet yearly in fall to review 

research and management programs. NMFS will 

keep the Recovery Team informed of ongoing 

management actions, and will solicit Team advice 

as needed. 

(ii) Information and Education: The 

information and education program continues; 

however, the dedicated funds from ADFG in 1992 

have been exhausted. In 1994, a Steller sea lion 

newsletter and brochure were produced and 

distributed; a new waterproof poster aimed at the 

boating public was developed and distributed, and 

posters developed in previous years were again 

distributed. In addition, direct mailings to affected 

During 1994, NMFS reevaluated the threatened listing of Steller Sea 

Lion pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. 

Photo credit: NMFS/FPR. 

parties on regulations and regulatory changes have 

continued. Several national and local newspapers 

and magazines have produced or are in the process 

of producing articles concerning Steller sea lions. 

National Geographic is working on a video 

documentary, as is ADFG. Overall, public 

inquiries and information requests regarding 

Steller sea lions have been steadily increasing, and 

many favorable responses to the information 

materials produced to date have been received. 

(iii) Enforcement: To date, enforcement of 

Steller sea lion regulations has been limited 

because of the lack of direct funding. NMFS 

Enforcement is currently dedicating staff to 

investigate reports of illegal shooting of Steller sea 

lions by individuals participating in the crab 

fisheries in the Bering Sea. 

8. Research Plans for 1995 

NMFS: In conjunction with ADFG, aerial 

surveys were flown in December 1994 as a 

continuation of the seasonal distribution study. In 

December 1994 and March 1995, NMFS will focus 

on captures of zero & 1 year old sea lions in the 

Page 48 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery 

Programs and Other Species Management Actions 

Kodiak to eastern Aleutian Islands area for satellite 

telemetry and physiology studies. Scats will be 

collected for food habits as well. No aerial survey 

is planned for summer 1995, but the study at 

Marmot Island, prey assessment, and pup counts 

will be conducted. NMFS has arranged for Ian 

Boyd to work with NMFS scientists on a Steller sea 

lion research program review in the summer of 

1995. NMFS is encouraging one NRC postdoctoral candidate to work on the Steller sea lion 

research project. 

ADFG: As noted above, aerial surveys were 

conducted in December 1994. Demographic 

studies at Forrester Island will continue through 

February of 1995. Satellite telemetry and 

behavioral studies focusing on juvenile animals 

will take place at the Cape St. Elias haulout in 

January. Medetomidine experiments on California 

sea lions will be conducted at Sea World California 

in spring 1995. During May through August, 

Forrester and Sugarloaf Islands behavioral and 

demo-graphics studies will continue. The pup 

branding project begun in 1994 at Forrester will be 

completed in 1995. In the fall, ADFG plans to build 

and test a new underwater trap, and deploy 

satellite telemetry recorders on juveniles in 

Southeast Alaska. Winter haulout studies at Cape 

St. Elias, and possibly at another haulout in 

Southeast, will be continued and/or initiated in 

1995/1996. 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), 

Canada: Steller sea lions are not a high priority for 

DFO, since the population in Canada is stable. 

Their schedule is to conduct a population census 

every 5 years; they are now in synchrony with the 

range wide survey schedule. DFO plans to 

continue work on developing aerial photographic 

methods for pup counts, in conjunction with 

ADFG. 

NPUMMRC: Will continue summer/winter 

behavioral studies, scat collections, stable carbon 

isotope analyses, and SLTDR deployments with 

ADFG. A study on the effects of research 

disturbance was initiated at Forrester Island in 

1994, and will continue next year. Concerns over 

research effects at Forrester in 1994were discussed 

at a meeting hosted by UBC and ADFG in early 

December. The captive animal research program 

will begin swim mill studies, and continue 

digestive efficiency, morphometrics, and fatty acid 

studies. Modeling work underway includes 

investigating the possible effects of killer whale 

predation, fishery removals, and ecosystem 

changes resulting from the depletion of large 

whales caused by commercial whaling. They are 

also investigating the feasibility of computerized 

counts of aerial survey slides. 

(B) Recovery Team Evaluation and 

Recommendations 

The following reports the major items discussed, 

and the consensus recommendations of the Team. 

1. Population Monitoring: The current monitoring 

protocol defined in the Recovery Plan calls for 

annual summer aerial counts of adult/juveniles 

and ground counts of pups in all of Alaska. It was 

agreed that this level of effort may no longer be 

necessary, and that the limited research dollars 

available may be better spent on other projects. 

The Team agreed that a subgroup (Loughlin, Byrd, 

and Calkins) would review this subject and 

propose a revised monitoring regime for the 

Team's consideration. 

2. Genetics: The Team agreed that the genetics 

and other biological information obtained in recent 

years was sufficient to recognize two separate 

Steller sea lion management stocks, a western and 

an eastern stock, tentatively split at 144o W 

longitude (Cape Suckling). 

3. Subsistence Harvest: The Team recommended 

that the NMFS Steller Sea Lion Coordinator work 

Page 49 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery Programs, 

and Other Species Management Actions 

with the Alaska Steller Sea Lion Commission and 

other appropriate entities toward the goal of 

managing subsistence harvests, establishing 

biologically acceptable harvest levels, and reducing 

struck and lost rates. The Team also endorsed 

biological sampling of subsistence harvest, and 

recommended that this effort be coordinated with 

other agencies, e.g., USFWS. 

4. Studies of prey availability: The Team believes 

that substantially more effort must be devoted to 

assessing sea lion prey abundance and availability, 

and that necessary funds to support such work 

should be sought or allocated by NMFS. 

5. Research Program Direction: The Team noted 

that a tremendous amount of research has been 

accomplished in recent years. To be able to assess 

the need for changes in research direction, 

available data must first be synthesized to allow an 

in-depth evaluation of individual research 

components and their appropriate role in the 

Recovery Program. It was agreed that a Recovery 

Team review, including outside experts where 

needed, should be undertaken separately for each 

the following individual research components: 1.) 

Population Monitoring; 2.) Satellite-telemetry; 

studies; 3.) Physiology/health studies; 4.) Food 

habits/feeding ecology. 

As noted previously, evaluation and 

recommendations for redirection of the population 

monitoring program will be undertaken by a Team 

subcommittee over the next year. Other research 

program components will be summarized in the 

next two years, and peer review workshops will be 

held. This peer review process is a necessary 

component of revising the Steller Sea Lion 

Recovery Plan (revised Plan due in 1997). 

6. Information, Education, and Enforcement 

Programs: The Team believes that these are 

essential components of the Recovery Program that 

require increased emphasis. The lack of direct 

funding remains a serious concern for these 

programs. 

7. Fishery Management Regulations: NMFS is 

reviewing existing regulations to protect Steller sea 

lions, and expressed the desire to review any 

proposed changes in management regimes at the 

earliest possible time. Since food availability 

appears to be the leading hypothesis for the sea 

lion decline, reduced juvenile recruitment appears 

to be the proximate cause of the decline, and 

juveniles appear to feed primarily in areas near 

rookeries and haulouts, the Team recommended 

that NMFS should evaluate the need to close or 

otherwise regulate any or all nearshore fisheries 

around rookeries and haulouts west of 144oW 

longitude. 

8. Listing Status under the ESA: (1) As noted 

above, the Team concluded that based on the best 

available data Steller sea lions should be managed 

as two distinct populations for purposes of the 

ESA. (2) The Team reviewed the data on 

population trends and the PVA analysis for the 

western stock in relation to the reclassification 

criteria in the Recovery Plan, the ESA definition of 

endangered, and the Internation Union for the 

Conservation of Nature's vulnerability criteria, and 

concluded that the western stock should be listed 

as endangered. (3) The Team agreed that there was 

continued concern for the eastern stock of Steller 

sea lions despite the fact that the stock currently 

appears to be stable. Thus, they recommended 

that the eastern population should be listed as a 

threatened species. Reasons for a continued 

threatened listing include: (a) the decline in 

abundance at the southern extent of the eastern 

stock's range, (b) evidence that the population 

decline in the Gulf of Alaska has been spreading 

eastward, and thus, may affect the eastern stock, 

(c) although the eastern stock has shown a longterm increase, the most recent counts were 

somewhat lower, and (d) movement of nonbreeding animals from the western stock into the 

Page 50 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery 

Programs and Other Species Management Actions 

eastern stock area has been documented; these 

animals cannot be visually differentiated and need 

to be protected under the ESA wherever they 

occur. The Team recommended that monitoring of 

the eastern stock should be continued, delisting 

criteria should be developed by NMFS in 

consultation with the Recovery Team, and a 

decision on delisting the eastern stock should be 

made within the next 5 years. 

Coastal Stock(s) of

Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin 

On April 6, 1993, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the migratory stock 

of Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) as depleted under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA). A listing of depleted is 

required by the MMPA when a species or stock is 

determined to have fallen below its maximum net 

productivity level (MNPL), a level at the lower end 

of an optimal sustainable population. NMFS 

determined that the coastal stock of Atlantic 

bottlenose dolphin had fallen below MNPL as a 

result of a 1987/1988 mortality event during which 

the stock may have declined by an estimated 

amount greater than 50 percent. 

The MMPA requires that a conservation plan 

be developed for depleted stocks of marine 

mammals. A conservation plan discusses the 

natural history and current status of the species, 

the known and potential human impacts on the 

species, and is intended to act as a guide that 

describes actions and further research needed to 

restore the species or stock to a level greater than 

MNPL. 

Status Review and 

Management Workshop 

On September 13-14, 1993, NMFS convened a 

workshop in Beaufort, North Carolina, to discuss 

the status and the management of the migratory 

stock(s) of Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins. 

This meeting focused on what is known about this 

stock and upon deficiencies in our understanding 

of this stock that will require additional research. 

Management needs required to protect coastal 

bottlenose dolphins, independent of stock 

structure, were also discussed. 

This workshop resulted in a cooperative 

discussion between NMFS, local researchers, and 

representatives from state and Federal agencies 

that manage marine resources and fisheries in their 

waters. Workshop participants from each state 

were asked to address private, state or Federal 

activities regarding coastal bottlenose dolphins. 

The proceedings of the workshop provide a 

summary of the information contributed to the 

work- shop by these various participants and were 

published in October 1994 as the following: Wang, 

Katherine R., P. Michael Payne and Victoria G. 

Thayer (Compilers). 1994. Coastal stock(s) of 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphin: Status review and 

management. DOC, NOAA Tech Memo. NMFSOPR-4, 121 pp. 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 

Preliminary Results of 1994 Field 

Studies of the Hawaiian Monk Seal 

The Hawaiian monk seal is the most 

endangered pinniped in U.S. waters. Since the late 

1950s, beach counts of this species have declined 

by 60 percent. From 1985 to 1993, counts declined 

by five percent per year. Much of the recent 

Page 51 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery Programs, 

and Other Species Management Actions 

decline is due to poor juvenile survival at French 

Frigate Shoals, the site of the largest population of 

seals. Populations at Laysan and Lisianski Islands 

are also declining slowly, but the cause at these 

islands appears to be related to mobbing behavior, 

where multiple males attempt to mount and mate 

with a single adult female or immature animal of 

either sex and that animal is fatally injured. The 

Midway population remains perilously low and, in 

fact, most of the animals at this site are immigrants 

or offspring of immigrants, suggesting that this 

population is dependent on recolonization and 

might otherwise not persist. Only the populations 

at Kure Atoll and Pearl and Hermes Reef appear 

to be growing. At Kurea Atoll, this growth is due 

to intensive management intervention, whereas the 

population at Pearl and Hermes Reef appears to be 

increasing without direct management 

intervention. Unfortunately, the increases at these 

two sites are small relative to the losses at French 

Frigate Shoals, Laysan Island, and Lisianski Island, 

and the overall trend for the species is a rapid 

decline. 

In 1994, field studies of the Hawaiian monk 

seal were conducted at four of its six main 

reproductive sites, including French Frigate Shoals, 

Laysan Island, Kure Atoll, and Midway Atoll. 

Field effort on Lisianski Island were limited to a 

single day, and no studies were conducted at Pearl 

and Hermes Reef. The two principal indices of the 

status of this endangered species (the number of 

pups born and the total of the mean beach counts 

at the main reproductive sites) could not be 

evaluated due to the lack of effort at Pearl and 

Hermes and Lisianski Island. Nevertheless, 

information from French Frigate Shoals, in 

particular, indicates that severe problems persist. 

Survival of immature animals continues to be 

extremely poor; at French Frigate Shoals, less than 

30 percent of the 1993 cohort survived their first 

year. The continued poor survival at this and other 

sites has severely distorted the age distribution 

and, in the near future, reproduction is expected to 

decline due to a drop in recruitment. 

To salvage some female pups (and the 

reproductive potential they represent), eight 

undersized seals were removed from the French 

Frigate Shoals population and transported to Oahu 

for rehabilitation and eventual return to the wild. 

One of those pups died in captivity, but the 

remaining seven are healthy and gaining weight, 

and should be ready for release by next spring. 

In addition to the rehabilitation program, a 

second major management effort was directed at 

the Laysan population. Twenty-two adult males 

were removed from this population to normalize 

the adult sex ratio and mitigate the occurrence and 

effect of mobbing. The males were released around 

the main Hawaiian Islands, and are being 

monitored by cooperating biologists on neighbor 

islands and by ARGOS satellites, five males were 

instrumented with satellite transmitters. The 

releases occurred in late July and August and, as of 

late November, the males generally have remained 

near the sites where they were released. 

Finally, monitoring efforts by the Marine 

Mammal Research Program were significantly 

enhanced this year through contributions by L. 

Eberhardt and K. Eberhardt. In March, the 

Eberhardts visited Midway Atoll, where they 

photographed and filmed the resident population 

of seals. The resulting records provide our best 

documentation of this population in recent years. 

The effort at Midway and other locations are 

summarized below. 

French Frigate Shoals Field studies were 

conducted from 6 to 17 February and from 29 

March to 17 September. The first objective in 

February was to evaluate seals born in 1993 to 

determine if any were in need of rehabilitation. Of 

78 weaned pups tagged in 1993, only 12 (4 female, 

8 male) were sighted in February 1994; of those, all 

Page 52 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery 

Programs and Other Species Management Actions 

were larger than the predetermined collection 

criterion, and none were taken into captivity. The 

second objective was to retrieve satellite 

transmitters from 3 subadult males instrumented 

in September 1993. All three satellite transmitters 

were retrieved successfully. Preliminary results 

from one seal indicate a foraging pattern not seen 

before in Hawaiian monk seals. The seal exhibited 

foraging cycles of 2-3 weeks at sea (ca. 50-100 km 

east northeast of French Frigate Shoals, 

interspersed with resting periods of 3-4 days at the 

toll). The diving record indicates that the seal 

dived to at least 500 m (the limit of the time-depth 

recorder the seal was carrying). 

Field studies during the remainder of the 

season focussed on 1) atoll counts of seals, 2) 

sighting efforts for estimating survival rates, 3) 

determination of number of pups born, 4) 

evaluation of seal condition, 5) collection of 

undersized weaned pups for rehabilitation, 6) 

detection of evidence of fisheries interactions, and 

7) assessment of injuries and deaths due to shark 

attacks adult male aggression, or entanglement in 

marine debris. The mean (+- SD) of 10 atoll counts 

(excluding pups) was 158.1 (+- 15.1), 

approximately the same as in 1993. Annual 

survival rates for the past year were ca. 50 percent 

or less for the youngest 4 age classes. Survival was 

particularly poor for the 1993 cohort; of 38 females 

tagged, 11 were removed for rehabilitation, and 9 

of the remaining 27 were sighted one year after 

birth. 

One hundred and nine pups were born at 

French Frigate Shoals; 87 were tagged (47 female, 

49 male) 8 were still nursing at the end of the 

season (and therefore were not tagged), and 14 

either disappeared or died (four of which were 

known to have large shark-inflicted wounds). 

There of the adult females giving birth had 

traveled from Laysan Island to pup at French 

Frigate Shoals. 

A total of 17 seals were found with gaping 

wounds or amputations caused by sharks. One 

adult female had multiple punctures and abrasions 

on 50 percent of her back (indicating that she had 

been mobbed), and another adult female had old 

mobbing wound re-injured by mating attempts. 

Three pups were found with large dorsal abscesses 

that probably resulted from bites by adult males. 

One adult female had a large fishing hook 

embedded in her mouth, which was not removed 

because she appeared to be pregnant. 

Laysan Island Field studies were conducted 

from 23 March to 2 August. The mean (+_ SD) of 

18 beach counts (excluding pups) was 73.6 (+_8.9), 

which is similar to the past three years. The total 

number of animals in the population (excluding 

pups) was 220, fourteen more than counted in 

1993, but the difference appeared to be due largely 

to Laysan animals that had not been identified in 

1993. At the end of the field season, 22 adult 

males were captured for translocation from Laysan 

Island to the main Hawaiian Islands, reducing the 

sex ratio to approximately 0.9:1.0. 

Forty-nine pups were born (29 female, 19 

male, 1 unknown), the second highest recorded 

since 1977. The birth rate was 71 percent for adultsized females. Forty-seven of the pups were 

tagged, and one was still nursing at the end of the 

season. Six seals were known to have died, and 

two others disappeared and are assumed dead. 

Two deaths and one disappearance (2 adult 

females and juvenile male) were attributed to 

mobbing, an adult of unknown sex disappeared 

after receiving a shark-inflicted injury, an adult 

male died during capture for the translocation, and 

three pups (a weaned male and two neonates - one 

male and one of unknown sex) died of 

undetermined causes. A non-fatal mobbing event 

was observed, and involved an adult female and 

six adult males. Three seals were entangled in 

marine debris and were released uninjured by 

observers. All marine debris capable of entangling 

Page 53 
Chapter V. Conservation and Recovery Programs, 

and Other Species Management Actions 

an animal was inventoried and destroyed. Of 

sixteen seals that had been oiled from a spill in 

1993, fifteen were sighted in 1994. 

Lisianski Island A one-day effort (20 July) 

occurred on Lisianksi Island to resight previously 

tagged seals and to tag weaned pups. Seven 

weaned pups were tagged with Temple Tags and 

Passive Integrated Transponders (PITS). Three 

additional pups were sighted but could not be 

tagged; minimum pup production for 1994 was, 

therefore, 10 animals. One weaned pup was 

entangled about the neck by a fragment of 

polypropylene net and was released uninjured. 

Approximately 50 percent of the debris capable of 

entangling wildlife was gathered and burned, but 

the remaining debris could not be destroyed 

because of the short duration of the visit. 

Midway Atoll Field studies were conducted 

at Midway Atoll from 5 to 31 March. Due to 

difficultly with transportation around the atoll, 

whole atoll counts were not conducted according 

to the standard protocol. Instead, beach counts 

were conducted separately for each island, and the 

combined averages totaled 12.7 seals (excluding 

nursing pups). Based on a combination of bleach 

marks and tags, 29 different individuals were 

identified, four of which were pups. Probability 

calculations suggest that they found all, or nearly 

all, seals using the site in March, and the total 

population probably consisted of 30-35 seals. The 

majority of the population is either immigrants 

from other locations or offspring of those 

immigrants. 

Kure Atoll Field studies of the Hawaiian 

monk seal at Kure Atoll were conducted from 11 

February to 25 March. The primary purpose of the 

camp was to determine the composition of the 

population (excluding pups), thereby providing 

information necessary to evaluate the survival of 

seals released at Kure to enhance the recovery of 

this population. In addition, all marine debris 

capable of entangling seals was collected and 

destroyed. 

Eight atoll counts were conducted, and the 

mean (+_ SD) count (excluding pups) was 57.8 

(+_6.3) seals, indicating a substantial increase over 

previous years. However, these counts were 

conducted at a different time of the year and, 

because monk seal hauling patterns are known to 

vary by season, the 1994 counts are not reliably 

comparable to counts in previous years. A total of 

112 seals was identified, including 43 adults, 28 

subadults, 41 juveniles. Their numbers probably 

include all or nearly all non-pup seals at the atoll. 

Six pups had been born by the field studies, but 

additional births were expected. One pup was 

apparently washed offshore during a high tide and 

was not seen again. Eight yearling seals were 

transported to Kure on the NOAA research vessel 

Townsend Cromwell. These seals were from 

French Frigate Shoals, and had been rehabilitated 

on Oahu. Six were released on 11 February and 

two were released on 25 March. Of 14 yearlings 

that had been released at Kure in 1993, 11 were 

resighted in 1994 (nine at Kure Atoll and 2 at 

Midway Atoll). One adult seal was found dead. 

The death probably occurred in 1994, but the 

carcass was too deteriorated to determine cause of 

death. 

Page 54 
Chapter VI. Ecosystem Activities


Several new ecosystem-related activities were 

authorized by the 1994 MMPA Amendments. This 

reflects a growing awareness that the health of 

marine mammal populations is linked integrally to 

their environment, and that protecting ecosystem 

health is an effective way to improve the status of 

living marine resource populations. 

Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Workshop 

The 1994 MMPA Amendments require that a 

workshop be held to assess anthropogenic factors 

affecting the health and stability of the Gulf of 

Maine ecosystem, of which marine mammals are a 

part. The workshop, currently scheduled for 

September 1995, will recommend a program of 

research and management to restore or maintain 

the ecosystem and its key components. It will also 

produce a report containing the results of the 

workshop, and proposed regulatory, research and 

legislative actions. 

Bering Sea Ecosystem Study 

The 1994 MMPA Amendments require that a 

scientific research program be undertaken to 

monitor the health and stability of the Bering Sea 

marine ecosystem and to resolve uncertainties 

regarding the declines of populations of marine 

mammals, sea birds and other living resources of 

the ecosystem. NMFS has developed an ecosystem 

research plan for the Bering Sea, and will hold a 

series of meetings in 1995 in conjunction with the 

Marine Mammal Commission, the State of Alaska, 

Alaska native groups, the National Biological 

Survey, USFWS and others to refine and further 

the research under the plan. 

California Sea Lion/

Harbor Seal Impacts 

NMFS is directed by the 1994 MMPA 

Amendments to engage in a scientific investigation 

to determine whether California sea lions and 

Pacific harbor seals are having: 

1) a significant impact on the recovery of 

endangered or threatened salmonid species; or 2) 

broader impacts on the coastal ecosystems of 

Washington, Oregon and California. A working 

group with expertise in pinniped and fish biology 

has been established to collect relevant data, to 

review the literature, to identify research needs and 

to assist in the preparation of a report which will 

be produced by October 31, 1995. Due to the lack 

of appropriated funding, field studies will not be 

conducted as part of the investigation. 

Pinniped-Fishery Interactions 

NMFS has been given the authority to conduct 

a study of not less than three high predation areas 

in anadromous fish migration corridors within the 

NMFS Northwest Region, focusing on the 

interaction between fish and pinnipeds in these 

areas. However, this investigation will not be 

conducted until appropriations have been 

allocated. 

Page 55 
Page 56
Chapter VII. Alaska Native Take 


of Marine Mammals


Alaska Subsistence/Co-Management Issues 

Under Section 119 of the 1994 MMPA 

Amendments, the Alaska Regional Office of 

NMFS' Protected Resources Management Division 

has been working with Alaska Native 

organizations and communities to set up comanagement plans for marine mammal stocks 

used for subsistence and handicraft purposes. 

Subsistence use of various marine mammal species 

has been an important cultural element of the 

diverse Native Alaskan cultures for thousands of 

years. An integration of perspectives is needed, 

and the success of co-management plans already 

set up with Alaska Native organizations, such as 

the bowhead whale plan set up with Alaska 

Eskimo Whaling Commission, demonstrates the 

feasibility of such cooperation. It also serves as a 

model for the development of new cooperative 

management regimes for other species. Initial 

emphasis in implementing section 119 will be on 

the development of cooperative agreements for 

Steller sea lions, harbor seals, northern fur seals 

and beluga whales. 

While each stock of marine mammals will 

require individual plans that address the differing 

cultural uses, the plans will have similar goals. 

These goals include establishing a flexible 

management process combining Federal resource 

management policies with traditional cultural 

perspectives, preserving and enhancing stocks 

through determining mutually acceptable harvest 

levels, fostering development of subsistence 

harvest self-regulation and monitoring, increasing 

local participation in scientific research and year 

round monitoring by user communities, and 

encouraging 

educational outreach programs both within the 

Natives communities and beyond. 

Several Alaska Native organizations are 

already working toward these goals. During the 

past year representatives from the NMFS Alaska 

Regional Office have met with the Alaska 

Inuvialuit Beluga Whale Committee, the Aleut Fur 

Seal Commission, the Indigenous Peoples Council 

on Marine Mammals, the Native American Fish 

and Wildlife Society, and the Southeast Alaska 

Native Subsistence Commission. NMFS' Alaska 

Regional Office recently signed an agreement with 

the Alaska Area Office of the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) to detail a senior natural resources 

specialist from the BIA to NMFS in order to 

facilitate a coordinated approach to the 

development of co-management plans. It is the 

intention of section 119 of the MMPA that the 

benefits derived from these cooperative 

agreements, once they are in place, will be felt by 

the Native users, NMFS, and the marine mammal 

stocks themselves. 

Subsistence Take of Marine Mammals 

Bowhead Whales 

Table 2 

The Take of Bowhead Whales in 1993 and 1994. 

Year Landed Lost Strikes 

1993 41 11 52 

1994 34 12 46 

Page 57 
Chapter VII. Alaska Native Take of Marine Mammals 

NMFS works cooperatively with the State of 

Alaska, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, 

the North Slope Borough, and the Minerals 

Management Service to manage bowhead issues. 

Catch limits for the subsistence take of bowhead 

whales are established by the International 

Whaling Commission (IWC). A 3-year quota of 54 

strikes per year with no more than 41 animals 

landed was set by the IWC for the years 1992 ­

1994. The actual take of bowhead whales in 1992, 

1993 and 1994 is presented in Table 2. At the 1994 

IWC Annual Meeting, a new 4-year was 

established. For the years 1995 - 1998, the number 

of bowhead whales landed shall not exceed 204, 

and the number of bowhead whales struck shall 

not exceed 68 in 1995, 67 in 1996, 66 in 1997, and 65 

in 1998, with the exception being that any unused 

portion of the yearly strike quota may be carried 

over and added to the strike quota of any 

subsequent year, provided that no more than 10 

strikes is added to the strike quota for any one 

year. 

Northern Fur Seals 

The NMFS published a final rule in the Federal 

Register (59 FR 35471, July 12, 1994) the estimating 

the subsistence needs for northern fur seals by the 

Aleut residents of the Pribilof Islands for the three 

year period 1994 through 1996. The final rule 

regarding the 3-year policy on estimated 

subsistence needs became effective on July 12, 

1994, and was applied to the 1994 subsistence take. 

By regulation, the subsistence take of fur seals in 

the Pribilofs begins annually on June 23 and 

terminates on August 8. 

The final rule also amended regulations, 

effective August 11, 1994, governing the 

subsistence take of fur seals in the Pribilofs to 

change the period of applicability for subsistence 

take estimates from one to three years. By April 1 

of every third year, beginning April 1994, the 

Assistant Administrator will publish in the Federal 

Register a summary of the preceding 3 years of 

harvesting and a summary of discussions re: the 

number of seals expected to be taken annually over 

the next 3 years to satisfy the subsistence 

requirements of each island. These discussions 

will include an assessment of factors and 

conditions on St. Paul and St. George Islands that 

influence the need by the Aleut residents to take 

fur seals for subsistence purposes and an 

assessment of any changes to those conditions 

indicating that the number of seals that may be 

taken for subsistence each should be made higher 

or lower. Following a 30-day comment period, the 

Table 3 

Subsistence Harvest Levels for Northern Fur Seals on the 

Pribilof Islands, 1991-1994. 

YEARS 

1991 1992 1993 1994 

St. Paul 1,645 1,482 1,518 1,616 

St. George 281 194 319 161 

Page 58 
Chapter VII. Alaska Native Take of Marine Mammals 

expected annual harvest levels for the next three 

years will be published in the Federal register. 

The subsistence need estimates for the three 

year period 1994 through 1996 were determined to 

be approximately the same as those for 1992 and 

1993. Therefore, the ranges of the number of seals 

to be taken for subsistence purposes during each of 

the years 1994, 1995 and 1996, were set at a lower 

bound of 1,645 for St. Paul Island and 281 for St. 

George Island. The upper bound of the range was 

set at 2,000 seals for St. Paul and 500 for St. George. 

During 1994, 1,616 animals were taken by the 

Aleut people of St. Paul for subsistence purposes 

between June 27 and August 6. On St. George 

Island, the Aleut residents took 161 animals 

between July 2 and August 5, 1994 to meet their 

subsistence needs (see Table 3). 

Regulations at 50 CFR 215.33(b) governing the 

taking of fur seals for subsistence purposes in the 

Pribilofs, require that such taking is "Not 

accomplished in a wasteful manner." The primary 

method used for monitoring compliance to this 

and other regulations, is through direct 

observations by NMFS employees during each 

harvest event to ensure that specific parts of the 

animals are taken taken for subsistence use. 

Additional criteria for monitoring compliance with 

the wasteful take regulations requires NMFS to 

determine the extent of utilization of fur seals 

taken [50 CFR 215.34(b)]. The method employed in 

the past to determine utilization on St. Paul Island 

was to take a variety of weights from 10-20 percent 

of all animals taken daily and calculate a 

percentage-use number. This procedure was timeconsuming, arduous, subject to considerable 

variability and caused a significant level of 

interference with the traditional and customary 

conduct of the harvest. 

Through the 1994 co-management amendments 

to the MMPA, NMFS/AKR initiated discussions 

with the tribal government of St. Paul and, 

together, further modified the subsistence take of 

fur seals to more closely reflect the traditional 

significance and customs of the Aleut people of the 

Pribilof Islands. The tribal government resolved to 

Northern fur seal pup production is down on St. Paul, Pribilof Islands, 

Alaska. Photo credit: NMFS/FPR 

eliminate the "butterfly cut" method of butchering 

seals taken for subsistence. In 1995 and thereafter, 

the Aleut people of St. Paul have agreed to take 

only "whole animals" from the field during the fur 

seal harvests. By so doing, the monitoring 

required by NMFS to meet regulatory 

requirements will be greatly simplified. Also, as a 

result, the weighing of sample animals during each 

harvest to determine percent-use of seals taken on 

St. Paul Island for subsistence purposes, will no 

longer be necessary (the butterfly cut was never 

employed by the Aleut people of St. George Island 

and therefore, percent-use determinations have 

never been applied to St. George). 

NMFS/AKR has also been actively and 

extensively involved in working with other federal, 

state and local entities and the private sector, 

regarding the rapidly increasing rate and level of 

commercial development that has occurred in the 

Pribilof Islands during the past several years. 

NMFS/AKR has initiated, with the St.Paul 

residents, a cooperative approach to the problematic situation created by the increased commercial 

development of the local communities, related 

Page 59 
Chapter VII. Alaska Native Take of Marine Mammals 

human activity and subsequent impacts on the 

unique natural environment of the Pribilofs. 

Steller Sea Lions and Harbor Seals 

ADFG, Division of Subsistence, was contracted 

in 1992 to collect information on the Alaska Native 

subsistence take of harbor seals and Steller sea 

lions during 1992 and 1993. ADFG is expected to 

continue to collect information on the native 

subsistence take of harbor seals and Steller sea 

lions for at least two more years (1994-1996), with 

a plan to expand collection to include biological 

sampling. 

A summary technical report, finalized in mid1994, describes the subsistence takes of harbor seal 

and Steller sea lion by Alaska Natives in 1993, and 

documents the number, seasons, geographic 

distribution, and age and sex of the animals 

harvested (ADFG, 1993; ADFG, 1994). Harvest 

information was derived, at the state, region and 

community levels, from systematic interviews with 

hunters and users of marine mammals in 2,087 

households in 60 coastal communities in 1993 

within the geographic ranges of the two species. 

During 1993, the estimated subsistence take of 

harbor seals by Alaska Natives was 2,729 seals 

with a 95 percent confidence range of between 

2,513 and 3,464 seals. Of the take, 13.5 percent 

were struck and lost (369 seals) and 86.5 percent 

(2,360 seals) were harvested. In addition, there 

were 265 seals taken in North Bristol Bay that were 

classified as spotted seal based on ecological 

evidence. Subsistence takes of fresh water seals 

from Lake Iliamna were dropped from the 1993 

study. Harbor seals were taken in 56 of 60 

surveyed communities. The largest takes (59 

percent) were by Tlingit and Haida hunters in the 

southeast region. Harbor seals were taken in all 

months of 1993, with two seasonal peaks during 

March-April and August-December. Hunters 

reported taking male harbor seals over females 

about 2.3 to 1, and reported taking primarily adult 

harbor seals. 

During 1993, the estimated subsistence take of 

Steller sea lions by Alaska Natives was 487 sea 

lions, with a 95 percent confidence range of 

between 391 and 630 sea lions. Of the take 28.6 

percent (139 sea lions) were struck and lost and 

71.4 percent (348 sea lions) were harvested. 

Sea lions were taken in 21 of 60 surveyed 

communities. An estimated 223 households 

hunted sea lion, 171 (77 percent) successfully. The 

largest takes were by Aleut hunters in the Aleutian 

and Pribilof Islands. Sea lions were taken in all 

months of 1993, with seasonal peaks during 

September-November. Hunters reported taking 

males over females about 4.5 to 1, and reported 

taking twice as many juvenile sea lions over adults 

or pups about 1.5 to 1. Data for 1994 takes will 

become available in 1995. This project is expected 

to continue through 1996. 

Beluga Whales 

The Alaska Beluga Whale Committee (ABWC) 

was formed in 1988. Since that date, the ABWC 

has met annually to provide harvest information 

on takes by Alaska Natives. Hunters from 

approximately 50 villages take beluga whales in 

Alaska. Animals are harvested from 5 stocks that 

are defined by summering areas. 

In 1993, ADFG was contracted to determine 

numbers of whales being taken by Alaskan Natives 

in areas where significant interactions with 

commercial fishing may also be occurring (Bristol 

Bay and Cook Inlet). These 1993 data were made 

available in mid-1994 with 333 animals being taken 

in the beluga harvest by area as follows: Cook Inlet 

- 15; Bristol Bay - 14; Norton Sound - 136; Chukchi 

Sea - 83; Beaufort Sea - 85. The 1994 data will be 

available in mid-1995. 

Page 60 
Chapter VII. Alaska Native Take of Marine Mammals 

Page 61
Chapter VIII. Permit Programs


The MMPA authorizes NMFS to issue permits 

for the taking or importing of marine mammals for 

public display, scientific research and enhancement 

of species or stocks. This chapter discusses NMFS 

permit programs, the effect of recent MMPA 

amendments upon these programs, and it 

describes notable permit and related authorization 

requests. The MMPA also allows NMFS to 

authorize incidental/unintentional takes related to 

activities other than commercial fishing (see 

Chapter IV). 

Public Display, Scientific Research, and Enhancement Permits 

NMFS administers provisions within the 

permit program, pursuant to the MMPA, the ESA, 

and the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (FSA), as they apply to 

species under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 

Commerce. Under these statutes, permits may be 

issued for certain purposes (e.g., public display, 

scientific research, and enhancement), to take, 

import, export, or conduct an otherwise prohibited 

activity involving such protected species. The 

recent amendments to the MMPA also authorize 

the issuance of permits for a new category, 

photography. (For more details, see next 

subsection.) 

Between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 

1994, NMFS reviewed 43 permit applications. Of 

these, 24 permits were issued for scientific research 

and 4 were issued for public display. One 

application for a public display permit was denied, 

14 applications were returned or withdrawn, and 

6 applications were awaiting final action at the end 

of December 1994. 

NMFS also processes permit amendments if the 

proposed modifications meet the appropriate 

regulatory standards, and other permit-related 

authorizations. A modification is usually subject to 

the same notice, review and comment procedures 

as a permit application. During the reporting 

period, 99 permit modifications/ authorizations 

were processed. Tables D-1 through D-5 in 

Appendix D provide an overview of major permitrelated activities during the reporting period. 

Proposed Revisions to

Permit Regulations 

On October 14, 1993, NMFS published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register to amend the 

regulations for permits under the MMPA, the ESA 

and the FSA. These proposed revisions were 

intended to update and consolidate existing permit 

regulations, to implement amendments to the 

MMPA that were enacted November 23, 1988, and 

to make administration of the permit program 

more efficient, consistent, and predictable. The 

public comment period on the proposed rule was 

extended twice and public hearings were held in 

Washington, D.C., Oakland, CA, and Chicago, IL. 

While the proposed rule was undergoing final 

modifications prior to publication as a final rule, 

the 1994 amendments to the MMPA were signed 

into law. The 1994 Amendments made substantial 

changes to sections 102 and 104 of the MMPA 

governing permits for public display, scientific 

research, and enhancement activities of marine 

mammal species and stocks. Consequently, 

revised proposed, or interim final, regulations 

incorporating public comments as well as 

provisions of the new amendments are expected to 

be published in early 1995. 

1994 Amendments to the MMPA 

Permitting Process 

When the MMPA was amended on April 30, 

1994, substantial changes to the permit process 

were made, including: 

1) NMFS' authority to condition public display 

permits by specifying methods of supervision, care 

Page 62 
Chapter VIII. Permit Programs 

and transport is limited to the initial capture from 

the wild or initial import. 

2) Permits for public display are only required for 

capture and import of marine mammals and may 

be issued to a recipient that meets the following 

three eligibility criteria: 

(a) offers a program for education or conservation

purposes that is based on professionally

recognized standards of the public display

community;

(b) is registered or holds a license issued under 7

U.S.C. 2131 et seq., i.e., from the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture (or, for foreign facilities, meets

comparable standards); and

(c) maintains facilities for the public display of

marine mammals that are open to the public on a

regularly scheduled basis and to which access is

not limited or restricted other than by charging of

an admission fee.

3) Persons holding marine mammals have the 

right to take, sell, export, or otherwise transfer 

possession of marine mammals, for public display, 

to any person who meets the eligibility criteria 

(cited above) without any additional permit or 

authorization. 

4) 15-days' advance notification required of any 

transportation, sale, purchase, or expor--t of a 

marine mammal for public display, scientific 

research, or enhancement purposes; 

5) The requirement that scientific research not be 

duplicative was eliminated; 

6) The 30-day comment period in certain 

"emergency" situations may be waived; 

7) A General Authorization for non-injurious 

scientific research (Level B harassment) on marine 

mammals was provided; and 

8) A new permit category for photographing 

marine mammals in the wild for educational and 

commercial purposes was established; and 

9) NMFS and the USFWS are required to maintain 

a basic inventory of marine mammals held in 

captivity but limits information to specific 

categories. 

Education Standards 

When the MMPA was amended on April 30, 

1994, one of the changes with regard to the public 

display of marine mammals eliminated the 

requirement for NMFS to determine whether 

education and conservation programs are 

acceptable. The MMPA now requires that persons 

holding marine mammals for purposes of public 

display, or requesting issuance of a permit to 

capture or import marine mammals for purposes 

of public display, must offer a program for 

education or conservation purposes that is based 

on professionally recognized standards of the 

public display community. In order for NMFS to 

determine that these programs are based on 

professionally recognized standards, NMFS 

contacted representatives of the public display 

community requesting that a copy of these 

standards be developed and submitted to NMFS 

for publication, thus enabling persons seeking 

marine mammals for public display purposes to 

reference these standards rather than having to 

submit a listing of such standards with each 

application. 

The American Zoo and Aquarium Association 

(AZA) and the Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks 

and Aquariums (Alliance), together representing 

approximately 60 per cent of U.S. facilities that 

currently hold marine mammals, have submitted, 

for references purposes, the professionally 

accepted standards on which their members base 

their education and conservation programs. A 

Notice of Receipt of these standards was published 

on October 6, 1994. Since AZA and the Alliance do 

Page 63 
Chapter VIII. Permit Programs 

not represent the entire public display community, 

NMFS will also consider and publish notice of any 

alternative standards that are submitted by other 

members or representative organizations of the 

public display community, or those that are 

provided as part of a permit application. 

Beached and Stranded Marine Mammals 

Beached or stranded marine mammals taken 

under the authority of section 109(h) of the MMPA 

may be held only for the purpose of rehabilitation 

until: (1) The animal is returned to its natural 

habitat; (2) NMFS concurs with a determination by 

the attending veterinarian that it is not feasible to 

return the animal to its natural habitat and 

permanent holding is authorized by NMFS; or, (3) 

although the attending veterinarian determines 

that the animal is releasable, NMFS authorizes the 

permanent retention of the animal as a substitute 

for the capture of one of the same species from the 

wild. 

The permanent retention of a beached or 

stranded marine mammal previously taken for the 

purpose of rehabilitation under section 109(h) of 

the MMPA must be authorized by NMFS before 

the animal may be retained by the rehabilitating 

facility, or transported or exported to another 

facility for public display purposes, in accordance 

with applicable MMPA requirements. 

Additionally, the recipient or retaining facility 

must meet the three eligibility criteria specified in 

the 1994 Amendments (and cited above). 

A permit is required to retain or obtain 

rehabilitated beached and stranded marine 

mammals for purposes of scientific research or 

enhancing the survival or recovery of marine 

mammal species or stocks. Proposed regulations 

implementing these provisions will be ready for 

publication in 1995. 

Exports 

Under the 1994 Amendments to the MMPA, a 

public display permit is no longer required for the 

receipt of captive marine mammals by foreign 

facilities or persons requesting marine mammals 

from the United States. However, NMFS must 

determine that the recipient meets the eligibility 

criteria (cited above) established by the 

amendments to receive marine mammals for public 

display. Therefore, in addition to the 15-day 

advance transport notification requirement, NMFS 

must also receive a letter from the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service stating that the foreign facility 

meets standards that are comparable to those 

applicable to U.S. licensees and registrants under 

the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). 

Additionally, NMFS must receive a statement 

from the appropriate foreign government agency 

certifying that: 1) the information submitted by the 

foreign facility is accurate; 2) the laws of the foreign 

government will enable the foreign government to 

enforce applicable laws; and 3) if it is determined 

that the foreign facility has acted in a manner 

inconsistent with a requirement of the MMPA or 

the AWA that would be applicable to a U.S. 

facility, the foreign government will afford comity 

to any enforcement decision that may be made by 

NMFS, including seizure of the marine mammals 

exported from the United States, and the recovery 

of expenses for such seizure or other disposition. 

The amendments also provide specifically for 

the export of marine mammals for purposes of 

public display without further permit or 

authorization. Although no such specific provision 

was included for scientific research or 

enhancement activities, a general provision was 

included allowing exports that meet comparable 

standards. 

General Authorization 

The 1994 Amendments required NMFS to issue 

a general authorization and implementing 

Page 64 
Chapter VIII. Permit Programs 

regulations for scientific research involving Level 

B harassment of marine mammals in the wild. 

Level B harassment is defined as any act of pursuit, 

torment or annoyance which has the potential to 

disturb by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited, to migration, 

breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding or sheltering. 

Research activities involving Level A harassment, 

which is defined as having the "potential to injure", 

will require a scientific research permit. If the 

proposed research includes marine mammals listed 

under the ESA, activities that do not exceed Level 

B harassment will be covered under the General 

Authorization when the researcher is issued a 

scientific research permit for such activities under 

the ESA. 

An interim final rule was published in the 

Federal Register on October 3, 1994. This rule 

establishes a general authorization for scientific 

research; describes the research activities most 

likely to be included under the general 

authorization; identifies submission requirements 

for the letter of intent; establishes procedures for 

confirming that the General Authorization applies 

and for notifying the applicant that a permit is 

required; and specifies the conditions of the 

General Authorization including monitoring and 

reporting requirements. Research activities that 

are expected to cause no more than Level B 

harassment include photo-identification studies, 

behavioral observations, and vessel and aerial 

population surveys. Public comments were 

requested and will be considered in the 

development of the final rule. 

Photography Permits 

The amendments add a new category of 

permits to allow marine mammals in the wild to be 

photographed for educational and commercial 

purposes. These permits are limited to Level B 

harassment and require that the photographic 

products be made available to the public. 

Proposed regulations for the provision of this new 

category of permit are under development and are 

expected to be published in the Federal Register in 

1995. 

Swim-with-the-Dolphin Programs 

The NMFS-sponsored behavioral study of 

dolphins involved in swim-with-the-dolphin 

(SWTD) programs, initiated in 1992, was 

completed in April 1994. The study was 

undertaken with the purpose of enabling NMFS to 

decide whether or not the swim programs should 

be continued and, if so, what modifications, if any, 

should be made in the special conditions of the 

program operators' public display permits. 

Although the data contained in the final report of 

the study provides substantive new understanding 

of human/dolphin interactions in the four swim 

programs studied, all NMFS responsibilities under 

the MMPA for the welfare of captive marine 

mammals held in public display facilities was 

eliminated by the 1994 Amendments which went 

into effect two weeks after the study report was 

received. The report, however, was forwarded to 

APHIS and other interested parties. Similarly, all 

papers that had been produced to establish 

veterinary protocols for swim-program dolphins 

were also sent to APHIS for their consideration and 

use, after the enactment of the MMPA 

amendments. 

Marine Mammal Identification Study 

In the spring of 1993, NMFS contracted for a 

study to determine the feasibility of individual 

identification methods for public display animals. 

A final report discussing the various methods of 

identification and tagging, along with various 

recommendations, was completed and submitted 

to NMFS just prior to the passage of the 1994 

Amendments. Since NMFS responsibility in this 

area was eliminated by the amendments, this 

report was also forwarded to APHIS for their 

future use. 

Page 65 
Chapter VIII. Permit Programs 

Spinner dolphin mother and calf observed during population 

assessment survey in the Gulf of Mexico. Photo Credit: C.L. Roden, 

NMFS, SER. 

Notable Permit and Authorization 

Requests 

Dolphin Feeding Application 

One permit application was received for 

authorization to feed wild dolphins. The 

applicants, submitting their 9th application, were 

seeking a permit to approach and feed wild 

dolphins in the waters off Corpus Christi, Texas, 

for purposes of 

public display and education. The application was 

returned since public display, as re-affirmed by 

Congress in the 1994 Amendments to the MMPA, 

is for the exhibition of marine mammals in captive 

settings only and a public display permit can be 

issued only to applicants having an exhibitor's 

license issued by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service under the Animal Welfare Act. 

Capture of White-sided Dolphins 

On November 27, 1993, the John G. Shedd 

Aquarium captured three Pacific white-sided 

dolphins in an area approximately 15 nautical 

miles southeast of Santa Barbara Island in 

California. (Although this event occurred in 1993, 

it was not discussed in the 1992-1993 MMPA 

annual report.) The capture, authorized under the 

conditions specified in public display Permit No. 

643, was very controversial. Numerous letters 

were received from the public requesting the 

return of the dolphins to the wild. A coalition of 

marine conservation organizations urged NMFS to 

modify, suspend, or revoke the take authority of 

the Shedd Aquarium's permit, however there was 

no basis on which to take such action. 

Reintroduction of Dolphins 

At the beginning of 1994, the Navy held 101 

bottlenose dolphins. In October 1993, the Navy 

issued Technical Report 1549, "Reintroduction to 

the Wild as an Option for Managing Navy Marine 

Mammals" which was prepared to address a 

request by Congress in November 1991 to 

"...develop training procedures which will allow 

mammals which are no longer required for this 

project to be released back into their natural 

habitat...." The report, which focuses on 

requirements for reintroducing excess bottlenose 

dolphins into the wild, indicates that 

reintroduction is unlikely to be used extensively by 

the Navy in disposing of its surplus dolphins. 

Nonetheless, the Navy has identified five male 

dolphins that may be suitable candidates for 

reintroduction to the wild and plans to transfer 

these animals to the Sugarloaf Dolphin Sanctuary. 

The transport of these animals, originally 

scheduled for August 23-25, was postponed until 

September 10 and was then delayed again at 

Sugarloaf's request. Three of the 5 dolphins were 

transferred to Sugarloaf on November 30, 1994. 

The other 2 dolphin may be transferred in 1995, 

depending on their health status. 

ATOC Off the Coasts of California and 

Hawaii 

Page 66 
Chapter VIII. Permit Programs 

Applications have been made by Scripps 

Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, for two 

scientific research permits under the MMPA and 

the ESA to allow harassment of several species of 

marine mammals and sea turtles by two lowfrequency sound sources (peak frequency 75 Hz, 35 

Hz bandwidth; 195 dB level (re 1 uPa at 1 m)) 

moored at 850-900m, one to be located 14 km north 

of Kaihu Point, Kauai, HI, and the second 40 km 

off Point Sur, CA (in the Monterey Bay Sanctuary). 

This research is part of a 2-year Acoustic 

Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) program 

designed to test the feasibility of a future global 

ocean climate monitoring program and to 

investigate the possible effects of this sound on 

marine mammals and sea turtles. 

Based on information to date, there may be 

potential for physiological damage to the auditory 

or other systems of marine mammals or sea turtles 

within a very small sphere around each source. 

Another concern is that transmissions of greater 

than 120 dB might influence the distribution and 

behavior of protected species. 

Notice of receipt of these applications was 

published in the Federal Register, with the public 

comment period for the Hawaii application opened 

on November 16, 1993, and the California 

application opened on February 3, 1994. Public 

hearings on the applications were held in Silver 

Spring, MD on March 22, 1994, in Honolulu, HI on 

April 14, 1994, in Kauai, HI on April 15, 1994, and 

in Santa Cruz, CA on May 16, 1994. The record 

remained open for additional comment in 

anticipation of receiving revised research protocols 

(to be published for public comment) and public 

comment on Draft Environmental Impact 

Statements. After the public hearings and the 

substantive comments were received on the two 

permit applications, the applicant decided to 

modify the research protocols for both sites. The 

Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) has 

provided NMFS with written notification of its 

intention to request initiation of consultation under 

Section 7 of the ESA for both the Hawaii and 

California projects. Environmental Impact 

Statements (EISs) are being prepared on the two 

projects and will contain the analyses which will 

constitute the basis for the biological assessments 

required by the Section 7 consultation process. 

ARPA and the University of California, San 

Diego, with NMFS as a cooperating agency, 

prepared a combined Federal/State Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/Report 

(DEIS/DEIR) for the California site. This 

DEIS/DEIR, which incorporates the revised draft 

research protocol for the California site, was made 

available for public review on December 2, 1994 

and a hearing on the document is scheduled for 

January 6, 1995. A revised scientific research 

permit application for the California site was 

submitted to NMFS on November 28, 1994, and 

will be made available for public review in early 

1995. 

At the close of 1994, NMFS and ARPA were 

completing a combined Federal/State EIS for the 

Hawaii site. It is anticipated that the DEIS and 

incorporated revised draft protocol for the Hawaii 

site will be available for public review in January 

1995, and a hearing on that document is planned 

for February 1995. 

Feeding Marine Mammals in the Wild 

Report to Congress on Results of

Feeding Wild Dolphins 

In the 1992 NOAA Authorization, Section 306 

of Public Law 102-567, Congress tasked NMFS to 

conduct a study and summary report, to be 

completed by April 29, 1994, in the eastern Gulf of 

Mexico, on the effects of feeding wild (non-captive) 

dolphins. However, due to budgetary constraints 

and concerns over the scientific prudence of 

conducting a designed field study which could do 

irreversible harm to wild dolphins, the report 

Page 67 
Chapter VIII. Permit Programs 

submitted to Congress on July 15, 1994, relied 

instead on documentation and evidence of dolphin 

feeding collected by NMFS since 1989 in an effort 

to establish policy consistent with the agency's 

obligations under the MMPA. Also included with 

the report were scientific reviews submitted by 

outside marine mammal experts; comments from 

various interests with relevant experience and 

knowledge of the subject; and evidence and 

affidavits collected during the two years of 

litigation prompted by NMFS regulations to 

include "feeding" in the definition of "take" under 

the MMPA. A revised edition will be available in 

1995. 

Educational Efforts 

Continuing problems with private recreational 

and charter vessels feeding wild dolphins in 

Florida and South Carolina resulted in the 

development of an education/media campaign on 

the illegality of feeding dolphins in the wild and 

the harm it causes. A public service announcement 

was prepared and distributed to 74 television 

stations and 640 radio stations throughout the 

southeast region from South Carolina through 

Texas. 

Page 68 
Chapter VIII. Permit Programs 

Page 69
Chapter IX. Marine Mammal Health and Stranding


Response Program


Background 

In 1992, the United States Congress enacted the 

Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response 

Act (Public Law 102-587). The Act contains three 

basic provisions: Marine Mammal Stranding 

Networks, response to unusual mortality events, 

and the National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank. 

To implement the provisions of the Marine 

Mammal Health and Stranding Response Act, 

NMFS has instituted the Marine Mammal Health 

and Stranding Response Program (MMHSRP) 

which consists of four major components: 

Stranding Networks (including unusual mortality 

response); the National Marine Mammal Tissue 

Bank; Monitoring; and Quality Assurance. 

Stranding Networks 

Marine Mammal Stranding Networks have 

been established in each of NMFS' regions. Most 

members of the Marine Mammal Stranding 

Networks are volunteers who respond to both live 

and dead strandings of cetaceans and pinnipeds. 

Volunteers must satisfy minimum requirements in 

terms of marine mammal experience in order to be 

issued letters of authorization by the appropriate 

Regional Office to respond to strandings. Different 

levels of authorization may apply, depending on 

the capabilities of the members, e.g., response to 

live stranded animals is generally limited to those 

institutions that have medical expertise and the 

physical facilities to rehabilitate animals. Network 

members are required to collect certain basic 

biological data including species name, sex, length, 

location, and any evidence of human interaction. 

In addition, they are encouraged to collect other 

data and tissues for use in scientific research, 

analysis and for educational purposes. 

Section 302 of the Marine Mammal Health and 

Stranding Response Act directs efforts to improve 

information flow to and from the Stranding 

Networks and to upgrade network capabilities by 

developing protocols for response to strandings 

and collection of tissues from dead marine 

mammals. A Field Guide was produced in 1993 in 

cooperation with the Texas Sea Grant program and 

distributed to Stranding Network members 

containing basic protocols for first aid and 

rehabilitation of live animals, necropsy techniques, 

and collection of tissues from dead animals. To 

supplement the Field Guide, a more detailed 

laboratory guide was prepared on pinnipeds and 

distributed to Network members in 1994. A 

technical memorandum entitled "Small Cetacean 

Dissection and Sampling: a Field Guide" was also 

published in April 1994. Pursuant to section 302, 

NMFS is developing standards for determining 

whether rehabilitated animals are releasable to the 

wild. A draft document, currently in development, 

is expected to be out for review by mid-1995. 

Network members do not receive monetary 

compensation, yet they provide valuable 

information that helps in the management of 

marine mammals. In 1994, Network members 

reported 2039 pinniped strandings and 1533 

cetacean strandings. Although the vast majority of 

strandings are dead animals, a significant number 

of live animals are rehabilitated each year. Several 

hundred pinnipeds are treated and returned to the 

wild annually. Because cetaceans are totally 

aquatic, they are commonly in critical condition 

when they strand, and recovery rates have been 

much lower. Since the passage of the MMPA in 

1972, there have been only 63 successful 

rehabilitation efforts involving stranded cetaceans. 

However, the success rate for cetacean recovery is 

improving. Thirty-seven of those 63 have occurred 

within the last 4 years and 11 cetaceans were 

successfully rehabilitated in 1994. 

Page 70 
Chapter IX. Marine Mammal Health 

and Stranding Response Program 

Prior to 1991, there was little success in 

rehabilitating dwarf and pygmy sperm whales. 

Five have been rehabilitated and released back into 

the wild in the last 4 years. One rehabilitated 

pygmy sperm whale has become the subject of an 

educational video prepared by the National 

Aquarium in Baltimore. The animal did not begin 

to improve until a unique procedure was used to 

remove plastic materials from its stomach. When 

the animal was released, it was tracked by radio in 

order to observe its habits and to determine 

survival. The video recording the rehabilitation 

process and release is designed to highlight the 

problem of improper disposal of plastic trash. 

Unusual Mortality Events 

In accordance with §304 of the Marine Mammal 

Health and Stranding Response Act, a Working 

Group on Unusual Marine Mammal Mortality 

Events has been established. It includes 

individuals from a range of scientific disciplines 

including veterinary medicine, pathology, 

epidemiology, environmental contaminants, and 

marine mammal science. The Working Group, 

which named Dr. Joseph Geraci as Chair, is to be 

consulted when an unusual mortality event is 

suspected. The working group is charged with 

providing advice as to specific actions that should 

be taken in response to an event. 

During 1994, two mortality events occurred on 

which the Working Group was consulted. During 

a three month period in the spring, over 220 

bottlenose dolphins stranded along the Texas 

coast. Virtually every carcass that washed ashore 

was so badly decomposed that standard analyses 

could not be conducted. Because morbillivirus had 

been detected in the Florida panhandle, Mobile 

Bay, and Mississippi in late 1993, there was a 

suspicion that the virus might be related to the 

mortalities in Texas. Scientists at the Armed 

Forces Institute of Pathology decided to try using 

polymerase chain reaction--a novel molecular 

biology technique that 

Brown bear approaching stranded gray whale on the Alaska Peninsula. 

Photo credit: D. Withrow, NMFS/NMML. 

can detect and identify minute amounts of DNA 

or RNA--to determine if the virus could be detected 

in decomposed lung tissue from the dolphins. 

They were successful in detecting morbillivirus 

RNA in the lungs of 18 of 25 dolphins tested 

despite the poor condition of the specimens. 

Combined with previous findings in the Gulf of 

Mexico, the conclusion was reached that 

morbillivirus was the likely cause of the mortality 

event in Texas. 

Stranding Network members were responsible 

for providing evidence that this disease is present 

in a second species in the Gulf of Mexico. On July 

13, there was a mass stranding of 30 Fraser's 

dolphins near Sarasota, Florida. After blood values 

had been established indicating that the dolphins 

were relatively healthy, 27 dolphins were released 

on site. Blood collected from the animals was later 

analyzed for the presence of antibodies to 

morbillivirus. Results from 9 of 27 blood samples 

were positive indicating that the dolphins had been 

exposed to morbillivirus. 

The second mortality event involved common 

dolphins in California. Fifty-four strandings took 

Page 71 
Chapter IX. Marine Mammal Health and 

Stranding Response Program 

place between April 3 and June 30. Thirteen 

strandings occurred between July 1 and December 

31. The majority of the strandings occurred in San 

Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. By 

comparison, the annual totals for common dolphin 

strandings in California were 28 in 1993, 21 in 1992, 

and 18 in 1991. Gross necropsy did not reveal a 

common pathology. Histological results are still 

being evaluated. The presence of high levels of 

domoic acid in rock crabs in the Santa Barbara 

Channel raised the possibility that biotoxins might 

be involved. Stomach contents and tissue 

contaminants analyses are still being evaluated. 

The investigation is proceeding. The findings will 

be announced at the close of the investigation. 

The Marine Mammal Health and Stranding 

Response Act also mandates the development of a 

national contingency plan for response to unusual 

marine mammal mortality events. The 

contingency plan must contain the following: (1) a 

list of people at local, regional, and national levels 

who can assist in responding to and determining 

necessary to assist in determining the cause of a 

mortality event; (2) a list of analyses necessary to 

assist in diagnosis of causes; (3) mobilization and 

training procedures; and (4) provisions to 

minimize the deaths of marine mammals. A draft 

of the plan was made available for public comment 

on June 13. The final plan should be available in 

early 1995. 

Regional Stranding Networks 

The following descriptions of Regional 

stranding activity present significant activities and 

summarize stranding reports. A table of all 

reported regional strandings is located in 

Appendix E. 

Northeast Stranding Network 

NMFS Northeast Region continues to 

coordinate and provide assistance to the Northeast 

Marine Mammal Stranding Network (MMSN), 

which has representatives in every state from 

Maine through and including Virginia. The 

Marine Mammal Stranding Center (MMSC) hosted 

the annual meeting of the Northeast MMSN on 

April 28-29, 1994, in Atlantic City, New Jersey. 

Agenda items included state-by-state reports of 

strandings from the past year, routine network 

business, and presentations on research conducted 

with specimens from stranded marine mammals as 

well as related research. Presentations included a 

re-evaluation of the 1987-88 bottlenose dolphin dieoff, a determination of signs of underwater 

entrapment of small cetaceans, and "Whales 93," 

the U.S. Navy's use of the undersea surveillance 

systems to track whales with sonar. 

A recurring theme at stranding network meetings focuses on the increase in the number of 

strandings, particularly of pinnipeds, over the 

recent years. For 1994, the Northeast MMSN 

reported 190 cetaceans strandings and 260 

pinniped strandings. This is roughly a 14 percent 

increase in cetacean strandings and a 25 percent 

increase in pinniped strandings over 1993 totals. 

Northern Right Whale in Delaware River. 

Northeast regional Protected Species staff assembled a team of experts to respond to an out-of-habitat 

event involving a northern right whale in the 

Delaware River during December 2-12, 1994. The 

whale exhibited abnormal swimming behavior and 

appeared to be visually and acoustically confused. 

This disorientation may have caused the whale to 

collide with various fixed objects resulting in 

superficial injuries. The biologists initially believed 

that an entanglement was causing the whale's 

abnormal behavior, but this was eventually ruled 

out when the whole length of the whale was visible 

and unencumbered in shallow water. The 

response team, with substantial assistance from 

numerous local, state, federal and private 

Page 72 
Chapter IX. Marine Mammal Health 

and Stranding Response Program 

institutions, monitored the whale's movements and 

behavior. It was tagged with a VHF-FM radio tag 

on December 9, 1994, to facilitate this monitoring. 

Signals received on Saturday, December 10, 1994, 

seemed to indicate that the whale was moving 

down the river past Salem, New Jersey. When the 

animal was not found in the river for two days, the 

team assumed it had headed out of the Delaware 

system on its way to wintering grounds. The 

animal was later identified from still photographs 

by right whale experts at the New England 

Aquarium as an 11-month old male and was 

christened "Shackleton" after the Antarctic explorer 

of the same name. 

Southeast Stranding Network 

There are 29 institutions which are currently 

operating in cooperation with the Southeast 

Stranding network under a Letter of Authorization 

from the Region. In addition, there are numerous 

state and federal government agencies or 

organizations participating in the collection of 

stranding information. Over 200 individuals from 

these groups contribute to the network's efforts. 

In 1994, there were 969 documented marine 

mammal strandings. Bottlenose dolphins 

comprised over 78 percent of the total and 23 

species comprised the remainder including 16 

harbor seals. One infant spotted dolphin (Stenella 

attenuta), which stranded with 4 other dolphins 

near Pensacola, Florida in September 1993, 

survived, has grown, and is doing very well. She 

was determined to be non-releaseable because of 

her age at stranding. She shares a tank with 

bottlenose dolphins and has adapted well to 

captivity. 

A representative of the Regional Office chaired 

a meeting of live-care animal facilities located in 

Florida to discuss care options for stranded marine 

mammals. Due to the presence of morbillivirus in 

the Southeast and the high costs of caring for live 

stranded marine mammals, many facilities are 

reluctant to accept these animals. Several facilities 

now have plans to create tanks and care areas 

designed only for stranded marine mammals. 

Western Pacific Stranding Network 

A total of 11 marine mammal strandings was 

reported to the Western Pacific Marine Mammal 

Stranding Network in 1994 (0 pinnipeds and 11 

cetaceans). Cetacean strandings of interest 

included 2 Pantropical spotted dolphin and 4 

Long-snouted spinner dolphin. 

California Stranding Network 

A total of 1,611 marine mammal strandings 

was reported to the California Marine Mammal 

Stranding Network in 1994 (1,489 pinnipeds and 

122 cetaceans). Pinniped strandings of interest 

included 8 northern sea lions, 5 northern fur seals, 

and 1 Guadalupe fur seal. Cetacean strandings of 

interest included 2 Cuvier's beaked whales and1 

unidentified mesoplodon. 

Gray Whale Rescue Effort. On May 14, 

1994, a young gray whale entered the Petaluma 

River at the Marin/Sonoma County line. The 

animal was a yearling male approximately 25 feet 

in length and weighing 3 tons. On May 16, 1994, 

the animal stranded on a mudflat in shallow water. 

The animal shortly freed itself and continued its 

meanderings in the river. 

The policy of the SWR is not to interfere with 

the behavior of free-swimming whales that enter 

bays and freshwater river systems in California. 

However, due to the tidal fluctuation in the water 

depth of the river leading to the possibility of the 

whale re-stranding, and the increase in boat traffic 

due to the presence of the whale leading to the 

Page 73 
Chapter IX. Marine Mammal Health and 

Stranding Response Program 

possibility of a whale/vessel collision, the SWR 

decided to try and herd the whale out of the river. 

Agents from the NMFS Office of Enforcement 

coordinated the rescue effort. In addition to the 

NMFS Enforcement agents, the rescue team 

consisted of personnel from the California 

Department of Fish and Game, Marine Mammal 

Center (MMC of California), and the Naval 

Postgraduate School, and residents of the area who 

donated the services of their vessels. 

The rescue effort began on May 16 and 

consisted of pushing the whale downstream 

towards San Pablo Bay by using the vessels and 

banging on oikomi pipes, a method which proved 

successful in herding a humpback whale out of the 

Sacramento River in 1985. This method did not 

prove successful in this instance and by the end of 

the day on May 17 the animal was still located far 

upstream. The rescue effort continued on the 

morning of May 18. However, the rescue team 

was unable to relocate the animal. One final 

thorough search of the river was conducted on 

May 18, including a flyover by a U.S. Coast Guard 

helicopter. The whale was not resighted and it was 

assumed that it had found its way back into San 

Pablo Bay. 

On May 28, the whale was sighted at 10:30 

A.M. by U.S. Fish and Wildlife personnel, stranded 

on a mudflat in Guadalupe Slough, a tidal wetland 

in South San Francisco Bay, Santa Clara County. 

Personnel from the MMC of California responded 

to the stranding. By the time the MMC of 

California staff had arrived on scene, the whale 

had freed itself, was swimming upstream, and had 

entered San Tomas Aquino Creek, an estuarine 

river system much shallower and narrower than 

the Petaluma River. The whale re-stranded at 8:00 

P.M. at the intersection of Montague Expressway 

and Great America Parkway in the city of Santa 

Clara. A command post was set up at this site 

manned by personnel from the MMC of California, 

Santa Clara Police Department, and the Santa Clara 

County Fire Department. 

A rescue effort was initiated on May 29. The 

rescue team consisted of personnel from the MMC 

of California, California Conservation Corps, and 

Santa Clara County Search and Rescue. Due to 

tidal fluctuation, the rescue team had only a 4-5 

hour window of opportunity, and the animal was 

moved only a distance of 0.5 m downstream. The 

SWR Stranding Coordinator arrived on scene at 

approximately 8:00 P.M. and assumed control of 

the rescue effort. The rescue team met later that 

evening and planned the next day's strategy. 

The rescue effort resumed at 7:00 A.M. on May 

30. The animal was fitted with a sling made out of 

fire hose and the sling was attached to two motorpowered inflatables. The animal was towed 

approximately 1 mile upstream. At 1100 A.M., the 

tide receded and rescue operations were put on 

hold until high tide. High tide came in at 3:00 P.M. 

and very quickly the creek rose from a level of 2 

feet to a level of 9 feet. Before the rescue team 

could react, the whale broke free of the rescuers 

and swam away. The whale was found dead at 

3:30 P.M. at the bottom of the creek. Salvage 

operations lasted until well into the night. A full 

necropsy was performed by personnel from the 

California Academy of Sciences and the MMC of 

California. The cause of death was listed as severe 

pulmonary congestion. Tissue samples were 

collected for histopathology and contaminant 

analysis. The carcass was buried with future 

retrieval of the skull and skeleton planned for an 

educational exhibit at the MMC of California. 

Northwest Stranding Network 

The Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding 

Network forwarded stranding reports for 495 

strandings in 1994 of which 251 were investigated 

by network participants or confirmed by federal, 

Page 74 
Chapter IX. Marine Mammal Health 

and Stranding Response Program 

state or local officials responding at the site of the 

stranding. A species breakdown of stranded 

marine mammals that were examined or confirmed 

is located in Appendix E. 

Alaska Stranding Network 

In 1994 the Alaska Marine Mammal Stranding 

Network investigated 38 cetacean and 33 pinniped 

stranding events. Except for a mass live stranding 

of about 190 beluga whales in CookInlet on June 

14, 1994, harbor porpoise were the most commonly 

reported cetacean strandings. A total of 10 harbor 

porpoise were found, primarily by a beachcast 

survey in the Copper River Delta area. Other 

strandings of interest included unknown whales 

(7), beluga whale (6), not including the mass live 

stranding as one event), killer whale (4), gray 

whale (4), Stejneger's beaked whale (4), and 

humpback whale (3). 

National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank 

The National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank 

(NMMTB) is maintained at the National Biomonitoring Specimen Bank of the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and 

is designed to cryogenically archive select animal 

tissue samples in order to provide a source of 

specimens for future retrospective analysis. 

Specimen sources include stranded, incidentally 

caught, and subsistence harvested animals. The 

philosophy behind the banking of tissues is twofold. With analytical techniques constantly 

improving, analyses conducted in the future are 

likely to provide a greater range of information 

than that which could be collected now. In 

addition, banked tissues can be compared to 

currently available tissues to establish trends and 

determine if a newly introduced chemical may be 

having an impact on a marine mammal 

population. 

The specimens in the tissue bank are collected 

following an extremely rigorous protocol to 

prevent contamination. Liver and blubber are the 

two principal tissues chosen for banking because 

blubber has a high lipid content and tends to 

concentrate several organic contaminants, and liver 

is a major site for detoxifying chemical 

compounds. The specimens are stored in liquid 

nitrogen freezers at -150 C. 

In addition to specimens collected through the 

NMMTB (Tissue Bank proper), specimens from 

Alaska are collected and banked through the 

Alaska Marine Mammal Tissue Archival Project 

(AMMTAP), with funding from the National 

Biological Service. Archived specimens include 

tissues from 25 animals of 4 species in the Tissue 

Bank proper and tissues from 121 animals of 9 

species from AMMTAP (See Table 4 ). 

Contaminant Monitoring 

The major effort to determine current levels of 

contaminants in marine mammals has been 

conducted by the Environmental Conservation 

Division of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

(NWFSC). Although the primary purpose of the 

Tissue Bank is not real time monitoring of 

contaminant levels, a subset of the specimen 

materials has been analyzed. Tissues from several 

In addition to providing current information, such 

analyses provide baselines so that comparisons 

may be made in the future. 

In 1994, tissue samples from the following 

species were acquired or analyzed: bowhead 

whale (Balaena mysticetus), harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena), Atlantic white-sided dolphin 

(Lageno-rhynchus acutus), bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus), California sea lion (Zalophus 

califor-nianus), gray whale (Globicephala malaena), 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), bearded seal 

(Erignathus barbatus), ringed seal (Phoca hispida), 

Page 75 
Chapter IX. Marine Mammal Health and 

Stranding Response Program 

and short- (Delphinus capensis) and long-beaked 

(Delphinus delphis) common dolphin. 

In addition to analyzing contaminant levels, 

the NWFSC has initiated a number of projects to 

improve methodology and gain an understanding 

of how contaminants may impact marine 

mammals. One of the difficulties in responding to 

unusual mortality events has been that analysis of 

tissues for contaminants often takes a great deal of 

time. The NWFSC has developed and published a 

rapid screening method to provide initial 

indications on the presence of highly toxic planar 

PCBs. The 

TABLE 4 

Inventory of Species Sampled for Banking Component of MMHSRP 

Species Location No. 

NMMTB 

Pilot Whale NW Atlantic 9 

Harbor Porpoise NW Atlantic 9 

Harbor Porpoise Washington 1 

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin NW Atlantic 4 

California Sea Lion California 2 

AMMTAP 

Ringed Seal Arctic Ocean 26 

Ringed Seal Bering Sea 16 

Bearded Seal Arctic Ocean 2 

Bearded Seal Bering Sea 7 

Beluga Whale Arctic Ocean 14 

Beluga Whale Gulf of Alaska 4 

Bowhead Whale Arctic Ocean 26 

Northern Fur Seal Bering Sea 15 

Page 76 
Chapter IX. Marine Mammal Health 

and Stranding Response Program 

Walrus Bering Sea 5 

Spotted (Largha) Seal Bering Sea 1 

Harbor Seal Gulf of Alaska 4 

Steller Sea Lion Gulf of Alaska 1 

TOTAL 146 

method also allows measurements of other PCB 

congeners as well as providing information on total 

PCBs, selected DDTs, and hexachlorobenzene. The 

method, which should be applied to biopsy 

samples, also affords analysts the ability to rapidly 

analyze . small samples and should be applicable 

to biopsy samples. 

As a means of determining whether the 

sampling site of a specific organ could affect 

analytical results, the NWFSC previously analyzed 

contaminant levels from different liver and 

blubber sites in harbor porpoise for both heavy 

metals and organic chemicals. In the case of the 

harbor porpoise, they determined that the 

sampling site for these tissues was not significant. 

To further examine this issue, the NWFSC is 

working with Texas A&M University to determine 

if there are differences in the distribution of organic 

chemicals in blubber related to seasonal changes in 

blubber thickness in bottlenose dolphins. 

Considerable effort has been taken to examine 

toxic metals in pilot whales and bottlenose 

dolphins. In both species, concentrations of total 

mercury and selenium were elevated in liver, 

kidney, and brain. In both species there was a 

strong correlation between levels of mercury and 

selenium. It is believed that selenium acts to 

ameliorate the toxicity of mercury. The mean 

concentration of cadmium in kidney tissue of pilot 

whales was within a factor of two of the level 

considered to be toxic in humans. Analysis of 

mother-fetus pairs showed that such metals are 

transferred in utero as evidenced by the presence 

of non-essential metals (arsenic, lead, cadmium, 

and mercury) in fetal tissues. In fetal kidney, 

cadmium was more than 30 times higher than in 

brain or liver indicating early differential 

accumulation in the fetus. In addition, analyses of 

methyl mercury in bottlenose dolphin were 

completed to specifically address the relationship 

of age and sex to mercury accumulation and 

disposition. Overall, these results will provide a 

more comprehensive understanding of the 

relationships among different elements and their 

distribution among tissues. 

As a step toward assessing the relationship 

between toxic chemical exposure and disease in 

marine mammal species, the NWFSC has been 

working with the Marine Mammal Center in 

Sausalito, California, to determine if there are 

differences in contaminant exposure in California 

sea lions exhibiting disease and sea lions dying of 

traumatic injury. In 1994, samples were received 

from 20 California sea lions; 11 exhibiting signs of 

disease and 9 that died of traumatic injuries. 

Comprehensive analyses of these samples is continuing into 1995, and additional animals will be 

sampled. 

Quality Assurance 

Among the problems confronting researchers 

in the past has been the lack of comparability of 

contaminant research results. In response to this 

problem and in response to the requirement of the 

Act that guidance be issued for analyzing marine 

tissue samples through the most advanced and 

Page 77 
Chapter IX. Marine Mammal Health and 

Stranding Response Program 

effective techniques, the Office of Protected 

Resources initiated the Quality Assurance Program 

(QA Program) for the contaminant analysis of 

marine mammal tissues. This QA program, which 

is coordinated by NIST with NWFSC as the 

designated lead NMFS laboratory, is designed to 

assess the accuracy, precision, level of detection 

and comparability of results among laboratories 

analyzing marine mammal tissues. 

As part of the QA program, interlaboratory 

comparison exercises, open to any interested 

laboratory, are conducted using marine mammal 

materials prepared by NIST. Such exercises are 

designed to assess the accuracy, precision and level 

of detection among the participating laboratories 

and thereby identify steps to improve further the 

comparability of data generated. 

In addition, NIST is in the process of preparing 

Standard Reference Materials (SRM) for use by 

other researchers. SRMs are samples containing 

known levels of specific contaminants. They can 

be used for calibration or as controls. In June, 1994, 

the first marine mammal SRM--SRM 1945, Whale 

Blubber--was made available to researchers. It has 

been certified for concentration of 27 PCB 

congeners and 15 chlorinated pesticides. 

Page 78 
Chapter X. International Programs and Activities 


The Department of Commerce furthers the 

protection and conservation of marine mammals 

through participation in existing international 

agreements, and, when necessary, negotiation of 

new agreements. This chapter describes NMFS 

involvement in international programs and 

activities during 1994. 

The Commission for the Conservation 

of Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

The Commission for the Conservation of 

Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and 

its Scientific Committee were established in 1982. 

The Commission meets annually to consider issues 

related to Antarctic marine living resources. The 

Scientific Committee reviews the status of marine 

mammal populations, and, as necessary, makes 

recommendations to the Commission. The 

Commission also reviews annual reports by 

member nations concerning population 

assessments and steps taken to avoid the incidental 

mortality of Antarctic marine living resources. 

The Commission held its Thirteenth Annual 

Meeting in 1994 and reported and/or took the 

actions described in the sections which follow. 

Antarctic Pack Ice Seal Program 

The Commission noted the Scientific 

Committee's report on the Antarctic Pack Ice Seal 

(APIS) Program of the Scientific Committee for 

Antarctic Research (SCAR). 

APIS research will be conducted at 

circumpolar, regional, and subregional scales. 

Field activities are planned during the five years 

from 1995/96 through 1999/2000. The 1998/99 

season is targeted for coordinated, multi-ship 

operations on a circumpolar scale. Two of the focal 

areas for APIS Program field work are also 

integrated study regions for CCAMLR Ecosystem 

Monitoring Program (CEMP) activities (Prydz Bay 

and Antarctic Peninsula). 

The proposed research on crabeater seals, a 

CEMP species selected for monitoring, will address 

topics of direct relevance to CCAMLR, initially 

through the specification of standard methods for 

studying pack-ice seals. 

A planning meeting for the APIS Program is 

provisionally planned for May or June of 1995. 

The United States plans aerial surveys and other 

studies of pack-ice seals during February-March 

1995. Scientists from Norway and the United 

Kingdom will collaborate in the cruise. 

Working Group on Ecosystem Monitor­ ing and Management (WG-CEMP) 

Considerable progress was made in 1994 in 

developing CEMP. The Commission recognized 

this progress and encouraged the Scientific 

Committee in its efforts towards an objective 

review of monitoring results and integrated 

ecosystem assessment. New CEMP-related 

research programs have been initiated by Italy, 

South Africa, and Norway and data submissions 

have increased over 1993. 

The Scientific Committee established a new 

Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and 

Management (WG-EMM) to combine and replace 

the Working Group on the CCAMLR Ecosystem 

Monitoring Program and the Working Group on 

Krill. 

Assessment and Avoidance of Mortality

Incidental to Fishery Operations 

Reports on the assessment and avoidance of 

incidental mortality in the Convention Area 

(approximately the area south of the Antarctic 

convergence) for the 1993/94 season were received 

from eight CCAMLR Member `countries, including 

the United States. Fishing net fragments, 

Page 79 
Chapter X. International Programs and Activities 

especially strings and bags, were the most common 

forms of entangling material. The number of 

entanglements of Antarctic fur seals at Bird Island, 

South Georgia, in the 1993/4 season was lower 

than in previous years but still much higher than in 

1990 and 1991. The Commission shared the 

Scientific Committee's concern about the apparent 

increase in the number and variety of 

environmental threats to birds and seals. 

In addition to reports on incidental mortality in 

the Convention Area, Members submitted papers 

describing results of studies on marine debris. At 

Bird Island, South Georgia, amounts of debris on 

beaches were slightly reduced from 1992, but still 

five times the 1991 amount. Almost all material 

found probably originated from local fishing 

vessels, especially packaging bands, whose 

presence coincided with the arrival in the local area 

of krill fishing vessels. However, for the first time, 

all packaging bands recovered had been cut as 

required by a CCAMLR conservation measure. 

At Signy Island the trend since 1991 of a 

reduction in number and mass of debris was 

reversed, with a four-fold increase in mass and a 

five-fold increase in numbers compared to 1993. 

However, levels are still lower than in 1991. The 

reason for the 1994 increase is unknown. 

At Cape Shirreff, Livingston Island, periodical 

surveys of beached marine debris resulted in the 

establishment of a baseline for planning further 

assessment surveys in accordance with the 

CCAMLR Guidelines for Conducting Surveys of 

Beached Marine Debris. During the 1993/94 

season, a total of 36 beaches were surveyed and 

accumulated debris removed. As in previous 

studies in the area, marine debris consisted of 

plastic and synthetic fibers (92 percent). It was 

observed that some nests of Antarctic birds were 

built with plastic material and some Antarctic fur 

seals were observed with neck collars. A survey of 

marine debris conducted at Macquarie Island on a 

monthly basis over a one-year period recorded 

debris loading equivalent to past years. 

Reports of CCAMLR scientific observers in the 

1993/94 season indicated that CCAMLR-produced 

placards on the prevention of marine debris 

pollution from vessels, which should be displayed 

in appropriate places aboard ships operating in the 

Convention Area, were absent on some vessels. 

The United States funded the participation of 

the CCAMLR Science Officer at the Third 

International Conference on "Marine Debris -

Seeking Global Solutions". 

The Ad Hoc Working Group on Incidental 

Mortality Arising from Longline Fishing met for 

the first time during the intersessional period and 

reported to the Commission; the reported mortalities in 1994 were all seabirds. 

Large-Scale High Seas

Driftnet Fishing 

Current Status of the United Nations 

Driftnet Moratorium, UNGA Resolution 

46/215 

As of December 31, 1994, the United Nations 

(UN) global moratorium on large-scale high seas 

driftnet fishing, pursuant to United Nations 

General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 46/215, has 

been in effect for two years. International 

implementation of the moratorium in the world's 

oceans and enclosed and semi-enclosed seas has 

been generally successful. 

North Pacific Ocean. The high seas driftnet 

fishing countries of Japan, the Republic of Korea 

(ROK), and Taiwan took positive action to end 

their large-scale driftnet fisheries by December 31, 

1992, the UN moratorium date. 

Page 80 
Chapter X. International Programs and Activities 

By the end of 1993, Japan had scrapped 272 of 

a total of 426 high seas squid driftnet vessels. An 

additional 18 vessels were scheduled to be 

scrapped in 1994, bringing the total number to 290 

by the end of 1994. The disposition of the 

remaining 136 vessels is not known, although they 

have probably been shifted to alternative fisheries. 

No unauthorized driftnet fishing activities by 

Japanese vessels were reported by Japanese 

enforcement authorities or detected by the United 

States in 1994. 

NMFS has no specific information on the 

disposition of ROK and Taiwan large-scale driftnet 

vessels in 1994. Both countries prohibited all largescale high seas driftnet fishing operations by the 

UN driftnet moratorium deadline. As with Japan, 

no Korean or Taiwan driftnet vessels were reported 

or detected as having fished in violation of the 

driftnet moratorium during 1994. 

North Atlantic Ocean. During 1993 and 

until January 1, 1994, French albacore driftnet 

fishermen were allowed to operate in the eastern 

North Atlantic, principally the Bay of Biscay, under 

a European Community (now the European Union 

or EU) special exemption (Article 9 of Council 

Regulation 345/92) that allowed them to use 

driftnets up to 5 kilometers in length. The EU 

Council of Fisheries Ministers met on December 21, 

1993, to discuss a possible extension of the 

exemption. The Council preliminarily decided 

against such an extension. Therefore, effective 

January 1, 1994, France had to comply with the UN 

moratorium, including the provision in Council 

Regulation 345/92 that prohibits the use of 

driftnets longer than 2.5 kilometers. France made 

a bid for a second extension of the driftnet 

exemption in early 1994, citing the "enormous 

social and economic costs" of ending its large-scale 

high sea albacore driftnet fishery. The EU Council 

of Fisheries Ministers never approved the 

extension. Despite comments by France's 

Agriculture Minister that French fishermen would 

continue large-scale albacore driftnet fishing with 

or without renewal of the derogation, strong EU 

opposition to the driftnet fishery, and extensive 

U.S. diplomatic efforts, convinced the French 

Government to announce at the end of May 1994 

(prior to the start of that year's albacore fishing 

season) that it would honor EU regulations and 

enforce the 2.5 kilometer limit on driftnet length. 

The United States became aware in June 1994 of 

unconfirmed reports that French tuna vessels were 

fishing with driftnets in excess of 2.5 kilometers in 

the Northeast Atlantic albacore tuna fishery. A 

number of confrontations occurred between French 

and Spanish tuna fishermen when Spanish 

fishermen tried to seize French driftnets they 

claimed were illegal. On July 18, 1994, agreement 

was reached in Brussels by the French and Spanish 

Agriculture Ministers to resolve the dispute. The 

most important element of the agreement 

concerned effective monitoring of the driftnet 

albacore tuna fishery by EU inspectors, under the 

aegis of the EU Commissioner for Fisheries, for 

compliance with EU regulations on driftnet length. 

Increased enforce-ment efforts by the French 

Government essentially ended the problem. 

The United States demarches and diplomatic 

notes had an effect on French driftnet policy in 

1994. The threat of United States actions, pursuant 

to the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement 

Act, Public Law 102-582, has been cited by the 

French media and Government officials as directly 

influencing France's decision to drop its pursuit of 

an extension of its 1993 driftnet derogation and to 

increase driftnet enforcement efforts. The United 

States will continue to monitor the French driftnet 

situation closely. 

In August 1994, the United Kingdom 

dispatched a fisheries patrol vessel to the Bay of 

Biscay area to investigate allegations of British tuna 

vessels using driftnets longer than 2.5 kilometers. 

The patrol vessel seized two British vessels using 

driftnets slightly longer than the 2.5 kilometer EU 

standard. The United Kingdom Government took 

Page 81 
Chapter X. International Programs and Activities 

prompt enforcement action against both vessels 

and no further violations of EU driftnet regulations 

by British vessels were reported in 1994. 

Mediterranean Sea. The United States has 

been aware of persistent reports of Italian 

swordfish vessels employing large-scale driftnets 

in the Mediterranean Sea in 1994. However, 

United States Naval forces in the Mediterranean 

reported no confirmed sightings of Italian largescale driftnet fishing operations in the 

Mediterranean in 1994. (Italy is a member of the 

EU and subject to the same driftnet restrictions as 

France, although Italy's domestic driftnet 

regulations are more stringent than those imposed 

by the EU.) 

To address the alleged illegal driftnet fishing by 

Italian fishermen, United States officials repeatedly 

called on Italian officials at the highest levels to 

ensure that Italy's driftnet fleet was in compliance 

with the UN driftnet moratorium or face United 

States action pursuant to the High Seas Driftnet 

Fisheries Enforcement Act. These diplomatic 

efforts proved moderately successful. In July 1994, 

the Government of Italy stepped up its 

enforcement efforts and dropped plans to seek its 

own exemption to EU driftnet regulations. Italian 

fishery officials requested a budget allocation of 

$65 million to ensure its fishing fleets' compliance 

with the driftnet moratorium for 1995-1997. 

The United States is encouraged by Italy's 

recent announcement of an $88 million program to 

convert the Mediterranean driftnet fleet to other 

types of fishing gear. Nevertheless, the United 

States will continue to watch closely the Italian 

driftnet situation. 

United States Driftnet Actions 

To monitor compliance with the UN driftnet 

moratorium in 1994, NMFS, U.S. Coast Guard and 

Canadian Maritime Forces continued to carry out 

surveillance activities in the North Pacific areas 

that in the past were routinely fished by driftnet 

vessels. U.S. Coast Guard cutters logged 146 

vessel days at sea and Coast Guard aircraft put in 

223 hours in the 1994 driftnet monitoring program. 

An additional 150 cutter days were available for 

response to specific information. Canadian Pacific 

Maritime Forces aircraft contributed 7 one-week 

patrols to the effort. A NMFS Special Agent 

accompanied each of these flights. No evidence of 

any unauthorized driftnet fishing activity was 

detected, supporting the conclusion that there has 

been a high rate of compliance with the U.N. 

moratorium in the North Pacific. 

The United States continued to receive reports 

of unauthorized high-seas driftnet fishing activity 

in the eastern North Atlantic by French vessels and 

in the Mediterranean by Italian vessels in 1994. 

NMFS is working with the Coast Guard and the 

Departments of State and Defense to investigate 

these reports and attempt to document this alleged 

activity. 

On December 3, 1993, the United States and the 

People's Republic of China (PRC) signed a oneyear Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 

effective cooperation and implementation of 

UNGA Resolution 46/215. The MOU allowed 

enforcement officials of either country to board and 

inspect vessels flying either the U.S or PRC flag 

found using or equipped to use large-scale 

driftnets. It also provided for enforcement officials 

of either country to ride on board high seas driftnet 

enforcement vessels of the other country, which 

resulted in three PRC enforcement officials riding 

on three U.S. Coast Guard cutters in the North 

Pacific. Although the agreement expired on 

December 3, 1994, both countries have agreed to 

renew the MOU, via an exchange of diplomatic 

notes, for an additional two years. 

Since December 1992, the United States has 

been instrumental in ensuring that implementation 

of the high seas driftnet moratorium remains a 

priority of the UNGA. It has supported UNGA 

Page 82 
Chapter X. International Programs and Activities 

Decisions 47/443 (1992) and 48/445 (1993) 

requesting that the UN Secretary-General submit to 

the General Assembly annual reports on 

developments relevant to the implementation of 

UNGA Resolution 46/215. The United States 

supported a General Assembly decision, UNGA 

Decision 49/436, adopted on December 19, 1994, 

adopted at the recent forty-ninth UNGA session to 

require a further report on implementation of the 

driftnet moratorium at the fiftieth UNGA session. 

In order to execute the driftnet reporting 

requirements of UNGA Decisions 47/443 and 

48/445, the UN Secretary General solicited all 

members of the international community, 

intergovernmental organizations, regional 

economic integration organizations, and 

appropriate non-governmental organizations to 

provide information on implementation of the 

moratorium. In August 1994, the United States 

submitted to the Secretary-General for 

incorporation in his report a paper regarding U.S. 

views on large-scale pelagic high seas driftnet 

fishing and UNGA Resolution 46/215. The paper 

describes in detail the actions taken individually 

and collectively by the United States to implement 

the UNGA global driftnet moratorium in 1994. The 

U.S. paper was integrated into the Secretary 

General's report entitled "Large-scale pelagic 

driftnet fishing and its impact on the living marine 

resources of the world's oceans and seas," 

A/49/469, October 5, 1994. 

At its 9th Special Meeting held in Madrid, 

Spain, on November 28-December 2, 1994, the 

International Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) adopted a U.S.-proposed 

resolution which endorses the UN driftnet 

resolutions and reaffirms the importance the 

Commission attaches to compliance with them. 

The resolution expresses the ICCAT's concern 

about the potential negative impacts that continued 

large-scale pelagic driftnet fishing could have on 

marine resources in the Atlantic Ocean and the 

Mediterranean Sea. The resolution also calls upon 

member nations to commit themselves 

immediately to ensuring that their vessels and 

nationals adhere to UNGA Resolution 46/215 and 

to impose appropriate sanctions on those vessels 

and nationals that do not. 

International Whaling Commission 

Overview: 1994 Annual Meeting; Prep.

for 1995 

The 46th Annual Meeting of the International 

Whaling Commission (IWC) was held in Puerto 

Vallarta, Mexico, from May 23 to May 27, 1994. 

Highlights of the meeting are as follows: 

C The moratorium on commercial whaling 

(paragraph 10(e) of the IWC Schedule) remains 

unchanged. It was noted on the floor, 

however, that Norway is engaging in 

commercial whaling. A number of delegations, 

including the United States, expressed 

opposition to this flagrant disregard for the 

Commission's authority. 

C The IWC established a sanctuary in a majority 

of the waters south of 40E South latitude as the 

result of a vote that was 23 in favor of the 

sanctuary, 1 against (Japan), with 6 abstentions. 

C The Commission accepted the work of the 

Scientific Committee to date on the Revised 

Management Procedure, yet noted several 

additional steps that were necessary for 

completion of the revised procedures, 

including the development of an effective 

supervision and control scheme. 

C The U.S. was given a large increase in its 

bowhead subsistence harvest quota in 1994. It 

will be allowed to land up to 51 animals per 

Page 83 
Chapter X. International Programs and Activities 

year for four years (up from 41 landed per year 

for the years 1992-1994). Upon receiving this 

increase, the U.S. promised to strive for 

heightened efficiency during the subsistence 

hunt by aiming at 75 percent efficiency in 1995 

(=68 strikes), 76 percent in 1996 (= 67 strikes), 

77 percent in 1997 (= 66 strikes) and 78 percent 

in 1998 (= 65 strikes). A carry-over of up to 10 

strikes or landings per year of any unused 

portion of the quota is permitted. The 

Commission also agreed to ask the Scientific 

Committee to start a review of the aboriginal 

subsistence management procedures. 

C The IWC agreed to hold an intersessional 

meeting in January 1995, to develop a system 

of supervision and control for whaling. This 

meeting will probably be held in Norway in 

January 1995. 

C Japan's request for an interim quota of 50 

minke whales for its community-based whalers 

was denied. 

C A resolution was passed regarding 

international trade in whale meat. Among 

other things, the resolution declares that the 

meat and products from research whaling 

should not be allocated for export (previously 

49 percent could be exported). In addition, the 

government is requested to report on 

smuggling cases. 

C A resolution was passed endorsing the 

Scientific Commission's plans to pursue studies 

on environmental changes and their impacts on 

cetaceans. 

C The first meeting of the Working Group on 

Whale Watching resulted in a useful 

preliminary exchange of information. While 

most countries felt that whale watching 

regulations should be the responsibility of the 

national government, the group agreed to task 

the Scientific Committee to identify and 

attempt to assess the possible impacts of whale 

watching on whales. The Working Group 

plans to meet again next year to assess the 

group's progress and to outline long-term 

objectives. 

C Resolutions against Japanese and Norwegian 

research whaling proposals were passed asking 

each country to reconsider. Japan started its 

new North Pacific research whaling program in 

July 1994. 

C The Humane Killing Workshop of 1992 will be 

reconvened prior to the 1995 IWC Annual 

Meeting. 

C A resolution was passed commending Mexico 

for its efforts to protect vaquita through 

establishment of a biosphere reserve. The same 

resolution invited Mexico to develop an overall 

management plan for the reserve 

expeditiously. 

Preparations for 1995 IWC Meeting 

Prior to the election in April 1995, Iceland’s 

Parliament debated about whether or not to 

resume whaling and whether or not to rejoin the 

IWC before doing so. The Parliament deferred a 

decision until the panel of experts that the IWC 

established to address this issue could report its 

findings. These findings are expected in March 

1996, after which the question will be reconsidered. 

While the panel could report sooner, it appears 

that the issue of resumed Icelandic whaling has 

been avoided for 1995. 

The U.S. has told Iceland repeatedly that it is 

opposed to commercial whaling and that if Iceland 

remains interested in whaling, it should rejoin the 

IWC, abide by the Commission's rules, and work 

out its differences within the IWC since the 

Commission is the only international body with 

authority to manage whaling. 

Page 84 
Chapter X. International Programs and Activities 

There will be an intersessional meeting of the 

IWC to discuss supervision and control in Reine, 

Norway on January 9-13, 1995. In addition, the 

Workshop on Whale Killing Methods, first 

convened in 1992, will be reconvened in 1995. 

The Annual Meeting of the IWC will be held 

from May 28 to June 2, 1995, in Dublin, Ireland. 

Events Since the IWC Meeting 

Japan lodged an objection with regard to the 

Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary on August 12, 

1994. Although the United States has urged Japan 

on a number of occasions to withdraw this 

objection, it is not considered likely that Japan will 

do so in the near future. 

Norway engaged in both commercial whaling 

and scientific whaling for minke whales in the 

northeast North Atlantic in the summer 1994. The 

self imposed commercial whaling quota allocated 

was originally 189 minke whales, with 112 whales 

to be taken for scientific research. Midway through 

the summer, these figures were readjusted when it 

appeared that the scientific quota would not be 

reached. The final quotas were: 206 for 

commercial whaling (of which 206 were taken), 

and 95 for research (of which 72 were taken). Its 3­

year scientific research hunt ended this year (1994). 

The United States remains opposed to this whaling 

and continues to urge Norway to cease. 

Non-IWC Whaling Activities 

In 1994, Canada again issued a permit for its 

Inuvialuit natives to take one bowhead whale. The 

United States protested this license to whale 

outside the IWC and brought the situation to the 

attention of a number of like-minded countries, 

asking them to put pressure on Canada to revoke 

the permit. No whale was taken by the Inuvialuit 

in 1994. However, on September 21, 1994, a 

bowhead whale, presumably from the more 

endangered population of bowheads in eastern 

Canada, was taken off the Melville Peninsula, 

north of Hudson Bay. Canadian officials have told 

us that this hunt was not authorized and that they 

expect to bring charges against the whale hunters. 

On a related issue, Secretary Brown has 

received a petition from the Animal Alliance of 

Canada, International Wildlife Coalition and 

others, requesting that he certify Canada under the 

Pelly Amendment for various reasons, including 

issuance of a permit to a Canadian national to kill 

a bowhead whale and promulgation of a statute 

which would allow the issuance of other such 

permits. The petition is currently under review. 

Japan went forward with its lethal "feasibility 

study" in the North Pacific. A total of 21 minke 

whales were taken out of the proposed sample size 

of 100 animals. Japan is expected to submit a 

revised proposal for North Pacific whale research 

to the IWC in May 1995. 

U.S.-Russia Marine Mammal Project, 02.05-61, under Area V of the 

Environmental Protection Agreement 

The goal of this project is to conduct 

cooperative research on the biology, ecology, and 

population dynamics of marine mammal species of 

concern to both countries, leading to the 

development of methods for the management and 

protection of these animals. 

During 1994, the following exchanges took 

place: 

1. Two American scientists (one from NMFS and 

one from ADF&G) took part in an international 

working group meeting on Steller sea lions and 

northern fur seals in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskii, 

Russia, in April. The workshop reviewed recent 

research on these species, and developed plans for 

future joint efforts. 

Page 85 
Chapter X. International Programs and Activities 

2. One scientist from the Far East Branch of the 

Russian Academy of Sciences worked on spotted 

(or larga seal) satellite tagging data analysis with 

ADF&G scientists in Alaska for 5 weeks in 

September-October. This work builds upon earlier 

joint studies that developed an effective system for 

tagging to monitor movements and behavior of 

spotted seals. 

3. Two scientists from TINRO (Vladivostok) took 

part in aerial and shipboard surveys of Steller sea 

lions in Alaska for 2 weeks in June-July. 

4. One scientist from the Far East Branch of the 

Russian Academy of Sciences in Kamchatka 

worked with NMFS scientists on harbor seal aerial 

surveys in Alaska for 3 weeks during September. 

These last two exchanges build upon earlier survey 

efforts on both Steller sea lions and harbor seals. 

The result has been a useful transfer of technology 

and methodology that will make future national 

efforts more compatible in joint use of data. 

Steller sea lion on the rocks of Frederick Sound, Alaska. Photo credit: 

NMFS/FPR. 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

NMFS participated in the Ninth Conference of 

the Parties to the Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES) in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, in 

November, 1994. The following issues concerning 

marine mammals, were discussed: 

Listing criteria 

The United States opposed a resolution put 

forward by the Standing Committee of CITES to 

change the criteria used for evaluating proposals 

for listing species in the CITES Appendices. In 

discussions prior to the Conference, NMFS had 

argued that the criteria proposed by the Standing 

Committee could be disadvantageous to marine 

species in general and marine mammals in 

particular. The U.S. developed an alternative 

proposal submitted as a resolution for 

consideration. After considerable discussion, a 

resolution containing compromise criteria, 

incorporating many elements of the U.S. proposal 

were adopted by the CITES Parties. Use of the 

new listing criteria will begin with the Tenth 

Conference of the Parties in 1997. 

Downlisting of North Atlantic Minke 

Whales 

The Government of Norway proposed that the 

northeastern and north central Atlantic stocks of 

minke whales be transferred from Appendix I (no 

commercial trade) to Appendix II (trade subject to 

regulation). The United States opposed the 

proposal. Norway's original proposal was 

modified by the proponent to move the 

populations to Appendix II with a zero quota, on 

condition that if deliberations of the Scientific 

Committee of the IWC resulted in a population 

estimate for stocks that, if applied to the Revised 

Management Procedure, would result in a positive 

quota. After opposition was voiced by the United 

States, the European Union and other Parties, the 

proposal was defeated - 16 for and 48 against. 

Page 86 
Chapter X. International Programs and Activities 

Illegal Trade in Whale Meat 

In recognition that even with the moratorium 

of the IWC on commercial whaling, illegal trade in 

whales listed in Appendix I of CITES has 

continued, the United States proposed this agenda 

item for discussion at the Conference. A resolution 

was passed by consensus which recognizes the 

work of the IWC on the issue and urges CITES 

Parties to investigate illegal trade in whale meat 

and cooperate with the CITES Secretariat in the 

collection of this information. It also encourages 

the sharing of information between the IWC and 

CITES on illegal trade and directs the Secretariat to 

share with the IWC any information it collects 

regarding illegal trade in whale meat. 

When NMFS recently participated in the Ninth 

Conference of the Parties to the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 

several agenda items were issues of interest to the 

IWC. The United States proposed the agenda item: 

Illegal Trade in Whale Meat. A resolution was 

passed by consensus which recognized the work of 

the IWC on the issue and urged CITES Parties to 

investigate illegal trade in whale meat and 

cooperate with the CITES Secretariat in the 

collection of this information. It also encouraged 

the sharing of information between the IWC and 

CITES on illegal trade, and directed the Secretariat 

to share with the IWC any information it collects 

regarding illegal trade in whale meat. 

In a related incident a Norwegian citizen at the 

CITES meeting imported into the United States a 

seal skin vest in violation of the MMPA. A law 

enforcement agent of the USFWS seized the vest 

and transferred it to an agent of the NMFS for 

adjudication. 

The Government of Norway also proposed that 

the northeastern Atlantic and north central Atlantic 

stocks of minke whales be moved from Appendix 

I to Appendix II. Norway's original proposal was 

subsequently modified by the proponent to move 

the populations to Appendix II with a zero quota, 

provided that deliberations of the Scientific 

Committee of the IWC resulted in a population 

estimate for stocks that, if applied to the Revised 

Management Procedure, would result in a positive 

quota. After opposition was voiced by the 

European Union and other Parties, the proposal 

was defeated -- 16 for and 48 against. 

Petition on Chilean Crab Fishery 

On May 13, 1992, the Sierra Club Legal Defense 

Fund on behalf of the Defenders of Wildlife, 

petitioned the Secretary of the Treasury for a 

prohibition on the importation of Chilean crab on 

the basis that marine mammals were being used as 

bait in the fishery for false king crab and snow 

crab. The petition presented supporting 

documentation demonstrating that Commerson's 

dolphins (Cephalorhynchus commersonii), black 

dolphins (Cephalorhynchus eutropia), southern sea 

lions (Otaria flavescens), and southern fur seals 

(Arctocephalus australis) had been used as bait in the 

crab fishery. In August 1992, the Department of 

the Treasury forwarded the petition to NMFS for a 

finding of fact. Letters supporting the petition 

were received from 8 other environmental 

organizations and three American fishing groups. 

The petition was filed under section 101(a)(2) of the 

MMPA which provides: 

"The Secretary of the Treasury shall ban the 

importation of commercial fish or products 

from fish which have been caught with 

commercial fishing technology which results in 

the incidental kill or incidental serious injury of 

ocean mammals in excess of United States 

standards." 

Page 87 
Chapter X. International Programs and Activities 

This provision has been in the law since it was 

first passed in 1972. With the exception of specific 

language addressing the tuna purse seine fishery, 

this was the first instance when NMFS was asked 

to apply it. 

After consultations with the Office of Protected 

Resources, the Director of Chile's National 

Fisheries Service (SERNAP) made a commitment to 

take a series of actions to end the practice of using 

marine mammals as bait in the crab fishery. In 

early 1994, the Government of Chile implemented 

measures to fulfill this commitment. The actions 

taken included the following: 

1. A Commission was set up to address the issue. 

It includes representatives from the industry, 

SERNAP, port officials, Navy, fishermen, police, 

and academics. It has met twice a month since 

January. It has set up a multipoint program 

addressing marine mammals and birds (penguins). 

2. Education and biological studies 

a. Both national and regional funds have been 

committed to do biological studies to 

determine the status of marine mammal 

populations. 

b. An 800 phone system has been set up and 

publicized for reporting of violations. 

c. Posters and stickers have been distributed in 

the region. 

d. An educational program for schoolchildren 

has been developed. 

e. The issue has been publicized in radio station 

broadcasts. 

3. When registering for the fishery, each fisherman 

is given information and required to sign an 

agreement not to use marine mammals or birds as 

bait. 

4. Bait is being given to fishermen at no cost from 

fish processing waste. The Government estimates 

that 300-600 tons of bait are needed annually for 

the fishery. One plant, Pan-Chile, produces 2 1/2 

tons per day. In addition, 40 tons of frozen bait are 

in storage to cover periods when fish wastes may 

not be available. The Government has committed 

to keeping documentation on provision of bait. 

5. Enforcement 

a. The penalties have been increased to the 

highest of any fisheries violation--$1,000 for 

each marine mammal or bird taken. 

b. Enforcement has a priority in the Navy 

which is responsible for enforcement actions. 

The second highest naval officer is responsible 

for fisheries enforcement. There appears to be 

enthusiasm for this work, and patrols and 

boardings appear to be handled professionally. 

c. Six patrol boats are assigned to the southern 

region where the fishery takes place. They 

reach every area of the fishery and are 

supported by helicopter surveillance. 

d. SERNAP has stationed two people on the 

major penguin rookery. 

In May 1994, a representative of CODEFF, a 

Chilean environmental organization, confirmed 

that many of the individual steps were being 

imple-mented. She stated that she has seen "a 

strong political will to resolve this issue." In June, 

the Director of the Office of Protected Resources 

went to Chile to observe progress in 

implementation. Based on his report and other 

information, Defenders of Wildlife withdrew its 

petition on August 16, 1994. 

Page 88 
Chapter XI. Law Enforcement


NMFS Special Agents and Enforcement 

Officers enforce the provisions of the MMPA. 

NMFS employs about 115 Special Agents and 25 

uniformed Enforcement Officers. These officials 

are assisted by enforcement officers from several 

states who act under agreements authorized by the 

MMPA. 

The total number of alleged violations of the 

MMPA that were investigated by NMFS and State 

enforcement personnel during 1994 exceeded the 

combined totals for the previous two years. The 

most notable increase in violations was in the 

category of unlawful takes. An increase in 

violations connected with the interim exemption 

program for commercial fisheries also took place in 

1994. However, as the total number of incidental 

takes still falls well below violation levels detected 

in the early years of this program, this increase 

may not be significant. 

NMFS and state enforcement personnel 

investigated a total of 144 alleged violations of the 

MMPA during 1994. Of these alleged violations, 

28 involved infractions by commercial fishermen 

regarding Certificate of Exemption and/or marine 

mammal observer requirements. There were 84 

investigations of unlawful taking (including 

harassment), 11 cases of illegal importation of 

marine mammal parts and products, 9 involving 

illegal sale of marine mammal products, and 12 

miscellaneous violations. 

Regional Trends 

In 1994, the activities of NMFS enforcement 

personnel in dealing with marine mammal issues 

took a wide variety of forms. From testifying 

against criminal violators in court to disseminating 

information to the boating public on new dolphin 

interaction rules, Special Agents and Enforcement 

Officers maintained a high-profile presence in 

many matters dealing with marine mammals, e.g., 

as the Northwest Office of Enforcement has 

committed to improving the coordination, support, 

and rapid response of the marine mammal 

stranding networks along the Washington and 

Oregon coasts, the response to marine mammal 

strandings has dramatically improved in those 

areas. 

In September, a 40-ton sperm whale carcass 

floated up on the tidal flats in Ipswich, 

Massachusetts. The ivory-laden lower jaw had 

been cut off the dead sperm whale carcass with a 

chain saw. Northeast Special Agents, with the 

cooperation of local and state enforcement agencies 

and the news media, conducted an investigation 

and successfully recovered the jaw and all teeth. 

Two individuals were charged with an unlawful 

take under both the ESA and MMPA. 

In the Northwest, enforcement personnel were 

heavily involved in the efforts to minimize sea lion 

predation of endangered and threatened salmon 

and steelhead trout. Special Agents assigned to an 

underwater investigative unit investigated the 

sabotage and sinking of a floating sea lion capture 

platform in Puget Sound. They executed the 

salvage of the platform and devised a method to 

prevent it from being sunk again. They also 

assisted in the installation and maintenance of 

acoustic deterrent devices at the Ballard Locks 

throughout the year. Furthermore, Northwest 

Special Agents worked in conjunction with the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to 

capture and relocate Sea Lion #17, from the 

Shilshole area. This sea lion, weighing in at 870 

pounds, was alleged to be the second largest sea 

lion consumer of steelhead in the Shilshole/Ballard 

Locks vicinity. 

Noteworthy Enforcement Cases 

Page 89 
Chapter XI. Law Enforcement 

A regulatory amendment, clarifying that 

feeding marine mammals in the wild is a form of 

"take" prohibited under the MMPA, became 

effective in March 1991 (56 FR 11693). In October 

1992, however, a Texas district court, ruling in 

favor of a Corpus Christi couple running a dolphin 

feeding operation, issued an injunction against 

NMFS's feeding regulations, as it applied to 

bottlenose dolphins. In October 1993, the Fifth 

Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans lifted the 

injunction, stating that it was reasonable for NMFS 

to prohibit feeding as a potential hazard to 

dolphins, thus, clearing the way for NMFS to begin 

enforcing this regulation. Because of this 1993 

change, enforcement personnel in the Southeast 

became active in 1994, investigating allegations of 

dolphin harassment connected to wild feeding. 

Certain persons who were active in dolphin 

feeding in the past threatened to continue their 

activities in order to test the new court decision 

and NMFS' ability to enforce it. The Office of 

Enforcement conducted overt and covert 

investigations and determined that the threatened 

violations had probably not occurred. The Office 

remains active in providing information to the 

public on the latest rules regarding feeding marine 

mammals in the wild. 

The Southwest Office of Enforcement brought 

to jury trial a case involving a fishing vessel 

operator and a crewman who conspired to gut 

hook sea lions intentionally. They rigged juvenile 

barracuda with shark hooks to a accomplish this 

illegal taking. Both defendants were found guilty. 

Also in the Southwest, two cases initiated in 

1993 are expected to go to trial in the United States 

District Court in 1995 following successful 

investigation. One case involved the illegal taking 

of marine mammals by employees of a San Diego 

bait barge using a variety of weapons including 

bows and arrows, harpoons, and spears. In this 

case, Special Agents documented the taking of a 

large quantity of marine mammals by crewmen 

while engaged in a Category II fishery and the 

subsequent failure to record these takes in the 

required marine mammal log. The other case 

expected to go to trial in the Southwest involves a 

fishing vessel operator's intentional hunting of 

marine mammals with firearms. This same 

operator also devised a new sport called "dog 

wrestling," in which marine mammals were baited 

and subsequently gaffed by the operator and 

others. The "players" then vied to see who could 

hold on to the gaff the longest before it ripped out 

of the marine mammals' flesh. 

Page 90 
Chapter XII. Litigation


Ongoing Legal Actions 

American Tunaboat Association, et al., v. 

Ronald H. Brown, et al., No. 94-0736 (TEH) (N.D. 

Cal.): On February 7, 1994, NMFS notified U.S. 

tuna fishing fleet members that, effective 

immediately, all tuna fishing involving setting on 

dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) 

was prohibited because the fleet had reached the 

annual quota of dolphin mortalities specified in 

sec. 306(a)(4) of the MMPA. On February 25, 1994, 

plaintiffs filed a complaint and motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and 

Preliminary Injunction in the district court for the 

Southern District of California seeking injunctive 

and declaratory relief from NOAA's February 7, 

1994, notice. Because this case was similar to one 

pending in Earth Island Institute v. Brown, No. 

C88-1380 (N.D. Cal.), this case was transferred to 

the district court for the Northern District of 

California. 

The plaintiffs alleged that NOAA improperly 

determined that the U.S. tuna fleet in the ETP had 

reached its allowable quota of dolphins killed for 

1994 and that the closure of the fishery therefore 

violated the MMPA. NMFS had based its 

determination on sec. 306(a)(4) of the MMPA, 

which requires that U.S. fleet-caused dolphin 

mortality, for every year after 1992, cannot exceed 

the number of mortalities for the preceding year. 

In addition, sec. 306(a)(4) requires that total 

dolphin mortalities occurring under the ATA 

general permit each year continue to decline by 

statistically significant amounts each year. NMFS 

observer records indicated that there were 115 

dolphin mortalities caused by the U.S. fleet in 1993. 

During January and the first week of February, 

1994, NMFS received reports that an unusually 

high rate of dolphin mortality had already 

occurred in 1994 such that the fleet would reach 

and exceed the 114 quota for 1994 by the end of the 

day on Feb. 7, 1994. 

The plaintiffs claimed that the correct quota 

was 800 dolphins for the period Jan. 1, 1993 to 

February 28, 1994, and that the phrase "each year 

after 1992" used in sec. 306(a)(4) of the MMPA 

should be construed to mean any consecutive 12 

month period, not a calendar year. They also 

alleged that the form of the Feb. 7 notice was 

improper because the ATA was notified directly 

rather than by publication of a notice in the Federal 

Register as called for in NMFS' regulations. 

On April 15, 1994, the district court denied the 

plaintiffs' motion for a TRO, finding no showing of 

irreparable injury, no probability of success on the 

merits, and no balance of hardships favoring the 

plaintiffs. The motion for preliminary injunction 

was then briefed, and Earth Island Institute, the 

plaintiff in the related case, filed a brief amicus 

curiae in support of NMFS' position. A hearing on 

the PI motion was held on May 23, 1994, and on 

July 6, 1994, the district court denied the plaintiffs' 

PI motion and granted partial summary judgment 

to the government on the substantive issue of 

whether NMFS had applied the correct 1994 quota 

(i.e., 114). The court found that the plaintiffs were 

likely to prevail on the issue of whether the form of 

the notice was proper, but that "any remedy 

granted for the apparent procedural violation 

would have no effect on the 1994 quota and so 

would not result in the fishery's being reopened for 

the remainder of the 1994 year or any significant 

portion thereof." 

Plaintiffs then filed an appeal with the 

NinthCircuit Court of Appeals alleging that 

district’s court's decision to deny the preliminary 

injunction was an abuse of discretion. The appeal 

was pending as of the end of 1994. 

Animal Protection Institute v. Mosbacher and 

International Wildlife Coalition v. Franklin, Civil 

No. 89-1696 TPJ (and consolidated Civil No. 92­

0223 TPJ) (D.D.C.): API v. Mosbacher challenged 

the issuance of a permit authorizing Shedd 

Aquarium in Chicago to import false killer whales 

Page 91 
Chapter XII. Litigation 

Breaching humpback whale (Megatera novaengliae) in Southeast Alaska. 

(pseudorcas) from Japan. On Nov. 29, 1991, NMFS 

issued to Shedd Aquarium another permit to 

import beluga whales from Canada. On January 

24, 1992, International Wildlife Coalition (IWC) 

filed a complaint challenging issuance of this 

permit. The issues raised in the two cases were 

identical, and the court consolidated the cases. The 

issues presented by these cases were detailed in the 

1992-1993 Annual Report. 

On July 31, 1992, the court granted the 

government's motion for summary judgment; the 

plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the District of 

Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals on August 3, 

1992. As discussed in last year's Annual Report, in 

light of developments subsequent to their notice of 

Photo credit: J.M. Waite, NMFS/NWR. 

appeal which essentially rendered the case moot, 

plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss their appeal and 

on Sept. 10, 1993, the Court of Appeals issued a 

order holding the cases in abeyance until 

December 31, 1993, at which time the parties were 

to report back to the court as to whether the appeal 

should be dismissed. On Feb. 7, 1994, after the 

parties reported back to the court, the court issued 

an order dismissing the appeal. 

Earth Island Institute, et al. v. Brown, et. al, 

and American Tunaboat Association, et al., No. 

88-1380 (N.D.Cal.); No. 92-15387 and 92-15126 (9th 

Cir.): This case, which has been reported in several 

previous Annual Reports to Congress, came to a 

conclusion in 1994. Plaintiffs have alleged various 

Page 92 
Chapter XII. Litigation 

failures of NOAA to enforce the MMPA with 

respect to yellowfin purse seine fisheries in the 

eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). 

Developments in 1994 addressed the issues of 

setting purse seine nets on depleted stocks of 

dolphin, the district court's jurisdiction to rule on 

embargo issues and attorneys fees. 

On February 3, 1992, the district court for the 

Northern District of California granted the 

plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, but 

denied their motion for a permanent injunction 

and summary judgment, ordering NOAA to 

prohibit the importation of yellowfin tuna and 

products from any intermediary nation until that 

nation's government provides certification and 

proof that it has acted to prohibit the importation 

of tuna that is barred from direct importation into 

the United States under the MMPA. The 

government appealed the preliminary injunction 

order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and 

sought a stay of proceedings due to legislative 

action that might have addressed the secondary 

embargo issues; the government at this time also 

argued that the district court lacked subject matter 

jurisdiction to rule on issues involving embargoes. 

On August 13, 1992, the Ninth Circuit granted a 

stay of proceedings. On January 6, 1993, the Ninth 

Circuit issued an order continuing the stay. When 

it became apparent that a legislative solution 

would not be forthcoming, the stay was lifted and 

oral argument on the appeal was heard on August 

10, 1993. 

On Nov. 19, 1993, the plaintiffs filed a motion 

for preliminary injunction to force NOAA to 

prohibit the U.S. ETP yellowfin purse seine fleet 

from setting its nets on depleted northeastern 

offshore spotted dolphins. The government 

opposed this motion, and a hearing was held 

before Judge Henderson in the U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of California on Jan. 3, 

1994. On Jan. 27, 1994, Judge Henderson issued an 

order enjoining the government from allowing the 

incidental taking of any northeastern offshore 

spotted dolphins during tuna fishing in the ETP, 

requiring NMFS to issue regulations prohibiting 

setting on any schools of dolphin where any 

northeastern offshore spotted dolphins are 

observed and incorporating such prohibitions into 

the foreign comparability standards applied to 

other nations. The court also enjoined the 

American Tunaboat Association from allowing 

vessels operating under its permit from encircling 

schools of dolphin where northeastern offshore 

spotted dolphins were sighted until NMFS issued 

final regulations on the subject. Due to the 

difficulty involved in trying to distinguish 

northeastern offshore spotted dolphins from 

southwestern offshore spotted dolphins, the court 

also ordered the parties to meet with the goal of 

minimizing takes of northeastern offshore spotted 

dolphins along the boundary between the two 

stocks. On Jan. 31, 1994, NMFS notified the U.S. 

tuna fleet that sets on schools containing 

northeastern offshore spotted dolphins was 

prohibited effective immediately. On Feb. 4, 1994, 

NMFS extended the prohibition to all offshore 

spotted dolphins in the ETP. The government 

ultimately decided not to appeal the district court's 

Jan. 27, 1994, order. 

On March 3, 1994, while the parties grappled 

with how to implement the district court's Jan. 27, 

1994, order, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

issued its opinion in the government's appeal of 

the district court's February 1992 order regarding 

intermediary nation embargoes. The Ninth Circuit 

agreed with the government that the district court 

lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case 

because 28 USC 1581(i)(3) vests exclusive 

jurisdiction over any case arising out of "any law of 

the United States providing for...embargoes or 

other quantitative restrictions on the importation of 

merchandise for reasons other than the protection 

of the public health or safety" in the Court of 

International Trade (CIT). Finding that the MMPA 

is the type of law covered by 28 USC 1581(i)(3), the 

Page 93 
Chapter XII. Litigation 

Ninth Circuit held that the CIT has exclusive 

jurisdiction over the issues raised in this case, 

vacated the district court's 1992 injunction and 

dismissed the lawsuit. 

On March 17, 1994, the plaintiffs asked the 

Ninth Circuit to stay the effective date of its order 

pending the Court's decision on plaintiffs' request 

for rehearing. On July 22, 1994, the Ninth Circuit 

filed its mandate vacating and remanding the case 

back to the district court, and the plaintiffs filed a 

motion asking the Ninth Circuit to recall and stay 

the mandate while they petitioned the U.S. 

Supreme Court for certiorari. On Aug. 12, 1994, 

the Ninth Circuit granted the motion, after which 

the plaintiffs filed a Petition for Certiorari with the 

Supreme Court. The government filed its brief in 

opposition in October, 1994, and the Supreme 

Court denied certiorari on Nov. 14, 1994. 

On Sept. 29, 1994, the parties submitted to the 

district court a proposed final judgment that would 

dispose of the remaining issues in this case, except 

for attorneys fees and those addressed by the 

plaintiffs' then-pending Petition for Certiorari. The 

court signed the final judgment on Oct. 5, 1994, 

and the parties agreed to a compromise on the 

attorneys fees issue just before a scheduled hearing 

on the matter; the agreement was approved by the 

court on Dec. 14, 1994. The agreed amount of 

attorneys fees was transmitted to plaintiffs' 

attorneys on Dec. 23, 1994. With settlement of this 

final issue, this case was closed. 

Greenworld, Inc., et al. v. Brown, et al., No. 

93-10623-MA (D. Mass.): The issues raised by this 

case were described in detail in the previous 

Annual Report. There were no court-related 

developments in 1994, although NOAA had 

discussions with federal and state agencies and 

plaintiff groups attempting to resolve the issues. 

Marine Mammal Fund, et al. v. Brown, et al., 

Civil No. C93-4155 MHP (N.D. Cal.): On Nov. 23, 

1993, the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining 

order to enjoin NMFS from allowing Chicago's 

Shedd Aquarium to capture three pacific whitesided dolphins off southern California pursuant to 

a MMPA public display permit issued by NMFS. 

As described in detail in last year's Annual Report, 

plaintiffs' attempts to obtain TROs were unsuccessful, and the captured animals were moved 

to Shedd Aquarium in Chicago. The case was 

dismissed in January, 1994. 

Mirage Resorts v. Franklin, Civil No. CV-S-92­

759-PMP.LR (D. Nev.): On August 31, 1992, the 

Mirage, a Las Vegas resort holding a MMPA public 

display permit to exhibit dolphins, sued NMFS 

over the agency's decision to defer consideration of 

the Mirage's request to begin a "swim-with-thedolphin" (SWTD) program which allows members 

of the public to enter the pool and swim with 

dolphins. As described in greater detail in the 

1992-1993 Annual Report, the Mirage's suit alleged 

that NMFS had no statutory jurisdiction under the 

MMPA to regulate the captive maintenance of 

marine mammals. In an order dated Nov. 24, 1993, 

the court agreed with plaintiffs, granted the 

plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and 

denied the agency's cross motion for summary 

judgment. 

NMFS filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals on Feb. 10, 1994. In light 

of amendments made to the MMPA on April 30, 

1994, however, which made clear that jurisdiction 

over captive maintenance of marine mammals 

resides with the Department of Agriculture (and its 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) 

pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act, NMFS filed a 

motion on June 21, 1994, asking that the matter be 

dismissed as moot. On June 27, 1994, the Ninth 

Circuit issued an order directing the district court 

to dismiss the matter as moot, which it did on July 

7, 1994. 

Page 94 
Chapter XII. Litigation 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

Department of the Navy, et al., No. 94-2337-SVW 

(CTx) (C.D. Cal.): On April 12, 1994, plaintiffs filed 

this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief 

regarding NMFS' authorization, under the MMPA 

section 101(a)(5) "small take" provisions, of the take 

of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to 

the Navy's planned underwater detonation of 

explosives to test the structural integrity of new 

"Aegis"-class destroyers. The first tests were to be 

conducted on the U.S.S. JOHN PAUL JONES 

(DDG-53). NMFS authorized the marine mammal 

takes in a Letter of Authorization that required the 

Navy to implement substantial mitigation 

measures to ensure that the tests would result in 

no more than a negligible impact on marine 

mammals. 

The test site was chosen after extensive aerial 

surveys were conducted by NMFS to locate areas 

of ocean off southern California with the lowest 

practicable marine mammal densities, taking into 

consideration certain operational constraints of the 

Navy. For instance, the detonations had to occur 

in water of a certain depth but close enough to 

shipyard facilities so that the DDG-53 could be 

towed back to port if the detonations damaged the 

ship. Complicating matters was the constraint that 

the test sites also had to be within the range of 

aircraft that were to perform pre- and postdetonation marine mammal surveys. The 

preferred site was southwest of the Channel 

Islands off the southern California coast. Both the 

Navy and NMFS prepared environmental 

assessments under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) that concluded in Findings of 

No Significant Impact. 

The plaintiffs alleged, primarily, that the 

Navy's and NMFS' analyses of the project under 

NEPA were deficient because they failed to 

consider an adequate range of alternatives. 

Plaintiffs believed that other locations farther north 

along the coast, farther out to sea, and off the 

eastern U.S. coast, should have been considered 

and analyzed. The plaintiffs believed, in particular, 

that a location farther west than the preferred site 

chosen by the Navy with NMFS' concurrence was 

likely to have lower marine mammal densities and 

should therefore have been chosen. A hearing on 

plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction was 

held from April 20-22, 1994. On April 26, 1994, the 

court issued an order granting plaintiffs a 

preliminary injunction, agreeing that the range of 

alternatives considered by the Navy and NMFS 

was insufficient. The court enjoined the Navy from 

conducting its tests and NMFS from issuing any 

more Letters of Authorization until alternative 

locations could be analyzed. 

The parties subsequently agreed to a compromise arrangement wherein the Navy, with NMFS' 

concurrence, agreed to move the test to the 

plaintiffs' more western preferred site and to 

modify mitigation measures (e.g., underwater 

sonar searches for marine mammals, amended 

aerial survey techniques). The details of this 

arrangement were set forth in a consent decree that 

was approved by the court on May 6, 1994 

(subsequently amended on June 15, 1994). In light 

of the consent decree, the court's April 26 decision 

was vacated. 

With observers on hand from the plaintiff 

organization, the tests were conducted on June 9, 

1994, and June 27, 1994. Extensive pre- and postdetonation aerial and shipboard surveys were 

conducted to ensure that no marine mammals were 

present in the area of the test. Post-detonation 

surveys, in particular, resulted in the conclusion 

that the mitigation measures were successful in 

that no marine mammals were found to have been 

injured or killed due to the tests. 

Sabella, et al. v. United States, et al., Civil 

Action No. 94-0350 JLG (D.D.C.): This case came 

about due to a letter sent on January 7, 1994, by 

counsel for plaintiffs to the NOAA General 

Counsel asking for a "definitive statement" of 

Page 95 
Chapter XII. Litigation 

NOAA's interpretation of section 307(a)(2) of the 

MMPA, which makes it unlawful "for any person 

or vessel that is subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States, intentionally to set a purse seine net 

on or to encircle any marine mammal during any 

tuna fishing operation after February 28, 1994." 

Counsel for plaintiffs asked specifically whether 

this provision applied to U.S. citizens who work as 

captains or crew on foreign flag vessels. 

On February 25, the NOAA General Counsel 

sent counsel for plaintiffs a letter expressing the 

opinion that, under sec. 307(a)(2) of the MMPA, 

U.S. citizens may not lawfully engage in any 

foreign tuna fishing operations after February 28, 

1994, that would involve the intentional 

encirclement of dolphins. On February 24, 1994, 

the named plaintiff and three other U.S. citizens 

who work as tunaboat captains or crew members 

on foreign flag vessels documented under the laws 

of Mexico, Venezuela or Vanuatu, filed suit seeking 

injunctive and declaratory relief from agency 

enforcement of an interpretation that the MMPA 

applies to U.S. citizens on foreign flag vessels. 

Earth Island Institute, an environmental 

organization with interest in tuna-dolphin issues, 

intervened in the case as a defendant. 

The court held a hearing on the TRO motion on 

March 10, 1994, and on March 11, 1994, issued an 

order treating the TRO motion as a motion for 

preliminary injunction because the parties had an 

opportunity to brief the issues and argue their 

positions in open court. The court then denied the 

plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction based 

on findings that the threatened economic loss 

claimed by plaintiffs did not constitute irreparable 

harm because the losses did not threaten the 

plaintiffs' livelihoods or the existence of their 

businesses. Second, the court found that the threat 

of enforcement of civil and criminal penalties 

against the plaintiffs was speculative and not 

sufficient to support a preliminary injunction. 

The government thereafter filed an answer to 

the complaint, and in April, 1994, the parties filed 

cross motions for summary judgment. The 

government sought summary judgment on the 

grounds that, among other things, the plaintiffs 

asked for judicial review of the issue even though 

the government had not yet pursued any 

administrative enforcement actions against any of 

the plaintiffs and, thus, there was no "final agency 

action" for the court to review. On June 27, 1994, 

the court agreed, finding that the NOAA General 

Counsel's letter did not reflect a definitive agency 

position on the issue, but merely stated the General 

Counsel's opinion and that, while it might be a 

"highly educated guess" as to the decision the 

agency might make, it did not create any law or 

bind the NOAA Administrator. The court held 

that the General Counsel's letter did not constitute 

"final agency action," and that judicial review of the 

issue was therefore premature. The court 

dismissed the case without prejudice on June 27, 

1994. 

United States v. Hayashi, No. 92-10044 (Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals): This case was described 

in detail in the 1992-1993 Annual Report. Briefly, 

on January 24, 1991, David Hayashi, a part-time 

commercial fisherman, and his son were fishing for 

tuna off the coast of Waianae, Hawaii. Hayashi 

fired a rifle into the water with the intent of 

deterring four dolphins that had begun swimming 

around his fishing gear from eating his bait or fish 

that had been caught on the lines. The shots did 

not hit the dolphins. Hayashi was a commercial 

fisherman allowed by regulation promulgated 

under the MMPA interim exemption for 

commercial fisheries (section 114) to engage in this 

kind of deterrent action in the course of his 

commercial fishing operations. 

Hayashi was charged by the local Assistant 

U.S. Attorney in Honolulu with criminal violations 

of the MMPA for "taking" marine mammals by 

shooting at, and thereby "harassing," them and he 

was convicted before a Magistrate Judge in July 

Page 96 
Chapter XII. Litigation 

1991. Hayashi appealed to the District Court, 

which upheld the conviction in December 1991. 

Hayashi appealed again to the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals, which on September 27, 1993, 

overturned Hayashi's conviction. In addition to 

other issues discussed in last year's Annual Report, 

the Ninth Circuit found that Hayashi's conduct did 

not violate the MMPA because it did not constitute 

"harassment." The court noted that the MMPA 

failed to define "harass" in the statutory definition 

of "take," and so the court defined the term as 

"sustained and serious disruptions of normal 

mammal behavior." 

Concerned that the Ninth Circuit's construction 

of "harassment" in the MMPA could cause 

significant problems for the agencies responsible 

for administering and enforcing the statute, the 

government on Nov. 9, 1993, petitioned the Ninth 

Circuit for rehearing or other appropriate relief. 

The agency was particularly concerned by the 

element of the court's definition which required a 

"sustained and serious disruption" of marine 

mammal behavior, as this was contrary to 

longstanding agency interpretation. On Feb. 1, 

1994, the Ninth Circuit ordered the parties to file 

briefs stating whether the matter should be reheard 

en banc. On Feb. 22, 1994, the Justice Department 

filed a brief recommending that the case should be 

reheard en banc. The Federal Public Defender for 

the District of Hawaii, on behalf of Hayashi, 

submitted a brief on Feb. 22, 1994, opposing 

rehearing en banc. 

On April 26, 1994, the Ninth Circuit denied the 

request for rehearing en banc, but issued an order 

amending its Sept. 27, 1993, opinion and dissent 

which deleted the phrases "sustained," "extended," 

and "sustained effect" wherever they appeared in 

the context of "harassment" and replaced certain 

paragraphs with revised language to limit the 

scope of the opinion so that "sustained" effects on 

marine mammal behavior was no longer an 

element of the Ninth Circuit's opinion. In addition, 

however, Footnote 15 of the majority's opinion was 

amended to indicate that the court sought to afford 

private fishermen the same ability to deter marine 

mammals from damaging their gear or catch as the 

MMPA then provided to commercial fishermen. 

This latter amendment to the court's opinion may 

have been cause for further concern except that the 

effect of the Ninth Circuit's opinion, both before 

and after the April 26, 1994, order, was largely 

supplanted only 4 days later with enactment of the 

1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. On April 30, 1994, the MMPA was 

amended by Congress, in part, by adding a 

statutory definition of "harassment" which does not 

contain the concept of "sustained" disruptions. In 

addition, Congress specifically provided authority 

for private fishermen (and others) to deter marine 

mammals from damaging fishing gear, catch or 

other property. Thus, this case has minimal, if any, 

import in light of the subsequent amendments to 

the MMPA. 

Page 97 
Page 98
Chapter XIII. Publications


Allen, J., P. Clapham, P. Hammond, S. Katona, F. 

Larsen, J. Lien, D. Mattila, N. Oien, P. Palsboll, 

J. Sigurjonnsson, T. Smith, and P. Stevick. 

1994, Years of the North Atlantic humpback 

(YONAH). Working paper IWC/SC/46/NA9 

submitted to the International Whaling 

Commission, April 1994. 

Allen, J. A., H. Rosenbaum, S. K. Katona, P. J. 

Clapham and D. K. Mattila. 1994. Regional 

and sexual differences in fluke pigmentation of 

humpback whales (Megaptera novaengliae) from 

the North Atlantic Ocean. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology 72: 274-279. 

Anonymous. 1994. Estimating harbor porpoise 

bycatch in the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet 

fishery. Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Reference Document 94-24. NEFSC/ 

NMFS/NOAA: Woods Hole, MA. 5p. 

Antonelis, George A., Sharon R. Melin, and Yurii 

A. Bukhtiyarov. 1994. Early spring feeding 

habits of bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) in 

the central Bering Sea, 1981. Arctic 47(1):74-79. 

Antonelis, George A., Timothy J. Ragen, and Nina 

I. Rooks. 1994. Male-biased secondary sex 

ratios of northern fur seals on the Pribilof 

Islands, Alaska, 1989 and 1992, p. 84-89 In: 

Elizabeth H. Sinclair, editor Fur seal 

investigations, 1992. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Seattle. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-45. 190p. 

Antonelis, George A., Anne E. York, and Charles 

W. Fowler. 1994. Population assessment, 

Pribilof Islands, Alaska, p. 29-47 In: Elizabeth 

H. Sinclair, editor Fur seal investigations, 1992. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-45. 

190p. 

Antonelis, George A., Mark S. Lowry, Clifford H. 

Fiscus, Brent S. Stewart, and Robert L. DeLong. 

1994. Diet of the northern elephant seal, p. 211­

223 In: Burney J. LeBoeuf and Richard M. 

Laws, editors, Elephant seals: Population ecology, 

behavior, and physiology. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, California. 414p. 

Atkinson, S., B. L. Becker, T. C. Johanos, J. R. 

Pietraszek, and B. C. S. Kuhn. 1994. 

Reproductive morphology and status of female 

Hawaiian monk seals (Monachus schauinslandi) 

fatally injured by adult male seals. J. Reprod. 

Fert. 100:225-230. 

Bain, David E. and Marilyn E. Dahlheim. 1994. 

Effects of masking noise on detectionthresholds 

of killer whales, p. 243-256 In: Thomas R. 

Loughlin, editor, Marine mammals and the 

Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

395p. 

Baker, Jason D., Charles W. Fowler, and George 

A. Antonelis. 1994. Body weight and growth 

of juvenile male northern fur seals, Callorhinus 

ursinus. Marine Mammal Science 10(2):151-162. 

Baker, Jason D., Charles W. Fowler, and George 

A. Antonelis. 1994. Mass change in fasting 

immature male northern fur seals. Canadian 

Journal of Zoology 72(2):326-329. 

Barlow, Jay, Robin W. Baird, John E. Heyning, 

Kate Wynne, Albert M. Manville, II, Lloyd F. 

Lowry, Doyle Hanan, John Sease, Vladimir N. 

Burkanov. 1994. A review of cetacean and 

pinniped mortality in coastal fisheries along the 

West Coast of the USA and Canada and the 

East Coast of the Russian Federation, p. 405­

426 In: William F. Perrin, Gregory P. Donovan, 

and Jay Barlow, editors, Gillnets and cetaceans. 

Page 99 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

Special Issue 15, International Whaling 

Commission, Cambridge, England. 629p. 

Bengtson, John L., Roger D. Hill, and Suzanne E. 

Hill. 1993. Using satellite telemetry to study 

the ecology and behavior of Antarctic seals. 

Korean Journal of Polar Research 4(2):109-115. 

Bengtson, John L., John K. Jansen, William R. 

Meyer, R.V. Miller, Michael K. Schwartz, and 

Brian R. Walker. 1993. AMLR program: fur 

seal and seabird studies at Seal Island, South 

Shetland Islands, during the 1992-1993 austral 

summer. Antarctic Journal of the United States 

28(5):200-201. 

Blaylock, R. A. and W. Hoggard. 1994. 

Preliminary estimates of bottlenose dolphin 

abundance in southern U.S. Atlantic and Gulf 

of Mexico continental shelf waters. NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS/SEFSC/356. 10 p. 

Bowles, Ann E., Mari Smultea, Bernd Würsig, 

Douglas P. DeMaster, and Debra Palka. 1994. 

Relative abundance and behavior of marine 

mammals exposed to transmissions from the 

Heard Island Feasibility Test. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America 96(4):2469-2484. 

Braham, Howard W. 1994. Marine mammals, p. 

91-110 In: Loh-Lee, Low, coordinator, Status of 

living marine resources off Alaska, 1993. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Seattle. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-27. 

110p. 

Brown, M. W., S. D. Kraus, D. E. Gaskin, and B. 

N. White. 1994. Sexual composition and 

analysis of reproductive females in the north 

Atlantic right whale, Eubalaena glacialis, 

population. Marine Mammal Science 10: 253­

265. 

Calkins, Donald G., Earl Becker, Terry R. 

Spraker, and Thomas R. Loughlin. 1994. 

Impacts on Steller sea lions, p. 119-139 In: 

Thomas R. Loughlin, editor, Marine mammals 

and the Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San 

Diego, CA. 395p. 

Chivers, Susan J. and Douglas P. DeMaster. 

1994. Evaluation of biological indices for three 

eastern Pacific dolphin species. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 58(3):470-478. 

Clapham, P. J. 1994. Maturational changes in 

patterns of association among male and female 

humpback whales. Journal of Zoology, 

London 234: 265-274. 

Craig, Mitchell P., Jennifer L. Megyesi, C. Scott 

Hall, Jennifer L. Glueck, Leona P. Laniawe, 

Elizabeth A. Delaney, Sally S. Keefer, Mark A. 

McDermond, Martin Schulz, Glynnis L. Nakai, 

Brenda L. Becker, Lisa M. Hiruki, and Robert J. 

Morrow. 1994. The Hawaiian monk seal at 

French Frigate Shoals, 1990-91. U.S. Dep. 

Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo., NOAA-TMNMFS-SWFSC-210, 70 p. 

Credle, Victoria R., Douglas P. DeMaster, Mandy 

M. Merklein, M. Bradley Hanson, William A. 

Karp, and Shannon M. Fitzgerald, editors. 

1994. NMFS observer programs: minutes and 

recommendations from a workshop held in 

Galveston, Texas, November 10-11, 1993. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, 

Maryland. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-OPR-94-1. 96p. 

Dahlheim, M.E. and R.G. Towell. 1994. 

Occurrence and distribution of Pacific whitesided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) in 

southeastern Alaska, with notes on an attack 

by killer whales (Orcinus orca). Marine Mammal 

Science 10(4):458-464. 

Dahlheim, Marilyn E. and Craig O. Matkin. 1994. 

Assessment of injuries to Prince William Sound 

Page 100 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

killer whales, p. 163-171 In: Thomas R. 

Loughlin, editor, Marine mammals and the 

Exxon Valdez. Academic Press,San Diego,CA. 

395p. 

DeMaster, Douglas. 1994. Comments on 

recovery times of baleen whales (Appendix 4). 

Report of the International Whaling Commission 

44:106-107. 

Davis, R., G. Scott, B., W. Evans, G. Fargion, L. 

Hansen, R. Benson, K. Mullin, N. May, T. 

Leming, B. Mate, J. Norris and T. Jefferson. 

1994. Distribution and abundance of marine 

mammals in the north-central and western Gulf 

of Mexico: Interim Report. Volume I: 

Technical Report. OCS Study #MMS 94-0003. 

Prepared by the Texas Institute of 

Oceanography and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. 131 p. 

DeKing, D., P. Clapham, and D. Mattila. 1994. 

YONAH (Years of the North Atlantic 

Humpback): Final Report on Field Work and 

Preliminary Data Analysis. Working paper 

SC/46/NA5 submitted to the International 

Whaling Commission, March 1994. 

Eberhardt, L. L., and K. V. Eberhardt. 1994. The 

Hawaiian monk seal on Midway Atoll, 1994. 

Honolulu Lab., Southwest Fish. Sci. Cent., Natl. 

Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, Honolulu, HI 96822­

23965. Southwest Fish. Sci. Cent. Admin. Rep. 

H-94-08, 14 p. 

Ferrero, R.C. and L.W. Fritz. 1994. Comparisons 

of walleye pollock, Theragra chalcogramma, 

harvest to Steller sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus, 

abundance in the Bering Sea and Gulf of 

Alaska. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Seattle. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-AFSC-43. 25p. 

Ferrero, Richard C., Janet Hodder, and Jack 

Cesarone. 1994. Recent strandings of roughtoothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis) on the 

Oregon and Washington coasts. Marine 

Mammal Science 10(1):114-116. 

Finn, M. A. 1994. Cranial morphometrics of the 

Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi). 

M.S. Thesis, Univ. Hawaii, Honolulu, 45 p. 

Finn, M. A., and M. A. Rice. 1994. Hawaiian 

monk seal observations at Necker Island, 1993. 

'Elepaio 55:7-10. 

Fowler, Charles W. 1994. Further consideration 

of nonlinearity in density dependence among 

large mammals. Report of the International 

Whaling Commission 44:385-391. 

Fowler, Charles W. and Bruce W. Robson. 1994. 

Population assessment, Pribilof Islands, 

Alaska, p. 9-12 In: Elizabeth H. Sinclair, editor 

Fur seal investigations, 1993. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Seattle. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-46. 93p. 

Fowler, Charles W., George A. Antonelis, and 

Jason D. Baker. 1994. Studies of juvenile males 

tagged as pups and resighted during roundups 

in 1992, p. 48-70 In: Elizabeth H. Sinclair, editor 

Fur seal investigations, 1992. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Seattle. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-45. 190p. 

Fowler, Charles W., Jason D. Baker, Rolf R. 

Ream, Bruce W. Robson, and Masashi Kiyota. 

1994. Entanglement studies on juvenile male 

northern fur seals, St. Paul Island, 1992, p. 100­

136 In: Elizabeth H. Sinclair, editor Fur seal 

investigations, 1992. U.S. Department of 

Page 101 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

Commerce, Seattle. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-45. 190p. 

Frost, Kathryn J., Lloyd F. Lowry, Elizabeth H. 

Sinclair, Jay Ver Hoef, and Dennis C. 

McAllister. 1994. Impacts on distribution, 

abundance, and productivity of harbor seals, p. 

97-118 In: Thomas R. Loughlin, editor, Marine 

mammals and the Exxon Valdez. Academic 

Press, San Diego 95p. 

Frady, T., S. Northridge, and T.D. Smith. 1994. 

Identifying potential modifications to sink 

gillnet gear to reduce harbor porpoise bycatch. 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference 

Document 94-14. NEFSC/NMFS/NOAA: 

Woods Hole, MA. 55p. 

Gearin, Patrick J., Sharon R. Melin, Robert L. 

DeLong, Hirohi Kajimura, and Michael A. 

Johnson. 1994. Harbor porpoise interactions 

with a chinook salmon set-net fishery in 

Washington state, p. 427-438 In: William F. 

Perrin, Gregory P. Donovan, and Jay Barlow, 

editors, Gillnets and cetaceans. Special Issue 15, 

International Whaling Commission, 

Cambridge, England. 629p. 

George, John Craighead, L. Michael Philo, 

Katherine Hazard, David Withrow, Geoffry M. 

Carroll, and Robert Suydam. 1994. Frequency 

of killer whale (Orcinus orca) attacks and ship 

collisions based on scarring on bowhead 

whales (Balaena mysticetus) of the BeringChukchi-Beaufort Seas stock. Arctic 47(3):247­

255. 

Hain, J. H., S. L. Ellis, and P. E. Seward. 1994. 

Characterization of vessel traffic at the St.John's 

and St.Mary's channel entrances, Northeast 

Florida, January 1993. Publication No. PB94­

204229, National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, Virginia. 56 p. 

Hain, J. H. 1994. Airships for whale research: 

Results to data, and a proposal for this "next 

generation" ocean science capability. pp. 541­

547, IN Proceedings, Marine Technology 

Society Meeting, 7-9 September 1994, 

Washington, D.C. 

Hanson, M. Bradley, Jason D. Baker, and George 

A. Antonelis. 1994. Weights of known-age 

subadult male northern fur seals taken in the 

St. Paul Island subsistence harvest, 1991-1992, 

p. 71-75 In: Elizabeth H. Sinclair, editor Fur seal 

investigations, 1992. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Seattle. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-45. 190p. 

Harvey, James T. and George A. Antonelis. 1994. 

Biases associated with non-lethal methods of 

determining the diet of northern elephant seals. 

Marine Mammal Science 10(2):178-187. 

Harvey, James T. and Marilyn E. Dahlheim. 1994. 

Cetaceans in oil, p. 257-264 In: Thomas R. 

Loughlin, editor, Marine mammals and the 

Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

395p. 

Huber, Harriet R. 1994. A technique for 

determining sex of northern fur seal pup 

carcasses. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22(3):479-483. 

Johanos, T. C., B. L. Becker, and T. J. Ragen. 

1994. Annual reproductive cycle of the female 

Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi). 

Mar. Mamm. Sci. 10:13-30. 

Kiyota, Masashi and Charles W. Fowler. 1994. 

Surveys of entanglement among adult female 

northern fur seals, 1991-1992, p. 90-99 In: 

Elizabeth H. Sinclair, editor Fur seal 

investigations, 1992. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Seattle. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-45. 190p. 

Knowlton, A.R., S.D. Kraus, and R.D. Kenney. 

Page 102 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

1994. Reproduction in North Atlantic right 

whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Canadian Journal 

of Zoology 72: 1297-1305. 

Krahn, M. M., G. M. Ylitalo, J. Buzitis, C. A. 

Sloan, D. T. Boyd, S-L. Chan and U. Varanasi. 

1994. Screening for planar chlorobiphenyl 

congeners in tissues of marine biota by highperformance liquid chromatography with 

photodiode array detection. Chemosphere 

29:117-139. 

Lombard, K. B., B. L. Becker, M. P. Craig, G. C. 

Spencer, and K. Hague-Bechard. 1994. The 

Hawaiian monk seal on Laysan Island, 1990. 

U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-206, 16 p. 

Loughlin, Thomas R. 1994. Tissue hydrocarbon 

levels and the number of cetaceans found dead 

after the spill, p. 359-370 In: Thomas R. 

Loughlin, editor, Marine mammals and the 

Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

395p. 

Loughlin, Thomas R., editor. 1994. Marine 

mammals and the Exxon Valdez. Academic 

Press, San Diego, CA. 395p. *No copies 

available for distribution. 

Loughlin, Thomas R. and Elizabeth H. Sinclair. 

1994. Sample collection, storage, and 

documentation, p. 377-382 In: Thomas R. 

Loughlin, editor, Marine mammals and the 

Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

395p. 

Loughlin, Thomas R., George A. Antonelis, Jason 

D. Baker, Anne E. York, Charles W. Fowler, 

Robert L. DeLong, and Howard W. Braham. 

1994. Status of the northern fur seal population 

in the United States during 1992, p. 9-28 In: 

Elizabeth H. Sinclair, editor Fur seal 

investigations, 1992. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Seattle. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-45. 190p. 

Lowry, L.F., K.J. Frost, R. Davis, R.S. Suydam, 

and D.P. DeMaster. 1994. Movements and 

behavior of satellite-tagged spotted seals (Phoca 

largha) in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Seattle. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-38. 71p. 

Matkin, Craig O., Graeme M. Ellis, Marilyn E. 

Dahlheim, and Judy Zeh. 1994. Status of killer 

whales in Prince William Sound, 1985-1992, p. 

141-162 In: Thomas R. Loughlin, editor, Marine 

mammals and the Exxon Valdez. Academic 

Press, San Diego, CA. 395p. 

Meador, J. P., U. Varanasi, P. A. Robisch and SL. Chan. 1994. Toxic metals in pilot whales 

(Globicephala melaena) from strandings in 1986 

and 1990 on Cape Cod, MA. Can. J. Fish Aquat. 

Sci. 50:2698-2706. 

Meador, J. P., K. L. Tilbury, D. W. Ernest, P. A. 

Robisch and U. Varanasi. 1994. Toxic metals 

in stranded pilot whales (Globicephala malaena) 

and bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). 

Presented at the Society of Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry meeting, Nov. 1994. 

Melin, Sharon R. and Robert L. DeLong. 1994. 

Population monitoring of northern fur seals on 

San Miguel Island, California, p. 137-141 In: 

Elizabeth H. Sinclair, editor Fur seal 

investigations, 1992. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Seattle. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-45. 190p. 

Melin, Sharon R., Robert L. DeLong, and James 

F. Thomason. 1994. Population monitoring 

studies of northern fur seals at San Miguel 

Island, California, p. 46-51 In: Elizabeth H. 

Sinclair, editor Fur seal investigations, 1993. U.S. 

Page 103 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

Department of Commerce, Seattle. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-46. 93p. 

Merrick, R.L., T.R. Loughlin, G.A. Antonelis, and 

R. Hill. 1994. Use of satellite-linked telemetry 

to study Steller sea lion and northern fur seal 

foraging. Polar Research 13:105-114. 

Morris, Byron F. and Thomas R. Loughlin. 1994. 

Overview of the Exxon Valdez oil spill 1989­

1992, p. 1-22 In: Thomas R. Loughlin, editor, 

Marine mammals and the Exxon Valdez. 

Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 395p. 

Mössner, Stephanie, Isabelle Barudio, Terry S. 

Spraker, George Antonelis, Gregory Early, 

Joseph R. Geraci, Paul R. Becker, and Karlheinz 

Ballschmiter. 1994. Determination of HCHs, 

PCBs, and DDTs in brain tissues of marine 

mammals of different age. Fresenius’ Journal of 

Analytical Chemistry 349:708-716. 

Mullin, K. D., T. A. Jefferson, L. J. Hansen and 

W. Hoggard. 1994. First sightings of melonheaded whales (Peponocephala electra) in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Marine Mammal Science, 

10(3): 342-348 

Palka, D. (ed.) 1994. Results of a scientific 

workshop to evaluate the status of harbor 

porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the western 

North Atlantic. NEFSC Reference Document 

94-09. NEFSC/NMFS/NOAA, Woods Hole, 

MA. 30 p. 

Perez, Michael A. 1994. Calorimetry 

measurements of energy value of some Alaska 

fishes and squids. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Seattle. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-32. 32p. 

Pietraszek, J., and S. Atkinson. 1994. 

Concentrations of estrone sulfate and 

progesterone in plasma and saliva, vaginal 

cytology, and bioelectric impedance during the 

estrous cycle of the Hawaiian monk seal 

(Monachus schauinslandi). Mar. Mamm. Sci. 

10:430-441. 

Polovina, J. J., G. T. Mitchum, N. E. Graham, M. 

P. Craig, E. E. DeMartini, and E. N. Flint. 1994. 

Physical and biological consequences of a 

climate event in the central North Pacific. 

Fisheries Oceanography 3:15-21. 

Radford, Stanley F., Robert L. Gran, and Robert 

V. Miller. 1994. Detection of whale wakes with 

synthetic aperture radar. MTS Journal 28(2):46­

52. 

Read, A. J. 1994. Interactions between cetaceans 

and gillnet and trap fisheries in the Northwest 

Atlantic. Rept. Int. Whal. Commn.(Special 

Issue 15): 133-147. 

Ream, Rolf R. and Rodney G. Towell. 1994. 

Census of northern fur seals on Bogoslof 

Island, Alaska, 1993, p. 52-55 In: Elizabeth H. 

Sinclair, editor Fur seal investigations, 1993. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Seattle. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-46. 93p. 

Ream, Rolf R., George A. Antonelis, and Jason D. 

Baker. 1994. Trends in pup production of 

rookeries on St. George Island, Alaska, p. 76-83 

In: Elizabeth H. Sinclair, editor Fur seal 

investigations, 1992. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Seattle. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-45. 190p.48. 

Rice, Dale W. 1994. BOOK REVIEW: Mammal 

species of the world: A taxonomic and 

geographic reference. Second Edition. Edited 

by Don E. Wilson and DeeAnn M. Reeder. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and 

London. xviii + 1,206p. 1993. Marine Mammal 

Science 10(2):241-243. 

Robson, Bruce W. and Charles W. Fowler. 1994. 

Appendix D - Removal of debris from 

Page 104 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

entangled seals, p. 79-82 In: Elizabeth H. 

Sinclair, editor Fur seal investigations, 1993. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Seattle. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-46. 93p. 

Robson, Bruce W., George A. Antonelis, and 

Jeffrey L. Laake. 1994. Assessment of 

measurement error in weights and lengths of 

northern fur seal pups in 1992, p. 35-45 In: 

Elizabeth H. Sinclair, editor Fur seal 

investigations, 1993. U.S. Departmernt of 

Commerce, Seattle. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-46. 93p. 

Rommel, S. A., D. A. Papst, W. A. McLelland, T. 

M. Williams, and W. A. Friedl. 1994. 

Temperature regulation of the testes of the 

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): 

evidence from colonic temperatures. J. Comp. 

Physiol B (1994) 164. 

Rugh, David J. and Kim E. W. Shelden. 1993. 

Polar bears, Ursus maritimus, feeding on beluga 

whales, Delphinapterus leucas. Canadian FieldNaturalist 107(2):235-237. 

Sinclair, Elizabeth, Thomas Loughlin, and William 

Pearcy. 1994. Prey selection by northern fur 

seals (Callorhinus ursinus) in the eastern Bering 

Sea. Fishery Bulletin 92(1):144-156. 

Sinclair, Elizabeth H. 1994. Introduction, p. 1-7 

In: Elizabeth H. Sinclair, editor Fur seal 

investigations, 1992. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Seattle. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-45. 190p. 

Sinclair, Elizabeth H. 1994. Introduction, p. 1-8 

In: Elizabeth H. Sinclair, editor Fur seal 

investigations, 1993. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Seattle. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-46. 93p. 

Sinclair, Elizabeth H., editor. 1994. Fur seal 

investigations, 1992. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Seattle. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFs-AFSC-45. 190p. 

Sinclair, Elizabeth H., editor. 1994. Fur seal 

investigations, 1993. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Seattle. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFs-AFSC-46. 93p. 

Sinclair, Elizabeth Hacker. 1994. Prey of juvenile 

northern elephant seals (Mirounga 

angustirostris) in the Southern California Bight. 

Marine Mammal Science 10(2):230-239. 

Smith, Tim, Tom Polacheck, Kevin Stockes, Tore 

Schweder, Chuck Fowler, Steve Swartz, and 

Toshio Kasuya. 1994. Annex O - Statements 

on monitoring and the RMS. Annex 01. 

Minority statement. The need to include 

monitoring requirements in the RMS. Report of 

the International Whaling Commission 44:191-192. 

Stewart, Brent S. and Robert L. DeLong. 1994. 

Postbreeding foraging migrations of northern 

elephant seals, p. 290-309 In: Burney J. LeBoeuf 

and Richard M. Laws, editors, Elephant seals: 

Population ecology, behavior, and physiology. 

University of California Press, Berkeley, 

California. 414p. 

Stewart, Brent S., Pamela K. Yochem, Harriet R. 

Huber, Robert L. DeLong, Ronald J. Jameson, 

William J. Sydeman, Sarah G. Allen, and 

Burney J. LeBoeuf. 1994. History and present 

status of the northern elephant seal population, 

p. 29-48 In: Burney J. LeBoeuf and Richard M. 

Laws, editors, Elephant seals: Population ecology, 

behavior, and physiology. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, California. 414p. 

Trites, Andrew W. and George A. Antonelis. 

1994. The influence of climatic seasonality on 

the life cycle of the Pribilof northern fur seal. 

Marine Mammal Science 10(3):311-324. 

Page 105 
Chapter XIII. Publications 

Varanasi, U., J. E. Stein, K. L. Tilbury, J. P. 

Meador, C. A. Sloan, R. C. Clark and S-L. 

Chan. 1994. Chemical contaminants in gray 

whales (Globicephala malaena) and bottlenose 

dolphins (Eschrichtius robustus) stranded along 

the west coast of North America. Sci. Tot. 

Environ. 145:29-53. 

Von Ziegesar, Olga, Elizabeth Miller, and Marilyn 

E. Dahlheim. 1994. Impacts on humpback 

whales in Prince William Sound, p. 173-191 In: 

Thomas R. Loughlin, editor, Marine mammals 

and the Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San 

Diego, CA. 395p. 

Wang, Katherine R., P. Michael Payne and 

Victoria G. Thayer (Compilers). 1994. Coastal 

stock(s) of Atlantic bottlenose dolphin: Status 

review and management. U.S. Depart. of 

Commerce, NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-OPR-4, 

121 pp. 

Waring, G. T. 1994. Spatial and temporal 

patterns in harbor seal entanglements on the 

Gulf of Maine sink gillnet fishery. ICES C.M. 

1994: 22 p. 

Williams, Terrie M., George A. Antonelis, and 

Jennifer Balke. 1994. 227-241 In: Thomas R. 

Loughlin, editor, Marine mammals and the 

Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

395p. 

Withrow, David E. and Robyn P. Angliss. 1994. 

Length frequency of the bowhead whale 

population from 1991 and 1992 spring aerial 

photogrammetric surveys. Report of the 

International Whaling Commission 44:343-346. 

York, Anne E. 1994. Estimates of survival of the 

1987 and 1988 cohorts of juvenile male 

northern fur seals tagged on St. Paul Island, 

Alaska, p. 13-34 In: Elizabeth H. Sinclair, editor, 

Fur seal investigations, 1993. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Seattle. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-46. 93p. 

York, Anne E. 1994. Appendix C - The JollySeber model for estimating survival rates of 

male northern fur seals from tag resights of 

juvenile males, p. 71-78 In: Elizabeth H. 

Sinclair, editor, Fur seal investigations, 1993. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-46. 93p. 

York, Anne E. 1994. The population dynamics of 

northern sea lions, 1975-1985. Marine Mammal 

Science 10(1):38-51. 

Page 106 
4 

Appendix A 
Appendix A 

Table A-1 

1994 List of Category I and Category II Fisheries 

FISHERY CATEGORY 

AK Prince William Sound - drift gillnet 

WA marine set gillnet in Areas 4, 4A, and 46 

CA set and drift gillnet fisheries (except the CA Klamath River 

gill net fishery) that utilize a stretched mesh size of ~3.5 inches 

AK Copper River and Bering River Districts salmon - drift 

WA and OR thresher shark and swordfish drift gillnet 

I I 

I 

I 

I I 

I 

Gulf of Maine Atlantic salmon aquaculture fishery 

AK Prince William Sound - set gillnet I I I 

II 

SNE, MDA Foreign mackerel - trawl 

Atlantic Ocean, CB, GMX tuna, swordfish, shark - pair trawl 

Atlantic Ocean, CB, GMX swordfish, tuna, shark - longline 

GME groundfish/mackerel - sink gillnet 

I 

I 

I 

I I 

I 

AK Yakutat - set gillnet I II 

AK South Unimak (False Pass and Unimak Pass) drift gillnet 

AK Peninsula (other than South Unimak) drift gillnet 

AK Southeast Alaska - drift gillnet 

II 

I I 

II 

AK Kodiak - set gillnet I II I 

AK Cook Inlet - drift gillnet 

AK Cook Inlet - set gillnet 

II 

I I 

AK Peninsula - set gillnet 

AK Peninsula - drift gillnet 

AK Bristol Bay - drift gillnet 

AK Bristol Bay - set gillnet 

WA Puget Sound Region, incl. Hood Canal, Strait of Juan de 

Fuca (estuaries and lower river areas subject to tidal action) - 

set and drift gillnet 

Page A-1 

II 

I I 

II 

I I 

I I 

WA coastal river - gillnet 

CA Klamath River - gillnet 

II 

I I 
Appendix A 

Table A-1 (cont'd) 

1994 List of Category I and Category I1 Fisheries 

FISHERY CATEGORY 

AK - gillnets (except salmon and herring) 

AK South Unimak (False Pass and Unimak Pass) - purse seine I I1 

I 

I I 

CA - gillnets for white sea bass, yellow tail, soupfin shark, white 

croaker, bonitolflying fish - set gillnet 

AK South Unimak (False Pass and Unimak Pass) - drift gillnet I I I 

I 

I 

I1 

WA, OR, CA salmon - troll I I 

CA herring - purse seine 

I 

I I 

CA anchovy, mackerel, tuna - purse seine 

I 

II 

CA sardine - purse seine 

AK Southern Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska I 

I 

I1 

CA squid - purse seine 

AK Prince William Sound - longlinelsetline 

(Unimak Pass and westward) - longline/setline 

I 

I 

II 

I I 

AK Metlakatla fish trap I I I 

CA squid -dip net I I 

WA, OR salmon - net pens 

I 

I1 

OR salmon - ranch 

I 

I I 

New England Multispecies - sink gillnet 

AK (except salmon, herring, and sunken gillnets for groundfish) 

- aillnet 

I 

I 

Gulf of Maine small pelagics - surface gillnet 

Mid-Atlantic (includes Atl.crkr, mack, sturg., herring, perch 

wkfish, strped bass, etc.) - coastal gillnet 

I 

I 

I I 

Page A-2 

AK groundfish -sunken gillnet 

Atlantic, CB, GMX swordfish, tuna, shark - gillnet 

SNE, MDA Atlantic mackerel - trawl 

I1 

I 

I1 
Appendix B i 
APPENDIX 8: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data -All Years 

Appendix B 

I I Marine Mammal I Observed I Total Estimated I Kill Rate I Kill Rate I Observer I Kill 1 Fishery / Year, / Species I Kills I Observed Effort ( (/day) 1 (RO days) I Coverage 1 (variance) / Variation 

PROGRAMS 

TOTAL 

Pilot whale 

I ATLANTIC OCEAN ( - SERVE 

1990 

1991 

- 

1990 

656 days N.A* 

N.A. 

Foreign and Joint 

Venture 

Squidhlackerel 

Trawl (01) 

Common dolphin 

Foreign'and Joint 

Venture 

SquidMackereI 

Trawl (01) 

Atlantic whiisided 

dolphin 

TOTAL 284 days 

Pilot whale 

Common dolphin 

Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin 

TOTAL 

Harbor porpoise 

New England 

Multispecies Sink 

Gillnet (02) 

188 days 

(647 sets) 

Harbor seal 

Page B-1 



APPENDIX 6: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Appendix B 

Fisherv 

Atlantic Swordfish 

Drift Gillnet (39) 

Atlantic Swordfish 

Drift Gillnet (39) 

Marine Mammal 

Species 

TOTAL 

Common dolphin 

Bottlenose dolphin 

Pilot whale 

Beakd whale 

Risso's dolphin 

Striped dolphin 

TOTAL 

Common dolphin 

Risso's dolphin 

Pilot whale 

Bottlenose dolphin 

Spotted dolphin 

Beaked whale 

Spinner dolphin 

Federal Observer Program Data - All Years 

Observed - Kills 

72 

- 

55 

5 

4 

3 

3 

1 

153 

- 

97 

16 

14 

12 

12 

I 

1 

Observed Effort 

80 days 

(46 sets) 

171 days 

(93 sets)* 

Kill Rate - (/day) 

1.56lset 

Kill Rate - 00 days) 

31.31set 

23.8lset 

2.171set 

I .-//set 

1.3lset 

1.3lset 

0.4lset 

32.9lset 

20.2Jset 

3.4lset 

3.3lset 

2.5lset 

2.5lset 

0.21set 

0.2Iset 

Observer - Coverage 

21 % 

Total Estimated 

Kill - (variance) 

323 (7360) 

- 

223 (6445) 

26 (131) 

30 (520) 

13 (55) 

21 (133) 

10 (76) 

350 (2336) 

- 

227 (2061) 

31 (70) 

33 (92) 

28 (35) 

20 (49) 

I0 (28) 

I (1) 

Coeff. 

Variation - 

0.27 

- 

0.36 

0.44 

0.76 

0.57 

0.55 

0.87 

0.14 

- 

0.20 

0.27 

0.29 

0.21 

0.35 

0.53 

0.61 

Page 8-5 
APPENDIX B: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data - All Years 

Appendix B 

I I Striped dolphin 

Fishery 

Atlantic Swordfish 

Drift Gillnet (39) 

I I Pilot whale I I Boffltinose dolphin 

Year 

1993 

Atlantic white-sided I I dolphin 

Marine Mammal 

Species 

TOTAL 

Common dolphin 

I I Harbor porpoise 

I I Rissok dolphin 

I I Humpback whale 

Observed 

134 days 

(86 sets) 

- 

Kill Rate 

Way) 

1.76lset 

- 

1.29lset 

Total Estimated 

Kill - (variance) 

345 (1662) 

- 

238 (1 450) 

21 (18) 

31 (111) 

22 (30) 

3 (1) 

12 (15) 

2 (1) 

14 (35) 

2 (1) 

Coeff. - Variation 

0.12 

- 

0.16 

0.20 

0.34 

0.25 

0.32 

0.32 

0.45 

0.42 

0.45 

Page B-6 
Appendix B 

APPENDIX 6: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Fishery 

Atlantic Swordfish 

Drift Gillnet (Called 

'The pelagic 

swordfish, tuna, and 

shark drift gillnet 

fishery' in the EA) 

AVERAGE 

Atlantic Tuna 

Pelagic Pair Trawl 

- Year 

1989- 

1993 

1992 

Marine Mammal - Species 

Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin 

Beaked whale 

Bofflenose dol~hinoffshore stock' 

Common dolphin 

Harbor porpoise 

Humpback whale 

Pilot whale 

Risso's dolphin 

Spinner dolphin 

Spotted dolphin 

Striped dolphin 

Unid. dolphin 

TOTAL 

Common dolphin 

Bofflenose dolphin 

Risso's dolphin 

Federal Observer Program Data - All Years 

Observed - Kills - Observed Effort 

67 days 

(48 tows) 

Kill Rate Observer - Coverage 

14% 

Total Estimated 

Kill - (variance) 

Coeff. - Variation 

Page 8-7 
Appendix B 

APPENDIX B: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data - A# Years 

- Year 

1993 

1992- 

1993 

Obsewer - Coverage 

41 % 

Total Estimated 

Kill - (variance) 

Marine Mammal Observed - Kills 

28 

- 

6 

17 

Kill Rate - (QO days) 

3.7 

- 

0.78 

2.26 

Coeff. - Variation 

0.32 

- 

0.43 

0.41 

- Observed Effort 

Atlantic Tuna 

Pelagic Pair Trawl 

TOTAL 151 days 

(1 03 tows) 

Common dolphin 

Bottlenose dolphin 

Atlantic Tuna Common dolphin 

Pelagic Pair Trawl 

Bottlenose dolphin 

Risso's dolphin 

Atlantic Swordfish 

Longline 

(used data provided 

by the Southeast 

Region) 

TOTAL' 

Pilot whale 

TOTAL' 

Risso's dolphin 

52 (CI 32-83) 

13 (CI 8-21) 

N.A. 

N.A. 

329 days 

(161 sets) 

Atlantic Swordfish 890 days 

Longline 

(used data provided 

by the Southeast 

Region) 

Atlantic Swordfish 

Longline 

Pilot whale 

Risso's dolphin 11 AVERAGE 

Page 6-8 
APPENDIX 6: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data - All Years 

- Year 

1990 

- 

1991 

Observer - Coverage 

<I % 

Total Estimated 

Marine Mammal Observed Coeff. 

Species Kills Observed Effort 

Kid Rate 1 Kill Rate 

11 Fisherv (/day) I (QO days) 

I 

TOTAL 1 453 days 

- (1 395 sets) 

Pilot whale 1 

TOTAL 3 764 days 

- (2408 sets) 

Bottlenose dolphin 1 

Striped dolphin ! 2 ! 

TOTAL 721 days 

(1 955 sets) 

Atlantic M~te sided 

No observed kills in 415 days 

1993 (1 143 tows) 

N. Atlantic Otter 

Trawl 

N. Atlantic Otter 

Trawl 

AVERAGE 

S. AtiantidGulf of 

Mexico Swordfish 

Longline 

Atlantic white sided 

dolphin I 

Bottlenose dolphin - 

coastal stock 

Pilot whale I I 

Striped dolphin I I 

I I 

N.A N.A I 171 sets 

Page B-9 
APPENDIX B: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data - All Years 

Appendix B 

Fishery 

S. Atiantic/Guf of 

Mexico Swordfish 

Longline 

Mid-Atlantic Coastal 

I 

Gillnet 

I PACIFIC OCEAN OBSERVER PROGRAMS 

Year 

1993 

1993 

Prince William 

Sound Salmon Drift 

Gillnet (06) 

Prince William 

Sound Salmon Drift 

Gillnet (06) 

Marine Mammal 

Species 

N.A. 

N.A. 

Harbor porpoise 

Steller sea lion 

Harbor seal 

Unid. porpoise 

1990 

1991 

N.A. 

N.A. 

Observed 

Kills 

N .A. 

N.A. 

TOTAL 

Harbor seal 

Harbor porpoise 

TOTAL 

Page 6-1 0 

Kill Rate 

(/day) 

N.A 

N.A 

Observed Effort 

295 sets 

(days?) 

N .A. 

3 

- 

2 

1 

7 

Kill Rate 

(I20 days) 

N.A. 

N.A. 

3166 sets 

5875 sets 

Observer 

Coverage 

N.A. 

N.A 

Total Estimated 

Kill 

(variance) 

N.A. 

N.A. 

Coeff. 

Variation 

N.A. 

N.A. 
II Fishery 

I Year 

I 

Prince William 1990- 

Sound Salmon Drift 1991 

Gillnet 

APPENDIX B: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data - All Years 

Marine Mammal I Observed 

Species I K~IIS 

I 

Harbor porpoise I 

Harbor seal - 

GOABS stock I 

Steller sea lion 

No mortalities 

observed 

TOTAL 

Dall's porpoise 

TOTAL 

Steller sea lion 

Dall's porpoise 

Ringed seal 

Kill Rate I Kill Rate I Observer 

302 hours of 

159 sets 

N.A. 

373 sets 

Appendix B 

Total Estimated 

Coeff. 

(variance) Variation 

Page B-11 
APPENDIX B: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Appendii B 

Fishery year 

Bering Sea 

Groundfish Trawl 

(14) 

Marine Mammal 

TOTAL 

Steller sea lion 

Dall's porpoise 

Northern elephant 

seal 

Ribbon seal 

Harbor seal 

Unid. cetacean 

Federal Observer Program Data - All Yeati 

I Total Estimated 

Observed - Kills 

23 

- 

13 

6 

1 

1 

1 

1 

- Observed Effort 

11026 

11026 

1 1026 

11026 

1 1 026 

11026 

1 1026 

Kill Rate Kill Rate - (120 days) 

0.042 

0.024 

0.01 1 

0.002 

0.002 

0.002 

0.002 

Coeff. - Variation 

0.15 

- 

0.24 

0.27 

0.51 

0.59 

0.51 

Observer 

Coverage 

Page 8-12 

Kill 

(variance) 

Appendii B 

APPENDIX B: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data - All Years 

Fisherv 

Bering Sea 

Groundfish Trawl 

(14) 

Bering Sea 

Groundfish 

Trawl (14) 

Marine Mammal - Species 

TOTAL 

Steller sea lion 

Walrus 

Northern fur seal 

Dall's porpoise 

Killer whale 

Harbor seal 

Ringed seal 

Unid. cetacean 

Unid. pinniped 

TOTAL 

Steller sea lion 

Walrus 

Northern fur seal 

Dall's porpoise 

Killer whale 

Unid. cetacean 

Observed - Kills 

36 

- Observed Effort 

12697 

12697 

12697 

12697 

12697 

12697 

12697 

12697 

12697 

12697 

10332 

10332 

10332 

lo332 

lo332 

10332 

10332 

Kill Rate Kill Rate 

7 

(no days) 

0.057 

0.024 

0.008 

0.006 

0.008 

0.002 

0.003 

0.003 

0.002 

0.002 

0.029 

0.008 

0.008 

0.002 

0.008 

0.002 

0.002 

Observer - Coverage 

63% 

63% 

63% 

63% 

63% 

63% 

63% 

63% 

63% 

63% 

66% 

66% 

66% 

66% 

66% 

66% 

66% 

Total Estimated 

Kin - (variance) 

48 (30) 

- 

21 (14) 

Coeff. - Variation 

0.1 1 

Page 8-14 
APPENDIX 6: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data -All Years 

I I Marine Mammal I Observed 

Bering Sea 

Groundfish Trawl 

AVERAGE 

Bearded seal 

Dall's porpoiseBering Sea Stock 

Harbor seal - 

GONBS stock 

Killer whale 

N. fur seal 

Ribbon seal 

Ringed seal 

Steller sea lion 

Walrus 

Unid. pinniped 

Unid. cetacean 

Gulf of Alaska 1989 TOTAL 0.00 

Groundtish Trawl 

Gulf of Alaska 1990 TOTAL 

Groundtish Trawl 

Steller sea lion 

11 I I Northern elephant I 1 

- - 

Observed Effort 

Observer - Coverage 

Appendi B 

Total Estimated 

Kill - (variance) 

1.2 

Coeff. - Variation 

Page 8-15 
I Gulf of Alaska 

Groundfish Trawl 

.Gulf of Alaska 

Groundfish Trawl 

Gulf of Alaska 

Groundfish Trawl 

Gulf of Alaska 

Groundtish Trawl 

AVERAGE 

Bering SedGuIf of 

Alaska Domestic 

Groundfish Longline 

- Year 

1991 

APPENDIX 8: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data -All Years 

Marine Mammal Observed 

Species Kills Observed Effort 

TOTAL 1 2566 

- 

Harbor seal 1 2566 

TOTAL 1 2544 

- 

Harbor seal 1 2544 

TOTAL 

SteUer sea lion 

Dall's porpoise I 1 2152 

Unid. pinniped I 1 I 21 52 

Dall's porpoise - 

Bering Sea stock 

Harbor seal - 

GOAlBS stock 

N. elephant seal 

Steller sea lion 

Unid. pinniped 

TOTAL 

Observer - Coverage 

38% 

38% 

41 % 

41 % 

37% 

37% 

37% 

37% 

Total Estimated 

Kill 

(variance) 

3 (4) 

- 

3 (4) 

2 (3) 

- 

2 (3) 

5 (9) 

- 

3 (5) 

Page El6 

Coeff. 

Variation 

0.79 

- 

0.79 

0.77 

- 

on 

0.56 

- 

0.80 

N.A. N.A. 
- Fishery 

Bering SedGulf of 

Alaska Domestic 

Groundfish Longline 

Bering SealGulf of 

Alaska Domestic 

Grouridfish Longline 

Bering SeaJGulf of 

Alaska Domestic 

Groundfish Longline 

Bering SeaJGulf of 

Alaska Domestic 

Groundfish Longline 

APPENDIX B: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data - All Years 

Appendix B 

I Marine Mammal 

lggO I TOTAL 

Steller sea lion 

Year 

Northern elephant 

Species 

1992 

Northern elephant I seal 

TOTAL 

1993 

Harbor seal - 

GOAIBering Sea 

stock 

- -- 

TOTAL 

Steller sea lion 

0 bserved - Kills 

2 

- 

1 

1 

Kill Rate Kill Rate 

Observed Effort (/day) (DO days) 

Total Estimated 

Observer 

55% N.A. 

Coeff. - Variation 

0.52 

- 

0.74 

0.74 

N.A. 

N.A. 

0.87 

- 

N.A. 

N.A. 

0.87 

Page 6-1 7 
Appendix B 

APPENDIX B: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data - All Years 

Fishery 

Groundfish Pots 

Bering SedGul of 

Alaska Domestic 

Groundfish Longline 

AVERAGE 

Bering SedGulf of 

Alaska Domestic 

11 Bering SedGul of 1 1991 1 TOTAL 624 

Alaska Domestic 1" 1 

I I 

Year 

1989- 

1993 

1990 

H I I Harbor seal 1 1 (0) 1 1442 

Marine Mammal 

Species 

Groundfish Pots 

Bering SedGul of 

Alaska Domestic 

Groundfish Pots 

Harbor seal - 

GOAlBering Sea 

Steller sea lion 

N. elephant seal 

TOTAL 

I Total Estimated 

Observed Kill Rate Kill Rate I Observer I Kill I Coeff. 

Kills 

1992 

(/day) I (I20 days) I Coverage I (variance) Observed Effort I Variation 

0 

- 

I 

Page 518 

353 

TOTAL 

Sea otter 

Bering SealGulf of TOTAL 

Alaska Domestic 

Groundfish Pots 

1993 

9 (8) - 

8 (8) 

0.00 

1442 

1442 

298 
Appendix B 

APPENDIX B: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data -All Years 

- Year 

1989- 

1993 

I I Total Estimated I Fishery 

Marine Mammal Observed - Kills 

Kill Rate Observer Kill 

(DO days) Coverage (variance) 

I 5 

Coeff. - Species Observed Effort - Variation 

Bering SealGulf of 

Alaska Domestic 

Groundfish Pots 

Harbor seal - 

GOAlBering Sea 

Sea otter 

Washington, 

Oregon and 

California Domestic 

Groundfish Trawl 

TOTAL N.A. 

Washington, 

Oregon and 

California Domestic 

Groundfish Trawl 

TOTAL 

Unid. pinniped 

TOTAL 

Dall's porpoise 

Washington, 

Oregon and 

California Domestic 

Groundtish Trawl 

Washington, 

Oregon and 

California Domestic 

Groundfish Trawl 

TOTAL 

- 

N.A. 

Page 8-19 
Appendii B 

APPENDIX B: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data - All Years 

- Year 

1990- 

1993 

Total Estimated 

Kin - (variance) 

Marine Mammal 

Sbecies 

Coeff. 

Variation - Observer - Coverage 

Washington, 

Oregon and 

California Domestic 

Groundfish Trawl 

Dall's porpoise 

Unid. pinniped 

11 AVERAGE 

Bering Sea/Gulf of 

Alaska JointVenture Groundfish 

TOTAL 

Stdler sea lion 

Northern fur seal 

Harbor seal 

Minke whale 

TOTAL 

Walrus 

Bering SealGulf of 

Alaska JointVenture Groundfish 

TOTAL 

Dall's porpoise 

Washington, 

Oregon and 

California JointVenture Groundfish 

Page 520 
Appendi B 

APPENDIX B: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data - All Years 

Total Estimated 

Kill - (variance) 

2 (1) 

Marine Mammal - Species 

TOTAL 

Dall's porpoise 

Pacific whiisided 

dolphin 

Observed - Kills 

13 

- 

3 

8 

2 

30 

Kill Rate - (no days) 

0.1 55 

0.036 

0.096 

0.024 

1.7 

Observer - Coverage 

62X 

62% 

62% 

62% 

27% 

Coeff. - Variation 

0.61 

- 

0.61 

N.A 

N.A 

- ObSe~ed Effort 

Washington, 1,673 

Oregon and 

California JointVenture Groundfish 

Trawl N.A. 

Unid. cetacean 

WA Makah (Areas TOTAL 

4,4A,4B) Salmon 

Set Gillnet (09) 

361 net days3 

Harbor porpoise 

Harbor seal 

Sea otter 

TOTAL 

Harbor porpoise 

WA Makah (Areas 

4,4A,4B) Salmon 

Set Gillnet (09) 

264 net days3 

Harbor seal 

Gray whale 

TOTAL 

Harbor porpoise 

WA Makah (Areas 

4,4A,4B) Salmon 

Set Gillnet (09) 

238 net days3 

Harbor seal 

Page B-21 
APPENDIX B: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Appendix B 

Federal Observer Program Data -All Years 

I Total Tated 

Kill Rate 0 bsenrer I Coeff. I Observed Effort way) Marine Mammal 

S~ecies 

Observed - Kills 

10 

11 Fisherv I year Coverage (variance) Variation - - 1 iA 

4,4A,48) 

Makah 

Salmon 

(Areas -r 

Set Gillnet (09) 

TOTAL 264 net days3 

Harbor porpoise 

( WA Maka; (A: 1993 N.A. 

4,4A,48) Salmon 

Set Gillnet 09 

Gray whale 

Harbor porpoise - 

WNOR stock 

WA Makah (Areas 

4,4448) Salmon 

Set Gillnet 

AVERAGE 

J 

Harbor seal - 

WAlOR stock 

1989- 

1993 

Sea otte 

r 

Page 6-22 
Appendii B 

APPENDIX B: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data - All Years 

- Fishery 

Columbia River, 

Willapa Bay, Gray's 

Harbor Drift Gillnet 

(10) 

Columbia River, 

Willapa Bay, Gray's 

Harbor Drift Gillnet 

(10) 

- Year 

1991 

Marine Mammal - Species 

TOTAL ---- 

Columbia River: 

Harbor seal 

California sea lion 

Willapa Bay: 

No mortalities 

Grays Harbor: 

No mortalities 

TOTAL 

Columbia Riier: 

Harbor seal 

Califomia sea lion 

Willapa Bay: 

No mortalities 

Grays Harbor: 

Harbor seal 

Observed - Kills 

10 

- 

9 

I 

N. A 

N. A. 

19 

- 

IS 

3 

N.A 

1 

- Observed Effort 

3432 sets 

(2,582 sets) 

(752 sets) 

(98 sets) 

2428 sets 

1545 sets 

576 sets 

307 sets 

Kill Rate - (/day) 

- 

0.002 - 0.027 

0.0009 

(kt) 

Observer - Coverage 

3.8% 

- 

4.7% 

2.5% 

4.5% 

Total Estimated 

Kill - (variance) 

249 ( ) - 

249 

233 ( 

16 () 

Coeff. - Variation 

0.37-0.9 

1 .o 

Page 523 
Appendix B 

APPENDIX 6: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data - All Years 

Page B-24 

Total Estimated 

Kifl 

(variance) 

N.A. 

22 

21 1 

0.33 

Observer 

Coverage 

N.A. 

Coeff. 

Variation 

N.A. 

Kill Rate 

(RO days) 

N.A 

Fishery 

Columbia River, 

Willapa Bay, Gray's 

Harbor Drift Gillnet 

(1 0) 

Columbia River drift 

gillnet 

Willapa Bay drift 

 illn net 

Observed Effort 

N.A 

Year 

1993 

1990- 

1992 

1990- 

1992 

Kill Rate 

(/day) 

N.A. 

Marine Mammal 

Species 

N.A. 

California sea lion 

Harbor seal - 

WNOR stock 

Harbor seal - 

WNOR stock 

0 bserved 

Kills 

N.A. 

Appendix B 

APPENDIX B: NationabMarine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Fishery 

L 

WA, OR, CA 

Thresher Shark and 

Swordfish Drift 

Gillnet (1 1 ) 

Marine Mammal - Species 

TOTAL 

Common dolphin 

Northern elephant 

seal 

Northern right whale 

dolphin 

Pacific white-sided 

dolphin 

Rio's dolphin 

California sea lion 

Dall's porpoise 

Unid. sea lion 

Unid. cetacean 

Federal Observer Program Data - All Years 

Observed - Kills 

82 

- 

44 

13 

7 

5 

5 

4 

2 

1 

1 

- Observed Effort 

470 days 

(470 sets) 

Kill Rate - (/day) 

Observer 

Coverage - 

9.9% 

Total Estimated 

Kill - (variance) 

809 (1 13.1 SER) 

Page 526 

APPENDIX B: National Marine Fisheries Sewice Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data -Ail Years 

I I Total Estimated I . I Marine Mammal I Observed I Kill Rate I KiNRate Observer I KI 

Fishery ( Year I Species I Kills ( Observed Effort I (/day) I (/2O days) I Coverage I (variance) 1 Variation 

Page 528 

WA, OR, CA 

Thresher Shark and 

Swordfish Drift 

Gillnet (1 1 ) 

1992, 

cont 

Unid. cetacean 

Unid. delphind 

1 

1 

0.002 

0.002 

8 (7.OSE) 

8 (7.1 SE) 

0.88 

0.89 


APPENDIX B: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Appendix B 

- Fishery 

CA Halibut and 

Angel Shark Set 

Gillnet (1 2/13) 

CA Halibut and 

Angel Shark Set 

Gillnet (1 2/13) 

- Year 

1990 

1991 

Marine Mammal 

Soecies 

TOTAL ' 

California sea lion 

Harbor seal 

Northern elephant 

seal 

Harbor porpoise 

Sea otter 

Unid. pinniped 

Unid. sea lion 

TOTAL 

California sea lion 

Harbor seal 

Northern elephant 

seal 

Harbor porpoise 

Unid. sea lion 

Unid. pinniped 

Federal Observer Program Data - All Years 

Observed - Kills 

121 

- 

67 

30 

13 

5 

3 

2 

1 

203 

- Observed Effort 

139 days 

706 days 

(22 1 5 sets) 

Kill Rate - (/day) 

0.871 

- 

0.482 

0.216 

0.094 

0.036 

0.022 

0.014 

0.007 

0.288 

- 

0.203 

0.061 

0.004 

0.007 

0.008 

0.004 

Observer - Coverage 

4% 

Total Estimated 

Kill 

I 

(variance) 

3808 ( ) 

- 

2652 ( ) 

865 ( 

182 ( 

84 ( ) 

- 

- 

- 

2501 (300SE) 

- 

I865 (271 SE) 

571 (126SE) 

27 (15.2SE) 

38 (18.3SE) 

- 

Coeff. - Variation 

0.11 

- 

0.14 

0.17 

0.36 

0.43 

- 

Page 531 
APPENDIX 8: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data - All Years 

- Year 

1992 

Total Estimated 

Kill - (variance) 

4623 (979.4SE) 

- 

3255 (878.9SE) 

11 36 (486.4SE) 

51 (17.8SE) 

44 (20.6SE) 

59 (25.6SE) 

17 (1 1.4SE) 

7 (6.8SE) 

63 (21.9SE) 

Marine Mammal I Observed Coeff. - Variation 

0.21 

Kill Rate Kill Rate Observer 

SDecies I Kills - Observed Effort - Coverage 

CA Halibut and 697 

Angd Shark Set 

Gillnet (1 211 3) 

TOTAL 

California sea lion 

Northern elephant 

seal 

Harbor seal 1 

Harbor porpoise 

90 

Unid. pinniped 

Common dolphin 

Unid. cetacean 

Unid. sea lion 

CA Halibut and TOTAL 

Angel Shark Set 

Gillnet (1 211 3) California sea lion 

Harbor seal 1 71 

Northern elephant 

seal I l1 

Harbor porpoise 1 2 

Unid. pinniped I 

Page 532 

Appendix B 

APPENDIX B: National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program 

Federal Observer Program Data -All Years 

N.A. = not available at this time 

.+ For this fisherylspecies interaction, the values provided afor the total estimated kill, the variance of the total estimated kill, and the coefficient of variation for the total estimated kill 

are preliminary and likely to be revised in February 1995 when final stock assessment analyses are complete. The preliminary total kill estimates represent extrapolated values using 

unstratified fishing effort and hence may be higher than estimates more properly derived using stratitied effort The statistical reliability of the preliminayr estimates are lower than indicated 

by their variances because the variance calculations do not include all relevant sources of variability. 

.. Alternate estimates: Observed Kills: 155; Observed Effort: 172 observer days. Credle, VR et al., 1994. NMFS Observer Programs: Minutes and recommendationas from a 

workshop held in Galveston, Texas, November 10-1 1, 1993. 

... SE = Standard error 

+ When animals caught and released alive are added to the number of lethal takes, the resulting total estimated takes for 1992 and 1993 are as follows: 

1992 - Pilot whale, 12 observed, 302 total take; Risso's dolphin, 3 observed, 76 total take; common dolphin, 1 observed, 25 total take; Unidentified dolphin, 

1 observed, 25 total take 

1993 - Pilot whale, 16 observed, 263 total take; Risso's dolphin, 3 observed, 49 total take; bottlenose dolphin, 2 observed, 33 total take; Atiantic spotted dolphin, 

1 observed, 16 total take 

t Variance expressed as the 95% confidence interval around the total estimated kill. 

++ In the future, mortality of some species will be affected by California Proposition 132, implemented 1/94, which prohibits set gillnet fishing within three miles of the mainland 

from Pt. Arguello south to the U.S.-Mexico border. 

la: ALSO INCLUDES AREA 3 1 b: ALSO INCLUDES AREA 3 AND 5 

2: ONE NET DAY = ONE 100 FATHOM NET SET FOR A 24 HOUR PERIOD 

Page 534 
Appendix C 
Appendix C. Estimates of Total Incidental Dolphin Mortality for U.S. and Foreign Purse Seine Vessels in the 

Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, 1971-1 994 

U.S. 

Vessels' 

1 24 

127 

133 

135 

1 42 

155 

142 

101 

93 

89 

94 

89 

60 

34 

36 

34 

34 

37 

29 

29 

13 

7 

7 

7 

Foreign 

Vessels' 

48 

58 

68 

77 

82 

94 

104 

121 

121 

132 

11 8 

97 

99 

9 1 

105 

101 

126 

95 

93 

94 

90 

90 

89 

75 

'Data from Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 

'Data from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

Foreign 

Kill3 

1 5,715 

55,078 

58,276 

27,245 

27,812 

1 9,482 

25,901 

11,147 

3,488 

16,665 

7,199 

5,837 

4,980 

22,980 

39,642 

1 12,482 

85,195 

59,215 

84,336 

47,448 

26,288 

15,108 

3,486 

3,989 

3 Derived by subtracting U.S. data from IATTC total mortality estimates of sets made on dolphin during theperiod. 

'Data for 1971-78 from NMFS; data after 1978 from IATTC using MPS method. 
Appendix D 
Appendix D 

Table D-1 

Summary of Permit Applications 

January 1,1994 to December 31,1994 

Totals 

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS 31 

SUBMITTED 

Scientific 

Research 

26 

No. of Animals Requested (Total) 2,495,575 ( 50 I 0 2,495,625 

ACTION TAKEN ON APPLICATIONS: 

Public 

Display 

5 

No. Forwarded to Marine 

Mammal Commission 

No. Reviewed by Marine 

Mammal Commission 

No. Withdrawn 

No. Referred to Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

No. Referred to States 

Scientific 

Research & 

Public 

Display 

0 

OF THESE: 

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 

No. Referred to Regions 

No. Resolved through 

No. Returned 

No. Pending 

Taken by Killing 

Taken and Kept Alive 

Killed in Captivity 

Taken and Released 

Found Dead 

Stranded~Exchanged 

Imports 

Harass 

I I I I 

No. Denied 

No. Approved 

Page D-1 

25 

25 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

17,896 

0 

34 

0 

2,477,645 

4 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

24 

29 

29 

1 

0 

0 

0 

I1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

12 

0 

38 

1 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

13 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

17,896 

0 

46 

0 

2,477,683 

- -- - 

1 

28 
Appendix D 

Table D-1 (cont'd) 

Summary of Permit Applications 

January 1,1994 to December 31,1994 

I I Scientific I I 

/ OFTHESE: I 

NO. OF ANIMALS APPROVED 

Page D-2 

: 

Scientific 

Research 

1,092,738 

Taken by Killing 

Taken and Kept Alive 

Killed in Captivity 

Taken and Released 

Found Dead 

StrandedExchanged 

Imports 

Harass 

Public 

Display 

5 

0 

0 

0 

17,716 

0 

12 

0 

1,075,010 

Research 8 

Public 

Display 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

Totals 

1,092,743 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

17,716 

0 

17 

0 

1,075,010 
Appendix D 

Table D-2 

Number of Cetaceans in Scientific ResearchlPublic Display Permit Requests 

January 1,1994 to December 31,1994 

Page D-3 
Appendix D 

Table 0-2 (cont'd) 

Number of Cetaceans in Scientific ResearchlPublic Display Permit Requests 

January 1,1994 to December 31,1994 - 

Taken 1 

Imported 

and Kept 

Alive 

Lagenorhynchine Dolphin 0 ! 15 0 I I 

Killer Whale 

Tagged or 

Taken and 

Released 

Found 

Dead 1 

Stranded 

I I 

0 

Long-finned Pilot Whale 

15 0 

Melon-Headed Whale 

Minke Whale 

Page D-4 

0 

Northern Right Whale Dolphin 

Pacific White-sided Dolphin 

Pygmy Killer Whale 

Pygmy Sperm Whale 

Risso's Dolphin, Grampus 

Rough-Toothed Dolphin 

Sei Whale 

Short-Finned Pilot Whale 

Southern Right Whale Dolphin 

Spectacled Porpoise 

Sperm Whale 

Spinner Dolphin 

Stenelline Dolphin 

Striped Dolphin, Streaker 

Chinese River Dolphin 

White Whale, Beluga 

TOTAL 

0 

0 

15 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

15 

15 

0 

0 

15 

1 5" 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

20 

91 1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
Appendix D 

Table D-3 

Number of Pinnipeds in Scientific ResearchlPublic Display Pennit Requests 

January 1,1994 to December 31,1994 

Taken I 

Imported 

and Kept 

Alive 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

' 

Page D-5 

Tagged or 

Taken and 

Released 

20 

2540 

14,540 

California Sea Lion 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Pacific Harbor Seal 

TOTAL 

Taken By 

Killing 

0 

0 

0 

0 

20 

Found 

Dead1 

Stranded 

5 

0 

10 

Total 

Requested 

25 

2540 

14,540 
Appendix D 

Table D4 

Number of Cetaceans Authorized in Scientific ResearchlPublic Display Permits 

January 1,1994 to December 31,1994 

Atlantic HumpBacked Dolphin 

Northern Right Whale 

Blue Whale 

I 

TakenAmported 

and Kept Alive 

0 

0 

0 

Bottlenose Dolphin 0 1 15 0. 15 I I I I 

I Dall's Porpoise 0 15 0 ! 15 I I I 

Boto, Amazon River Dolphin 

Commerson's Dolphin 

Cuvier's Beaked Whale 

Tagged or Taken 

and Released 

15 

16 

1 50 

I I I 

0 

0 

0 

I 

Found Dead1 

Stranded 

0 

0 

0 

False Killer Whale 

Finback Whale 

I Fraser's (Sarawak) Dolphin 0 ! 15 0 15 

~ - 

Total Requested 

15 

16 

150 

15 

15 

15 

Dwarf Sperm Whale 

I 

Ganges River Dolphin 1 0 1 15 I 0 I 15 

0 I 15 

0 

0 

Finless Porpoise 0 15 1 0 15 

0 

0 

I 1 

0 

15 

15 

15 I 0 15 

15 

15 

Gray Whale 

Harbor Porpoise 

Humpback Whale 

Indus River Dolphin 

lrrawaddy Dolphin 

I Lagenorhynchine Dolphin 0 1 15 0 1 15 I 

0 

0 

I I I 

0 15 

Killer Whale 

Melon-Headed Whale 1 0 1 15 1 0 15 I 

15 

15 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

I I 

0 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

Minke Whale 

Northern Right Whale Dolphin 

15 

Pacific White-Sided Dolphin 

Page D-6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Pygmy Killer Whale 

Risso's Dolphin, Grampus 

15 

15 

15 

15 

0 

I I I 

0 15 

15 

15 

15 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

0 

0 

15 

15 
Appendix D 

Table D-4 (cont.) 

Number of Cetaceans Authorized in Scientific ResearchlPublic Display Permits 

January 1,1994 to December 31,1994 

Page D-7 

Rough-Toothed Dolphin 

Sei Whale 

Short-Finned Pilot Whale 

Southern Rigght Whale Dolphin 

Spectacled Porpoise 

Sperm Whale 

,Spinner Dolphin 

Stenelline Dolphin 

Takenllmported 

and Kept Alive 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Tagged or Taken 

and Released 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

.Striped Dolphin, Streaker 15 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Chinese River Dolphin 

White Whale, Beluga 

TOTAL 

15 

15 

15 

15 

706 

Found Dead1 

Stranded 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Total Requested 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

0 

0 

0 

15 

15 

706 
Appendix D 

Table D5 

Number of Pinnipeds Authorized in Scientific ResearchlPublic Display Pennits 

January 1,1994 to December 31,1994 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 

Pacific Harbor Seal 

TOTAL 

California Sea Lion 

Taken By 

Killing 

0 

Page D-8 

Ta ken1 

Imported 

and Kept 

Alive 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Tagged or 

Taken and 

Released 

0 

2540 

14,520 

0 

17,060 

Found 

Dead1 

Stranded 

5 

0 

0 

12 

17 

Total 

Requested 

5 

2540 

14,520 

12 

17,077 

Appendix E 

Table E-1 

Marine Mammal Strandings in 1994 

Species 

,Beaked Whale 

Blainville Beaked Whale 

Cuvier's Beaked Whale 

Gervais' Beaked Whale 

Atlantic White-si 

Page E-1 
Appendix E 

Table E-I (cont'd) 

Marine Mammal Strandings in 1994 

1 Page E-2 
Appendix E 

Table E-1 (cont'd) 

Marine Mammal Strandings in 1994 

I I 

TOTAL MARINE 459 969 1622 251 27 1 

MAMMALS 

Page E-3