Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 rotection Act of 1972

Annual R Annual Report

January 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998 y 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972


Annual Report


January 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998


Prepared by 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Protected Resources 
 Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 rotection Act of 1972

Annual R Annual Report

January 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998 y 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972


Annual Report


January 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998


Prepared by 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Protected Resources 

Editor: Nicole R. Le Boeuf 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

1 3 1 5 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring,, MD 2091 0 

THE DIRECTOR 

The Honorable Jclhn McCain 

Chairman, Commi1:tee on Commerce, 

Science, and Tri2.nsportation 

United States Sts!na.te 

Washingt.on, D. C . 210510 

Dear (Zhaiirman NcCain : 

I am pleased to submit to you the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) ,knn.ual Report regarding the administration of the 

Marine Mammal E):r:.otection Act (MMPA) from Janua.ry 1, 1998 to 

December 31, 131518, as required by section 103 (f) of the MMPA. 

The report addr~asses the conservation, management, and research 

activities conducted by NMFS for the benefit of marine mammals, 

including whales, dolphins, and porpoise of the order Cetacea and 

seals and sea I.j..ons of the suborder Pinnipedia. 

Enclosure 

THE ASSI!;TANT ADMINISTRATOR 

FOR FISHERIES 
The Honorab1l eTh:)n 'Young 

Chairman, Commi. t:tee on Resources 

House of Repres~z?nt:ativc?s 

Washington, D.CI. 120515 

. 

%TES OF 

Dear Clhai rman k'1:)ung : 

,.,...  .... . .. ..... -- . ....  1 3 1 !j East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 2091 0 

THE DIRECTOR 

I am pleased to submit to you the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (JXDTFS) Annual Report regarding the administration of the 

Marine Mamrr~al E)t-otection Act (MMPA) from January 1, 1998 to 

December 31, 1998, as required by section 103 (f) of the MMPA. 

The report addx-~?s:ses the conservation, management, and research 

ac tivj. t 1-es conduc ted by NMFS for the benefit of marine mammals, 

inclucling whale:;, dolphins, and porpoise of the order Cetacea and 

seals and sea I-:~-ons of the suborder Pinnipedia. 

Enclosure 

THE ASSISTANT AUMINISTRATOR 

FOR FIBtiERIES 
 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Table of Contents able of Contents

Chapter I. Introduction......................................................................................1

Chapter II. Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Program..............................3

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

Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports.........................................................................................5

Chapter III. Reducing Interactions Between Marine Mammals and Commer educing Interactions Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries...............................................................................................8

The Annual List of Fisheries .................................................................................................................8

Monitoring Programs...............................................................................................................10

Regisration Requirements for Commercial Fishers.........................................................................11

Take Reduction Teams and Take Reduction Plans...............................................................................12

Differentiation of Serious and Non-Serious Injur Differentiation of Serious and Non-Serious Injury in Marine Mammals.................................................23

Authorization for the Incidental Taking of Threatened or Endangered Marine Mammals.....................24

Chapter IV. Marine Mammal Interactions with Salmonids and Human Activi- . Marine Mammal Interactions with Salmonids and Human Activities............................................................................................................26

California Sea Lion Conflict with Steelhead at the Ballard Locks - MMPA Section 120 Pinniped Lethal

Removal Authority.....................................................................................................27

California Sea Lion Conflict with Salmonids at Willamette Falls, Oregon.............................................28

Report to Congress on Pinniped Impacts on Salmonids and U.S. West Coast Ecosystems..........................29

Cooperative State/Federal Program on Expanding Pinniped Populations.................................................32

Gulf of Maine Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force...............................................................................32

Chapter V. Dolphin Interactions with Commercial Fisheries in the Eastern T isheries in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean.......................................................................................35

The La Jolla Agreement and the Panama Declaration...............................................................................37

The International Dolphin Conser The International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA)....................................................................37

The International Agreement.................................................................................................... The International Agreement......................................................................................................................38

Chapter VI. Small T Chapter VI. Small Take Authorizations..............................................................39

Small Take Authorizations............................................................................................................... e Authorizations...........................................................................................................................39

Small Takes by Incidental Harassment.................................................................................................... es by Incidental Harassment.......................................................................................................42

Acoustic Program......................................................................................................................... rogram.......................................................................................................................................44

Chapter VII. Conser Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs........................................46

Northern Right Whale thern Right Whale (Eubalanea glacialis) (Eubalanea glacialis)...............................................................................................46

Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) (Eumetopias jubatus).........................................................................................................54

Harbor Porpoise orpoise (Phocoena phocoena) (Phocoena phocoena)....................................................................................................58

Northern Fur Seal ur Seal (Callorhinus ursinus) (Callorhinus ursinus).......................................................................................................60

Hawaiian Monk Seal Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi) (Monachus schauinslandi)........................................................................................62

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Table of Contents


Chapter I. Introduction......................................................................................1


Chapter II. Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Program..............................3


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


Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports.........................................................................................5


Chapter III. Reducing Interactions Between Marine Mammals and Commer­


cial Fisheries...............................................................................................8


The Annual List of Fisheries .................................................................................................................8


Monitoring Programs...............................................................................................................10


Regisration Requirements for Commercial Fishers.........................................................................11


Take Reduction Teams and Take Reduction Plans...............................................................................12


Differentiation of Serious and Non-Serious Injury in Marine Mammals.................................................23


Authorization for the Incidental Taking of Threatened or Endangered Marine Mammals.....................24


Chapter IV. Marine Mammal Interactions with Salmonids and Human Activi­


ties............................................................................................................26


California Sea Lion Conflict with Steelhead at the Ballard Locks - MMPA Section 120 Pinniped Lethal


Removal Authority.....................................................................................................27


California Sea Lion Conflict with Salmonids at Willamette Falls, Oregon.............................................28


Report to Congress on Pinniped Impacts on Salmonids and U.S. West Coast Ecosystems..........................29


Cooperative State/Federal Program on Expanding Pinniped Populations.................................................32


Gulf of Maine Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force...............................................................................32


Chapter V. Dolphin Interactions with Commercial Fisheries in the Eastern Tropi­


cal Pacific Ocean.......................................................................................35


The La Jolla Agreement and the Panama Declaration...............................................................................37


The International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA)....................................................................37


The International Agreement......................................................................................................................38


Chapter VI. Small Take Authorizations..............................................................39


Small Take Authorizations...........................................................................................................................39


Small Takes by Incidental Harassment.......................................................................................................42


Acoustic Program.......................................................................................................................................44


Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs........................................46


Northern Right Whale (Eubalanea glacialis)...............................................................................................46


Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus).........................................................................................................54


Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)....................................................................................................58


Northern Fur Seal (Callorhinus ursinus).......................................................................................................60


Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi)........................................................................................62

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Chapter VIII. Chapter VIII. ake of Marine Mammals................................................70

Co-management Agreement with Alaska Natives.....................................................................................70

Species Har Species Harvested for Subsistence......................................................................................................... vested for Subsistence.............................................................................................................71

International Whaling Commission.............................................................................................................75

Chapter IX. Chapter IX. ermit Programs...........................................................................78

Permit Regulations..................................................................................................................... egulations......................................................................................................................................78

Photography Permits......................................................................................................................... ermits......................................................................................................................... .........79

Retention of etention of Stranded Marine Mammals....................................................................................................79

General Authorization.............................................................................................................................79

Marine Mammal Inventor Marine Mammal Inventory.........................................................................................................................80

Exports of Marine Mammals .......................................................................................................... ts of Marine Mammals ......................................................................................................................80

Captive Care of Marine Mammals................................................................................................. Captive Care of Marine Mammals.............................................................................................................81

Public Display Permit Applications............................................................................................................. ermit Applications.............................................................................................................82

Closure of the Maine and Depoe Bay Aquariums.......................................................................................82

Enforcement Actions............................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................... ...82

Chapter X. Chapter X. esponse Program..........84

Stranding Networks............................................................................................................. Stranding Networks....................................................................................................................................84

Unusual Mor Unusual Mortality Events.................................................................................................................. tality Events.................................................................................................................. ...........89

Contaminants and Contaminants and Biomonitoring Program................................................................................................90

National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank............................................................................................. National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank........................................................................................................93

Quality Assurance Program .......................................................................................................................9 rogram .......................................................................................................................9 4

Chapter XI. Public Education and Outreach Programs....................................96

National Effor National Efforts ............................................................................................................................ ts ..........................................................................................................................................96

Regional Effor egional Efforts............................................................................................................................. ts..........................................................................................................................................99

Appendices Appendices

Appendix A. 1999 List of Categor Appendix A. 1999 List of Category I and II Fisheries.......................................................................................i isheries.......................................................................................i

Appendix B. Marine Mammal Authorization Program Mor rogram Mortality/Injur tality/Injury Reports for 1998................................iv

Appendix C. Estimates of Total Incidental Dolphin Mor otal Incidental Dolphin Mortality for U.S. and Foreign Purse Seine Vessels in

the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, 1971-1998...........................................................................................vi , 1971-1998...........................................................................................vi

Appendix D. Cetacean Strandings in 1998 ....................................................................................... Appendix D. Cetacean Strandings in 1998 ................................................................................................vii .........vii

Appendix E. Pinniped Strandings in 1998........................................................................................ Appendix E. Pinniped Strandings in 1998.....................................................................................................ix

Appendix F. NMFS Regional Offices and Headquar egional Offices and Headquarters................................................................................x

Native T Native T

P

Marine Mammal Health and Stranding R

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Chapter VIII. Native Take of Marine Mammals................................................70


Co-management Agreement with Alaska Natives.....................................................................................70


Species Harvested for Subsistence.............................................................................................................71


International Whaling Commission.............................................................................................................75


Chapter IX. Permit Programs...........................................................................78


Permit Regulations......................................................................................................................................78


Photography Permits......................................................................................................................... .........79


Retention of Stranded Marine Mammals....................................................................................................79


General Authorization.............................................................................................................................79


Marine Mammal Inventory.........................................................................................................................80


Exports of Marine Mammals ......................................................................................................................80


Captive Care of Marine Mammals.............................................................................................................81


Public Display Permit Applications.............................................................................................................82


Closure of the Maine and Depoe Bay Aquariums.......................................................................................82


Enforcement Actions..................................................................................................................................82


Chapter X. Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program..........84


Stranding Networks....................................................................................................................................84


Unusual Mortality Events.............................................................................................................................89


Contaminants and Biomonitoring Program................................................................................................90


National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank........................................................................................................93


Quality Assurance Program .......................................................................................................................94


Chapter XI. Public Education and Outreach Programs....................................96


National Efforts ..........................................................................................................................................96


Regional Efforts..........................................................................................................................................99


Appendices 

Appendix A. 1999 List of Category I and II Fisheries.......................................................................................i


Appendix B. Marine Mammal Authorization Program Mortality/Injury Reports for 1998................................iv


Appendix C. Estimates of Total Incidental Dolphin Mortality for U.S. and Foreign Purse Seine Vessels in


the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, 1971-1998...........................................................................................vi


Appendix D. Cetacean Strandings in 1998 ................................................................................................vii


Appendix E. Pinniped Strandings in 1998.....................................................................................................ix


Appendix F. NMFS Regional Offices and Headquarters................................................................................x

 Page 1

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Chapter I. Chapter I. 

photo by: Yuki Ogino

Introduction Introduction

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Chapter I. Introduction


This Annual Report to Congress regarding the administration of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 

has been prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 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 in the United States. 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 153 stocks of 

whales, dolphins, and porpoises as well as seals, sea lions, 

and fur seals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) is responsible for three species of marine mammals: walrus, 

sea otter, and West Indian manatee. 

Species conservation activities are carried out by NMFS’ 

Headquarters, Regional Offices, and Fisheries Science 

Centers in cooperation with states, conservation groups, 

the public, the Marine Mammal Commission, other federal agencies, and other constituents including scientific 

photo by: Yuki Ogino 

researchers, the fishing industry, and the marine mammal public display community. The NMFS’ Office of 

Protected Resources oversees the administration of these 

activities. 

The MMPA was enacted in 1972 largely due to public 

response to the high levels of dolphin mortality in the 

Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean tuna purse seine fishery 

as well as to concerns over commercial whaling and the 

killing of harp seals for the fur trade. Since then, many 

issues have changed, but the need to conserve and protect marine mammals remains. 

Section 2(6) of the MMPA states that, 

““...marine mammals have proven themselves to 

be resources of great international significance, esthetic and 

recreational as well as economic...and...it is the sense of Congress that they [marine mammals] should be protected and 

encouraged to develop to the greatest extent feasible commensurate with sound policies of resource management and 

that the primary objectives of their management should be 

to maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem.” 

Page 1 
Page 2

Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

On April 30, 1994, the MMPA was reauthorized and 

significantly amended. The MMPA Amendments of 

1994 introduced substantial changes to the provisions of 

the MMPA. One of the most notable changes involved 

replacing the Interim Exemption for Commercial Fisheries with a long-term regime for governing interactions 

between marine mammals and commercial fisheries under sections 117 and 118. This regime provides for the 

preparation of stock assessment reports for all marine 

mammal stocks in U.S. waters and the development and 

implementation of take reduction plans to reduce bycatch 

of selected “strategic” marine mammal stocks, as defined 

in the MMPA. Other changes included a requirement to 

study pinniped-fishery interactions, provisions related to 

captive marine mammals, provisions regarding the taking of marine mammals listed under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), and a new section providing for marine mammal cooperative agreements in Alaska. 

Numerous countries look toward the MMPA and its 

implementing regulations for guidance on marine mammal conservation issues and have established laws and 

policies patterned after the MMPA. Here in the United 

States, we have only begun to quantify the MMPA’s effect on marine mammal stocks. However, some tangible 

results can be recognized. One species of marine mammal, the endangered gray whale, has recovered so well 

that it has been removed from the ESA’s List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

The success in recovery of stocks such as the California 

sea lion and the Pacific harbor seal has resulted in the 

escalation of conflicts with various human activities. Their 

numbers and the continually increasing use of coastal 

resources by people have increased the number of and 

intensity of interactions between the two.These complicated situations create difficult management decisions 

that must be evaluated within the overarching principles 

of ecosystem management and the goals of the MMPA. 

On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are far more 

species that have not recovered, despite the efforts of 

managers to reverse their population declines. Despite 

considerable, often exhaustive, and focused conservation 

efforts, some species remain critically endangered. Among 

these are the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus 

schauinslandi) and northern right whale (Eubalaena 

glacialis), for which recovery efforts have included scientific research and the reduction of human-caused injury 

and mortality, among numerous other conservation and 

management actions. Still, the future of these species is 

uncertain. 

The lack of success and difficulty in recovering listed 

species and stocks is particularly perplexing and frustrating where the primary threats to the population are not 

fully understood. The western stock of Steller sea lion in 

Alaska has dramatically diminished in numbers since the 

1970s and continues to do so. Although they have been 

the focus of intensive research, there is still some uncertainty as to why their populations are declining. 

This report addresses in more detail many of these issues, primarily focusing on research, management, and 

permitting activities conducted by NMFS in 1998 and 

the significance of these activities to achieving the goals 

of the MMPA. Copies of this report are available from 

the NMFS Office of Protected Resources. See Appendix 

F for this address as well as those of the NMFS Regional 

Offices and Fisheries Science Centers. 

Page 2 
 Page 3

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Chapter II. Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Chapter II. Marine Mammal Stock Assessment

Program

photo by: P. Michael Payne, NMFS

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Chapter II. Marine Mammal Stock Assessment


Program


Sections 117 and 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) establish a long-term regime for governing interactions between marine mammals and commercial fishing operations. These sections direct NMFS 

to complete Stock Assessment Reports (SARs), to convene Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), to publish the 

List of Fisheries (LOF), to convene take reduction teams 

in order to form take reduction plans, and to meet both 

short- and long-term goals for reducing incidental takes 

of marine mammals. These are all components of a comprehensive program designed to reduce interactions between marine mammals and commercial fishing operations. 

The formation of a take reduction team to reduce interactions between marine mammals and commercial fisheries is dependent on a fishery’s classification in the LOF 

and whether its status is strategic according to the SAR. 

In addition, the SARs provide much of the data used 

during the development of the take reduction plans. The 

results of observer programs, which are used to collect 

data on the level of incidental mortality and serious injury in Category I and II fisheries, are presented in the 

SARs. As NMFS begins to implement take reduction 

photo by: P. Michael Payne, NMFS 

plans in order to meet the short- and long-term goals of 

the MMPA, recommendations and comments from the 

SRGs will continue to play a critical role as NMFS monitors fisheries to ensure that incidental marine mammal 

mortalities and serious injuries decline over time to insignificant levels. For more information on programs for 

reducing interactions between marine mammals and 

commercial fisheries, see Ch. III: Reducing Interactions 

Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries. 

Section 117 of the MMPA requires the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prepare and periodically update 

marine mammal stock assessment reports. The Stock 

Assessment Reports indicate whether the status of a marine mammal stock is considered “strategic” and provide 

much of the data NMFS uses to classify fisheries under 

section 118 in the LOF. 

Section 117 (a)(1) states that NMFS shall: 

“... prepare a draft stock assessment for each marine mammal stock which occurs in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States. Each draft stock assessment, 

Page 3 
Page 4

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

The Scientific Review Groups eview Groups

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

based on the best scientific information available, shall ­

1) describe the geographic range of the affected stock, 

including any seasonal or temporal variation in such 

range; 

2) provide for such stock the minimum population estimate, current and maximum net productivity rates, and 

current population trend, including a description of the 

information upon which these are based; 

3) estimate the annual human-caused mortality and serious injury of the stock by source and, for a strategic stock, 

other factors that may be causing a decline or impeding 

recovery of the stock, including effects on marine mammal habitat and prey; 

4) describe commercial fisheries that interact with the 

stock, including ­

a) the approximate number of vessels actively 

participating in each such fishery; 

b) the estimated level of incidental mortality and 

serious injury of the stock by such fishery on an 

annual basis; 

c) seasonal or areal differences in such incidental mortality and serious injury; 

d) the rate, based on the appropriate standard 

unit of fishing effort, of such incidental mortality and serious injury, and an analysis stating 

whether such level is insignificant and is approaching a zero mortality and serious injury 

rate; 

5) categorize the status of the stock as one that either ­

a) has a level of human-caused mortality and 

serious injury that is not likely to cause the stock 

to be reduced below its optimum sustainable 

population; or 

b) is a strategic stock, with a description of the 

reasons therefore; and 

The 1998 Stock Assessment Reports

Alaska: Hill, P Hill, P.S. and D.P. DeMaster . DeMaster. 1998. . 1998. . 1998. a

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 1998. Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 1998. Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 1998. AA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-97, 166 pp. -97, 166 pp. -97, 166 pp.

Pacific: , P., P.S. Hill, K. Forney, and D. P.

DeMaster DeMaster. acific Marine Mammal Stock acific Marine Mammal Stock

Assessments: 1998. Assessments: 1998. Assessments: 1998. tment of tment of tment of 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-258, 40 -258, 40

pp.

Alask

NO

Barlow

1998. U.S. P

U.S. Depar U.S. Depar Commerce, Commerce, Commerce,

6) estimate the potential biological removal level for the 

stock, describing the information used to calculate it, 

including the recovery factor.” 

The Scientific Review Groups 

Section 117 of the MMPA Amendments of 1994 called 

for the establishment of three regional Scientific Review 

Groups (SRGs) representing Alaska, the Pacific Coast 

(including Hawaii), and the Atlantic Coast (including 

the Gulf of Mexico). The SRGs were required to be 

created under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce 

in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, the 

Marine Mammal Commission, the Governors of affected 

adjacent coastal States, regional fishery and wildlife management authorities, Alaska Native organizations and 

Indian tribes, and environmental and fishery groups. The 

SRGs review draft stock assessments and advise NMFS 

concerning marine mammal population status, trends, 

stock identity, and dynamics; uncertainty and research 

needed on the marine mammal stocks and research 

needed to identify methods to reduce incidental mortality and injury; impacts of habitat degradation and appropriate measures to reduce impacts; and any other issue NMFS or the groups consider appropriate in pursuing the goals of the MMPA. SRG members are required 

to have expertise in marine mammal biology and ecology, population dynamics and modeling, commercial 

fishing techniques and practices, or stocks under section 

101(b) in order to provide balanced and representative 

viewpoints in their discussions. 

The three SRGs were formed in 1994 with approximately 

eleven members each. These groups are convened and 

organized out of each of the following NMFS Fisheries 

Page 4 
 Page 5

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Marine Mammal Stock Assessment

Reports

The Draf The Draft 1998 Stock Assessment t 1998 Stock Assessment

Reports

Figure 1. SRG Meetings Held in 1998

Atlantic SRG

May 20-22, 1998

November 12-13, 1998

Alaska SRG

June 2-4, 1998

November 18-20, 1998

Pacific SRG

March 30- March 30-April 1, 1998

November 16-18, 1998

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Science Centers: Alaska, Southwest, and Northeast/ 

Southeast. 

A total of six SRG meetings were held during 1998 (Figure 1). In these meetings, the SRGs reviewed new marine mammal stock data and information and provided 

NMFS with recommendations for future research. The 

SRGs reviewed the revised 1998 draft stock assessment 

reports and are assisting NMFS in bringing these reports 

to a finished form. 

Figure 1. SRG Meetings Held in 1998 

Atlantic SRG 

May 20-22, 1998 

November 12-13, 1998 

Alaska SRG 

June 2-4, 1998 

November 18-20, 1998 

Pacific SRG 

March 30-April 1, 1998 

November 16-18, 1998 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessment 

Reports 

The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the 

stock assessment reports annually for strategic stocks of 

marine mammals and every three years for stocks determined to be non-strategic consistent with any new information. In 1998, NMFS revised those reports for 

which significant new information was available (relative to the 1996 stock assessment reports published in 

1997). The Draft 1998 Stock Assessment Reports were 

published in July of 1998 in three separate documents. 

NMFS expects to publish the Final 1998 Stock Assessment Reports in February 1999. 

The Draft 1998 Stock Assessment 

Reports 

In 1998, NMFS, in conjunction with the regional SRGs, 

reviewed the MMPA status of the Alaska, Pacific, and 

Atlantic stocks and revised those reports for which significant new information was available. 

Draft 1998 Alaska Stock Assessment Report 

NMFS, in conjunction with the Alaska Scientific Review Group, reviewed new information available for all 

strategic stocks of Alaska marine mammals under its authority, as well as for several other stocks. A total of 15 of 

the 33 Alaska stock assessment reports were revised for 

1998. Most proposed changes to the stock assessment 

reports incorporated new information into abundance 

or mortality estimates. The revised stock assessments 

included all ten of the strategic stocks: western U.S. Steller 

sea lion, eastern U.S. Steller sea lion, northern fur seal, 

Cook Inlet beluga whale, North Pacific sperm whale, 

western North Pacific humpback whale, central North 

Pacific humpback whale, northeast Pacific fin whale, 

North Pacific right whale, and western Arctic bowhead 

whale. Additionally, five reports of non-strategic stocks 

were revised: Gulf of Alaska harbor seals, Bering Sea 

harbor seals, Southeast Alaska harbor seals, eastern North 

Pacific transient killer whales, and North Pacific resident 

killer whales (eastern North Pacific transient and Northern resident stocks). The new information on abundance 

and mortality did not change the status (strategic or not) 

of any of these 15 Alaska stocks. 

Fishery mortality sections in the revised Alaska reports 

were updated to include data from observer programs, 

fisher self-reporting, and stranding reports through 1996, 

where possible. Similarly, subsistence harvest information through 1996 was included for those stocks that are 

taken by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes (see 

Chapter VIII. Native Take of Marine Mammals and International Activities). New abundance estimates were 

included in the revised assessments for nine stocks: western U.S. Steller sea lions, eastern U.S. Steller sea lions, 

northern fur seals, Cook Inlet beluga whales, western 

North Pacific humpback whales, central North Pacific 

humpback whales, Gulf of Alaska harbor seals, and eastern North Pacific transient killer whales, and North Pacific resident killer whales. Revised Potential Biological 

Removal (PBR) levels were calculated for all Alaska stocks 

having new abundance estimates. Additionally, habitat 

concerns were identified for all strategic stocks. 

Page 5 
Page 6

Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Species Species Stock Area Stock Area PBRTotal Annual Annual Primary Source of Mortality

Annual Fisheries isheries

Mortality Mortality

North Atlantic right whale th Atlantic right whale W. North Atlantic th Atlantic 0.42.51.1Collisions with ships Collisions with ships

Harbor porpoise Harbor porpoise Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy4831,8341,834Northeast multispecies sink gillnet fishery

Common dolphin Common dolphin W. North Atlantic th Atlantic 40234234Atlantic large pelagics drift gillnet fishery

Atlantic spotted dolphin Atlantic spotted dolphin W. North Atlantic th Atlantic 162222Atlantic large pelagics drift gillnet fishery

Pantropical spotted dolphin antropical spotted dolphin W. North Atlantic th Atlantic 162222Atlantic large pelagics drift gillnet fishery

Cuvier’s beaked whale ed whale W. North Atlantic th Atlantic 8.99.79.7Atlantic large pelagics drift gillnet fishery

Mesoplodont beaked whale ed whale W. North Atlantic th Atlantic 8.99.79.7Atlantic large pelagics drift gillnet fishery

Pilot whale, short-finned t-finned W. North Atlantic th Atlantic 3.74242Atlantic large pelagics drift gillnet fishery

Bottlenose dolphin Bottlenose dolphin W. North Atlantic, coastal th Atlantic, coastal th Atlantic, coastal 252929Undetermined fisheries interactions, Undetermined fisheries interactions,

suspected of being from mid-Atlantic coastal Atlantic coastal Atlantic coastal

gillnet fishery

Pilot whale, short-finned t-finned CA/ OR/WA5.91313CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet t gillnet

fishery

Mesoplodont Mesoplodont ed whale ed whale CA/OR/ WA119.2-139.2-13CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet t gillnet

fishery

Sperm whale Sperm whale CA A1.84.54.5CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet t gillnet

fishery

Humpback whale Humpback whale California/ Mexico California/ Mexico 0.51.81.2CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet t gillnet

fishery

Minke whale e whale CA/ OR/ WA1.01.21.2CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet t gillnet

fishery

Steller sea lion Steller sea lion Western U.S. Western U.S. 38344735Subsistence harvest

BelugaCook Inlet Cook Inlet 15400Subsistence harvest

Figure 1. igure 1. igure 1. ts: stocks with estimated annual human-caused ts: stocks with estimated annual human-caused

mortality greater than PBR and designated as strategic. tality greater than PBR and designated as strategic. tality greater than PBR and designated as strategic.

beak

to W

1996 marine mammal stock assessment repor 1996 marine mammal stock assessment repor

Draft 1998 Pacific Stock Assessment Report 

NMFS, in conjunction with the Pacific Scientific Review Group, reviewed new information on the MMPA 

status of all 50 stocks of marine mammals in the U.S. 

Pacific region (predominantly stocks along the coast of 

California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii) that are 

under its authority. NMFS found that the MMPA status of the California/Oregon/Washington stock of minke 

whales and the California/Oregon/Washington stock of 

mesoplodont beaked whales should be changed from 

“strategic” to “non-strategic”, and these draft reports were 

revised accordingly. This change was prompted by the 

greater abundance of these species estimated from a 1996 

ship survey that covered California and (for the first time) 

Oregon and Washington. 

An additional five Pacific stock assessments were revised 

for 1998 to incorporate new information, including 

coastal Oregon/Washington harbor seal, inland Washington harbor seal, San Miguel Island northern fur seal, 

coastal Oregon/Washington harbor porpoise, and inland 

Washington harbor porpoise. The 1998 review of these 

additional stocks did not indicate that a change in the 

MMPA status was warranted. 

Fishery mortality sections in the revised Pacific reports 

were updated to include data from observer programs, 

fisher self-reporting, and stranding reports through 1996, 

where possible. New abundance estimates were included 

in the revised assessments for the California/Oregon/ 

Washington minke whale, the California/Oregon/Washington mesoplodont beaked whale, the coastal Oregon/ 

Washington harbor seal, the inland Washington harbor 

seal, San Miguel Island northern fur seal, and the inland 

Washington harbor porpoise stocks. New PBR estimates 

were calculated for each stock having a revised abundance estimate. 

Draft 1998 Atlantic Stock Assessment Report 

NMFS, in conjunction with the Atlantic Scientific Review Group, reviewed new information available for all 

strategic stocks of Atlantic marine mammals under their 

authority, as well as for several other stocks. A total of 26 

of the 57 Atlantic stock assessment reports were revised 

for 1998. Most proposed changes to the stock assessment reports incorporated new information into abundance or mortality estimates. The revised stock assessments included 14 of the strategic stocks: Gulf of Maine/ 

Page 6 
 Page 7

 Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Bay of Fundy harbor porpoise, western North Atlantic 

common dolphin, western North Atlantic spotted dolphin, western North Atlantic pantropical spotted dolphin, western North Atlantic dwarf sperm whale, western North Atlantic pygmy sperm whale, western North 

Atlantic Cuvier’s beaked whale, western North Atlantic 

mesoplodont beaked whale, western North Atlantic shortfinned pilot whale, western North Atlantic sperm whale, 

North Atlantic humpback whale, western North Atlantic right whale, western North Atlantic fin whale, and 

western North Atlantic blue whale. 

Additionally, 12 reports of non-strategic stocks were revised: western North Atlantic harbor seals, western North 

Atlantic gray seals, western North Atlantic harp seals, 

western North Atlantic hooded seals, western North Atlantic Risso’s dolphin, western North Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin, western North Atlantic striped dolphin, western North Atlantic spinner dolphin, western North Atlantic Bottlenose dolphin (offshore), western North Atlantic Northern bottlenose whale, western North Atlantic long-finned pilot whale, and Canadian East Coast 

minke whale. 

The new information on abundance and mortality 

changed the status (strategic or non-strategic) of three 

Atlantic stocks relative to the 1996 reports. NMFS found 

that the status of Atlantic white-sided dolphins and Atlantic long-finned pilot whales should be changed from 

non-strategic to strategic, and these draft reports were 

revised accordingly. This change was prompted by the 

(1992-1996) average annual mortality estimates. The 

review of all other marine mammal stocks and advice 

from the Atlantic Scientific Review Group indicated that 

the western North Atlantic pygmy sperm whale stock 

should be changed from strategic to non-strategic. 

Fishery mortality sections in the revised Atlantic reports 

were updated to include data from observer programs 

and stranding reports through 1996, where possible. New 

abundance estimates were included in the revised assessments for four stocks (western North Atlantic harbor 

seals, western North Atlantic gray seals, western North 

Atlantic common dolphins, North Atlantic humpback 

whales, and Canadian East Coast minke whales). PBR 

levels were calculated for all Atlantic stocks having new 

abundance estimates and for western North Atlantic 

striped dolphins, for which the recovery factor was revised. 

Page 7 
Page 8

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Chapter III.R Chapter III.Reducing Interactions Between Marine educing Interactions Between Marine

Mammals and Commercial F Mammals and Commercial Fisheries isheries

photo courtesy of: NMFS NEFSC

The Annual List of Fisheries isheries

Definitions of Categor Definitions of Category I, II, and III Com- y I, II, and III Commercial Fisheries isheries

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Chapter III.Reducing Interactions Between Marine


Mammals and Commercial Fisheries


The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was 

amended by Congress in 1994 to establish a long-term 

regime for governing interactions between marine mammals and commercial fisheries.The MMPA Amendments 

of 1994 established section 118, which contained the 

following goals: (1) reducing incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals occurring in the course 

of commercial fishing operations to below the Potential 

Biological Removal (PBR) level within six months of 

enactment and (2) further reducing these mortalities and 

serious injuries to insignificant levels approaching a zero 

mortality and serious injury rate within seven years. Final regulations implementing this program were published in 1995 after considerable public involvement and 

comment (60 FR 45086). 

The Annual List of Fisheries 

NMFS must classify all U.S. commercial fisheries into 

Category I, II or III, based on whether or not the fishery 

has a frequent, occasional, or a remote likelihood of causing incidental mortality and/or serious injury of marine 

mammals, respectively. NMFS defined Category I, II, 

and III fisheries based on the annual level of incidental 

photo courtesy of: NMFS NEFSC 

mortality and serious injury of marine mammals relative to each stock’s calculated PBR level. 

Definitions of Category I, II, and III Commercial Fisheries 

The fishery classification criteria consists of a two-tiered, 

stock-specific approach that first addresses the total impact of all fisheries on each marine mammal stock, and 

then addresses the impact of individual fisheries on each 

stock. NMFS uses the following decision process when 

assessing each fishery for which data are available: 

Tier 1: Tier 1 considers the cumulative fishery mortality 

and serious injury for a particular stock. If the total annual mortality and serious injury across all fisheries that 

interact with a stock is less than or equal to 10% of the 

PBR level of that stock, then all fisheries interacting with 

this stock are placed in Category III. Otherwise, these 

fisheries are subject to Tier 2 standards. 

Tier 2: Tier 2 considers fishery-specific mortality for a 

particular stock. Fisheries under Tier 2 fall into one of 

three categories. 

Page 8 
 Page 9

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Information Used to Classif Information Used to Classify Commer y Commercial Fisheries isheries

Publication of the List of Fisheries isheries

Definitions of U.S. Commercial Fisheries isheries

in the List of Fisheries isheries

The 1999 List of Fisheries isheries

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Category I: If the total annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than or 

equal to 50 percent of the calculated PBR level of that stock, 

then the fishery is placed in Category I. 

Category II: If the total annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than 1 

percent and less than 50 percent of the PBR level of that 

stock, then the fishery is placed in Category II. 

Category III: If the total annual mortality and 

serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is less than or equal 

to 1 percent of the PBR level for that stock, then the fishery is 

placed in Category III. 

Information Used to Classify Commercial Fisheries 

NMFS bases its classification of commercial fisheries on 

a variety of different types of information. The best source 

of information on the level of fishery-specific marine 

mammal incidental serious injury and mortality is a fishery observer program. Thus, if data from an observer 

program are available, NMFS will use this information 

to classify the fishery. However, because only some commercial fisheries have been monitored by observer programs, other information may also be used to classify 

fisheries. 

If data from fishery observer programs are not available, 

NMFS may also use the following sources of information to classify fisheries: fishers’ reports submitted as required under the Marine Mammal Authorization Program since 1996 (or logbook data from the Marine Mammal Exemption Program from required 1989 to 1995), 

stranding data, data from other monitoring programs 

that use alternate platforms such as aircraft and non-fishing vessels, and other sources of information. 

Publication of the List of Fisheries 

NMFS must publish an annual List of Fisheries (LOF). 

Proposed changes to the LOF for the following year are 

published in the spring or early summer. Public comments received during the 90-day comment period are 

considered when developing the final LOF, which is published during the late fall or early winter. 

For each fishery, the LOF must include the number of 

vessels or participants in that fishery and list which marine mammal stocks or species interact with that fishery. 

Because the focus in the MMPA is on “injuries and mortalities” to marine mammals, any marine mammal species that has been injured or killed in a particular commercial fishery is included in the LOF. 

Definitions of U.S. Commercial Fisheries 

in the List of Fisheries 

Fisheries in the LOF are defined by the broad or specific 

geographic area in which they operate, the gear type used, 

the method used, and the target species. NMFS will, 

whenever possible, define fisheries in a manner which is 

consistent with federal, regional, and state fishery management plans or programs, in order to: 

* reduce confusion caused by having multiple names for 

the same fishery; 

* provide a “common name” for a fishery that can be 

used by NMFS, fishers, and state and regional fishery 

managers; 

* allow NMFS to more easily collect information on fishery statistics, such as the number of participants, target 

species landed, length of fishing season, etc.; and 

* help NMFS meet its statutory obligations by coordinating registration under the MMPA with existing fishery management programs. 

In the future, NMFS may have sufficient information to 

subdivide certain commercial fisheries into components 

that have different levels of impact to marine mammal 

stocks. This approach may help NMFS focus management actions on certain “hot spots” where there are documented high impacts to marine mammal stocks. NMFS 

will continue to seek public comment on the optimum 

way to define commercial fisheries and will modify the 

LOF as necessary to reflect changes in U.S. fisheries. 

The 1999 List of Fisheries 

A proposed LOF for 1999 was published on August 11, 

1998 (63 FR 42803). The final LOF for 1999 is expected to be published in February 1999. In the proPage 9 
Page 10

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Monitoring Programs rograms

Observer Program Rotation Workshop

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

posed 1999 LOF, NMFS proposed several changes to 

the classification of fisheries, as well as technical revisions to the regulations implementing section 118 of the 

MMPA. 

NMFS’ proposed changes to the LOF include: 

* adding the Atlantic herring midwater trawl fishery as a 

Category II fishery; 

* removing the Category III listing for the Gulf of Maine, 

Mid-Atlantic coastal herring trawl fishery; 

* incorporating participants in the Gulf of Maine, MidAtlantic coastal herring trawl fishery into the new Category II listing for the Atlantic herring midwater trawl 

fishery; and 

* reclassifying the Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine 

fishery from Category III to Category II. 

A table providing a list of all U.S. commercial fisheries 

was published in the Federal Register notice announcing 

the proposed LOF for 1999. A list of Category I and II 

fisheries can be found in Appendix A. 

Monitoring Programs 

One way that NMFS determines the impacts that U.S. 

commercial fisheries have on marine mammal stocks and 

places fisheries in the appropriate MMPA Category (I, 

II, or III) is through its fisheries observer programs. 

NMFS considers fishery observer programs to be the best 

source of information for the level of fishery-specific 

marine mammal incidental serious injury and mortality. 

The objectives of MMPA fisheries observer programs are 

to obtain statistically reliable estimates of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in commercial fisheries, to determine the reliability of fishers’ 

reports, and to identify changes in fishing methods or 

technology that may decrease incidental marine mammal mortality and serious injury. 

Seven of the 30 Category I and II fisheries were observed 

in 1998 for interactions with marine mammals: 

Category I: 

* Northeast multispecies sink gillnet fishery 

* Atlantic Ocean/Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico large pelagics 

longline fishery 

* Atlantic Ocean/Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico large pelagics 

drift gillnet fishery 

* California/Oregon thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 

fishery 

Category II: 

* Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery 

* Atlantic squid/mackerel/butterfish trawl fishery 

* Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet fishery 

Observer data are summarized in the 1998 Stock Assessment Reports. 

Observer Program Rotation Workshop 

The MMPA requires that all U.S. commercial fisheries 

be categorized according to their level of marine mammal mortality and serious injury. However, the lack of 

information on the level of mortality/serious injury associated with the majority of the 24 Category II fisheries 

makes it difficult to verify whether the current categorization of these fisheries is correct. 

A workshop to discuss the development of a process for 

the long-term monitoring of Category I and II commercial fisheries and to evaluate the utility of rotational scheduling in that process, was held on June 15-16, 1998. 

Rotational scheduling may free up limited funds to monitor many of the Category II fisheries that are not currently being observed. Workshop participants reviewed 

presentations describing the regulatory and funding environment for MMPA observer programs, statistical considerations in the design of monitoring programs, and 

alternative monitoring strategies. The discussions which 

followed these presentations considered the following 

issues: the structure and design of monitoring programs, 

classification of fisheries and their priority for observation, the utility of and design considerations for pilot 

observer programs, logistical barriers to rotational observer programs, sampling concerns at low coverage levels, and alternatives to traditional at-sea observer programs. 

Page 10 
 Page 11

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Registration Requirements for equirements for

Commercial Fishers

Reporting Requirements for Commer equirements for Commercial Fishers

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Workshop participants proposed a framework process 

for long-term fishery monitoring, in which all unobserved 

Category I and II fisheries would form the selection pool 

for future observer programs. A one-year pilot program 

may be considered if basic information about the fishery 

is required. This would be followed by a two- to threeyear Operational Program, a (minimum) one-year Take 

Reduction Plan phase, a two- to three-year Compliance/ 

Monitoring phase, and a Long-Term Monitoring phase 

which would last for an indefinite period (until take reduction to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate, or the Zero Mortality Rate 

Goal, has been achieved). Rotational scheduling was 

deemed applicable only at the Long-Term Monitoring 

phase of this process. However, a rotational schedule 

was not proposed, since no fisheries currently being monitored are expected to reach that phase for two or three 

years. 

There are already Category I and II fisheries at various 

stages in this process, and participants identified stages 

for each of these fisheries and viewed fisheries in the Take 

Reduction Plan phase as the agency’s highest priority. 

They encouraged policy makers to consider unobserved 

Category II fisheries of equal priority with those in the 

Compliance/Monitoring phase, so the agency can begin 

to examine some fisheries with unknown take levels. Fisheries in the Long-Term Monitoring phase followed these 

in priority ranking. Participants began but were unable 

to complete prioritization and decision criteria for determining which unobserved fisheries are the first to be monitored. They recommended that NMFS: (1) task a small 

working group with developing these criteria for all stages 

in the monitoring process; (2) develop a draft schedule 

for observing fisheries based on funding projections and 

likely budget scenarios; and (3) identify options for alternative monitoring programs and determine when their 

use may be appropriate. 

Registration Requirements for 

Commercial Fishers 

Commercial fishers who participate in Category I or II 

fisheries in the LOF must register in the Marine Mammal Authorization Program (MMAP). Registration under the MMAP is administered by NMFS Regional Offices, and the registration procedures differ between 

NMFS Regions. Information on region-specific registration requirements for Category I and II fisheries will 

be published along with the final LOF for 1999 in the 

Federal Register. 

The MMPA states that NMFS should, to the maximum 

extent practicable, integrate registration of participants 

in Category I or II fisheries under the MMPA with existing state or federal permit systems. Between 1995 

and 1998, NMFS integrated registration in the MMAP 

with pre-existing state and federal fisheries permit systems for most fisheries in Category I and II. Over the 

past two years, these efforts have resulted in reduced paperwork for both NMFS and the estimated 22,500 commercial fishers that fall under the requirements of the 

MMAP, with the majority of these not needing to register separately under the MMAP or to pay the $25 federal registration fee. 

In 1995, the NMFS Northwest Regional Office was the 

first NMFS office to successfully integrate registration 

under the MMPA. For fisheries in which the granting 

and administration of authorizations has not been integrated with state licensing, registration, or permitting 

systems, owners of vessels or gear must register with 

NMFS Region in which their fishery operates. NMFS 

Regional Offices annually send renewal packets to participants in Category I and II fisheries that have previously registered with NMFS; however, it is the responsibility of fishers to ensure that registration or renewal forms 

are submitted to NMFS at least 30 days in advance of 

fishing. If fishers have not received a renewal packet by 

January 1 or are registering for the first time, requests for 

registration forms should be sent to the appropriate 

NMFS Regional Office. Registrants must return the 

registration form and the $25 fee to the appropriate 

NMFS Regional Office. NMFS will send the vessel 

owner an Authorization Certificate, a program decal, and 

reporting forms within 30 days of receiving the registration or renewal form and application fee. 

Reporting Requirements for Commercial Fishers 

All vessel owners or operators or fishers (in the case of 

non-vessel fisheries) in Category I, II, or III fisheries must 

Page 11 
Page 12

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Take Reduction T eduction Teams and T eams and Take

Reduction Plans eduction Plans

Requirements for the Development and

Implementation of T Implementation of Take Reduction Plans eduction Plans

Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise T orpoise Take

Reduction Plan

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

report all mortalities or injuries of marine mammals that 

occur incidental to their commercial fishing operations. 

These reports of marine mammal mortality or injury are 

to be submitted on postage-paid forms provided by 

NMFS and sent to NMFS Headquarters in Silver Spring, 

Maryland. 

In 1998, NMFS received 112 reports of injuries and/or 

mortalities from commercial fishing vessel operators. 

Appendix B summarizes self-reported injuries and mortalities by species and by fishery for 1998. 

Take Reduction Teams and Take 

Reduction Plans 

Requirements for the Development and 

Implementation of Take Reduction Plans 

Section 118(f) of the MMPA requires that NMFS develop and implement take reduction plans designed to 

assist in the recovery or prevent the depletion of strategic 

marine mammal stocks that interact with Category I or 

II fisheries. (For a discussion of strategic stocks, see Chapter II.) 

The immediate goal of a take reduction plan is to reduce, within six months of its implementation, the mortality and serious injury of strategic stocks incidentally 

taken in the course of commercial fishing operations to 

below the PBR levels established for those stocks. The 

long-term goal of a plan is to reduce, within five years of 

its implementation, the incidental mortality and serious 

injury of all marine mammals taken in commercial fishing operations to insignificant levels approaching a zero 

mortality and serious injury rate (ZMRG), taking into 

account the economics of the fishery, the available existing technology, and existing state or regional management plans. More information on the establishment of 

take reduction teams and implementation of take reduction plans can be found in the 1997 MMPA Annual 

Report. 

NMFS initially formed five take reduction teams based 

on the high priority placed on certain strategic stocks for 

the development of take reduction plans to reduce incidental bycatch (see Table 1). Recognizing that insufficient resources existed for the development of take reduction plans for all stocks affected by commercial fisheries, NMFS followed the guidance in section 118(f)(3) 

in prioritizing the establishment of take reduction teams 

to address stocks of greatest concern. NMFS intends to 

establish additional take reduction teams in 2000 to address incidental takes of other strategic marine mammal 

stocks in commercial fisheries. The five initial teams were 

the: 

* Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team, 

* Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team, 

* Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Team, 

* Mid-Atlantic Take Reduction Team, and 

* Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team. 

Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise Take 

Reduction Plan 

NMFS established the Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise 

Take Reduction Team (HPTRT) on February 12, 1996, 

to address incidental takes of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of 

Fundy stock of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in 

the Northeast multispecies sink gillnet fishery. The 

HPTRT included representatives of the sink gillnet fishery, NMFS, the Marine Mammal Commission, state 

marine resource management agencies, the NewEngland 

Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), environmental organizations, and academic and scientific organizations. 

Description of the Fishery 

The Northeast multispecies sink gillnet fishery is a Category I fishery managed by NMFS and the NEFMC 

under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management 

Plan (as authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, or MagnusonStevens Act). Fishers participating in the Northeast 

multispecies sink gillnet fishery operate year-round in 

the nearshore and offshore waters from Maine to Rhode 

Island. They set their nets along the sea floor to target 

groundfish; specifically cod, haddock, hake, pollock, 

flounder, monkfish, and dogfish. Vessels are typically 

small (30-50 ft or 9-15 m) and operate from ports 

throughout New England. Each vessel sets between 40 

and 200 nets, depending on the target species. Each net 

Page 12 
 Page 13

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Table 1. Take reduction plans/teams timeline of major events and e reduction plans/teams timeline of major events and Federal Register citations

Pacific Atlantic Offshore Gulf of Maine Mid-Atlantic Atlantic Large Whale

Cetacean Cetacean Harbor Porpoise

Date convened Feb. 12, 1996 May 23, 1996 Feb. 12, 1996 Feb. 25, 1997 Aug 6, 1996

(61 FR 5385) (61 FR 25846) (61 FR 5384) (62 FR 8428) (61 FR 40819)

First meeting Feb. 13-14, 1996 May 29-30, 1996 Feb. 14-15, 1996 Mar. 4-5, 1997 Sept.16-17, 1996

(61 FR 5385) (61 FR 25846) (61 FR 5384) (62 FR 8428) (61 FR 48131)

Draft submitted

to NMFS Aug. 15, 1996 Nov. 25, 1996 Aug. 8, 1996 Aug. 25, 1997 Feb. 5, 1997

NMFS publishes

draft TRP &

proposed regs Feb. 14, 1997 Draft TRP & proposedAug. 13, 1997 Sep. 11, 1998 Apr. 7, 1997

(62 FR 6931) regs not published (62 FR 43302) (63 FR 48670) (62 FR 16519)

Comment period

reopened and

extended to Jan 14, 1998

(62 FR 65402); Revised

proposed rule published

Sep. 11, 1998

(63 FR 48670)

NMFS publishes Oct. 3, 1997 Partially implementedDec. 2, 1998 Dec. 2, 1998 Interim final on

final plan and (62 FR 51805); under final rule to be (63 FR 66464) (63 FR 66464) July 22, 1997

final regs Technical echnical published May 1999 (62 FR 39157);

Amendment on Atl. Highly Migratory Final rule to be

of Final Rule, Species (64 FR 29089) published Feb. 1999

May 21, 1998 (64 FR 7529)

(63 FR 27860)

Interim final rule

to be published

Jan. 1999

Follow-up

meetings May 29-30, 1997; Late1999 planned Dec. 16-17, 1997; Fall 1999 planned Feb. 8-10, 1999

June 1-2, 1998; Fall 1999 planned planned; regional planned; regional

May 26-27,1999 subgroups plan to meet

planned during Spr/Sum/Fall 1999

Offshore

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Table 1. Take reduction plans/teams timeline of major events and Federal Register citations 

Pacific Offshore 

Cetacean 

Date convened	 Feb. 12, 1996 

(61 FR 5385) 

First meeting	 Feb. 13-14, 1996 

(61 FR 5385) 

Draft submitted


to NMFS Aug. 15, 1996


NMFS publishes


draft TRP &


proposed regs Feb. 14, 1997


(62 FR 6931) 

NMFS publishes Oct. 3, 1997 

final plan and (62 FR 51805); 

final regs Technical 

Amendment 

of Final Rule, 

May 21, 1998 

(63 FR 27860) 

Interim final rule 

to be published 

Jan. 1999 

Follow-up 

meetings	 May 29-30, 1997; 

June 1-2, 1998; 

May 26-27,1999 

planned 

Atlantic Offshore Gulf of Maine Mid-Atlantic Atlantic Large Whale 

Cetacean Harbor Porpoise 

May 23, 1996 Feb. 12, 1996 Feb. 25, 1997 Aug 6, 1996 

(61 FR 25846) (61 FR 5384) (62 FR 8428) (61 FR 40819) 

May 29-30, 1996 Feb. 14-15, 1996 Mar. 4-5, 1997 Sept.16-17, 1996 

(61 FR 25846) (61 FR 5384) (62 FR 8428) (61 FR 48131) 

Nov. 25, 1996 Aug. 8, 1996 Aug. 25, 1997 Feb. 5, 1997 

Draft TRP & proposedAug. 13, 1997 Sep. 11, 1998 Apr. 7, 1997 

regs not published	 (62 FR 43302) (63 FR 48670) (62 FR 16519) 

Comment period 

reopened and 

extended to Jan 14, 1998 

(62 FR 65402); Revised 

proposed rule published 

Sep. 11, 1998 

(63 FR 48670) 

Partially implementedDec. 2, 1998


under final rule to be (63 FR 66464)


published May 1999


on Atl. Highly Migratory


Species (64 FR 29089)


Late1999 planned	 Dec. 16-17, 1997; 

Fall 1999 planned 

Dec. 2, 1998 Interim final on 

(63 FR 66464)	 July 22, 1997 

(62 FR 39157); 

Final rule to be 

published Feb. 1999 

(64 FR 7529) 

Fall 1999 planned	 Feb. 8-10, 1999 

planned; regional 

subgroups plan to meet 

during Spr/Sum/Fall 1999 

is 50 fathoms (300 ft or 90 m) long and nets are tied 

together in strings of 1-30 nets. The fishery currently 

includes approximately 300 vessels. 

Description of the Marine Mammal Bycatch 

Incidental mortality of harbor porpoise in this fishery 

has been of concern since the late 1980s. The estimated 

average mortality of harbor porpoise killed incidental to 

this fishery from 1990-1995 was 1,833 animals, while 

the calculated PBR level for this stock is 483 animals. 

Although the primary species of concern for bycatch reduction measures in this fishery has been harbor porpoise, this fishery also has incidental mortality of the 

Western North Atlantic stock of Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus). The estimated average mortality of white-sided dolphins killed incidental 

to this fishery from 1990-1995 was 121 animals, and 

the PBR level for this stock was 192 animals. For more 

information on these marine mammals stocks, see Chapter II, or the 1998 U.S. Atlantic Stock Assessment Report. 

Elements of the Team’s Draft Plan 

The HPTRT submitted a consensus draft plan to NMFS 

on August 8, 1996. The team’s draft plan represented a 

comprehensive approach to the problem of harbor porpoise incidental take. The plan is summarized in the 

1997 MMPA Annual Report. 

Page 13 
Page 14

Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Status of the Plan 

Soon after the HPTRT submitted its plan to NMFS, the 

NEFMC implemented Framework Adjustment 19 to 

the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. 

This action opened the Mid-Coast area to gillnet fishing 

with pingers during November and December. Because 

the NEFMC actions altered the assumptions upon which 

the HPTRT’s consensus proceedings were based, NMFS 

modified the HPTRT’s draft plan to be consistent with 

the fishery management measures while ensuring that 

the goal of the plan would still be met. 

On August 13, 1997, NMFS published a proposed rule 

to implement the HPTRT (62 FR 43302). In the proposed rule, NMFS also proposed changes and provided 

updates to several non-regulatory aspects of the Implementation Plan. 

Since the publication of NMFS’ proposed rule, new information on the bycatch levels of harbor porpoise became available that strongly indicated that NMFS’ proposed take reduction measures would not reduce harbor 

porpoise bycatch in the Gulf of Maine to levels below 

the PBR level. However, results of the Spring 1997 pinger 

experiment indicated that pingers appeared to be a viable management strategy throughout the year. In December 1997, NMFS reconvened the HPTRT to review 

this new information and to solicit additional recommendations for more effective bycatch reduction measures. The team reiterated that the goal of the draft take 

reduction plan is to reduce takes in the Gulf of Maine to 

below the Gulf of Maine portion of the PBR level. To 

achieve this goal, the HPTRT recommended tentative 

time/area closures and periods during which pingers 

should be used. 

NMFS incorporated the new information and the team’s 

recommendations in a second proposed rule published 

on September 11, 1998 (63 FR 48670). This proposed 

rule also incorporated harbor porpoise take reduction 

measures for mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fisheries, as recommended by the Mid-Atlantic Take Reduction Team 

(see next section). The final rule implementing take reduction measures for both the Gulf of Maine and midAtlantic was published on December 2, 1998 (63 FR 

66464). It puts into place a series of time and area closures where pingers are required, or where complete closures will be in effect. It also requires training and certification for fishers using pingers. The elements of the 

final rule as it pertains to the Northeast Multispecies sink 

gillnet fishery are summarized in Table 2. 

NMFS is also in the process of implementing the following non-regulatory measures in support of the plan: 

* developing a research plan to assess the long-term ecosystem impacts from widespread use of pingers; 

Table 2. Time/area closures and periods of required able 2. Time/area closures and periods of required

pinger use for the Nor pinger use for the Northeast Multispecies sink gillnet theast Multispecies sink gillnet theast Multispecies sink gillnet

fishery as required by the final regulations imple­ y as required by the final regulations implementing the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan.

Northeast Area: theast Area: theast Area:

Aug.15 to Sep.13 Aug.15 to Sep.13 Closed

Mid-coast Area: Mid-coast Area: Mid-coast Area:

Sep. 15 to May 31 Sep. 15 to May 31 Closed, gillnets Closed, gillnets

with pingers with pingers

allowed allowed

Massachusetts Bay Area: Massachusetts Bay Area: Massachusetts Bay Area:

Dec. 1 to Feb. 28/29 Dec. 1 to Feb. 28/29 Closed, gillnets Closed, gillnets

with pingers with pingers

allowed allowed

Mar. 1-31Closed

Apr. 1 to May 31 . 1 to May 31 Closed, gillnets Closed, gillnets

with pingers with pingers

allowed allowed

Cape Cod South Area: Cape Cod South Area: Cape Cod South Area:

Dec. 1 to Feb. 28/29 Dec. 1 to Feb. 28/29 Closed, gillnets Closed, gillnets

with pingers with pingers

allowed allowed

Mar. 1-31Closed

Apr. 1 to May 31 . 1 to May 31 Closed, gillnets Closed, gillnets

with pingers with pingers

allowed allowed

Offshore Area: Offshore Area: Offshore Area:

Nov. 1 to May 31 . 1 to May 31 Closed, gillnets Closed, gillnets

with pingers with pingers

allowed allowed

Cashes Ledge Area: edge Area: edge Area:

Feb. 1-28/29 Feb. 1-28/29 Closed

Page 14 
 Page 15

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Mid-Atlantic T Atlantic Take Reduction T eduction Team

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

* working with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission on the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics 

Program to provide managers with more timely bycatch 

and fisheries information on the Atlantic Coast; 

* investigating options for providing support to fishers 

for pinger technology; 

* conducting pinger training and certification for all fishers who wish to use pingers in the closed areas; and 

* expanding NMFS’ capabilities to do analytical research 

by hiring additional staff for its Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 

Mid-Atlantic Take Reduction Team 

NMFS established the Mid-Atlantic Take Reduction 

Team (MATRT) on February 25, 1997, to address interactions between harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and 

the Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery. The Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery also has bycatch of another strategic marine mammal stock, bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) (Atlantic coastal stock), but the team agreed 

that the development of a take reduction plan for bottlenose dolphins should be delayed until 1999 in order to 

collect more information on stock abundance, stock identification, and incidental mortality levels. 

Description of the Fisheries 

This fishery includes all gillnet fishing from 72° 30’ W 

longitude. (the northeastern tip of Long Island) to the 

North Carolina-South Carolina border, except those fisheries that operate solely within rivers, bays, and estuaries. 

Target species of this fishery include, but are not limited 

to: Atlantic croaker, Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic sturgeon, 

black drum, bluefish, herring, menhaden, scup, shad, 

striped bass, sturgeon, weakfish, white perch, yellow 

perch, dogfish, and monkfish. This fishery is estimated 

to have more than 655 active participants, many of whom 

target different species seasonally as the fish stocks migrate north and south along the Atlantic coast. The mesh 

size used in this fishery varies widely, from 12.5 cm (5 

in) for shad to 30 cm (12 in) for monkfish. These interstate fisheries are managed in coordination with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission via state and 

federal Fishery Management Plans. 

Description of the Marine Mammal Bycatch 

The offshore portion of the U.S. Mid-Atlantic coastal 

gillnet fishery that targets monkfish and dogfish has been 

observed since 1993. Data from the observer program 

have been used to estimate annual mortality in the fishery: 103 harbor porpoise are estimated to have been incidentally killed in 1995 and 311 were killed in 1996, with 

the majority (70%) of the mortalities in February and 

March and in New Jersey, Maryland, and North Carolina. The fisheries responsible for these mortalities were 

targeting either dogfish or monkfish. Average estimated 

harbor porpoise mortality and serious injury during 1995 

and 1996 was 207 in this offshore portion of the MidAtlantic coastal gillnet fishery. 

The following marine mammals have also been taken in 

observed trips: one bottlenose dolphin in 1994, two common dolphins in 1995, and two common dolphins in 

1996. For more information on these marine mammal 

stocks, see the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessment Reports. 

Elements of the Team’s Report to NMFS 

The MATRT submitted a report to NMFS on August 

25, 1997. Although the team did not reach consensus 

on a draft plan, the team’s report incorporated both consensus and non-consensus recommendations for harbor 

porpoise bycatch reduction measures, as well as research 

and data collection recommendations for coastal bottlenose dolphins. Take reduction measures recommended 

by the team are summarized in the 1997 MMPA Annual 

Report. 

Status of the Plan 

NMFS combined the take reduction measures recommended for harbor porpoise in the mid-Atlantic with 

measures recommended for harbor porpoise in the Gulf 

of Maine and proposed a combined Harbor Porpoise 

Take Reduction Plan on September 11, 1998 (63 FR 

48670). The final rule implementing the plan was published on December 2, 1998 (63 FR 66464). The most 

significant change from the proposed rule to the final 

was the application of management measures in the small 

Page 15 
Page 16

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

The Pacific Offshore Cetacean T acific Offshore Cetacean Take

Reduction Plan

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Table 3. able 3. y (includes gillnet with mesh size greater than 7 inches (17.78 y (includes gillnet with mesh size greater than 7 inches (17.78

cm) to 18 inches (45.72 cm)) required by the final rule implementing the Mid-Atlantic Take Reduction Plan.

Floatline Length:

New Jersey Mudhole* New Jersey Mudhole* less than or equal to 3,900 ft (1188.7m) t (1188.7m)

New Jersey Waters (excluding the Mudhole*) New Jersey Waters (excluding the Mudhole*) lessthan or equal to 4,800 ft (1463.0 m) t (1463.0 m)

Southern Mid-Atlantic Watersless than or equal to 3,900 ft (1188.7 m) t (1188.7 m)

Twine Size: wine Size:

All Mid-Atlantic Watersgreater than or equal to .90 mm (.035 inches) greater than or equal to .90 mm (.035 inches)

Tie Downs: Tie Downs:

All Mid-Atlantic WatersRequired equired

Net Cap: Net Cap:

All Mid-Atlantic Waters80 nets 80 nets

Net Size: Net Size: A net must be no longer than 300 ft (91.4 m) t (91.4 m)

Net Tagging: agging: Requires all nets to be tagged by Jan.1, 2000 .1, 2000

Time Area Closures: Time Area Closures:

New Jersey Waters to 72o30’W longitude 30’W longitude

(including the Mudhole*) (including the Mudhole*) Closed from Apr. 1 - 20 . 1 - 20

New Jersey Mudhole* New Jersey Mudhole* Closed from Feb. 15 - Mar. 15

Southern Mid-Atlantic Waters

(MD, DE, VA, NC) to 72o30’W longitude 30’W longitude Closed from Feb. 15 - Mar. 15

*New Jersey Mudhole: area off New Jersey with particularly high harbor porpoise bycatch. ticularly high harbor porpoise bycatch. 

40o30', north of 30o55', east of the coastline, and west of 73o20'.

Gear requirements for the large mesh gillnet fisher

Defined as an area south of Defined as an area south of

mesh fishery. Stranding data and other bycatch information suggest that small mesh between five inches (12.5 

cm) and seven inches (17.5 cm) may be a source of 

bycatch, and NMFS has implemented gear restrictions 

accordingly. For fisheries using mesh less than five inches 

(12.5 cm), NMFS has limited data to suggest that there 

is a bycatch problem, yet will continue to collect and 

evaluate data from this segment of the fishery to determine whether further take reduction measures are necessary for the small mesh component of this fishery.Tables 

3 and 4 summarize the gear restriction and time-area 

closures put into effect for large and small mesh gillnet 

under the final rule implementing the Mid-Atlantic take 

Reduction Plan. 

NMFS is also in the process of implementing the following non-regulatory measures in support of the plan: 

* expansion of capabilities to observe the mid-Atlantic 

fisheries by exploring alternative platforms to obtain a 

better characterization of coastal fisheries that were not 

accessible to the traditional observer program; 

* voluntary skipper education workshops in the midAtlantic; and 

* increased observer coverage of the mid-Atlantic fisheries consistent with a valid sampling scheme, including 

the use of alternative platforms and increased responsiveness to observed strandings. 

The Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take 

Reduction Plan 

NMFS convened the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team (PCTRT) on February 12, 1996 to address takes of short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala 

macrorhynchus), mesoplodont beaked whales (Mesoplodon 

spp.), Baird’s beaked whales (Berardius bairdii), Cuvier’s 

beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris), pygmy sperm whales 

(Kogia breviceps), sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), 

and humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the 

California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery for thresher shark 

and swordfish. 

Page 16 
 Page 17

 Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Description of the Fishery 

The CA/OR drift gillnet fishery is regulated primarily 

by the CDFG under a limited access permit system. The 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife issues ten “unlimited” landing permits and offers 44 “limited” landing 

permits by lottery (although only 15 people applied for 

permits in 1996). The fishery operates from the United 

States/Mexico border to waters off Oregon and Washington. The fishery is closed from February through late 

April. From late April through August, drift gillnets cannot be used to catch swordfish or thresher shark within 

75 nautical miles of shore. Only limited restrictions are 

in place from August through January. 

Drift gillnets are tied at one end to a vessel and drift with 

the current at the other end. Most nets are made of multifilament nylon and are 1.8 km (1 nmi) in length. They 

typically have a stretched mesh size from 45-55 cm (18­

22 in). Extender lines, which attach the net to buoys at 

the surface, suspend the net below the surface. The net is 

set at night and retrieved at dawn. There are approximately 150 active fishers in the drift gillnet fishery. 

Description of the Marine Mammal Bycatch 

The mortality estimates from observer data available 

through 1996 are summarized in the 1998 Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report. Based on the average annual mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in this fishery from 1991-1996, takes are above the 

PBR levels for the following marine mammal stocks: 

sperm whales (CA/OR/WA stock), short-finned pilot 

whales (CA/OR stock), and mesoplodont beaked whales. 

In addition, the level of mortality and serious injury that 

occurs incidental to this fishery is above 50% of the PBR 

level for Baird’s beaked whales (CA/OR/WA stock) and 

minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) (CA/OR/WA 

stock). 

Elements of the Team’s Draft Plan 

On June 27, 1996, the PCTRT reached consensus on a 

draft plan. The PCTRT submitted its draft plan to 

NMFS on August 15, 1996. Take reduction measures 

recommended by the team are summarized in the 1997 

MMPA Annual Report. 

Status of the Plan 

As recommended by the team, a pinger experiment was 

conducted in the fishery during the 1996/1997 fishing 

season, resulting in cetacean entanglement rates being 

75% lower in nets that had pingers. Based on these preliminary findings, NMFS and the PCTRT both agreed 

that pingers should be deployed on all nets. This proviTable 4. able 4. able 4. y (includes gillnet with mesh size greater than 5 y (includes gillnet with mesh size greater than 5

inches (12.7 cm) to less than 7 inches (17.5cm)) required by the final rule implementing the Mid-Atlantic Take

Reduction Plan.

Floatline Length:

New Jersey Waters New Jersey Waters less than or equal to 3,000 f less than or equal to 3,000 ft (914.4 m) t (914.4 m) t (914.4 m)

Southern Mid-Atlantic Watersless than or equal to 2,118 f less than or equal to 2,118 ft (645.6 m) t (645.6 m) t (645.6 m)

Twine Size: wine Size: wine Size:

All Mid-Atlantic Watersgreater than or equal to .81 mm (.031 inches) greater than or equal to .81 mm (.031 inches) greater than or equal to .81 mm (.031 inches)

Net Cap: Net Cap: Net Cap:

All Mid-Atlantic Waters45 nets 45 nets

Net Size: Net Size: Net Size: A net must be no longer than 300 f A net must be no longer than 300 ft (91.4 m) t (91.4 m) t (91.4 m)

Net Tagging: agging: agging: Requires all nets to be tagged by Jan. 1, 2000 . 1, 2000

Time/Area Closures: Time/Area Closures: Time/Area Closures:

New Jersey Mudhole New Jersey Mudhole Closed from Feb. 15 - Mar eb. 15 - Mar. 15

Gear requirements for the small Gear requirements for the small Gear requirements for the small mesh gillnet fisher mesh gillnet fisher

Page 17 
Page 18

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

The Atlantic Offshore Cetacean T The Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take

Reduction Plan

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

sion was included in the proposed rule to implement the 

plan on February 14, 1997 (62 FR 6931) and in the 

final rule implementing the plan on October 3, 1997 

(62 FR 51805). In addition, a technical amendment to 

the final rule was published on May 21, 1998 (63 FR 

27860) to correct and clarify the final rule. 

The final rule, as amended, contains the following regulatory provisions: 

* minimum six fathom (36 ft) net buoy line extender 

length - the extender length is the length of the line from 

the surface of the water to the top of the net; 

* mandatory fleetwide use of pingers on the floatline (top 

of the net) and leadline (bottom of the net) during all 

fishing operations; and 

* mandatory requirement for all vessel owners and captains to attend skipper education workshops, 

In conjunction with the publication of the final rule, 

NMFS has also taken steps to implement the non-regulatory aspects of the plan. NMFS has requested that the 

state of California continue their policy of not reissuing 

permits that have lapsed and that the State of Oregon 

not issue more than the current level of permits. The 

observer program’s effectiveness has been enhanced by 

meeting the 20% observer coverage level recommended 

by the team, by ensuring that the observer program is 

targeting all vessels (with the exception of vessels in which 

there are safety concerns or inadequate space to carry an 

observer), and by having observers collect additional information on net and environmental characteristics. 

Skipper workshops were held throughout California and 

Oregon in the summer of 1997, and again in 1998. At 

the workshops, NMFS presented updated information 

on the status and content of the final take reduction plan 

and background information on the MMPA and the affected marine mammal stocks. NMFS also provided 

demonstrations of pingers and encouraged feedback on 

the effectiveness of the required fishing strategies in reducing marine mammal interactions through informal 

question and answer sessions. NMFS believes that the 

skipper education workshops have played a major role 

in the success of the plan. 

Results from the 1997/1998 fishing season indicate that 

compliance with the plan is high, and that bycatch of 

marine mammals is below the calculated PBR level for 

all strategic stocks. Preliminary results from the 1998/ 

1999 fishing season also indicate good compliance with 

the regulations, and with the exception of sperm whales, 

bycatch levels are less than PBR for all marine mammal 

stocks. 

The Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take 

Reduction Plan 

NMFS convened the Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take 

Reduction Team (AOCTRT) on May 23, 1996, to address interactions between strategic marine mammal 

stocks and the Atlantic pelagic driftnet, pair trawl, and 

longline fisheries for swordfish, tuna and sharks. Cumulatively, these fisheries incidentally take Atlantic spotted 

dolphin (Stenella frontalis), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus), common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), 

pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata), longfinned pilot whales (Globicephala melas), short-finned 

pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus), beaked whales 

(Mesoplodon spp. and Ziphius cavirostris), right whales 

(Eubalaena glacialis), humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae), and sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) 

at levels that are estimated to be above the PBR levels 

established for these stocks. The AOCTRT included 

representatives of each of the three fisheries, environmental and conservation groups, several states, the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council, independent fisheries, the marine mammal biological community, and 

NMFS. 

Description of the Fisheries 

The Atlantic swordfish fishery is managed by NMFS 

under the Atlantic Swordfish Fishery Management Plan 

(as authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Act) and under 

the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). ATCA directs NMFS to regulate the swordfish fishery as required 

by the International Commission for the Conservation 

of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). A Total Allowable Catch 

level is set for the directed swordfish fishery each year; 

approximately 98% is allocated to the longline/harpoon 

fisheries and the remaining 2% is allocated to the drift 

gillnet fishery. The Atlantic tuna fishery is also managed 

Page 18 
 Page 19

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Drift Gillnet Fishery.

Longline Fishery.

Pair Trawl Fishery.

Drift Gillnet Fishery.

Longline Fishery.

Pair Trawl Fishery.

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

under the authority of ATCA, which authorizes NMFS 

to regulate the tuna fishery as required by ICCAT. The 

Atlantic shark fishery is managed by NMFS under the 

Atlantic Sharks Fishery Management Plan (as authorized 

by the Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

Drift Gillnet Fishery. This fishery has typically operated off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, in the winter 

and spring, and from Hudson Canyon off Cape Cod to 

the Hague Line during the summer. Drift gillnets used 

in this fishery have a mesh size of 45-55 cm (18-22 in), 

are 60-70 meshes deep, and are set 5.4-9 m (18-30 ft) 

below the surface. The total length of net that can be set 

by each vessel is 2.4 km (1.5 mi). The nets are typically 

set at dusk and retrieved at dawn. From 1994-1998, 

there have been 10-12 active vessels in the fishery. Swordfish is the primary target of the fishery, although tuna 

and shark are also caught and landed. 

Longline Fishery. The Atlantic longline fishery operates from the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean to the 

Grand Banks and off Newfoundland. Longlines consist 

of a continuous monofilament mainline suspended from 

the surface by a series of floats. Gangions with baited 

hooks are attached to the mainline at regular intervals. 

The mainline averages about 40 km (25 mi), but may be 

as long as 128 km (80 mi). There are between 200-400 

active participants in the fishery. 

Pair Trawl Fishery. The pair trawl fishery operated in 

pelagic waters off Long Island, New York from 1991 to 

1995 (primarily around Hudson Canyon). The fishery 

used a large mesh net (mesh size of 3-18 m or 10-60 ft) 

towed between two trawlers to target bigeye tuna. It 

typically operated from June to October. There were 12 

participants in the fishery in 1995. 

Description of the Marine Mammal Bycatch 

Drift Gillnet Fishery. The mortality estimates from 

observer data available through 1996 indicate that the 

level of mortality and serious injury incidental to this 

fishery was equal to or above the PBR levels for the following strategic stocks: North Atlantic right whale (Western North Atlantic stock (WNA)), common dolphin 

(WNA), short-finned pilot whale (WNA), dwarf sperm 

whale (WNA), mesoplodont beaked whale (WNA), and 

spinner dolphin (WNA). In addition, the level of mortality and serious injury that occurs incidental to this 

fishery is above 50% of the PBR level for Atlantic spotted dolphin (WNA) and pantropical spotted dolphin 

(WNA). For a complete summary of stock-specific 

mortality and serious injury levels, refer to the 1998 U.S. 

Atlantic Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report. 

Longline Fishery. The mortality estimates from observer data available through 1995 indicate that the level 

of mortality and serious injury that occurs incidental to 

this fishery was greater than the PBR level for short-finned 

pilot whales (NMFS estimates that approximately 5.5 

pilot whales were taken annually from 1992-1995; however, identification of incidentally taken pilot whales as 

to stock (long-finned vs. short-finned) could not always 

be determined. The PBR for long-finned pilot whales is 

32 animals, and the PBR for short-finned pilot whales is 

4.6 animals. The fishery also has observed takes of Risso’s 

dolphin (Grampus griseus), spotted dolphin, spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris), common dolphin, bottlenose 

dolphin, and killer whale (Orca orcinus). It should be 

noted that the team did not have access to mortality estimates from the 1994/1995 fishing seasons, although it 

did review observed takes (including a significant number of animals reported to be released alive). Some of 

these animals released alive were injured. Because national 

guidelines were not in place for determining which injuries are serious, the team was unable to make specific 

recommendations regarding these takes. For a complete 

summary of stock-specific mortality and serious injury 

levels, refer to the 1998 U.S. Atlantic Marine Mammal 

Stock Assessment Report. 

Pair Trawl Fishery. The mortality estimates from observer data indicate that the level of mortality and serious 

injury that occurs incidental to this fishery was equal to 

or above the 50% of the PBR level for common dolphins, a strategic stock. For a complete summary of stockspecific mortality and serious injury levels, refer to the 

1998 U.S. Atlantic Marine Mammal Stock Assessment 

Report. 

Page 19 
Page 20

Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Table 5. able 5. theast multispecies sink gillnet fishery required by the interim final regula­ y required by the interim final regulations implementing the Large Whale Take Reduction Plan.

Location ocation DatesComments Comments

Great South Channel Right Whale Critical Habitat Great South Channel Right Whale Critical Habitat Great South Channel Right Whale Critical Habitat April 1 - Jun. 30Sink gear prohibited: exception is Sink gear prohibited: exception is

the “sliver area” the “sliver area”

Great South Channel Right Whale Critical Habitat Great South Channel Right Whale Critical Habitat Great South Channel Right Whale Critical Habitat July 1 - Mar. 31Sink gillnet gear restricted Sink gillnet gear restricted

Cape Cod Bay Right Whale Critical Habitat ­ Cape Cod Bay Right Whale Critical Habitat -

federal portionJan. 1 - May 15 . 1 - May 15 Sink gillnet gear prohibited until Sink gillnet gear prohibited until Sink gillnet gear prohibited until

right whales leave the area right whales leave the area

Cape Cod Bay Right Whale Critical Habitat ­ Cape Cod Bay Right Whale Critical Habitat -

federal portionMay 16 - Dec. 31 May 16 - Dec. 31 Sink gillnet gear restricted Sink gillnet gear restricted

Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledgeyearround yearround Sink gillnet gear restricted Sink gillnet gear restricted

All other areas in the NE Atlantic All other areas in the NE Atlantic yearround yearround Sink gillnet gear restricted Sink gillnet gear restricted

Closures and restrictions on the Nor

Elements of the Team’s Draft Plan 

On November 25, 1996, the AOCTRT submitted its 

draft plan to NMFS. The AOCTRT developed comprehensive strategies for each fishery -drift gillnet, longline, 

and pair trawl. Each comprehensive strategy included a 

number of activities that are designed to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of strategic stocks of 

marine mammals. The team’s plan recommended that 

several general regulatory and non-regulatory actions be 

initiated to reduce bycatch of marine mammals in all 

three fisheries, and that fishery-specific strategies also be 

implemented. Take reduction measures recommended 

by the team are summarized in the 1997 MMPA Annual 

Report. 

Status of the Plan 

On October 20, 1998, NMFS proposed regulations to 

prohibit the use of driftnets in the Atlantic swordfish 

fishery and to eliminate any incidental catch allowance 

for swordfish in any other driftnet fishery. The intent of 

the action was to reduce interactions of driftnets in the 

Atlantic swordfish fishery with certain protected marine 

species. This action was taken under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act. This action was published as a final rule in 

January 1999. 

The recommendations regarding operation of the pelagic 

longline fishery are being partially addressed under a Fishery Management Plan for Highly Migratory Species 

(HMS FMP). The final rule implementing the FMP is 

set to be published in May 1999. The rule will include 

the team’s recommendation that the length of line set be 

limited to no more that 24 nautical miles (44.5 km) in 

the mid-Atlantic Bight from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 

2000. No longline fishing will be allowed in the Northeastern United States closed area in June, and all marine 

mammals hooked or entangled must be immediately released and fishing operations moved at least 1 nautical 

mile (2 km) before resuming fishing. The rule will also 

implement a limited access program for the fishery. The 

only regulatory-requirement recommended by the Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team that is 

not being implemented under the HMS FMP is the reduction of the maximum soak time (by retrieving gear in 

the order it was set). There were concerns expressed by 

participants in the fishery that returning to the point 

where the gear was set would be costly (in terms of fuel 

costs) and may not be safe in rough seas. 

Another team recommendation implemented in 1998 

was a comprehensive pelagic dolphin survey - a survey of 

the western Atlantic Ocean. The survey was a coordinated effort of both the NMFS Northeast and Southeast 

Page 20 
 Page 21

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

The Atlantic Large Whale T arge Whale Take Reduction Team

Lobster Trap/Pot Fishery.

Gulf of Maine and Mid- Gulf of Maine and Mid-Atlantic Gillnet Fisheries.

Southeast Shark Gillnet Fishery.

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Table 6. able 6. Atlantic Atlantic

coastal gillnet fishery required by the interim final regu­ y required by the interim final regulations implementing the Large Whale Take Reduction eduction

Plan.

Location ocation DatesComments Comments

All areas All areas Dec. 1 - Mar. 31Anchored 

gillnet gillnet gear restricted gear restricted

All areas All areas year-roundRestrictions on estrictions on

hauling, stowing, hauling, stowing,

and setting gillnet and setting gillnet

gear

Closures and restrictions on the Midsink

Fisheries Science Centers. 

NMFS expects to reconvene the AOCTRT, minus the 

pair trawl and drift gillnet fishermen, in the winter of 

1999. The team will be asked to review current data on 

population abundance, observed and estimated mortality and serious injury levels, and their draft plan in order 

to make recommendations regarding appropriate take 

reduction strategies and research and monitoring needs 

for the future. 

The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team 

OnAugust 6, 1996, NMFS established the Atlantic Large 

Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) to address the 

incidental bycatch of large baleen whales, primarily the 

northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) and the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the following fisheries: the Gulf of Maine/U.S. mid-Atlantic lobster trap/ 

pot fishery, the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet fishery, the 

mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery, and the southeastern 

U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet fishery.These two large whale 

stocks are considered strategic under the MMPA because 

they are listed as endangered under the ESA, and because the level of human-caused mortality is greater than 

the calculated PBR levels. 

The ALWTRT includes representatives from each fishery, NMFS, state marine resource management agencies, 

the New England Fishery Management Council, the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council, the Marine Mammal Commission, environmental organizations, and academic and scientific organizations. 

Description of the Fisheries 

Lobster Trap/Pot Fishery. This fishery is managed 

by both individual states and by NMFS, under the Lobster Fishery Management Plan (as authorized by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act). This fishery operates in 

nearshore and offshore waters in the Gulf of Maine and 

the mid-Atlantic. Vessels used in the inshore fishery are 

typically under 15 m (50 ft) in length and have a crew of 

one to four people. Vessels used in the offshore fishery 

are typically between 15-30 m (50-100 ft) in length and 

have a crew of three to five people. Offshore vessels generally fish in waters up to 360 m (1200 ft) deep. There 

are approximately 14,600 permit holders, including 4000 

vessels that fish in offshore waters. 

Gulf of Maine and Mid-Atlantic Gillnet Fisheries. See the description of these fisheries under the section of this chapter on the harbor porpoise take reduction plan and the mid-Atlantic take reduction plan, respectively. 

Southeast Shark Gillnet Fishery. This fishery is 

regulated by NMFS under the Atlantic Sharks Fishery 

Management Plan (as authorized by the MagnusonStevens Act). This fishery operates primarily in federal 

waters from Port Salerno, Florida to Savannah, Georgia. 

Nets are typically 300 m (1000 ft) to 1.6 km (1 mi) in 

length and are set and fished overnight. There are approximately 16 active fishers in the fishery. 

Table 7. Closures and restrictions on the Southeast U.S. drif able 7. Closures and restrictions on the Southeast U.S. driftnet fishery required by the interim final regulations implement­ y required by the interim final regulations implementing the Large Whale Take Reduction Plan.

Location ocation DatesComments Comments

Southeast restricted area Southeast restricted area Nov. 15 - Mar. 31Driftnet gear prohibited; strikenets are enets are

permitted under certain conditions tain conditions

Southeast observer area ver area Nov. 15 - Mar. Driftnet vessels required to carry observers if fishing in Southeast vers if fishing in Southeast

observer area. Driftnet gear required to be marked.

31

Page 21 
Page 22

Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Description of the Marine Mammal Bycatch 

Records of whale entanglements in the lobster pot/trap 

fishery consist entirely of strandings and opportunistic 

reports of live and dead animals. Recent studies indicate 

that this fishery incurs 0.4 serious injuries of right whales 

each year. The PBR level for right whales is 0.4 animals. 

There are also records of humpback and right whale entanglements attributed to gillnet gear in the Gulf of 

Maine, mid-Atlantic, and Southeast, but quantitative 

estimates of average annual mortality in these fisheries 

were not available for the team. For more information 

on these marine mammal stocks, see Chapter II. Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessment Program. 

The Status of the Plan 

The ALWTRT did not reach consensus on a plan for 

reducing bycatch of large whales in the Atlantic. The 

ALWTRT submitted a draft report of their deliberations 

to NMFS, which was used, in part, to develop a proposed and interim final rule which served as the take 

reduction plan for the fisheries. A proposed rule to implement the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan was 

published on April 7, 1997 (62 FR 16519). NMFS held 

12 public hearings from Maine to Virginia and received 

approximately 13,000 comments on the proposed rule. 

As a result, major changes to boundaries of affected areas, gear and marking requirements, and contingency 

measures were made. Because the changes from the proposed rule were significant, NMFS issued regulations for 

reducing bycatch in these fisheries as an interim final 

rule on July 22, 1997 (62 FR 39157) and accepted additional comments on the rule. A final rule implementing 

the plan was published in February 1999. 

Elements of the Interim Final Plan 

The interim final rule closed right whale critical habitat 

areas to specific types of fishing gear during certain seasons and modified fishing practices in such a manner 

designed to meet the goals of the MMPA without damaging a vital fishing industry (see Tables 5-8). The plan 

uses seven strategies to achieve the six-month goal: 

• Closure of right whale critical habitats to some gear 

types during times of the year when right whales are 

present; 

• Restricting the way strike nets are set in the Southeast 

shark gillnet fishery; 

• Requiring that all lobster and anchored gillnets be set 

in such a way as to prevent line from floating at the surface; 

• Requiring all lobster and anchored gillnets to have at 

least some additional characteristics that are likely to reduce the risks of entanglements; 

• Requiring that drift gillnets in the mid-Atlantic be either tended or stored on board at night; 

• Improving the voluntary network of personnel trained 

to assist in disentangling right whales; and 

• Prohibiting storage of inactive gear in the ocean. 

Table 8. Closures and restrictions on lobster trap/pot fishing required by the interim final regulations implementing the able 8. Closures and restrictions on lobster trap/pot fishing required by the interim final regulations implementing the

Large Whale Take Reduction Plan.

Location ocation DatesComments Comments

Great South Channel Right Whale Critical Habitat Great South Channel Right Whale Critical Habitat April 1 - Jun. 30Lobster gear prohibited obster gear prohibited

Great South Channel Right Whale Critical Habitat Great South Channel Right Whale Critical Habitat July 1 - Mar. 31Lobster gear restricted obster gear restricted

Cape Cod Bay Right Whale Critical Habitat Cape Cod Bay Right Whale Critical Habitat Jan. 1 - May 15 . 1 - May 15 Lobster gear restricted obster gear restricted

Stellwagen Bank/Jeffrey’s Ledgeyear-roundLobster gear restricted obster gear restricted

All other areas All other areas year-roundLobster gear restricted obster gear restricted

Page 22 
 Page 23

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Differentiation of Serious and Non- Differentiation of Serious and NonSerious Injur Serious Injury in Marine Mammals y in Marine Mammals

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Table 8. Closures and restrictions on the Southeast U.S. drif able 8. Closures and restrictions on the Southeast U.S. driftnet fisher tnet fishery required by the interim final regulations y required by the interim final regulations

implementing the Large Whale Take Reduction Plan.

Location ocation DatesComments Comments

Southeast restricted area Southeast restricted area Nov. 15 - Mar . 15 - Mar. 31Driftnet gear prohibited; strikenets are permitted enets are permitted

under cer under certain conditions tain conditions

Southeast obser Southeast observer area ver area Nov. 15 - Mar . 15 - Mar. Driftnet vessels required to carr tnet vessels required to carry obser y observers if fish­ vers if fishing in Southeast obser ing in Southeast observer area. Drif ver area. Driftnet gear re­ tnet gear required to be marked.

31

In addition, gear covered under this plan must be marked 

so that the type of gear that entangles cetaceans can be 

identified, and gear near the surface cannot be allowed 

to float at the surface. 

The use of gear modifications to minimize the risks of 

entangling large whales will be key to the long-term success of the take reduction plan. To this end, the LWTRT 

developed lists of acceptable gear technologies currently 

available that are believed to reduce the likelihood that 

cetaceans will become entangled, or increase the likelihood that a cetacean will break free from the gear if entangled. These gear technologies include weak links for 

buoy lines and the use of sinking line for the buoy line or 

the ground lines. Fisheries may be required to use one or 

more of these acceptable technologies if they fish in certain areas at certain times of the year. 

Differentiation of Serious and NonSerious Injury in Marine Mammals 

One of the mandates of section 118 of the MMPA is to 

reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of marine 

mammals that occurs in the course of commercial fishing operations to below Potential Biological Removal 

(PBR) levels. In addition, the long-term goal of the 

MMPA is to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality 

and serious injury rate. Defining the concept of “serious 

injury” is integral to implementing the MMPA. 

NMFS provided a clear definition of “injury” to marine 

mammals under the final regulations implementing the 

1994 amendments to the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2), as... 

“...a wound or other physical harm. Signs of injury include, but are not limited to, visible blood flow, loss of 

or damage to an appendage or jaw, inability to use one or 

more appendages, asymmetry in the shape of the body or 

body position, noticeable swelling or hemorrhage, laceration, 

puncture, or rupture of eyeball, listless appearance or inability to defend itself, inability to swim or dive upon release 

from fishing gear, or signs of equilibrium imbalance. Any 

animal that ingests fishing gear, or any animal that is released with fishing gear entangling, trailing, or perforating 

any part of the body will be considered injured regardless of 

the absence of any wound or other evidence of an injury.” 

However, recognizing that determining which injuries 

are likely to lead to mortality, and thus should be considered serious, is tremendously difficult, NMFS defined 

serious injury more broadly, as... 

“. . .any injury that is likely to result in mortality.” 

On April 1-2, 1997, a workshop was held to explore this 

issue and to begin developing a broad range of guidelines that could be used to determine which marine mammals entangled in fishing gear or injured incidental to 

fishing operations should be considered seriously injured 

as a result of the encounter. (For more background on 

this issue, and a summary of the workshop’s findings, see 

the 1997 MMPA Annual Report). The results of this 

workshop were published as a NOAA technical memorandum. Based on guidance from this workshop, NMFS 

will be reviewing incidental marine mammal injuries for 

several fisheries to determine which injured animals 

should be considered “seriously injured”. These determinations will be published in the Draft Marine MamPage 23 
Page 24

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Authorization for the Incidental Authorization for the Incidental

Taking of Threatened or Endan- aking of Threatened or Endangered Marine Mammals gered Marine Mammals

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

mal Stock Assessment Reports for 2000 and will be considered in the development of the proposed LOF for 2001. 

Authorization for the Incidental 

Taking of Threatened or Endangered Marine Mammals 

Section 101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA allows for the take 

of marine mammals listed as endangered or threatened 

under the ESA incidental to commercial fishing operations, if it can be determined that: 

1) incidental mortality and serious injury will have a negligible impact on the recovery of the affected species or 

stock; 

2) a recovery plan for that species or stock has been developed or is being developed; and 

3) where required under section 118, a monitoring program has been established, vessels are registered, and a 

take reduction plan has been developed or is being developed. 

In order to determine whether commercial fishing activities are having a negligible impact on endangered and 

threatened stocks of marine mammals, NMFS evaluated 

the total number of all incidental serious injuries and 

mortalities due to commercial fishing for each such stock 

based on information included in final stock assessment 

reports and in the Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the implementation of section 118 of the 

MMPA. For more information on the authorization for 

taking threatened or endangered marine mammals, see 

the 1997 MMPA Annual Report. 

In order to determine which fisheries would receive permits under section 101(a)(5)(E), NMFS classified ESAlisted marine mammal stocks into three categories (August 31, 1995; 60 FR 45399). These classifications and 

associated stocks are listed in Table 9. NMFS issued 

individual three-year permits to fisheries that may have 

incidental taking of marine mammals in the first category, and will issue individual permits to participants in 

conjunction with section 118 authorization certificates, 

subject to the same regulations regarding reporting of 

marine mammal injuries and mortalities, maintenance 

and possession of a current authorization certificate, prohibitions on intentional lethal taking, and carrying an 

observer if so requested by NMFS. 

There were no new authorizations for the incidental taking of endangered or threatened species issued in 1998. 

Existing permits were still in place and will authorize 

takings until the end of 1998. 

Page 24 
 Page 25

 Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Table 9. Classification of ESA-listed Stocks Under -listed Stocks Under

Section 101(a)(5)(E) Section 101(a)(5)(E)

Species Species Stock

Mortality and serious injury incidental to commercial y incidental to commercial y incidental to commercial

fishing operations are having a negligible impact for fishing operations are having a negligible impact for

the following stocks: the following stocks:

Humpback whale Humpback whale Central North Pacific stock acific stock

Steller sea lion Steller sea lion Eastern stock Eastern stock

Western stock Western stock

Mortality and serious injury incidental to commercial y incidental to commercial y incidental to commercial

fishing operations could not be determined to be fishing operations could not be determined to be

having a negligible impact for the following stocks: having a negligible impact for the following stocks:

Fin whale in whale Western North Atlantic th Atlantic

stock

Humpback whale Humpback whale Western North Atlantic th Atlantic

stock

California/Oregon/ California/Oregon/

Washington-Mexico Washington-Mexico

Northern right whale thern right whale Western North Atlantic th Atlantic

stock

Sperm whale Sperm whale Western North Atlantic th Atlantic

stock

California/Oregon/ California/Oregon/

Washington stock Washington stock

Hawaiian monk seal Hawaiian monk seal Hawaiian monk seal Entire species Entire species

There is no documented evidence of fishery-related -related

interactions for the following stocks: interactions for the following stocks:

Blue whale Blue whale Western North Atlantic th Atlantic

stock

California/Mexico stock California/Mexico stock

Hawaii stock Hawaii stock

Bowhead whale Bowhead whale Western Arctic stock Western Arctic stock

Fin whale in whale California/Oregon/ California/Oregon/

Washington stock Washington stock

Alaska stock a stock

Hawaii stock Hawaii stock

Humpback whale Humpback whale Western North Pacific

stock

Northern right whale thern right whale North Pacific stock acific stock

Sei whale Sei whale Western North Atlantic th Atlantic

stock

Eastern North Pacific stock acific stock

Sperm whale Sperm whale Northern Gulf of Mexico thern Gulf of Mexico

stock

Alaska stock a stock

Hawaii stock Hawaii stock

Guadalupe fur seal Guadalupe fur seal Guadalupe fur seal Entire species Entire species

Page 25

Page 26

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Chapter IV Chapter IV. Marine Mammal Interactions with . Marine Mammal Interactions with

Salmonids and Human Activities Salmonids and Human Activities

photo by: P. Michael Payne, NMFS

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Chapter IV. Marine Mammal Interactions with


Salmonids and Human Activities


Under the protection of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), several pinniped populations (seals 

and sea lions) have rebounded to historically high levels. 

Unfortunately, the expansion of some pinniped populations has resulted in increased conflicts with human activities and other marine resources. Pinnipeds are known 

to cause damage to (or loss of) catch in commercial and 

recreational fisheries; interact with humans in marinas 

and docks, thus raising human safety concerns; and affect other marine resources of concern (e.g., salmonids). 

On the West Coast of the United States, California sea 

lion (Zalophus californianus) and Pacific harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina) populations have increased at a rate of 5-8% 

per year since the mid-1970s (some harbor seal populations are believed to now be near carrying capacity and 

relatively stable). Their range has expanded into areas 

where these pinnipeds were previously unheard of (e.g., 

California sea lion conflict with fish passage over 100 

miles up the Columbia River). Conflicts with “partyboat” 

fisheries in southern California, salmon troll and gillnet 

fisheries, and other fisheries are being reported with increased frequency. Interactions with these and other human activities have increased as the range and size of the 

photo by: P. Michael Payne, NMFS 

pinniped populations have increased. With the recent 

listings under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 

salmon and steelhead populations on the West Coast of 

the United States, there are increased concerns about the 

impacts of the expanding pinniped populations on the 

recovery of ESA-listed salmonids. Pinnipeds are known 

to forage on salmonids, and in some situations, significant impacts on salmonid populations have been documented. For example, at the Ballard Locks in Seattle, 

Washington, California sea lions have been reported to 

take up to 65% of the annual return of adult winter steelhead in the Lake Washington system. 

In response to concerns about expanding pinniped populations, Congress amended the MMPA in 1994 to add a 

new section 120 that provided a process to allow pinniped removal authority in certain situations, directed 

NMFS to conduct an investigation and report on California sea lion and Pacific harbor seal impacts on salmonids and U.S. West Coast ecosystems, and directed 

NMFS to establish a Gulf of Maine Task Force to advise 

on issues regarding pinniped interacting in a dangerous 

or damaging manner with Gulf of Maine aquaculture 

resources. Implementation of Section 120 in each of 

these areas follows. 

Page 26 
 Page 27

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

California Sea Lion Conflict with

Steelhead at the Ballard L Steelhead at the Ballard Locks -

MMPA Section 120 Pinniped L A Section 120 Pinniped Lethal

Removal Authority

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

California Sea Lion Conflict with 

Steelhead at the Ballard Locks -

MMPA Section 120 Pinniped Lethal 

Removal Authority 

The most widely known and intensely studied pinniped/ 

salmonid conflict is California sea lion predation on winter steelhead at the Ballard Locks in Seattle, Washington. 

California sea lions first began appearing in the Ballard 

Locks area on a somewhat regular basis in 1980, but their 

predation on steelhead was not viewed as a resource conflict until 1985, when a significant decline in the wild 

winter steelhead spawning escapement was noted. Subsequent scientific studies documented that sea lions were 

removing significant numbers of adult steelhead that were 

returning to the Lake Washington system to spawn. Between 1986 and 1992, sea lions consumed 42-65% of 

the total return of spawning winter steelhead each year 

and prevented achievement of spawning escapement 

goals. In spite of intense sea lion deterrence and mitigation efforts from 1985 to 1995, a small number of sea 

lions returned to the Ballard Locks area each season and 

preyed on substantial numbers of returning adult steelhead. Although adequate spawning and rearing habitat 

was available, the winter steelhead population declined 

significantly during this timeframe down to an all time 

low of only 70 spawners in 1994. 

In June 1994, the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (WDFW) applied under the new “Pinniped 

Removal Authority” under section 120 of the MMPA 

for authorization to lethally remove these individual sea 

lions that prey on winter steelhead migrating through 

the Ballard Locks. In accordance with section 120, 

NMFS made a determination on the adequacy of the 

application and provided public notice of the application with a request for public comments. NMFS also 

formed the Ballard Locks Pinniped-Fishery Interaction 

Task Force (Task Force), which was convened to review 

the pertinent information and public comments and to 

make recommendations to NMFS on approval or denial 

of the State’s application. In November 1994, after several public meetings, the Task Force completed its report 

and recommended that approval of lethal removal of individually identifiable predatory California sea lions be 

allowed only if a number of conditions were met regarding temporary holding of sea lions in captivity, achievement of a specified predation rate, use of deterrence, and 

other measures. 

On January 6, 1995, after consideration of the Task Force 

recommendations, public comments, and pertinent scientific information, NMFS issued a three-year Letter of 

Authorization (LOA) to WDFW that authorized the 

intentional lethal taking of California sea lions that prey 

on wild winter steelhead that migrate through the Ballard 

Locks. The LOA authorized lethal removal only if the 

state was in compliance with eleven conditions in the 

LOA including having a non-lethal deterrence program 

(acoustic deterrence devices) underway and undertaking 

efforts to capture and temporarily hold predatory sea lions if practical and feasible. Subsequent to the issuance 

of the authorization, one sea lion was captured and held 

in captivity for the duration of the steelhead run, and no 

sea lions were lethally removed. 

In September 1995, as required by section 120(c)(5) of 

the MMPA and the conditions of the LOA, the Task 

Force was reconvened to evaluate the effectiveness of 

measures taken by WDFW under the LOA. The Task 

Force found that sea lion predation posed a continued 

risk for recovery of the steelhead run because of the continuing low numbers of winter steelhead and recommended modifications to the conditions on the lethal 

removal authorization to better preserve the steelhead run. 

In March 1996, NMFS modified the conditions of the 

LOA based on the Task Force recommendations and 

additional information that the individual sea lion, which 

had been held in captivity in 1995, was returning to the 

Ballard Locks and again preying on salmonids. NMFS 

removed the temporary captive holding condition in the 

LOA and modified the conditions for lethal removal of a 

“predatory” sea lion, which was defined as an individually identifiable sea lion that has preyed on returning steelhead and has foraged in the ensonified zone at the Ballard 

Locks (the area of intense acoustic deterrence). A “predatory” sea lion could be lethally removal by WDFW during a steelhead season (January 1 to May 31) upon being 

observed foraging at the Ballard Locks. 

Page 27 
Page 28

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

California Sea Lion Conflict with

Salmonids at Willamette Falls,

Oregon

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Upon issuance of the modified LOA in 1996, WDFW 

indicated that it intended to lethally remove predatory 

sea lions. However, shortly after public notice of the 

modified LOA, NMFS was contacted by Sea World in 

Orlando, Florida with an offer to receive the predatory 

sea lions permanently for public display. Prior to this 

time, no display facility had expressed any interest in 

permanent holding of these adult male sea lions. Since 

predatory sea lions would be permanently removed and 

could not return to prey on steelhead (which was the 

intent of lethal removal), NMFS and WDFW agreed to 

capture three predatory sea lions and transfer them to 

Sea World in May 1996. No sea lions were lethally removed in 1996. 

In September 1996, the Task Force was again reconvened 

to review information from the 1996 season and to make 

recommendations on whether the LOA should be extended beyond the June 30, 1997 expiration date. The 

Task Force submitted a report to NMFS recommending 

that the LOA be extended because insufficient time had 

passed to evaluate the success of management actions at 

Ballard Locks. The Task Force opinions on the extension ranged from no extension to a period of eight years 

(two steelhead cycles) with the majority of the Task Force 

favoring an extension of four years (one steelhead cycle) 

to June 30, 2001. Notice of the proposed extension of 

the LOA was published in the Federal Register on June 

19, 1997 (62 FR 33396) with a 30-day public comment 

period. After consideration of the Task Force recommendation and public comments, NMFS approved a 

four-year extension to the LOA to June 30, 2001 because there was a need to continue protecting and enhancing the winter steelhead back to the population levels of the mid-1980s, and to allow sufficient time to evaluate the effectiveness of lethal removal. Notice of the extension was published in the Federal Register on September 29, 1997 (62 FR 50903). 

During the 1997 and 1998 steelhead seasons, sea lion 

presence at the locks declined dramatically. Prior to capture and transfer of the principal problem sea lions, biologists recorded 111 hours of sea lion presence in 1996. 

In contrast, in 1997 and 1998, sea lion presence was 

recorded as 46 hours and four hours respectively. This 

difference in sea lion presence appears directly related to 

the absence of the predatory sea lions, which accounted 

for about 60% of the sea lion presence in 1996. The 

problem sea lions likely would have been at the Locks 

(based on past patterns) had they not been removed. The 

1997 and 1998 observations indicate that permanent 

removal of known predatory sea lions reduces the presence of sea lions during the steelhead run and may have 

a beneficial effect on reducing recruitment of new sea 

lions to the area. The information on sea lion presence 

indicates that past predatory sea lions are not replaced 

rapidly. It also does not appear that new sea lions are 

frequently exploring the Locks area in the absence of the 

predatory animals that constantly entered the Locks area 

(i.e., new animals are not following the predatory sea 

lions into the Locks area and becoming aware of the site). 

California Sea Lion Conflict with 

Salmonids at Willamette Falls, 

Oregon 

Another conflict between California sea lions and salmonids, similar to the Ballard Locks situation, is being monitored at a fish passage facility at Willamette Falls in Oregon City, Oregon, which is 204.8 km (128 mi) upriver 

from the ocean. This conflict first drew attention in 1994 

when the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) raised concerns about the effects of California 

sea lions foraging on spring chinook at the entrance to 

the fish ladder during the salmonid migration each year 

since 1988. A subsequent joint NMFS/ODFW pilot 

study conducted in May 1995 documented that there 

were four to six male California sea lions consuming both 

steelhead and spring chinook salmon in the area below 

the falls. 

ODFW began a monitoring program on sea lion predation at Willamette Falls in 1996. ODFW found that at 

least five California sea lions were foraging at the Falls 

each year in April and May. The sea lions were observed 

consuming 89 salmonids in 1996, 165 in 1997 and 144 

in 1998. The salmonids involved are spring chinook 

salmon and winter steelhead, both of which have been 

listed as threatened under the ESA. 

Page 28 
 Page 29

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Report to Congress on Pinniped

Impacts on Salmonids and U.S. Impacts on Salmonids and U.S.

West Coast Ecosystems West Coast Ecosystems

Scientific Investigation Report

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

NMFS and ODFW have developed a program of nonlethal removal measures to prevent sea lion predation at 

this site. In February 1997, NMFS and ODFW prepared an draft EA that examined the environmental consequences of actions for preventing sea lion foraging and 

predation on salmonids at Willamette Falls in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act. Public 

notice of the draft EA was published in the Federal Register on March 13, 1997 (62 FR 11845) with a 30-day 

public comment period. The proposed non-lethal actions, ranging from deterrence efforts to capture and removal, are authorized under section 109 of the MMPA 

which allows non-lethal removal of nuisance marine 

mammals by state and federal officials. NMFS determined that the California sea lions at the Willamette Falls 

are a “nuisance” because pinniped foraging in this area 

adversely affects fish passage and salmonids are especially 

vulnerable at this location to pinniped predation. Further, Willamette Falls is located in the freshwater environment far upriver and well outside the normal range 

and habitat of California sea lions. After consideration 

of public comments, NMFS completed a final EA that 

concluded that the non-lethal actions will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Notice of 

the final EA and responses to public comments was published in the Federal Register on January 2, 1998 (63 FR 

55). 

Report to Congress on Pinniped 

Impacts on Salmonids and U.S. 

West Coast Ecosystems 

To address increasing concerns regarding the impacts of 

California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals on salmonids and, more broadly, on ecosystems along the U.S. 

West Coast, section 120(f ) of the MMPA required 

NMFS to: 

“conduct a scientific investigation to determine whether 

California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals 

a) are having a significant negative impact on the 

recovery of salmonid fishery stocks which have been listed as 

endangered species or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, or which the Secretary finds are approaching such endangered species or threatened species status; or 

b) are having broader impacts on the coastal ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and California.” 

Upon completion of the investigation, section 120 required NMFS to enter into discussions with the Pacific 

States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), on behalf of the states of California, Oregon, and Washington, to address any issues or problems identified as a result of the scientific investigation and to develop recommendations to address such issues. The recommendations from these discussions, along with the scientific 

investigation report, were to be made available to the 

public for review and comment for a period of 90 days, 

and then submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Resources and to the U.S. Senate 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

Scientific Investigation Report 

An investigation into the existing scientific information 

addressing the issues identified by Congress was undertaken by a Working Group established by NMFS in 1994. 

It was determined at the onset of the investigation that 

NMFS did not have the resources nor was there sufficient time to conduct rigorous field investigations on the 

issues identified by Congress within the specified oneyear time frame, so the investigation focused on a review 

of information from past field studies. The Working 

Group, consisting of NMFS and state biologists, was selected for their knowledge of salmonids, marine mammals, and the interactions between them. The Working 

Group compiled and reviewed all available information 

on the status and trends of California sea lions, Pacific 

harbor seals, and the seven species of salmonids found in 

Washington, Oregon, and California. Members of the 

Working Group also conducted several additional studies to augment existing information thereby extending 

completion of the report beyond the one-year time frame. 

NMFS published the final Working Group report in 

March 1997 as a part of the NOAA Technical Memorandum series entitled, “Investigation of Scientific Information on the Impacts of California Sea Lions and Pacific Harbor Seals on Salmonids and on the Coastal Ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and California.” The 

investigation concluded: 

Page 29 
Page 30

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Final Report to Congress on West Coast est Coast

Pinnipeds Pinnipeds

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

* California sea lion and Pacific harbor seal populations are robust, widely distributed and increasing at 

rates of 5-7% per year. 

* Many salmonid stocks are declining or depressed; six salmonid populations were listed under the 

ESA at the time of the report and many others were either proposed for listing or candidates for listing. 

* Pinnipeds did not cause the declines of salmonids listed under the ESA, but when salmonid populations decline to low levels, pinnipeds can affect recovery 

in some situations. 

* Because of limitations in available data, the investigation did not result in conclusion that either pinniped species is having a significant negative impact on 

any wild salmonid population, except winter steelhead 

that migrate through the Ballard Locks. 

* Although additional research is needed to fully 

address this issue, existing information on the seriously 

depressed status of many salmonid stocks is sufficient to 

warrant actions to remove pinnipeds in areas of co-occurrence where pinnipeds prey on depressed salmonid 

populations. Data collected from the Ballard Locks and 

in the Puntledge River in Canada clearly demonstrates 

that the combination of high local predator abundance 

during salmonid migrations, restricted passage, and depressed fish stocks can result in significant impacts on 

local salmonid populations. 

* Pinnipeds cause damage to (or loss of) catch in 

commercial and recreational fisheries. There are many 

claims of pinnipeds, especially California sea lions, causing economic impact to fisheries especially in salmonid 

fisheries and in the southern California charter boat fishery. 

* Data are lacking on assessing the impact of pinnipeds on coastal ecosystems. 

Final Report to Congress on West Coast 

Pinnipeds 

The final Report to Congress was completed in 1998, 

and it maintained the four basic recommendations to 

Congress. It will be submitted to Congress in February 

1999. Public comments were summarized and responses 

to each are provided as an appendix to the final report. 

Congressional action on the Report is expected when 

Congress considers reauthorization of the MMPA. 

In June 1996, NMFS began discussions with PSMFC 

and representatives of WDFW, ODFW, and California 

Department of Fish and Game. Using the information 

from the scientific investigation as a focus of discussions 

over the course of eight months, two issues were identified, and four recommendations were developed to possibly mitigate any impacts identified through the investigation. In February 1997, the discussions were completed, and NMFS drafted a report to Congress to recommend measures to address issues identified in the discussions with PSMFC and representatives of the coastal 

states. On March 28, 1997, NMFS published notice in 

the Federal Register (62 FR 14889) on the availability of 

the draft report to Congress for a 90-day public review 

and comment period. 

Two issues on pinniped impacts on salmonids and U.S. 

West Coast ecosystems were identified and are described 

in the Report. They are as follows: 

1) Pinniped Impacts on Salmonids - California sea lion 

and Pacific harbor seal populations on the West Coast 

have been increasing since passage of the MMPA in 1972, 

while many salmonid populations are decreasing. Salmonid populations that are depressed and declining, especially those that are listed or proposed to be listed under 

the ESA, can be negatively impacted by expanding pinniped populations and attendant predation. 

2) Pinniped Impacts on West Coast Ecosystems -Increasing 

California sea lion and Pacific harbor seal populations 

and their expanding distribution are negatively impacting commercial and recreational fisheries, damaging private property, and posing threats to public safety. 

The Report found that the lack of clear, integrated legislative guidance on resource use in combination with 

highly polarized constituencies on this issue, compound 

the difficulties of managing this situation for NMFS. 

Because of the limitations of the available data, the scienPage 30 
 Page 31

 Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

tific investigation did not result in a certain determination that either pinniped species (California sea lions or 

harbor seals) is having a significant negative impact on 

overall wild salmonid populations. The study did find 

that in several areas where fish passage is restricted, pinnipeds occur during salmonid migration. It was concluded however, that even though substantial additional 

research is needed to fully address this issue, existing information on the seriously depressed status of many 

salmonid stocks is sufficient to warrant actions to remove 

pinnipeds in areas where pinnipeds prey on depressed 

salmonid populations. In terms of the pinnipeds effects 

on coastal ecosystems, however, no conclusions can be 

drawn to adequately assess the impacts. 

The Report also found that there may be conflicts among 

provisions of environmental legislation. It also recognized the need for immediate management action and/ 

or active (inseason, in-situ) management in certain situations. NMFS recognizes the risk of loss of biodiversity 

and the need to preserve present and future options in 

terms of declining salmonid populations. The loss of 

the remaining members of endangered salmonid populations must be weighed against the loss of a small number of pinnipeds from large, healthy populations. NMFS 

is also aware that there is a risk-averse approach to protecting salmonid stocks and contributing to their recovery. 

Although waiting for scientific certainty before instituting management actions can lead to management failures, numerous questions must be answered about the 

ultimate effects that pinniped populations are having on 

the recovery of declining salmonid species and the entire 

coastal ecosystem. As both human and pinniped populations continue to grow and to demand more from 

coastal resources, conflicts between them are likely to 

increase as well. This trend suggests that active management will become increasingly important to reduce damage and conflict between humans and common species. 

The Report contains four major recommendations: 

1) Implement Site-specific Management for California 

Sea Lions and Pacific Harbor Seals. 

2) Establish a framework that would allow state and 

federal resource management agencies to immediately 

address conflicts involving California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals. 

Any lethal takings would have to be within the Potential 

Biological Removal levels established by NMFS for all 

human causes of mortality. The three components of 

the framework are: 

a) In situations where California sea lions or 

Pacific harbor seals are preying on salmonids that are 

listed or proposed for listing under the ESA, immediate 

use of lethal removal by state or Federal resource agency 

officials would be authorized; 

b) In situations where California sea lions or 

Pacific harbor seals are preying on salmonid populations 

of concern to the state or are impeding passage of these 

populations during migration as adults or smolts, lethal 

takes by state or federal resource agency officials would 

be authorized if: 

(i) non-lethal deterrence methods are 

underway and are not fully effective, 

or 

(ii) non-lethal methods are not feasible 

in the particular situation or have 

proven ineffective in the past; and 

c) In situations where California sea lions or 

Pacific harbor seals conflict with humans, such as at fishery sites and marinas, lethal removal by state or federal 

resource agency officials would be authorized as a last 

resort when an individual pinniped fails to respond to 

repeated deterrence attempts, or when repeated deterrence attempts do not affect the behavior of an individual 

pinniped over the long-term. 

2) Develop Safe, Effective Non-lethal Deterrents. 

In order to provide an array of options broader than lethal removal to resolve West Coast pinniped problems, 

there is a pressing need for research on the development 

and evaluation of deterrent devices and further exploration of other non-lethal removal measures. Potential 

options need to be evaluated in a concerted, adequatelyPage 31 
Page 32

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Cooperative State/Federal Cooperative State/Federal

Program on Expanding Pinniped

Populations opulations

Gulf of Maine Pinniped-Fishery

Interaction T Interaction Task Force

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

funded effort to address this issue. Research and development of pinniped deterrence methods should be a research priority for addressing expanding pinniped populations on the West Coast. 

3) Selectively Reinstating Authority for the Intentional 

Lethal Taking of California Sea Lions and Pacific Harbor Seals by Commercial Fishermen to Protect Gear and 

Catch. 

Prior to the 1994 Amendments to the MMPA, commercial fishermen were allowed to lethally remove certain pinnipeds as a last resort in order to protect their 

gear or catch. Although the 1992 NMFS’ legislative proposal contained provisions to continue such authority, 

they were not included in the 1994 Amendments to the 

MMPA. Congress should reconsider a limited authorization, based on demonstrated need, for certain commercial fishermen at specified sites to use lethal means, 

as a last resort, to protect their gear and catch from depredation by California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals 

until such time that effective non-lethal methods are developed for their specific situation. 

4) Information Needs. 

An array of additional information is needed to better 

evaluate and monitor California sea lion and Pacific harbor seal impacts on salmonids and other components of 

the West Coast ecosystems. Details of such studies are 

described in the draft Report to Congress. There is a 

suite of research needs to answer the questions regarding 

pinniped impacts to salmonids and coastal ecosystem and 

NMFS’ recommendations. These reflect the need to take 

management actions immediately in those cases where 

continued pinniped predation could result in continued 

loss of individuals within severely depleted salmonid runs. 

Further, additional research and development should be 

directed into this arena, but not instead of active management where the situation is deemed critical. 

The issue of resolving pinniped problems on the U.S. 

West Coast is certainly controversial; consequently, 

NMFS received thousands of comments on the draft 

Report to Congress. Many letters were not responses to 

the actual draft report, but were part of campaigns by 

marine mammal protection groups against any or all actions toward sea lions. Although some of the comments 

supported NMFS’ recommendations, many were opposed. This polarity of comments on the recommendations ensures that the reauthorization of the MMPA in 

1999 will be controversial, particularly concerning these 

recommendations as a balanced way of resolving specific 

pinniped conflicts on the West Coast of the United States 

consistent with the MMPA goal of maintaining all marine mammals at optimum sustainable population levels. 

Cooperative State/Federal 

Program on Expanding Pinniped 

Populations 

In 1998, NMFS initiated a coordinated coast-wide program with the U.S. West Coast states to address the expanding pinniped issue. The program components included pinniped population assessments, fishery interactions, and predation on ESA-listed salmonids. To affect a coordinated, concerted effort on the issue of pinniped predation on salmonids, U.S. West Coast pinniped 

and salmonid biologists worked together to develop sampling plans and field studies for several river systems that 

were designed to provide the information needed to assess pinniped impacts on salmonids. Pinniped-salmonid studies were conducted by NMFS, WDFW, University of Washington, ODFW, Yurok Tribe, and Moss 

Landing Marine Laboratories in Washington, Oregon, 

and California. Study sites included the Columbia River; 

Hood Canal, WA; Ozette River, WA; Alsea River, OR; 

Umpqua River, OR; Rogue River, OR; Klamath River, 

CA; Scott Creek, CA; and San Lorenzo River, CA. The 

1998 field studies will culminate with a workshop in 

April 1999 where the field and analytical methodologies 

will be discussed and critiqued, and study plans for 1999 

field studies developed. 

Gulf of Maine Pinniped-Fishery 

Interaction Task Force 

As a result of increasing pinniped populations interacting with human activities, one of which is aquaculture, 

the MMPA Amendments of 1994 included section 

Page 32 
 Page 33

 Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

120(h), which required NMFS to convene a task force 

to provide advice on issues or problems regarding pinnipeds interacting in a dangerous or damaging manner with 

aquaculture resources in the Gulf of Maine. The Gulf of 

Maine Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force members were selected from the aquaculture industry, State 

governments, the scientific community, and conservation organizations. The Task Force was established in 

January 1995 and met three times for multi-day meetings, visited pen-sites, conducted public hearings, met 

with salmonid growers, conducted surveys, and reviewed 

literature related to the issue, prior to completion of its 

report. 

In February 1996, the Task Force submitted its final report to NMFS. The report contained consensus Task 

Force recommendations to mitigate the pinniped predation. NMFS used the Task Force’s recommendations 

and comments received from the public to prepare its 

proposed recommendations to the U.S. Congress. The 

draft report recommended options available to mitigate 

the pinniped-aquaculture interactions. It was completed 

on March 17, 1997 (62 FR 12602) and was made available for a 30-day public review and comment period. 

Highlights of the draft report included the following recommendations: 

1) The aquaculture industry needs to develop a reporting system to substantiate its claims of damage by pinnipeds, develop and implement standards to prevent damage by predators, take advantage of government assistance in developing deterrence strategies, and develop 

marketing strategies to help make future losses more sustainable; 

2) Congress should clarify whether or not it intended 

that the lethal take provisions in the MMPA section 

109(h) be applied to the situation when a marine mammal gets inside a net-pen; and 

3) NMFS reiterates its support of the intentional lethal 

take provision included in its 1992 legislative proposal 

and recommends that Congress re-examine the need for 

intentional lethal taking under the MMPA. 

In response to public comments, the report has been 

modified to state that NMFS does not have the authority under the MMPA section 109(h) to lethally remove 

pinnipeds that are discovered within net-pens and to focus the recommendations regarding lethal removal on 

the specific charge within the MMPA section 120(h) 

rather than on the broad issue of management of abundant pinniped populations. 

Recommendations in the final report include the following: 

• The salmonid aquaculture industry in the Gulf of Maine 

should collect data on the extent of the impacts experienced by seal attacks on net-pens. The data should include documenting damages caused by the seals, as well 

as, resources diverted from production to work on the 

seal predation problem. 

• The primary responsibility for preventing and mitigating the effects of seal attacks on aquaculture resources in 

the Gulf of Maine should rest on the industry itself. The 

research and development of deterrence/prevention technologies must be initiated by the industry. 

• NMFS has resources that may help resolve the seal predation problem. NMFS has expertise in the behavior and 

biology of marine mammals, the engineering and design 

of fishing gear, and other related fields. NMFS, if approached by the industry, may be able to apply these 

areas of expertise to this relatively new problem. Furthermore, NMFS funds grant programs to which industry proponents may apply for funds to support research 

and development intent on resolving the seal predation 

problem. 

• At the request of the industry, NMFS will investigate 

the predator control measures in use in other salmonid 

produce countries and will consider the applicability of 

the MMPA section 102(c)(3), by which NMFS could 

halt the importation of salmonid products from nations 

that allow practices inconsistent with the MMPA. 

• In the rare event that a seal is discovered to have entered 

the confines of a net-pen, the grower is left in an intolerable situation that seems to have no legal means of resolution. NMFS believes that lethal methods may be necessary to resolve this and other situations. 

Page 33 
Page 34

Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

NMFS forwarded the report to the Department of Commerce, which then transmitted the Report to Congress 

on August 1, 1997. 

Page 34 
 Page 35

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Chapter V Chapter V. Dolphin Interactions with Commerical . Dolphin Interactions with Commerical

Fisheries in the Eastern T isheries in the Eastern Tropical P ropical Pacific Ocean acific Ocean

NMFS file photo

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Chapter V. Dolphin Interactions with Commerical


Fisheries in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean


The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was enacted in 1972, due in large part to public reaction to the 

high levels of dolphin mortality caused by the yellowfin 

tuna purse seine fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific 

Ocean (ETP). In the late 1950s, fishermen began using 

the as yet unexplained association between schools of large 

yellowfin tuna and schools of certain species of dolphin 

to locate and capture tuna. Observer records of mortality begin in 1972 with the enactment of the MMPA. At 

that time, the ETP fishery was dominated by U.S. vessels, and annual mortality was estimated at over 350,000 

dolphins. With enactment of the MMPA, incidental 

mortality from fishing by the U.S. domestic fleet began 

to decline, but participation in the fishery by foreign vessels began to increase. Although the U.S. industry was 

instrumental in developing gear and procedures for reducing mortality and for releasing animals, foreign vessels were not subject to the requirements of the MMPA, 

and international fleet mortality, although reduced by 

procedures and gear developed by U.S. vessels, began to 

rise as a result of the increase in the number of foreign 

vessels (see Appendix C: Estimates of Total Incidental 

Dolphin Mortality for U.S. and Foreign Purse Seine Vessels in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, 1971-1998). 

NMFS file photo 

To address the concern regarding increased mortality by 

foreign vessels, the U.S. Congress amended the MMPA 

in 1984 to tighten the importation requirements for fish 

and fish products harvested by foreign tuna vessels in the 

ETP. The 1984 amendments to the MMPA required 

that nations exporting yellowfin tuna to the United States 

have in place a regulatory program for marine mammal 

protection comparable to that of the United States, and 

achieve an incidental mortality rate for dolphins in the 

yellowfin tuna fishery comparable to that of the United 

States. Those amendments also set a mortality limit of 

250 coastal spotted dolphins (Stenella attenuata) and 

2,750 eastern spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris) for 

the U.S. fleet in the ETP fishery. 

In 1988, Congress again amended the MMPA. Statistics for 1987 showed mortality incidental to foreign fishing effort at 85,185 for the year, while U.S. mortality 

was under 13,992. By imposing additional requirements 

on domestic and foreign tuna fishermen, Congress expected that overall mortality would decrease. Those 

amendments retained the annual quota of 20,500 dolphins killed or seriously injured during the purse seining 

operations of the U.S. tuna fleet in the ETP, but also 

Page 35 
Page 36

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

� 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Figure 1. Total Dolphin Mortality in the ETP Tuna Fishery 1972-1998 

������� 

������� 

������� 

������� 

������� 

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� 

United States Fleet 

added additional requirements applicable to the U.S. fleet. 

The amendments also clarified what the Secretary of 

Commerce must consider when determining whether a 

foreign nation is taking measures comparable to those of 

the United States in protecting dolphin in the ETP fishery. These included the same prohibitions that were applicable to U.S. vessels and set specific limits on total 

dolphin mortality and the percentage of eastern spinner 

and coastal spotted dolphins in the total mortality. 

The 1988 amendments to the MMPA also required certification under the Pelly Amendment for those nations 

not meeting the comparability requirements of the 

MMPA for a period of six months. The embargoes that 

resulted from the MMPA requirements were challenged 

by other countries as being inconsistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Although 

never formally adopted by the GATT, a panel report 

found the United States’ embargoes to be inconsistent 

with GATT. 

In 1990, Congress passed the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA). The DPCIA required 

that tuna labeled as “dolphin-safe” meet certain criteria. 

Under the definition, all tuna harvested in the ETP on a 

trip where there was any intentional encirclement of dolphins could not be considered “dolphin-safe.” The 

DPCIA did not prohibit tuna that did not meet the dolphin-safe labeling requirements from being imported, 

but U.S. tuna canners instituted a voluntary dolphinForeign Fleet 

safe tuna campaign where they purchased only dolphinsafe tuna for introduction to the U.S. market. 

The International Dolphin Conservation Act (IDCA) 

was passed in 1992, with the intent to establish an international moratorium on the practice of harvesting tuna 

through the use of purse seine nets deployed on or to 

encircle dolphins or other marine mammals. The United 

States was not successful in getting any nation to commit to such a moratorium. However, the IDCA limited 

U.S. dolphin mortality to 1,000 dolphins for 1992 and 

800 for the period between January 1, 1993, and 

March 1, 1994. The IDCA required that the number 

of dolphins killed or seriously injured decrease from one 

year to the next. Estimated U.S. dolphin mortality decreased from 19,712 animals in 1988, to 1,004 in 1991, 

less than 500 in 1992, and 115 in 1993. Because the 

IDCA required that authorized U.S. mortality decrease 

each year, the U.S. ETP yellowfin tuna fishery was closed 

on February 8, 1994, when the incidental dolphin mortality was approaching 115. The IDCA prohibited U.S. 

citizens from intentionally encircling marine mammals 

and made it unlawful for any person to sell non-dolphin 

safe tuna in the United States after June 1, 1994. However, foreign participation in the ETP fishery continued 

to increase, and mortality was managed under the voluntary international dolphin conservation program supported by the Secretariat of the Inter-American Tropical 

Tuna Commission (IATTC). 

Page 36 
 Page 37

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

The La Jolla Agreement and the

Panama Declaration

The International Dolphin Conser The International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA)

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

The La Jolla Agreement and the 

Panama Declaration 

While U.S. participation in the ETP tuna fishery declined significantly as a result of the MMPA prohibitions on encircling dolphins (only a few dolphin-safe 

vessels remained in the fishery), foreign participation in 

the fishery continued. In the fall of 1992, the nations 

participating in this fishery convened at the annual meeting of the IATTC and signed the La Jolla Agreement. 

That Agreement placed voluntary limits on the maximum numbers of dolphin that could be incidentally killed 

annually in the fishery, lowering the maximum each year 

over seven years, with a goal of eliminating mortality in 

the fishery. The United States and the governments of 

Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and Spain, whose vessels fish for 

tuna in the ETP or have coastlines bordering the ETP, 

came together again in 1995 and negotiated the Panama 

Declaration. 

The Panama Declaration initiative was the result of the 

efforts of five environmental organizations, the Center 

for Marine Conservation, Greenpeace International, 

World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and 

the Environmental Defense Fund, who negotiated an 

initial draft with Mexico and the other nations in the 

fishery. Because the multi-nation yellowfin tuna fleet 

fishes in international waters, a binding international 

agreement is key to successfully protecting dolphins. The 

signing nations agreed that, contingent on the United 

States amending provisions of the MMPA for those countries participating in the international dolphin conservation program in the ETP, they would enter into a binding international agreement for the continued protection of dolphin and the entire ETP ecosystem. The 

Panama Declaration set the stage for the establishment 

of conservative species/stock specific annual dolphin 

mortality limits and represents an important step toward 

reducing bycatch in commercial fisheries with sound ecosystem management. 

The Panama Declaration contains provisions for additional protection for individual stocks of dolphins and 

for other living marine resources, to achieve an ecosystem approach to management of the fishery. The signatory nations expected that, as a result of their actions in 

reducing dolphin mortality, the United States would 

amend its laws so their participation in the International 

Dolphin Conservation Program would satisfy comparability requirements of U.S. law and result in the lifting of 

embargoes on yellowfin tuna and yellowfin tuna products. Total dolphin mortality by the international fleet 

for 1997 was 3,000 dolphins, a level considered nonthreatening to dolphin stocks. Until implementation of 

the IDCPA, however, prohibitions on the importation 

of the ETP purse seine-harvested yellowfin tuna from 

Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Vanuatu, Belize, and Venezuela remain in place, as well intermediary nation embargoes on all yellowfin tuna from Costa Rica, Italy, and 

Japan. 

The International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA) 

In response to the Panama Declaration, Congress passed 

the IDCPA in August 1997. This Act amended the import provisions of the MMPA to allow yellowfin tuna to 

be imported from IATTC member nations that fish in 

compliance with the international dolphin conservation 

program. These amendments to the MMPA would not 

become effective until a binding international agreement 

was adopted and in force. A number of environmental 

organizations, including the Center for Marine Conservation and the World Wildlife Fund, supported passage 

of the legislation. Contingent upon the results of research 

into the effects of chase and encirclement on depleted 

dolphin stocks, the legislation would change the definition of dolphin-safe (for tuna harvested by large purse 

seine vessels in the ETP) to mean tuna caught in a set 

without any observed dolphin deaths or serious injury, 

rather than tuna caught without intentionally encircling 

dolphins on any set during an entire trip by the purse 

seine vessel. 

The IDCPA is the United States’ domestic response to 

the Panama Declaration. The IDCPA provides the basis 

for entry into the United States of yellowfin tuna that 

would otherwise be under embargo because it was harvested by vessels of countries that allow intentional encircling of marine mammals, provided the harvesting 

nation provides documentary evidence of its participaPage 37 
Page 38

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

The International Agreement The International Agreement

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

tion in the International Dolphin Conservation Program, 

its compliance with the Program, and its membership in 

the IATTC. The IDCPA will also allow U.S. fishing 

vessels to again participate in the ETP yellowfin tuna 

fishery by making sets on dolphins. Under a set of regulations to avoid dolphin mortality, U.S. citizens crewing 

on the vessels of other nations fishing in the International Dolphin Conservation Program will be allowed 

to take marine mammals during fishing operations outside of the U.S. exclusive economic zone without being 

in violation of the take prohibitions of the MMPA. 

Under the IDCPA, the definition of dolphin-safe tuna 

would change immediately for non-ETP caught tuna, 

and for the ETP caught tuna if certain findings, based 

on Congressionally-mandated research, are made. In the 

absence of significant scientific data supporting a finding that the process of chasing and encircling dolphin 

schools in the pursuit of tuna in the ETP is adversely 

affecting depleted dolphin stocks, dolphin-safe labeling 

in the United States will change in 1999. 

Unless the Secretary of Commerce determines, on the 

basis of that research and other relevant information, that 

intentional chase and encirclement of dolphins is having 

a significant adverse impact on a depleted dolphin stock 

in the ETP, the standard of dolphin-safe tuna, with respect to tuna harvested in the ETP by purse seine vessels 

with carrying capacities over 400 short tons, would 

change so that tuna harvested in a set where there is no 

observed dolphin mortality or serious injury would be 

considered “dolphin-safe.” This contrasts with the 1990 

definition, which says that no tuna harvested during an 

entire trip is considered “dolphin safe” if there was an 

intentional encirclement of dolphins during any portion 

of the trip. 

The IDCPA provides enhanced protection for dolphins 

and enhanced attention to the conservation of ecosystems and the sustainable use of living marine resources 

related to the tuna fishery in the ETP. However, the 

provisions of the IDCPA will become effective after two 

certifications are made. The Secretary of State must certify to Congress that a binding legal instrument establishing the Agreement on the International Dolphin 

Conservation Program has been adopted and is in force, 

and the Secretary of Commerce must certify that research 

has begun on the effects of intentional chase and encirclement on ETP dolphins, and that funds are available to 

complete the first year of the study. 

The International Agreement 

In May 1998, eight nations, including the United States, 

negotiated a binding, international agreement to implement the international dolphin conservation program. 

The Agreement will officially enter into force when four 

countries ratify it. 

Page 38 
 Page 39

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Small T Small Take Authorizations e Authorizations

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Chapter VI. Small T Chapter VI. Small Take Authorizations Authorizations Authorizations

NMFS file photo NMFS file photo

(1) the taking of bottlenose (Tursiops truncatus) and spotted dolphins (Stenella attenuata) incidental to the removal 

of oil and gas structures in the Gulf of Mexico and (2) 

the taking of a number of species of marine mammals 

during U.S. Navy ship shock trials off southern California. wever, no Letters of Authorization (LOAs) were 

issued during 1998 for conducting ship shock trials off 

southern California. 

In 1998, NMFS received one new application for takings incidental to specified activities, completed authorizations for two activities, and continued action on three 

other applications. These activities are described below. 

U.S. Navy Seawolf Shock T U.S. Navy Seawolf Shock Trial

Application Application

On June 7, 1996, NMFS received a request from the 

U.S. Navy for a small take of marine mammals incidental to shock testing the USS SEAWOLF submarine in 

the waters offshore Norfolk Virginia or Jacksonville, 

Florida in the summer of 1997. The U.S. Navy proposed to shock test the USS SEAWOLF by detonating a 

10,000-lb (4500 kg) explosive charge near the submarine once per week over a five-week period, between May 

Ho

Since 1982, the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) has provided a mechanism for authorizing, 

upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking 

of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens 

who engage in a specified, lawful, 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 (harassment, injury or mortality) 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. Regulations issued in 1982, and amended in 1989 to allow the 

taking of threatened and endangered marine mammal 

species, require the applicant to mitigate the taking to 

the lowest level practicable, to monitor the taking of 

marine mammals during the activity, and to report the 

results to NMFS. 

Small Take Authorizations 

At the start of 1998, two activities had multi-year authorizations to incidentally take marine mammals under this 

provision of the MMPA. The authorized activities were: 

Page 39 
Page 40

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Marine Mammal T Marine Mammal Takings Incidental to

On-Ice Seismic Operations in the U.S. On-Ice Seismic Operations in the U.S.

Beaufor Beaufort Sea, Alaska

North Atlantic Energy Ser th Atlantic Energy Service Corpora- vice Corporation: T tion: Taking Seals Incidental to Seabrook

Power Plant Operations ower Plant Operations

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

1 and September 30, decreasing the distance between 

submarine and explosive each time. Detonations would 

occur 100 ft (30 m) below the ocean surface in a water 

depth of 500 ft (150 m). The USS SEAWOLF would 

be underway at a depth of 65 ft (19.5 m) at the time of 

the test. For each test, the submarine would move closer 

to the explosive so the submarine would experience a 

more severe shock. 

On August 2, 1996, NMFS released for public comment proposed regulations that, if implemented, would 

authorize the harassment, injury and mortality of a small 

number of marine mammals incidental to the U.S. Navy’s 

shock trial. The proposed rule contained measures for 

assuring minimal loss of marine mammal life and requirements for aerial, shipboard, and acoustic monitoring of the planned detonations. Due to a delay in the test 

program, the U.S. Navy has requested the date of the 

five-year rule not become effective until the year 2000. 

A final rule authorizing the U.S. Navy to conduct the 

shock trial between 2000 and 2004, provided the required 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements are 

implemented, was published on December 1, 1998 (63 

FR 66069). An LOA is not expected to be issued until a 

date for testing has been established by the U.S. Navy. 

Marine Mammal Takings Incidental to 

On-Ice Seismic Operations in the U.S. 

Beaufort Sea, Alaska 

On February 2, 1998, NMFS issued a final rule (63 FR 

5277) to renew the authorization for the incidental taking of a small number of ringed seals (Phoca hispida) and 

bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) incidental to winter 

seismic operations in the Beaufort Sea. Seismic surveys 

will be conducted using a Vibroseis energy source, wherein 

large trucks with vibrators mounted on them, systematically put variable frequency energy into the earth. Because a minimum of three to 4 ft (1.2 m) of ice is required to safely support the weight of equipment, on-ice 

seismic operations are usually confined to the five-month 

period between January through May. Seals are expected 

to avoid the immediate area around seismic operations; 

therefore, they are not expected to be subject to potential 

hearing damage from exposure to underwater sounds 

from the operations. Any takings of seals are anticipated 

to result from short-term disturbance by noise and physical activity associated with the seismic operations. 

Regulations governing the taking of ringed and bearded 

seals incidental to on-ice seismic surveys will remain in 

effect until December 31, 2002. LOAs to take ringed 

and bearded seals incidental to on-ice seismic operations 

in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska were issued on March 16, 

1998, to BP Exploration, Western Geophysical, and 

Northern Geophysical, all of Anchorage, Alaska. 

North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation: Taking Seals Incidental to Seabrook 

Power Plant Operations 

On June 16, 1997, NMFS received an application for an 

incidental, small take exemption from the North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation to take harbor seals and 

other pinnipeds incidental to routine operations of its 

Seabrook Station nuclear power plant. Seabrook is a 

single-unit 1,150-megawatt nuclear power generating 

facility located in Seabrook, New Hampshire. Cooling 

water for plant operations is supplied by three intake structures approximately one mile offshore in 60 ft (18 m) of 

water. About 469,000 gal (178,220 l) per minute are 

drawn through the intakes to a 19 ft (5.7 m) diameter, 

three-mile (0.9 m) long tunnel beneath the seafloor and 

into large holding bays (called forebays) at the power 

plant. Lethal takes of seals occur sporadically as the juvenile seals enter the cooling water intake structures and 

apparently drown en route to the forebays. On August 

25, 1998, NMFS published a proposed rule for this action in the Federal Register (63 FR 45213). 

Though Seabrook Station has been in commercial operation since August 1990, no seal takes were known to 

have occurred prior to 1993, when the remains of two 

seals were discovered. In 1994, the remains of seven seals 

were found and, in 1995, the remains of six to seven 

were found. In 1996, 12 to 17 animals were taken and, 

in 1997, ten seals were taken at the facility. Lethal takes 

for 1998 totaled 13 seals. North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation is presently investigating a number of 

measures to prevent or reduce the lethal taking of seals at 

Seabrook Station. As of the end of 1998, no preventative measures have been implemented, but some alternatives warrant further study. These alternatives are being 

reviewed for practicality with regard to nuclear power 

safety, costs, and ability to withstand the high energy offshore environment. A final rule is expected to be published in early 1999. 

Page 40 
 Page 41

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Large Whale

Ship-Strike Application

Taking of Harbor Seals and Other Pinni- aking of Harbor Seals and Other Pinnipeds Incidental to Missle and Rocket

Launches at Vandenburg, Air Force

Base, California

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Large Whale 

Ship-Strike Application 

On May 31, 1995, NMFS received an application for a 

small take exemption from the USCG in order to allow 

a small take of certain marine mammal species incidental to USCG vessel and aircraft operations off the U.S. 

Atlantic shoreline. The application was in response to a 

federal court order dated May 2, 1995 (as revised by an 

order dated May 19, 1995) in Strahan v. Linnon, wherein 

the presiding District Court judge ordered the USCG to 

apply for a small take permit for Coast Guard operations 

that may incidentally take a northern right whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis). The USCG also requested a small 

take of humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), blue 

(Balaenoptera musculus), fin (Balaena physalus), sei 

(Balaenoptera borealis) and sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). Specific activities covered in the application 

are the operation of USCG vessel and aircraft activities 

in the North Atlantic, including responses to marine 

pollution events, port safety and security issues, law enforcement efforts, search and rescue missions, vessel traffic control, and maintenance of aids to navigation. 

Before processing this application, NMFS determined 

that it would be necessary to first complete consultation 

under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The 

USCG submitted an ESA Biological Assessment for the 

U.S. Atlantic Coast on August 3, 1995, and NMFS issued a Biological Opinion on September 15, 1995. As a 

result of an October 9, 1995, humpback whale strike in 

the Gulf of Maine and an interaction with a humpback 

whale in July 1997, the USCG requested re-initiation of 

consultation on February 22, 1996 and December 11, 

1997. That process was concluded on July 22, 1996 and 

June 8, 1998, respectively. During the time period for 

consultation, processing the USCG application for a small 

take authorization was suspended. 

Because the finding of the July 22, 1996, section 7 consultation was that continued vessel and aircraft operations by the USCG are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of northern right whales (Eubalaena 

glacialis), and because NMFS has determined that the 

loss of even a single northern right whale is significant, a 

negligible impact finding under section 101(a)(5)(A) 

could not be made for ship strikes of northern right whales 

by the USCG. As a result, the USCG’s June 2, 1995, 

application for a small take authorization for northern 

right whales was denied by letter on July 31, 1996. The 

requested authorization for the additional species of 

marine mammals incidental to USCG operations was 

not addressed at that time. 

In fall of 1996, the presiding District Court judge in 

Strahan v. Linnon expressed concern with NMFS’ actions on the small take application and other marine 

mammal authorizations. On October 17, 1996 (61 FR 

54157) NMFS announced receipt of the USCG application and offered the public 30 days to submit comments. However, prior to issuance of a proposed rule, in 

July 1997, a USCG cutter had an interaction with a whale, 

believed to be but not positively identified as a humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). As a result of the 

interaction, consultation with the USCG was reinitiated 

and concluded on June 8, 1998. As of the end of 1998, 

no further action had been taken on the USCG application. 

Taking of Harbor Seals and Other Pinni­


peds Incidental to Missle and Rocket


Launches at Vandenburg, Air Force


Base, California


The U.S. Air Force 30th Space Wing applied on Septem­


ber 30, 1997, for a five-year authorization to take harbor 

seals (Phoca vitulina), California sea lions (Zalophus 

californianus) and other pinnipeds incidental to launches 

of missiles and rockets from Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

as well as aircraft and helicopter testing. This application is for the continuation of a multi-year authorization 

that was issued between the years 1991 and 1996 for 

Titan IV launches, but expanded to include other launch 

activities, all of which have been covered under incidental harassment authorizations between 1995 and 1998. 

On July 21, 1998, NMFS published proposed regulations (63 FR 39055) that, if implemented, would authorize the 30th Space Wing to take small numbers of these 

animals annually by the listed activities. A final rule is 

expected to be published in early 1999. 

To ensure that the cumulative impact of these launches 

would not have more than a negligible impact on pinnipeds along the Vandenberg coastline and on the NorthPage 41 
Page 42

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Taking of Bowhead Whales and Other aking of Bowhead Whales and Other

Marine Mammals Incidental to Con- Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of Oil Development Projects in

the U.S. Beaufor U.S. Beaufort Sea

Small T Small Takes by Incidental Harass- es by Incidental Harassment

Conducting 3-D Seismic Sur Conducting 3-D Seismic Surveys in the

U.S. Beaufor U.S. Beaufort Sea, Alaska BPXA and

Western Geophysical Western Geophysical

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

ern Channel Islands, on-site monitoring of affected rookeries and haulouts would be conducted and, in addition, 

a multi-year research program would be initiated. 

Taking of Bowhead Whales and Other 

Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of Oil Development Projects in 

the U.S. Beaufort Sea 

On November 30, 1998, BP Exploration (Alaska) 

(BPXA) applied to NMFS for a small take of marine 

mammals incidental to the construction and operation 

of offshore oil and gas platforms at the Northstar and 

Liberty developments in the Beaufort Sea in state and 

Federal waters. BPXA proposes to produce oil from these 

two offshore oil developments, which will be the first in 

the Beaufort Sea to use a subsea pipeline to transport oil 

to shore and then into the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. 

Because both construction and operation of offshore 

projects may result in the incidental harassment of marine mammals, principally by noise due to vessel and 

helicopter traffic, ice road and pipeline construction and 

drilling and gas flaring activities, a small take authorization is warranted. An advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking is expected to be published in early 1999. 

Small Takes by Incidental Harassment 

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

MMPA Amendments of 1994 (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 processing 

the application, for public notice and comment on the 

application and for issuance or denial of the authorization. 

On April 10, 1996 (61 FR 15884), NMFS published an 

interim rule to amend the small take regulations to implement the process for issuing harassment authorizations 

without the need to issue specific regulations governing 

the taking of marine mammals for each and every activity. This rule sets forth the process for applying for and 

obtaining an authorization; the time limits set by the 

statute for NMFS review, publication, and public notice 

and comment on any applications for authorization that 

would be granted; and the requirements for submission 

of a plan of cooperation and for scientific peer review of 

an applicant’s monitoring plans (if that activity may affect the availability of a species or stock of marine mammal for taking for subsistence purposes). 

During 1998, under these new small take provisions, 

NMFS accepted applications from, and issued authorizations to, the following activities: 

Conducting 3-D Seismic Surveys in the 

U.S. Beaufort Sea, Alaska BPXA and 

Western Geophysical 

On March 26 and April 15, 1998, NMFS received applications from BPXA and Western Geophysical requesting authorizations for the harassment of small numbers 

of several species of marine mammals, principally bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus), incidental to conducting ocean-bottom-cable seismic surveys during the open 

water season of 1998 in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. The purpose of the surveys is to refine assessments of petroleum 

reserves prior to developing those reserves. 

The number of potential incidental harassment takes will 

depend on the distribution and abundance of marine 

mammals (which vary annually due to variable ice conditions and other factors) in the area of seismic operations. In addition, no take by injury and/or death was 

anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment would be avoided through incorporation of mitigation measures. These measures included a shutdown protocol when marine mammals enter a predesignated safety zone, ramping up the source 

whenever it is powered down for more than one minute, 

requiring biological observers to monitor safety zones, 

and aerial and acoustic monitoring after September 1, 

1998 to look for bowhead whales. 

Subsequent to a 30-day public comment period, BPXA 

requested NMFS to withdraw its application for the incidental harassment authorization. This was done on 

July 29, 1998. After review of both the documentation 

provided by Western Geophysical and that of the 

commenters, NMFS determined that the short-term 

Page 42 
 Page 43

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

U.S. Coast Guard Authorization to Harass U.S. Coast Guard Authorization to Harass

Small Numbers of Seals and Sea Lions Small Numbers of Seals and Sea Lions

Incidental to Removal of Oil Storage

Tanks on T anks on Tatoosh Island, Washington

Authorization for T Authorization for Takings Incidental to

Anti-mine Warfare Experiments by the

U.S. Navy at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

impact of conducting seismic surveys in the Beaufort 

Sea would result, at worst, in a temporary modification 

in behavior by bowhead whales and certain other species 

of cetaceans and pinnipeds. While behavioral modifications may be made by these species to avoid the resultant 

noise, this behavioral change is expected to have a negligible impact on the animals. As a result, an incidental 

harassment authorization was issued to Western Geophysical for the open-water season commencing on July 

23, 1998. 

Because bowhead whales are east of the seismic area in 

the Canadian Beaufort Sea until late August/early September, seismic activities were not expected to impact 

subsistence hunting of bowhead whales prior to that date. 

After September 1, 1998, Western Geophysical initiated 

aerial survey flights for bowhead whale assessments. In 

addition, appropriate mitigation measures to avoid an 

adverse impact on the availability of bowhead whales for 

subsistence needs were the subject of consultation between Western Geophysical and Inupiat subsistence users. 

U.S. Coast Guard Authorization to Harass 

Small Numbers of Seals and Sea Lions 

Incidental to Removal of Oil Storage 

Tanks on Tatoosh Island, Washington 

On April 27, 1998, NMFS received a request from the 

USCG for authorization to take small numbers of California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, and Steller sea lions 

(Eumetopias jubatus) by harassment incidental to removing up to five underground oil storage units at the Cape 

Flattery Light Station on Tatoosh Island, Clallam County, 

WA. The expected impact on marine mammals would 

be from the noise created by the arrival and departure of 

heavy-lift, tandem-rotor helicopters. Heavy-lift helicopters will be used to sling equipment and materials to and 

from the project. After publication of a proposed authorization on June 4, 1998 (63 FR 30476), NMFS issued 

an incidental harassment authorization to the USCG on 

August 17, 1998 (63 FR 45048). 

Authorization for Takings Incidental to 

Anti-mine Warfare Experiments by the 

U.S. Navy at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida 

On July 20, 1998, NMFS received an application from 

the U.S. Air Force Development Test Center. The U.S. 

Air Force, in cooperation with the U.S. Naval Surface 

Warfare Center-Coastal Systems Station, requested an 

authorization to take, by harassment and non-serious 

injury, bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), spotted 

dolphins (Stenella attenuata), and possibly other cetacean 

species incidental to explosive testing of obstacle and mine 

clearance systems at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. The 

U.S. Navy’s current capability to clear obstacles and mines 

in the surf zone is limited to the hand placement of explosive charges by U.S. Navy combat swimmers. The 

effectiveness of this capability is limited by the ability of 

swimmers to locate submerged targets and to carry sufficient explosives to destroy the targets. Such operations 

are considered highly hazardous, and the reliability of 

obstacle removal is considered to be poor. To facilitate 

U.S. Marine Corps amphibious assaults, the U.S. Navy 

is developing and testing methods to safely and effectively clear a path through such obstacles. Because the 

experiments can result in noise in the marine environment, and the incidental harassment of cetaceans in the 

vicinity, the U.S. Air Force applied for an incidental harassment authorization. In order to avoid impacting sea 

turtles, tests are proposed to be conducted in the fall and 

winter 1998/99. Additional mitigation measures that 

will be undertaken include: (1) establishing safety zones 

to prevent marine mammal injury; (2) conducting a 30­

minute pre-detonation aerial monitoring survey immediately prior to each test to ensure no marine mammals 

are within the test area’s designated safety zone; (3) not 

testing if marine mammals, sea turtles or sargassum rafts 

are within the designated safety zone; and (4) not testing 

if sea state conditions are greater than three and water 

clarity is not adequate for conducting surveys. With 

water depths less than 18 m (59 ft), low turbidity, and 

white sand bottom, exceptional marine mammal visibility is ensured. 

A notice of receipt of the application and proposed authorization was published on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 

54676) and, after a 30-day public comment period, the 

authorization was issued on December 8, 1998 (63 FR 

67669). 

Page 43 
Page 44

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

McNeil Island, Washington Dock Con- McNeil Island, Washington Dock Construction

Construction of the Nor Construction of the Northstar Oil Devel- thstar Oil Development Project in the U.S. Beaufor roject in the U.S. Beaufort Sea

Acoustic Program

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

McNeil Island, Washington Dock Construction 

An incidental harassment authorization was issued on 

December 23, 1998 (63 FR 72285), to allow the Washington State Department of Corrections to harass harbor seals incidental to construction of the Still Harbor 

Dock Facility on McNeil Island in southern Puget Sound, 

WA. 

The Dock Facility is utilized by the Department of Corrections as a foul weather landing facility for the McNeil 

Island Corrections Center near Steilacoom, Washington. 

Significant deterioration of the existing dock facility, including the collapse in 1994 of the steel-pile-supported 

center portion of the facility, resulted in the need for major 

renovation in order to maintain a safe, functional facility. A previous incidental harassment authorization was 

issued in 1995 for the initial demolition of the damaged 

dock which posed an immediate risk. The renovation 

authorized in 1998 included demolition of the remainder of the damaged dock and construction of a new pier 

and dock facility. All new structures will be constructed 

within the footprint of the existing facility. The new 

dock will be significantly smaller than originally planned 

in 1994 (8,000 ft2

 v. 20,000 ft2) (2400 - 6000 m2). As 

construction may potentially result in disturbance of seals 

hauled out on nearby Gertrude Island, an authorization 

under the MMPA is warranted. 

Harbor seals use nearby Gertrude Island as a low-tide 

haul-out and rookery. The maximum number of harbor 

seals using Gertrude Island during construction will vary 

from 200-600, depending upon the month. Because of 

the close vicinity of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) to the 

construction, some seals may be disturbed and seek refuge in the water. To mitigate this effect, the Department 

of Corrections will not conduct in-water activities during the harbor seal pupping and nursing period, and will 

establish a 1,000-ft no-entry buffer zone around Gertrude 

Island to minimize the impact of vessel traffic on harbor 

seals during the project. Observations conducted under 

the 1995 authorization confirmed that some seals would 

be temporarily displaced by the noise and activities of 

construction, but that the number of seals using the haulout at Gertrude Island would return to pre-disturbance 

levels following the completion of work. NMFS has 

determined that, with this mitigation, the taking will result in a negligible impact on a small number of harbor 

seals and therefore qualifies for an exemption under the 

MMPA. 

Construction of the Northstar Oil Development Project in the U.S. Beaufort Sea 

On August 14, 1998, NMFS received an application from 

BPXA requesting a one-year authorization for the harassment of small numbers of several species of marine 

mammals incidental to construction of the Northstar 

development in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. NMFS accepted the application, noted its receipt in the Federal 

Register on October 26, 1998 (63 FR 57096), and requested public comment. The proposed construction 

activity during the period of the proposed incidental harassment authorization includes the construction of three 

ice roads, the construction of a gravel island work surface for drilling and oil production facilities, and two 

pipelines, one to transport crude oil and one for gas for 

field injection. Although construction was planned to 

extend into a second year, NMFS did not anticipate that 

a second harassment authorization would be necessary 

because in the interim, a five-year regulatory program 

would be established under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA (mentioned previously). However, as of the end 

of 1998, no action had been taken on issuing the first 

year incidental harassment authorization. 

Acoustic Program 

The need for NMFS action on acoustic matters was first 

recognized during the 1991 Heard Island Feasibility Test, 

when it was determined that the intense sounds could 

potentially harass marine mammals and was therefore 

subject to the provisions of the MMPA. Soon thereafter, 

the Office of Protected Resources began receiving increasing numbers of requests for authorizations for activities 

that produced noise. Two of the projects, the John Paul 

Jones ship shock trial and the ATOC (Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate) project, were highly contentious. By 1995, NMFS saw a clear need for an agency 

acoustic team, and one was formed. 

Page 44 
 Page 45

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Acoustics Program Outline

Acoustic Criteria Workshop

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

After 1995, increases in acoustic activities, especially in 

offshore petroleum exploration by the Minerals Management Service and various U.S. Navy projects, required 

more of NMFS than processing permit requests. Planning, coordination, review, and outreach were required. 

By 1998, it was no longer possible to manage acoustic 

problems on an ad hoc basis. The NMFS Office of Protected Resources added a person to the acoustics team to 

attend to programmatic matters and convened a workshop to gather information for new acoustic criteria to 

define “takes” from acoustic sources. A brief report of 

these two activities follows. 

Acoustics Program Outline 

A survey of the acoustics policy within NMFS showed 

that actions were potentially needed in the following areas: 

* draft acoustic criteria to clearly define acoustic “takes” under the MMPA; 

* educate NMFS personnel on basic acoustics 

and coordinate the use of acoustic criteria similarly in all regions; 

* provide contact with other agencies, industry, 

professional societies, environmental NGOs, 

and news media on acoustic matters; 

* outline research that is needed to improve 

guidelines or regulations on acoustics; and 

* obtain additional funding for all programmatic 

aspects of the acoustics program, including research. 

Elements of the NMFS acoustics program are being integrated into the small take program, scientific research 

permits, and other NMFS protected species programmatic responsibilities and functions. By the end of 1998, 

NMFS had taken action on most of these items. In addition, the team is involved in an international effort to 

standardize acoustic practices in offshore petroleum exploration activities. 

Acoustic Criteria Workshop 

Defining what types of sounds cause “takes” in marine 

mammals and endangered species is the single most pressing need in acoustics. Writing these definitions has been 

hampered by the fact that hearing ability has only been 

described for ten species of marine mammals and one 

species of marine turtle. Even less is known about the 

harmful effects of intense sound on these hearing structures, and still less is known about how sound affects the 

behavior of marine animals. Without such information, 

some of which is unpublished or in the “gray” literature, 

it is difficult to write appropriate acoustic criteria. To 

gather as much information as possible, the Office of 

Protected Resources convened a workshop of acoustic 

experts in September 1998 to ascertain the “best available” science in this field at that time. 

A panel of ten acoustics experts met for two and one half 

days to answer specific questions posed to them by the 

NMFS acoustics team. The general public was invited 

to attend and to also address the panel. The discussions 

were taped for later production of a verbatim transcript, 

although no summary report was written or planned. 

The acoustic criteria are presently being drafted based 

on the workshop results and other information from the 

field of animal acoustics. 

Page 45 
Page 46

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Chapter VII. Conser Chapter VII. Conservation and R vation and Recovery Programs rograms

photo by: C. E. Bowlby, NMFS

Northern Right Whale

(Eubalaena glacialis) Eubalaena glacialis)

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs


The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) 

authorizes NMFS to initiate and implement management actions, such as the development of conservation 

plans, for species or stocks whose survival is in jeopardy. 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) confers similar management authority to NMFS for endangered and threatened marine species. This chapter summarizes species 

conservation and research activities undertaken by NMFS 

in 1998 pursuant to the MMPA and ESA. 

Northern Right Whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis) 

Valued for the quality and quantity of its baleen and oil, 

the northern right whale was the first of the great whales 

to be targeted by the whaling industry. By the late 1700s 

in the North Atlantic and by the late 1800s in the North 

Pacific, all right whale populations were “economically 

extinct”. Today, they may be close to biological extinction throughout the Northern Hemisphere. Despite a 

ban on commercial harvest of right whales by the International Whaling Commission in 1949, and subsequent 

U.S. adoption of this ban, northern right whale populaphoto by: C. E. Bowlby, NMFS 

tions have remained at precariously low levels. In addition, recently released data indicate that Soviet whalers 

continued harvesting North Pacific right whales until 

1971. The species was listed as endangered under the 

ESA in 1973. 

The western North Pacific right whale population is believed to number no more than a few hundred animals 

and its recovery status is unknown. It is clear the population in the eastern North Pacific is small, but there are no 

reliable estimates of population size, or trends in population size, and little information on distribution. Sightings 

over the past several decades have been rare, but increased 

search effort in recent years has resulted in new information on occurrence and distribution. In 1998, NMFS 

provided support for aircraft and ship-based surveys to 

help assess abundance, distribution, and stock identity 

of the eastern North Pacific population. A handful of 

sightings were made in the Bering Sea, and support for 

this work is expected to continue in 1999. 

With regard to the eastern North Atlantic population, 

the near absence of right whale sightings over the last 40 

years off the European continent suggests that the stock 

Page 46 
 Page 47

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Recovery Plan Implementation

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

once found in the eastern North Atlantic is probably functionally extinct. 

The largest known northern right whale population, and 

the focus of greatest conservation efforts is the western 

North Atlantic population where there are about 300 

individuals. In the western North Atlantic, right whales 

occur seasonally in at least three areas along the East Coast 

of the United States and two areas in Canada. The principal and only known calving area for the population is 

along the coast of northern Florida and Georgia. This 

area is used almost exclusively from December to March 

by females with newborn calves and some juveniles. The 

other four known seasonal habitats are feeding areas off 

New England and southeastern Canada. In spring, right 

whales regularly occur in Cape Cod Bay and the Great 

South Channel off Massachusetts. Recognizing the importance of these areas to the survival of this population, 

in 1994, NMFS designated these three areas as critical 

habitat. 

Although no commercial hunting of right whales is 

known to have occurred in the western North Atlantic 

since at least the 1930s, other human activities are likely 

slowing recovery. Both collisions with ships and entanglement in fishing gear are documented causes of death and 

serious injury in the population. From 1970 to December 1998, there have been 46 known right whale deaths. 

Of these, 17 (37%) were from ship strikes, and two (4%) 

from fishing gear entanglement. For 14 deaths, the cause 

is unknown. Thirteen deaths were neonates (newborns). 

It is estimated that tens of non-fatal fishing gear entanglements have occurred since 1970. 

Given these threats and the slow recovery rate of this 

population, NMFS has taken a number of steps to reduce adverse effects from human activities. 

Recovery Plan Implementation 

In 1991, NMFS published the Recovery Plan for the 

Northern Right Whale. The Recovery Plan identifies 

known and potential factors affecting the northern right 

whale in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and provides research and conservation recommendations aimed 

at reducing or eliminating adverse effects to the species. 

Among the objectives identified in the plan are: (a) identify and protect habitats essential to survival and recovery; (b) coordinate federal, state, international, and private efforts to implement recovery efforts; (c) identify 

and minimize any detrimental effects of directed air and 

watercraft interactions; (c) identify and/or eliminate 

sources of human-caused injury or mortality; (d) maximize efforts to free entangled whales and acquire scientific information from all specimens, dead or alive; and 

(e) monitor population size and trends in abundance. 

With regard to the right whales in the North Pacific 

Ocean, the stated objectives are to: (a) initiate studies to 

determine the population size and monitor trends in 

abundance; (b) identify and protect habitats essential to 

survival and recovery; (c) collect and analyze information on the areas and seasons where potential conflicts 

exist between vessel traffic and right whales and the type 

of vessels involved; (d) enforce whale protection laws; (e) 

continue international bans on hunting and other directed lethal take; (e) reduce or eliminate injury and 

mortality caused by fisheries and fishing gear; and (f) 

maximize efforts to acquire scientific information from 

dead or stranded right whales. 

New information has been gathered since release of the 

1991 recovery plan, and a number of steps have been 

taken since then to protect right whales.Therefore, NMFS 

is currently updating the plan. The revised plan will review progress made since 1991, review new information 

gathered since that time, and identify new objectives and 

recommended recovery actions. Revised recovery actions 

will focus on attempts to reduce adverse effects from 

human activities, specifically, ship strikes and entanglement, and will address both the North Atlantic and North 

Pacific right whale stocks. The revised recovery plan is 

expected to be available by early 2000. 

Establishment of Regional Recovery Plan 

Implementation Teams 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides authority 

to the Secretary of Commerce (i.e., NMFS) to establish 

teams to assist in implementing recovery plans by reviewing recovery activities and providing recommendations to NMFS on improving such activities. Two such 

teams have been formed for right whales – one in the 

Page 47 
Page 48

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Efforts to Reduce Serious Injur educe Serious Injury from

Fishing Gear Entanglements ishing Gear Entanglements

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

southeastern United States and one in the northeastern 

United States. 

The Southeastern U.S. Implementation Team (SEIT) was 

established in August 1993. It currently consists of representatives from the Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources; the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection; NMFS Southeast Fisheries Center and Southeast Regional Office; U.S. Navy; Marine Mammal Commission; Georgia Ports Authority; Canaveral Port Authority; Glynn County Commission, Glynn County, GA; 

University of Georgia; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Port of 

Fernandina, Fernandina, Florida; the U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG), and the Jacksonville Port Authority. 

The SEIT has met regularly since being established and, 

among other things, has worked to develop and implement a system of aircraft surveys to detect and report the 

locations of right whales to mariners (described below). 

Members of the SEIT have also implemented a local 

Notice to Mariners broadcast about right whale calving 

grounds which is broadcast four times daily by the USCG 

on VHF radio, and is carried by the Army Corp of Engineers as a part of its annually distributed tide charts. The 

SEIT also makes recommendations to NMFS and other 

agencies regarding right whale research and measures to 

reduce the possibility of ship strikes, and restrictions of 

hazardous fishing gear in right whale calving areas. 

Through the SEIT and NMFS annual support, the Right 

Whale Newsletter is published quarterly as a source of 

news, updates, and lists of recent publications for the 

right whale community. 

Recovery Plan implementation for right whales and 

humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) has been 

ongoing within NMFS Northeast Region since at least 

December 1990. These efforts were formalized with the 

establishment of the Northeastern Implementation Team 

(NEIT) in August 1994. The team meets regularly and 

consists of representatives from the USCG, the Environmental Protection Agency, NMFS, the Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary, the New England Fisheries 

Management Council, the Marine Mammal Commission, U.S Navy, Canada’s Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, the 

Massachusetts’ Coastal Zone Management Office, and 

the Massachusetts’ Port Authority. 

The NEIT has worked to develop means to reduce human-related impacts to right whales. In 1998, and in 

previous years, the team has provided recommendations 

or guidance to NMFS and other agencies with regard to 

restricting hazardous fishing gear in right whale habitats, 

advising fishermen regarding disentangling whales caught 

in gear, plans for constructing a sewage outfall tunnel in 

Massachusetts Bay, and dredge disposal activities in Massachusetts Bay. The team and its participating agencies 

have also had important roles in the aircraft survey and 

communication system described below, as well as in the 

recovery of stranded or dead floating whales. 

Efforts to Reduce Serious Injury from 

Fishing Gear Entanglements 

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team and Plan 

In August 1996, NMFS formed the Atlantic Large Whale 

Take Reduction Team to address the incidental take of 

humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), fin (Balaenoptera 

physalus), minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) and northern right whales in the Gulf of Maine/U.S. mid-Atlantic 

lobster trap/pot fishery, the mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet 

fishery, the southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet fishery, and the Gulf of Maine sink-gillnet fishery.The Team 

prepared a plan, and although the Team failed to reach 

consensus on all measures, agreement was reached on a 

number of needed actions. The non-consensus plan was 

forwarded to NMFS in February 1997 (for more information, see Chapter II. Reducing Interactions Between 

Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries). 

NMFS received and reviewed numerous public comments on the proposed rule and subsequently published 

an interim final rule in July 22, 1997 (62 FR 39157), 

with most requirements taking place January 1, 1998. In 

the meantime, NMFS implemented the Team’s plan 

under the interim final rule. The provisions implemented 

were: (1) formation of a fishing gear advisory group; (2) 

research on potential fishing gear modification to determine ways to reduce entanglement and facilitate the release of entangled whales; (3) a fishermen outreach and 

education program; (4) expansion of the disentanglement 

network; (5) hiring a large whale coordinator in Maine 

Page 48 
 Page 49

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Steps T Steps Taken to Reduce the Level of Ship

Strike Deaths e Deaths

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

(a state in which much of the gear restrictions were opposed); (6) continuation and refinement of the northeast U.S. aircraft survey program; and (7) implementing 

some time/area closures and fishing gear restrictions. 

While these programs are in place and ongoing, NMFS 

is developing and expects to publish a final rule early in 

1999. NMFS also expects to re-convene the Team in 

1999. 

Disentanglement Response Program and 

Network 

As noted above and in previous MMPA Annual Reports, 

several right whales each year become entangled in commercial fishing gear. Depending on the situation and with 

consideration for human safety, all reasonable efforts are 

made to locate and free each entangled whale. Experience has shown that disentanglement is best undertaken 

by trained and experienced personnel, with appropriate 

protocols for the procedure as well as the associated data 

collection. NMFS has established a disentanglement program that involves: (a) a multi-agency and institution 

network to locate, monitor, and safely disentangle marine mammals; (b) maintenance of a database for entanglements, providing data access and periodic reports 

to users; and (c) development of regional protocols and 

plans, including outreach to the general public. The 

USCG provides critical support in monitoring initial entanglement reports and transporting disentanglement 

personnel to events. 

The disentanglement program consists of one primary 

team and field station support in the northern Gulf of 

Maine/Bay of Fundy, central Maine, southern Gulf of 

Maine, and Georgia/Florida. Although the disentanglement team attempts to respond to all legitimate entanglement reports, priority is given for any immediately lifethreatening event of endangered right and humpback 

whales. 

In 1998, NMFS expanded the disentanglement network, 

particularly by increasing fishermen involvement. Commercial fishermen, in many ways, are ideal participants 

in the disentanglement network because of their vast experience on the water, knowledge of local fishing gear 

and practices, and familiarity with hazardous working 

conditions at sea. Fishermen are also likely to be operating vessels in areas where entanglements occur. In addition, the program has been expanded to include the midAtlantic states and the Southeast United States, and now 

includes the collection of equipment that can be quickly 

deployed to the site of an entangled whale. 

NMFS also funded a contract with the Center for Coastal 

Studies in 1998 to develop a program for large whale 

disentanglement training for commercial fishermen in 

the state of Maine. Maine fishermen were chosen as the 

first group to have the opportunity to receive this training because of their experience with the state’s expansive 

coastline (approximately 8000 km or 5000 mi), which 

includes numerous islands and is otherwise difficult for 

NMFS to monitor. 

Through cooperation between NMFS, the Atlantic Large 

Whale Take Reduction Team, lobster zone council representatives, other fisherman, and Maine outreach contacts, a pool of interested fishermen has been identified. 

This program consists of four training levels, which will 

increase the fishermen’s level of involvement with the 

disentanglement procedures as they progress. This program has been instituted, training began in spring 1998, 

and it will be ongoing in 1999. For more information, 

see Ch. X. Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program. 

Steps Taken to Reduce the Level of Ship 

Strike Deaths 

In the last two years, NMFS has devoted considerable 

effort to educating the shipping industry and others about 

the vulnerability of right whales to ship strikes in an effort to reduce the probability of ship strikes. As noted 

earlier, impacts from human activities are likely slowing 

the recovery of this population, and death and injury 

from collisions with ships are likely a contributing factor. 

Aircraft and Vessel Based Surveys for Western 

North Atlantic Right Whales 

To help reduce the likelihood of ship strikes, a multiagency team designed and conducts surveys that transect 

key northern right whale feeding and calving areas when 

Page 49 
Page 50

Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

the animals are expected to be present. Surveys have been 

used in right whale habitat over waters off the Southeast 

United States since 1993, and since early 1997 in the 

Northeast United States. The primary objectives of these 

surveys are to: 1) locate right whales, 2) photograph right 

whales with high resolution photogrammatric cameras 

for the purpose of photo-identification and evaluating 

the extent to which the animals show evidence of vessel 

strikes. 

In the Northeast United States, the primary source of 

information for the sighting network is dedicated aerial 

surveys conducted by NMFS and the state of Massachusetts in the two critical habitat areas and beyond. Surveys 

are done each year from January to the end of June. Additional sighting information sources which contribute 

throughout the calendar year are primarily opportunistic and include USCG aircraft and ships, ship-based 

sightings by several research organizations during their 

studies of right whales (Center for Coastal Studies, Woods 

Hole Oceanographic Institution, International Wildlife 

Coalition), research vessels operated by NMFS, the 

Northeast Region Stranding Network, whale watch vessels, and a high speed ferry. Sighting locations are processed, disseminated, and faxed by the NMFS Northeast 

Regional Office to a wide distribution network that includes federal and state agencies, shipping agents and 

pilots, and right whale researchers. Right whale locations 

are broadcast to ships and other maritime users for a 24­

hour period via USCG Broadcast Notice to Mariners, 

NAVTEX, alerts on NOAA Weather Radio, and Army 

Corps of Engineers Traffic Controllers at Cape Cod Canal. Maps with right whale sightings are updated and 

posted on the Wheelock College WHALENET web site 

at: 

whale.wheelock.edu/whalenet-stuff/reportsRW_NE/ 

Sightings information can also be found at the NMFS 

Northeast Region, Northeast Fisheries Center and the 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 

web sites. A NMFS Inquiry Line (telephone) also provides right whale sighting information and sends facsimiles of the sighting maps to interested callers. 

Vessel based surveys were conducted in 1997 and are 

planned for 1999. 

Working with Mariners 

An important element of the system is raising the awareness of the mariners about the vulnerability of right whales 

to ship collisions. Among other things, shipping agents 

and pilots distributed the sighting reports to shipping 

captains and participated in the survey program coordination and planning meetings in 1998. 

In the Southeast United States, the core group is the U.S. 

Navy, which disseminates the information through a 

coordinated system of faxes and pagers. The information is also made available through a number of real time 

media, including USCG Broadcast Notice to Mariners, 

NAVTEX (the USCG international communication 

system), and NOAA Weather Radio. 

The aircraft survey program is a cooperative effort by 

NMFS, NOAA’s Weather Service, USCG, U.S. Navy, 

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

Massachusetts, the states of Georgia and Florida, 

Wheelock College, Massachusetts Environmental Trust, 

the Center for Coastal Studies, the New England 

Aquarium, NOAA’s Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary, Massachusetts Port Authority, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport, Rhode Island. In 

the southeast the program is jointly funded by NMFS, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USCG, and the U.S. 

Navy. 

Updating Nautical Charts and Other Navigational Publications 

Updating basic navigational publications was determined 

to be a logical first step in educating mariners about the 

vulnerability of right whales to ship strikes. To help ensure safe navigation in coastal waters of the United States, 

the National Ocean Service (NOS) periodically publishes 

and updates nautical charts. NOS also issues a series of 

regional books called Coast Pilots, basic references on 

regional environmental conditions as well as navigation 

hazards and rules. In U.S. waters, all ship’s captains are 

required to carry the Coast Pilots. Since late 1997, NMFS, 

Page 50 
 Page 51

 Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

NOS, and others have been working closely to update 

information printed on nautical charts and in Coast Pilots regarding right whale critical habitat and regulations 

about approaching right whales and other protected 

marine species. Schedules for updating these publications 

were made. As a result, Coast Pilot publications covering 

the entire eastern United States have been or will be updated to include information on the status of right whales, 

the times and areas in which they occur, the threats posed 

to whales by ships, as well as advice on measures mariners might take to avoid hitting right whales. As well, 

relevant nautical charts will be modified when they are 

printed. This effort to update and improve these navigational publications was lead by the International Fund 

for Animal Welfare, working through the Northeast and 

Southeast Implementation Teams for right whale recovery. 

In early 1998, NMFS requested that the National Imagery and Mapping Agency’s (NIMA) (formerly the Defense Mapping Agency) Notice to Mariners publication 

be modified to include information about right whales 

and provided language for inclusion in the publication. 

As a result, related language regarding the vulnerability 

of right whales to ship strikes and precautionary measures for avoiding ship strikes has been included in the 

NIMA’s Notice to Mariners, which is updated and published annually. 

NIMA annually publishes a related document, called 

Sailing Directions, which is prepared primarily for U.S. 

sailors heading for international waters. Working with 

counterparts in Canada, NMFS prepared information 

on right whales and precautionary measures for mariners for inclusion in Sailing Directions. In December 

1998, NMFS wrote to NIMA requesting that the information be included in Sailing Directions. By early 1999, 

most of the primary navigational publications for the 

East Coasts of the United States and Canada will contain information on the seasonal occurrence and distribution of right whales, describe their vulnerability to ship 

strikes, and include precautionary measures mariners can 

take to reduce the chances of striking the animals. 

Development of a Mandatory Ship Reporting 

System 

In late 1997, the staff members of NOAA, NMFS, NOS, 

USCG, Marine Mammal Commission, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare began jointly developing a proposal for submission to the International 

Maritime Organization (IMO) requesting implementation of a mandatory ship reporting system in right whale 

habitats. The proposal requires all ships greater than 300 

tons, entering essential right whale habitat to report location, speed, and destination to a shore-based station. 

In return, all reporting ships receive a message describing 

the status, distribution, and behavior of right whales. The 

return message will also indicate that mariners should 

not assume that whales will avoid oncoming vessels and 

that lookouts be alert for right whales, that mariners 

should listen for broadcasts reporting recent right whale 

sighting locations, and advise that reduced speeds be used 

when near whales or traveling in critical habitats or during conditions of poor visibility. 

Incoming information about shipping traffic routes and 

patterns will be retained for analysis. Thus, the system 

would provide information on right whales directly to 

mariners as they entered right whale habitat and provide 

a means to obtain information on ship traffic volume 

and routes to assist in identifying measures to reduce future ship strikes. 

The proposal to establish a ship reporting system was 

presented to the IMO’s Subcommittee on Safety of Navigation in July 1998 in London, and subsequently transmitted to the overseeing Committee on Marine Safety. 

Following the Committee’s review, the proposal received 

IMO approval in December 1998 and the system will be 

implemented by July 1999. Currently, NMFS and 

NOAA are working with the USCG and a contractor to 

design the satellite-linked communication system. NMFS 

and the USCG will share the cost of operating the system, and there will be no cost to the mariner. Design and 

implementation of the system was a multi-organization 

effort, involving government and non-government organizations. 

Page 51 
Page 52

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Interagency Consultation Under the

Endangered Species Act Endangered Species Act

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

While the ship reporting system may not eliminate ship 

strikes, NMFS believes it will reduce the likelihood of 

such events. The proposed reporting system will be relatively inexpensive to implement and will raise mariners’ 

awareness of right whales in “real-time” as they enter areas where right whales are found. It also will provide 

much-needed information on the frequency and distribution of vessel transits through right whale habitat. 

Further Efforts to Reduce Ship Strikes 

The Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention-driven 

International Safety Management Code requires vessel 

companies and owners to develop a procedure for safety 

of passengers and vessels at sea, which includes environmental protection measures and protocols. In 1998, 

NMFS worked with the USCG to ensure that the implementing regulations and protocol include information 

regarding vessel operation that is consistent with protective measures for right whales and other protected marine species. The USCG agreed with the NMFS recommendations and has incorporated this information into 

relevant regulations. Therefore, domestic vessels entering U.S. ports will be required to have vessel operation 

plans that include precautionary measures for right 

whales. 

In addition, a number of agencies and organizations have 

collaborated on developing informational brochures and 

pamphlets on this subject, which are being distributed 

by the USCG and NMFS. Plans are being made for the 

1999 production and distribution of a brief video for 

mariners, with partial support from NMFS, which will 

include information on the seasonal distribution of right 

whales. Also, NMFS’s Office of Protected Resources has 

published several articles in shipping industry journals 

about the right whale/ship strikes issue. 

Interagency Consultation Under the 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) mandates that federal agencies ensure that any action they 

authorize, fund, or carry out is: 

“not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species.” 

Federal agencies comply with this requirement through 

an interagency consultation that involves NMFS, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), or both, depending on 

the species affected by the action. Interagency consultations involve formalized procedures that are designed to 

identify the intended and unintended consequences of a 

federal agency’s action; federal actions that are likely to 

adversely affect listed species or designated critical habitat undergo more rigorous evaluations that conclude with 

a “biological opinion.” If the activity is likely to “jeopardize”, then a “jeopardy” determination is issued. If not, 

then a “non-jeopardy” determination is made. A considerable amount of the recovery activities for all endangered and threatened species are implemented through 

consultations between NMFS and other federal agencies. As a result of these consultations, NMFS issues a 

biological opinion (BO) on the activity, which indicates 

whether or not the activity is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species throughout all or a portion of its range, and provides reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the activity. The ESA also requires re-initiation of consultation if new information reveals that 

listed species or critical habitat may be affected in a manner, or to an extent, not previously considered. 

In the last several years, NMFS has conducted consultations on the activities of a number of U.S. fisheries that 

have resulted in various types of time/area closures or 

other modifications of fishing operations and modification of vessel operating procedures to reduce the adverse 

effects of human activities on right whales and other protected species. Three such consultations were conducted 

or completed in 1998. They included: (1) a biological 

opinion issued in June 1998 on USCG ship and aircraft 

operations along the Atlantic coast after a cutter struck a 

humpback whale off New England; (2) an opinion issued in December 1998 on the American Lobster Fishery Management Plan; and (3) a December 1998 opinion on the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan. Each 

of these concluded with a non-jeopardy opinion. 

Page 52 
 Page 53

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

NMFS-Suppor S-Supported Research Activities esearch Activities

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

NMFS-Supported Research Activities 

In addition to supporting or implementing protective 

measures, NMFS supports various kinds of research to 

enhance existing knowledge of right whale populations 

and provide information to better shape management 

measures. In 1998, NMFS directly supported a number 

of projects, including those described below. 

Photo-Identification and Aircraft Surveys 

Photo-identification of individual whales, along with 

associated sight-resight models, has been identified as the 

best way to monitor trends in North Atlantic right whale 

abundance and demography. Long-term sighting and 

photo-identification databases are currently maintained, 

newly collected information is added cumulatively; and 

data products and analyses are provided to collaborating 

investigators. In 1998, NMFS supported a photo-identification study and supported maintenance of the database of right whale sightings. Ongoing analysis of these 

data and collection of new photos is central to a broad 

range of right whale science and management goals. 

In addition, the NMFS-supported aerial survey program 

described above provided photo data to this research. 

The program and its partners collectively contributed a 

substantial number of the annual photo data gathered. 

For example, three right whales were identified for the 

first time in at least six years from data provided by the 

program and its partners; one right whale sighted by 

NMFS biologists in the Great South Channel had only 

previously been seen in 1992 off Iceland, representing 

the eastern- and northernmost sighting of this population. A total of 104 right whales were identified from 

the 1998 photo data. Most of the photo identifications 

in 1998 came from animals sighted in Cape Cod Bay 

and the Bay of Fundy. In addition, sightings from the 

Block Island Sound (primarily in shipping lanes) constitute the first documented use of that area by right whales 

in recent times. 

As noted above, NMFS and other agencies support aircraft surveys for right whales, primarily to reduce the 

likelihood of ship strikes by identifying whale locations 

for ships. In addition, NMFS provided support in 1998 

for aircraft surveys in the Southeast United States offshore of those being conducted over critical habitat by 

the states of Georgia and Florida. The suite of surveys 

being done in waters off the Northeast and Southeast 

United States also provide data on the occurrence and 

distribution of whales and allow the collection of photographs for identifying individual whales from year to year. 

Disentanglement Program 

As discussed above, each year several right whales become entangled in commercial fishing gear. For a number of years a disentanglement program has existed to 

make every reasonable effort to free whales caught in gear. 

As it has in the past, NMFS provided funding in 1998 

for a contract to locate and attempt to free every right 

whale caught in gear. Generally, the program has been 

successful, and over the years, tens of whales have been 

freed. 

Stranding and Human Impacts Response 

Life history and human impact data were obtained from 

stranded and dead floating right whales through collaborative efforts in 1998 between NMFS, the USCG, the 

Center for Coastal Studies, the New England Aquarium, 

and others. Through NMFS support in 1998, the onsite presence of experienced researchers was assured, as 

well as the maximization of data collection following standardized protocols and the submission of reports, which 

include the cause of injury or death. 

Workshop on Predicting Right Whale 

Distribution 

Reduction of adverse effects from human activities may 

be enhanced if right whale occurrence in specific areas 

and residency times can be understood and predicted. A 

workshop was held in Woods Hole, Massachusetts on 

October 1-2, 1998 to evaluate the possibility of predicting right whale distribution from environmental data, 

and to do this with sufficient reliability to be of use in 

improving research and management of the species. A 

report of the NMFS-supported workshop, including recommendations for follow-up actions and research, will 

be completed in January 1999. 

Page 53 
Page 54

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Steller Sea Lion

(Eumetopias jubatus Eumetopias jubatus)

Recovery Team Effor eam Efforts

Research Activities in 1998

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Research on Fishing Gear Modifications to 

Reduce Entanglement Rates 

As noted above in the section on the Atlantic Large Whale 

Take Reduction Plan, NMFS supported research on fishing gear modification. The work was aimed at identifying and assessing possible changes in the way fishing gear 

is made or deployed to reduce the likelihood of entanglement and to improve the chances that an entangled whale 

could free itself. Work begun in 1997, was continued in 

1998, and will be ongoing in 1999. A number of possible modifications have been identified and are being 

tested; and field trials are expected in 1999. The progress 

of this work will be the subject of a report to Congress 

entitled “Research on Fishing Gear Modifications to 

Reduce Entanglement of Large Whales,” to be completed 

early in 1999. 

Genetic Analysis 

Genetic analyses have been underway since 1988 to determine or clarify information on taxonomy, matrilines, 

genealogies, and habitat-use patterns of right whales. 

These analyses, including those supported in 1998, are 

helping to provide insights into stock definition and genetic variability within a stock. The goals of this research 

are to: assess the population’s genetic variability, identify 

the number of reproductive animals and their reproductive status, identify social units and individual association patterns in each habitat area, better understand mating relationships, and identify matrilines, the degree of 

inbreeding, population viability, and other factors essential to management. Recent scientific investigations have 

compared the genetic variability of northern and southern right whales, and found the former to be significantly 

less diverse. 

Steller Sea Lion 

(Eumetopias jubatus) 

Steller sea lion distribution extends along the North Pacific Ocean rim from the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk Sea 

and south along the North American coast to California, with centers of abundance and distribution in the 

Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. Since the 1970s, the 

Steller sea lion has declined by 80% or more throughout 

much of its range in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and Bering 

Sea/Aleutian Islands Region (BSAI). 

As a result of the decline, the entire species was listed as 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 

1990. The most recent counts suggest that within the 

central part of this range (from the Kenai Peninsula to 

Kiska Island in the western Aleutian Islands), abundance 

declined by 27% from 1990 to 1998. Between 1994 and 

1998, counts of non-pup sea lions at rookeries and 

haulouts of the western population declined by 13%; 

counts of pups at trend sites declined by almost 20% in 

the same interval. In 1997, the species was split into two 

management populations, and the western population 

was reclassified as endangered. 

Multiple factors are believed to have contributed to the 

overall decline since the 1970s. The major impacts to the 

decrease of the population have resulted from incidental 

catches (prior to the mid-1980s) and from a reduction 

in carrying capacity, which may have resulted from basic 

environmental changes and/or competition for prey with 

fisheries producing a reduction in available prey. Other 

factors such as commercial harvests, disease, subsistence 

harvests, shooting, and disturbance, have been determined 

as producing minor effects to the Steller sea lion population. Steller sea lion researchers and resource managers 

alike continue their efforts today to delineate causes for 

the decline and to determine effective management tools 

for their recovery. Current progress toward these goals is 

discussed below. 

Recovery Team Efforts 

The Steller Sea Lion RecoveryTeam published two workshop reports that reviewed the Steller Sea Lion Recovery 

Program and developed future research priorities, including the study of behavior patterns at haulout sites and 

rookeries and the use of telemetry. 

Research Activities in 1998 

NMFS, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

(ADFG), the North Pacific Universities Marine Mammal Research Consortium, and others developed a cooperative research program to monitor population trends 

and elucidate the cause or causes of the Steller sea lion 

decline. 

Page 54 
 Page 55

 Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

In October 1998, Congress appropriated fiscal year 1999 

funding to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

(NFWF) for Steller sea lion research at the Alaska SeaLife 

Center (ASLC) in Seward. This project is one in a series 

of projects awarded in 1998 through a cooperative process established by NOAA and NFWF in 1993. In carrying out this directive, NFWF, in cooperation with 

NOAA and the ASLC, are in the process of identifying 

priority needs for ASLC conservation efforts regarding 

Steller sea lions. 

Since the listing of the Steller sea lion in 1990, NMFS 

and the ADFG have conducted subadult/adult and pup 

surveys to assess the Steller sea lion populations. Results 

of these population assessment surveys are published routinely as part of the NOAA Technical Memorandum series on Steller sea lion abundance estimates. Each year, 

results of aerial and land-based surveys are presented to 

the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 

Population Assessments 

NMFS and the ADFG conducted aerial and land-based 

surveys of Steller sea lions in Alaska during June and July 

1997 and 1998. During a limited-range survey in 1997, 

NMFS and the ADFG counted a total of 16,249 nonpup Steller sea lions on 127 rookery and haul-out sites in 

the central and western Gulf of Alaska and eastern Aleutian Islands. In 1998, a total of 39,597 non-pups were 

counted on 236 rookery and haul-out sites Alaska-wide. 

Of these, 20,976 were on 33 trend rookeries. The results 

suggest a decline of 7.0% since 1996. From 1990 to 1998, 

the estimated average annual decline for the trend rookeries was 3.5%. 

The western stock of Steller sea lions in Alaska includes 

animals from the eastern Gulf of Alaska through the 

western Aleutian Islands. At 30 western-stock trend rookeries, NMFS counted 14,368 non-pups in 1998, which 

indicated declines of 12.2% from 1996 and 35.0% from 

1990. The estimated average annual rate of decline from 

1990 to 1998 was 5.4%. Complete western-stock counts 

were not available for all rookery and haul-out trend sites 

because a number of sites were not surveyed in the eastern Gulf of Alaska in 1998. Counts for rookery and 

haul-out trend sites in the central Gulf of Alaska through 

the western Aleutian Islands suggested western-stock declines of 9.3% from 1996 and 26.6% from 1991, or an 

estimated average annual decline of 4.3% over the sevenyear period. 

In the Kenai Peninsula to Kiska Island index area, a subarea within the Alaska portion of the western stock, we 

counted 24,318 non-pup sea lions at 203 surveyed sites. 

Of these, 16,315 were at 69 trend sites (26 rookeries and 

43 haulouts), and 11,994 were at 26 trend rookeries. 

The 1998 count for the 69 trend sites down from 8.9% 

from 1996 and 28.3% from 1990. The estimated annual rates of decline were 4-5% for trend sites and trend 

rookeries (1990 to 1996) and 2% for all surveyed sites 

(1991 to 1996). 

The eastern stock is represented in Alaska only by Southeast Alaska, where NMFS and the ADFG counted 8,693 

non-pups at eleven trend sites (rookeries and haulouts). 

This indicated an increase of 5.6% from 1996, a decline 

of 1.5% from 1994, and an increase of 14.0% from 1990. 

The estimated average annual rate of increase from 1990 

to 1998 for trend sites in Southeast Alaska was 1.8%. 

Overall changes were similar for the three trend rookeries in Southeast Alaska, as was the estimated annual increase of 2.0% from 1990 to 1998. 

The ADFG and NMFS counted 6,932 live pups at 12 

rookeries in Alaska in 1997 and 13,607 pups at 40 rookeries Alaska-wide in 1998. The 1998 count included all 

rookeries in Alaska except Walrus Island in the Pribilof 

Islands. Pup numbers in the eastern stock (Southeast 

Alaska) increased by 12.3% from 1994 to 1998, and generally increased by about 2% per year since 1990. The 

western stock in Alaska (excluding the western Aleutian 

Islands) declined by 19.0% from 1994 to 1998. In the 

western Aleutian Islands, pup numbers declined 18% 

from 1997 to 1998, the only years for which comprehensive comparison is possible. 

Considering non-pup and pup counts together, the western-stock region showing the most positive trend during 

recent years was the central Aleutian Islands. The worst 

observed declines were in the western Aleutian Islands: 

13-16% overall for non-pups from 1996 to 1998 and 

18% for pups from 1997 to 1998. More information is 

Page 55 
Page 56

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

ESA Section 7 Consultations on

Fishery Management Actions y Management Actions

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

available in a NMFS Technical Memorandum, entitled 

“Aerial and Land-Based Surveys of Steller Sea Lions 

(Eumetopias jubatus) in Alaska, June and July 1997 and 

1998.” 

Foraging Studies 

Scat Collection. As part of NMFS, the National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory (NMML) and the Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center continued winter foraging studies, and 

collected fecal materials (n=671) at 26 rookeries in the 

Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands from June 24 through 

July 5, 1998, in conjunction with the pup count survey. 

Food habits results from scat collection are presented as 

they become available. These samples are being processed 

at the NMML in Seattle, Washington. 

Physiological, Genetic, Survival, and Behavioral Studies 

During June and July 1998, a total of 384 pups were 

handled and flipper tagged at seven rookeries in the Aleutian Islands and two rookeries in the Gulf of Alaska: Attu 

(27), Agattu (Cape Sabak: 49), Buldir (25), Kiska (Lief 

Cove: 50), Ulak (49), Seguam (34), and Ugamak (50), 

Chowiet (50), and Marmot (50). Mass, standard length, 

axillary girth, and flipper width were obtained from each 

of these pups. Blood and genetic samples were taken 

from 50 of these 384 pups in the Aleutian Islands. Genetic samples (but not blood) were taken from an additional nine of these 384 pups. This work was part of 

NMFS’ ongoing evaluation of the physical condition of 

Steller sea lions and NMFS’ investigation of possible 

causes of the Steller sea lion’s Alaskan population decline. 

The 50 pups tagged at Marmot Island, included in the 

384 tagged pups, above, also were given a bleach mark 

on their pelage so that they could be identified from the 

cliff-top observation points. This was part of a “markrecapture” experiment for comparison of several pup 

counting methods. 

1998 Steller Sea Lion Prey Surveys 

Scientists from the NMML and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) conducted hydroacoustic surveys for 

Steller sea lion prey at three sites in Alaskan waters aboard 

the FWS vessel MV Tiglax during March 4-25, 1998. 

The principal objectives of this cruise were: 1) to conduct hydroacoustic-midwater trawl surveys in the waters 

surrounding sea lion rookeries at Buldir, Kasatochi, and 

Ugamak islands for comparison with results from similar surveys conducted at the same sites during July 1997 

and 2) to collect sea lion scat samples (fecal material) at 

rookery and haul-outs sites in the region for food-habits 

analysis. Scientists from NMML and the University of 

Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) conducted hydroacoustic surveys of sea lion prey during a cruise in the Aleutian Islands from June 18 to July 13, 1998 aboard the MV 

Tiglax, in conjunction with the pup-count survey. Principal objectives during this portion of the cruise were to 

conduct hydroacoustic, midwater-trawl, bottom-trawl 

surveys of prey resources in the waters surrounding the 

Cape Sabak rookery on Agattu island in the western Aleutian Islands and the Ugamak island rookery and the Cape 

Sarichef (Unimak Island) haulout in Unimak Pass. Secondary objectives included: 1) collection of sea lion scats 

(fecal material) for food-habits analysis from all visited 

sites and 2) sighting surveys of marine mammals and 

seabirds during hydroacoustic surveys. 

ESA Section 7 Consultations on 

Fishery Management Actions 

On February 26, 1998, NMFS concluded that the 1996 

Biological Opinion (BO) on the groundfish fishery remained valid for 1998. 

On March 2, 1998, NMFS issued a BO that evaluated 

the effects of the GOA Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 

and the 1998 pollock total allowable catch (TAC) specifications on the Steller sea lion. NMFS concluded that 

the 1998 Gulf of Alaska fishery was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence and recovery of Steller sea 

lions or to adversely modify critical habitat. NMFS noted 

that the BO only addressed the 1998 fishery, not the 

continued implementation of the GOA FMP beyond 

1998, and that the NMFS Alaska Region would need to 

reinitiate Section 7 consultation for the fishery in 1999 

and beyond. 

Page 56 
 Page 57

 Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

This opinion authorized the same incidental take level 

that was authorized in the 1996 opinion (15 Steller sea 

lions for the GOA). The authorization would be reevaluated when additional data become available on the 

number of sea lions injured or killed annually by gear 

associated with this fishery. No reasonable or prudent 

alternatives to these management measures were identified. NMFS was required to monitor the level of incidental take that occurs as a result of the 1998 GOA fishery and complete a report by March 15, 1999. 

NMFS included the following conservation recommendations in this BO: (1) initiate studies of the efficacy of 

buffer zones as soon as possible; (2) continue studies to 

determine the foraging range of young-of-the-year Steller 

sea lions; (3) continue to educate the fishing community 

about Steller sea lions and techniques to reduce or eliminate incidental take of the species; and (4) conduct studies of the site-by-site relation between fishing effort and 

trends in juvenile survival or counts at nearby rookeries. 

On March 17, 1998, NMFS issued regulations for 

amendments 36/39 to the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and GOA FMPs (63 FR 13009). This 

action created a forage fish species category in FMPs and 

implemented associated management measures. Directed 

fishing for forage fish would be prohibited at all times in 

the Federal waters of the BSAI and GOA. The intended 

effect of this action was to prevent the development of a 

directed commercial fishery for forage fish. The proposed rule (62 FR 65402) stated that: a) forage fish are 

important prey for marine mammals, seabirds, and commercially important groundfish species, and b) decreases 

in the abundance of these predators may be related to 

declines in forage fish. 

On June 11, 1998, NMFS issued a final rule to change 

the seasonal apportionment of the pollock TAC in the 

Western Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA by moving 10% of the TAC from the 3rd fishing season (starting September 1) to the 2nd fishing season (starting June 

1) (63 FR 31939). This seasonal shift of TAC was a 

precautionary measure intended to reduce the potential 

impacts of pollock fishing on Steller sea lions by reducing the percentage of the pollock TAC that is available to 

the fishery during the fall and winter months. 

In June 1998, the North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (NPFMC) recommended a regulatory amendment to the Secretary of Commerce that would impose 

an A/B season apportionment (50:50) of Atka mackerel 

TAC in each of the three management areas, and would 

incrementally shift the fishery catch until a target split of 

40% inside critical habitat and 60% outside critical habitat was reached in 2002. Consequently, the proposed 

action includes the conservation measures recommended 

by the NPFMC to avoid potential competition between 

the Atka mackerel fishery and the Steller sea lion. Those 

measures reduce potential localized mackerel depletions 

by temporally dispersing the fishery into two seasons, 

and spatially dispersing the fishery among areas inside 

and outside of critical habitat. The subsequent division 

of the TAC among seasons and sites should reduce considerably the potential for localized depletion of prey resources at any particular point in time or space. The 

incremental approach to reductions of TAC in Steller sea 

lion critical habitat is reasonable since it allows some time 

for detection of unanticipated adverse effects that might 

result from redistribution of the fishery. As proposed, 

the conservation measures will be fully implemented by 

2002. If these conservation measures are fully implemented, the proposed action should not appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of 

the Steller sea lion. 

On October 21, 1998, the President signed into law the 

American Fisheries Act, which changed the allocation 

scheme for pollock in the BSAI beginning in 1999 (46 

U.S.C. 2101, PL 105-277). 

On December 3, 1998, NMFS issued a BO on three 

fisheries proposed for 1999-2002: 1) authorization of an 

Atka mackerel fishery from 1999 to 2002 under the 

Groundfish Management Plan of the BSAI area; 2) authorization of a pollock fishery from 1999 to 2002 under the Groundfish FMP of the BSAI; and 3) authorization of a walleye pollock fishery from 1999 to 2002 under the Groundfish Management Plan of the Gulf of 

Alaska. 

The BO concluded that the Atka mackerel fishery was 

not likely to jeopardize the endangered western population of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify its 

Page 57 
Page 58

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Litigation on Alaska Groundfish Fisheries isheries

Harbor Porpoise

(Phocoena phocoena) (Phocoena phocoena)

Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise Listing

Determination

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

designated critical habitat, but the pollock fisheries of 

the Gulf of Alaska and BSAI, as proposed for 1999-2002, 

were likely to jeopardize the western stock of Steller sea 

lions and destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. 

The opinion analyzed the effects of these actions on the 

endangered western population of Steller sea lions and 

its critical habitat. 

The BO did not prescribe a single set of Reasonable and 

Prudent Alternatives (RPAs), but rather established a 

framework to avoid the likelihood of management actions and FMPs jeopardizing the continued existence and 

recovery of Steller sea lions. This framework included 

guidelines for management measures to achieve three 

principles: 1) protection of waters adjacent to rookeries 

and haulouts; 2) temporal dispersion of the pollock fisheries; and 3) spatial dispersion of the fisheries. The intended combined effect of these three principles was to 

modify the fisheries to avoid jeopardy and adverse modification. 

On December 13, 1998, the NPFMC recommended 

management measures for the two pollock fisheries to 

comply, in part, with the framework established in 

NMFS’ December 3, 1998, opinion. On December 

16,1998, NMFS adopted the measures recommended 

by the NPFMC (with modifications) into the BO as part 

of a RPA for the fisheries. 

Litigation on Alaska Groundfish Fisheries 

On April 15, 1998, a lawsuit was filed by Greenpeace, 

American Oceans Campaign, and Sierra Club alleging 

NMFS violations of ESA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in managing Alaska groundfish 

fisheries. Specifically: (1) ESA biological opinions considering effects of fisheries on Stellers are arbitrary and 

capricious; (2) NMFS violated NEPA by: (a) failing to 

supplement Environmental Impact Statements despite 

major changes in fisheries and environmental baseline, 

(b) commencing 1998 fisheries without analyzing environmental impacts of fisheries, and (c) concluding that 

1998 fisheries would not have a significant impact. Several fishing industry groups and Alaskan coastal communities joined as intervenor-defendants. No relief was 

sought for operation of the 1998 fisheries, but the plaintiffs indicated that litigation of their claims would be 

relevant for the January 1999 pollock fishery. 

On October 9, 1998, litigation was stayed until December 16, 1998 when NMFS was required to produce an 

ESA BO evaluating the effects of the pollock and Atka 

mackerel trawl fisheries on Steller sea lion recovery and 

their critical habitat. 

On December 18, 1998, the Court held a status conference. The judge gave until the end of 1998 for parties to 

request immediate injunction. Since no one made such 

a request, the judge set a new schedule. 

Harbor Porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena) 

Harbor porpoises are among the smallest and shortestlived marine mammals, seldom living more than ten years. 

The Gulf of Maine population of harbor porpoise includes all harbor porpoise found in the waters of eastern 

North America from (and including) the Bay of Fundy, 

Nova Scotia, and south to eastern Florida. The southern-most stock is the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock, 

though in the winter, part of this stock moves south into 

the Mid-Atlantic. This stock (commonly called the Gulf 

of Maine stock) is believed to be composed of approximately 50,000 animals (with a Potential Biological Removal level of 483). 

Harbor porpoises spend their time in coastal waters where 

they prey on small schooling fish, including some fish 

that are sought by gillnet fishers. Because of this, harbor 

porpoises sometimes become entangled in gillnets and 

drown. NMFS estimates that New England and MidAtlantic gillnet fisheries take approximately 2,000 harbor porpoises per year (1800 in the Gulf of Maine and 

200 in the Mid-Atlantic). 

Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise Listing 

Determination 

This population was first proposed for listing under the 

ESA (with a 90-day comment period) on January 7, 1993 

(58 FR 3108). This population includes all harbor porpoise found in the waters of eastern North America from 

(and including) the Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia, and south 

to eastern Florida. At the time of the proposal, the listing was considered necessary based on NMFS analyses 

that the rate of bycatch of porpoise in commercial gillnet 

Page 58 
 Page 59

 Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

fisheries (extending from the Bay of Fundy, Canada, south 

throughout the Gulf of Maine range of this population/ 

species) may reduce this population/species to the point 

where it becomes threatened throughout all or a portion 

of its range and that there were no regulatory measures 

in place to reduce this bycatch. 

In response to public comments on the proposed rule, 

NMFS extended the comment period until August 7, 

1993, (58 FR 17569) and completed analyses of sighting data from the 1992 porpoise abundance surveys and 

analyses of the 1992 observer data used to determine total estimated bycatch in the Gulf of Maine gillnet fishery. These data were presented and discussed at a meeting of the New England Fishery Management Council 

(NEFMC) Groundfish Committee, Porpoise Subgroup, 

on June 16,1993. 

The NEFMC believed that the data cast doubt on 

whether the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise population 

was distinct, and, thus, a species under the ESA. Under 

ESA section 4, if there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data 

relevant to the determination or revision concerned, 

NMFS may extend the one-year period of determination. In accordance with this provision, the date for the 

final determination on the proposal was extended for six 

months on November 8, 1993 (58 FR 59230) to allow 

for a further review of the bycatch trend, to allow for 

analysis of the 1993 bycatch data prior to final determination, and to allow for further consideration of all data, 

including the abundance survey data, relevant to the final determination. NMFS reopened the comment period following completion of these analyses (59 FR 

36158). In the meantime, NMFS issued a final rule instituting time and area closures in the Framework Adjustment 4 to the Multispecies Fishery Management Plan 

for sink gillnet gear (59 FR 26972). 

The New England Harbor Porpoise Working Group 

(HPWG) met on July 21, 1994, to discuss the corrected 

bycatch data and 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. NMFS 

prepared a document in August 1994 that addressed 

HPWG concerns and extended the comment period 

again until September 11, 1994 (59 FR 41270). 

In March 1995, NMFS held an informal meeting with 

staff from the Center for Marine Conservation, International Wildlife Coalition, and Sierra Club Legal Defense 

Fund regarding the status of the harbor porpoise listing. 

Given that additional data would be available later in 

1995 and that the listing decision must be based on the 

best available scientific information, it was understood 

that the listing determination would be put on hold while 

NMFS reevaluated the factors that prompted the proposal and looked into the development of a take reduction team/plan that would provide adequate protective 

measures and eliminate the need for a listing. 

Taking into account the implementation of a bycatch 

reduction measures in the Gulf of Maine by the NEFMC, 

the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan (HPTRP) in 

the Gulf of Maine and Mid-Atlantic waters (see Ch. II. 

Reducing Interactions Between Marine Mammals and 

Commercial Fisheries) is expected to be published as final in the fall of 1999 pursuant to section 118 of the 

MMPA. A similar harbor porpoise bycatch mitigation 

program is being implemented by the Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans-Canada (DFO-Canada). NMFS 

expects to issue a final determination not to list the Gulf 

of Maine/Bay of Fundy (GOM/BOF) population of 

harbor porpoise as threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) in January 1999. 

Additionally, Federal legislative and regulatory actions 

are now in place in the United States and Canada to 

protect the GOM/BOF harbor porpoise. NMFS expects that the recently implemented HPTRP will provide the measures and mechanisms necessary to achieve 

reduction of harbor porpoise bycatch to acceptable levels, thereby warranting the decision not to list harbor 

porpoise as threatened under the ESA. 

NMFS will continue to monitor bycatch levels and adjust the bycatch reduction programs as necessary to promote reduced bycatch. NMFS intends to reconvene the 

take reduction teams semiannually during the first year 

of plan implementation in order to track the HPTRP’s 

progress toward the six-month MMPA goal. Measures 

Page 59 
Page 60

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Northern Fur Seal ur Seal

(Callorhinus ursinus) (Callorhinus ursinus)

Research Effor esearch Efforts

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

within the HPTRP are expected to prevent more than 

1,600 of the nearly 2,000 annual harbor porpoise deaths 

currently caused by gillnet fishing in these areas. This 

would reduce harbor porpoise entanglement to approximately 300 animals per year in the Gulf of Maine and 

fewer than 50 deaths in the Mid-Atlantic. 

This listing determination was recently the subject of litigation with the Center for Marine Conservation, the 

Humane Society, and the International Wildlife Coalition. As part of the settlement agreement, NMFS agreed 

to make a final listing determination by January 4, 1999. 

In the event that NMFS determined not to list harbor 

porpoise under the ESA, NMFS also agreed to complete 

a 90-day review of the biological status of the GOM/ 

BOF harbor porpoise population on or before March 

31, 2000, and consider the need to publish a proposal to 

list the population based on the review at that time. 

Northern Fur Seal 

(Callorhinus ursinus) 

In the Pribilof Islands, northern fur seals have been killed 

for their pelts since 1786. In fact, the kill became an enterprise of the U.S. Government when it purchased 

Alaska, and was so lucrative that it alone repaid the purchase price of Alaska in five years. International competition for pelts culminated in the International North 

Pacific Fur Seal Treaty of 1911 that involved Japan, Imperial Russia, Great Britain (for Canada), and the United 

States. All research and management of fur seals was 

conducted under the auspices of the North Pacific Fur 

Seal Commission from 1911 to 1985, except during 

World War II. 

In the 1950s, managers noted that the number of pups 

being born annually was the same as in the herd’s most 

productive period (1932-37), but that far fewer juvenile 

males were available to kill for pelts. They surmised that 

density-dependent mortality was increasing juvenile 

mortality, and that this situation could be reversed by 

reducing the number of pups being born annually, thereby 

reducing competition for food that was believed to be 

causing the reduced survival. Consequently, managers 

killed 331,000 females from 1956-63 in what was called 

the herd reduction program. Managers expected the herd 

to recover from this reduction at 8% per year. Nine years 

after herd reduction ended, the expected recovery had 

not yet begun, and the herd continued to decline, ironically, at 8% per year. 

Believing that it did not fully understand the relationship between survival and abundance, or the effects of 

human activities on seal behavior and ecology, the U.S. 

Government proposed that all fur seal rookeries on St. 

George Island be set aside as a research preserve for 15 

years to permit comparisons with rookeries at St. Paul 

Island (40 km or 25 mi away) where the kill for pelts was 

to continue. Investigations were to include behavior, 

ecology, population dynamics, and pelagic studies. The 

behavioral project was to investigate whether behavioral 

changes had occurred as a result of artificial selection, 

human disturbance, or density-dependent processes on 

breeding areas, as well as to investigate the effects of fur 

seals on the fishery for walleye pollock. These studies 

began in the summer of 1974. The St. George Island 

project officially ended in 1985 when the United States 

failed to approve continuation of the Fur Seal Treaty of 

1911. However, field work in behavior continued until 

1992 when data analysis began. 

Research Efforts 

Based on the 1997 population estimate as well as known 

immigration of recruitment-age females, mortality, and 

possible emigration of adults associated with the El Niño 

Southern Oscillation event, the St. Miguel Island stock 

of northern fur seal is thought to be approximately 12,704 

individuals. Objectives of NMML northern fur seal research in 1998 included monitoring population status 

and trends on the Pribilof Islands and San Miguel Island, investigating patterns of survival and movement of 

pups at San Miguel Island, and investigating foraging 

ecology and movement patterns at sea during the summer breeding season on St. Paul Island. Population 

monitoring activities, such as adult male counts, pup 

censuses, pup mortality and pup condition indices provide vital rates with which northern fur seal population 

status and trends are monitored. Survival rates and female fur seal recruitment on San Miguel Island, estimated 

using tag re-sight data, allow for interpretation of how 

environmental and biological events impact population 

growth. Female foraging studies and scat analysis proPage 60 
 Page 61

 Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

vide information on food habits, foraging habitats, and 

travel routes, which aid in understanding foraging ecology and movement patterns at sea. 

Researchers are currently analyzing this data. Preliminary results of some population monitoring activities for 

1998 are briefly discussed here. When completed, these 

results will be available as a collection of research papers 

in the annual NOAA Fur Seal Investigations Technical 

Memorandum Series. 

Censuses of adult male fur seals were conducted on San 

Miguel Island and on the Pribilof Islands during 1998. 

On St. Paul Island, 4,762 territorial males with females, 

and 8,396 idle adult males were counted in 1998, representing decreases of 6.0% and 1.9%, respectively, from 

1997. On St. George Island, 1,116 territorial males with 

females, and 1,084 idle adult males were counted in 1998, 

representing an increase of 22.6% and a decrease of 

26.5%, respectively, from 1997. The total number of 

adult males on the Pribilof Islands decreased by 4.1% 

from 1997 to 1998. Between 1986 and 1993 the numbers of harem and idle male fur seals on the Pribilof Islands increased; since 1993 the number of territorial males 

with females on the Pribilof Islands decreased by 21.9%, 

the number of idle adult males decreased by 11.6%, and 

the total number of adult males decreased by 15.6%. 

On San Miguel Island, the first territorial males arrived 

about two weeks later than usual and the maximum number of territorial northern fur seal bulls in Adams Cove 

declined 55% from 1997. 

Pup censuses were conducted on the Pribilof Islands and 

San Miguel Island in 1998. The number of pups born 

on St. George Island in 1998 was 22,090 (SE=222), including 452 dead pups. This estimate represents a significant decrease in the number of pups born on St. 

George from 1996. The number of pups born on St. 

Paul Island in 1998 was 179,149 (SE=6,193), including 

5,058 dead pups. This estimate is not significantly different from the estimate made in 1996. 

The number of pups born on San Miguel Island in 1998 

was 628, a decline of 80% from 1997. The mean pupping date was almost three weeks later than any other 

year for which we have records. In addition to low pup 

production on San Miguel, observed pup mortality rates 

were the highest on record, 52% by the end of August. 

The low pup production and high pup mortality were 

the result of the 1997-98 El Niño conditions along the 

California Coast. Although the El Niño conditions were 

slowly waning during the 1998 breeding season, the high 

pup mortality of northern fur seals indicates that the prey 

of fur seals at San Miguel Island was less abundant or 

more dispersed throughout the summer due to the residual pools of warm water along the California Coast. 

As a result, females had difficulty finding enough food 

to rear their young. In 1998, the high count of females 

ashore was 293, down from 847 in 1997; indicating that 

many females did not return to the breeding island in 

1998. The persistence of poor foraging conditions since 

1997 has resulted in high pup mortality in two consecutive years for the San Miguel Island fur seal population. 

Northen fur seal pup mortality studies were conducted 

on St. Paul Island during 1998, and emaciation was observed as the primary cause of death of 93 pups necropsied. 

Condition Indices of Pups on St. Paul and St. 

George Islands 

Pup measurements conducted during 1998 on the 

Pribilof Islands found significant differences in size between males and females, and between islands. Male 

pups weighed more and were longer than female pups. 

Weights were greater on St. George Island than on St. 

Paul Island for male pups (P=0.006) and for female pups 

(P=0.088). Lengths were greater on St. Paul Island than 

on St. George Island for both male pups (P<0.001) and 

female pups (P<0.001). The proportion of females observed during pup measurements was significantly different than 50% for both islands in 1998. The proportion of females was 46.0% (P=0.004) on St. Paul Island 

and 46.2% (P=0.02) on St. George Island. 

Entanglements on St. Paul and St. George 

Islands 

Entangled northern fur seals were opportunistically captured, and debris was removed during the course of other 

research projects. On St. George Island, 19 individual 

Page 61 
Page 62

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Activities Planned for 1999

Hawaiian Monk Seal Hawaiian Monk Seal

(Monachus schauinslandi) (Monachus schauinslandi)

Recovery Team Activities eam Activities

Species Status: Results of the 1998 Field

Season

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

seals were disentangled, including: 11 males, seven females and one seal of undetermined sex. On St. Paul 

Island, 22 fur seals were disentangled during other operations, including 15 males and seven females. 

Activities Planned for 1999 

Research activities planned for 1999 on the Pribilof Islands include adult male counts, pup mortality studies, 

and pup condition indices for the continuing population monitoring activities. Blood will be collected from 

pups during the condition index studies. Foraging studies will be conducted on juvenile males to provide information on the food habits, foraging habitat and travel 

routes of this component of the population. These data 

will be useful for comparing the foraging ecology of juvenile male and adult female fur seals, and will provide a 

more complete picture of the utilization of the Bering 

Sea, and its resources, by fur seals from the Pribilof Islands during the summer breeding season. Blood will be 

collected from these juvenile males and diet will be determined using enemas or scats, if possible. Additionally, female scat collections will be made during other 

research projects. 

Research activities planned for 1999 on San Miguel Island include continuation of the population monitoring 

studies (adult counts, pup censuses, pup mortality, pup 

condition indices) and pup survival studies (pup tagging 

and tag reading surveys). A comparative study of summer foraging behavior between northern fur seal and 

California sea lion females is also planned. 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 

(Monachus schauinslandi) 

The Hawaiian monk seal is endemic to the Hawaiian 

Archipelago and is the only endangered marine mammal species located entirely within U.S. waters. The species was listed as endangered after a 50% decline in beach 

counts occurred between the late 1950s to the 1970s. 

Studies conducted over the past decade indicate that 

population abundance has continued to decline at 4-5% 

per year. In the last three to five years, beach counts have 

stabilized, but further overall declines are likely due to 

high juvenile mortality and an expected decline in recruitment. In 1997, total abundance was estimated at 

about 1300-1400 seals. 

Studies of the Hawaiian monk seal are conducted primarily by members of the Marine Mammal Research 

Program of the NMFS Honolulu Laboratory. The studies’ purposes are to provide up-to-date information on 

the status and trends of each of the six main reproductive 

subpopulations of seals. Information is collected annually on abundance, composition, survival and reproductive rates, growth and condition of seals, evidence of disease, behavior, movement between sites, fisheries interactions (including entanglement in marine debris), foraging ecology, and the effectiveness of management programs aimed at facilitating recovery. 

Recovery Team Activities 

The Hawaiian Monk Seal RecoveryTeam (HMSRT) held 

its annual meeting at NMFS Honolulu Laboratory on 

December 1-3, 1998. During the HMSRT meeting, the 

Marine Mammal Research/Monk Seal Program staff presented a review of their field studies. These studies (discussed in greater detail below) provide information necessary to evaluate key objectives that have been identified 

by the HMSRT: 

1) the status and trends of monk seal populations; 

2) survival, reproduction, growth, behavior, and feeding 

habits; and 

3) the results of various activities designed to facilitate 

population growth and reduce human disturbance. 

Species Status: Results of the 1998 Field 

Season 

In 1998, field studies were conducted at French Frigate 

Shoals, Laysan and Lisianski Islands, Pearl and Hermes 

Reef, and Midway and Kure Atolls. Three of the most 

common indices of species’ status as derived from these 

studies are described below based on data from five of 

the six main reproductive sites. Midway Atoll is excluded 

from the analyses because past research effort at that site 

has been sporadic. The first index is the number of pups 

born. In 1998, 235 births were recorded, which is above 

the mean of 183 for the period from 1983 to 1995 (excluding 1994, when studies were incomplete). Since 

1983, the number of pups born has been highly variable 

(ranging from 141 to 224), with no clear evidence of a 

long-term trend. 

Page 62 
 Page 63

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

French Frigate Shoals (FFS). 

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

The second index is a sum of the mean beach counts, 

excluding pups. In 1958, this sum was 969. By 1985, 

the counts had declined to 509, and in 1998, the sum 

was 375. Since 1993, the sum of the counts has been 

essentially unchanged. For the past decade; however, the 

trend in the beach counts has been determined largely by 

the decline in counts at French Frigate Shoals. Beach 

counts are expected to decline further at French Frigate 

Shoals because of high juvenile mortality and the attrition of older animals who are not being replaced by recruitment from younger age classes. Thus, the future 

trend for the species will depend on whether growth at 

other sites can compensate for the decline at this site. 

The third index of the status of the Hawaiian monk seal 

is the composition of beach counts. Since the mid-1980s, 

composition has shifted considerably, with the percent 

of adults rising from about 50% to 70%, and the percent of subadults and juveniles decreasing in a corresponding manner. This shift portends a decline in reproductive recruitment in the near future. 

Island-by-Island Description 

The observed trends in pups born, beach counts, and 

composition of beach counts are best explained by studies of individual subpopulations. A brief summary of 

the six main reproductive subpopulations is provided 

below. 

French Frigate Shoals (FFS). In the late 1950s, the 

subpopulation of seals at FFS was depleted, due largely 

to human disturbance. After disturbance was eliminated, 

the subpopulation grew for three decades and by the mid1980s, abundance was thought to have reached or begun to approach the environmental carrying capacity. 

Because subpopulations at the other main reproductive 

sites plummeted during the same period, the overall distribution of monk seals shifted toward FFS, and nearly 

50% of the entire species was found at this site in the 

mid-1980s. 

In 1989, the period of growth reversed itself and by 1998, 

beach counts had dropped by 55%. The primary cause 

of the problem appears to be related to a decrease in prey 

availability, which has led to a severe drop in juvenile 

survival. 

During the past four years, survival of unweaned and 

newly weaned pups decreased dramatically. In 1997, 

researchers documented two factors contributing to increased mortality; adult male aggression and shark predation. A primary research goal for 1998 was to investigate and mitigate the loss of young pups. 

In 1998, the mean beach count (including pups) was 

167 at FFS. The trend in minimum number of pups 

born has fluctuated around a mean of 100 with an increasing trend from 1995 to 1998. Trends in mean beach 

counts of juveniles and sub-adults have declined since 

the mid 1980s, whereas the mean beach count of adult 

seals has declined in the 1990s. The resultant age structure of the population is composed mostly of seals older 

than ten years of age. Survival rates from birth to weaning were less than 85% in 1991 and from 1995-1997. 

During both of these periods adult male seals were known 

to kill pups. In 1998, early pup survival again rose above 

85%. Cohort-specific survival rates of all cohorts from 

1984 to 1998 have been generally above 80% for seals 

born before 1988. However, the 1984 and 1985 cohorts 

experienced an unusual decline from 1995 to 1996. Cohort survival rates for seals born after 1988 have been 

lower than for earlier cohorts. For example, first year 

survival for the 1997 cohort was only 14%. In 1998, the 

sex ratio at FFS for most size classes was female biased 

and ranged from 0.5:1 to 0.8:1 (M:F); pups represented 

the only exception (1.2:1). 

Adult male aggression and shark attacks were causes of 

early pup mortality in 1997. On June 8, 1998, the problem of male aggression was alleviated by the translocation from FFS to Johnston Atoll of two adult males 

known to have killed pups. Subsequently, no pups were 

found drowned or injured by adult males during the 1998 

field season at FFS. 

At Trig Island, fourteen of 61 pups born were injured by 

sharks. Also, the disappearance of six pups before weaning seemed to be linked to shark predation because of a 

weakening of the mother/pup bond. Typically, pups that 

were injured or disappeared were not commonly seen in 

close association with their mothers prior to weaning or 

they had been prematurely weaned. 

Page 63 
Page 64

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Laysan Island (LAY).

Lisianski Island (LIS). Lisianski Island (LIS). 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Vulnerability of pups to male aggression and shark predation may be related to changes in the number of pups 

born at various locations within FFS. The destruction 

of Whale-skate Island due to winter storms and the possibility of disturbance at East Island associated with turtle 

nesting has likely forced parturient seals to use less preferred sites (e.g., Trig, Gin or Little Gin Islands). 

Laysan Island (LAY). In 1998, the mean beach count 

(including pups) of 118 seals at LAY was about 30% of 

the historical maximum of 320 animals in 1958. Mean 

beach counts excluding pups, monitored since 1983, have 

increased slightly in recent years. The 1998 non-pup 

population total was 239 animals (an increase of 13 from 

1997). The overall sex ratio of the total population was 

1:1. The average number of births for the past 22 years 

was 35; 46 pups were born in 1998. Survival of pups 

from birth to weaning was above 90% in 1998, and only 

one pup died at or near weaning in 1998. During the 

past seven years, the number of births have been above 

the long term average, yet the survival rate for these 

younger animals has been lower. Survival to one year for 

the last three years was 68%. While survival of seals to 

age one to three years has decreased since the early 1980s, 

survival of older animals was typically high. In addition 

to lower survival rates of immature seals, the growth in 

body size of the seals has also decreased. In recent years 

there has been a marked drop in the number of five yearold seals achieving adult size. There were four seal deaths 

at LAY in 1998: one weaned pup died from an infection 

resulting from a minor wound inflicted by a conspecific, 

one weaned pup drowned while entangled in a net caught 

on an offshore reef, one pup died at or near weaning 

from an injury of unknown cause, and a two year-old 

male died as a result of mobbing. Eleven of 17 seals 

oiled in 1993 are still sighted at LAY: one was last seen in 

1993, four in 1994, and one in 1995. The first recorded 

movement of a seal from Midway (a six year-old female 

born there) immigrating to LAY occurred in 1998. Previously, the farthest recorded travel between LAY and the 

western end of the chain was Pearl and Hermes Reef. 

Lisianski Island (LIS). The mean beach count in 1998 

at LIS was 72 seals (including pups), representing about 

33% of the historical maximum counted in the late 1950s. 

Beach counts declined dramatically in the 1960s, and 

then stabilized, with a possible continued slow decline in 

recent years. Twenty-five pups were born in 1998, and 

the number of pups born annually has not changed significantly since the early 1980s. The size composition of 

the counts remained stable for the adult and pup size 

classes, but juvenile and subadult numbers have declined 

Page 64 
 Page 65

 Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

slowly over time. In 1998, the total spring-summer population was 187 seals. The population age structure was 

constricted, with a lack of immature seals due to recent 

poor juvenile survival. Survival to one year was 53% for 

weaned pups tagged in 1997; much lower than survival 

in the 1980s, but higher than yearling survival in the 

previous two years (41% each year). The sex ratio was 

approximately 1.0:1 (23 males: 22 females) for immature seals other than pups and 1.6:1 (72 males: 45 females) for adults. Within the adult age class, the sex 

ratio for older (>16 years of age) and unknown aged adults 

was strongly skewed toward males at about 2.7:1 (38 

males: 14 females), whereas the ratio for younger adults 

(16 years of age) was ca. 1.1:1 (34 males: 31 females). 

Thus, the sex ratio is expected to continue to decline as a 

result of natural morality in the older age classes. 

Survival from birth to weaning was high (91%). However, evidence of adult male aggression towards older pups 

and adult females was apparent. Three incidents of adult 

male aggression were observed. Two adult females were 

observed being mounted by two and three adult males; 

both escaped serious injury. In the third incident, at least 

three adult males were observed fighting at the water’s 

edge. When they dispersed, a freshly killed weaned female pup was observed floating in the water with fresh 

scratches typical of male mounting. In a separate incident, a dead weaned female pup was found floating in 

the water with wounds commonly associated with male 

mounting behavior. In addition, two female pups disappeared (one 34 days post birth and the other 21 days 

post weaning). In 1998, there were four confirmed deaths 

of female pups (one nursing and three weaned) and two 

probable pup deaths (a nursing pup of unknown sex and 

a prematurely weaned male). Four entanglements were 

observed involving three seals: an adult female and weaned 

female pup escaped independently and one adult female 

was released by observers twice from the same debris. At 

least 43 pup exchanges occurred between eight nursing 

females. 

Factors Influencing Population Trends at LAY and 

Lisianski (LIS) Islands 

Little growth has been observed in both the LAY and 

LIS sub-populations. Recently, concern had been expressed about the poor survival rates of juveniles at these 

sites. Survival rates to one year in 1998 for LAY and LIS 

were 68 and 53%, respectively. Three factors are known 

to affected the survival of seals at both of these sites. 

Mobbing, which is related to the adult sex ratio of a population, entanglements, and shark attacks have been implicated in deaths at both sites. 

The sex ratio of adult males to adult females at LAY has 

declined from 2.1:1 in 1983 to 0.9:1 in 1998. This decline was reinforced by the removal of 37 adult males: 

nine (one additional died during capture) were translocated to Johnston Atoll in 1984, five were brought into 

captivity in 1987, and 21 (one additional male died during capture) were translocated to the Main Hawaiian Islands in 1994. Within the adult size class, the sex ratio 

for older (>15 years of age) and unknown-aged adult 

males was 1:1, whereas the sex ratio for younger adults 

(<15 years of age) was 0.8:1. Without management intervention, the adult male to adult female sex ratio at LIS 

has also declined from 2.5:1 in 1982 to a current ratio of 

1.6:1. The sex ratio for older (>16 years of age) and 

unknown aged adults was strongly skewed toward males 

at 2.7:1, whereas the ratio for younger adults (<16 years 

of age) was 1.1:1. 

Although there were two mobbing injuries in 1998, the 

severity of mobbing injuries has declined on LAY since 

1992. Since the removal of adult males in 1994, only 

two mobbing related deaths and disappearances have been 

observed; the disappearance of an immature female in 

1995 and the death of a two year-old male in 1998. The 

research effort at LIS has been intermittent over the years, 

but has had consistent coverage during the last four years. 

In 1998 on LIS, there were three mobbing related events, 

one of those resulting in the death of a weaned pup. There 

were also two unusual disappearances of pups shortly 

before or after weaning at LIS. Mobbing injuries and 

observations of mobbing incidents have been documented here for nearly 20 years, however, the problem is 

of questionable significance to population growth. 

Entanglement in marine debris represents another significant threat to monk seal survival at LAY and LIS. In 

1998, four entanglements were recorded each at these 

sites; one of these seals died at LAY (mentioned above). 

Page 65 
Page 66

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Pearl and Hermes Reef (PHR). eef (PHR).

Midway Atoll (MID). Midway Atoll (MID). 

Kure Atoll (KUR).

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

From 1982-98, there were 49 total entanglements reported on LIS and 42 entanglements on LAY. The relative number of entanglements at LIS was even more pronounced when the entanglement rate was corrected for 

field observation effort. 

Severe injuries from shark attacks represents another potential severe impact on seal survival. Since 1982, only 

three deaths at LAY and five at LIS have been attributed 

to shark inflicted injuries, thus suggesting a relatively low 

level impact on these populations. Interestingly, the peaks 

in number of shark injuries coincided with the years of 

peak number of mobbing injuries. Adult male seals received nearly half of all the severe shark inflicted injuries 

at LAY. From a limited number of observed mobbing 

events, tiger sharks were seen circling under the group of 

seals during the mobbings and an adult male was attacked 

by a shark while mounting another seal. 

The effects of pup switching on survival should be explored further, particularly at LIS. In 1998, LAY had 46 

births and five exchanges, compared to 25 births and 43 

exchanges at LIS. 

Pearl and Hermes Reef (PHR). The 1998 mean 

beach count at PHR was 93 (including pups). While 

beach counts increased 7% per year during 1983-93, they 

have remained unchanged during 1995-98, which may 

be an indication that the population is nearing its carrying capacity. There were 32 documented births and 29 

weaned pups were tagged in 1998. One pup was nursing at the end of the field period, one disappeared a few 

days prior to weaning, and one was found dead at the 

beginning of the field period. This was the highest number of births ever recorded at PHR and includes the birth 

of a pup by a rehabilitated FFS female from Kure Atoll. 

The total population of seals was 251 individuals. The 

overall sex ratio was 0.9:1 and the sex ratio of the 1998 

cohort was 0.4:1. Survival from birth to weaning continues to remain above 90%. Survival of the older cohorts was high, generally over 90% . Currently, juvenile 

survival is lower than the 1980s, but remains higher than 

all sites except Midway Island. First year survival of the 

1997 cohort was 72%. 

Midway Atoll (MID). In 1998, NMFS conducted 

research throughout the year in collaboration with 

Hawai’i Wildlife Fund researchers. The mean beach 

count (including pups) was 24 at MID, representing less 

than half the historical maximum counted in the late 

1950s. Counts declined dramatically in the 1960s and 

remained very low in the 1970s and 1980s, but have 

recently increased. Births have also increased, from zero 

to two pups born annually from the early 1980s through 

1993 to a peak of eleven pups born in 1997 and 1998. 

The size composition of the counts showed dramatic 

increases in the adult and pup size classes, but no increases in subadults and juveniles until 1998, when the 

number of juveniles increased. In 1998, the total springsummer population was 56 seals. The population has 

relatively few immature seals due to low pup production 

and poor juvenile survival in earlier years. However, yearling survival has increased for the past three years, and all 

known age seals that have survived to age two were alive 

in 1998. The sex ratio was strongly skewed towards females at ca. 0.5:1 for immature seals (non-pups) and 0.2:1 

for adults. Nine females in the MID population originate from the past rehabilitation efforts for weaned pups 

or juveniles (eight from FFS and one from KUR) released at either MID (2) or KUR (7); four of these females produced pups at MID in 1998. Inter-atoll movement was documented for 22 seals that made a total of 

33 movements between MID and either PHR or KUR. 

Survival from birth to weaning was high (91%) in 1998. 

One confirmed death (a perinatal pup with multiple 

congenital anomalies) and one probable death (a subadult female severely injured by sharks) were reported. 

This subadult was sampled and noted in poor condition 

during the health assessment project 12 days prior to 

injury. Four entanglements were documented: three male 

weaned pups were released by observers, and one adult 

male freed itself. In addition, a juvenile female found by 

FWS personnel in January hauled up on an alternate 

runway was moved to the nearest beach. This seal has 

not been resighted since. Two aborted fetuses were found 

in October and December. 

Kure Atoll (KUR). In 1998, the mean beach count 

(including pups) at KUR was 54 animals, representing a 

continued gradual increase since the mid 1980s. The 

Page 66 
 Page 67

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Role of Health and Disease in

Population T opulation Trends

Pup Sur Pup Survival at French Frigate Shoals rigate Shoals

(Enhancement) (Enhancement)

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

increase includes a high number of pups born (23) in 

1998, while the non-pup beach count of 41 seals has 

slightly decreased since 1997. The total population was 

122 seals, including 73 adults, 26 subadult/juveniles, and 

23 pups. The number of subadult/juvenile seals in the 

population continued a decline first evident in 1994. The 

age structure of the KUR seal population reflects that 

lower survival of pups in recent years has resulted in a 

slight paucity of one and two year old animals. Overall 

sex ratio is approximately equal, although the number of 

pups born in 1998 showed a highly imbalanced ratio of 

2.8:1, males to females. Survival from birth to weaning 

is high; however, because of the abbreviated field duration, perinatal deaths among females parturient early in 

the field season cannot be documented. 

Role of Health and Disease in 

Population Trends 

Several natural sources of mortality have been identified 

or suggested for wild Hawaiian monk seals (e.g., ciguatera 

poisoning, starvation, shark predation, disease, and 

trauma/mobbing), but the relative significance of these 

factors and their effect on population trends are unknown. 

The purpose of this project is to assess the role of health 

and disease in population trends of the Hawaiian monk 

seal. The potential for disease transmission has been an 

important concern in management activities involving 

translocation of seals between reproductive sites. For 

example, it is not known if disease influenced the extensive loss of seals translocated to Midway in 1992-93. 

Further, the eye ailment of the pups brought into captivity for rehabilitation also exemplifies the importance of 

assessing disease in the monk seal population. Disease 

processes that cause low levels of mortality, or result in 

episodic die-offs may also represent important determinants of long-term population trends. For example, the 

mass mortality of monk seals that occurred at Laysan 

Island in 1978 may have been due to a disease. Similarly, 

disease may be contributing to the high juvenile mortality occurring at French Frigate Shoals since 1998. 

To enhance the recovery of the Hawaiian monk seal, a 

better understanding of the health and disease status of 

the wild population is required. A severe disease outbreak could be catastrophic for this endangered species. 

Findings thus far do not contraindicate translocation as 

a strategy to enhance population recovery, however more 

information on the health of the different subpopulations is needed to evaluate the risk of disease transmission during such translocation activities. It is difficult to 

evaluate that risk when the understanding of disease processes in this species remains limited. 

Pup Survival at French Frigate Shoals 

(Enhancement) 

Since 1981, captive care and release programs have been 

an integral part of management efforts to enhance the 

recovery of the Hawaiian monk seal. Three strategies 

have been used, including: 

1) on-site protection and release, 2) direct translocation 

from one site to another, and 3) transport to Oahu for 

rehabilitation, followed by release into the wild population. Initial captive care and release efforts were intended 

to enhance the depleted subpopulation at Kure Atoll. 

These efforts were successful, and this subpopulation 

appears to be in the process of recovery. Since the late 

1980s, juvenile survival at French Frigate Shoals (FFS) 

has been extremely low. Consequently, recent captive 

care and release efforts have focused on salvaging the reproductive potential by rehabilitating female pups from 

FFS and releasing them at sites where their survival rate 

would be higher. 

The appearance of an eye ailment of unknown etiology 

among seals brought to Honolulu for rehabilitation in 

1995 (see below), resulted in a hiatus of the monk seal 

captive care and release program, and provided the impetus for a review of program activities by a panel of 

independent wildlife experts. One of the primary recommendations from the panel was to resume efforts to 

enhance population recovery at selected reproductive sites 

through direct translocation of weaned female pups. 

The preliminary results from health and disease screening at FFS, Midway Atoll, and Pearl and Hermes Reef 

do not preclude translocation of weaned pups from 

French Frigate Shoals to Midway Atoll (see above). Additionally, the Hawaiian monk seal Recovery Team has 

recommended exploration of an in situ care and release 

project at FFS, akin to the headstart program previously 

employed at Kure Atoll. 

Page 67 
Page 68

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Foraging Ecology

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

The objectives of the Translocation/Survival Enhancement research in FY99 are: 

1) characterize the timing, pattern and causes of mortality in weaned Hawaiian monk seal pups at FFS in order 

to design effective strategies for mitigation of mortality 

through translocation, in situ care and release, or other 

management activities. Methods employed include VHF 

telemetry, health screening, and periodic assessment of 

condition during the first six- to eight-months post-weaning;. 

2) compile and computerize all accumulated records from 

past Hawaiian monk seal captive care, maintenance and 

release programs (these data will be summarized and analyzed for development of a Hawaiian Monk Seal Response, Care and Release Plan); and 

3) provide logistical support to researchers tracking large 

sharks with sonic transmitters. 

Foraging Ecology 

The Hawaiian monk seal recovery project has a comprehensive research plan to investigate foraging ecology. This 

plan has four distinct but complementary parts: 1) foraging habitat use; 2) prey selection; 3) assessment of prey 

availability/abundance; and 4) assessment of carrying capacity. This research into fundamental aspects of monk 

seal ecology is critical for assessment of potential fisheries interactions, adequacy of critical habitat and other 

protective measures, causes of high juvenile mortality, 

and for designing effective management strategies. Because this project has not received direct funding, it has 

only been partially implemented. 

A complete assessment of the foraging ecology of the 

Hawaiian monk seal will take extensive effort over many 

years. Nevertheless, important progress was made in 

1996, 1997 and 1998, through satellite-linked studies of 

distribution and diving, video camera studies of foraging strategies, and assessment of reef productivity around 

the main reproductive sites. No work has been done on 

the foraging energetics of monk seals; however, plans are 

being made to expand pelagic ecology studies of juveniles, whose survival rates have decreased dramatically at 

French Frigate Shoals over the last decade and because of 

an apparent depletion of prey resources. 

Deployments of “crittercams” on male monk seals have 

indicated that foraging occurs primarily in the benthic/ 

demersal habitat at approximately 60 m (198 ft). Seals 

ignored fish communities in the water column associated with coral reefs and focused on cryptic fauna in transition zones where consolidated substrate, rubble, and 

debris border areas of sand. Independent video assessments indicate that this types of habitat represents a small 

percentage of the overall demersal habitat. Future 

“crittercam” work will focus on documenting nocturnal 

foraging with the aid of a red-shifted light source. This 

method of observing animal behavior has helped to better characterize nocturnal foraging habitat and was used 

in the 1998 field season at French Frigate Shoals. 

Relocation of Ten Female Seals 

Throughout 1998, NMFS Southwest Region worked to 

identify potential holding facilities for the permanent 

maintenance of ten captive female Hawaiian monk seals 

that have been determined to be unreleasable due to the 

unknown eye disease. These ten seals were originally 

part of the project to salvage the reproductive potential 

of weaned female pups at French Frigate Shoals. 

Fifty-one female pups have been rehabilitated and released into the wild subpopulations since 1981. Such 

efforts bolstered population growth at the Kure Atoll, 

and similar plans have been developed for the enhancement and recovery of the Midway population. The unexpected eye affliction of ten female seals brought to 

Honolulu for rehabilitation in 1995 eliminated the possibility of their release. A panel of independent wildlife 

experts, the Monk Seal Captive Care Review Panel, recommended that the ten seals must not be released into 

the wild population and that efforts must continue to 

determine the infectious agent, if possible, and establish 

protocols for dealing with future outbreaks. They also 

recommended that NMFS attempt to relocate the seals 

at an appropriate domestic facility as soon as possible. 

Personnel at the Honolulu Laboratory conducted an exhaustive search of potential domestic facilities and subsequently have made arrangements to transfer the seals 

to Sea World in San Antonio, Texas in the spring of 1999, 

where the seals will continue to be involved in research 

and public education programs regarding this highly 

endangered species. 

Page 68 
 Page 69

 Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

These captive seals have much potential value for future 

research on virology, behavior, genetics, and captive breeding of the species. It is believed that permanent captivity 

and relocation of the seals at an appropriate facility is the 

optimum choice for their long-term care. In the context 

of the Endangered Species Act, based on NMFS responsibility to implement the Recovery Plan and in accordance with the Captive Care Review Panel recommendations, relocation of these ten seals is critical. Federal 

funds currently being used for the care and maintenance 

of these ten animals drains funds that would otherwise 

be used in conservation and recovery activities focused 

on the remaining wild subpopulations. 

Marine Debris and Entanglement 

In late 1996 and 1997, NMFS initiated a feasibility study 

to monitor nearshore reefs within the seals’ habitat. This 

study was conducted in cooperation with the National 

Ocean Service (NOS), which provided platform and diver 

support from the NOAA ship Townsend Cromwell. The 

results from surveys conducted at FFS and PHR, where 

approximately 50% of the total Hawaiian monk seal 

population resides, indicate that there are roughly 38,000 

net fragments on the coral reefs at these locations. A 

subsequent, pilot, multi-agency survey and removal effort in 1998 was conducted in cooperation with the NOS 

and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which provided platform and diver support from the NOAA ship Townsend 

Cromwell and the USCG ship Kukui, respectively. This 

successful effort surveyed 2.4 km2

 (1.44 mi2) and recovered seven tons of derelict net and line from FFS. Because all entangled monk seals are not captured and freed 

from their debris, disentanglement alone is an inadequate 

treatment of the problem. By removing debris from key 

habitat, fewer seals will suffer entanglement. 

The NMFS Honolulu Laboratory is committed to taking the lead in this multi-agency cleanup effort. Cleanup 

activities in FY2000 will include another multi-agency 

effort to remove, monitor, and identify the source of 

marine debris in the near shore coral reef habitat at 

Lisianski Island and Peal and Hermes Reef, Hawaii. Both 

sites have been identified as areas experiencing a high 

rate of monk seal entanglement. 

Page 69 
Page 70

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Chapter VIII. Chapter VIII. ake of Marine Mammals e of Marine Mammals

photo by: Kimberlee Beckmen, photo by: Kimberlee Beckmen,

University of Fairbanks Alaska

Co-management Agreement with

Alaska Natives a Natives

Native T Native T

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Chapter VIII. Native Take of Marine Mammals


Section 101(b) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 

1972 (MMPA) provides an exemption from the provisions of the MMPA for Alaskan Indians, Aleuts, or Eskimos for the takings for subsistence purposes or for purposes of creating and selling authentic native articles of 

handicrafts and clothing. These takes, however, may be 

limited by quota and other regulations if the species involved is determined to be depleted under the MMPA. 

Two subsistence species, the bowhead whale (Balaena 

mysticetus) in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, and the 

northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) on the Pribilof Islands, are subject to such limitations. The remaining subsistence take is undergoing harvest level monitoring. 

Co-management Agreement with 

Alaska Natives 

In 1994, section 119 was added to the MMPA to clarify 

that the Secretary of Commerce (NMFS) has the authority to: 

“enter into cooperative agreements with Alaska 

Native organizations to conserve marine mammals and provide co-management of subsistence use by Alaska Natives.” 

photo by: Kimberlee Beckmen, 

University of Fairbanks Alaska 

Under section 119, NMFS may provide grants to Alaskan Native organizations to facilitate the: 

1) collection and analysis of marine mammal data; 

2) participation of the organization in marine mammal 

research projects; 

3) monitoring of Alaskan Native harvests of marine mammals; and 

4) development of co-management regimes with federal 

agencies. 

In April 1996, the Indigenous People’s Council for Marine Mammals (IPCMM) expressed to NMFS and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) its concern about the 

need to develop a framework for governing the development of cooperative agreements for individual species of 

marine mammals. It provided a draft agreement for consideration and, after several workshops and drafting sessions, an official Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

was signed by NMFS, FWS, the U.S. Geological Survey, 

and IPCMM on August 27, 1997. This umbrella agreement was designed to assist in the development and implementation of section 119 agreements and promote the 

sustained health of marine mammal populations utilized 

Page 70 
 Page 71

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Table 1. Bowhead Whale Takes by Alaska Natives

year harvested struck/lost struck/lost total

1992 38 12 50

1993 41 11 52

1994 34 12 46

1995 42 14 56

1996 38 5 43

1997 48 18 66

1998 41 13 54

Species Har Species Harvested for Subsistence

Bowhead Whales Bowhead Whales

Gray Whales Gray Whales

Northern Fur Seals ur Seals

Table 2. Nor able 2. Northern Fur Seal Har ur Seal Harvests for 1997-1998

Year # Location Subtotal Subtotal

1997 227 St. George Island

1,153 St. Paul Island 1,380

1998 256 St. George Island

1,297 St. Paul Island 1,553

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

for subsistence. The MOA recommends that section 119 

agreements consider: 

•collection and analysis of marine mammal


natural history and population data


•development of co-management infrastructures


•cooperation in enforcement efforts


•establishment of harvest levels


•development and distribution of public edu­


cation materials


•development of management plans


•incorporation of traditional knowledge into


management decision making


•training


Species Harvested for Subsistence 

Bowhead Whales 

NMFS works cooperatively with the Alaska Eskimo 

Whaling Commission to monitor the bowhead whale 

(Balaena mysticetus) subsistence harvest. Catch limits for 

the subsistence take of bowhead whales are approved by 

the International Whaling Commission (IWC). At the 

1997 IWC Annual Meeting, a five-year subsistence take 

quota, which will be shared with the Russian Chukotka 

Natives, was established. For the years 1998-2002, the 

total number of bowhead whales landed shall not exceed 

280. For each of these years, the number of bowhead 

whales struck shall not exceed 67, except that any unused portion of a strike quota from any year (including 

15 strikes from the 1995-1997 quota) shall be carried 

forward and added to the strike quotas of any subsequent year, provided that no more than 15 strikes shall 

be added to the strike quota for any one year. The quota 

was established by the IWC based on a joint proposal by 

Table 1. Bowhead Whale Takes by Alaska Natives 

year harvested struck/lost total 

1992 38 12 50 

1993 41 11 52 

1994 34 12 46 

1995 42 14 56 

1996 38 5 43 

1997 48 18 66 

1998 41 13 54 

the United States and the Russian Federation. In 1998, 

the subsistence harvest of bowhead whales by Alaskan 

Eskimos reached 54 strikes, resulting in 41 whales landed. 

This hunt had one of the highest efficiency rates (struck 

vs. landed) ever observed. 

Gray Whales 

At its 1997 meeting, the International Whaling Commission approved, by consensus, a five-year block quota 

of 620 gray whales (Eschrichtius robutus), with an annual 

cap of 140 animals. The quota was a joint proposal by 

the United States and the Russian Federation and was 

based on an aboriginal subsistence harvest of an average 

of four gray whales a year for the Makah Indian Tribe 

combined with an average of 120 gray whales for the 

Russian natives of the Chukotka region. 

The Makah request is unique in that the Tribe’s 1855 

Treaty of Neah Bay is the only Indian treaty in the United 

States that expressly reserves a Tribal right to go whaling. 

As of December 31, 1998, the Makah did not actually 

hunt. 

Northern Fur Seals


The subsistence harvest of northern fur seals (Callorhinus


ursinus) on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, is governed by


regulations published under the authority of the Fur Seal


Act and the MMPA. Pursuant to these regulations,


NMFS publishes a summary, every three years, of the fur


seal harvest for the previous three-year period and a pro­


jection of the number of seals expected to be taken in the


subsequent three-year period to meet the subsistence needs


of the Aleut residents on the Pribilof Islands.


Based on the results of the 1994-1996 harvests and due 

to responses from the tribal governments on St. Paul and 

St. George Islands, NMFS published a notice establishTable 2. Northern Fur Seal Harvests for 1997-1998 

Year # Location Subtotal 

1997 227 St. George Island 

1,153 St. Paul Island 1,380 

1998 256 St. George Island 

1,297 St. Paul Island 1,553 

Page 71 
Page 72

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Harbor Seals Harbor Seals

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

ing the annual harvest ranges on the Pribilof Islands. 

As a step toward achieving the maximum utilization of 

seals harvested for subsistence purposes, the tribal government of St. Paul voluntarily eliminated the “butterfly 

cut” as a standard method of field dressing harvested seals, 

and resolved to take only whole animals off the field. 

The only exceptions to the removal of whole carcasses 

from the field, as permitted by the tribal government, 

are: 

a) those animals taken to accommodate some of the elder residents who are physically unable to butcher whole 

animals supplied to them by the tribal government and; 

b) those carcasses in which the gall bladder was inadvertently ruptured, thus contaminating some of the meat 

with bile. This practice began with the 1995 harvest, 

and during 1998 only one butterfly cut seal was taken 

from the field under these exceptions. The butterfly cut 

was never a standard field dressing method on St. George 

Island; therefore, removing only whole carcasses from 

the harvesting field is now a uniform practice in the 

Pribilofs. 

In cooperation with the tribal governments of St. Paul 

and St. George Islands and the Pribilof Islands Stewardship Program, NMFS continues to make significant 

progress toward “full utilization” of the animals taken in 

the subsistence harvest through the development and reestablishment of traditional art and handicraft skills. 

Among the most notable uses of the inedible portions of 

the animals taken are the traditional processing of pelts, 

throats, teeth, bone and other parts for barter, art and 

handicraft purposes. The increase in traditional use of 

these materials has substantially reduced the level of harvest byproducts previously discarded. NMFS will continue to monitor the entire harvest on St. Paul Island and 

a portion of the harvest on St. George Island during the 

1999 season. 

Harbor Seals 

The Alaska Native Harbor Seal Commission (ANHSC), 

formed in May 1995, is a tribal consortium comprised 

of native communities within the habitat range of the 

harbor seal off the coast of Alaska. The goal of the 

ANHSC is to strengthen and increase the role of Alaska 

Natives in resource policy and decisions affecting harbor 

seals and their uses. 

In early 1998, the NMFS Alaska Regional Office entered into negotiations with the ANHSC on an agreement, under section 119 of the MMPA, for the conservation and co-management of harbor seals in Alaska. The 

primary purpose of the co-management agreement on 

harbor seals is to set forth an operational structure for 

the conservation and management of harbor seals in 

Alaska between the ANHSC and NMFS. The agreement outlines a consensus-based operational structure, 

or co-management committee, comprised of three representatives from NMFS and three representatives from 

the ANHSC. This committee will be responsible for 

implementing the co-management agreement. 

The goals of the co-management agreement are to: 

1) develop an Annual Action Plan for the conservation 

of Alaska harbor seal populations and the co-management of subsistence uses of harbor seals in Alaska. The 

Annual Action Plan will address population monitoring, harvest management, education, and other recommendations; 

2) promote the sustained health of harbor seals in order 

to protect the culture and way of life of Alaska Natives 

who rely on the harvest of harbor seals for subsistence 

uses; 

3) promote scientific research and the collection of data, 

including the traditional knowledge of Alaska Natives, 

in order to facilitate management decisions concerning 

harbor seals in Alaska; 

4) identify and resolve, as early as possible, through a 

consultative process, any management conflicts that may 

arise associated with Alaska harbor seals; and 

5) provide information to subsistence hunters and the 

public at large, as a means of increasing the understanding of the sustainable use, management and conservation of harbor seals. 

Page 72 
 Page 73

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Steller Sea Lions Steller Sea Lions

Table 3. Steller sea lion take by Alaska Natives

Year harvested struck/lost struck/lost total

1992 370 179 549

1993 348 139 487

1994 336 80 416

1995 307 32 339

1996 149 30 179

1997 164 18 146

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

In December 1998, NMFS and the ANHSC were in 

the final stages of negotiation for this agreement. Following finalization of this co-management agreement, 

NMFS and the ANHSC will proceed to develop and 

implement the Annual Action Plan specified by the agreement. 

Steller Sea Lions 

An interim Alaska Native Steller Sea Lion Commission 

was formed in 1994. The Commission was to consist of 

representatives from Alaska communities that take Steller 

sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) for subsistence needs and 

was formed to improve communication among these indigenous communities, to advocate for conservation of 

Steller sea lions, to advocate for protection of customary 

and traditional rights of indigenous peoples with regard 

to access and use of sea lions, and to serve as the focal 

point for development of cooperative agreements with 

NMFS. No substantial progress was made during 1995­

96 in establishing a functioning Commission, or in the 

adoption of hunting guidelines originally proposed by 

Native hunters. 

In May 1997, the Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association 

and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), 

through partial funding from NMFS, sponsored a meeting in Dutch Harbor to address the need for a permanent and effective Alaska statewide Steller Sea Lion Commission. Those in attendance agreed on the need for 

such a Commission and discussed how it might relate to 

a regional marine mammal commission, considering that 

the highest level of subsistence take of Steller sea lions 

occurs in the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands, and that the 

species was recently listed as endangered in its western 

range. After some discussion, the representatives agreed 

that regional concerns could be most effectively addressed 

by a statewide commission. It was also determined, however, that the efforts of the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands 

communities would be primarily focused on the establishment of a regional commission leaving the task of the 

statewide Steller Sea Lion Commission to others already 

involved with the initiative. 

Accordingly, representatives from Alaska Native communities in the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands region formed 

a regional marine mammal commission. The purpose 

Table 3. Steller sea lion take by Alaska Natives 

Year harvested struck/lost total 

1992 370 179 549 

1993 348 139 487 

1994 336 80 416 

1995 307 32 339 

1996 149 30 179 

1997 164 18 146 

of this commission is to address management and other 

concerns regarding those marine mammal species, including Steller sea lions, taken by these communities for 

subsistence use. Interim co-chairs were appointed, and 

it was agreed that bylaws would be drafted and circulated to the respective tribal governments for review and 

approval. Upon the development of a final draft, a subsequent meeting will be convened to ratify the by-laws 

and elect officers of the commission. 

NMFS and the Tribal Government of St. Paul worked in 

1998 to develop a cooperative agreement for the co-management of Steller sea lions on St. Paul Island. The draft 

will undergo further development in 1999. Also in 1998, 

the Alaska Sea Otter Commission actively began taking 

up Steller sea lion advocacy and began discussions with 

NMFS regarding subsistence harvest and conservation 

issues of sea lions for other parts of Alaska. 

Under section 10(e) of the ESA and section 101(b) of 

the MMPA, prohibitions on the taking of threatened 

and endangered species normally do not apply to takings by Native Alaskans if such taking is primarily for 

subsistence purposes and if such taking will not adversely 

affect the recovery of the endangered stock. To date, no 

action either under the ESA or the MMPA has been taken 

to regulate, or otherwise manage, the subsistence harvest 

of Steller sea lions by Alaska Native groups. 

Although Steller sea lions have been a traditional subsistence resource for Alaska Natives in many areas of the 

state, information on harvest levels prior to the 1990s is 

limited. Therefore, beginning in 1992, NMFS provided 

funds to the ADF&G to gather information on the subsistence use of Steller sea lions in Alaska (see Table 3). 

Page 73 
Page 74

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Beluga Whales Beluga Whales

Table 4. 1998 Beluga Whale Harvest Data

harvested 

Beaufort Sea Stock 77 ~5

Eastern Chukchi Sea Stock 50 3

Eastern Bering Sea Stock 118 15

Bristol Bay Stock 6 1

struck/lost

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

The annual subsistence take has been estimated by 

ADF&G on the basis of door-to-door surveys with hunters in coastal villages throughout the state. Harvest information is collected by local researchers using retrospective interview surveys in approximately 60 coastal 

communities, encompassing a range from Cape 

Newenham in the Bering Sea, west to Atka, and south 

and east through Southeast Alaska. ADF&G publishes 

an annual report containing the number of animals harvested and the number struck and lost, data on size, seasons, geographic distribution and age and sex of harvested 

animals. The results indicate that few animals in the eastern population are killed; the highest recorded annual 

harvest between 1992 and 1997 is estimated at six animals in 1992. However, the subsistence take from the 

western population is close to the calculated potential 

biological removal (PBR) level each year, and more than 

three-fourths of the take is by Aleut hunters from the 

Aleutian and Pribilof Islands. 

Data from 1998 as well as the survey process are currently being evaluated. The process requires that hunters 

recollect their activities over the past year, which may be 

very difficult and therefore may lead to inaccurate data 

or unreliable conclusions. Nevertheless, the available information is sufficient to conclude that the annual subsistence take from the western population is approximately equal or greater than the stock’s calculated PBR. 

NMFS will work closely with Native hunters, villages, 

and commissions to ensure that the annual subsistence 

harvest does not adversely affect the Steller sea lion population. 

Subsistence Project 

In September 1995, NMFS contracted with ADF&G 

to sample tissues from the subsistence harvest of Steller 

sea lions and to increase educational efforts in three Alaska 

Native communities known to have high annual subsistence harvest levels (St. Paul Island, St. George Island, 

and Unalaska). Sampling of killed animals involved collection of tissues to determine age, sex, genetic composition, physical condition, reproductive history, and exposure to anthropogenic contaminants (see Chapter X. 

Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program). Educational efforts were intended to increase 

Native awareness of the plight of the Steller sea lion and 

to encourage local management of the subsistence harvest. The contractor, in association with the NMFS 

Alaska Region, held community workshops to discuss 

Steller sea lion recovery efforts and to inform hunters of 

the tissue collection project. This project was continued 

during 1997/98, and project reports are available. 

Beluga Whales 

Statewide Subsistence Harvest 

The Alaska Beluga Whale Committee (ABWC) was 

formed in 1988 to promote healthy populations of beluga whales in Alaskan waters, to obtain better harvest 

information and to encourage better communication 

between beluga hunters, biologists, and agencies. Since 

its formation, the ABWC has met annually to compile 

reliable harvest information on beluga whale takes by 

Alaska Natives (see Table 4). Hunters from approximately 

50 villages belong to the ABWC and report annual harvest numbers. Cook Inlet hunters are not part of the 

ABWC. 

Table 4. 1998 Beluga Whale Harvest Data 

harvested struck/lost 

Beaufort Sea Stock 77 ~5 

Eastern Chukchi Sea Stock 50 3 

Eastern Bering Sea Stock 118 15 

Bristol Bay Stock 6 1 

Cook Inlet Harvest 

The Cook Inlet belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) are a small, 

geographically isolated remnant population of whales. 

The Cook Inlet population of beluga whales is separated 

from other beluga populations by the Alaska Peninsula. 

Despite being geographically isolated for possibly thousands of years, the Cook Inlet belugas appear to have 

maintained a relatively high level of genetic diversity, leading researchers to believe that this population remains 

viable. Unfortunately, the geographic isolation of these 

whales, in combination with their tendency towards site 

fidelity, makes them vulnerable to subsistence harvests 

by Alaska Natives and from anthropogenic and environmental hazards. The summer habitat range used by beluPage 74 
 Page 75

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

International Whaling Commission

Commercial and Scientific Whaling

Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

gas in Cook Inlet appears to be decreasing; while the 

index count from the 1998 survey was the lowest reported to date and demonstrates a downward trend that 

has been ongoing over the last five years. 

The population declined by 15% per year between 1994 

and 1998. The 1998 aerial survey estimate (347) is nearly 

50% lower than the 1994 estimate (653). 

While historical abundance estimates are not available, 

Native hunters have stated that this stock numbered at 

least 1,000 animals as recently as the 1980s. With the 

current estimated rates of natural mortality and Native 

harvest, there is concern that the beluga population in 

Cook Inlet cannot be sustained by annual recruitment 

and could become extinct. Loss of this population would 

represent a significant gap in the southern range of the 

taxon, as this is the only beluga to exist in the Gulf of 

Alaska. 

NMFS, in conjunction with the ABWC and the Cook 

Inlet Marine Mammal Council, initiated a status review 

of Cook Inlet beluga whales in November 1998 to determine whether designation under the MMPA or a 

change in listing classification under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) is warranted. This review will be completed in Spring 1999. As of December 1998, the Cook 

Inlet beluga whale is considered a “candidate” species 

under the ESA. 

International Whaling Commission 

Under section 108(1) of the MMPA, the Secretary of 

Commerce is mandated to : 

“...initiate negotiations as soon as possible for the 

development of bilateral or multinational agreements with 

other nations for the protection and conservation of all marine mammals covered by this Act.” 

As a result, the Departments of Commerce, the Interior, 

and State, in consultation with the Marine Mammal 

Commission, must pursue international agreements, and, 

when necessary, negotiate new agreements, to achieve the 

purposes of the MMPA. This section describes NMFS 

involvement with International Whaling Commission 

(IWC) and its programs and activities pertaining to marine mammals during 1998. 

The International Convention for the Regulation of 

Whaling (ICRW) was established in 1946 with the objective of achieving proper conservation of world whale 

stocks, thus making possible the orderly development of 

the whaling industry. The Convention created the IWC 

to provide for a continuing review of the condition of 

whale stocks and for such additions to or modifications 

of the agreed conservation measures as might appear desirable. In the United States, the treaty is implemented 

through the Whaling Convention Act of 1949. 

Past actions by the IWC include the establishment of a 

whale sanctuary in the Indian Ocean area and in the 

Southern Ocean, prohibition on the use of cold grenade 

(non-exploding) harpoons to kill whales for commercial 

purposes, a moratorium on all commercial whaling from 

the beginning of the 1985-86 pelagic and 1986 coastal 

seasons, and the adoption of a separate and distinct 

management scheme for aboriginal subsistence whaling. 

Commercial and Scientific Whaling 

The IWC continues to maintain the moratorium on 

commercial whaling. However, Norway lodged an objection to the 1982 moratorium decision, and therefore 

is not bound by that decision. Thus, it continues to take 

minke whales from the Northeast Atlantic Ocean. 

Article VIII of the ICRW grants countries the right to 

issue permits to kill whales for scientific purposes. Annually, Japan takes about 540 minke whales (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata) from the North Pacific and Antarctic 

Oceans for scientific research. During the 1998/1999 

season, Japan took 389 minke whales within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.During its 1998 season in the North 

Pacific, Japan also accidently took one Bryde’s whale 

(Balaenoptera edeni). 

Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling 

Aboriginal subsistence whaling, in accordance with limitations set by the IWC, is conducted by aboriginal Natives in Greenland, Russia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the United States. In addition, although not 

currently an IWC member, Canada has continued to 

Page 75 
Page 76

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

The 1998 Annual Meeting

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

authorize the taking of bowhead whales (Balaena 

mysticetus) by its Natives. 

In 1996, the United States certified Canada under the 

Pelly Amendment for whaling outside the IWC provisions. The Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen’s Protective Act of 1967 (22 U.S.C. 1978) requires the Secretary 

of Commerce to monitor the activities of foreign fishermen and certify when nationals of a foreign country are 

found, directly or indirectly, conducting fishing operations that diminish the effectiveness of an international 

fishery conservation program to which the United States 

is a party. The Secretary of Commerce has certified, under 

Pelly, several countries, including Norway, Russia, Japan 

and Canada, for whaling activities. 

The 1998 Annual Meeting 

The 50th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling 

Commission (IWC) was held from May 16-20, 1998 in 

Muscat, Oman. Topics of discussion at this meeting follow. 

In 1982, the IWC decided that catch limits for all commercial whaling would be set to zero. At that time, Norway lodged an objection to the ban and has since exercised its right to set national catch limits for its coastal 

whaling operations for minke whales. As it has in previous years, the IWC passed a resolution in 1998 calling 

on Norway to halt all whaling activities under its jurisdiction. 

As in previous years, the IWC did not adopt Japan’s proposal for an interim relief allocation of 50 minke whales 

to be taken by coastal community-based whaling. 

The IWC noted that work on a number of issues, including specification of an inspection and observer system, must be finished before it can consider adopting 

the Revised Management Scheme (RMP). The IWC 

adopted a resolution that confirmed how anthropogenic 

removals (e.g., incidental catches, catches under scientific permit, aboriginal subsistence whaling) other than 

commercial catches should be taken into account when 

setting catch limits under the RMP. 

At the 1997 IWC annual meeting, Ireland introduced a 

proposal for discussion intended to encourage resolution between the governments opposed to and in favor 

of a resumption of commercial whaling. It included: 

completion and adoption of the RMP; designation of a 

global sanctuary for whales with limited coastal whaling; 

prohibition of international trade in whale products; and 

the ending of lethal scientific research takes. Although 

little progress toward reaching compromise was made, 

the IWC agreed to keep this item on the agenda. 

No changes were made to the catch limits for whale stocks 

subject to aboriginal subsistence whaling made in 1997. 

The Scientific Committee continued to make progress 

towards developing new management regimes for aboriginal subsistence whaling; this work has been given high 

priority by the IWC. 

Japan again proposed two scientific research programs ­

one in the Antarctic and one in the western North Pacific. The IWC adopted a resolution calling on the Government of Japan to refrain from issuing these permits. 

The IWC adopted a resolution providing advice to its 

Scientific Committee on the objectives of the Southern 

Ocean Sanctuary. These objectives include monitoring 

depleted populations and undertaking research on the 

effects of environmental change. The Scientific Committee is currently developing a major cooperative research program with the Southern Ocean Global Ocean 

Ecosystems Dynamics (GLOBEC) program and Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

(CCAMLR) in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary for the 

years 2000 and 2001. 

In 1998, the IWC strengthened its commitment to studying environmental changes and their effects on cetaceans 

by establishing a new agenda item on environmental concerns. It reiterated its support for two major collaborative research initiatives made by its Scientific Committee 

with respect to chemical pollutants and baleen whale 

habitat and prey studies in cooperation with CCAMLR 

and Southern Ocean GLOBEC. Furthermore, the IWC 

committed to proposing a consideration next year on 

the establishment of a major research fund for environmental studies. 

Page 76 
 Page 77

 Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

The IWC approved the establishment of a major new 

scientific journal on cetacean research and management, 

which goes into print in 1999. The IWC hopes that this 

journal will maintain and improve the high quality of 

scientific publications published by the IWC. 

Page 77 
Page 78

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Chapter IX. Chapter IX. ermit P ermit Programs rograms

photo by: P. Michael Payne, NMFS

Permit Regulations egulations

P

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Chapter IX. Permit Programs


The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) places a 

moratorium, subject to certain exceptions, on the taking 

and importing of marine mammals and marine mammal products. One exception to the moratorium provides for the issuance of permits by NMFS for specific 

marine mammal species. NMFS also administers provisions within its permit program, pursuant to the MMPA, 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Fur Seal Act 

(FSA), as they apply to species under the jurisdiction of 

the Secretary of Commerce. Under these statutes, permits may be issued for public display, scientific research, 

enhancement, and photography. 

Between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 1998, 

NMFS issued 37 permits. Of these, two were issued for 

scientific research and enhancement, 30 were issued for 

scientific research, and five were issued for photography. 

In addition, six letters of confirmation were issued for 

“Level B harassment” under the General Authorization 

for Scientific Research. 

NMFS also processes permit amendments if the proposed modifications meet the appropriate statutory and 

regulatory standards, as well as other permit-related auphoto by: P. Michael Payne, NMFS 

thorizations. There are two amendment categories: major and minor. A major amendment, including a request 

for extension of a permit by more than 12 months beyond its original term, is subject to the same notice, review and comment procedures as a permit application. 

During the 1998 reporting period, 29 major permit 

amendments and 29 minor permit amendments were 

processed. 

Permit Regulations 

On May 10, 1996, NMFS published a final rule in the 

Federal Register that amended the regulations for permits 

under the MMPA, the ESA and the FSA (61 FR 53320). 

This rule updates and consolidates the regulations for 

special exception permits and establishes basic permit 

requirements applicable to all permits to take, import, 

and export marine mammals and marine mammal parts 

for purposes of scientific research and enhancement, photography, and public display under the MMPA. It also 

provides additional permit criteria specific to scientific 

research and enhancement only and establishes administrative procedures for determining the releasability or nonreleasability of stranded marine mammals and their disposition after release. 

Page 78 
 Page 79

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Photography Permits

Retention of Stranded Marine

Mammals Mammals

General Authorization

Level B Harassment is defined in U.S.C. 1362

Sec. 3 (18)(A)(2) as any act of pursuit, torment, Sec. 3 (18)(A)(2) as any act of pursuit, torment,

or annoyance which -- or annoyance which --

“has the potential to disturb a marine

mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild

by causing disruption or behavioral patterns, by causing disruption or behavioral patterns,

including, but not limited to, migration, breath- , breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.“

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

The 1996 final rule did not include the additional requirements specific to photography or public display established by the MMPA Amendments of 1994. NMFS 

plans to publish a separate proposed rule in 2000 for 

public comment for public display permits including marine mammal transfer and inventory reporting requirements. A proposed rule for photography permits will 

also be considered in 2000. 

Photography Permits 

The 1994 MMPA Amendments established a new provision to allow marine mammals in the wild to be photographed for educational and commercial purposes. 

These permits are limited to “Level B” harassment of 

non-endangered marine mammals and require that the 

photographic products be made available to the public. 

Until final regulations are published, NMFS limits the 

authorization of photographic activities to one year and 

requires a report on the activity and its effect on the marine mammals within 60 days of the completion of the 

photographic work. During 1998, five permits were issued for commercial photography. 

Retention of 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) NMFS authorizes the permanent retention 

of the animal as a substitute for the capture of 

one of the same species from the wild even 

though the attending veterinarian determines 

that the animal is releasable. 

The permanent retention of a rehabilitated beached or 

stranded marine mammal must be authorized by NMFS, 

in accordance with applicable MMPA requirements, before a non-releasable animal may be retained by the rehaLevel B Harassment is defined in U.S.C. 1362 

Sec. 3 (18)(A)(2) 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 or behavioral patterns, 

including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.“ 

bilitating facility or transported or exported to another 

facility for public display purposes. Additionally, the recipient or retaining facility must meet the three public 

display criteria above. During 1998, one beached and 

stranded marine mammal was determined non-releasable and was retained by a domestic facility for public 

display purposes. 

A permit is required to retain or obtain rehabilitated 

beached and stranded marine mammals for purposes of 

scientific research, enhancing the survival or recovery of 

marine mammal species or stocks or to retain a releasable 

marine mammal for purposes of public display in lieu of 

a capture. No applications for a permit to retain a releasable marine mammal were submitted to NMFS during 

the 1998 reporting period. For more information on 

marine mammal strandings, see Ch. x. The Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program. 

General Authorization 

The MMPA Amendments of 1994 also required NMFS 

to issue a General Authorization (GA) and implementing regulations for bona fide scientific research involving 

“Level B harassment” of marine mammals in the wild. 

In lieu of a scientific research permit, the GA provides a 

simplified process for authorizing research activities involving low levels of harassment (this does not include 

species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA). 

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. An Interim Final Rule was published on October 3, 1994 (59 FR 50372). NMFS 

received comments on the interim final rule and expects 

to publish a final rule in 2000. 

Page 79 
Page 80

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Marine Mammal Inventor Marine Mammal Inventory

Exports of Marine Mammals ts of Marine Mammals

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

From January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998, 

NMFS received five letters of intent to conduct “Level 

B” harassment on marine mammal species or stocks for 

scientific research purposes; six proposals were approved, 

including one proposal that was received in 1997. 

Marine Mammal Inventory 

Information on marine mammals held in captivity must 

be submitted for purposes of the Marine Mammal Inventory. At the end of 1998, the marine mammal inventory data base included 2,229 live marine mammals, and 

provides animal-specific data such as animal identification, sex, estimated or actual birth date, date of acquisition or disposition by the holder, source of acquisition 

including location of the take from the wild, if applicable, name of recipient if animal is transferred, notation 

if animal was acquired as the result of a stranding, and 

date and cause of death. Holders of marine mammals 

are required to submit to NMFS reports of births and 

deaths within 30 days of the event, and a 15-day notification prior to any sale, purchase, export, or transfer. 

Section 104(c)(2)(A) of the MMPA allows for the public 

display of marine mammals provided that the holder: 

1) offers a program for education or conservation purposes that is based on professionally recognized standards of the public display community; 

2) is registered or holds a license under the 

Animal Welfare Act (AWA); and 

3) maintains facilities for the public display of 

marine mammals that are open to the public on 

a regularly scheduled basis and not limited or 

restricted in access except for admission fees. 

To ensure compliance with the statutory requirements, 

and in conjunction with ongoing efforts to reduce and 

streamline reporting and notification requirements, 

NMFS has entered into a Cooperative Agreement with 

the International Species Information System (ISIS) to 

administer the captive marine mammal inventory database, including marine mammal transport notifications. 

ISIS is an international membership organization that 

manages a database and information system for wild animal species in captivity, including marine mammals. 

Under this cooperative agreement, ISIS will manage the 

captive marine mammal inventory information as part 

of the central ISIS captive wildlife database and information system. Many of the marine mammal holders who 

report inventory information and transfer/transport notifications under the MMPA also voluntarily contribute 

their inventory information to ISIS. It is estimated that 

one-half of the marine mammal specimens are reported 

separately to both databases. 

In this regard, the major objectives of this Cooperative 

Agreement are to: eliminate current duplication of data 

collection efforts; improve the long-term efficiency and 

quality of the captive Marine Mammal Inventory and 

Transfer/Transport database; increase convenience and 

efficiency; reduce cost and burden, for reporting required 

under the MMPA by all holders of marine mammals; 

enhance public access to the captive marine mammal 

information; and avoid duplication of development and 

maintenance of expensive custom inventory database 

software by ISIS and NMFS. The new procedures associated with ISIS’ future administration of the Marine 

Mammal Inventory and transfer/transport notifications 

will be outlined in the proposed rule for public display is 

scheduled to be published in 2000. Holders will continue to submit reports to NMFS until they are officially 

notified of the transition to ISIS. 

Exports of Marine Mammals 

Marine mammals may be exported from U.S. facilities 

as long as the foreign recipient meets requirements comparable to those a U.S. recipient must meet. Because foreign facilities are not subject to licensing or registration 

requirements under the AWA, it is only through the 

MMPA’s comparability requirement that adequate care 

of marine mammals transferred to foreign facilities can 

be assured. Following a policy established in 1975, 

NMFS continues to require the foreign government with 

jurisdiction over the facility to provide a certification that 

includes a comity statement to enable NMFS to enforce 

the comparability provisions of the MMPA once the 

animals have been exported. 

Page 80 
 Page 81

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Keiko the Killer Whale

Captive Care of Marine Mammals Captive Care of Marine Mammals

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Table 1. Live Marine Mammals of U.S. Origin Tranported or Expor ted or Exported in 1998 ted in 1998

#Species Species OriginDestination Destination

1killer whale killer whale (Orca orcinus) (Orca orcinus) (Orca orcinus) Oregon Coast Aquarium Oregon Coast Aquarium Klettsvik Cove, Iceland Klettsvik Cove, Iceland

2bottlenose dolphins bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) ursiops truncatus) ursiops truncatus) Knies Kinder Knies Kinderzoo in Switzerland zoo in Switzerland Mundomar Theme Park in

Benidorm, Spain Benidorm, Spain

3 Patagonian sea lions atagonian sea lions (Otaria byronia) (Otaria byronia) (Otaria byronia) United States United States Palacio de los Depor alacio de los Deportes in

Mexico City for a one-month Mexico City for a one-month

tour with the Ringling Bros. tour with the Ringling Bros. tour with the Ringling Bros.

and Barnum and Bailey and Barnum and Bailey

5California sea lions California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) (Zalophus californianus) (Zalophus californianus)

1harbor seal harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) (Phoca vitulina) (Phoca vitulina) Marine Life Oceanarium, Marine Life Oceanarium, Marine Life Oceanarium,

Gulfpor Gulfport, Mississippi t, Mississippi t, Mississippi Canada’s Wonderland, Canada’s Wonderland, Canada’s Wonderland,

Ontario, for a seasonal ex­ , for a seasonal exhibit

NMFS conducted a legal analysis of this policy in 1997 

and concluded that the requirements are reasonable 

within the context of the MMPA. This policy will be 

reflected in the proposed rule for public display to be 

published in 2000 and will be available for public comment at that time. 

During 1998, eleven live marine mammals were exported 

(see Table 1). As part of the comity arrangements made 

for exports, inventory of exported U.S.-source animals is 

maintained by NMFS. 

Keiko the Killer Whale 

NMFS continued discussions in 1998 with the FreeWilly 

Keiko Foundation concerning possible plans for the future release of “Keiko,” a captive killer whale (Orcinus 

orca) that attracted worldwide attention for his starring 

role in the movie “Free Willy.” The permit issued in 

September 1995 for the import of this animal includes a 

condition requiring a scientific research permit be in place 

prior to release. Exercising its right to export “Keiko” for 

public display purposes under the MMPA, on September 8, 1998, the Foundation relocated “Keiko” to a sea 

pen in Klettsvik Cove, Iceland, for public display, while 

continuing to evaluate whether an eventual release is appropriate. 

Captive Care of Marine Mammals 

When the MMPA was amended in 1994, NMFS’ role 

in specifying care and maintenance standards for captive 

marine mammals was eliminated. This responsibility 

now belongs solely to the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS). To implement this change, NMFS 

took the lead in revising a 1979 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among NMFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and APHIS. Several meetings were held during 

1997-1998 with the parties and representatives of the 

Marine Mammal Commission to resolve several areas of 

concern including the responsibilities, jurisdiction, and 

determinations associated with the export of marine 

mammals to foreign facilities. A final agreement was 

signed on July 21, 1998, that promotes the effective and 

cooperative implementation of the MMPA and the AWA 

particularly as they relate to the standards governing the 

humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation 

of captive marine mammals. The MOA seeks to ensure 

that the respective responsibilities of the agencies under 

the MMPA and AWA are met efficiently and with a minimum of duplication. 

Page 81 
Page 82

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Public Display Permit Applications ermit Applications

Closure of the Maine and Depoe

Bay Aquariums Bay Aquariums

Enforcement Actions Enforcement Actions

Sugarloaf Dolphin Sanctuar Sugarloaf Dolphin Sanctuary Case

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Public Display Permit Applications 

There were no public display applications submitted in 

1998; however, in February 1998, the Oregon Coast 

Aquarium (Aquarium) and the Free Willy Keiko Foundation jointly requested that the public display permit 

issued in 1995 to the Aquarium be amended to change 

the Permit Holder from the Aquarium to the Foundation. NMFS amended the permit on March 20, 1998, 

determining that: the Foundation has the responsibility 

for and the authority to determine the disposition of 

Keiko; the Foundation met the three criteria for holding 

marine mammals for purposes of public display; and for 

Marine Mammal Inventory purposes, the holder of record 

should be the Foundation. 

Closure of the Maine and Depoe 

Bay Aquariums 

After declaring bankruptcy during the summer of 1997, 

the Maine Aquarium went into receivership of the Small 

Business Administration. In September 1997, APHIS 

notified NMFS that the aquarium no longer held a valid 

Exhibitor’s license under the AWA. APHIS determined 

that they could not take action under the AWA to place 

its harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) in an appropriate home 

and asked NMFS for assistance to ensure that the public 

display requirements under the MMPA would be upheld. APHIS offered the assistance of a veterinarian 

inspector who was familiar with the situation, and the 

Detroit Zoo was contacted and agreed to take custody of 

the seals. On January 3, 1998, the NMFS Offices of 

Protected Resources and Northeast Region Enforcement 

took temporary custody of the two harbor seals until the 

Detroit Zoo’s personnel arrived on January 4, 1998. 

In a June 1998 settlement between Depoe Bay Aquarium 

and APHIS, three marine mammals were turned over to 

APHIS for relocation. Working cooperatively with all 

parties to expedite permanent placement, NMFS authorized several transports with less than the 15-day advance 

notification required by the MMPA. The animals were 

temporarily relocated to Oregon Coast Aquarium, and 

eventually, two California sea lions (Zalophus 

californianus) were placed at the Children’s Zoo, Fort 

Wayne, Indiana, and one harbor seal was placed at Sea 

World, San Diego, California. 

Enforcement Actions 

Sugarloaf Dolphin Sanctuary Case 

In January 1998, NOAA filed charges against several 

dolphin freedom activists for harassing and illegally transporting two captive bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) in connection with their deliberate release six 

miles off the coast of Key West, Florida on May 23, 1996. 

Alleging multiple violations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, NOAA assessed a maximum allowable 

$10,000 for each of the six counts charged, resulting in a 

total of $60,000 in penalties against those involved. 

Charges were filed against Richard O’Barry of Coconut 

Grove, Florida, Lloyd Good, III, of Sugarloaf Key, Florida, 

Sugarloaf Dolphin Sanctuary, Inc., of Sugarloaf Key, 

Florida, and the Dolphin Project, Inc., of South Miami, 

Florida. All four were charged with an illegal “take” by 

harassment and illegal transportation of each dolphin. 

Both the Sugarloaf Dolphin Sanctuary and The Dolphin Project were also charged with failing to notify 

NOAA prior to the transport of the dolphins. 

The dolphins were transported without prior notification and not for purposes of public display, scientific 

research, or enhancement or survival of the species or 

stock. After the dolphins were released to the wild, one 

of the dolphins appeared in a congested Key West marina with lacerations and begging for food. The second 

dolphin, found over 40 mi (64 km) away almost two 

weeks after the release, also sustained deep lacerations 

and was emaciated. After determining that the dolphins 

were injured and in need of treatment, NMFS, with the 

help of others, rescued and provided veterinary care to 

the dolphins. Following initial treatment, one dolphin 

was transported to the U.S. Navy facility in San Diego, 

California for rehabilitation. The other dolphin was 

found to be in considerably worse condition requiring 

extended rehabilitation, and at the end of 1998, still remained at a U.S. Department of Agriculture licensed 

marine mammal public display facility in the Florida 

Keys. 

Page 82 
 Page 83

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Charges Filed Against Commercial iled Against Commercial

Operation for Feeding Wild Dolphins ild Dolphins

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

NMFS officials later seized a third dolphin from the 

Sugarloaf Dolphin Sanctuary, after officials with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture suspended the facility’s license 

for multiple violations of the Animal Welfare Act. The 

dolphins had been on public display at the Sugarloaf 

Lodge motel in Sugarloaf Key since 1994. Prior to that, 

these dolphins were part of the U.S. Navy’s marine mammal research program, and had been in captivity since 

the late 1980s. 

In order to protect the health and welfare of animals, any 

release of a long-term captive marine mammal should be 

conducted only under an MMPA scientific research permit. Applications for such permits are subject to scientific and public review, and would involve the development of a release protocol that addresses important concerns such as whether: 1) a released animal is properly 

and humanely prepared to live in the wild; 2) long-term 

follow up monitoring of the animal is conducted; 3) wild 

marine mammals are affected; and 4) contingency plans 

are in place if it is necessary to rescue a released animal. 

Wildlife experts agree that releasing captive marine mammals has the potential to hurt both the released wild and 

captive animals and the wild marine mammals they encounter. Experts are concerned about the ability of a 

released animal to hunt for food, defend itself from predators, and avoid interactions with people and boats. Other 

concerns include disease transmission and unwanted genetic exchange between a released animal and wild marine mammal stocks, and any behavioral patterns developed in captivity that could affect the social behavior of 

wild animals as well as the social integration of the released animal. 

A civil hearing regarding this case is scheduled for early 

1999. 

Charges Filed Against Commercial 

Operation for Feeding Wild Dolphins 

In July 1998, NOAA charged the operator, crew member, rental company, and owner of a Florida vessel with 

five civil violations of feeding or attempting to feed wild 

dolphins, which is a violation of the MMPA regulations. 

A total civil penalty of $5,000 was assessed in a Notice of 

Violation and Assessment (NOVA) against Thomas E. 

Rainelli (the operator), Chanti Hance (the crew member), Hathaway’s Boat Rentals, Inc. (the rental company), 

and Tropical parasail, Inc., (the owner) for the charged 

violations, which occurred on June 17, 1998 near Panama 

City, Florida. The Florida Marine Patrol initiated the 

case. The assessment was made after the NMFS Office 

of Law Enforcement completed the investigation. A civil 

hearing regarding this case is scheduled for 1999. 

Page 83 
Page 84

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Chapter Chapter X. 

Response P esponse Program

photo courtesy of: The Marine Mammal Center

Stranding Networks Stranding Networks

Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Marine Mammal Health and Stranding

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Chapter X. Marine Mammal Health and Stranding


Response Program


In 1992, the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding 

Response Act (MMHSRA) was enacted and became Title 

IV of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

(MMPA). It contains three basic elements: Marine Mammal Stranding Networks; Response to Unusual Mortality Events; and the National Marine Mammal Tissue 

Bank. 

To implement the Act, NMFS has instituted the Marine 

Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program 

(MMHSRP) that includes: 

• stranding networks and disentanglement networks; 

• response to unusual mortality events; 

• biomonitoring, research and development; 

• the National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank; 

• quality assurance; and 

• information management. 

Stranding Networks 

Marine Mammal Stranding Networks have been established in each of NMFS’ five regions and consist of organizations, facilities, or individuals that meet minimum 

photo courtesy of: The Marine Mammal Center 

requirements as designated in a Letter of Agreement 

(LOA) for marine mammal responses and can be states, 

aquaria, universities, or non-profit organizations. Most 

of the people carrying out the responsibilities of the stranding networks are volunteers. Different levels of authorization may apply (e.g., response to live stranded animals 

is generally limited to those institutions that have medical expertise and the physical facilities to rehabilitate animals). 

As a part of their LOA, network members arerequired to 

collect certain basic biological data from strandings (Level 

A 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, for determination of cause of death, 

for additional evidence of human interactions, for educational purposes, for life history investigations and other 

biological or health research needs. 

Overall, 1998 was a record year for numbers of reported 

strandings - 5,726 stranded animals were reported to the 

stranding networks nationally. This represents the highest reported strandings in the last decade, exceeding the 

Page 84 
 Page 85

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Northeast Region Stranding Network

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Figure 1. Marine Mammal Strandings in the United States 1990-1998 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

pinnipeds 

previous high recorded during the El Niño year of 1992 

(4,445). Over the previous eight years, national strandings 

averaged 3,415 animals per year (range from 2,704 to 

4,455) with a trend for increased reporting as efforts increased in various regions. The increase in 1998 was 

most evident on the West coast with California recording the highest numbers of animals, principally pinnipeds. Pinniped strandings peaked in 1992 and 1998, 

both ElNiño years, with the West Coast strandings driving the increases. The stranding networks worked extremely hard this year to respond to and collect a significant amount of data from these strandings. The following is a breakdown by region of the stranding events in 

1998. 

Northeast Region Stranding Network 

The Northeast network consists of LOA holders in ten 

states from Maine to Virginia. A total of 801 marine 

mammal strandings were reported in the Northeast Region in 1998. These reported strandings included 518 

pinnipeds and 283 cetaceans. 

It was noted in 1997 that the increasing trend in 

strandings of ice seals had stabilized in the Northeast, as 

cetaceans 

shown by fewer harp (Phoca groenlandica) (119) and 

hooded (Cystophora cristata) (40) seal strandings in 1997 

than in 1996 (153 and 46 respectively). In 1998, although 

the number of stranded harp seals did not change significantly (107) from 1997, hooded seal strandings more 

than doubled from 1997’s rate (40) to a high of 106. As 

indicated in 1997, most of these animals showed signs of 

nutritional stress and were often in a weakened state when 

found. There were a total of 36 pinnipeds (eleven gray 

seals (Halichoerus grypus), 24 harbor seals, and one harp 

seal) that exhibited evidence of human interaction in the 

Northeast Region. The types of human interaction documented were: fishery interaction (10), mutilation (1), ship 

strike (1), power plant entrainment (10), oil spill (4), 

gun shot (1), and other (9). 

Although bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) (69) 

and harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) (54) typically 

make up most of the cetacean strandings in the Northeast, a mass stranding of Atlantic white-sided dolphins 

(Lagenorhynchus acutus) (90) made them the most frequently stranded cetacean species in the Northeast Region in 1998 (see below). The number of minke whale 

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) strandings (5) dropped back 

Page 85 
Page 86

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Southeast Region Stranding Network

Southwest Region Stranding Network

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

down from last year’s high (15). Of the 23 large whale 

strandings in the Northeast, three showed evidence of 

human interactions, with two being fishery related, and 

one being a ship strike. Of note, a blue whale 

(Balaenoptera musculus) stranded in Rhode Island on 

March 7, 1998. Many scientists were involved in the 

examination of this carcass from a species, which has 

only rarely stranded on the East Coast. 

One mass stranding occurred in the Northeast region in 

1998. In Cape Cod, Massachusetts, beginning January 

30, 1998 and extending over the next ten days, there was 

a mass stranding of 81 Atlantic white-sided dolphins 

(Lagenorhynchus acutus), and 16 common dolphins (Delphinus delphis). Full necropsies were performed on many 

of the animals, and at least Level A was collected on the 

rest. Tissues and blood were obtained for the National 

Marine Mammal Tissue and Serum Banks. 

Southeast Region Stranding Network 

The NMFS Southeast Region stretches from South Carolina to Texas and includes Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In 1998, the Southeast Region reported 685 

marine mammal strandings. This is up from 1997 (608), 

but still less than 1996 (795). There was an increase of 

pinniped strandings from three in 1997 to 13 in 1998. 

In 1998, all of the pinniped strandings in the Southeast 

Region were harbor seals. The vast majority of Southeast strandings were cetaceans (672). Consistent with 

previous years, bottlenose dolphins comprised the majority of cetacean strandings (523); however, several other 

cetacean species experienced substantial increases in 

stranding rates. Listed with the 1997/1998 stranding 

numbers for comparison, these were the: pygmy sperm 

whale (Kogia breviceps) (4/39), Gervais’ beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon europaeus) (2/14), and Cuvier’s beaked whale 

(Ziphius cavirostris) (1/4). 

There were 74 live strandings, 32 of which were taken to 

rehabilitation facilities, six were released back into the 

wild (four rough-toothed dolphins and two bottlenose 

dolphins), and one was deemed non-releasable (a bottlenose dolphin) and was transported to the Mystic 

Aquarium. There were three mass strandings in the Southeast in 1998 including: 1) 12 rough-toothed dolphins 

(Steno bredanensis) (see below), 2) 12 short-finned pilot 

whales (Northeast Florida in January), and 3) four 

Gervais’ beaked whales (in North Carolina in September). The mass stranding of rough-toothed dolphins 

occurred on December 28, 1998 on Panama City Beach, 

Florida just 35 miles west of a similar stranding event 

that occurred with this species one year prior. During 

this event, 12 animals initially stranded, the animals were 

pushed back out to sea, and seven re-stranded. All seven 

were taken to rehabilitation facilities but either died in 

transport or shortly after arrival at the rehabilitation centers. The animals were all adults ranging in age from 14 

to 35 years with the exception of one year old calf. Fiftyeight % of the stranded animals were females and 16% 

were males. 

Again recognizing that most stranded marine mammals 

on the East Coast are very decomposed, detection of 

human interactions is often not possible. There were 55 

strandings that exhibited evidence of human interaction, 

primarily fisheries interactions in North (24) and South 

Carolina (8), although human interaction was documented in strandings from Texas (5), Louisiana (5), 

Florida (4), Alabama (2), and Georgia (1) as well. 

Southwest Region Stranding Network 

The NMFS Southwest Regional stranding network is 

comprised of two distinct areas, California on the U.S. 

mainland and the islands of Hawaii, American Samoa, 

Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and other islands of the Pacific. In 1998, there 

were a reported 3,612 strandings in the Southwest Region. This is a significant increase from last year’s also 

elevated stranding count at 2,176, and is the largest El 

Niño year reported number of strandings in the 1990s. 

As is typical for the Southwest Region, these strandings 

were primarily comprised of pinnipeds (3,568) stranding in California. Similar to 1997, the dramatic increase 

in pinniped strandings [mostly California sea lions 

(Zalophus californianus) (2,576), northern elephant seals 

(Mirounga angustirostris) (409), and harbor seals (Phoca 

vitulina) (313)] for 1998 was due to the continued influence of the El Niño weather event, which raises the water 

temperature near the coastline, moving the preferred prey 

items into deeper, less accessible waters. These changes 

make foraging difficult for newly weaned pups. As a 

Page 86 
 Page 87

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

� 

� � � 

� � � 

� � � 

� � � 

� � � � 

� � � � 

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Figure 3. Cetacean Strandings


East Coast vs. West Coast


� � � � 

� � � � 

result, many do not survive the yearling stage. In addition, many young nursing pups do not survive to weaning, as their mothers take extended feeding trips, are not 

able to nurse them as often, and the pups die due to 

extreme malnourishment. The forced change in prey 

items may also make the pinnipeds more susceptible to 

the introduction of “new” pathogens such as parasites 

and other disease-causing organisms. 

As a result of the large numbers of pinniped strandings, 

most marine mammal rehabilitation centers were at maximum capacity for much of 1998. This led to the enactment of a 48-hour “wait and see” policy, prior to any 

rescue attempts, for all beach-stranded pinnipeds for 

Orange , Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties in California. This policy encouraged stranding network participants to focus their attention and resources on only those 

animals that required immediate attention. The waiting 

period did not apply to those animals suffering from 

human-related injuries, such as gunshot, boat propeller, 

and fishing gear entanglements. Those animals received 

priority attention. 

After the 48-hour observation period for any given animal, NMFS reevaluated each of the stranding facilities’ 

capacity status, and either recommended that the animal 

be brought in for treatment if space was available, or left 

the animal on the beach for a continued watch. The 

stranding and rehabilitation centers are to be commended 

for their hard work and dedication in this stressful and 

overwhelming year. 

In addition to the El Niño strandings, there was an unusual mortality event of over 70 California seal lions in 

Central California associated with a harmful algal bloom 

(see Unusual Mortality Events section of this chapter). 

Finally, gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) strandings continued to increase in California from six strandings in 

1997 to 30 in 1998. Much of the increase resulted 

from winter strandings of calves in California. 

In 1998, Hawaiian strandings consisted of eight cetaceans: two humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), 

two melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra), one 

pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps), one bottlenose 

dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), one Cuvier’s beaked whale 

(Ziphius cavirostris), and one unidentified cetacean. Of 

these, one of the melon-headed whales and the pygmy 

sperm whale stranded alive. The melon-headed whale 

was transported to Sea Life Park in Waimanalo on Oahu 

Page 87 
Page 88

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Northwest Region Stranding Network

Alaska Region Stranding Network

Disentanglement Network

� 

��� 

���� 

���� 

���� 

���� 

���� 

���� 

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Figure 4. Pinniped Strandings


East Coast vs. West Coast


� � � � 

� � � � 

for rehabilitation, and the pygmy sperm whale was stabilized overnight and released the following day. 

Northwest Region Stranding Network 

The Northwest Regional stranding network covers the 

coasts of Oregon and Washington including the Puget 

Sound coastline. The NMFS Northwest Region stranding networks reported a total of 392 strandings in 1998, 

of which 320 were pinnipeds [mostly California sea lions (75) and harbor seals (121)] and 44 cetaceans. This 

was an increase from the number of total strandings in 

the Northwest in 1997 (274), and again is most likely 

related to El Niño. 

Sixteen of the stranded pinnipeds exhibited evidence of 

human interaction, including: California sea lions (9) 

and harbor seals (7). Of these, six were determined to be 

the result of fishery interaction, and ten showed evidence 

of gun shot. Human interaction reports have continued 

to increase in the Northwest and Southwest Regions. This 

may be partially due to the increasing pinniped populations on the West Coast of the United States, the increased competition for resources between pinnipeds and 

humans, and the increased reporting and examinations 

of carcasses. 

Alaska Region Stranding Network 

The Alaska Region stranding network covers a tremendous amount of coastline, however, much of it is uninhabited or inaccessible. Therefore the actual number of 

strandings is likely higher than the reported numbers. 

In addition, reporting of strandings often reflect incidental sightings, making determination of true annual 

increases difficult. A total of 72 cetaceans and 40 pinniped strandings were reported to the Alaska Region for 

1998. The doubling in cetacean strandings from 1997 

(26) can be partially attributed to a mass stranding of 

beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) (30) in upper Cook 

Inlet. No mortalities were reported in this mass stranding. 

Disentanglement Network 

A specialized subset of the stranding networks on the 

East Coast of the United States is the large whale disentanglement network. NMFS established a large whale 

disentanglement program as recommended by the Final 

Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale. This program involves: (a) a multi-agency and institution network to locate, monitor, and safely disentangle marine 

mammals; (b) maintenance of a database for entanglements, providing data access and periodic reports to users; and (c) development of regional protocols and plans, 

Page 88 
 Page 89

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Stranding T Stranding Training

Unusual Mor Unusual Mortality Events tality Events

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

including outreach to the general public. In the past, 

disentanglement efforts have focused on right whales in 

the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy. In 1998, NMFS expanded the large whale disentanglement network to the 

Mid-Atlantic and the Florida/Georgia border and included fishers, U.S. Coast Guard and emergency personnel, and other large whale biology teams (for more 

information see Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery). 

Large whale disentanglement activities are coordinated 

by NMFS Northeast and Southeast Regional Stranding 

Coordinators, but are primarily carried out by speciallytrained personnel (not members of the stranding networks). The Center for Coastal Studies in Provincetown, 

MA holds the contract for response and training for large 

whale disentanglements, although much of the coordination of these efforts is carried out by the NMFS Northeast and Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinators. 

Basic training was provided in 1998 to commercial fishermen in the State of Maine and to biologists, U.S. Coast 

Guard personnel, and emergency response personnel in 

the Mid-Atlantic in December 1998. Additional training for disentanglement was provided to fishers and biologists in Alaska. In addition, caches of disentanglement 

equipment were placed in the Mid-Atlantic year round 

and in the Florida/Georgia area during seasonal right 

whale presence. In 1998, coordination of the disentanglement network in the Northeast and Southeast became 

the responsibility of the regional stranding coordinators. 

On the East Coast in 1998, the network reported 22 

whales entangled in gear, including one fin whale (Balaena 

physalus), one minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), 

15 humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), and five 

right whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Three of these entanglements were fatal: one fin, one minke, and one humpback. Disentanglement efforts were made on nine animals and resulted in either partial or complete removal 

of gear on all nine animals. 

Stranding Training 

Both the Northeast Regional and the Southeast Regional 

networks had Stranding Workshops which included discussions, presentations and necropsy workshops. The 

Northeast meeting was hosted by the Virginia Marine 

Science Museum on March 27-29, 1998. The Southeast meeting was held in St. Petersburg, Florida on March 

12-13, 1998 and was jointly hosted by Eckerd College 

and the Pathobiology Laboratory at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

The national stranding training workshop in 1998 was 

held in Sausalito, California from September 10-12 and 

was hosted by the Marine Mammal Center. The workshop was entitled “Stranding Response and Investigations: Sampling and Forensics”. Workshop participants 

from all regions heard presentations from expert marine 

mammal veterinarians, pathologists, forensic scientists, 

chemists, biologists, and stranding network personnel. 

Topics included descriptive pathology, investigation of 

gunshot wounds and fishery interactions, satellite tagging for post-release monitoring, and others. Hands-on 

demonstrations included live pinniped handling and 

medical care provided by the members of the Marine 

Mammal Center staff. Participants also participated in 

necropsies on cetaceans and pinnipeds. 

Unusual Mortality Events 

In response to the deaths of hundreds of bottlenose dolphins on the East Coast of the United States in 1987­

1988, Congress added Title IV to the MMPA. Title IV 

included a number of provisions for dealing with unusual marine mammal mortality events. It called for the 

establishment of three main components: the Working 

Group on Unusual Marine Mammal Mortality Events, 

a contingency plan for such events, a fund to support the 

response of such events (contingency fund), and a data 

management system. 

Section 304 of the MMHSRA directed NMFS to establish a Working Group on Unusual Marine Mammal 

Mortality Events, which was formalized in 1992. This 

group consists of individuals from a range of scientific 

disciplines, including veterinary medicine, pathology, 

epidemiology, toxicology, and marine mammal science, 

who are appointed to the Working Group for three-year 

terms. The NMFS Office of Protected Resources consults the Working Group when an unusual mortality event 

is suspected. The Working Group then determines 

whether such an event is actually occurring and provides 

Page 89 
Page 90

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Contaminants and Biomonitoring

Program

Marine Mammal Pathology

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

advice on specific actions that should be taken to respond 

to an event, as well as determine when the event is over. 

The NMFS Office of Protected Resources coordinates 

the response to and analysis of the event based on guidance from the Working Group. 

The Working Group was consulted during 1998, with 

one event being deemed an unusual mortality event. 

Between May 15 and June 19, 1998 more than 70 California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) and one Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) stranded on the central 

California coastline in physical distress. All the animals 

were in good body condition and displayed similar clinical signs that were predominantly neurological. The animals had severe seizures that either became increasingly 

frequent resulting in opisthotonus (type of seizure that 

results in extreme muscle stiffness) then death or became 

less frequent, the animals showing ataxia and decreased 

responsiveness to stimuli between seizures and eventually becoming clinically normal. Forty-eight of the 70 

animals (67%) died despite treatment. Of the 70 animals, 54 were adult females, 50% of which were pregnant at the time of stranding. The staff and volunteers 

of the Marine Mammal Center in Sausalito, California 

responded to the majority of these animals, transporting 

them to their rehabilitation facility for emergency care. 

Over the months of May and June 1998, a 3.5 fold increase in numbers of dead beach-cast birds and mammals was detected around Monterey Bay during routine 

surveys. State, local, and federal agencies (National Ocean 

Service and NMFS) worked together to understand the 

cause or origin of this event. 

Coincidental to the stranding event, a bloom of 

Pseudoniztia australis (a marine algae that can produce a 

harmful toxin) occurred in Monterey Bay, reaching its 

peak on or about May 22, 1998. Histopathological lesions (neuronal necrosis) noted in the stranded sea lions 

were most severe in the hippocampus and dentate gyri 

regions of the brain and were typical of lesions caused by 

domoic acid toxicity in animal models. Analyses of gut 

contents, serum, urine and kidneys of the affected sea 

lions showed the presence of domoic acid, which can be 

produced by blooms of Pseudoniztia australis. The combination of clinical signs, histopathological, toxicological, epidemiological and oceanographic changes led the 

investigative team to diagnose domoic acid toxicity in 

these sea lions. This event was the first documented case 

of domoic acid toxicity in marine mammals. 

The Working Group held their annual meeting in April 

1998, in which they reviewed several issues which had 

arisen over the last year: the impacts of El Niño on marine mammal mortality, recent die-off investigations, and 

updates on the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding 

Response Program. 

Contaminants and Biomonitoring 

Program 

The contaminants and biomonitoring program began 

in 1991 with pilot projects in the Northeast and Southeast. It has expanded since that time to include sampling 

in all regions of the United States. 

The Biomonitoring Program consists of: 

1) real-time or retrospective evaluation for contaminants, 

disease, and health; 

2) method development and validation; 

3) research; 

4) specimen archival; and 

5) quality assurance. 

The main goals of the biomonitoring component are to 

provide baseline information on contaminant levels, incidence and types of disease, human-related impacts on 

populations, and baselines on the health of populations 

of marine mammals. 

Marine Mammal Pathology 

In 1998, NMFS and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) initiated a five-year interagency agreement to provide pathological services for the stranding 

network, unusual mortality investigations and disease 

investigations. AFIP personnel continue to participate 

on the Working Group of Marine Mammal Unusual 

Mortality Events. During the calendar year 1998, the 

Department of Veterinary Pathology at the Armed Forces 

Institute of Pathology issued diagnostic reports of 246 

marine mammals consisting of 133 cetaceans, 102 seals 

Page 90 
 Page 91

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Disease

Contaminants Contaminants

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Table 1. Species represented in diagnostic able 1. Species represented in diagnostic

pathology repor pathology reports in 1998 ts in 1998

Number Species Species

54Balaena mysticetus Balaena mysticetus

30Tursiops truncatus ursiops truncatus

12Kogia breviceps Kogia breviceps

6Delphinus delphis Delphinus delphis

5Stenella coeruleoalba Stenella coeruleoalba

5Eschrichtius robustus Eschrichtius robustus

4Grampus griseus Grampus griseus

3Kogia simus Kogia simus

4unidentified unidentified

2Mesoplodon europaeus Mesoplodon europaeus

2Globicephala macrorhynchus Globicephala macrorhynchus

2Globicephala melaena Globicephala melaena

1Orcinus orca Orcinus orca

1Balaenoptera physalus Balaenoptera physalus

1Phocoena phocoena Phocoena phocoena

1Megaptera novaeangliae Megaptera novaeangliae

1Delphinapterus leucas Delphinapterus leucas

56Zalophus californianus Zalophus californianus

26Phoca vitulina Phoca vitulina

13Cystophora cristata Cystophora cristata

4Phoca groenlandica Phoca groenlandica

1Erignathus barbatus Erignathus barbatus

1Monachus schauinslandi Monachus schauinslandi Monachus schauinslandi

1Mirounga angustriostris Mirounga angustriostris

10Odobenus rosmarus divergens

1Enhydra lutris Enhydra lutris

or sea lions, ten walruses, and one sea otter. The species 

represented can be found in Table 1. 

AFIP personnel participated in the Marine Mammal 

Commission Workshop on Marine Mammals and Persistent Ocean Contaminants in Keystone, Colorado. 

AFIP personnel also produced eight presentations at national and international meetings, two publications for 

peer reviewed journals, and ten abstracts at national or 

international meetings. In addition to the pathology 

collaboration with AFIP, NMFS and stranding network 

participants also collaborated with pathologists at the 

University of Miami, University of California-Davis, 

Colorado State University, and the Alaska Veterinary Pathology Service. 

Disease 

NMFS has continued the working relationship with the 

National Veterinary Services Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Interagency Agreement 

signed in 1997. Disease studies included continued 

evaluation of Brucella in marine mammals and retrospective studies in Hawaiian monk seals and Northern fur 

seals. Results will be available from these studies in 1999. 

Contaminants 

The contaminants component of the MMHSRP includes 

biomonitoring, archiving, and quality assurance. The 

Environmental Conservation Division (ECD) of the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center serves as the NMFS 

lead for the quality assurance and biomonitoring components of the MMHSRP. 

In 1998, approximately 420 tissue samples from various 

matrices (e.g., blood, blubber, liver, lung, milk, kidney) 

of the following species were analyzed for lipids, chlorinated hydrocarbons or essential and non-essential elements: bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), gray whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus), Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus 

schauinslandi), killer whale (Orcinus orca), northern fur 

seal (Callorhinus ursinus), polar bear (Ursus maritimus), 

ringed seal (Phoca hispida), rough-toothed dolphin (Steno 

Bredanensis), short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus 

delphis), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) and walrus 

(Odobenus rosmarus). 

These samples were collected for several projects: 

1)ongoing monitoring of contaminants in samples collected during subsistence harvests (e.g., bowhead whale, 

beluga whale); 

2)analyses of tissues from cetacean and pinniped species 

that are highly endangered and for which there are limited data (e. g., Hawaiian monk seal, killer whale); 

3)collection of tissues for the Specimen Bank project (e.g., 

ringed seal, polar bear, grey seal, beluga whale, walrus); 

4)developing or improving current analytical techniques 

that elucidate the types and levels of contaminants maPage 91 
Page 92

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Northern Fur Seal. ur Seal.

Hawaiian Monk Seal. Hawaiian Monk Seal.

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

rine mammals may be exposed to and how they may 

affect the health of these animals; and 

5) a continuing study on northern fur seal in which immune functions and other health parameters will be assessed in relationship to chlorinated hydrocarbon exposure. 

Selected activities and accomplishments are summarized 

below. 

Northern Fur Seal. Two collaborative studies were 

conducted because of concern over the health of northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) from the Pribilof Islands, Alaska. The St. Paul Island fur seal population 

stabilized in the early 1980s, whereas the number of fur 

seals on St. George Island continued to decline until the 

mid-1990s. One potential factor for these population 

trends is that certain toxic contaminants are at levels that 

may indirectly affect the health of fur seals. The first 

study, a continuing collaboration with the University of 

Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), was designed to help determine 

if there is a relationship between contaminant exposure 

and immune or health dysfunctions in fur seal pups. In 

1998, as part of a continuing study on northern fur seals, 

approximately 50 blood, blubber and liver samples of 

fur seals were collected by personnel from UAF and National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) with assistance from Aleut residents and analyzed by the 

NWFSC for toxic chemical contaminants. The (chlorinated hydrocarbon) CH data were compared to various 

immune functions and health parameters measured in 

the fur seals. In addition, ten whole body samples of 

northern fur seal prey species (e.g., walleye pollock, squid) 

were collected in 1998 and analyzed for CH concentrations and profiles to determine the transfer of these contaminants from fur seal prey to fur seal mother to her 

fetus and then to milk and pup until weaning. Preliminary data have shown that the blood of fur seal pups had 

higher contaminant levels compared to the concentrations in the blood of the dams. In addition, the CH 

levels measured in the pups of young dams were higher 

than those measured in the pups of old dams. Furthermore, fur seal pups that contained higher CH levels had 

lower retinol and thyroxine levels as well as poorer cellular immune responses compared to pups with lower contaminant concentrations. 

In a second northern fur seal study, in collaboration with 

NMML, 80 archived blubber samples of subadult males 

and juveniles and milk samples of northern fur seals from 

St. George Island and St. Paul Island, AK were analyzed 

for CHs by staff at the NWFSC. Preliminary results 

suggest that the CH concentrations measured in tissues 

of fur seals from St. George Island were higher or comparable to those found in animals from St. Paul Island. 

This northern fur seal CH data will be further analyzed 

in 1999 to determine if the contaminant levels measured 

in the fur seals are sufficient to negatively impact the 

seals. 

Hawaiian Monk Seal. The Hawaiian monk seal 

(Monachus schauinslandi) was listed as an endangered 

species in 1976. A recovery plan was implemented in 

which yearling seals were moved to Midway Atoll from 

various locations of Hawaii. Approximately 65 blood 

and blubber samples of Hawaiian monk seals from three 

sites (Midway Atoll, Pearl and Hermes Reef and French 

Frigate Shoals) were acquired by the Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center-Honolulu Laboratory, and were analyzed 

for selected chlorinated hydrocarbons (CHs), including 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and DDTs. Several 

PCBs, including moderately chlorinated non-dioxin-like 

PCBs and certain dioxin-like congeners, were measured 

in the monk seal tissue samples. However, the CH concentrations in the monk seal tissues were relatively low 

compared to the levels measured in other pinnipeds from 

the eastern Pacific (e.g., Alaska, California, Washington). 

Preliminary statistical analyses (ANOVA) of the CH data 

from the monk seals indicated that there may be significant differences in total PCB concentrations (based on 

wet weight) among collection sites, with Midway Atoll 

seals having higher CH concentrations than the animals 

from the other two sites. Although these preliminary 

data suggest that levels of certain organic contaminants 

are not elevated compared to other pinniped species, the 

highly endangered status of the Hawaiian monk seal supports caution in evaluation of the level of risk posed by 

toxic anthropogenic chemicals from this limited data set. 

Moreover, these analyses focused only on CHs and exposure to other contaminants, such as toxic metals, may 

be occurring. Future analyses should also include considerations of additional contaminants. 

Page 92 
 Page 93

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Internet Database. Internet Database. 

National Marine Mammal Tissue

Bank

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Internet Database. An internal database that had 

been used for tracking the status of samples received and 

for reporting chemical concentration data in those 

samples was modified to enable a subset of the data to be 

made available over the World Wide Web. This involved 

designing a web site which would enable users to search 

the database by several criteria and to display the requested 

information in a variety of formats, allowing users to 

organize and print selected data in a format of their choice. 

The new features of this version of FileMaker were fully 

utilized, including the provided web server plugin, and 

the dynamic markup language for providing custom interaction with the database through web pages. This language allows a degree of flexibility in what we can present 

to anyone wishing to use this database as a resource. The 

database will contain all currently published data with 

references (currently, there are more than 200 samples 

from over 80 animals), and be part of a site that contains 

information on our methodology, a guestbook to track 

user interests, and links to other marine mammal resources on the Web. As more data are published, these 

data (with references provided for the purpose of interpretation) will be added to the database, so that this searchable database of contaminants in marine mammals continues to grow in usefulness to other researchers. Portions of the web site will become publicly accessible in 

1999. 

National Marine Mammal Tissue 

Bank 

The National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank (NMMTB) 

was established in 1989 and was formalized in 1992, 

with the amendments to the MMPA. Marine mammal 

species that are representative of a specific geographic 

area or trophic level have been selected in each region of 

the United States to serve as indicators of the overall health 

of the marine mammal populations and ecosystems in 

that area. For the NMMTB, specimens are archived from 

these representative species, animals involved in unusual 

mortality events, from stranded marine mammals, animals in capture/release programs, those taken in subsistence hunts, or those killed as a result of human interaction. 

Since its inception, NMFS has continued a strong relationship with the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) to support the NMMTB and the 

contaminants Quality Assurance project. 1998 represented the second year of a five-year interagency agreement in support of the National Marine Analytical Quality Assurance Program, which was established in 1995. 

As part of this agreement, NIST has established a satellite specimen bank for marine specimens, analytical laboratories, and a Standard Reference Material (SRM) production facility in Charleston, South Carolina. The 

NMMTB and the Marine Mammal Quality Assurance 

Project are both included in this agreement. Specimens 

are collected from Alaska with support and collaboration of the United States Geological Survey/Biological 

Research Division (USGS/BRD) and Mineral Management Service through the Alaska Marine Mammal Tissue Archival Project (AMMTAP), a component of the 

NMMTB. 

Since its beginning, specimens of blubber, liver, and kidney have been routinely collected for the NMMTB. 

These tissues are collected and archived using standard 

protocols specifically designed by the program to ensure 

sample quality and to maintain sample integrity during 

long-term storage. As of December 31, 1998, the inventory of marine mammal specimens in the NMMTB collected by both the AMMTAP and the Marine Mammal 

Health and Stranding Response Program included 1,181 

specimens collected from 425 animals representing 28 

species. During 1998, 315 specimens were collected from 

105. Also in 1998, a procedure was started in which 

detailed descriptions of field collections made by NIST 

personnel were produced in NIST Reports of Analysis. 

Of the 1,181 marine mammal tissue specimens archived 

in the NMMTB, 434 were collected by the MMHSRP 

from 148 animals outside of Alaska. These included tissue specimens from 103 individuals representing twelve 

species of cetaceans and 45 individuals representing six 

species of pinnipeds. There are 747 marine mammal 

tissue specimens archived in the NMMTB collected by 

the AMMTAP from 277 animals in Alaska. These include tissue specimens from 135 individuals representing eight species of pinnipeds including walrus, 104 individuals representing three species of cetaceans and 38 

individuals representing two species of fissipeds (polar 

bears and sea otters). 

Page 93 
Page 94

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Protocol Development rotocol Development

Protocol T rotocol Training

Quality Assurance Program

Preparation and Analysis of Control reparation and Analysis of Control

Materials Materials

Interlaborator Interlaboratory Comparison Exercises y Comparison Exercises

Development of Standard Reference

Material (SRMs) Material (SRMs)

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Protocol Development 

During the reporting period, the collection of sea otter 

(Enhydra lutris) tissues began in Southeast Alaska at Sitka. 

Because of the usual lack of storage fat in these animals, 

only liver and kidney tissues are currently being banked 

from these animals. Through coordination with the sea 

otter researchers from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management Office, and the U.S. 

Geological Survey- Biological Resources Division, a draft 

sea otter protocol was written and is currently under 

review by the NMMTB interagency team. This protocol will be finalized in 1999. 

Protocol Training 

Two specimen collection and banking protocol training 

sessions were held during the reporting period for regional stranding network participants. These included 

training at the Southeast Regional Stranding Workshop 

on March 12-13, 1998 at St Petersburg, Florida and the 

Northeast Regional Stranding Workshop on March 27­

29, 1998 in Virginia Beach, Virginia. 

Quality Assurance Program 

The Quality Assurance (QA) program was initiated in 

1992 in response to the legislative mandate to improve 

the quality of chemical contaminant data for marine 

mammals and has proceeded as a collaborative effort 

between NIST and NMFS. This program principally 

involves two approaches: the development of control or 

standard reference materials using marine mammal matrices (tissue and fluids) and interlaboratory comparisons. 

Control material and standard reference materials are 

developed on an as-needed basis. At least annual 

interlaboratory comparisons are performed with external labs for both organic and inorganic analyses. 

Preparation and Analysis of Control 

Materials 

A second liver homogenate control material (Whale Liver 

Homogenate II) is being developed from liver tissue collected from beluga whales taken in Alaska native subsistence hunts in 1996. Cryogenic homogenization and 

preparation of this material began in 1997. Aliquots of 

this material were provided to NIST Gaithersburg, the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Environmental Conservation Division (NWFSC/ECD) and the Department 

of Veterinary Anatomy and Public Health at Texas A&M 

University. Initially, this new beluga whale liver control 

material was being considered as a candidate for the development of a marine mammal liver SRM; however it 

will probably not be developed into an SRM, but will 

continue to be used as a quality control material. 

Mercury concentrations on aliquots of Whale Liver 

Homogenate II have been determined at NIST through 

use of Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis and are 

reported in Report of Analyses 839.05-99-004. Trace 

element concentrations from the individual laboratories 

on Whale Liver Homogenate II will be reported in 1999. 

Interlaboratory Comparison Exercises 

During 1998, an interlaboratory comparison exercise on 

trace elements in beluga whale liver sample splits was 

initiated between NIST, NWFSC/ECD, and the Department of Veterinary Anatomy and Public Health at 

Texas A&M University. The results have been requested 

from each laboratory and a comparison of results will be 

provided in 1999. Previous results from exercises on inorganic analysis of marine mammal liver tissue conducted 

by NIST and NWFSC/ECD were reviewed and summarized in Report of Analysis 839.05-97-003. Elements 

examined were silver, arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, 

mercury, manganese, selenium, vanadium, and zinc. 

Materials compared included a pilot whale liver, bovine 

liver, and liver samples from harbor porpoises, beluga 

whales, bowhead whales, white-sided dolphins, and 

ringed seals. 

Also during 1998, analytical results from an 

intercomparison of analyses of Cook Inlet beluga whale 

blubber tissues for PCBs and chlorinated pesticides were 

received from the NIST Gaithersburg laboratory, the 

NWFSC/ECD, and Freshwater Institute, Department 

of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada. These results are being 

compared and will be reported in 1999. 

Development of Standard Reference 

Material (SRMs) 

The experience gained from the preparation and analysis 

of the pilot whale blubber control material was used to 

develop SRM 1945 Organics in Whale Blubber, a certiPage 94 
 Page 95

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Requests for Samples equests for Samples

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

fied material that can be used for validating measurements of organic contaminant in marine mammal blubber. Concentrations for 27 PCB congeners and 15 chlorinated pesticide have been certified for this SRM and 

non-certified values for two additional PCB congeners 

(PCB 28 and 31) and chlorinated pesticides (dieldrin 

and B-HCH) are also available. The analytical data for 

the certification of PCBs and chlorinated pesticides in 

SRM 1945 are provided. The low relative uncertainties 

associated with the majority of analyte concentrations 

(5-10%) and the extensive list of certified analytes makes 

SRM 1945 a valuable resource for validating analytical 

methods for the determination of PCB congeners and 

chlorinated pesticides in marine mammal blubber and 

other high lipid-containing materials. 

Requests for Samples 

Requests for samples were received from two researchers 

outside of either the MMHSRP or the AMMTAP. Blubber samples of potential polar prey were requested by a 

researcher at the Denver Zoological Gardens, who is conducting a study of vitamin D3 deficiencies in polar bears. 

The resulting data and a copy of the poster on the results 

were presented at the 5th Symposium on the Biological 

Effects of Light in November 1998 in Switzerland. 

Samples of liver from three bowhead whales were also 

provided to the Center for Coastal Environmental Health 

and Bimolecular Research at Charleston. 

Twelve presentations, two posters, one formal agency 

report, three contributions to formal agency reports, and 

one peer-reviewed publication were produced by NIST 

staff during 1998. 

Page 95 
Page 96

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Chapter XI. Public Education and Outreach P Chapter XI. Public Education and Outreach Programs rograms

photo by: Michael Payne, NMFS

National Effor National Efforts

MMPA Bulletin

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Chapter XI. Public Education and Outreach Programs


As a part of implementing its programs and policies, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) supports 

numerous public outreach and education efforts through 

its headquarters office as well as in each of its regions. 

Some of these outreach efforts are solely NMFS coordinated, but the vast majority of these projects have been 

undertaken as a part of collaborative efforts between 

NMFS, other governmental agencies, and/or non-governmental groups to promote common goals and/or 

policies. 

NMFS and its programs affect a variety of people from 

fishers, to managers, to conservationists, to policy-makers. Public outreach is critical to convey NMFS’ messages and announce new programs as well as changes in 

existing ones. Outreach programs allow the public access to information about federal policies and initiatives 

in their area of interest. Some of these efforts directly 

address particular programs, and descriptions of these 

outreach initiatives can be found in their respective sections of this report. 

photo by: Michael Payne, NMFS 

National Efforts 

MMPA Bulletin 

To provide the public with concise, up-to-date information on its programs, NMFS’ publishes the MMPA Bulletin. The Bulletin is a quarterly publication of the Office 

of Protected Resources designed to increase public awareness of and participation in MMPA legislative, regulatory, and implementation processes. The first edition, 

published in September 1994, included a description of 

the MMPA Amendments of 1994, and subsequent editions have focused on NMFS’ efforts to implement the 

Amendments and other aspects of the MMPA. The 

MMPA Bulletin’s readership consists of commercial fishers as well as members of the environmental and marine 

mammal science communities, state and federal agencies dealing with protected species issues, Alaska Native 

organizations, public display facilities, and Congress. 

The MMPA Bulletin’s readership has increased from approximately 1,800 in 1996, to 2,400 in 1997, and to 

over 3,000 in 1998. This increase can be partially attributed to an overall increased interest in marine mammal 

Page 96 
 Page 97

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Figure 1. igure 1. MMPA Bulletin Readership Worldwide

www.nmfs.gov/prot_res/mammals/bulletin.html

Posters to Remind Fishers to Report

Incidental Injuries and Mor Incidental Injuries and Mortalities talities

NOAA Join the “National Watchable

Wildlife Program” rogram”

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Figure 1. MMPA Bulletin Readership Worldwide 

Canada 63 

Australia and Australia and

New Zealand New Zealand New Zealand 

United States United States

~2800

Central and South Central and South

America America America 

Europe154

Asia 

Africa Africa 

45

64

38

6

conservation issues from the general public. NMFS has 

also worked to increase the MMPA Bulletin’s readership 

through posting announcements about the availability 

of the MMPA Bulletin on key internet listservers, such as 

“MARMAM” and “WILDLIFE HEALTH” as well as 

on the Office of Protected Resources web site at: 

www.nmfs.gov/prot_res/mammals/bulletin.html 

Although the vast majority of the readership is in the 

United States, international interest in the Bulletin has 

recently increased. Individuals from 56 countries around 

the world receive the MMPA Bulletin, with Canada, the 

United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil, and Germany having the most recipients. 

Posters to Remind Fishers to Report 

Incidental Injuries and Mortalities 

The MMPA Amendments of 1994 required all commercial fishers to report any incidental injuries or mortalities of marine mammals to NMFS within 48 hours 

of returning to port; however, daily logbooks of fishing 

activity are no longer required (see Chapter III. Reducing Interactions Between Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries). To remind fishermen of their reporting responsibilities under the MMPA, the NMFS Office 

of Protected Resources, the Center for Marine Conservation, and the Norcross Wildlife Association developed 

a poster for display at fishing ports and marinas in 1997. 

The poster depicts a fishing vessel at sea, with the caption: 

“Before you head home.... remember to fill out a marine 

mammal reporting form.” 

There are two versions of the poster, one depicting a typical East Coast fishing vessel, and one depicting a typical 

West Coast vessel. The distribution of the posters continued in 1998. NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

plans to work with the U.S. Coast Guard and the NMFS 

Office of Enforcement to distribute these posters in 1999. 

NOAA Join the “National Watchable 

Wildlife Program” 

The National Watchable Wildlife Program (NWWP) is 

a unique partnership between federal, state and environmental groups that have been promoting safe and rePage 97 
Page 98

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

“Protect Dolphins” Campaign Continues rotect Dolphins” Campaign Continues

to Combat Feeding and Harassment of to Combat Feeding and Harassment of

Wild Dolphins ild Dolphins

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

sponsible wildlife viewing guidelines for the past ten years. 

Organizations that have signed the NWWP Memorandum of Understanding include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park 

Service, Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, National Wildlife Federation, and other wildlife interest 

groups. The NWWP produces various public education and outreach materials to teach people how to responsibly and respectfully view wildlife, including an 

informative state guidebook series that highlights places 

to view wildlife while educating the public as to why it is 

harmful to closely approach, disturb, and feed wild animals. 

The NWWP has developed guidelines on how to view 

wildlife to help protect the safety and well-being of both 

wild animals and people, such as: viewing wildlife from 

a safe distance and using binoculars for a “close look”; 

staying clear of nests, dens and rookeries; and never touching or feeding wild animals. To date, over twenty state 

guidebooks have been completed and several more are in 

production. In addition, the Center for Wildlife Information (CWI) in Missoula, Montana works closely with 

NWWP member organizations who are CWI “Partners 

in Wildlife Stewardship.” CWI produces complimentary education and outreach materials such as the “Wildlife Stewardship” brochure and poster series that provides 

information on how to safely view and photograph wildlife. 

Although the NWWP has historically focused on terrestrial species of wildlife, the NWWP’s viewing etiquette 

and wildlife stewardship principles directly apply to marine species as well. In the summer of 1998, both NMFS 

and the National Ocean Service (NOS) were accepted 

by the NWWP as “Supporters” of the program. NMFS 

and NOS participation will help broaden the NWWP 

to focus efforts on marine species, and will be an opportunity to enhance NOAA’s education and outreach efforts to guide the public on responsible wildlife viewing 

in the marine environment. The NWWP will complement NMFS’ current efforts to address the persistent 

problems such as: (1) people closely approaching, feeding and disturbing marine mammals, sea turtles, sea birds 

and fish; and (2) engaging in harmful boating and diving/ snorkeling practices that damage coral reef, sea grass, 

and other marine resources. 

In October 1998, NMFS and NOS delivered a joint 

presentation at the 1998 NWWP conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico that explained the need to apply 

the NWWP viewing guidelines and stewardship principles to marine species, and ways to meet that objective. 

NMFS and NOS also participated in the conference’s 

Wildlife Expo by displaying an exhibit booth and handing out education and outreach materials about marine 

mammals, endangered marine species and NOAA’s diverse programs. Several of NOS’ National Estuarine 

Research Reserves sites have already been working with 

the NWWP for several years. The participation of NMFS 

and NOS with the NWWP (collaboratively on behalf of 

NOAA), will help ensure that the wildlife stewardship 

principles are incorporated throughout the various elements of NOAA. NMFS and NOS have already contributed to the upcoming NWWP guidebook for the 

Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and the NOS National 

Marine Sanctuaries has developed a “Sea Smart-See 

Smart” campaign consistent with the NWWP. Plans are 

currently underway for an overview guidebook focusing 

on how to safely and responsibly view all species of marine wildlife from whales to corals and a guidebook for 

the state of Hawaii. The 1999 annual NWWP conference will be held in Ft. Myers, Florida, which will provide an opportunity for NMFS and NOS to highlight 

marine species and habitats. 

“Protect Dolphins” Campaign Continues 

to Combat Feeding and Harassment of 

Wild Dolphins 

Feeding marine mammals in the wild alters their behavior in ways that put them at increased risk of injury and 

death, and may impact their ability or willingness to forage for food. NMFS’ prohibition on feeding was upheld in 1993 by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 

and is widely supported by the scientific research and 

environmental communities since provisioning of any 

species of wildlife is known to be harmful. NMFS is also 

concerned that “Swim-with-Dolphin” activities risk harassing the animals because they seek out and interact 

with dolphins in a manner that has the potential to disturb the animals’ behavioral patterns. In the Southeast 

United States, many of these programs are directly facilitated by illegal dolphin feeding. 

Page 98 
 Page 99

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Regional Effor egional Efforts

Northeast Region

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Throughout 1998, NMFS continued to promote the 

“Protect Dolphins” campaign to educate the public that 

feeding and harassing wild dolphins is harmful and illegal under the MMPA (see 1997 MMPA Annual Report). 

Public awareness is a key factor in effectively addressing 

the problem since most people who engage in the activities do not realize that they are placing the dolphins and 

themselves at risk. NMFS continued to work with researchers, public display facilities, and environmental 

groups to foster a “wildlife stewardship etiquette” and to 

make the distinction between passive observation and 

interaction. NMFS encourages passive observation from 

a safe distance of at least 50 yards (45 m) with binoculars 

or a telephoto lens as the best way to observe wild dolphins. 

In January 1998, NMFS issued a press release as a reminder that it is still against federal law to feed and harass wild dolphins. The reminder was in response to 

press coverage about a Florida state court ruling on 

Florida’s wildlife law regarding feeding that caused confusion regarding jurisdictional authority over marine 

mammals. The press release clarified that feeding and 

harassment are illegal under federal law. However, dolphin feeding and harassment continues to be a serious 

concern throughout the Southeast United States, in particular Florida, Texas, and South Carolina. The flurry of 

feeding activity concerns NMFS officials because the 

average citizen is unaware that offering a dolphin a handout is harmful to the dolphins, dangerous to people, and 

illegal under the MMPA. 

During 1998, outreach and education efforts included: 

* reprinting (in collaboration with the National Aquarium 

in Baltimore) and distributing the brochure entitled “Protect Dolphins – Admire Them From a Distance,” which 

explains why feeding and harassment of wild dolphins is 

harmful and illegal, and that the best way to view wild 

dolphins is to passively observe them from a distance of 

50 yards (45 m) while using binoculars or telephoto lenses; 

* reprinting and distributing a revised metal warning sign 

for posting in marinas and waterways; 

* conducting awareness campaigns by the NMFS Office 

of Enforcement’s “Protected Resources Enforcement 

Team” and Office of Protected Resources during the Memorial Day, July 4th, and Labor Day weekends in Panama 

City, Florida (where dolphin feeding and harassment have 

been a persistent problem); and 

* conducting several media interviews with national and 

local news organizations. 

In addition, NMFS worked with the Marine Mammal 

Commission to conduct a pilot study with researchers 

from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Chicago Zoological Society and Duke University Marine 

Laboratory to evaluate the scope and effects of the public’s 

feeding and interacting with wild dolphins in Florida. 

The NMFS Office of Protected Resources also supported 

a NOAA Sea Grant graduate student from the Duke 

University Marine Lab whose masters’ thesis focused on 

human/wild dolphin interactions in Florida. The data 

collected from both research projects are still being analyzed, and reports are expected in 1999. The Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center conducts research to document 

the status of bottlenose dolphin populations in the Florida 

panhandle, the area where feeding of wild dolphins is 

known to be a significant problem. 

Regional Efforts 

Northeast Region 

Outreach activities are integral to all components of the 

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. In 1998, 

NMFS continued to work with the Sea Grant offices at 

the University of Maine and University of Rhode Island 

to conduct an outreach program in the New England 

and Mid-Atlantic areas. Sea Grant organized several meetings, workshops, and seminars at key fishermen’s forums 

held in spring 1998. 

These outreach efforts will provide the results of gear 

research to fishermen and serve as a conduit for suggestions from fishermen to the Gear Advisory Group and 

directly to gear researchers. NMFS will continue to support the Maine Plan Coordinator and will work with 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island to develop similar 

dockside outreach efforts in their areas. 

Page 99 
Page 100

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Southeast Region

Southwest Region

Alaska Region

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

NMFS also expanded the Large Whale Disentanglement 

Network to provide full-time coverage for the entire Gulf 

of Maine and made significant efforts in Maine in the 

spring of 1998 to educate fishermen about proper reporting, and operational procedures regarding entangled 

whales. NMFS anticipates that the fishers training workshops conducted will be good templates for similar training in the Southeast United States and other key areas 

along the East Coast. 

Southeast Region 

The Protected Resources Division in the Southeast region is cooperating with Eckerd College by providing 

space for an unpaid intern who is conducting research 

on bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) interactions 

in proximity to commercial and recreational boating facilities. The research is related to bottlenose dolphin education and outreach, and the student will assist the Division by conducting education and outreach activities with 

a special emphasis on educating the public as to laws and 

regulations governing human interactions (e.g., swimming and feeding) with dolphins. 

The NMFS Southeast Region Protected Resources Division is also developing a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) with the Harbor Branch Foundation, a nonprofit marine conservation and research facility in Ft. 

Pierce, Florida, to develop and conduct a program for 

the conservation of wild dolphins in Florida. Harbor 

Branch will receive state funds from the proceeds generated by a special vehicle license plate with a “Protect Wild 

Dolphins” theme. Harbor Branch is setting up a competitive grant program to allocate proceeds from the licence plate sales to fund research and management programs for bottlenose dolphins on an annual basis. Funds 

obtained through this competitive process could be used 

to support the MOA with NMFS. 

Southwest Region 

Hawaiian monk seals (Monachus schauinslandi) resting 

on Kauai’s beaches are often disturbed by beach goers. 

Recently, the Hawaii Department of Land & Natural 

Resources’ Division of Aquatic Resources established the 

Kauai Monk Seal Watch Program, a partnership of government agencies, including NMFS and the County of 

Kauai, and the public to respond to all reports of seals 

hauled out along Kauai’s shoreline. Augmented with community volunteers, MSWP’s mission is to sustain and 

enhance the Hawaiian monk seal and its habitat by instituting a management and monitoring program that encourages community participation and promotes environmental education and cultural awareness. In 1998, 

NMFS Honolulu Laboratory’s Marine Mammal Research Program has continued its active involvement in 

the MSWP. 

The MSWP government-volunteer network seeks to promote education and appreciation of monk seals by providing on-site information when Hawaiian monk seals 

are hauled up on Kauai’s beaches. MSWP volunteers 

protect the animals by keeping visitors at appropriate 

distances, fencing off mothers with pups, and posting 

signs and information flyers in the vicinity of the animals. Volunteers also record seal-human interaction and 

seal behavior, as well as annotate “scar cards” used for seal 

identification to be incorporated into the NMFS monk 

seal database. In the spirit of ethical wildlife watching 

principles, the MSWP promotes public education and 

outreach, safe viewing practices, and supports the collection of information to assist in research and management. 

Alaska Region 

The Alaska Region continued its public outreach campaign to increase awareness of the Marine Mammal Viewing Guidelines. The Alaska Region published brochures 

and laminated posters describing the recommendations 

Page 100 
 Page 101

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Northwest Region

www.nwr.noaa.gov

NMFS National Marine Mammal S National Marine Mammal

Laborator aboratory

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

for responsible marine mammal viewing. This printed 

material was distributed widely to wildlife viewing operators and associations, other marine operators, the public, and in harbors and ports. The Region also conducted 

public meetings to present and discuss this information 

to interested groups. Outreach material from Protected 

Resources- Alaska Region was also distributed in other 

public arenas, at fishing industry conventions and in an 

educational display at the University of Alaska Southeast. Staff in the Protected Resources Division also gave 

presentations on marine mammals to local school classes 

and to the Forest Service resource personnel who work 

on the Alaska Marine Highway System. Staff also supervised a student intern conducting a marine mammal 

stranding project in the Alaska Region. 

Northwest Region 

The Northwest Region (NWR) expanded its outreach 

program in 1998 by revising its web page to include 

marine mammal information that responded to the most 

commonly asked questions by the public in areas such as 

expanding pinniped populations, the Report to Congress on West Coast Pinnipeds, and Makah Tribe whaling. The NWR web site can be found at: 

www.nwr.noaa.gov 

The NWR also conducted workshops to familiarize State 

and local officials with the ecology of regional marine 

mammals and the provisions of the MMPA. Workshops 

were held for authorities on the Olympic Peninsula, 

Washington and on the central Oregon Coast. The workshops included a review of the marine mammals commonly encountered in the Pacific Northwest, presentations on marine mammal life history and identification, 

handling protocols for stranded marine mammals, and 

a summary of the marine mammal regulations. The 

NWR also continues to issue seasonal notices to the public 

on the occurrence of harbor seal pupping during the 

spring and summer months. These news releases remind 

the public that seals need to use shoreline habitat during 

pupping and that live animals found on beaches are to 

be left undisturbed. 

NMFS National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory 

Staff from the National Marine Mammal Laboratory 

(NMML) participated in many public outreach activities in 1998. They gave presentations to 27 primary/ 

secondary school classes, three university classes, and seven 

community groups on various topics, including marine 

mammal biology and ecology; marine mammals of the 

Northwest United States; aerial, vessel, and land-based 

survey methods and results; NMML research programs; 

and career opportunities in marine mammal science. 

They also participated in eight Family Science Nights at 

local elementary schools, three career days at local high 

schools, and a career fair at the University of Washington’s 

College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences; answered interview questions from students and members of the media; hosted 14 students and two teachers in job-shadow 

programs; conducted three hands-on workshops for junior high school girls; gave tours of the NMML labs, dermestid beetle colony, and skeletal collection to two school 

groups; supervised five volunteers and an intern who 

processed specimens and organized and cataloged data; 

mentored a high school student who completed a Senior 

Project on marine mammals; and trained two classes of 

ship-board observers to collect marine mammal sighting 

data for the Platforms of Opportunity Program. 

Two marine mammal educational display boards (created by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center Diversity 

Panel) and a collection of marine mammal specimens 

were used in many of the outreach activities. The staff 

also distributed NMFS marine mammal and fish posters, NOAA Year of the Ocean posters and pamphlets, 

and the NMFS Science Teacher’s Resource Guide to 

teachers, students, and community groups. 

Page 101 
 i

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Estimated # of marine mammal species or stocks incidentally injured/killed

vessels or persons vessels or persons

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fisheries isheries

Categor Category I

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, 15 North Atlantic right whale Humpback whale

Gulf of Mexico large pelagics Sperm whale Dwarf sperm whale

drift gillnet Cuvier’s beaked whale Harbor porpoise

True’s beaked whale Gervais’ beaked whale

Blainville’s beaked whale Risso’s dolphin

Long-finned pilot whale Short-finned pilot whale

Atlantic white-sided dolphin Common dolphin

Atlantic spotted dolphin Pantropical spotted dolphin

Striped dolphin Spinner dolphin

Bottlenose dolphin

Northeast sink gillnet 341 North Atlantic right whale Humpback whale

Minke whale Killer whale

Atlantic white-sided dolphin Striped dolphin

Bottlenose dolphin Harbor porpoise

Harbor seal Harbor seal Gray seal Gray seal

Common dolphin Fin whale

Spotted dolphin False killer whale

Harp seal Harp seal

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, 361 Humpback whale Minke whale

Gulf of Mexico large Risso’s dolphin Long-finned pilot whale

pelagics longline Short-finned pilot whale Common dolphin

Atlantic spotted dolphin Pantropical spotted dolphin

Striped dolphin Bottlenose dolphin

Harbor porpoise

Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid-Atlantic 13,000 North Atlantic right whale Humpback whale

lobster trap/pot Fin whale Minke whale

Atlantic white-sided dolphin Harbor seal Harbor seal

Categor Category II

U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet >655 Humpback whale Bottlenose dolphin

Minke whale Harbor porpoise

Gulf of Maine small pelagics 133 Humpback whale Atlantic white-sided dolphin

surface gillnet Harbor seal Harbor seal

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark 12 Bottlenose dolphin North Atlantic right whale

gillnet

Atlantic squid, mackerel, 620 Common dolphin Risso’s dolphin

butterfish trawl fish trawl Long-and short-finned pilot whales Atlantic white-sided dolphin

Atlantic herring midwater trawl Atlantic herring midwater trawl 17 none documented

(including pair trawl)

Mid-Atlantic haul seine 25 Bottlenose dolphin Harbor porpoise

Gulf of Mexico menhaden 50 Bottlenose dolphin

purse seine

North Carolina roe mullet stop net 13 Bottlenose dolphin

Appendix A. The 1999 List of Categor Appendix A. The 1999 List of Category I and II Fisheries isheries

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Appendix A. The 1999 List of Category I and II Fisheries


Estimated # of marine mammal species or stocks incidentally injured/killed 

vessels or persons 

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fisheries 

Category I


Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean,


Gulf of Mexico large pelagics


drift gillnet


Northeast sink gillnet 341


Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, 361


Gulf of Mexico large


pelagics longline


Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid-Atlantic


lobster trap/pot


Category II


U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet


Gulf of Maine small pelagics 

surface gillnet 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark 

gillnet 

Atlantic squid, mackerel, 

butterfish trawl 

Atlantic herring midwater trawl 

(including pair trawl) 

Mid-Atlantic haul seine 

Gulf of Mexico menhaden 

purse seine 

North Carolina roe mullet stop net 

15 

13,000 

>655 

133 

12 

620 

17 

25 

50 

13 

North Atlantic right whale


Sperm whale


Cuvier’s beaked whale


True’s beaked whale


Blainville’s beaked whale


Long-finned pilot whale


Atlantic white-sided dolphin


Atlantic spotted dolphin


Striped dolphin


Bottlenose dolphin


North Atlantic right whale


Minke whale


Atlantic white-sided dolphin


Bottlenose dolphin


Harbor seal


Common dolphin


Spotted dolphin


Harp seal


Humpback whale


Risso’s dolphin


Short-finned pilot whale


Atlantic spotted dolphin


Striped dolphin


Harbor porpoise


North Atlantic right whale


Fin whale


Atlantic white-sided dolphin


Humpback whale


Minke whale


Humpback whale


Harbor seal


Bottlenose dolphin


Common dolphin


Long-and short-finned pilot whales


none documented


Bottlenose dolphin


Bottlenose dolphin


Bottlenose dolphin


Humpback whale


Dwarf sperm whale


Harbor porpoise


Gervais’ beaked whale


Risso’s dolphin


Short-finned pilot whale


Common dolphin


Pantropical spotted dolphin


Spinner dolphin


Humpback whale


Killer whale


Striped dolphin


Harbor porpoise


Gray seal


Fin whale


False killer whale


Minke whale


Long-finned pilot whale


Common dolphin


Pantropical spotted dolphin


Bottlenose dolphin


Humpback whale


Minke whale


Harbor seal


Bottlenose dolphin


Harbor porpoise


Atlantic white-sided dolphin


North Atlantic right whale


Risso’s dolphin


Atlantic white-sided dolphin


Harbor porpoise


i 
 ii

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Pacific Ocean Fisheries

Categor Category I:

CA angel shark/halibut and 58 Harbor porpoise Common dolphin

other species large mesh (>3.5in) California sea lion Harbor seal Harbor seal

set gillnet Northern elephant seal thern elephant seal Sea otter

CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish 130 Steller sea lion Sperm whale

drift gillnet Dall’s porpoise Pacific white-sided dolphin

Risso’s dolphin Bottlenose dolphin

Common dolphin Northern right whale dolphin

Short-finned pilot whale Baird’s beaked whale

Mesoplodont beaked whales Cuvier’s beaked whale

Pygmy sperm whale California sea lion

Northern elephant seal thern elephant seal Humpback whale

Minke whale Striped dolphin

Northern fur seal thern fur seal Killer whale

Categor Category II:

AK Prince William Sound 509 Steller sea lion Northern fur seal thern fur seal

salmon drift gillnet Harbor seal Harbor seal Pacific white-sided dolphin

Harbor porpoise Dall’s porpoise

AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon 163 Northern fur seal thern fur seal Harbor seal Harbor seal

drift gillnet Harbor porpoise Dall’s porpoise

AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands 110 Steller sea lion Harbor porpoise

salmon set gillnet

Southeast Alaska salmon 439 Steller sea lion Harbor seal Harbor seal

drift gillnet Pacific white-sided dolphin Harbor porpoise

Dall’s porpoise Humpback whale

AK Cook Inlet salmon 560 Steller sea lion Harbor seal Harbor seal

drift gillnet Harbor porpoise Dall’s porpoise

Beluga

AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet 604 Steller sea lion Harbor seal Harbor seal

Harbor porpoise Beluga

Dall’s porpoise

AK Yakutat salmon set gillnet 139 Harbor seal Harbor seal Gray whale

AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet 172 Harbor seal Harbor seal Harbor porpoise

Sea otter

AK Bristol Bay salmon 1,884 Steller sea lion Northern fur seal thern fur seal

drift gillnet Harbor seal Harbor seal Beluga

Gray whale Spotted seal Spotted seal

Pacific white-sided dolphin

AK Bristol Bay salmon set gillnet 941 Harbor seal Harbor seal Beluga

Gray whale Northern fur seal thern fur seal

Spotted seal Spotted seal

AK Metlakatla/Annette 60 None documented

Island salmon drift gillnet

WA Puget Sound Region 900 Harbor porpoise Dall’s porpoise

salmon drift gillnet Harbor seal Harbor seal

(Treaty Indian fishing excluded)

Appendix A (cont). The 1999 List of Categor Appendix A (cont). The 1999 List of Category I and II Fisheries isheries

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Appendix A (cont). The 1999 List of Category I and II Fisheries


Pacific Ocean Fisheries 

Category I:


CA angel shark/halibut and


other species large mesh (>3.5in)


set gillnet


CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish 

drift gillnet 

Category II:


AK Prince William Sound


salmon drift gillnet


AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon 

drift gillnet 

AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands 

salmon set gillnet 

Southeast Alaska salmon 

drift gillnet 

AK Cook Inlet salmon 

drift gillnet 

AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet 

AK Yakutat salmon set gillnet 

AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet 

AK Bristol Bay salmon 

drift gillnet 

AK Bristol Bay salmon set gillnet 

AK Metlakatla/Annette 

Island salmon drift gillnet 

WA Puget Sound Region 

salmon drift gillnet 

(Treaty Indian fishing excluded) 

58 Harbor porpoise Common dolphin 

California sea lion Harbor seal 

Northern elephant seal Sea otter 

130 Steller sea lion Sperm whale 

Dall’s porpoise Pacific white-sided dolphin 

Risso’s dolphin Bottlenose dolphin 

Common dolphin Northern right whale dolphin 

Short-finned pilot whale Baird’s beaked whale 

Mesoplodont beaked whales Cuvier’s beaked whale 

Pygmy sperm whale California sea lion 

Northern elephant seal Humpback whale 

Minke whale Striped dolphin 

Northern fur seal Killer whale 

509 Steller sea lion Northern fur seal 

Harbor seal Pacific white-sided dolphin 

Harbor porpoise Dall’s porpoise 

163 Northern fur seal Harbor seal 

Harbor porpoise Dall’s porpoise 

110 Steller sea lion Harbor porpoise 

439 Steller sea lion Harbor seal 

Pacific white-sided dolphin Harbor porpoise 

Dall’s porpoise Humpback whale 

560 Steller sea lion Harbor seal 

Harbor porpoise Dall’s porpoise 

Beluga 

604 Steller sea lion Harbor seal 

Harbor porpoise Beluga 

Dall’s porpoise 

139 Harbor seal Gray whale 

172 Harbor seal Harbor porpoise 

Sea otter 

1,884 Steller sea lion Northern fur seal 

Harbor seal Beluga 

Gray whale Spotted seal 

Pacific white-sided dolphin 

941 Harbor seal Beluga 

Gray whale Northern fur seal 

Spotted seal 

60 None documented 

900 Harbor porpoise Dall’s porpoise 

Harbor seal 

ii 
 iii

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

AK Southeast salmon purse seine 357 Humpback whale

CA anchovy, mackerel, 150 Bottlenose dolphin California sea lion

tuna purse seine Harbor seal Harbor seal

CA squid purse seine 65 Short-finned pilot whale

AK misc. finfish pair trawl AK misc. finfish pair trawl 4 None documented

OR swordfish floating longline 2 None documented

OR blue shark floating longline 1 None documented

Appendix A (cont). The 1999 List of Categor Appendix A (cont). The 1999 List of Category I and II Fisheries isheries

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Appendix A (cont). The 1999 List of Category I and II Fisheries


AK Southeast salmon purse seine 357 Humpback whale 

CA anchovy, mackerel, 150 Bottlenose dolphin California sea lion 

tuna purse seine Harbor seal 

CA squid purse seine 65 Short-finned pilot whale 

AK misc. finfish pair trawl 4 None documented 

OR swordfish floating longline 2 None documented 

OR blue shark floating longline 1 None documented 

iii

 iv

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Appendix B. Marine Mammal Authorization Program Mor rogram Mortality/Injur tality/Injury

Reports for 1998

Species Fisheries Injured Killed

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Appendix B. Marine Mammal Authorization Program Mortality/Injury


Reports for 1998


Species Fisheries 

Beaked whale Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico 

large pelagics drift gillnet 

False killer whale Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico 

large pelagics longline 

Gray whale CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 

Minke whale Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico 

large pelagics longline 

U.S. Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet 

Sperm whale 

CA/OR thresher shark-swordfish drift gillnet 

Pilot whale Atlantic Ocean/Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico large 

pelagics drift gillnet 

Atl. white-sided dolphin Atlantic Ocean/Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico 

large pelagics drift gillnet 

Bottlenose dolphin Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large 

pelagics drift gillnet 

U.S. Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet 

Gulf of Mexico menhaden purse seine 

Common dolphin CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 

Atlantic Ocean/Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico 

large pelagics drift gillnet 

CA angel shark/ halibut and other species large 

mesh set gillnet 

Atlantic squid, mackerel, butterfish trawl 

Risso’s dolphin Atlantic Ocean/Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico large 

pelagics drift gillnet 

Atlantic Ocean/Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico large 

pelagics longline 

Striped dolphin Atlantic Ocean/Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico large 

pelagics drift gillnet 

Harbor porpoise AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet 

Injured Killed 

0 9 

1 0 

0 1 

1 0 

0 1 

0 1 

0 8 

0 12 

0 1 

0 1 

0 1 

2 5 

1 165 

0 2 

0 12 

0 7 

1 0 

0 1 

1 0 

iv 
 v

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Species Fisheries Injured Killed

Appendix B. (cont). Marine Mammal Authorization Program Mor rogram Mortality/ tality/

Injury Reports for 1998

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Appendix B. (cont). Marine Mammal Authorization Program Mortality/


Injury Reports for 1998


Species 

Dall’s porpoise 

Humpback whale 

Unid. small cetacean 

California sea lion 

Steller sea lion 

Harbor seal 

Fisheries 

Northeast sink gillnet 

WA/OR/CA groundfish trawl 

AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet 

AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet 

CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet 

CA angel shark/halibut/other species large mesh set 

gillnet 

WA/OR salmon net pen 

WA/OR/CA groundfish trawl


CA/OR thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet


New England multispecies sink gillnet


WA/OR salmon net pens


U.S. Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet


WA/OR/CA groundfish trawl


Injured Killed 

2 2 

2 0 

0 0 

1 0 

3 16 

0 2 

4 12 

1 3 

0 1 

3 8 

3 5 

0 1 

0 1 

v 
 vi

Marine Mammal P Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual R rotection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Appendix C. Estimates of Total Incidental Dolphin Mortality for U.S. and Foreign Purse Seine Vessels in 

the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, 1971-1998 

U.S. Foreign Foreign

Year Vessels1 U.S. Kill

2 Vessels1 Kill3 Total Kill4

1971 124 246,213 48 15,715 261,928

1972 127 368,600 58 55,078 423,678

1973 133 206,697 68 58,276 264,973

1974 135 147,437 77 27,245 174,682

1975 142 166,645 82 27,812 194,457

1976 155 108,740 94 19,482 128,222

1977 142 25,452 104 25,901 51,353

1978 101 19,366 121 11,147 30,513

1979 93 17,938 121 3,488 21,426

1980 89 15,305 132 16,665 31,970

1981 94 7,890 118 7,199 35,089

1982 89 23,267 97 5,837 29,104

1983 60 8,513 99 4,980 13,493

1984 34 17,732 91 22,980 40,712

1985 36 19,205 105 39,642 58,847

1986 34 20,692 101 112,482 133,174

1987 34 13,992 126 85,195 99,187

1988 37 19,712 95 59,215 78,927

1989 29 12,643 93 84,336 96,979

1990 29 5,083 94 47,448 52,531

1991 13 1,004 90 26,288 27,292

1992 7 431 90 15,108 15,539

1993 7 115 89 3,486 3,601

1994 7 106 75 3,989 4,095

1995 5 0 99 3,274 3,274

1996 6 0 88 2,547 2,547

1997 6 0 92 3,000 3,000

1998 6 24 92 1,853 1,877

1Data from Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2Data from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 3Derived by subtracting U.S. data from IATTC total mortality estimates of sets made on dolphin during the period. 4Data for 1971-78 from NMFS; data after 1978 from IATTC using MPS method.

vi 
 vii

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Appendix D. Cetacean Strandings in 1998

1998 

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Appendix D. Cetacean Strandings in 1998 

Species NE SE SW NW AK 

Balaenidae 

Northern Right Whale 1

Bowhead Whale 1

Balaenopteridae 

Blue Whale 1

Fin Whale 4 1 1 2

Humpback Whale 4 3 4 2 11

Minke Whale 5 2 1 1

Unid. Balaenopterid 4

Eschrichtiidae 

Gray Whale 30 4 5

Unidentified Baleen Whale 4 4 2 1

Physeteridae 

Sperm Whale 1 1

Dwarf Sperm Whale 12

Pygmy Sperm Whale 4 39 7

Pyg. or Dwf. Sperm Whale 3

Ziphiidae 

Blainville’s Beaked Whale 1

Cuvier’s Beaked Whale 4 3 1 1

Gervais’ Beaked Whale 14

Stejneger’s Beaked Whale 1

Peruvian Beaked Whale 1

Monodontidae 

Beluga 36

Delphinidae 

Killer Whale 1 2

Pygmy Killer Whale 4

Melon-Headed Whale 2

vii 
 viii

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Appendix D(cont).Cetacean Strandings in 1998

1 9 9 8 

7

1 5

9 0

1 4 1

1

1

7

2 1 2

1

2 9 1 2

2 2 1

1 5

2 5

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Appendix D(cont).Cetacean Strandings in 1998


S p ec ie s 

D e lp hinid a e (c o nt.) 

Lo ng-finne d P ilo t W hale

Sho rt-finne d Pilo t W hale

A tlantic W hite -side d Do lphin

P acific W hite -sid e d D o lphin

Risso’s D olphin

Ro ugh-To o thed D olphin

Lo ng-sno ute d Spinne r

Sho rt-sno ute d Spin ne r

A tlantic spo tte d D o lphin

Bo ttle no se D olphin

Strip e d Do lphin

Co m m o n D olphin

No rthern Right W hale D olphin

Unide ntifie d Do lphin

P h o co enida e 

D all’s Po rpo ise

H arbor Po rpo ise

Unide ntifie d C e tace an

Unide ntifie d O do ntocete

N E S E S W N W A K 

5 1 2

4 5 3

6 9 523 5

2 5 2 3 5

4 8 4 3 7 25 2

TO TAL C E TA CEA N 28 3 67 2 1 47 43 7 0 


viii 
 ix

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Appendix E. Pinniped Strandings in 1998

1 9 9 8 

 

3

5 1

1 07

1 06

1 1

1 1 5

1 8 2

 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Appendix E. Pinniped Strandings in 1998


S p ec ie s 

O ta riid a e 

C a liforn ia Se a Lio n

Ste l ler S e a Lio n

G uadalu p e Fu r Se a l

No rth ern Fu r Se a l

P h o cid a e 

G ra y Se a l

H a rb or Se a l

H a rp Se a l

H oo d e d Se a l

No rth ern Ele p h a n t Se a l

R ing e d Se a l

U nid e n t ifie d p h o cid

U nid e n t ifie d p inn ip e d

U nid e n t ifie d o ta r iid

TO TA L P INN IPED 

N E S E S W N W A K 

2 5 76 7 5

1 0 7 1 6

2 1 1 5

2 42 1 3 3 13 1 2 1 1 3

4 09 2 4 1

2 36 7 7 1

5 1 8 1 3 3 5 6 8 3 2 8 4 0 

T O T A L M A R I N E M A M M A L S 8 0 1 6 8 5 3 6 1 2 3 7 1 1 1 0 

( c e ta c e a n s a n d 

p in n i p e d s ) 

ix 
 x

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report

Appendix F Appendix F: NMFS Protected Resources Headquar esources Headquarters, Regional egional

Offices and F Offices and Fisheries Science Centers isheries Science Centers

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report 

Appendix F: NMFS Protected Resources Headquarters, Regional


Offices and Fisheries Science Centers


NMFS Office of Protected Resources


1315 East-West Highway


Silver Spring, Maryland 20910


phone (301) 713-2322


fax (301) 713-0376


http://www.nmfs.gov/prot_res.html


NMFS Northeast Region


One Blackburn Drive


Gloucester, MA 01930


phone (978) 281-9328


fax (978) 281-9394


http://www.wh.whoi.edu/ro/doc/nero.html


NMFS Southeast Region 

9721 Executive Center Drive 

St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432 

phone (727)570-5312 

fax (727) 570-5517 

http://caldera.sero.nmfs/gov 

NMFS Northwest Region 

7600 Sand Point Way NE 

Seattle, WA 98115-0070 

phone (206) 526-6150 

fax (206) 526-6426 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov 

NMFS Southwest Region


501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200


Long Beach, CA 90802-4213


phone (562) 980-4020


fax (562) 980-4027


http://swr.ucsd.edu


NMFS Alaska Region


709 W. 9th St., Federal Building Rm. 461


P.O. Box 21668


Juneau, AK 99802


phone (907) 586-7235


fax (907) 586-7012


http://www.fakr.noaa.gov


NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center


166 Water Street


Woods Hole, MA 02543


phone (508) 495-2361


fax (508) 495-2258


http://wh.whoi.edu


NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center


75 Virginia Beach Drive


Miami, FL 33149


phone (305) 361-4284


fax (305) 361-4219


http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov


NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center


2725 Montlake Blvd. E., West Bldg.


Seattle, WA 98112


phone (206) 860-3200


fax (206) 860-3217


http://research.nwfsc.noaa.gov/nwfsc-homepage.html


NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center


8604 La Jolla Shores Drive


P.O. Box 271


La Jolla, California 92038-0271


phone (619) 546-7000


fax (619) 546-7003


http://swfsc.ucsd.edu


NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center


7600 Sand Point Way NE, Bldg. 4


Seattle, WA 98115


phone (206) 526-4000


fax (206) 526-4004


http://www.afsc.noaa.gov


x