Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

Annual Report 

January 1, 1996 to December 31,1996 

Breaching Humpback Whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, in Maui, Hawaii. 

Photo by: G'regoly Silber, NMFSWR 

Prepared by 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Sewice 

Office of Protected Resources 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic end Atmospheric Adminimtratlon 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

1335 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 2091 0 

THE DIRECTOR 

OCT 2 9 11397 

The Honlorable Larry Pressler 

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

United States Senate 

Washinglton, D.C. 20510-4102 

The Honiorable Don Young 

Chairmarn, Committee on Resources 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 20515-0201 

Dear Chairman Pressler and Chairman Young: 

I am pleased to submit to you the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) Annual Report regarding the administration of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) from January 1, 1996, through 

December 31, 1996, as required by section 103(f) of the MMPA. 

The report addresses the conservation, management and research 

activities conducted by NMFS for the benefit of marine mammals, 

including whales, dolphins, and porpoises of the order Cetacea 

and seals and sea lions of the suborder Pinnipedia. 

Sincerely, 

Rolland A. ~dhmitten 

Enclosure 

THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

FCIR FISHERIES 
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

Annual Report 

January 1, 1996 to December 31,1996 

Breaching Humpback Whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, in Maui, Hawaii. 

Photo by: G'regoly Silber, NMFSWR 

Prepared by 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Sewice 

Office of Protected Resources 
� 

Table of Contents

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

Chapter II. Reducing Interactions Between Marine Mammals and

Commercial Fisheries: MMPA Section 118 ............... Page 3

List of Fisheries ..................................... Page 3

Take Reduction Teams and Take Reduction Plans ......... Page 7

MMPA Sections 117 and 118: The Integrated Program .... Page 15

Outreach Program-MMPA Bulletin ..................... Page 16

Chapter III. MMPA Section 117: Stock Assessment Program .... Page 17

Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports ............. Page 17

Scientific Review Groups—Summary ................... Page 18

Chapter IV. Ecosystem Activities .......................... Page 29

Bering Sea Ecosystem Study ......................... Page 29

Gulf of Maine Ecosystem Workshop .................... Page 29

Chapter V. Dolphin Interactions with Commercial Tuna Fisheries in the

Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean ........................ Page 31

Background and Domestic Fleet ....................... Page 31

International Fleet .................................. Page 31

Chapter VI. Marine Mammal Interactions with Other Human ActivitiesPage 35

Regionwide Pinniped-Fishery Interactions Study .......... Page 35

Interaction of California Sea Lions and Pacific Harbor Seals with

Salmonid Stocks .............................. Page 35

Gulf of Maine Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force ..... Page 37

Small Take Authorizations ........................... Page 38

Small Take Amendment-Incidental Harassment .......... Page 40
�� 

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs ............ Page 43

Northern Right Whale, Eubalaena glacialis .............. Page 43

Steller Sea Lion, Eumetopias jubatus ................... Page 54

Northern Fur Seal, Callorhinus ursinus .................. Page 57

Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise, Phocoena phocoena ...... Page 59

Hawaiian Monk Seal, Monachus schauinslandi ........... Page 60

Humpback Whale, Megaptera novaeangliae ............. Page 65

Eastern North Pacific Stock of Gray Whales, Eschrichtius robustus Page 69 

Chapter VIII. Alaska Native Take of Marine Mammals .......... Page 71

Bowhead Whales .................................. Page 71

Steller Sea Lions and Harbor Seals .................... Page 71

Northern Fur Seal Subsistence Harvest ................. Page 73

Beluga Whales .................................... Page 74

Chapter IX. Permit Programs ............................. Page 75

Photography Permits ................................ Page 77

General Authorization ............................... Page 77

Permit Program Information Management System (PPIMS) . Page 77

Marine Mammal Inventory ............................ Page 77

Exports of Marine Mammals .......................... Page 78

Acoustic Activities .................................. Page 78

Release of Captive Dolphins to the Wild ................ Page 79

Public Interaction with Marine Mammals in the Wild ....... Page 80

Captive Care Standards for Marine Mammals ............ Page 81

Chapter X. Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Act . Page 83

Background ....................................... Page 83

Stranding Networks ................................. Page 83

Regional Stranding Networks ......................... Page 83

Unusual Mortality Events ............................ Page 85

MMHSRP Monitoring Program ........................ Page 85

Appendix A: 1995 List of Category I-II Fisheries 
��� 

Appendix B: MMAP Mortality/Injury Reports

Appendix C: Summary of Marine Mammal Stock Assessments for Stocks

under NMFS Authority

Appendix D: ETP Dolphin Mortalities Incidental to Tuna Operations

Appendix E: Marine Mammal Strandings in 1996
Chapter I. Introduction

This Annual Report to Congress regarding the 

administration of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) has been prepared pursuant to sections 

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

MMPA. 

The MMPA is the principal Federal legislation that 

guides marine mammal species protection and 

conservation policy. The MMPA vests responsibility 

for most marine mammals in the Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS). Under the MMPA, NMFS is 

responsible for the management and conservation of 

species of whales, dolphins and porpoise; and species 

of seals, sea lions and fur seals. 

Species management is administered through NMFS’ 

Regional Offices and Fisheries Science Centers in 

cooperation with states, conservation groups, the 

public, other Federal agencies, the Marine Mammal 

Commission, and constituents including scientific 

researchers, the fishing industry, and the public 

display community. NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources oversees the administration of these 

activities. 

On April 30, 1994, the MMPA was reauthorized by 

the Amendments of 1994. These amendments 

introduced substantial changes to the provisions of the 

MMPA. Some of the most notable changes in the 

1994 amendments, and the focus of the 1996 Annual 

Report, occurred in sections 117 and 118 which 

addressed the taking of marine mammals incidental to 

commercial fishing, the preparation of stock 

assessment reports for all marine mammal stocks in 

U.S. waters; the development of Take Reduction 

Teams and the implementation of Take Reduction 

Plans to reduce bycatch of selected "strategic" marine 

mammal stocks as defined in the MMPA. 

This report focuses primarily on research and 

management activities conducted by NMFS is 1996 

relative to these amendments and their significance to 

the dual goals of the MMPA, resource management 

and marine mammal protection. However, the report 

also reviews permits issued in 1996 for purposes 

pursuant to the MMPA. 

Copies of the MMPA 1996 Annual Report are 

available from the Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, Building SSMC3, 1315 East-West Highway, 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; or from NMFS 

Regional Offices and Science Centers. 

���� �

���� �

Chapter II. Reducing Interactions Between

Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries:

MMPA Section 118

The Marine Mammal Protection Act was amended by 

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

establish a long-term regime for governing 

interactions between marine mammals and 

commercial fisheries (sections 117 and 118). Final 

regulations implementing this program were published 

in 1995, after considerable public involvement. 

The following chapter outlines the major tenets of the 

long-term regime under Section 118 as addressed by 

NMFS in 1996: the categorization of commercial 

fisheries in the 1997 List of Fisheries, the marine 

mammal mortality and serious injury information used 

to classify fisheries and develop take reduction plans, 

registration and reporting requirements for commercial 

fishers, the development and implementation of take 

reduction plans, and the public outreach program. The 

stock assessment reports required by section 117 and 

revised in 1996 by NMFS staff provide a critical 

element of the long-term regime and are addressed in 

detail in Chapter III. 

List of Fisheries 

Definitions of Category I, II, and III 

Commercial Fisheries 

Under section 118 of the MMPA, NMFS must classify 

all U.S. commercial fisheries into Category I, II and 

III based on whether the fishery has a frequent, 

occasional, or a remote likelihood of incidental 

mortality and serious injury of marine mammals, 

respectively. The regulations implementing section 

118 (60 FR 45086) base the definition of Category I, 

II, and III fisheries on the annual level of incidental 

mortality and serious injury relative to the Potential 

Biological Removal (PBR) level published under 

section 117 of the MMPA. Thus, the definitions of 

Category I, II, and III fisheries focus on the impacts of 

commercial fisheries to marine mammal populations 

by comparing both the cumulative and individual 

fishery-related annual number of serious injuries and 

mortalities to the PBR level for each species of marine 

mammal impacted by that fishery. 

The definitions of Category I, II, and III fisheries are 

provided on the following page. Essentially, the 

fishery classification criteria consist 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. Tier 1 considers the cumulative fishery 

mortality and serious injury for a particular stock, 

while Tier 2 considers fishery-specific mortality for a 

particular stock. NMFS goes through the following 

decision process when assessing each fishery for 

which data are available: 

Tier 1: If the total annual mortality and serious injury 

across all fisheries that interact with a stock is less 

than or equal to 10 percent of the PBR of such a stock, 

then all fisheries interacting with this stock would be 

placed in Category III. Otherwise, these fisheries are 

subject to the next tier to determine their 

classification. 

Tier 2: 

Category I: Annual mortality and serious injury of a 

stock in a given fishery is greater than or equal to 50 

percent of the PBR level. 

Category II: Annual mortality and serious injury in a 

given fishery is greater than 1 percent and less than 50 

percent of the PBR level. 

Category III: Annual mortality and serious injury in 

a given fishery is less than or equal to 1 percent of the 

PBR level. 

���� �

Chapter II. Reducing Interactions Between Marine 

Mammals and Commercial Fisheries: MMPA Section 118 

Definitions of Category I, II and III Fisheries* 

Category I: 

mortality and serious injuries of marine mammals. 

commercial fishery that frequently causes mortality and serious 

injury of marine mammals is one that is by itself responsible for 

the annual removal of 50 percent or more of any stock's PBR. 

Category II: 

mortality ans serious injury of marine mammals. 

fishery that occasionally causes mortality or serious injury of 

marine mammals is one that, collectively with other fisheries, is 

responsible for the annual removal of more than 10 percent of 

any marine mammal stock's PBR and that is by itself 

responsible for the annual removal of between 1 and 50 

percent, exclusive, of any stock's PBR. 

reliable information indicating the frequency of incidental 

mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in a certain 

fishery, NMFS will determine whether there is "occasional" 

taking by evaluating other factors such as fishing techniques, 

gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target 

species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from 

logbooks or fisher reports, stranding data, and the species and 

distribution of marine mammals in the area. 

Category III: 

of, or no known incidental mortality and serious injury of marine 

mammals. 

causing incidental mortality and serious injury of marine 

mammals in one that collectively with other fisheries is 

responsible for the annual removal of 10 percent or less of any 

marine mammal stock's PBR, or more than 10 percent of any 

marine mammal stock's PBR, yet that fishery is by itself 

responsible for the annual removal of 1 percent or less of that 

stock's PBR. 

the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine 

mammals in a certain fishery, NMFS will determine whether 

there is a 

factors such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods used to 

deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas 

fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports, 

stranding data, and the species and distribution of marine 

mammals in the area. 

* The regulatory text at CFR § 229.2 should be consulted for 

the full definitions for Category I, II, and III fisheries. 

a commercial fishery with frequent incidental 

A 

a commercial fishery with occasional incidental 

A commercial 

In the absence of 

a commercial fishery that has a remote likelihood 

A commercial fishery that has a remote likelihood of 

In the absence of reliable information indicating 

"remote likelihood" of taking by evaluating other 

Exceptions to this classification scheme can be made 

if the data on which the classification is based are 

scientifically questionable. For example, if the 

coefficient of variation is unreasonably large for either 

the mortality estimates from an observer program, 

NMFS may determine the level of serious injury and 

mortality by evaluating other factors, such as the 

fishing gear type used or whether the fishing season 

���� � 

occurs during a time of high marine mammal 

abundance. 

Information Used to Classify 

Commercial Fisheries 

NMFS may base its classification of commercial 

fisheries on a variety of different types of information. 

The best source of information on the level of fisheryspecific 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 a few commercial fisheries have been 

monitored by observer programs, other information 

may also be used to classify the fisheries. 

If data from fishery observer programs are not 

available, NMFS may also use fishers’ reports made 

formally through the Marine Mammal Assessment 

Program, stranding data, logbook data from the 

Marine Mammal Exemption Program, alternative 

observer programs that use platforms such as aircraft 

and non-fishing vessels, and other sources of 

information to classify fisheries. 

Publication of the List of Fisheries 

Under Section 118, NMFS must publish a list of 

fisheries (LOF) in the Federal Register at least once a 

year that places all U.S. commercial fisheries into 

Category I, II, or III based on the level of marine 

mammal incidental mortality and serious injury that 

occurs incidental to each fishery. 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 will be 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 which 

marine mammals interact with that fishery. Because 

the focus in the law is on "injuries and mortalities" to 

marine mammals, any marine mammal that has been 

injured or killed in a particular commercial fishery is 

included in the table. 
Chapter II. Reducing Interactions Between Marine 

Mammals and Commercial Fisheries: MMPA Section 118 

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 the way they are defined in Federal, regional, 

or state fishery management plans or programs. 

Defining fisheries in the LOF consistent with Federal, 

regional, or state fishery management plans will: 

C reduce confusion caused by having multiple 

names for the same fishery; 

C provide a "common name" for a fishery that can 

be used by NMFS, fishers, and state and regional 

fishery managers; 

C allow NMFS to more easily collect information 

on fishery statistics, such as the number of 

participants, target species landed, length of 

fishing season, etc.; 

C 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. Subdivisions of fisheries in 

the LOF are likely to occur only for those fisheries for 

which there are reliable data on the level and 

geographic location of incidental mortality and serious 

injury in all components of the fishery. 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 the fisheries of 

the United States. 

The 1997 List of Fisheries 

A proposed List of Fisheries for 1997 was published in 

the Federal Register on July 16, 1996 (61 FR 37035). 

Because little new information on the level of serious 

injury or mortality of marine mammals incidental to 

commercial fisheries was available for the proposed 

LOF for 1997, this LOF focused primarily on those 

fisheries that NMFS committed to review in the 1996 

LOF. Minor changes to names and definitions of 

certain commercial fisheries were proposed; the only 

significant actions proposed were the reclassification 

of the Gulf of Maine/U.S. mid-Atlantic lobster trap/pot 

fishery from Category III to Category I, and the 

reclassification of the California squid purse seine 

fishery from Category III to Category II. 

The final LOF for 1997 was published on January 2, 

1997 (62 FR 33). NMFS received 15 public 

comments on the proposed LOF; the majority of the 

comments on the proposed LOF addressed the 

proposed classification of the Gulf of Maine/U.S. midAtlantic lobster trap/pot fishery in Category I. In 

particular, commenters questioned the data used to 

reclassify the lobster trap/pot fishery, the method used 

to determine whether an injury should be considered 

a serious injury, and whether inshore lobster pot gear 

(e.g., along the coast of New Hampshire and Maine, 

Long Island Sound) should be included in Category I. 

The Federal Register notice (62 FR 33) provides 

NMFS' responses to these comments, and a thorough 

description of the number of serious injuries and 

mortalities of right, humpback, and minke whales that 

have occurred incidental to the Gulf of Maine/MidAtlantic lobster trap/pot fishery. 

A table that provides a list of all U.S. commercial 

fisheries was not published in the Federal Register 

notice announcing the final LOF for 1997, but was 

made available to the public upon request. This list is 

found in Appendix A. 

Marine Mammal Mortality and 

Serious Injury, 1990-1995 

Section 117 requires that NMFS publish Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs) for each marine mammal 

stock that occurs in U.S. waters (see Chapter III for 

additional details). Information on fishery-specific 

marine mammal mortality and serious injury is 

provided in these SARs; this information is often used 

as a basis for changes in fishery classification in the 

List of Fisheries. 

���� �

Chapter II. Reducing Interactions Between Marine 

Mammals and Commercial Fisheries: MMPA Section 118 

Registration Requirements for 

Commercial Fishers 

U.S. commercial fishers who participate in Category 

I or II fisheries in the LOF must register under the 

MMPA. Vessel owners must obtain a registration 

packet from NMFS and submit the application and the 

$25 fee to the nearest NMFS Regional Office in which 

their fishery operates. NMFS will then send vessel 

owners an Authorization Certificate, program decal, 

and reporting forms within 60 days of receiving the 

registration form and application fee. 

Integration of MMAP Registration 

with Existing State or Federal 

Permit Systems 

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. The first 

NMFS office to successfully integrate registration 

under the MMPA was the Northwest Regional Office 

(NWR). In 1995, the NWR integrated the registration 

of the Oregon swordfish floating longline fishery and 

the Oregon blue shark floating longline fishery with 

the permit system operated by the State of Oregon, 

and integrated the registration of the Puget Sound 

salmon drift gillnet fishery with the State of 

Washington. In 1996, the Alaska Regional Office 

successfully integrated the registration of all Category 

I and II fisheries with the State of Alaska permit 

system and the Northeast Regional Office integrated 

the registration of the Gulf of Maine/Mid-Atlantic 

lobster trap/pot fishery, the Atlanti c 

squid/mackerel/butterfish trawl fishery, and the New 

England multispecies sink gillnet fishery with either 

state or Federal permit systems. Over the past two 

years, these efforts have resulted in reduced paperwork 

for both NMFS and commercial fishers, and a waived 

registration fee for approximately 21,000 commercial 

fishers. The Southeast Regional Office and the 

Southwest Regional Office plan to coordinate 

registration of Category I and II fisheries in their 

regions by 1998. 

Reporting Requirements for 

Commercial Fishers 

All vessel owners or operators in Category I, II, or III 

fisheries must report all mortalities or injuries of 

marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing 

operations. Reports of marine mammal mortality or 

injury are to be made on postage-paid forms provided 

by NMFS, and these forms should be sent to NMFS 

Headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland. 

These reporting forms have been designed to be 

scannable by computers. Because a computer will 

electronically "read" the reporting form, data entry 

will be faster and summaries of reports will be more 

readily available. In 1996, 98 reports of injuries 

and/or mortalities were received by vessel operators. 

Appendix B is a table identifying self-reported injuries 

and mortalities, by species and then by fishery. 

Take Reduction Teams and Take 

Reduction Plans 

Section 118 Requirements for the 

Development and Implementation of 

Take Reduction Plans 

In the 1994 amendments to the MMPA, section 118 

established the immediate goal that the incidental 

mortality or serious injury of marine mammals 

occurring in the course of commercial fishing 

operations be reduced to insignificant levels 

approaching a zero mortality rate goal (ZMRG) and 

serious injury rate within 7 years of enactment of this 

section (i.e., April 30, 2001). The amendments 

established a three-part strategy to govern interactions 

between marine mammals and commercial fishing 

operations. These include the preparation of marine 

mammal stock assessment reports, a registration and 

incidental take monitoring program for certain 

commercial fisheries (Category I and II) and a marine 

mammal injury and mortality self-reporting 

requirement for all fisheries, and the development and 

implementation of take reduction plans. 

���� �

Chapter II. Reducing Interactions Between Marine 

Mammals and Commercial Fisheries: MMPA Section 118 

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. A strategic stock is: (1) a 

marine mammal species that is listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); 

(2) a marine mammal stock for which the humancaused mortality exceeds the potential biological 

removal (PBR) level for that stock; or (3) a marine 

mammal stock that is declining and likely to become 

listed as a threatened species under the ESA. The 

PBR level is the maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may be annually 

removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its optimal sustainable 

population level. 

All commercial fishermen that interact with marine 

mammals must report the circumstances of said 

interaction to NMFS within 48 hours if the interaction 

resulted in an injury or mortality. (Photo credit: 

Gregory Silber, NMFS) 

The immediate goal of a take reduction plan is to 

reduce, within 6 months of its implementation, the 

mortality and serious injury of strategic stocks 

incidentally taken in the course of commercial fishing 

operations to levels less than the PBR levels 

established for those stocks. The long-term goal of a 

take reduction plan is to reduce, within 5 years of its 

implementation, the incidental mortality and serious 

injury of all marine mammals incidentally taken in 

commercial fishing operations to insignificant levels 

approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate, 

taking into account the economics of the fishery, the 

available existing technology, and existing state or 

regional management plans. 

NMFS must establish take reduction teams (TRT’s) to 

prepare draft take reduction plans. Team members 

must have expertise regarding the conservation or 

biology of the marine mammal species that the take 

reduction plan will address, or the fishing practices 

which result in the incidental mortality or serious 

injury of such species. Members shall include 

representatives of Federal agencies, each coastal State 

that has fisheries that interact with the species or 

stocks, appropriate Regional Fishery Management 

Councils, interstate fisheries commissions, academic 

and scientific organizations, environmental groups, all 

commercial and recreational fisheries groups and gear 

types which incidentally take the species or stocks, 

Alaska Native organizations or Indian tribal 

organizations, or others as the Secretary of Commerce 

(i.e., NMFS) deems appropriate. Take reduction 

teams are not subject to the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act and meetings of the teams are open to 

the public with prior notice of the meetings made 

public in a timely fashion. 

The TRT will submit a draft take reduction plan for 

strategic stocks to NMFS not later than 6 months after 

the team has been established. Take reduction plans 

must include a review of information in the final stock 

assessment reports and any substantial new 

information that may have become available since the 

publication of the stock assessment reports, an 

estimate of the total number and, if possible, age and 

gender, of animals from the stocks that are being 

incidentally killed or seriously injured each year 

during the course of commercial fishing operations, 

recommended regulatory or voluntary measures for the 

reduction of the incidental mortality and serious 

injury, and recommended dates for achieving the 

specific objectives of the plan. 

In implementing a take reduction plan, NMFS may, 

where necessary to protect or restore a marine 

mammal stock or species covered by such 

a plan, promulgate regulations that may include, but 

���� �

Chapter II. Reducing Interactions Between Marine 

Mammals and Commercial Fisheries: MMPA Section 118 

are not limited to, measures to: 

(1) Establish fishery-specific limits on 

incidental mortality and serious injury of 

marine mammals in commercial fisheries 

or restrict commercial fisheries by time or 

area; 

(2) Require the use of alternative 

commercial fishing gear or techniques and 

new technologies, encourage the 

development of such gear or technology, or 

convene expert skippers’ panels; 

(3) Educate commercial fishers, through 

workshops and other means, on the 

importance of reducing the incidental 

mortality and serious injury of marine 

mammals in affected commercial fisheries; 

and 

(4) Monitor the effectiveness of measures 

taken to reduce the level of incidental 

mortality and serious injury of marine 

mammals in the course of commercial 

fishing operations. 

The draft take reduction plan will be developed by 

consensus. In the event consensus cannot be reached, 

the TRT shall advise NMFS, in writing, on the range 

of possibilities considered by the TRT, and the views 

of both the minority and majority. Not later than 60 

days after the submission of the draft plan, NMFS will 

publish in the Federal Register the draft plan, any 

changes proposed by NMFS with an explanation of the 

reasons therefore, and proposed regulations to 

implement the plan for public review and comment for 

a period not to exceed 90 days. Not later than 60 days 

after the close of the public comment period, NMFS 

will issue a final plan and implementing regulations. 

NMFS and the TRT’s will meet every 6 months, or at 

other intervals as NMFS determines are necessary, to 

monitor the implementation of the final take reduction 

plans until such time as NMFS determines that the 

objectives of the plan have been met. NMFS will 

amend the final plan and implementing regulations if 

necessary, in consultation with the TRT. 

NMFS’ Approach to Establishing 

Take Reduction Teams 

The coordination process to form take reduction teams 

was initiated in 1995. Recognizing the benefits of 

using professional facilitators in the development of 

plans that rely on the involvement of stakeholders 

representing a wide variety of interests, NMFS 

contracted a professional facilitator with expertise in 

environmental dispute resolution in 1995 to conduct a 

pilot study to explore processes for the development of 

take reduction plans. The Resolve Center for 

Environmental Dispute Resolution was awarded the 

pilot study contract and subsequently prepared a report 

recommending guidelines for developing take 

reduction teams, using the bycatch of harbor porpoise 

in the sink gillnet fishery and the bycatch of bottlenose 

dolphins in mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries as test cases. 

NMFS then contracted a group of professional 

facilitators in late 1995 to assist in the development of 

six potential take reduction plans. The facilitators’ 

role in the development of each take reduction plan 

was to: 

C assist in the interviewing of potential team 

members, 

C select sites and provide public notice of team 

meetings, 

C facilitate the meetings, 

C develop draft meeting summaries, 

C submit team expenses to NMFS for payment, 

and, 

C assemble the team’s draft plan and submit it to 

NMFS within the timeframe specified 

by the MMPA (6 months from the date of 

establishment of the team). 

Each take reduction team was established using the 

same general process. Before each team was formed, 

the NMFS Office of Protected Resources and the 

appropriate NMFS Regional Office would forward a 

list of potential team members to the facilitator for 

that team, identifying persons that had either worked 

with NMFS in the past on issues related to marine 

mammal bycatch or that had worked with NMFS on 

other teams or committees because of their expertise 

���� �

Chapter II. Reducing Interactions Between Marine 

Mammals and Commercial Fisheries: MMPA Section 118 

in marine mammals or fisheries. The facilitator’s


interview process was also a method for identifying


other potential team members. At the end of the


interview process, the facilitator for each team


submitted a list of recommended team members to


NMFS, and the Director of the Office of Protected


Resources reviewed and approved the list, in


consultation with the Assistant Administrator for


Fisheries and the appropriate Regional Director(s).


The publication of a Federal Register notice


identifying the team members also established the


team.


Six potential take reduction teams were identified as


having the highest priority for the development of take


reduction plans to reduce the incidental bycatch of


several strategic marine mammal stocks. They were


(listed in order of priority): 


C The Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise take


reduction team, 

C The Atlantic Offshore Cetacean take reduction 

team, 

C The Pacific Offshore Cetacean take reduction 

team, 

C The Atlantic Large Whale take reduction team, 

C The Mid-Atlantic take reduction team, and, 

C The Alaska Steller sea lion take reduction team. 

The 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, state marine resource management 

agencies, the New England Fishery Management 

Council (NEFMC), environmental organizations, and 

academic and scientific organizations. The HPTRT 

met five times between February and July 1996. Each 

meeting was open to the public and facilitated by 

Resolve, Inc., Washington, D.C.. 

The HPTRT submitted a consensus draft plan to 

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

represents a comprehensive approach to the problem 

of harbor porpoise incidental take and includes: 

C A Core Management Plan consisting of a 

schedule of time/area closures and periods when 

pingers would be required for each of the 

established management areas (see Table 1). 

The plan builds on closures already instituted by 

the NEFMC. Consensus on the core 

management plan was contingent on the 

following understandings: A) that the regime was 

recommended only for the first year of the plan; 

B) that a scientific experiment be conducted to 

study the effectiveness of pingers in reducing 

harbor porpoise bycatch in the Mid-coast area in 

the spring, and C) that research on the effect of 

pingers on harbor porpoises and other marine life 

be conducted at the same time, including the 

initiation of research on the possible habituation 

of harbor porpoise to pingers. 

C An Implementation Plan that includes 

recommendations regarding a detailed census of 

the gillnet fleet; outreach, training and 

certification programs for fishers who wish to 

use pingers; NMFS’ and the HPTRT’s 

coordination and consultation with Canadian 

counterparts regarding the reduction of harbor 

porpoise takes in Canadian waters; enforcement 

of the HPTRP; coordination of HPTRT’s efforts 

with those of the Mid-Atlantic Take Reduction 

Team; investigation of impacts on harbor 

porpoise by the state gillnet and bait gillnet 

fisheries; and the reconvening of the team to 

provide periodic evaluations of the HPTRP. 

C A series of recommendations regarding NMFS’ 

collection, analysis, and management of data on 

the status of the harbor porpoise stock, sink 

gillnet fishery effort, by-catch rate, and total bycatch estimates; and recommendations regarding 

design of pinger experiments and gear 

technology research. 

The proposed requirements and other recommended 

measures would govern and pertain to all fishing with 

sink gillnets and other gillnets capable of catching 

multispecies in the inshore and offshore waters of New 

���� �

Chapter II. Reducing Interactions Between Marine 

Mammals and Commercial Fisheries: MMPA Section 118 

Table 1.--Time/area closures and periods during which pinger use is required, as 

recommended by the HPTRT. 

Downeast Area: 

Aug. 15 to Sep. 13 Closed to sink gillnet fishing 

Mid-coast Area: 

Jan. 1-31 Closed to sink gillnet fishing 

Mar. 1 to May 15 Closed to sink gillnet fishing 

Sept. 15 to Oct. 31 Pingers required on all sink 

gillnets 

Nov. 1 to Dec. 31 Closed to sink gillnet fishing 

Massachusetts Bay Area: 

Feb. 1-28/29 Pingers required on all sink gillnets 

Mar. 1-30 (sic) Closed to sink gillnet fishing 

Apr. 1-30 Pingers required on all sink 

gillnets 

South Cape Cod Area: 

Feb. 1-28/29 Pingers required on all sink gillnets 

Mar. 1-30 (sic) Closed to sink gillnet fishing 

Apr. 1-30 Pingers required on all sink 

gillnets 

England from Maine through Rhode Island. 

The draft plan submitted by the HPTRT was under 

review by NMFS as of the end of 1996. However, 

concurrent with the HPTRT’s proceeding, the NEFMC 

considered amendments to the Northeast Multispecies 

Fishery Management Plan that would affect sink 

gillnet effort. These actions--specifically, opening the 

Mid-Coast area to gillnet fishing with pingers during 

November and December--were implemented 

subsequent to NMFS’ receipt of 

the HPTRT plan. As the NEFMC actions altered the 

assumptions upon which the HPTRT’s consensus 

proceedings were based, NMFS will strive to 

minimally adjust the take reduction plan while 

maintaining the spirit of the HPTRT’s comprehensive 

consensus plan. NMFS expects to publish notice of 

availability of the plan, NMFS recommended changes 

to the plan, and proposed regulations to implement the 

plan in the Spring of 1997. 

The Atlantic Offshore Cetacean 

Take Reduction Team 

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 

���� ��

Chapter II. Reducing Interactions Between Marine 

Mammals and Commercial Fisheries: MMPA Section 118 

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 

scientists, cetacean biologists, and NMFS. 

The Team reviewed stock assessment information for 

each stock, appropriate marine mammal behavioral 

studies, available mortality and serious injury data for 

each of the fisheries (broken down by area and season 

or month), target species catch data, take reduction 

strategies tested in similar fisheries, and other 

pertinent information. The Team held five meetings 

in New England between May and November, 1996. 

Each meeting was open to the public and facilitated by 

Susan Podziba and Associates, Inc., Boston, MA. 

On November 22, 1996, the AOCTRT reached 

consensus on a draft plan. The AOCTRT developed 

comprehensive strategies for each fishery -- pair trawl 

for tuna, swordfish driftnet, and pelagic longline. 

Each comprehensive strategy included a number of 

activities that are designed to reduce the serious injury 

and incidental take of strategic stocks of marine 

mammals. The team’s plan recommended that several 

regulatory and non-regulatory actions be initiated to 

reduce bycatch of marine mammals in each fishery. 

These included: 

C For each fishery, reductions would be achieved 

in part by: education and outreach; development 

of a Technical Advisory Group; research on 

cetacean behavior; closure of northern right 

whale critical habitat; and coordination of fishery 

management measures. 

C In the driftnet fishery, reductions would be 

achieved by: a closure south of Hudson Canyon 

from November 1 to May 31; an allocation of a 

pre-determined number of sets between 

participating fishers; limited entry; 100% 

observer coverage; pinger experiment; real-time 

monitoring and evaluation of marine mammal 

takes; research on gear modifications; and a buyout program. 

C In the longline fishery, reductions in the MidAtlantic and Northeast Coastal areas (areas of 

highest marine mammal bycatch) would be 

achieved by: reducing the length of line; 

retrieving gear in reverse to reduce maximum 

soak time; moving fishing location after one 

marine mammal interaction; limited entry; 

guidance for releasing injured marine mammals; 

and enhancing communication between fishers. 

C In the pair trawl fishery, reductions would be 

achieved by: minimum operator qualifications; 

certification of nets; research on cetacean 

behavior; the establishment of an industry panel 

to review fishing activities related to takes; and 

a marine mammal take "trigger" to alleviate poor 

performance. 

The team’s draft plan also included: (1) a review of 

the current information on the status of the strategic 

Atlantic offshore cetaceans that interact with the 

driftnet, longline, and pair trawl fisheries; (2) a 

description of these fisheries, including 

regulatory/management structure; (3) an indication of 

foreign and other domestic fisheries that interact with 

Atlantic offshore cetaceans; (4) sources and a 

summary of observer data; (5) research and data 

recommendations; and (6) draft guidance for handling 

marine mammals; and (7) strategies discussed but not 

selected. The AOCTRT submitted its draft plan to 

NMFS on November 25, 1996. 

On December 5, 1996, NMFS closed the drift gillnet 

fishery for swordfish in the Atlantic Ocean from 

December 1, 1996 through May 29, 1997. NMFS had 

reinitiated consultation under the Endangered Species 

Act for Atlantic swordfish fisheries due to new 

information concerning the status of the northern right 

���� ��

Chapter II. Reducing Interactions Between Marine 

Mammals and Commercial Fisheries: MMPA Section 118 

whale. The closure would ensure that no irreversible 

and irretrievable commitment of resources was made 

that had the effect of foreclosing the formulation or 

implementation of any reasonable and prudent 

measures while the consultation on the fishery was 

pending. 

The draft plan submitted by the AOCTRT was under 

review by NMFS as of the end of 1996. NMFS 

expects to publish notice of availability of the plan, 

NMFS recommended changes to the plan, and 

proposed regulations to implement the plan in the 

Spring of 1997. 

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 (CA/OR DGN fishery). 

Members on the TRT included representatives of the 

CA/OR DGN fishery, environmental groups, the 

California Department of Fish and Game, the Pacific 

States Marine Fisheries Commission, independent 

fisheries scientists and whale biologists, and NMFS. 

Representatives of other groups and agencies (i.e., 

recreational fishers and the Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife) were interviewed but chose no to 

participate on the team. 

The PCTRT considered a full menu of potential take 

reduction strategies for inclusion in the draft take 

reduction plan. The team reviewed the literature on 

incidental taking of marine mammals in drift gillnets 

and heard presentations on the status of strategic 

stocks incidentally taken by the fishery, the estimated 

annual taking of these stocks from observer data, and 

strategies currently used by the fishery to avoid taking 

marine mammals. In addition, the team reviewed 

extensive analyses of observer data (which were 

gathered over the past five fishing seasons) to 

determine if there were correlations between 

incidental take of cetaceans and fishing techniques, 

gear used, or oceanographic factors that might suggest 

appropriate take reduction strategies. The team held 

five meetings in locations near Los Angeles, San 

Diego, and San Francisco between February and June, 

1996. Each meeting was open to the public and 

facilitated by The Mediation Institute, Woodland 

Hills, CA. 

On June 27, 1996, the PCTRT reached consensus on 

a draft plan. The team believed that no single strategy 

could meet the goals of the MMPA. Therefore, the 

team identified four primary strategies which, if 

implemented as a package, was expected to meet the 

6-month goal of reducing the takes of strategic stocks 

to below PBR, and to some extent, the long term goal 

of attaining a ZMRG and serious injury rate for all 

marine mammal stocks. In addition, there is a section 

of the take reduction plan that addresses possible 

contingency strategies, should the primary strategies 

prove less effective than anticipated and a section 

describing additional recommendations to NMFS 

regarding supplementary data gathering and study 

activities. The strategies include: 

C Acoustic Devices -- NMFS and the fishery should 

initiate a multi-year experiment to test the 

effectiveness of acoustic devices (pingers) 

beginning in the 1996-97 fishing season, before 

a final take reduction plan has been adopted by 

NMFS. The success of pingers in reducing 

overall cetacean incidental take during the 1996 

fishing season (August 15, 1996 - January 31, 

1997) would determine whether pingers are 

recommended as a mandatory strategy for 

reducing takes when the final plan is in place. 

C Gear Modifications -- There should be fleetwide 

deployment of a 6 fathom minimum buoy line 

extender length on a mandatory basis for the 

1997-98 season. NMFS and the TRT should 

review the efficacy of this strategy after the final 

plan has been in place for at least 6 months to 

determine if the minimum extender length 

should be modified. 

���� ��

Chapter II. Reducing Interactions Between Marine 

Mammals and Commercial Fisheries: MMPA Section 118 

C Skipper Education and Feedback -- NMFS 

should conduct skipper workshops on the final 

take reduction plan coupled with expert skipper 

panels to further generate and consider potential, 

additional take reduction strategies. Workshop 

attendance would be mandatory. 

C Reduction in the Number of Drift Gillnet Permits 

--The California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG) should continue its policy of not issuing 

new shark and swordfish drift gillnet permits to 

replace those that have lapsed. A permit buyback program should be instituted for CDFG 

drift gillnet permit holders to encourage parttime skippers to leave the fishery permanently. 

The draft plan also included: (1) a review of the 

current information on the status of the affected 

strategic marine mammal stocks; (2) a description of 

the CA/OR DGN fishery; (3) an analysis of data from 

NMFS’s CA/OR DGN fishery observer program from 

1990-1995; (4) recommendations to enhance NMFS’s 

CA/OR DGN observer program; and (5) an evaluation 

of other potential strategies to reduce strategic stock 

bycatch in the fishery. The team assumed that each 

individual strategy would be refined or modified if 

necessary based upon the initial year results. The 

PCTRT submitted its draft plan to NMFS on August 

15, 1996. 

The draft plan submitted by the PCTRT was under 

review by NMFS as of the end of 1996. NMFS 

expects to publish notice of availability of the plan, 

NMFS recommended changes to the plan, and 

proposed regulations to implement the plan early in 

1997. 

The Atlantic Large Whale Take 

Reduction Team 

On August 6, 1996, NMFS established the Atlantic 

Large Whale Take Reduction Team (LWTRT) to 

address the incidental bycatch of large baleen whales, 

specifically 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 

mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery, the southeastern 

U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet fishery, and the Gulf of 

Maine sink-gillnet fishery. These large whale marine 

mammal stocks are considered strategic under the 

MMPA because they are listed as an endangered 

species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and 

because the level of human-caused mortality is greater 

than their PBR levels. 

The LWTRT includes representatives from each 

fishery, NMFS, state marine resource management 

agencies, the New England Fishery Management 

Council, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, the Marine Mammal Commission, 

environmental organizations, and academic and 

scientific organizations. The LWTRT is being 

facilitated by The Keystone Center, Washington, D.C.. 

The team met four times in 1996 will meet twice more 

in early 1997. The team is charged with submitting a 

consensus plan to NMFS by February 1, 1997. 

The Mid-Atlantic Take Reduction 

Team 

As of the end of 1996, NMFS had not yet established 

the Mid-Atlantic Take Reduction Team. However, 

NMFS expects to convene this team in the spring of 

1997 to address incidental takes of harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena) and bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus) in ocean gillnet fisheries from 

New York to North Carolina. The team will be 

facilitated by RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C. 

The Alaska Steller Sea Lion Take 

Reduction Team 

As of the end of 1996, NMFS had not yet established 

the Alaska Steller Sea Lion Take Reduction Team. 

However, NMFS expects to convene this team to 

address incidental takes of Steller sea lions 

(Eumetopias jubatus) in Alaska commercial fisheries. 

The team will be facilitated by Mediation Services, 

Seattle, WA. 

MMPA Sections 117 and 118: 

The Integrated Program 

���� ��

Chapter II. Reducing Interactions Between Marine 

Mammals and Commercial Fisheries: MMPA Section 118 

Sections 117 and 118 of the MMPA are directly 

related. These sections direct NMFS to complete 

Stock Assessment Reports, to convene Scientific 

Review Groups, to publish the List of Fisheries, to 

convene Take Reduction Teams in order to form Take 

Reduction Plans, and to meet both short- and longterm 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 vessels. 

The SARs required under Section 117 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 List of Fisheries. 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 List of 

Fisheries and whether its status is strategic according 

to the SARs. In addition, the SARs provide much of 

t h e d a t a 

The MMPA Bulletin - Distribution 

used during the development of the Take Reduction 

Plans. Scientific Review Groups, formed pursuant to 

Section 117, review and make recommendations on 

the SARs and the LOF. Results of observer programs 

used to collect data on the level of incidental mortality 

and serious injury in Category I or II fisheries are 

presented in the SARs. As NMFS begins to 

implement Take Reduction Plans in order to meet the 

6-month and 7-year goals of the MMPA, the SARs and 

SRGs will continue to play a critical role as NMFS 

monitors fisheries to ensure that incidental marine 

Group 

Number of 

individuals/grou 

ps 

Congress 96 

Environmenta 

l Groups 

130 

Federal/State 

organizations 

167 

Fishing 

Industry 

758 

General 

Inquiry 

329 

Media 8 

Native 

American 

391 

Public Display 158 

Research 217 

Tourism 68 

���� ��

Chapter II. Reducing Interactions Between Marine 

Mammals and Commercial Fisheries: MMPA Section 118 

mammal mortalities and serious injuries decline over 

time. 

Outreach Program-MMPA Bulletin 

In 1995, the Office of Protected Resources began 

publishing the "MMPA Bulletin" to increase public 

awareness of and participation in the regulatory 

process. Our readership increased quite dramatically 

from 1,800 at the end of 1995, to 2,400 in 1996. This 

increase is largely due to posting announcements 

about the availability of the "Bulletin" on key internet 

listservers, such as "MARMAM" and "FISHFOLK". 

The majority of the readers of the Bulletin are 

members of the commercial fishing industry, followed 

by Native American organizations and the general 

public. 

���� ��

Chapter III. MMPA Section 117:

Stock Assessment Program and Reports

Marine Mammal 

Stock Assessment Reports

Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 

required NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) to prepare stock assessments for each stock of 

marine mammals that occurs in waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States. These reports 

contain information regarding the distribution and 

abundance of the stock, population growth rates and 

trends, estimates of annual human-caused mortality 

from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with 

which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock. 

NMFS convened a workshop in April, 1996, to 

evaluate the guidelines upon which stock assessment 

reports were based and to revise the guidelines as 

needed. The workshop results indicated that 

substantive changes to the guidelines were not 

required; however, several provisions were clarified, 

primarily to ensure that default values for various 

parameters were interpreted correctly. 

The MMPA also requires NMFS and FWS to update 

these reports annually for strategic stocks of marine 

mammals and every 3 years for stocks determined to 

be non-strategic consistent with any new information. 

NMFS has revised those reports for which new 

information is available. (See Appendix C for 

summary of marine mammal stock assessments for 

stocks under NMFS authority.) 

Most proposed changes to the stock assessment reports 

incorporate new information into abundance or 

mortality estimates. Stock structure was also 

reexamined, which resulted in revised stock 

identification for killer whales in the Alaska and 

Pacific regions and for harbor 

porpoise in Alaska; none of these stocks is designated 

as strategic. 

Three stocks were identified as special subsistence 

stocks in the initial stock assessment reports; these 

included harbor seals in the Gulf of Alaska and beluga 

whales in Cook Inlet and Norton Sound. After 

examining new information, and in accordance with 

advice from the Alaska Scientific Review Group, 

NMFS proposes to revise these reports to present the 

full information required under the MMPA. Two of 

the stocks, Gulf of Alaska harbor seals and Cook Inlet 

beluga would be identified as strategic stocks because 

total human-caused mortality exceeds the calculated 

Potential Biological Removal level (PBR). Norton 

Sound beluga would be identified as non-strategic. 

Any management actions concerning these or any 

other stock that is used for subsistence purposes would 

be addressed through a co-management process as 

indicated by section 119 of the MMPA. 

New abundance estimates for beaked whales in the 

Pacific Ocean, which included a recently developed 

correction factor for animals not seen on the track line, 

allowed NMFS to determine that human-caused 

mortality and serious injury of these stocks did not 

exceed PBR; therefore, these stocks have been 

designated as nonstrategic. Uncertainty in field 

identification of these stocks does not allow either 

mortality or abundance estimates to be identified to 

species in all cases, and estimates for these stocks 

continue to be combined. 

A Federal Register notice announcing availability of 

the draft reports will be published in January, 1997. 

The draft revised reports will be subject to a 90-day 

comment period, and final reports are anticipated in 

June, 1997. 

Scientific Revie w 

Groups—Summary 

Background 

The regional Scientific Review Groups were 

established under the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA, as amended in 1994). The MMPA 

provides the following text regarding the groups: 

Sec. 117 (d) Regional Scientific Review 

���� ��

Groups. 

(I) Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 

of this section [June 29, 1994], the secretary of 

Commerce shall, in consultation with the Secretary of 

the Interior (with respect to marine mammals under 

that Secretary’s jurisdiction), 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, establish three independent regional scientific 

review groups representing Alaska, the Pacific Coast 

(including Hawaii), and the Atlantic Coast (including 

the Gulf of Mexico), consisting of individuals with 

expertise in marine mammal biology and ecology, 

population dynamics and modeling, commercial 

fishing technology and practices, and stocks taken 

under section 101(b). The Secretary of Commerce 

shall, to the maximum extent practicable, attempt to 

achieve a balanced representation of viewpoints 

among the individuals on each regional scientific 

review group. The regional scientific review groups 

shall advise the Secretary onC 

(A) population estimates and the population 

status and trends of such stocks; 

(B) uncertainties and research needed regarding 

stock separation, abundance, or trends, and 

factors affecting the distribution, size, or 

productivity of the stock; 

(C) uncertainties and research needed regarding 

the species, number, ages, gender, and 

reproductive status of marine mammal; 

(D) research needed to identify modifications in 

fishing gear and practices likely to reduce 

incidental mortality and serious injury of marine 

mammals in commercial fishing operations; 

(E) the actual, expected, or potential impacts of 

habitat destruction, including marine pollution 

and natural environmental change, on specific 

marine mammal species or stocks, and for 

strategic stocks, appropriate conservation or 

Chapter III. MMPA Section 117 

Stock Assessment Program and Reports 

management measures to alleviate any such 

impacts; and 

(F) any other issue which the Secretary or the 

groups consider appropriate. 

(II) The scientific review groups established under this 

subsection shall not be subject to the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (5 app. U.S.C.). 

(III) Members of the scientific review groups shall 

serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed 

by the Secretary, upon request, for reasonable travel 

costs and expenses incurred in performing their 

obligations. 

(IV) The Secretary may appoint or reappoint 

individuals to the regional scientific review groups 

under paragraph (1) as needed. 

Scientific Review Group meetings 

held in 1996: 

09-10 May 96, Atlantic SRG 

meeting, Charleston, SC 

01-02 July 96, Pacific SRG 

meeting, La Jolla, CA 

11-13 September 96, Alaska 

SRG meeting, 

Anchorage, AK 

23-34 October 96, Atlantic SRG 

meeting, Gloucester, MA 

The three scientific review groups (SRGs) were 

formed in 1994 with approximately 11 members each. 

These groups are convened and organized out of each 

of the following Science Centers: Alaska, Southwest 

and Northeast/Southeast. Each SRG has a designated 

NMFS contact person at these centers. The Centers 

are responsible for assisting the SRG members in 

arranging meetings, identifying and coordinating 

lodgings and travel accommodations, providing 

materials requiring SRG consultation, and assisting in 

facilitating communication between SRG members 

���� �� 
Chapter III. MMPA Section 117

Stock Assessment Program and Reports

and documentation of recommendations. NMFS, 

through the Centers, provides travel, hotel and 

meeting-location expenses. 

In their first year of existence, the SRGs reviewed the 

proposed guidelines for stock assessment reports (see 

SRG comments in Barlow, Swartz, Eagle, and Wade, 

1995, U.S. marine mammal stock assessments: 

guidelines for preparation, background, and a 

summary of the 1995 assessments, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-OPR-6). Additionally, they 

reviewed the draft 1995 stock assessment reports 

themselves, and assisted NMFS in revising and 

finalizing the 1995 assessments. In doing so, the 

SRGs have advised on marine mammal stock 

structure, population estimates, population status and 

trends, annual removals, and uncertainties in available 

information and data. 

Scientific Review Group Members in 1996 

Alaska 

NMFS contact: 

Doug DeMaster Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center, Seattle, WA 

Carl Hild Rural Alaska Community 

Action Program 

Sue Hills, University of Alaska, 

Fairbanks 

Brendan Kelly, University of Alaska, Juneau 

Denby Lloyd Aleutians East Borough 

Lloyd Lowry Department of Fish and Game, 

Alaska 

Beth Mathews University of Alaska, 

Southeast 

Caleb Pungowiyi Kawerak, Nome, Alaska 

Jan Straley Sitka, Alaska 

Kate Wynne Sea Grant Marine Advisory 

Program, University of Alaska 

Atlantic 

NMFS contact: 

Gordon Waring Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center 

Solange Brault University of Massachusetts, 

Boston 

Joseph DeAlteris University of Rhode Island 

James Gilbert University of Maine, Orono 

Mike Harris Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources 

Robert D. Kenney University of Rhode Island 

Robert Mackinnon Marshfield, Massachusetts 

James Mead Smithsonian Institution 

Daniel Odell Sea World, Orlando, Florida 

Andrew Read Duke University Marine 

Laboratory 

Randall S. Wells Chicago Zoological Society, 

���� ��

SRG Group Members in 1996 (cont.) 

Pacific 

NMFS contact: Jay Barlow, Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center 

Hannah J. Bernard, 

Wildlife Conservation Education, 

Lahaina, Hawaii 

Robin Brown, Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife 

Mark Fraker, 

Research, Sidney, British Columbia 

Doyle A. Hanan, 

Department of Fish and Game 

John Heyning, 

Museum of Los Angeles County 

Steve Jeffries, 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Katherine Ralls, 

Park, Smithsonian Institution 

Michael Scott, 

Tuna Commission 

Terry E. Wright, 

Fisheries Commission 

Huy Moana 

Terramar Environmental 

California 

Natural History 

Washington 

National Zoological 

Inter-American Tropical 

Northwest Indian 

Scientific Review Groups in 1996 

In 1996, representatives from all 3 SRGs participated 

in a workshop to review the guidelines for assessing 

marine mammal stocks (Wade and Angliss, 1997, 

Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks: 

Report of the GAMMS Workshop, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-OPR-12). A total of four SRG 

meetings were held during 1996. In these meetings, 

the SRGs reviewed new data and information that 

were available for marine mammal stocks, and made 

recommendations on what revisions needed to be 

made to the stock assessment reports. In the fall, the 

Atlantic and Alaska SRGs reviewed the draft revised 

stock assessment reports, and provided comments on 

Chapter III. MMPA Section 117 

Stock Assessment Program and Reports 

revisions. All three groups are planning to meet in the 

first half of 1997 to provide further comments on the 

revised stock assessment reports, to assist NMFS in 

finalizing the revisions. 

Recommendations from the 

Scientific Review Groups 

The following sections of text have been extracted 

from the written summaries of the scientific review 

group meetings that took place in 1996. Where 

appropriate, recommendations relevant to marine 

mammal species (sea otter, walrus, polar bear, 

manatee) under the jurisdiction of the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service have been removed. 

Atlantic Scientific Review Group: 

Meeting of 9-10 May, 1996, 

Charleston, South Carolina 

I. Review of NMFS Progress on 

Previous Atlantic S R G 

Recommendations 

The Atlantic SRG reviewed progress that had been 

made on recommendations made at its previous two 

meetings. The Atlantic SRG believes that this is a 

useful exercise that will ensure that its voice is being 

heard by the agencies responsible for assessing marine 

mammal stocks. In general, the Atlantic SRG's 

recommendations had either been acted upon or there 

was sufficient justification for delay or inaction. 

Outstanding issues include: 

(1) No take reduction team has been implemented for 

the coastal migratory stock of bottlenose dolphins, due 

to a lack of information on the stock structure, 

abundance and incidental mortality of these animals. 

Further information is urgently required for this 

depleted stock. 

(2) No resolution of the issue of live releases from 

fishing gear, particularly longlines. Experiments or 

observations are required to determine the fate of 

animals that are released alive, but injured, from these 

fisheries. 

���� �� 
Chapter III. MMPA Section 117

Stock Assessment Program and Reports

(3) The definition of ZMRG remains uncertain. 

(4) There is still a need for improved identification of 

many species, particularly beaked whales, pilot whales 

and common dolphins, by observers aboard fishing 

vessels. 

(5) There has been insufficient co-operation between 

the U.S. and Canada on the management of 

trans-boundary stocks. 

(6) More information is required on the incidental 

takes of marine mammals in mid-water and demersal 

trawl fisheries for forage species, such as mackerel, 

butterfish, herring and squid. 

(7) The application of correction factors has not been 

uniform, particularly in regard to deep-diving species. 

(8) There is a lack of assessments for certain cetaceans 

in the Atlantic waters of the SE US. 

(9) Data analysis for mortality estimation of harbor 

porpoises in the Gulf of Maine has been extremely 

slow, which has hampered stock assessments and the 

work of the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Team. 

This delay is a serious and continuing concern of the 

Atlantic SRG. A letter from Andy Read, on behalf of 

the Atlantic SRG, has been circulated to the NE 

Regional Director of the NMFS asking for an increase 

in human resources to rectify this problem. 

New Research Recommendations 

The Atlantic SRG reviewed its previous 

recommendations for research and generated a 

prioritized list of projects that would be helpful to 

NMFS/OPR in its allocation of assessment funds for 

1997. The Atlantic SRG notes that many other 

important research projects are always planned and 

funded or already underway - this list only includes 

new projects. 

Stock Assessment 

(1)	 Resolution of the stock identification of 

bottlenose dolphins, particularly of the coastal 

migratory stock complex on the Atlantic coast. 

The Atlantic SRG recommends that this issue be 

resolved through the combination of a variety of 

techniques, including photographic 

identification, genetics, and telemetry. 

(2)	 Improve understanding of the species and stock 

identity of pelagic cetaceans, particularly beaked 

whales, common dolphins, and pilot whales, to 

facilitate identification both at sea and in 

bycatches. 

(3)	 Improve estimation of g(0), the proportion of 

animals that are missed during line transect 

surveys, particularly for deep-diving species. 

(4)	 Improve understanding of the stock structure of 

harbor porpoises impacted by incidental catches 

in the Gulf of Maine and mid-Atlantic regions. 

(5)	 Investigate stock structure of sperm whales in the 

North Atlantic. 

(6)	 Estimate abundance of bottlenose dolphins and 

pilot whales in waters of the US Caribbean Sea. 

Mortality Estimation 

(1)	 Improve estimates of fishing effort for most 

fisheries in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico that 

interact with marine mammal stocks. 

(2)	 Estimate incidental catches of marine mammals 

for the mixed coastal gillnet fishery of the 

Atlantic coast, using data from strandings 

wherever possible, and investigating the 

possibility of alternative observational 

techniques. 

(3)	 Further information is needed on fishing 

practices and incidental catches in the large mesh 

shark drift gillnet fishery in Georgia and Florida. 

(4)	 Estimates of incidental catches need to be 

refined for the Atlantic trawl fisheries for squid, 

mackerel, herring and butterfish. 

(5)	 Increased efforts should be made to standardize 

the collection and reporting of information on 

fisheries interactions from stranded cetaceans. 

(6)	 Increased efforts should be made to detect 

strandings in areas not currently observed with 

any frequency, such as the shores of Louisiana. 

���� ��

Chapter III. MMPA Section 117 

Stock Assessment Program and Reports 

Bycatch Reduction 

(1)	 Harbor porpoise bycatch mitigation measures, 

such as pingers, should be examined in greater 

detail. 

(2)	 Gear modification research should be conducted 

to identify current fishing techniques and 

practices that have a low probability of bycatch. 

(3)	 Research should be done to determine why 

certain vessels are taking beaked whales and 

other pelagic cetaceans at higher or lower rates 

than are others. 

(4)	 The concept of individual bycatch "quotas" or 

other means of allocating PBR within and among 

fisheries should be explored. 

Recovery and Conservation Plans 

(1)	 Estimate abundance of North Atlantic right 

whales using photo-identification mark-recapture 

techniques. 

(2)	 Conduct demographic analyses of North Atlantic 

right whales to determine which factors are 

limiting recovery. 

(3)	 Expand survey areas for North Atlantic right 

whales outside known critical habitat. 

(4)	 Conduct forensic analyses of stranded right 

whales to determine cause(s) of mortality. 

Long-term Research Needs 

(1)	 Indirect human-induced mortality and the effects 

of environmental contaminants on reproduction 

for coastal bottlenose dolphins need to be 

investigated in more detail. Health assessment 

research may be able to quantify the effects of 

some contaminants on sensitive response 

parameters such as immunological function. In 

this way, bottlenose dolphins can serve as a 

useful ecosystem model. 

(2)	 Observer collection of life history samples 

(reproductive tracts, mammaries, jaws, 

stomachs) should be improved, and these 

samples should be processed expeditiously. It 

would be best for whole carcasses to be 

recovered. The ETP sample collection should be 

explored as a model. 

(3)	 Site-specific population monitoring of bottlenose 

dolphins at long-term research sites should be 

continued to provide the means for assessing 

changes in key populations, and because they 

provide models for understanding the processes 

of coastal dolphin populations. In some cases 

these population monitoring studies are linked to 

health assessment monitoring programs, as 

described and ranked above. 

(4)	 Surveys of expanding pinniped populations 

should be conducted to monitor the growth of 

these stocks to help anticipate habitat and 

fisheries-related issues that may develop as a 

result of this expansion. 

Alaska Scientific Review Group: 

Meeting of 11-13 September, 1996, 

Anchorage, Alaska 

Research recommendations 

Regarding research recommendations for species 

managed by the NMFS, the Alaska SRG’s 

recommendations are summarized in Table 2 (high 

���� ��

Chapter III. MMPA Section 117

Stock Assessment Program and Reports

priority recommendations only- i.e., three or more 

votes for a particular activity), while management 

recommendations are summarized in Table 3. 

Due to constraints on time, there was only a modest 

amount of discussion on each of the research and 

management needs identified by Alaska SRG 

members. However, some specific recommendations 

were developed during these discussions. These 

included: 

(1)	 Consideration of the establishment of "trend 

sites" for monitoring harbor porpoise in Alaska 

due to the extreme difficulty in estimating 

absolute abundance, 

(2)	 distribution of a report on results of tagging 

studies on harbor porpoise in Washington to a 

subset of Alaska SRG members. 

(3)	 expand program to collect tissue samples for 

genetic analyses of harbor seals from the 

Aleutians and Bristol Bay, 

(4)	 determine whether there are differences in 

hauling pattern of harbor seals in Alaska on 

sandy, rocky, and glacial ice haulouts during the 

survey window, 

(5)	 expand food habit studies of harbor seals in 

Alaska, paying particular attention to new 

techniques such as FFA signature analyses, 

(6)	 expand harvest monitoring programs for Steller 

sea lion, harbor seal, and ice seals to include 

collection of biological samples for research on 

trends in life history parameters over time, trends 

and absolute value of specific contaminants, and 

stock identify (e.g., genetics, morphology), and 

(7)	 improve enforcement of existing regulations 

regarding disturbance of marine mammals by 

human activities, especially related to species 

thought to be sensitive to human disturbance 

(e.g., humpback whale, killer whale, and harbor 

seal). 

Steller sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus, eating salmon off 

the Aleutian Islands. (Photo credit: Gregory Silber, 

NMFS) 

Pacific Scientific Review Group: Meeting of 1-2 July 

1996, La Jolla, California 

Review of Actions Taken on Previous 

Pacific SRG Recommendations 

The Pacific SRG was concerned about the lack of 

feedback from NMFS headquarters about Pacific SRG 

recommendations. The Pacific SRG needs to know 

whether its recommendations have been considered or 

not, and what priority they have received. For those 

recommendations that are not followed, NMFS should 

adhere to the PBR guidelines which require that 

NMFS provide a justification in such cases. 

The Pacific SRG reviewed NMFS activities in 

response to a list of the previous major 

recommendations listed in the report of the 3rd 

meeting of the Pacific SRG. 

Highest Priority 

(1)	 The Pacific SRG recommends that a Take 

Reduction Team be formed to evaluate the 

driftnet fishery for shark and swordfish off 

California. This fishery is involved with all the 

species in which the PBR is exceeded except two 

(California sea otters and Hawaiian monk seals), 

���� ��

Chapter III. MMPA Section 117 

Stock Assessment Program and Reports 

which already have recovery teams under the ESA. 

Because this one fishery is involved with so many 

stocks, the Pacific SRG recommends that one take 

team for the fishery be established, rather than 

separate ones for each stock. 

The Pacific SRG notes that a Take Reduction 

Team was formed and a Take Reduction Plan 

agreed to in May, 1996. 

(2)	 The Pacific SRG recommends conducting a 

comprehensive survey of the Hawaiian 

archipelago to fill the large gap in our knowledge 

about the abundance and status of Hawaiian 

cetacean stocks. Examining any survey data 

from the ATOC experiments may provide 

additional information for these assessments. 

Although fishery mortality has not been 

estimated, available information suggests that 

instituting observer programs to estimate 

mortalities would be problematic because of the 

small-scale nature of the local fisheries. The 

problem of dolphins that may be shot at to 

discourage them from stealing fish from fishing 

lines was thought to be a law enforcement and 

education issue rather than one requiring an 

observer program. 

The Pacific SRG notes that a NMFS survey of 

Hawaiian is being planned for 1998. 

(3)	 The Pacific SRG recommends that monitoring of 

the central California harbor porpoise stock be 

continued. Although the almost total closure of 

the coastal set-net fishery has apparently reduced 

mortality, recent data by the NMFS suggest that 

the population still may be declining at a rate of 

9-10% per year. Monitoring of this stock should 

continue to determine whether it is truly 

declining, and whether the decline is due to 

environmental or human-caused factors, and to 

document the population 

growth rate in the wake of fishery mortalities and 

population decline. 

The Pacific SRG notes that monitoring of the 

central California stock has continued, and future 

surveys are being planned. 

(4)	 The Pacific SRG recommends that the stock 

structure of West Coast harbor porpoise be 

studied in greater detail. This species appears to 

be particularly vulnerable to interactions with 

fisheries. 

The Pacific SRG notes that samples are being 

collected and analyzed 

(5)	 The Pacific SRG recommends research into 

developing correction factors to obtain better 

population estimates for both cetaceans and 

pinnipeds. For deep-diving cetaceans, such as 

ziphiid and kogiid whales, research should be 

conducted into devising correction factors for 

submerged animals during surveys. For 

pinnipeds that are counted while hauled out on 

land, more stock-specific correction factors for 

estimating the proportion at sea are needed. 

Demographic models could be developed to 

estimate the total minimum population size from 

pup counts. 

The Pacific SRG notes that field studies have 

collected significant new data for deep-diving 

cetaceans and harbor seals. These correction 

factor will be used in the next SARs. Proportion 

of animals hauled out will be available for harbor 

seals (Hanan's work). No new correction factors 

available for other pinnipeds. 

(6)	 The Pacific SRG strongly supports the role of a 

NMFS liaison to promote consistency among the 

SRGs. The group notes the lack of consistency 

among SRGs for such issues as defining stocks 

and in the criteria for adopting recovery factors. 

The group recommends that the NMFS liaison 

distribute a list of stocks for which non-default 

values in the PBR calculations have been used, 

and the rationale for those deviations, to provide 

guidance and promote consistency among the 

groups in dealing with diverse management 

situations. The Pacific SRG recommends 

increased communication among the SRGS and 

within NMFS to maintain consistent application 

of the PBR concept, and increased cooperation 

with international, state, and other agencies to 

promote co-management plans. 

���� ��

Chapter III. MMPA Section 117

Stock Assessment Program and Reports

The Pacific SRG notes that Paul Wade of the 

Office of Protected Resources has been serving 

as a liaison between the different SRGs, which 

has better informed the SRGs and helped 

promote consistency among the groups. 

(7)	 The Pacific SRG recognizes the problems of 

increasing pinniped populations in some areas, 

particularly where pinniped predation on 

threatened and endangered salmonid species may 

be an issue. The literature review being 

conducted by the Pinniped-Fishery Interaction 

Task Force was not thought to be sufficient for 

answering the critical fisheries-interaction 

questions for California sea lions and harbor 

seals along the Northwest Pacific coast, and the 

Pacific SRG recommends region-wide research 

be conducted, particularly into the food habits of 

these species. 

The Pacific SRG notes that a report of the team 

is being finalized. The recommended research 

has not been done. 

Second Priority 

(1)	 The Pacific SRG recognizes the problems 

inherent in defining ZMRG, and the group could 

not provide a viable alternative. The group 

recommends that the NMFS assess the 

performance of the ZMRG guidelines in its thirdyear report to Congress. 

The Pacific SRG notes that the GAMMS 

workshop dealt with this issue and NMFS is 

considering a final position 

(2)	 The Pacific SRG recommends that the use of 

fishermen logbook data for monitoring marine 

mammal mortality be discontinued. Such data 

are not reliable and the program is a drain of 

resources from more effective programs. 

The Pacific SRG notes that the MMPA now 

requires that all commercial fishermen report 

mortality and injury of marine mammals to 

NMFS. These reports are being collected by 

NMFS’ regional offices. Regarding the use of 

such information, the PBR guidelines used by 

NMFS to prepare marine mammal stock 

assessment reports states: "There is a general 

view that marine mammal mortality information 

from logbook or fisher report data can only be 

considered as a minimum estimate of mortality, 

although exceptions may occur. Logbook or 

fisher report information can be used to 

determine whether the minimum mortality is 

greater than the PBR (or greater than 10% of the 

PBR), but it should not be used to determine 

whether the mortality is less than the PBR (or 

10% of the PBR). Logbook data for fisher 

reports should not be used as the sole 

justification for determining that a particular 

stock is not strategic or that its mortality and 

serious injury rate is insignificant and 

approaching zero rate." 

���� ��

Chapter III. MMPA Section 117 

Stock Assessment Program and Reports 

Table 3. 

Species Management Recommendations 

Marine mammals 1. 

2. 

mammal-fishery interactions. 

3. 

development of a rapid response team. 

4. 

specific estimates of marine mammal by-catch annually. 

5. 

process. 

Steller sea lion 6. 

and on commercial fisheries. 

Table 2. 

Species Research Recommendations- High Priority Only 

Humpback whale 1. 

Harbor Porpoise 2. 

3. 

porpoise in Alaska. 

Harbor seal 4. 

in Alaska. 

5. 

improved survey techniques, better estimates of P(hauled), and more careful attention to 

seasonal and habitat differences in hauling behavior. 

Beluga whale 6. 

Sound, through improved survey techniques, better estimates of P(sight), and more careful 

attention to seasonal movement patterns. 

7. 

early winter surveys. 

N. fur seal 8. 

abundance from pup counts, and if appropriate, reevaluate the depleted status of this stock. 

Summary of Alaska SRG’s management recommendations for species managed by NMFS 

Develop policy on classifying mortalities associated with the use of “personal-use” nets. 

Finalize regulations on the use of deterrents by commercial fishers in mitigating marine 

Expand existing stranding response program in Alaska, especially regarding the 

Initiate observer programs in all Cat. II fisheries and use these data to provide fisheryDevelop policy on classifying injuries as serious and how such data will be used in the PBR 

Evaluate the effect of the “no-trawl” zones on the population dynamics of Steller sea lions 

Summary of Alaska SRG’s research recommendations for species managed by the NMFS 

Develop and implement protocol for estimating abundance. 

Improve survey design for harbor porpoise in Alaska 

Expand sampling regime for genetic analysis to determine stock structure of harbor 

Expand sampling regime for genetic analysis to determine stock structure of harbor seals 

Improve estimates of abundance of harbor seals, especially in Bristol Bay, through 

Improve estimates of abundance for beluga whales, especially in Bristol Bay and Norton 

Expand seasonal coverage of beluga whales in Cook Inlet to include fall and possibly 

Evaluate the suitability of the current correction factor used to extrapolate current 

���� ��

Chapter III. MMPA Section 117

Stock Assessment Program and Reports

���� �� 

(3)	 The Pacific SRG recommends research into nonfishery human-caused mortality. Specifically, 

how to quantify such mortality, 

and how to incorporate this mortality into the 

PBR process. Such research should be given a 

higher priority as the fishery mortality 

approaches the PBR. 

The Pacific SRG notes that no progress has been 

made on this. Paul Wade suggested a more 

specific recommendation could be made to 

encourage further research. 

(4)	 It is unknown whether the virtual disappearance 

of pilot whales from the California coast is a 

natural phenomena due perhaps to changing 

environmental conditions or due to fishery 

interactions. Research into the current 

distribution and migration patterns on an 

opportunistic basis may shed light on these 

questions. Broad-scale ecosystem studies may 

suggest reasons for these changes, as well as 

recent changes in the distribution and abundance 

of other pinniped and cetacean species in the 

North Pacific. 

The Pacific SRG notes that no progress has been 

made on this item. 

(5)	 The Pacific SRG recommends monitoring the 

west coast squid purse-seine fishery with an 

observer program because of the lack of current 

information about marine mammal mortalities in 

this fishery and the previous interactions thought 

to occur with the southern California pilot whale 

population that has since declined in the area. 

(6)	 The Pacific SRG notes that this fishery is being 

proposed as a Category II fishery in the 1997 

List of Fisheries based in part on the Pacific 

SRGs recommendations. 
Chapter III. MMPA Section 117 

Stock Assessment Program and Reports 

���� ��

Chapter IV. Ecosystem Activities

Bering Sea Ecosystem Study 

The MMPA 1994 Amendments require NMFS to 

undertake a scientific research program to resolve 

uncertainties concerning the causes of population 

declines in marine mammals, sea birds and other 

living resources of the ecosystem. The amendments 

also require that the study consider the research 

recommendations developed by previous workshops 

on the Bering Sea and that it include research on 

subsistence use of resources and ways to provide for 

the continued use of these resources. An important 

component of the study will be the involvement of 

native Alaskan groups in the work, and the use of 

traditional local knowledge in the conduct of Bering 

Sea research. 

NMFS and numerous other federal and state agencies 

and academic institutions already conduct research in 

the Bering Sea which contributes to an understanding 

of the ecosystem and potential declines in living 

marine resource populations. However, the various 

research efforts are not coordinated from an ecosystem 

perspective. NMFS' objective in undertaking this 

research program is not to duplicate research already 

ongoing, but to coordinate among these programs and 

supplement this work as required. 

As a first step, NMFS is developing a comprehensive 

ecosystem study plan to define research, monitoring 

and assessment priorities. The plan is being developed 

through a series of steps involving NMFS, other 

federal agencies, the State of Alaska and Alaska native 

groups. NMFS completed the first draft of the plan in 

early 1995. During this phase, recommendations of 

previous Bering Sea workshops and symposia were 

reviewed and incorporated into the plan as 

appropriate. The plan was circulated to the MMC, 

State of Alaska, FWS, NBS, Alaska native 

organizations and others for review and comment, and 

revised. 

In November 1995, NMFS sponsored a workshop in 

Anchorage to review current Bering Sea research 

efforts, determine gaps in current research efforts, 

finalize the study plan, and determine how the 

research would be conducted. The workshop was 

attended by over 90 participants from NOAA, the 

above-mentioned agencies and organizations, and the 

general public, and was successful in reviewing 

current research efforts and research gaps. Alaska 

Native organizations at the workshop focused on the 

role of traditional environmental knowledge (TEK) in 

the study. NMFS will continue development of the 

scientific plan, and will incorporate any Alaska Native 

input on TEK once it is available. 

Gulf of Maine Ecosystem 

Workshop 

On September 18, 1995, NMFS convened the Gulf of 

Maine Ecosystem Workshop at Dartmouth University. 

The workshop objectives were to: 1. assess the humancaused factors affecting the affecting the health and 

stability of the Gulf of Maine ecosystem; and 2. 

identify research and management options to restore 

and/or maintain the environmental quality of the 

ecosystem. Over 70 participants from state and 

federal government, academic institutions, 

environmental NGOs and fishing groups as well as 

private citizens gathered to discuss the status of the 

ecosystem. 

The workshop consisted of plenary presentations and 

a public comment forum, followed by focused 

working groups, and synthesis and drafting sessions. 

Plenary subjects included the Gulf of Maine physical 

environment, water column processes, benthic 

environments, fisheries resources, protected species, 

and sources, fates and effects of contaminants. The 

three working groups were anthropogenic impacts, 

fisheries harvesting and protected species/marine 

mammals. In each working group, the status of 

knowledge for that topic was surveyed, individual 

ecosystem stressors (direct and indirect) were 

identified, and research and management 

recommendations were then developed for each. 

Habitat, biodiversity, and ecosystem function were 

emphasized as cross-cutting themes in each working 

group. 

The following were identified as the major factors 

affecting the health and stability of the system: 

C Overfishing, and related impacts, 

���� ��

Chapter IV. Ecosystem Activities 

C Contaminant introduction, 

C Physical alteration and loss of critical habitat, 

C Impacts of human-activities and development on 

endangered/threatened species, 

C Factors external to the Gulf which affect 

seasonally resident and indigenous populations 

(global warming, mortality to migratory 

populations while outside the Gulf). 

Based on these priority impacts, the workshop made 

the following recommendations with regard to 

research and management: 

Research 

C Identify critical linkages between ecosystem 

components and subsystems, and their sensitivity 

to cumulative and individual stressors; 

C Implement additional interdisciplinary research 

approaches; 

C Evaluate the resilience of the Gulf of Maine 

ecosystem and its components known to be 

affected by stressors; 

C Develop criteria to assess sensitivity of coastal 

embayments and estuaries from an 

interdisciplinary perspective of habitat change, 

contaminant introduction, fisheries harvesting and 

physical and biological processes. 

Management 

C Seek cost-effective solutions through increased 

integration of rigorous scientific assessment of the 

problems and potential management options; 

C Develop and implement integrated management 

strategies encompassing the key or sensitive 

components of both the Gulf of Maine per se and 

its watersheds; 

C Strengthen existing water quality criteria and 

enforcement activities in the Gulf of Maine; 

C Adopt a precautionary approach in the face of 

uncertainty or insufficient information. 

The Executive Summary report of the workshop, as 

well as a NMFS report including major conclusions 

and recommendations on research, management and 

legislation, was forwarded to Congress on January 23, 

1996. The final workshop proceedings were 

completed and available on April 30, 1996. 

���� ��

Chapter V. Dolphin Interactions with

Commercial Tuna Fisheries in the Eastern

Tropical Pacific Ocean

Background and Domestic Fleet 

The most widely known interaction between marine 

mammals and commercial fisheries is the incidental 

take of dolphins by yellowfin tuna purse seiners in the 

eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). For reasons not 

fully understood, schools of large yellowfin tuna (25 

kg or larger) tend to associate with dolphins in the 

ETP. In the late 1950s, fishermen began exploiting 

this association by deploying large purse seine nets 

around the dolphin schools to catch the tuna 

swimming below. Despite the fishermen's attempts to 

release the dolphins, many became trapped in the nets 

and drowned. Efforts to reduce dolphin mortality in 

the ETP have been a central focus of the MMPA since 

it was enacted in 1972. 

In 1992, efforts to reduce dolphin mortality in the ETP 

resulted in passage of the International Dolphin 

Conservation Act (IDCA), which focuses on ways to 

eliminate rather than merely reduce dolphin mortality. 

The IDCA (Title III of the MMPA) gave authority to 

the Department of State to enter into international 

agreements with other nations to institute, effective 

March 1, 1994, a 5-year moratorium on harvesting 

tuna by setting purse seine nets on marine mammals. 

It also amended the general permit issued to the 

American Tunaboat Association (ATA), reducing the 

dolphin mortality allowed under the permit from an 

annual maximum of 20,500 dolphins to not more than 

1,000 for 1992 and not more than 800 for the 14­

month period from January 1993 to March 1994. The 

ATA general permit was scheduled to expire at that 

point. However, no major tuna fishing nation 

committed to the 5-year moratorium. Thus, the 

general permit continued in effect (with an expiration 

date of December 31, 1999), with the additional 

requirement that annual incidental dolphin mortality 

not exceed the number of mortalities which occurred 

under the permit during the preceding year. The 

IDCA also prohibited, with certain exceptions, any 

person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States intentionally to set a purse seine net on 

or to encircle any marine mammal during any tuna 

fishing operation after February 1994. The U.S. fleet 

did not make any sets on dolphins in 1995 and the 

total mortality for 1995 was zero dolphins. This 

means that there was no allowable mortality quota 

available to the U.S. fleet in 1996. 

Since June 1994, the MMPA allows only tuna that are 

dolphin safe to be sold, bought, offered for sale, 

shipped or transported in the United States. Even 

though the U.S. market was restricted under the 

MMPA to only dolphin safe tuna, the MMPA also 

requires all U.S. purse seine vessels intending to fish 

in association with dolphin in the ETP to request a 

Dolphin Mortality Limit (DML) from the 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 

A vessel is not required to have a DML if it fishes 

"dolphin safe" and does not target schools of fish 

found beneath dolphins. Five U.S. flag purse seine 

fishing vessels, each with a carrying capacity of 

greater than 400 short tons, operated in the ETP in 

1996. Several U.S. vessels requested DML's from the 

IATTC at the beginning of 1996 in anticipation of 

changes to the MMPA that would allow the U.S. 

vessels to set on dolphin. Passage of bills that would 

amend the MMPA was not successful in 1996, 

however, and the DML’s issued to U.S. vessels at the 

beginning of the year were forfeited for the second 

semester. 

International Fleet 

By the end of 1996, five harvesting nations with purse 

seine vessels greater than 400 short tons (362.8 metric 

tons) carrying capacity harvesting yellowfin tuna in 

the ETP remained under primary embargo as required 

by the MMPA: Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Vanuatu 

and Venezuela. The MMPA requires that yellowfin 

tuna or products from yellowfin tuna caught in the 

ETP by purse seine vessels be prohibited from 

importation into the United States from any harvesting 

nation unless the Secretary has issued an affirmative 

finding. An affirmative finding is issued if the nation 

demonstrates that it has a marine mammal regulatory 

program and a marine mammal mortality rate 

���� ��

Chapter V. Dolphin Interactions with Commercial Tuna 

Fisheries in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean 

comparable to that of the United States. Alternatively, 

a harvesting nation may request an affirmative finding 

if it has prohibited dolphin sets by its fleet. Spain and 

Ecuador were issued affirmative findings for 1996 as 

harvesting nations whose vessels do not set on 

dolphins. 

Under the MMPA, an intermediary nation is one that 

exports yellowfin tuna to the United States and also 

imports yellowfin tuna or yellowfin tuna products that 

are subject to a ban on direct importation into the 

United States. Three nations, Costa Rica, Italy and 

Japan, remained subject to "intermediary nation" 

embargo in 1996. All yellowfin tuna and yellowfin 

tuna products are prohibited from importation into the 

United States from a nation under "intermediary 

nation" embargo. 

The La Jolla Agreement 

The United States, as a member of the IATTC, 

participates in the Intergovernmental meetings and 

the International Review Panel (IRP) meetings. The 

IRP was established by international agreement in 

1992 in La Jolla, California, to review the 

performance of each of the vessels of the international 

fleet that participates in the yellowfin tuna purse seine 

fishery (La Jolla Agreement). The goal of this 

multilateral agreement is to reduce marine mammal 

mortalities in the fishery while sustaining the yield of 

tuna. Reductions in dolphin mortality in the 

international fishery have been achieved through the 

International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP) 

under the La Jolla Agreement. The total dolphin 

mortality in the international fishery in 1996 was 

2,547 animals, or 28 percent of the overall limit of 

9,000. 

The overall annual Dolphin Mortality Limit (DML) set 

for the international fleet by the La Jolla Agreement 

through 1999, is allocated annually to vessels that 

meet certain criteria, including observer coverage, 

possession of the equipment required for releasing 

captured dolphins unharmed, agreement to adhere to 

IATTC standards regarding fishing practices, training 

of crew members in dolphin safety techniques, and 

monetary support of the IDCP observer program. 

Every vessel in the fishery is assigned an individual 

vessel quota based on the total number of vessels in 

the fishery for the year divided into the total DML for 

the year. The information collected by the required 

100 percent observer coverage is essential for 

scientific research and for ensuring compliance with 

the agreement. 

The IRP meets about three times annually and is 

charged with reviewing and reporting on the 

compliance of the international fleet with the La Jolla 

Agreement and verifying the performance of 

individual vessels. The IRP is made up of 

representatives of governments, the fishing industry, 

and non-governmental environmental organization. 

The Panama Declaration 

On October 4, 1995, the governments of Belize, 

Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, Honduras, 

Mexico, Panama, Spain, the United States of America, 

Vanuatu, and Venezuela met in Panama City to 

reaffirm the following commitments and objectives of 

the La Jolla Agreement: (1) progressively reducing 

dolphin mortality in the ETP to levels approaching 

zero through the setting of annual limits and (2) with 

a goal of eliminating dolphin mortality in the fishery, 

seeking ecologically sound means of capturing large 

yellowfin tunas not in association with dolphins. 

These nations announced their intention to formalize 

the La Jolla Agreement as a binding legal instrument 

which shall be open to all nations with coastlines 

bordering the ETP or with vessels fishing for tuna in 

this region. This would be accomplished by adoption 

of a binding resolution or other legally binding 

instrument. The adoption of the IATTC resolution or 

other legally binding instrument, that utilizes to the 

maximum extent possible the existing structure of the 

IATTC is contingent upon the enactment of changes 

in U.S. Law, specifically the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. 

The Panama Declaration would, among other things, 

establish: (1) through the year 2000 a per-stock, 

per-year cap of between 0.2% of the Minimum 

Estimated Abundance (Nmin) (as calculated by NMFS 

or equivalent standard) and 0.1% of Nmin; (2) 

���� ��

Chapter V. Dolphin Interactions with Commercial Tuna 

Fisheries in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean 

beginning in the year 2001 a per-stock, per-year cap of 

0.1% of Nmin; (3) a 5,000 total numerical cap on 

dolphin mortalities in the fishery; and (4) a per-vessel 

maximum annual DML consistent with the per- year 

mortality caps. 

The countries agreeing to the Panama Declaration 

envisioned several changes to U.S. Law which would 

result in the lifting of primary and secondary 

embargoes, and a change in the definition of "dolphin 

safe" to describe any tuna caught in the ETP purse 

seine fishery in a set in which no dolphin mortality 

occurred as documented by observers. 

Several bills pending before Congress at the end of 

1995 would implement all or some of the provisions of 

the Panama Declaration. Both the Senate and the 

House held hearings in 1996 to discuss the proposed 

legislation. At the end of 1996, legislation that would 

implement the Panama Declaration had passed in the 

House but failed in the Senate. Steps were underway 

at the end of 1996 to reintroduce appropriate 

legislation early in the 105th Congress. 

���� ��

���� ��

Chapter VI. Marine Mammal Interactions 

with Other Human Activities

Regionwide Pinniped-Fishery 

Interactions Study 

NMFS has been given the authority to conduct a study 

on the interaction between pinnipeds and anadromous 

fish in at least three areas within the Northwest Region 

(Washington and Oregon) to evaluate: 1) fish behavior 

in the presence of predators; 2) holding times and 

passage rates of anadromous fish in the presence and 

absence of predation; and 3) whether additional 

facilities exist, or can be modified to improve 

escapement. However, this investigation will not be 

conducted until appropriations have been allocated. 

Interaction of California Sea Lions 

and Pacific Harbor Seals with 

Salmonid Stocks 

NMFS is to investigate whether California sea lions 

and Pacific harbor seals are having: 1) a significant 

negative impact on the recovery of salmonid fishery 

stocks listed as threatened or endangered under the 

ESA or are approaching endangered or threatened 

status; and 2) broader impacts on coastal ecosystems 

of Washington, Oregon and California. 

To assist in compiling information for the 

investigation, NMFS established a working group 

comprised of biologists familiar with pinniped and 

salmonid issues in the Pacific Northwest. The 

working group met twice in 1995, and produced a 

draft report in October 1995. After a prolonged 

review process, the scientific report has been 

submitted to editors for publication as a NOAA 

Technical Memorandum from the Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center. 

Using the information from the scientific report as a 

focus of discussions, NMFS began discussions with 

the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 

(PSMFC) and representatives of Washington, Oregon, 

and California in June, 1996. Over the course of four 

meetings and numerous conference calls during the 

last 8 months, two issues were identified from the 

scientific investigation, and four recommendations 

were developed. 

The two issues on pinniped impacts on salmonids and 

west coast ecosystems described in the Report are as 

follows: 

1. California sea lion and Pacific harbor seal 

populations on the West Coast are increasing 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. Increasing California sea lion and Pacific harbor 

seal populations and their expanding distribution are 

negatively impacting commercial fisheries, affecting 

recreational fishing and private property, and posing 

threats to public safety. 

The four recommendations in the draft report to 

Congress are: 

1. Implement site-specific management for 

California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals. 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 would be: 

(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 

���� ��

Chapter VI. Marine Mammal Interactions 

with Other Human Activities 

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, adequately 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 reinstate 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 kill 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, it was not included in the 1994 Amendments 

to the MMPA. A limited authorization, based on 

demonstrated need, should be provided to 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. 

The discussions with PSMFC and the States were 

completed in early 1996, and the draft report was 

submitted through the NMFS clearance process. The 

report must be made available for public review and 

comment for a mandatory 90-day period before 

preparation of a final report. The final report is 

expected to be submitted to Congress during the 

summer of 1997. 

���� ��

Chapter VI. Marine Mammal Interactions with 

Other Human Activities 

Gulf of Maine Pinniped-Fishery 

Interaction Task Force 

The 1994 MMPA Amendments require 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 task force, 

appointed in January 1995, was comprised of salmon 

growers, a state resource manager, representatives of 

environmental organizations, and a pinniped biologist 

from the academic research community. Three task 

force meetings were held in the Eastport, ME area and 

one was held in Portland, ME. All meetings of the 

task force were open to the public. 

On February 7, 1996, the task force submitted its final 

report to NMFS. Among the recommendations to 

mitigate pinniped-aquaculture interactions were: 

C NMFS should review regulations, permit 

processes and all restrictions on currently held 

permits, and revisit those measures which limit 

a grower's ability to control seal predation 

through non-lethal measures. 

C NMFS should increase transboundary 

cooperation with Canadian authorities and work 

to endure that Canadian growers do not have a 

production or marketing advantage due to less 

restrictive regulations. 

C NMFS should halt the importation of salmon 

from nations that allow use of lethal measures to 

control predation at salmon pen-sites. 

C NMFS, Maine DMR and the Maine Aquaculture 

Innovation Center should investigate innovative 

net pen designs. 

C NMFS should support research on the effects of 

acoustic deterrence devices. 

C NMFS and Maine DMR should conduct studies 

of seal life history to better understand the causes 

underlying interactions with aquaculture 

operations. 

C The salmon aquaculture industry should increase 

efforts to document losses from predator 

impacts. 

C Salmon growers and Maine aquaculture 

associations should work with federal and state 

agencies, academic institutions and NGOs to 

make predation control measures more effective 

and affordable. 

C NMFS should offer subsidized loans and an 

insurance program to assist growers to 

implement predation-control measures and to 

withstand losses from predators when they occur. 

NMFS will use the task force report as the basis of a 

report to Congress, which will include 

recommendations on how to mitigate the pinnipedaquaculture interactions. NMFS made the task force 

report available for public review and comment. 

Following the close of the comment period, NMFS 

used the task force recommendations and comments 

received from the public to prepare its proposed 

recommendations to Congress 

A draft of the report to Congress is completed and was 

made available for a 30-day public review and 

comment period in mid-March, 1997. Highlights of 

the recommendations include the following: 

(1) The aquaculture industry needs to develop a 

reporting system to substantiate its claims, 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 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 

���� ��

Chapter VI. Marine Mammal Interactions 

with Other Human Activities 

the need for intentional lethal taking under the 

MMPA. The 1992 legislative proposal would allow 

intentional lethal taking marine mammals not listed 

under the Endangered Species Act when: 

- There is a demonstrated need; 

- Non-lethal means were attempted and were 

unsuccessful; 

- The taking would have little effect on the 

marine mammal stock; and 

- The taking was monitored. 

In reiterating the NMFS legislative proposal of 1992, 

the draft report suggests that Congress, in consultation 

with various constituents and resource management 

agencies, re-examine the need for selective intentional 

lethal removal of marine mammals. 

Small Take Authorizations 

Since 1982, the MMPA has provided a mechanism for 

authorizing, upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. 

citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) for periods not to exceed five 

years per authorization. Before issuing regulations 

that allow the takes, NMFS must determine that the 

takes will not have more than negligible impact on the 

species requested to be taken and will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the 

species for subsistence hunting. The regulations 

require the applicant to monitor the taking of marine 

mammals during the activity and to report the results 

to NMFS. 

During 1996, three specific activities had 

authorizations to incidentally take marine mammals 

under this provision of the MMPA. The authorized 

activities were (1) the taking of ringed seals incidental 

to seismic activities on the ice in the Beaufort Sea; (2) 

the taking of bottlenose dolphins and spotted dolphins 

incidental to the removal of oil and gas structures in 

the Gulf of Mexico; and (3) the taking of a number of 

species of marine mammals during Navy ship shock 

trials off southern California. However, no Letters of 

Authorization were issued during 1996 for conducting 

ship shock trials off southern California. 

Authorizations for (1) the taking of six species of 

marine mammals incidental to energy exploration in 

the Beaufort Sea, and (2) the taking of seals and sea 

lions incidental to the launching of Titan IV rockets 

from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, expired 

in 1995 and 1996 respectively. Both activities 

obtained small take authorizations under the new 

Incidental Harassment Authorization program 

described below. 

While no new regulated small take authorizations 

were issued in 1996, NMFS received two applications 

for takings incidental to specified activities. These 

are: 

U.S. Navy Seawolf Shock Trial 

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 VA or 

Jacksonville, FL in the summer of 1997. The Navy 

proposes to shock test the USS SEAWOLF by 

detonating a 10,000-lb explosive charge near the 

submarine once per week over a 5-week period 

between May 1 and September 30, 1997, decreasing 

the distance between submarine and explosive each 

time. Detonations would occur 100 ft below the ocean 

surface in a water depth of 500 ft. The USS 

SEAWOLF would be underway at a depth of 65 ft 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 Navy's shock trial. The rule contains proposed 

measures for assuring minimal loss of marine life and 

requirements for monitoring the planned detonations. 

The public review and comment period closed on 

September 17, 1996. A final rule is expected in late 

spring, 1997. 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Large 

Whale-ship Strike Application 

���� ��

Chapter VI. Marine Mammal Interactions with 

Other Human Activities 

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 an order dated May 2, 1995, and was 

revised by an order dated May 19, 1995, in Strahan v. 

Linnon wherein the presiding District Court judge 

order the USCG to apply by May 31, 1995, for a small 

take of northern right whales. The USCG also 

requested a small take of humpback, blue, fin, sei and 

sperm whales. 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 ESA. The USCG 

submitted a final 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, the USCG requested 

reinitiation of consultation on February 22, 1996. 

That process was concluded on July 22, 1996. 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, 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. 

As 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 in which to submit 

comments on the application, in order to crystallize 

the underlying issues more efficiently and formally in 

the public forum. NMFS expects to make a final 

determination on the application in early spring, 1997. 

���� ��

Chapter VI. Marine Mammal Interactions 

with Other Human Activities 

Small Take AmendmentIncidental Harassment 

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

1994 MMPA amendments (Public Law 103-238) to 

establish an expedited process by which citizens of the 

United States can apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals 

by harassment. It established specific time limits for 

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). The 

rule also changed the existing regulations to clarify the 

requirements for obtaining a small take authorization 

and for requesting NMFS concurrence that no marine 

mammal takes are likely. 

NMFS believes that this rule will result in a more 

streamlined and cost effective method for obtaining 

small take by incidental harassment authorizations, 

without lessening the MMPA's protection of species 

and stocks of marine mammals. 

Under the new small take provisions, during 1996, 

NMFS accepted applications from, and issued 

authorizations to, the following activities: (1) the U.S. 

Air Force for authorization to take small numbers of 

seals and sea lions by harassment incidental to 

launches of Delta, Lockheed, Taurus and Titan rockets 

from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California; (2) 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 

MA, for authorization to take small numbers of marine 

mammals by harassment incidental to conducting a 

physical oceanography experiment that uses sound to 

study the flow field and mixing processes in Haro 

Strait, Puget Sound, WA; and (3) BPX (Alaska), 

Anchorage, AK for authorization to take small 

numbers of bowhead whales and 4 other species of 

marine mammals by harassment incidental to 

conducting a 3-D seismic survey in the Northstar area 

of the western Beaufort Sea, Alaska. 

Vandenberg AFB -- Launches of 

Delta, Lockheed, Taurus and Titan 

Rockets 

During 1996, NMFS issued incidental harassment 

authorizations to the U.S. Air Force at Vandenberg 

AFB to take small numbers of harbor seals, California 

sea lions, elephant seals and northern fur seals 

incidental to launches of Delta, Lockheed, Taurus and 

Titan rockets at Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

California. These authorizations, which are valid for 

one year were issued on July 17, 1996 (Lockheed 

launch vehicles), November 13, 1996 (McDonnell 

Douglas Delta II), November 13, 1996 (Orbital 

Science's Taurus rocket) and November 27, 1996 

(Titan II and IV rockets). 

Based upon documentation submitted with these 

requests, NMFS concurred with the U.S. Air Force 

that the launches will result in only negligible impacts 

to harbor seals located on the Vandenberg base and no 

impacts are likely at the pinniped haul-outs on San 

Miguel Island, except for launches of Titan IV rockets 

with a trajectory that could produce a sonic boom over 

the Northern Channel Islands. To ensure that these 

determinations are correct, the U.S. Air Force will 

conduct shore-side pinniped surveys along the 

Vandenberg coastline and will employ time-lapse 

photographic monitoring during any launch taking 

place during harbor seal pupping season, when 

observers are denied access to the beach. Acoustic 

monitoring will also be employed whenever necessary 

at South Vandenberg and on San Miguel Island to 

obtain launch noise profiles. Biological monitoring at 

locations on the NCI will take place whenever sonic 

���� ��

Chapter VI. Marine Mammal Interactions with 

Other Human Activities 

booms greater than 2 lbs/ft2 are predicted. 

Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology -- Haro Strait, Puget 

Sound, WA Oceanography 

Experiment 

On June 10, 1996, NMFS issued an incidental 

harassment authorization for approximately 30 days to 

MIT for the harassment of small numbers of marine 

mammals incidental to conducting a physical 

oceanography experiment that uses sound to study the 

flow field and mixing processes in Haro Strait, in the 

San Juan Island Archipelago (Puget Sound). The 

experiment, which ran from June 10 through July 5, 

1996, was scheduled to take advantage of the extreme 

ebb tides that occur only twice a year. The principal 

species of marine mammals requested for incidental 

harassment were: Harbor porpoise, killer whale, Dall's 

porpoise, and harbor seal. 

NMFS determined that the short-term impact on 

marine mammals from conducting this physical 

oceanography experiment in Haro Strait, would result 

in a negligible impact on marine mammals. This 

impact was expected to be limited to a short-term 

modification in behavior by certain species of marine 

mammals. While behavioral modifications may be 

made by these species to avoid noise, this behavioral 

change was expected to have only a negligible impact 

on the animals. However, the mitigation and 

monitoring measures, including the establishment of 

a scientific oversight committee, that were developed 

by the applicant, and are part of the authorization, 

provided additional protection to ensure that the 

project's impact on marine mammals and the affected 

whalewatching industry was at the lowest level 

practicable. 

BPX (Alaska) -- 3-D Seismic Survey 

in Beaufort Sea, Alaska. 

On March 18, 1996, NMFS received an application 

from BPXA requesting an authorization for the 

harassment of small numbers of several species of 

marine mammals, principally bowhead whales, 

incidental to conducting an ocean-bottom-cableseismic survey during the open water season in waters 

in and near the Northstar Unit, located in the U.S. 

Beaufort Sea. The purpose of the survey was to refine 

assessments of petroleum reserves in the Northstar 

Unit prior to developing those reserves. 

Bowhead whale mother and calf in the Beaufort Sea. 

(Photo credit: Gregory Silber) 

After a 30-day public comment period and a review of 

the documentation provided by the applicant and the 

commenters, NMFS determined that the short-term 

impact of conducting seismic surveys in the Northstar 

Unit 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. 

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. Due to the distribution and abundance of 

marine mammals during the projected period of 

activity and the location of the proposed seismic 

activity in waters generally too shallow and distant 

from the edge of the pack ice for most marine 

mammals of concern, the number of potential 

harassment takings is estimated to be small. 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, 

including a shutdown protocol when marine mammals 

entered a predesignated safety zone, ramping up the 

source whenever it is powered down for more than 1 

minute, requiring biological observers to monitor 

safety zones, and aerial monitoring after September 1, 

1996 to look for bowhead whales. 

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, 1996, BPX initiated 

aerial survey flights for bowhead whale assessments. 

In addition, appropriate mitigation measures to avoid 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of 

bowhead whales for subsistence needs were the 

subject of consultation between BPX and subsistence 

users. 

Therefore, an incidental harassment authorization was 

issued to BPXA on July 18, 1996 (July 25, 1996, 61 

FR 38715). 

On August 30, 1996, NMFS was notified by BPXA 

that, in accordance with the results of the transmission 

loss (TL) test required by the IHA, the safety ranges 

around the source for pinnipeds and cetaceans should 

be increased by 100 m (328 ft) to 250 and 750 m (820 

and 2,460 ft), respectively. Further investigation by 

NMFS determined that these increased safety ranges 

would be appropriate for the seismic array only, and 

would not apply to the use of single airguns, which 

had a 20 dB (re 1μPa @ 1 m) lower amplitude. NMFS 

noted at the time that these increased safety ranges 

were immediately implemented by BPXA. 

Chapter VI. Marine Mammal Interactions 

with Other Human Activities 

���� �� 
Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery

Programs

The MMPA authorizes NMFS to initiate management 

actions, such as the development of conservation 

plans, for species or stocks whose survival is in 

jeopardy. The ESA offers similar management 

authority to NMFS for endangered and threatened 

marine species. This chapter summarizes species 

management, as well as research, activities undertaken 

by NMFS pursuant to the MMPA and ESA in 1996. 

Northern Right Whale, 

Eubalaena glacialis 

The northern right whale has long been recognized as 

the world’s most endangered large whale species. 

Recent mortalities off the Atlantic coast of the United 

States, have caused escalating concern for the western 

North Atlantic population, especially with regard to 

the population’s vulnerability to human interaction. 

Since 1995, there have been 13, possibly 14, known 

serious injuries and/or mortalities of right whales off 

the Atlantic coast (5 due to entanglement, 3 due to 

ship strikes, 5 due to unknown or natural causes and 1 

death in 1996 due to ship strike of a whale injured by 

an entanglement in 1995). The primary humaninduced causes of right whale mortality are ship 

collisions and entanglement in fishing gear. In 

addition, habitat degradation and disturbance by 

vessels were identified as major threats to the 

population. 

Significant uncertainties remain concerning the 

current population status and trends. Regardless of the 

uncertainties, the precarious state of the right whale 

population strongly suggests that human activity may 

have a greater impact on population growth rates and 

trends relative to the other whale species. 

Recent Right Whale Injuries and 

Mortalities 

During the first three months of 1996, seven northern 

right whale (right whale) mortalities were 

documented. Six of these occurred in waters adjacent 

to the calving grounds off the southeastern United 

States. 

Following is a summary of the whales that were 

retrieved and necropsied (these descriptions are 

excerpted from the respective necropsy reports) as 

well as those that were observed but not retrieved, 

during January- March 1996. 

January 2, 1996 - A stranded dead, female right 

whale calf was located on Atlantic Beach, near 

Jacksonville, Florida. The whale was necropsied at 

New England Aquarium on January 11. No obvious 

sign of gross trauma was evident from the internal 

exam. A definitive statement was made that there 

were no gross lesions suggestive of vessel collision. 

January 30, 1996 - A 45 foot floating dead right 

whale was observed 10 miles east of Sapelo Island, 

Georgia by a private vessel and was reported to the 

USCG. The carcass was towed to shore and 

necropsied. No external evidence of trauma was 

visible with no evidence of chronic disease. Grossly 

the animal appeared in good flesh, but a large 

contusion was discovered that corresponded with 

deeper bone damage. The cranium sustained massive 

fracturing that extended into the upper left palate. The 

lateral processes of the cervical vertebrae were also 

broken and the atlas was disarticulated. The left ribs, 

left scapula and associated tissue and musculature 

showed heavy damage. The cranial fractures extended 

through massive bone elements. These injuries with 

the associated hemorrhage indicate blunt impact 

trauma with a large moving vessel. The nature of 

injuries indicate that death was rapid and cause of 

death was recorded as vessel collision. 

February 5, 1996 - Whale carcass observed by 

Navy at 30E29' N latitude (lat)/80E37' W longitude 

(long)(reported to Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FLDEP) on February 09, 

1996) 

February 7, 1996 - A 35 foot female right whale 

carcass observed by the US Navy at 30E44'N lat/80E

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

57.2'W long. Carcass not retrieved, species confirmed 

by FLDEP. Drift pattern believed to be inconsistent 

with carcass noted above (i.e. these likely were two 

different carcasses). 

February 19, 1996 - A female right whale calf 

was necropsied at the University of Florida. No 

external scars, abrasions or contusion were apparent. 

Significant findings included saturated, congested 

lungs and the fact that the calf appeared to be in good 

flesh and to have been nursing prior to death which 

precludes abandonment by the mother. 

Microscopically, the left eye exhibited mild 

inflammation around the ocular vasculature. Also, a 

small fracture of the basioccipital bone was observed, 

but no hemorrhage was associated with these fractures. 

February 22, 1996 - A male right whale calf was 

reported at 30E56.53'N lat/80E47.70'W long and towed 

to necropsy site north of Brunswick, GA. The changes 

observed in lung tissue from this calf are generally 

associated with shock. Internal hemorrhaging of 

tissues in the periocular region was noted and 

suggestive of a unilateral traumatic event such as 

concussion. The combination of the acute respiratory 

distress and the hemorrhaging behind the eye suggest 

effects from unidentified external trauma. 

March 9, 1996 - An adult male right whale 

stranded in Wellfleet, Massachusetts and was 

necropsied. The whale had lobster polypropylene 

going through both sides of the mouth and a lobster 

pot was attached to line. Propeller cuts were evident 

along the back, baleen was damaged and line scarring 

was present around the tailstock and leading edges of 

the flukes. A thick area of the skull was broken 

suggesting a ship strike, but it was not determined if 

this was before or after death. Propeller scarring was 

present and a major infection process was in progress. 

Cause of death could have been one of two 

possibilities: septicemia from abscess resulting from 

an old penetration wound or the animal was killed by 

a ship strike (evidence suggests that the cut in the 

back occurred premortem as dead whales typically 

float on their sides or belly up, making it unlikely, but 

not impossible, to be cut on the back). The gear 

entanglement did not seem severe enough to have 

caused the animal’s death, although it may have 

compromised feeding and swimming. 

March 25, 1996 - A dead whale was sighted by 

the Navy at 28E 55.3'N lat/079E 12.1'W long, 

approximately 80 nm east of New Smyrna Beach. The 

animal was reported as small, dark, and floating on its 

side which was consistent with the previous two right 

whale calves recently recovered. However, this 

animal could not be located by aerial sighting efforts 

and the search was abandoned. Species identification 

was unconfirmed. 

NMFS Ongoing Activities 

Concerning the Northern Right 

Whale 

ESA Section 7 Consultations 

Because of this increased level of mortality and the 

potential magnitude of those impacts to the 

population, and because NMFS was concerned that the 

biological baseline upon which an evaluation of 

impacts is based may have changed for the right whale 

population, NMFS believed that enhanced protective 

measures were appropriate for all activities, including 

Federal and non-Federal activities, that might have an 

impact on right whales. This included reinitiating 

consultations on Federal activities that could 

potentially impact right whales. The ESA requires 

reinitiation 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 

Consultation with the U.S. Navy--

Given the serious concern over the status of right 

whales, the Navy and NMFS began convening 

meetings on a near-continuous basis in mid-February 

1996. On March 12, 1996, the Navy initiated 

consultation with NMFS on the potential impacts of 

their gunnery and air-dropped ordnance operations in 

waters off the southeastern United States. The 

purpose of this consultation was to ensure that the 

Navy was taking all appropriate measures to protect 

the right whale, and to determine, if possible, the 

cause of death of the whales. 

Although there was no indication that naval operations 

were responsible for any of the right whale mortalities, 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

in March 1996 the Navy implemented additional right 

whale protective measures. Specifically, all ordnance 

activities during the right whale calving season were 

moved to locations at least 50 nm from shore adjacent 

to the right whale critical habitat; north-south transits 

through the habitat were prohibited; and a mine 

countermeasure exercise (using inert mines) was 

relocated further away from the critical habitat. 

As part of the consultation, on April 19, 1996, the 

Navy convened a panel of leading experts in marine 

mammal biology and physiology. The panel's purpose 

was to review, and if possible, determine the causes of 

the right whale mortalities in January and February 

1996. The panel reviewed the four available necropsy 

reports and concluded that one of the four whales died 

of massive acute trauma (shipstrike likely) but could 

not determine the cause of death for the other three 

cases. 

Vessel collisions with right whales do account for the 

greatest number of known mortalities to this species. 

Vessel collisions are also known causes of death and 

injury to endangered sea turtles. Therefore, to 

significantly reduce any possibility that any Navy 

action in the southeastern U.S. could result in a whale 

mortality or otherwise adversely affect right whales, 

and to minimize the effects of Navy activities on sea 

turtles, the scope of the consultation between the Navy 

and NMFS was expanded to include all Navy vessel 

and aircraft activities related to training in the 

consultation area (consultation area described in 

Section II, Critical Habitat and Area of Concern). 

NMFS and the Navy consulted on each activity being 

conducted by the Navy in the consultation area, and 

discussed mitigative or protective measures for each 

activity that would further reduce the possibility of 

any impacts to right whales, as well as other ESA 

listed species. Some, but not all, of the protective or 

mitigative measures discussed included: moving the 

activity away from critical habitat and contiguous 

high-density areas; limiting the scope of naval 

activities in critical habitat and contiguous highdensity areas to those that occur at a very slow, safe 

speed, and moving other activities that require higher 

speeds away from the critical habitat and contiguous 

high-density areas; moving gunnery and ordnance 

activities well outside of known high density right 

whale areas; and providing dedicated lookouts for 

surface ships while operating in critical habitat. For 

consultations on vessel activities that were similar to 

those of other Federal agencies, any reasonable and 

prudent alternatives or conservation recommendations 

from those opinions were incorporated into the 

proposed naval operations described in the Biological 

Assessment. NMFS and the Navy considered for 

adoption by the Navy in its suite of protective 

measures the reasonable and prudent alternatives and 

the conservation measures that appeared in other 

biological opinions recently issued by NMFS to other 

Federal agencies. Every attempt was made to mitigate 

the potential impacts of naval activities on right 

whales prior to the completion of their Biological 

Assessment. 

On November 27, 1996, the Navy completed a 

Biological Assessment describing naval activities that 

take place off the southeastern United States, and the 

mitigation or protective measures that the Navy had 

implemented, or proposed to implement, in connection 

with those activities to ensure that their activities are 

not likely to jeopardize right whales or other ESA 

listed species. This consultation will analyze the 

potential impacts of naval activities as modified and 

described in their Biological Assessment. 

The Navy will impose mitigation measures in the 

consultation area, designed to ensure that activities are 

not likely to adversely affect the right whale or other 

ESA listed species described in the following sections. 

All of these measures will be implemented by naval 

vessels and aircraft between December 1 and March 

31, generally referred to as the right whale calving 

season. If whale sightings indicate an early arrival or 

late departure of significant numbers of right whales 

off the southeast U.S., the timing of the protective 

measures is expected to be modified accordingly. 

Coast Guard Consultation 

On September 15, 1995, NMFS issued a Biological 

Opinion to the U.S. Coast Guard pursuant to Section 

7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, on vessel and aircraft activities along the 

Atlantic Coast. That opinion included a discussion of 

information on protected species in this area as well as 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

discussion of the possible impacts from these 

activities. In 1991 and 1993, the severely depleted 

northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) was 

involved in two (one each year) documented strikes by 

Coast Guard vessels. Because so few individuals are 

left in the population, any impact to this species is 

considered extremely critical. For the Coast Guard, 

the most serious impact is the possibility of a ship 

strike that results in injury or mortality of a right 

whale. Since the strikes that occurred in 1991 and 

1993, the Coast Guard has implemented many 

programs to protect whales, working in conjunction 

with NMFS and the Recovery Plan Implementation 

Teams for right whales in the Northeast and Southeast 

Regions. 

NMFS concluded that the programs implemented 

since the 1993 incident were adequate to reduce the 

probability of another ship strike. That factor, 

combined with current information on the population 

at that time, which showed a small but steady 2.5% 

population growth rate, resulted in a determination 

that continued vessel activities may adversely affect, 

but would not jeopardize the continued existence of 

the northern right whale and would not result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of its critical 

habitat. 

The 1995 Biological Opinion required reinitiation of 

consultation if there is a strike of any endangered 

whale, or if new information becomes available that 

changes the basis for the original conclusions 

including information on effects that were not 

considered, modification of the proposed action, or a 

new species is listed or critical habitat designated that 

may be affected by this action. 

On November 7, 1995, the District Commander 

notified the NMFS Northeast Regional Director by 

letter that a Coast Guard cutter may have made 

physical contact with a humpback whale while on 

patrol in the vicinity of George’s Basin. NMFS staff 

received the initial Letter Incident Report from the 

Reliance on January 24, 1996. On February 20, 1996, 

the Coast Guard sent the completed investigation 

report to NMFS headquarters. This correspondence 

requested reinitiation of consultation, as specified in 

the September 15, 1995 biological opinion, and was 

based on the probability that the vessel strike involved 

an endangered humpback whale. 

Between February 20 and June 24, 1996, NMFS 

continued to consult with the Coast Guard through 

meetings at the headquarters level and coordination 

through the First District and the NMFS Northeast 

Region. This includes meetings on April 22 and June 

7 at headquarters to discuss issues pertaining to the 

reinitiation. On May 20, 1996, NMFS sent a letter 

delineating the information that was needed before the 

reinitiated biological opinion could be completed. 

This information was received from the Coast Guard 

on June 21, 1996. A final Biological Opinion was 

issued by NMFS to the Coast Guard on July 22, 1996. 

As a result of the consultations, the Coast Guard 

issued stricter reporting requirements which went out 

under the District’s guidance. The reporting 

requirements state that "OPCON shall immediately 

notify District Command Center if any vessel comes 

into contact with a whale. The First Coast Guard 

District is required to notify NMFS within 24 hours of 

the incident." 

Proposed Activity 

This reinitiation of consultation considered continued 

operation of vessels and aircraft by the USCG in 

support of its missions: response to marine pollution 

events, port safety and security issues, law 

enforcement issues, search and rescue missions, vessel 

traffic control, and maintenance of aids to navigation. 

These activities are described in detail in the 

biological assessment and the NMFS Biological 

Opinion. In addition, this consultation considered the 

activities that are being implemented in response to 

the conservation recommendations in that opinion, but 

do not constitute a modification of the proposed action 

and are not a reason for the reinitiation. These actions 

have been adopted as part of the Coast Guard's 

"Atlantic Protected Living Marine Resource 

Initiative." 

In the biological opinion, NMFS provided the Coast 

Guard with a reasonable and prudent alternative, 

stating that the Coast Guard must reduce significantly 

the possibility of vessel collisions with right whales, 

including those by non-Coast Guard vessels where the 

agency has the authority to act. If implemented fully 

and in a timely manner, would significantly reduce the 

Coast Guard’s potential to cause injury or mortality to 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

a right whale and, therefore, avoids the likelihood of 

jeopardizing the continued existence of right whales 

and would not violate section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. This 

alternative included measures to mitigate the 

probability of a strike by the Coast Guard as well as 

measures to reduce the probability of a strike by other 

vessels. Also, it required new measures to reduce the 

possibility of a strike in addition to those described as 

conservation recommendations in the September 1995 

NMFS opinion to the Coast Guard. 

The following are significant components of the 

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives from both the 

1995 and 1996 consultations, considered necessary to 

ensure that Coast Guard vessel operations avoid 

striking whales to the maximum extent possible and 

that long-term operations are not likely to jeopardize 

the north Atlantic right whale: 

1. Between January 1 and March 31, when humpback


and fin whales are concentrated in shallow waters


between Cape Henry and Cape Hatteras, all USCG


vessels operating in this area should post dedicated


lookouts to spot endangered species. This lookout


should watch for whales at all times, and the vessel


operator


should take necessary precautions to avoid whales.


2. In addition to posting dedicated observers on 

vessels in the southeastern critical habitat area over 

the calving season, it is recommended that dedicated 

observers also be posted on all USCG vessels 

operating in the general area between Savannah 

Georgia and Palm Beach, Florida, to watch for whales. 

Critical months in Savannah are November -

December and March - April, when the whales are 

transiting to and from the calving grounds, and 

January to March in the extended area to the south of 

designated critical habitat. 

3. The Coast Guard must ensure that all dedicated 

lookouts have successfully completed the marine 

mammal training program which includes a field 

training section. The field training section must be 

conducted during the course of normal onboard duty 

to learn sighting and identification cues and common 

behavioral patterns of all species of endangered 

whales as they are encountered during operations. 

This program must also provide training on 

appropriate operation of vessels in the vicinity of 

whales. Although the current training program points 

out all the appropriate sources of information such as 

regulations and field guides, and slides are used to 

show the different species characteristics, it is difficult 

to actually apply such knowledge to any group of 

animals without the appropriate field experiences. 

Improving the current training program should help 

prevent most future potential interactions. The Coast 

Guard should standardize this requirement by making 

it part of Coast Guard qualification criteria for bridge 

watch standers. This component will not only help 

Coast Guardsmen observe whales so that they can be 

avoided, but it will also increase the effectiveness of 

the agency in whale watch enforcement actions and in 

providing disentanglement assistance. 

4. In the southeastern United States (Georgia through 

Florida) from mid-December through March, to 

protect the calving grounds for the northern right 

whale, broadcasts reporting right whale sightings by 

the Early Warning System should be transmitted as 

quickly as possible over NAVTEX and any other 

practicable means available to as wide a distribution 

of vessels possible. The message should advise 

mariners within 15 nm of the sighting to operate at the 

slowest safe speed, exercise caution, and keep a watch 

for right whales. 

5. The USCG should develop training for personnel 

that emphasizes not only stranding and enforcement 

issues, but information on the distribution and 

behavior of these species that will help the USCG to 

anticipate where and when conflicts may occur. 

6. When and where possible, routine transits should 

avoid those high-use and high-density whale habitat 

areas during the seasons when whales are concentrated 

in those areas. For the northern right whale, these 

areas are shown on nautical charts as Critical Habitat. 

7. The USCG should continue its active participation 

in regional recovery plan implementation teams and 

task forces. 

8. The USCG should continue fulfilling its missions, 

with modifications as discussed above, which support 

recovery efforts of protected species. 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

9. During standard operations, and following a whale 

sighting, USCG vessels should maintain a minimum 

distance from the whale (recommended distances are 

a minimum 100-yards for all large whales). 

10. The Coast Guard must post dedicated lookouts 

during all transits, both emergency and nonemergency, that occur within 20 nm of shore in 

addition to posting lookouts during transits in all areas 

of whale concentrations and high use by right whales, 

including but not limited to critical habitat in Cape 

Cod Bay, the Great South Channel and in the calving 

grounds off the Georgia and Florida Coast and other 

special areas off Georgia and Florida recently 

recognized as right whale habitat (specifically, the 

area offshore and also to the south of currently 

designated critical habitat, east to the western wall of 

the Gulf Stream and south to West Palm Beach). A 

"dedicated lookout" can be the person who is the 

regular posted lookout, but who has successfully 

completed the marine mammal training program 

described below and, while posted as a lookout, does 

not perform duties that would require leaving the 

lookout post unattended. 

11. The First, Fifth, and Seventh Districts must 

continue current activities in conjunction with the 

respective Recovery Plan Implementation Teams in 

New England and the Southeast to provide support for 

aerial surveys during periods of high use in the 

different districts, and if necessary, provide additional 

effort. Current areas and times include, but are not 

limited to, February through June for the Great South 

Channel and Cape Code Bay critical habitats and 

December through March for the southeast calving 

and nursery areas. Since no team is currently 

addressing the mid-Atlantic issues, vessel support for 

sighting must be increased when right whales are in 

the area. 

12. The Coast Guard will adopt a policy during nonemergency operations of not approaching whales 

head-on and not approaching right whales within 500 

yards and all other whales within 100 yards. NMFS 

will work with the Coast Guard to establish a detailed 

protocol regarding approaches to whales. Unless 

positively identified as another whale species, any 

large whale should be considered a suspected right 

whale especially if one has been recently sighted by 

the vessel, or if the vessel is in an area where right


whales could be present. Obviously, if the Coast


Guard is assisting in the rescue of an endangered


whale, including right whales, or 


performing its duties to enforce the ESA and the 


MMPA, the recommended distance does not apply. 


13. The Coast Guard must provide information to 

commercial and recreational vessel operators that is 

geared to avoiding collisions with endangered whales. 

It should include information to identify whales, 

critical habitat and other whale concentration and 

high-use areas, photos of what whales look like on the 

surface when vessel operators are most likely to 

encounter them, and regulations applicable to the 

protection of right whales. Also, it should include 

information about the whale's highly endangered 

status and what the operator can do to avoid causing 

them harm. Operators must be instructed to report all 

collisions or sightings of dead right whales 

immediately. In addition to other public education and 

outreach endeavors, the Coast Guard will work with 

the two Federal agencies that maintain and publish the 

established publications commonly used by U.S. 

mariners for voyage planning purposes (i.e., the Coast 

Pilot and Sailing Directions) to ensure that these 

documents include information necessary to avoid 

vessel collisions with endangered whales. Depending 

on vessel size, most U.S. vessels will have one of 

these publications onboard. 

14. The Coast Guard must continue to coordinate with 

the Recovery Plan Implementation Teams to provide 

timely information on current locations of all 

endangered whales to commercial vessels coming into 

major ports in both the New England and 

Georgia/Florida areas designated as critical habitat. 

The Coast Guard must develop, in cooperation with 

NMFS, a plan to alert commercial traffic through port 

pilots, Captain’s of the Port, Vessel Traffic Service (if 

available), who are aware of the expected arrival time 

of ships in the various ports and often their current 

location, and requesting them to relay this information 

to shippers. Improved methods of getting information 

to the vessels must be implemented. 

Summary of Interagency Collaboration 

with the Coast Guard 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

The Coast Guard and NMFS have cooperated 

informally for many years. In late 1994, this 

arrangement began to be formalized through the 

drafting of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). As 

this MOA moves toward final signatures, a pilot effort 

since December 1993 has provided a number of 

reports, including 12 "floaters" (8 fin whales, 3 

humpbacks, and 1 right whale). Photo and video 

documentation have provided valuable data. 

The Coast Guard has also on several occasions 

provided logistical support: Coast Guard vessels have 

been made available to transport researchers and 

disentanglement teams to event sites, and vessels and 

aircraft have been deployed to photo-document floater 

events. 

This effort also involves NMFS staff providing 

training and materials to Coast Guard vessel and 

aircraft personnel; as well as compilation of data and 

photographs. When fully established, this program 

will provide valuable information on events in the 

more offshore areas. 

Other Coast Guard Activities 

As described above, this biological opinion 

specifically considers the potential impacts of the 

operation of USCG vessels and aircraft on listed 

species that may be affected by the proposed action. 

Numerous other Coast Guard Activities are outlined in 

section 4 of the BA "Description of Activities of U.S. 

Coast Guard". These other activities, including 

permitting of marine events, engineering projects, oil 

spill contingency planning, are not addressed in this 

biological opinion. Consultation is continuing on the 

Coast Guard's permitting of marine events in the 

NMFS SER. Although consultation on this activity 

was not specifically requested in conjunction with this 

consultation, it has been addressed in the BA and other 

correspondence between the Coast Guard, and NMFS' 

SER has confirmed the Coast Guards' intent to consult 

on these activities. A biological opinion on marine 

event permitting will be completed in the near future. 

The Coast Guard should review all activities that it 

authorizes or conducts to determine if the activities 

may affect listed species, and should initiate 

consultation as appropriate. 

Coast Guard Application for a Small Take 

Authorization--

On June 2, 1995, in response to a court directive, the 

Coast Guard applied to NMFS for a small take 

authorization. At this time it appears unlikely that 

NMFS could make the "negligible impact" 

determination necessary to issue such an authorization. 

Activities Under the MMPA That 

Affect Northern Right Whales 

Proposed List of Fisheries, 1997 

The List of Fisheries (LOF) is required under section 

118 of the MMPA and classifies U.S. commercial 

fisheries into one of three categories based upon the 

level of marine mammal mortalities and serious 

injuries that occur incidentally to those fisheries. A 

notable change proposed for the 1997 LOF is the 

combination of the New England inshore and offshore 

lobster pot fisheries into one fishery, and the 

classification change of this fishery from a category III 

(remote likelihood of serious injury or mortality) to a 

category I (frequent serious injury or mortality) status. 

This change was due to entanglement records that 

indicate that 0.2 right whales per year are seriously 

injured or killed incidental to the Atlantic lobster pot 

fishery. Because of the precarious state of the 

northern right whale population (295 animals), this 

level of impact is considered significant. 

Large Whale Take Reduction Team 

Take Reduction Teams are required under section 118 

of the MMPA for those fisheries whose bycatch 

includes endangered or threatened species, or whose 

incidental marine mammal mortality and serious 

injury exceeds the potential biological removal (PBR). 

On August 6, 1996, NMFS formed the Large Whale 

Take Reduction Team (TRT) to address the reduction 

of humpback whale and northern right whale bycatch 

to insignificant levels. The TRT consists of 

representatives from each of the following fisheries: 

the Gulf of Maine/U.S. mid-Atlantic lobster trap/pot 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

fishery, the mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery, the 

southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet fishery, and 

the Gulf of Maine sink-gillnet fishery. 

The TRT will focus entirely on the entanglement 

issues in these fisheries. The first meeting was 

September 16-17, 1996, and the TRT will meet 

monthly until February 1997. A draft Take Reduction 

Plan has to be forwarded to NMFS by March 17, 1997. 

NMFS then expects to review and make changes to the 

plan, and develop implementing regulations. A 60­

day comment period follows. 

Proposed Rulemaking on Minimum 

Approach Distances to Right 

Whales 

Disturbance to whales is identified in the Final


Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale as among


the principal human-induced factors impeding


recovery of the northern right whale. 


Often where human activities coincide with the


distribution of right whales off the coast of the United


States, there is the potential that right whales may be


disturbed or have their behavior altered, conceivably


being injured or killed as a result. 


On August 7, 1996, NMFS published a proposed rule


in the Federal Register to minimize human-induced


disturbance by restricting close approach to right


whales (61 FR 41116). These approach regulations


propose to prohibit all approaches within 500 yards


(460 m) of any right whale, whether by vessel, aircraft


or other means. Exceptions are proposed for


emergency situations and where certain authorizations


are provided. These regulations, if finalized, will be


consistent with Massachusetts’ approach regulations


for right whales. Comments in response to the


proposed approach rule are currently being reviewed,


and a final determination is being drafted for


publication in early 1997. 


Right Whale News-Recovery Plan 

Implementation Team Newsletter 

The Southeast Implementation Team developed a 

quarterly newsletter to place greater emphasis on 

increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of recovery 

efforts for the northern right whale. The newsletter is 

edited by members of the team, and participation in 

the newsletter is open to anyone actively involved in 

right whale conservation efforts, including, to this 

point in time, ship operators, harbor pilots, port 

authorities, fishermen, educators, scientists, managers, 

policy makers, non-governmental organizations and 

other concerned citizens. Relevant information from 

areas other than the southeastern calving grounds (i.e., 

Bay of Fundy field season summaries) were included 

in the newsletter in 1996. The first newsletter was 

published in August 1994 and subsequent newsletters 

have been published through 1996. Information or 

questions regarding the newsletter should be 

forwarded to Hans Neuhauser, Georgia Land Trust 

Service Center, 640 Cobb Street, Athens, Georgia. 

Early Warning Network 

An "early warning network" is being developed in 

New England, comparable to that which was 

developed in 1994 in the Southeastern United States, 

to reduce the chance of collisions between vessels and 

the whales, a significant cause of death for the whales 

off the U.S. east coast. The early warning network 

makes sighting information available to mariners 

through marine radio announcements, automated fax 

and the Internet. 

Sources of information for the network include weekly 

survey flights by Coast Guard helicopters, mammal 

lookouts posted during Coast Guard vessel operations 

and from Coast Guard pilots, vessel-based sightings by 

the Center for Coastal Studies during their studies of 

feeding and behavior of right whales in Cape Cod Bay 

and when they are responding to reports of whale 

entanglements, and research and other vessels 

operated by NMFS and the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts. 

Sightings from these sources are reported to NMFS 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole, 

Massachusetts. A coordinator at the Center compiles 

the information and creates "boxes" that contain right 

whale sightings. This information is then sent to all 

cooperating partners for re-broadcast through their 

established communications channels. For instance, 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

NOAA Weather Radio broadcasts alerts and updates 

through its VHS channel. The NMFS Inquiry Line 

(508-281-9278) announces updates and transmit 

location maps through its fax-on-demand system. The 

Coast Guard broadcasts updates through its "Notice to 

Mariners" (VHF and single sideband) and sends telex 

updates to ships through NAVTEX, its international 

communication system. Location information is also 

posted on the website for the Massachusetts’ 

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. 

The early warning network is coordinated by NMFS; 

cooperating agencies include NOAA Weather Radio, 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, Coast 

Guard - District 1, the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental 

Affairs, the Center for Coastal Studies and the New 

England Division of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. The network will start operations in 

January, 1997. 

Disentanglement Response and 

Network 

The Northern Right Whale Recovery Plan calls for the 

establishment of a marine mammal disentanglement 

program. Because of the critical need for life history 

and human-impacts data on right whales and other 

species, and the limited opportunities to collect these 

data, information from stranded whales is essential. 

Networks and standardized protocols have been 

developed to help insure that there are no "lost data." 

Likewise, when whales become entangled in fishing 

gear, judgements must be made as to the efficacy and 

merits of disentanglement. 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. 

Emergency response to marine mammal 

entanglements involves: 

a. multi-agency/institution/network to locate, 

monitor, and safely disentangle marine mammals. 

b. development and maintenance of a database for 

entanglements, and provide data access to users, and 

periodic reports. 

c. development of regional protocols and plans, 

including outreach to general public. 

Early Consultations on Fishery 

Management Plans 

NMFS has reinitiated ESA section 7 consultations on 

the Northeast Multispecies Fisheries Management Plan 

and the Lobster Fishery Management Plan. In part, 

this was done because of a letter that was sent by the 

Implementation Team regarding the Great South 

Channel Critical Habitat, asking that the area be 

closed during right whale migration periods. NMFS is 

considering the following Reasonable and Prudent 

Alternatives: 1) Prohibition of multispecies gear and 

lobster gear from April 1 through June 30, unless it is 

designed to eliminate entanglement; 2) coordination 

of similar restrictions in Cape Cod Bay from February 

through May of each year; 3) other provisions. 

NMFS is exploring an option with the New England 

Fishery Management Council to do the restrictions 

under the Magnuson Act. If the Council does not 

approve this action, NMFS will work under 

MMPA/ESA emergency provisions. 

NMFS will also work with industry to modify gear. 

The agency is examining the dynamic management 

system and alternative fishing practices that eliminate 

entanglement. 

Recovery Plan Research Program 

A summary of contracted research supported by 

NMFS in 1996 include the following: 

Integrated Right Whale Studies 

Contract with New England Aquarium 

1. Maintenance of the photo-identification catalog 

and associated data. Photo-identification, along with 

associated mark-recapture techniques, has been 

identified as the best way to monitor the North 

Atlantic right whale population and its trends. 

Maintenance of the catalog and the associated 

expertise is central to a broad range of right whale 

science and management goals. 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

2. Stranding and human impacts response. Lifehistory and human impacts data are obtained from 

stranded and offshore human-impacted right whales. 

Response to right whale strandings, offshore carcass 

strandings and other human-impact events is a 

collaboration between NMFS, the Coast Guard, and 

the Center for Coastal Studies. Participation in 

networks insures that there are no "lost data." The onsite presence of experienced researchers is provided, 

as well as the maximization of data collection 

following standardized protocols, and the submission 

of reports which include the cause of injury or death. 

3. Genetics. Genetic studies have been underway 

since 1988. The use of DNA markers has provided 

data on sexes, taxonomy, matrilines, genealogies, and 

habitat-use patterns. The program to date has resulted 

in the collection of skin samples from 211 right whales 

(about 70 percent of the total) through 1995. The 

understanding of the genetic component of the 

population is needed to provide a genetic profile for 

each individual right whale to assess the level of 

genetic variation in the population, identify the 

number of reproductive animals (the genetic-effective 

population size) and their reproductive fitness, identify 

the basis for associations and social units in each 

habitat area, define the mating system, matriline 

identification, inbreeding status, population viability, 

and other factors essential to management. 

4. Satellite tagging. Identification of location and 

characteristics of unknown wintering and summering 

grounds are to be determined. Tagging will occur in 

two locations: Cape Cod in the spring for Gulf of 

Maine movements and unknown summering grounds, 

and Bay of Fundy in the fall for unknown wintering 

grounds. 

5. Reduction of ship strikes on right whales. This 

contract study is a follow-up to New England 

Aquarium/ Massachusetts Institute of Technology ship 

modeling study to include a) shallow water, b) other 

vessel types, and c) the third (depth) dimension. It will 

include the assessment of shipping traffic relative to 

high risk areas, as well as education and outreach 

programs. 

6. Foraging and habitat in Cape Cod/Mass bays. 

Studies of the bays system will document the 

development of conditions favorable to right whales. 

Emphasis will be on near-field conditions with 

detailed profiles of physical and biological conditions. 

Patterns of habitat use by right whales will be 

described. Data from the bays system will also be 

merged with that of the Great South channel area to 

develop a comprehensive model of acceptable habitat. 

7. Data compilation and review: Right whales in New 

England waters. This project will summarize, 

synthesize, and update information to present a 

comprehensive picture of right whales in New 

England waters. This will describe distribution and 

habitat of right whales by area and date, with central 

trends as well as outliers. Anomalies and habitat 

shifts, if any, will be addressed. Movements and 

connections between sub-areas will be included, as 

well as demographics and habitat partitioning. 

8. Population modeling and vital rates. A series of 

demographic population models will be used to 

evaluate population status; discover the vital rates 

most important in determining population trends; 

describe the population in terms of its potential for 

growth, its expected fluctuations, and its risk of 

extinction; and to provide guidance for population 

monitoring and other management activities. The 

models will also help to decide whether apparently 

unusual events should be considered natural 

fluctuations, or evidence of worrisome changes in 

population performance. 

Cooperative Marine Education and 

Research Agreement with University 

of Rhode Island 

1. Maintenance of the computer database for the right 

whale in waters of the western North Atlantic, and 

associated analyses and data products. 

The long-term sighting and survey database is 

maintained, and newly collected information is added 

on a timely basis. Data products and analyses are 

provided to collaborating investigators. In 1996-97, 

emphasis is on the addition of missing data and ‘filling 

in the holes.’ 

Analyses of tasks at present include a data compilation 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

report on distribution and demographics of right 

whales in New England waters, and an analysis 

estimated mortalities in right whales and relation to 

sighting effort. 

Steller Sea Lion, Eumetopias 

jubatus 

Proposed Reclassification Under 

the Endangered Species Act 

Based on biological information collected since the 

Steller sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus, was listed as 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

in 1990, NMFS is now considering reclassification of 

the species as two distinct population segments. 

The Alaska population, which numbered close to 

157,000 nonpups in the 1970s, declined to less than 

69,100 nonpups by 1989, a decline of over 60 percent. 

Because of this precipitous decline in abundance, the 

species was listed as threatened throughout its range in 

1990. At the time of the listing, NMFS determined 

that there was insufficient information available to 

consider animals in different geographic regions as 

separate populations. However, subsequent analysis 

indicates that two separate populations are represented 

within the different regions. 

Since the 1990 listing, NMFS and the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game have conducted 

monitoring surveys that indicate that the decline of 

Steller sea lions has continued throughout most of 

Alaska. The Steller sea lion population in the United 

States (U.S.) has declined 24 percent since 1989. 

Because of this continued decline, NMFS initiated a 

formal population status review in 1993, to determine 

whether a change in listing status was warranted. 

Based on status review comments, recommendations 

from the Steller Sea Lion Recovery Team, and data 

collected and analyzed by NMFS (including genetics, 

phenetics, population trend data, and data from 

tagging/branding studies), it was concluded that the 

species should be split into two population segments 

at Cape Suckling, Alaska--an eastern population 

segment (east of 144° W. longitude) and a western 

population segment (west of 144° W. longitude). The 

final determination regarding this proposed 

reclassification is currently going through clearance 

for publication in the Federal Register. 

Population Determination 

Discreteness: A population segment of a vertebrate 

species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either 

one of the following conditions: (a) It is markedly 

separated from other populations of the same taxon as 

a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, 

or behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic 

or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence 

of this separation); or (b) it is delimited by 

international governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, management of 

habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms 

exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) 

of the ESA. 

The former criterion is particularly relevant for Steller 

sea lions. Genetic studies provide the strongest 

evidence that discrete population segments of Steller 

sea lions exist. Genetic samples were collected from 

224 Steller sea lion pups on rookeries in Russia, the 

Aleutian Islands, the western and central GOA, 

southeastern Alaska, and Oregon. Mitochondrial DNA 

analyses of these samples identified a total of 52 

haplotypes (sets of alleles of closely linked genes that 

tend to be inherited together, uniquely identifying a 

chromosome) that could be further grouped together 

into eight lineages. A distinct break was found in 

haplotype distribution between the four western 

localities and the two eastern localities. Cluster 

analysis indicated that the eight lineages could be 

subdivided into two genetically differentiated 

populations, with the division at about Prince William 

Sound. A similar analyses on samples obtained from 

11 Steller sea lions on Año Nuevo Island, CA, found 

seven haplotypes. Six of these were identical to those 

identified from southeastern Alaska and Oregon. One 

was unique to Año Nuevo Island, CA. 

Population trend data provide further evidence of 

separation among these two population segments. 

The Steller sea lion population east of Cape Suckling 

(with the exception of the portion in southern 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

California) has remained stable since the 1970s, 

whereas the population to the west has declined 

dramatically. It is also worth noting that the only 

break in the distribution of Steller sea lions along the 

Alaskan coast occurs in the Yakutat area, near the 

proposed longitudinal border that would delineate the 

western and eastern population segments. 

Status of the Western Steller Sea 

Lion Population Segment 

The western Steller sea lion population segment 

suffered substantial declines prior to the 1990 ESA 

listing. Since the 1990 listing, Steller sea lion trend 

site counts for the western population segment have 

shown a continued decline. In the Gulf of Alaska 

portion of the western population, adult and juvenile 

counts have declined nearly 26 percent since 1992. 

Counts have declined by 12 percent in the Aleutian 

Islands portion of the western population and by 

nearly 14 percent in the Kenai-Kiska area since 1992. 

Regionally Differing Decline Rates 

The number of adult and juvenile animals counted at 

trend sites during aerial surveys throughout Alaska has 

dropped from 34,844 in 1992 to 30,348 in 1996 (a 13­

percent overall decrease). Counts of eastern and 

central Gulf of Alaska (a 43-percent and a 32-percent 

decline, respectively) and the central and western 

Aleutian Islands (a 14-percent and a 24-percent 

decline, respectively) have shown the largest declines 

in adult/juvenile numbers since 1992. Adult and 

juvenile counts of the eastern Aleutian Islands area (a 

2.6-percent decline), the western Gulf of Alaska area 

(a 0.5-percent increase) and the Bering Sea region (a 

0.8-percent increase) have been relatively stable since 

1992. However, the eastern Aleutian Islands and 

Bering Sea regions declined substantially prior to the 

original listing, and populations there remain only a 

fraction of what they were 20 years ago. 

Pup production has decreased since the 1990 listing. 

Overall, a decline of nearly 28-percent has been 

observed between pup counts made in 1991-92 as 

compared to 1996 (excluding the western Aleutian 

Islands and Bering Sea where comparative counts are 

not available). Pup production in the central Gulf of 

Alaska declined by 49-percent between 1991-92 and 

1996. Pup production in the eastern and western Gulf 

of Alaska declined by 52-percent and approximately 

25-percent, respectively, between 1992 and 1996. The 

eastern Aleutian Islands also had large decreases in 

pup production (a 13-percent change between 1992 

and 1996). 

Status of the Eastern Steller Sea

Lion 

Population Segment 

The 1990 ESA listing of Steller sea lions resulted 

primarily from the declines observed in the western 

population area; in the eastern population, decline has 

remained at a minimum, 

noted mostly in the central California part of the 

range. 

California experienced a large decline in Steller sea 

lion numbers prior to 1980; NMFS (1995) estimated a 

greater than 50-percent decline between about 1950 

and 1980. Some of the available data indicate that a 

northward shift in the Steller sea lion range may be 

occurring, which may exacerbate the decline at 

southern rookeries. Steller sea lion counts in 

California have been relatively stable since 1980 

(1980 count was 982) although counts declined 19­

percent from 1990-94 (from 1,123 animals to 915) 

(NMFS, 1995). The reasons for the historical decline 

in Steller sea lion total abundance and the current 

decline at southern locations in California is not 

known. Causal factors under investigation include 

changes in prey base, possible effects of anthropogenic 

contaminants and disease, disturbance, and 

competition with other pinniped populations that are 

increasing in abundance in California, e.g., California 

sea lions, elephant seals, northern fur seals. 

Proposed Determinations re: 

the Steller sea lion 

The best available information indicates that Steller 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

sea lions should be managed as two discrete 

population segments. NMFS proposed separate 

listings of the eastern and the western population 

segments of the Steller sea lion for the purposes of the 

ESA. 

Available data on population trends indicate that the 

western population of Steller sea lions had exhibited 

a precipitous, large population decline at the time that 

the Steller sea lion was listed as a threatened species 

in 1990, and has continued to decline since the listing. 

Although the precise cause(s) of the decline have not 

been determined, it is likely that the current condition 

is caused by a combination of the factors specified 

under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Therefore, an 

endangered classification is appropriate for the 

western population of Steller sea lions. 

The eastern population segment was originally listed 

as a threatened species in 1990 when the entire species 

was listed. The eastern population has exhibited a 

stable to increasing population trend for the last 15 

years; however, NMFS believes that the large decline 

within the overall U.S. population threatens the 

continued existence of the entire species. This is 

particularly true since the underlying causes of the 

decline remain unknown, and thus, unpredictable. 

Therefore, despite the apparent stability of the eastern 

population segment, NMFS proposes to maintain a 

threatened listing for this portion of the geographic 

range. 

Northern Fur Seal, Callorhinus 

ursinus 

Northern Fur Seal Stock 

Assessments 

In 1994 the MMPA was amended to provide a new 

approach for managing interactions between marine 

mammals and fisheries. In part, it required that NMFS 

prepare annual stock assessments for all marine 

mammal stocks in U.S. waters. The 1995 final stock 

assessment report concluded that northern fur seals in 

U.S. waters consisted of two distinct stocks - an 

eastern Pacific stock composed of animals breeding on 

the Pribilof Islands and Bogoslof Island, and a San 

Miguel Island stock in southern California. NMFS is 

currently preparing the 1996 draft stock assessments 

for public review and comment. 

Northern Fur Seal Research 

Activities in 1996 

In 1996, NMFS conducted counts of adult males at 

rookeries on the Pribilof Islands, collected and 

analyzed scat samples to monitor prey utilization, took 

measurements of pups to assess their condition, and 

evaluated the accuracy of the methodology used to 

estimate population size. 

NMFS is continuing studies begun in 1995 to 

investigate the proportion of time pups spend at sea 

and on land prior to their weaning and departure from 

the rookeries to begin their one- to three-year period 

of life at sea. During the 1996 field season, NMFS 

developed lightweight satellite tags and deployed them 

on seal pups to determine their migration routes and 

at-sea habitat use patterns. In addition, NMFS 

collected dive data on pre-migration pups using timedepth recorders. 

Among the cooperative research projects continued 

from 1995 were genetic studies to assess movement of 

animals between rookeries in different parts of the 

species’ range; an assessment of the effect of 

pollutants on the immune response system of fur seal 

pups; monitoring marine debris entanglement rates 

among juvenile male fur seals returning to the 

rookeries after their first few years at sea; a study of 

paternity as it relates to territorial male behavior; 

monitoring population trends and mortality at 

rookeries on the Pribilof Islands for possible impacts 

associated with discharges from seafood processing 

plants; and investigating differences in female 

foraging patterns and rates of milk transfer to pups 

during the lactation period. This last study was 

expanded in 1996 to include direct measures of 

metabolic rates of pups and assessment of the 

development of thermoregulatory and oxygen storage 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

capacity in pups. A cooperative study, which was 

begun in 

1996, will analyze territorial male recognition, 

behavior, and reproductive success. 

San Miguel Island 

Studies of the life history parameters of northern fur 

seals were conducted at San Miguel Island throughout 

June, July and August 1996. The primary objective of 

these long-term studies, conducted in cooperation with 

the Channel Islands National Sanctuary Program and 

the National Park Service is 1) to estimate survival, 

recruitment, and natality of these species as a 

comprehensive assessment of the ecology of pinnipeds 

in the Channel Islands and 2) to assess the status and 

recovery of fur seals throughout the north Pacific 

ocean in accordance with the Fur Seal Conservation 

Plan. 

Counts of Fur Seals on Bogoslof 

Island 

The average of two counts on Bogoslof Island on 

September 25, 1996, was 1,272 pups. Dead pups were 

not counted. The estimated number of live pups was 

lower in 1996 compared to August 18, 1995, when 

1,482 were counted. This may be due to the late date 

of the 1996 census. By the end of September, pups are 

highly mobile and readily enter the water for hours at 

a time, making them difficult to count. 

Pribilof Islands 

Population characteristics monitored in 1996 include 

the size of the subsistence harvest, the number of adult 

males, estimates of numbers of pups born, and 

mortality rates of fur seals on St. Paul Island and St. 

George Island. 

Censuses of Adult Males on Pribilof 

Islands. Adult male northern fur seals were counted 

by section for each rookery on St. Paul and St. George 

Islands during July 1996. The "idle" bull counts on St. 

Paul for 1996 as compared to 1995 showed an increase 

from 8,459 to 9,239. "Harem" male counts on St. 

Paul also increased slightly from 5,154 (1995) to 5,643 

(1996). On St. George Island, a total of 1,248 harem 

and 790 idle adult male seals were counted in 1996. 

There was an increase in the count of territorial males 

with females on St Paul Island between 1995 and 1996 

(9.5 percent), and the count of these males on St. 

George Island was slightly lower in 1996 than in 1995 

(0.5 percent less). The total of these males for the 

Pribilof Islands was therefore greater by about 7.7 

percent in 1996. Such changes were expected effects 

of the terminated commercial harvest in 1984. 

Entanglement Studies: St. Paul and St. 

George Islands. In 1996, in cooperation with the 

St. Paul and St. George Islands Tribal Councils and 

the Pribilof Islands Stewardship Program, NMFS 

continued a study of juvenile and adult male fur seal 

entanglement initiated in 1995 using a combination of 

research roundups and surveys during the subsistence 

harvest. Surveys conducted in conjunction with the 

subsistence harvests are designed to reduce the 

number of times seals are disturbed when otherwise 

conducting subsistence harvests separately from 

entanglement roundups on the same haulouts during 

July and early August. 

The objective of this study is to determine current 

trends in the rate of observed on-land entanglement of 

northern fur seals in marine debris on St. Paul and St. 

George Islands. This information is being collected in 

order to provide: 1) a continuing index of 

entanglement rates, 2) a comparison of entanglement 

rates on St. Paul (stable population) and St. George 

(decreasing population) Islands, 3) a means of 

indirectly assessing the relative amount of entangling 

debris within the habitat of the fur seal, and 4) an 

assessment of the proportion of debris types associated 

with different fisheries that are impacting fur seals. 

Twenty-three subsistence harvest surveys and 30 

research roundups were conducted on St. Paul Island 

(53 total) and 26 research roundups and 9 harvest 

surveys (35 total) were conducted on St. George Island 

during July and early August of 1996. On St. Paul 

observers sampled 38,311 seals (all age classes 

combined) and 10,763 seals on St. George Island. 

Samples included 24,701 juvenile males (2-4 years 

old) on St. Paul Island and 6,057 juvenile males on St. 

George island. Seventy-one entangled juvenile and 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

adult male seals were captured, examined and the 

debris was removed during harvest surveys and 

roundups (56 on St. Paul Island and 15 on St. George 

Island). Forty-three seals with scars indicating 

evidence of previous entanglement were also observed 

during surveys. Twenty-one of these seals were adult 

males, some of which had fresh, open wounds 

indicating their debris was removed or lost during 

1996. An additional 47 male seals, 14 female seals, 

25 seals of unknown sex and approximately 7 pups 

were captured and disentangled during other research 

activities from late June through November. As in 

previous years, entangling debris consisted primarily 

of pieces of trawl net, plastic packing bands and loops 

of synthetic or natural twine. No seals entangled in 

monofilament gillnet were observed during male 

entanglement surveys in 1996. Differences in the 

relative percentage of entangling debris were observed 

between age classes of seals (Figure 1). A higher 

proportion of adult males was observed entangled in 

packing bands on St. Paul Island (68.4 percent). The 

proportion of adult males entangled in all three major 

debris types on St. George Island was approximately 

equal (33.3 percent in each major debris category), 

however only three adult males were observed 

entangled. Trawl net comprised the largest proportion 

of entangling debris among juveniles on both islands 

(43.2 percent, and 50 percent on St. Paul and St. 

George Island respectively), followed by packing 

bands (32.4 percent on St. Paul and 25 percent on St. 

George). The observed incidence of loops of twine on 

St. George Island decreased from 29.4 percent in 1995 

to 15.8 percent in 1996. As in 1995, more 

entanglement in packing bands was observed on St. 

Paul (44.6 percent) relative to St. George Island (26.7 

percent) for all age classes combined. 

The rate of entanglement was estimated for both adult 

and juvenile male fur seals as the ratio of all 

entanglement sightings (initial and subsequent 

sightings for juveniles) to the total number of animals 

observed in each age class. The rate of entanglement 

for juvenile males was calculated as 0.23 percent 

(56/24,701) on St. Paul Island and 0.21 percent 

(13/6,057) on St. George Island. Among adult males, 

the rate of entanglement was calculated as 0.14 

percent (19/13,610) on St. Paul Island and 0.06 

percent (3/4,706) on St. George Island. The incidence 

of entanglement on among juvenile males on St. Paul 

Island is within the range of entanglement rates 

observed from 1988 to 1992 and in 1995. 

Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise, 

Phocoena phocoena 

The Multispecies FMP includes a framework 

adjustment process that allows NEFMC to modify 

management measures in a timely manner that is 

usually associated with the development of a 

management plan or plan amendment. Using that 

procedure, NEFMC developed a strategy to address 

the porpoise bycatch issue by integrating a mitigation 

plan with fishery management measures. 

In 1994, the New England Fishery Management 

Council (NEFMC) adopted a management objective 

for the Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise and included it 

in Amendment #5 to its Northeast Multispecies 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The goal was to 

reduce the porpoise bycatch in the sink gillnet fishery 

to a level not to exceed 2 percent of the population, 

based on the best estimates of abundance and bycatch. 

Amendment #7 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, 

implemented in July 1996, included a revised 

objective to address the provisions adopted pursuant to 

the 1994 MMPA amendments. Thus, NEFMC’s intent 

currently is to reduce the bycatch to the PBR level, 

403 animals, through a series of time and area closures 

implemented as framework adjustments to the 

Multispecies Plan. NEFMC also has recommended 

the use of acoustic deterrents or "pingers" in several 

experimental fisheries in order to evaluate their use as 

a mitigation tool. 

Under Framework Adjustments 4, 12, 14 and 15 to the 

Multispecies FMP, sink gillnet vessels are restricted in 

defined areas and at certain times based on the historic 

bycatch of porpoise in that fishery. Framework 

Adjustment 9 to the Multispecies FMP prohibited the 

use of all small mesh gear, including all small mesh 

gillnet gear, unless the fishery qualified for an 

exemption based on a finding that it had a catch of less 

than 5 percent, by weight, of regulated multispecies 

finfish. The effect of Framework 9, relative to harbor 

porpoise, was to prohibit the use of small mesh pelagic 

gillnets, including bait gillnets, in the harbor porpoise 

closed areas. Consequently, even though the harbor 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

porpoise measures prohibited only sink gillnet gear in 

the porpoise closed areas, Framework 9 prohibited the 

use of any small mesh pelagic gillnet gear in the same 

areas for reasons unrelated to the protection of harbor 

porpoise. 

Hawaiian Monk Seal, Monachus 

schauinslandi 

The Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) is 

endemic to the Hawaiian Archipelago and is the only 

endangered marine mammal located entirely within 

U.S. waters. The species was listed as endangered 

after a 50-percent decline in beach counts between the 

late 1950s to the 1970s. Studies conducted over the 

past decade indicate that population abundance has 

continued to decline at four to five percent per year. 

In the last three to four years, beach counts have 

stabilized, but further declines are likely due to high 

juvenile mortality and an expected decline in 

recruitment. In 1996, total abundance was estimated 

at ca. 1450. 

Studies of the Hawaiian monk seal are conducted 

primarily by the Marine Mammal Research Program 

of the Honolulu Laboratory, NMFS. The purpose of 

these studies is to provide up-to-date information on 

the status and trends of each of the six main 

reproductive subpopulations of seals. Information is 

collected on abundance, composition, survival and 

reproductive rates, growth and condition of seals, 

evidence of health and disease, behavior, movement 

rates between sites, fisheries interactions including 

entanglement in marine debris, foraging ecology, and 

the effectiveness of management programs aimed at 

facilitating recovery. 

Status 

In 1996, field studies were conducted at French 

Frigate Shoals, Laysan and Lisianski Islands, Pearl 

and Hermes Reef, and Midway and Kure Atolls. Three 

indices of the species' status are derived from these 

studies. The first is the number of pups born at five of 

the six main reproductive sites. (Reproduction has 

been negligible at Midway Atoll for the past four 

decades, and research effort has been sporadic.) In 

1996, 209 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) without evidence 

of a long-term trend. 

The second index is the sum of the mean beach counts 

at five of the six main sites (excluding Midway Atoll). 

In 1958, this sum was 969. By 1985, the counts had 

declined to 509, and in 1996, the sum was 379. 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 loss 

of seals at French Frigate Shoals. Beach counts are 

expected to decline further at French Frigate Shoals, 

and the future trend for the species will depend on 

whether growth at other sites can compensate those 

losses. 

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 ca. 50 percent to 70 

percent, and the percent of subadults and juveniles 

decreasing in a corresponding manner. This shift in 

composition 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 

study of individual subpopulations. Table 3 provides 

a brief summary of research findings at each of the 

main reproductive sites in 1996. In addition, we 

provide a brief summary of each of the main 

reproductive subpopulations. 

French Frigate Shoals 

In the late 1950s, the subpopulation of seals at French 

Frigate Shoals was depleted, due largely to human 

disturbance. After disturbance was eliminated, the 

subpopulation grew for three decades and by the mid 

1980s, abundance was thought to have reached or 

approached the environmental carrying capacity. 

Because subpopulations at the other main reproductive 

sites plummeted during the same period, the overall 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

distribution of monk seals shifted toward French 

Frigate Shoals, and nearly 50 percent of the entire 

species was found at this site in the mid 1980s. In 

1989, the period of growth reversed itself and by 1996, 

beach counts had dropped by 55 percent. 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. In the mid 1980s, ca. 80 to 

90 percent of weaned pups survived to age two. Since 

1988-89, survival of these young animals has declined 

to 20 percent or lower. In 1996, studies continued to 

document juvenile survival rates, and to investigate 

their foraging ecology to better understand factors that 

may be related to the decline (see the section below on 

foraging studies). 

Laysan Island 

Contrary to the long-term trend at French Frigate 

Shoals, the subpopulation of Hawaiian monk seals at 

Laysan Island has declined steadily since the late 

1950s and is currently about one-third of its historical 

maximum size. The cause(s) of the decline prior to 

the late 1970s has not been determined. In 1978, 

abundance at this site dropped considerably due to a 

large die-off of seals, possibly from ciguatera 

poisoning. No subsequent die-offs have been 

observed, but the population has continued to decline 

slowly. Since the late 1970s, mobbing has been 

considered an important (if not primary) impediment 

to recovery at this site. Mobbing occurs when 

multiple males gather and attempt to mount and mate 

with the same individual seal (usually an adult female, 

but sometimes an immature seal of either sex). The 

mobbed seal is frequently injured or killed, and the 

loss of females has impeded recovery. 

Mobbing is thought to occur due, in part, to an 

imbalance in the adult sex ratio, with males 

outnumbering females by as much as 3 to 1. In 1994, 

22 adult males were removed from the Laysan 

population to normalize the sex ratio and thereby 

reduce the probability of mobbing. Studies in 1995 

and 1996 have continued to focus on the rate and 

consequences of mobbing, and results indicate that the 

occurrence of mobbing has been significantly lower 

since the removal of males. The males have not 

returned to the site from the main Hawaiian Islands, 

where they were released. While mobbing seems to 

have been reduced, recovery at this site likely will be 

slow, as juvenile survival rates have also been low at 

Laysan Island. The cause(s) of additional juvenile 

mortality have not been determined. In 1996, studies 

continued to investigate and document male behavior, 

the occurrence of mobbing, and factors influencing the 

survival of immature animals. 

Lisianski Island 

The trend of the monk seal population at Lisianski 

Island has been very similar to that at Laysan Island, 

but far less study has been directed at the Lisianski 

population and cause(s) of the decline at this site are 

uncertain. The sex ratio at this site has been more 

skewed toward adult males than at Laysan Island, but 

the occurrence and rate of mobbing have not been well 

documented. Nevertheless, mobbing is thought to be 

an important problem at Lisianski Island. 

In addition to mobbing, entanglement in marine debris 

is considered a serious impediment to recovery at 

Lisianski Island. Entanglement occurs at all sites, and 

is difficult to quantify because seals may be entangled 

at sea and not observed. However, studies of debris 

deposition and seal entanglement indicate that the 

decline of seals at this site must be due, in part, to 

entanglement-related mortality. In 1996, research at 

Lisianski Island focused on characterization of various 

sources of seal mortality, including mobbing behavior 

and entanglement. 

Pearl and Hermes Reef 

The subpopulation of seals at Pearl and Hermes Reef 

dropped more than 80 percent in the 1960s, but since 

1975 has shown steady recovery. The cause for the 

decline prior to the mid 1970s has not been confirmed, 

but may have been related to military activities in the 

two decades following World War II. The more 

recent recovery of this population has been vitally 

important for several reasons. First, the recovery has 

occurred without intensive management intervention, 

demonstrating that monk seal subpopulations can 

recover under natural conditions. Second, the rate of 

recovery provides the best estimate of the potential 

growth rate of these subpopulations, and thereby 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

serves as a reference for research and management. 

And third, recovery at this site and at Kure Atoll is, at 

least to some extent, balancing losses at other sites, 

particularly French Frigate Shoals. In 1996, study 

efforts at Pearl and Hermes Reef were directed at 

identifying the entire subpopulation of seals at this 

site, and verifying that the local recovery continues. 

Midway Atoll 

The subpopulation of Hawaiian monk seals at Midway 

Atoll may have been driven extinct on two separate 

occasions: at the turn of the century when seals were 

killed for blubber and/or food by seal hunters and 

ship-wrecked sailors, and in the 1950s and 1960s when 

human activities displaced seals and compromised 

their habitat. The present population of seals is 

approximately 45 to 50 seals, most of which are either 

immigrants from nearby locations or offspring of 

immigrants. For the last three decades, the seal 

subpopulation at this site has failed to recover on its 

own. 

The primary cause for the decline of this 

subpopulation has been related to human disturbance 

during and after World War II. In the 1950s, beach 

counts of seals numbered in the 50s, but by the late 

1960s, few seals were seen at the atoll. Human 

disturbance continued through the 1970s, 1980s, and 

into the 1990s. In 1993, the U.S. Naval Air Facility at 

Midway Atoll was closed and from 1993 to 1997, the 

Navy has been cleaning and restoring the two main 

islands in the atoll. Jurisdiction of the atoll has been 

transferred to the USFWS, which will maintain the site 

as a National Wildlife Refuge. 

To manage the atoll, the USFWS has entered a 

cooperative agreement with a commercial aircraft 

company that will maintain the atoll's runway. To 

compensate for the cost of maintaining the runway, 

the company has established an "Eco-tourism" venture 

that will provide educational and recreational 

opportunities for visitors to Midway. Public education 

is considered a vital element of the recovery plan for 

the Hawaiian monk seal, and tourists at this site will 

have opportunities for observing and learning about 

these seals. However, the severely endangered status 

of the Hawaiian monk seal throughout its range, 

especially at Midway Atoll, argues that such tourist 

activities must be managed with extreme care to avoid 

disturbance of the seals and further obstacles to 

recovery. 

Kure Atoll 

The westernmost subpopulation of Hawaiian monk 

seals is at Kure Atoll and, like other western 

subpopulations, the number of seals at this site 

declined severely in the 1960s and 1970s. The 

primary cause seems to have been related to human 

disturbance during the construction and occupation of 

a U.S. Coast Guard LORAN station. The station was 

closed in 1991 and the atoll, which is owned by the 

State of Hawaii, is no longer inhabited. 

The population of seals at Kure Atoll hit a low point 

in 1986, when a single pup was born at the atoll. 

Since then, the number of pups has increased to 17 in 

1996. The increase in pup production is expected to 

continue and can be attributed to intensive 

management efforts to recover this population. In the 

early 1980s, Coast Guard regulations were modified to 

limit disturbance of seals on the beaches. From 1981 

to 1991, NMFS conducted a captive program (referred 

to as "Headstart") to protect recently weaned female 

pups from sharks and aggressive adult males during 

the first months of the post-weaning period. From 

1985 to 1995, seals that had been taken from French 

Frigate Shoals for rehabilitation were introduced to 

Kure Atoll to bolster reproductive recruitment. A 

number of these seals, and those that had been 

included in the Headstart project, have reached 

reproductive maturity and are producing pups. In 

1996, studies were conducted at this site to ensure that 

recovery was, in fact, continuing, to quantify the rate 

of recovery, and to identify any impediments to 

further recovery. 

Management Activities 

In addition to the assessment activities conducted at 

these sites, other activities were conducted to enhance 

recovery of this endangered species. Three such 

activities are described below. 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

Foraging ecology 

For the past decade, the study and management of the 

Hawaiian monk seal has been based largely on 

information collected on land. Our understanding of 

the marine distribution and behavior of these seals has 

been limited by our inability to study them at sea. The 

lack of information about their foraging ecology has 

been a particular impediment to their management. 

We know relatively little about the distribution of 

seals at sea, their foraging behavior and strategies, and 

their preferred prey. Thus, we have been handicapped 

in our ability to predict or assess the possible 

consequences of direct or indirect fisheries 

interactions. Also, while we attribute the recent 

severe increase in juvenile mortality to starvation, we 

can not describe the feeding habits or patterns of 

young seals. 

In recent years, however, technological advances have 

enabled study of these seals at sea. Foraging 

distributions are currently being evaluated using 

satellite-linked telemetry (both ARGOS and GPS 

technologies), as well as underwater video systems 

that allow observation of feeding and other behaviors. 

While the seals were previously thought to remain 

near their haulout locations, they are now known to 

travel to distant banks around the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands. Further, seals were thought to feed 

primarily on reef fishes, but video data indicates that 

they prey primarily on benthic organisms. The seals 

in these and other studies fed primarily at depths less 

than 100 meters, but some seals foraged at depths 

greater than 500 meters. 

A complete assessment of the foraging ecology of 

Hawaiian monk seal will take extensive effort over 

many years. Nevertheless, important progress was 

made in 1996, based on satellite-linked studies of 

distribution and diving, video camera studies of 

foraging strategies, and assessment of reef 

productivity around the main reproductive sites. 

Rehabilitation 

The severe loss of young female seals at French 

Frigate Shoals represents a serious threat to the 

recovery of the Hawaiian monk seal. Since 1984-85, 

rehabilitation and relocation efforts have been the 

primary means for salvaging the reproductive potential 

that is otherwise lost with deaths of these young seals. 

In 1995, efforts were made to double our capacity for 

rehabilitating seals. Twelve undersized female pups 

were collected from French Frigate Shoals for 

eventual release at Midway Atoll. Shortly after 

collection, however, these seals began to show 

symptoms of an eye ailment that has not yet been 

documented in monk seals or other pinnipeds. 

Extensive diagnostic efforts were conducted to 

identify the cause of the ailment, but were not 

successful. These seals cannot be released because of 

the risk of spreading the disease to wild populations. 

A panel of experts will meet in June 1997 to consider 

options for the disposition of these seals 

and review the implications of the eye ailment for 

future rehabilitation efforts. 

Marine debris and entanglement---Each year, 

biologists at the main reproductive sites remove beach 

debris capable of entangling seals or other wildlife, 

and disentangle seals that have become entangled. In 

1996, at least 21 different seals were entangled in 

debris. Four of these seals were found in the water, 

entangled in debris caught on coral reefs. One of these 

four seals drowned, while the others were released 

unharmed. 

The overall impact of marine debris and entanglement 

on the recovery of the Hawaiian monk seal cannot be 

fully quantified because of the difficulty of assessing 

entanglement rates at sea. In past years, efforts to 

remove debris from monk seal habitat focused on 

debris that had washed ashore. In 1996, pilot studies 

were conducted to determine the feasibility of 1) 

assessing the amount and nature of debris caught on 

coral reefs, and 2) removing such debris. These 

studies were initiated at French Frigate Shoals, and 

demonstrated that extensive amounts of debris can be 

successfully and safely removed. Further studies will 

evaluate the 

amount of effort that would be required to remove the 

debris from the marine habitat of this endangered 

species. 

Cooperation with Other Agencies 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

Table 1. 

Site 

Research period Mean beach 

count* (± sd) 

Pups born 

Status and trends Known problems and 

issues 

French Frigate 

Shoals 

20 April to 1 Sept 120 (± 17.5) 94 Declining at 11-12% since 

1989 

Severe juvenile 

mortality 

Laysan Island 15 March to 30 

July 

86 (± 8.9) 47 Declining slowly (2%), 

approx. 

one-third historical 

maximum 

Mobbing (?), and high 

juvenile mortality 

Lisianski Island 14 March to 28 

July 

62 (± 9.4) 24 Declining slowly (2%), 

approx. 

one-third historical 

maximum 

Mobbing, entanglement 

in marine debris 

Pearl and Hermes 

Reef 

26 April to 27 July72 (± 13.4) 26 Growing at ca. 7% per 

year since 1975 

None at present 

Midway Atoll 29 March to 1 

May 

13 (± 3.1) 6 Severely depleted Human disturbance, 

tourism 

Kure Atoll 28 April to 25 July38 (± 7.7) 17 Depleted but recovering 

due to management 

intervention 

Continued recovery 

after management 

intervention 

*Excluding pups 

Summary of main reproductive subpopulations of the Hawaiian monk seal in 1996. 

and Organizations in 1996 

As in previous years, research and recovery efforts in 

1996 involved participation and cooperation of several 

divisions within the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, as well as a number of government and 

private agencies, including the U.S. Marine Mammal 

Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Team, the Western 

Pacific Fishery Management Council, the State of 

Hawaii, various academic institutions (University of 

Hawaii, University of Minnesota), Sea Life Park 

Hawaii, and the U.S. Navy, Air Force, and Coast 

Guard. 

Humpback Whale, Megaptera 

novaeangliae 

North Pacific 

Review of Research and Management 

Priorities of the Humpback Whale 

Recovery Plan and Hawaiian Island 

National Marine Sanctuar y 

Management Plan 

On December 1991, NMFS completed the Final 

Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale (Recovery 

Plan) (NMFS, 1991). The objectives of the Recovery 

Plan were compatible with those of the draft Hawaiian 

Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary 

Management Plan and include maintaining and 

���� �� 
Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

enhancing humpback whale habitat(s); reducing 

human-related mortality, injury and disturbance; 

measuring and monitoring key population parameters; 

and promoting a state/Federal partnership for 

administration and implementation of the Recovery 

Plan. 

In order to facilitate the development of a Sanctuary 

Management Plan, resource managers from NOAA, 

Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD), and NMFS, 

convened a workshop to assess research and other 

needs and opportunities related to humpback whale 

management in the Hawaiian Islands on April 26-28, 

1995, at Kaanapali, Maui, Hawaii, to bring together 

representatives of county, state and Federal agencies, 

representatives of non-government agencies and 

organizations, resource managers, and researchers to 

participate in developing research and management 

objectives for the Sanctuary. The workshop was to 

initiate the development of a Management Plan for the 

Sanctuary, and implement those items listed within the 

Recovery Plan considered necessary for the recovery 

of the humpback whale in the North Pacific. 

Workshop participants were: (1) to identify 

information and uncertainties that should be 

considered in developing a long-term research plan 

that meets the management and recovery objectives of 

the Sanctuary and the Recovery Plan; (2) to describe 

the research and long-term monitoring programs that 

would be required to characterize the present 

population status and to detect and monitor trends in 

life-history parameters of the humpback whale 

population in the North Pacific (with focus on the 

Hawaiian Islands); (3) to describe the essential 

components of humpback whale habitat(s) in the 

Hawaiian Islands; and (4) identify the county, state 

and Federal agencies that would participate in the 

implementation of Recovery Plan and the Final 

Management Plan for the Sanctuary. 

A workshop report providing a summary of the 

information that was contributed to the workshop by 

these participants will be completed in 1997. 

Review of Research and Management 

Priorities of the Humpback Whale 

Recovery Plan in the North Pacific 

On September 20-21, 1995, a NMFS working group 

convened a meeting at NMFS/Marine Mammal 

Laboratory in Seattle, to review the Humpback Whale 

Recovery Plan relative to completed tasks identified 

for the North Pacific, to review the discussion from 

the NOAA/NMFS and SRD meeting held in Hawaii 

the previous May, and to develop a draft 

implementation plan for North Pacific humpback 

whale recovery, for FY 96-FY 98 

The working group discussed the overall objective of 

population assessment and monitoring of humpback 

whales in the North Pacific relative to the 

management needs of NMFS. There was general 

agreement that recommendations should focus on 

information needed to evaluate the status and recovery 

of 

humpback whale populations in the North Pacific. 

The following activities were considered essential to 

evaluating the status and recovery of humpback 

whales in the North Pacific. 

1. Maintain the North Pacific Fluke Collection 

(NPFC): Having a single photo-identification facility 

that curates photographs of individual humpback 

whales from an entire ocean basin facilitates 

communication among researchers and allows quality 

control of data. Maintenance of the collection will 

include incorporating photographs submitted during 

the past four years, cross matching within the 

photographic collection to create a working catalog of 

unique individuals and updating the video disc used 

for the matching and archiving of photographs. 

2. Study exchange rates of humpback whales 

within and between geographic regions: Using 

movement patterns of photographically identified 

individual humpback whales to estimate exchange 

rates between putative stocks was considered the 

primary information source for determining stock 

structure. 

3. Estimate North Pacific basin-wide humpback 

whale abundance: The primary objective of this study 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

was to estimate the size of the entire humpback whale 

population in the North Pacific. Independent 

researchers have conducted photo-identification 

studies which now include all known wintering areas 

and many different feeding areas. Using capturerecapture analyses, these data may be sufficient to 

provide a more precise estimate of humpback whale 

abundance in the North Pacific than is currently 

available. 

4. Conduct capture-recapture studies off 

California, Oregon and Washington: The humpback 

whale population which feeds off the coasts of 

California and Oregon was estimated by capturerecapture techniques to include approximately 600 

(CV = 0.07) individuals in 1993. The resumption of 

intensive photo-identification studies of humpback 

whales off California, Oregon and Washington during 

1997 and 1998 will allow for an update of this 

estimate and an evaluation of trends in population 

size. 

5. Conduct aerial surveys in Hawaiian waters: 

Aerial surveys of abundance of humpback whales in 

Hawaiian waters have been conducted intermittently 

for the past decade with the most extensive surveys 

conducted in 1993 and 1995. Aerial surveys provide 

an efficient means of obtaining abundance and 

distribution of whales at a particular point in time. 

The aerial surveys are being proposed for FY97, 

following the development of an aerial survey 

correction factor in FY96. This will coincide with the 

first year of a proposed capture-recapture study, 

allowing for a more comprehensive, comparative 

population survey. 

6. Develop a correction factor for aerial survey 

estimates: Aerial survey correction factors need to be 

developed to estimate the proportion of whales not at 

the surface. Age, sex and group size-specific 

respiration and dive data, which have been collected 

from shore-based observations, need to be analyzed 

and examined for intra- and inter-annual variation. 

7. Conduct capture-recapture surveys in Hawaiian 

waters: Coordinated photo-identification surveys 

throughout the Hawaiian Islands were conducted at 

weekly intervals during the winter season in 1995. 

The objectives of this study were to: 1) estimate the 

abundance of humpback whales which visit Hawaii 

during a single year, and 2) provide information on 

residency and the extent of within season inter-island 

movements of individuals. 

8. Summarize existing information and expand 

surveys in Southeastern Alaska to study distribution, 

survivorship and reproductive success: Expanded 

systematic sampling in southeastern Alaska should 

provide information on the distribution of adults 

including mothers with calves, and return of knownage animals (i.e., those first photographed as calves), 

and will provide data for capture-recapture estimates 

of abundance. Documenting the return of known-age 

animals to feeding areas will allow the estimation of 

recruitment and/or recovery rates. 

9. Convene second workshop to estimate calf 

mortality: In 1991, the first stage of a two-part 

workshop was convened to begin the process of 

synthesizing data needed to estimate calf mortality of 

humpback whales based on sightings of females with 

calves (and the same females subsequently without 

calves) on the winter and feeding grounds. The 

second workshop has been tentatively scheduled for 

the spring/summer of 1996. Based on the database of 

sightings of females with and without calves, calf 

mortality rates during the first six months of life will 

be estimated. 

10. Convene workshop on adult mortality: At the 

first calf mortality workshop, participants suggested 

that the next life history parameter to measure should 

be adult mortality. This will be based on longitudinal 

studies of several individuals over a number of years. 

11. Monitor anthropogenic noise on the wintering 

grounds using acoustic tags: Anthropogenic noise 

poses a potential threat to the quality of the habitat 

used by females to nurse dependent calves in 

Hawaiian waters. At this time, the technology to 

adequately monitor the response of humpback whales 

to anthropogenic noise does not exist. However, based 

on research supported by the ATOC program, a 

satellite linked transmitter capable of recording 

received sound levels, depth of dive information, and 

position should be commercially available by FY 98. 

Therefore, a pilot study is recommended to determine 

the feasibility of attaching such transmitters to 2-5 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

adult females with calves and 2-5 females without 

calves on the wintering grounds. The information 

obtained by such an experiment would be used to 

design a study that could test the hypothesis as to 

whether anthropogenic noise could potentially degrade 

habitat critical to the recovery of humpback whales. 

12. Develop a GIS database of whale sightings data, 

based on aerial surveys: At present, information on 

the distribution of humpback whales in Hawaiian 

waters is available, but it has not been synthesized into 

a single database. The objective of this activity would 

be to develop a GIS database, which would then be 

combined with information on the physical 

environment, reproductive success and survival of 

humpbacks, and human-related disturbance patterns to 

evaluate whether particular areas are more important 

than others. 

13. Summarize information on physical and 

biological oceanographic factors that affect the 

distribution of humpback whales: More accurate 

characterization of humpback whale habitats and their 

use will contribute to effective management of this 

stock. Factors to be evaluated more precisely include 

depth, bottom type and topography, water 

temperature, turbidity, acoustic characteristics, and 

current speed and direction. Features offering 

protection from currents or storms need to be 

identified, particularly on the wintering grounds. 

14. Summarize information on calf distribution in 

and around the Hawaiian Islands: Anecdotal 

information on distribution of humpback whale 

mothers and calves implies some geographic 

stratification and certain preferred areas. Systematic 

data should be collected to delineate distribution 

around the Hawaiian Islands. 

15. Examine prey biomass and oceanographic data 

from fisheries surveys: Data on prey biomass and 

associated data on physical and biological 

oceanographic features (bathymetry, salinity, 

temperature, plankton, etc.) are collected 

systematically in a number of areas throughout the 

North Pacific as part of other survey projects (e.g., 

fisheries and other surveys, etc). A review of existing 

state and federal fisheries data collected in areas of 

interest in the North Pacific was recommended to 

evaluate whether integration of these data sets with 

whale sightings data would help provide information 

relating to habitat and prey studies. Concurrent 

collection of marine mammal sightings and prey and 

oceanographic data was deemed most valuable and the 

placement of marine mammal observers aboard 

fisheries survey vessels was recommended. 

16. Develop quantitative criteria for delisting North 

Pacific large whales under the ESA: Section 4(c)(2) 

of the ESA requires that, at least once every 5 years, 

a review of the species on the Endangered Species List 

be conducted to determine whether any species should 

be 1) removed from the List, 2) changed in status from 

an endangered species to a threatened species, or 3) 

changed in status from a threatened species to an 

endangered species. NMFS completed its first 5-year 

review on the status of endangered whales in 1984. In 

January 1990, NMFS announced that it was 

conducting status reviews on certain listed species 

under its jurisdiction. The status review was 

completed and made available in June 1991 (56 FR 

29471). 

One of the problems with the current process for 

amending the status of listed species is that there are 

no objective criteria for classifying large whales as 

threatened or endangered. That is, how does one 

quantify what it means for there to be a significant risk 

that a species will become extinct over a major portion 

of its range? 

Diving humpback whale, Hawaii. (Photo credit: 

Gregory Silber, NMFS) 

In FY95, a contract was let to the University of 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

Washington to support a student to initiate the 

development of criteria that are 1) quantifiable and 2) 

applicable to populations of large whales. The initial 

approach was to take advantage of recent work by the 

International Union on the Conservation of Nature 

(IUCN) (see IUCN Red List Categories, 30 November 

1994) in quantifying criteria used to classify stocks in 

various categories of being threatened (i.e., extinct, 

extinct in the wild, critically endangered, endangered, 

and vulnerable). The goal of the project is to associate 

the two classifications under the ESA with specific 

categories of threatened under the IUCN classification 

scheme and then use or revise the quantitative criteria 

for classifying under the IUCN scheme for classifying 

large whales under the ESA. 

Objective listing and delisting criteria for the 

following stocks will be developed over the next two 

years: North Pacific humpback whale, North Pacific 

fin whale, North Pacific right whale, and possibly 

sperm whales and bowhead whales. The performance 

of the proposed criteria will be evaluated by 

simulation trials. Population projections will be made 

using computer simulations which incorporate the 

effects of demographic, environmental, and 

catastrophic stochasticity and changes in metapopulation dynamics. In addition, existing PVA 

software will be used to determine the applicability of 

such software in determining the extinction probability 

of large whale stocks, where data on trends in 

abundance and abundance are either imprecise or 

unavailable. 

A workshop report providing a summary of the 

information that was contributed to the workshop by 

these participants will be completed in early 1996. 

Eastern North Pacific Stock of 

Gray Whales, Eschrichtius 

robustus 

In June 1994, the eastern North Pacific stock of gray 

whale was removed from the list of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. The ESA requires that 

stocks/species removed from the list be monitored for 

a minimum period of 5 years and its status reassessed 

at the end of that period of time. Therefore, as part of 

the delisting process, NMFS developed a 5-year 

monitoring and research plan for eastern gray whales 

and initiated this program in 1994. 

As part of this 5-year plan, counts of southward 

migrating gray whales were conducted in January 

1995 and December 1995 to February 1996, as they 

passed the Granite Canyon research station in central 

California. The project was directed by NMML with 

assistance from the SWFSC. During the January 1995 

study, an experiment was conducted using 25-power 

binoculars and a thermal sensor to determine the 

onshore-offshore distribution of migrating gray 

whales. In the 1995/1996 study, the research was 

directed at determining total abundance. The 

abundance estimate of approximately 22,600 animals 

was based on the number of whales observed during 

the daytime watch and a series of correction factors to 

account for whales that were not counted. This 

estimate of total abundance was similar in value to an 

estimate based on data collected during the winter of 

1993/1994. Support for this research was provided by 

the NMFS Office of Protected Resource’s Marine 

Mammal Assessment Program. 

During the 1995 meeting of the Scientific Committee 

of the IWC several papers prepared by NMML and 

SWFSC staff regarding gray whales were discussed. 

A paper by Shelden et al. (SC/47/AS4) reported a 

substantial increase in the number and proportion of 

calves observed during the southward migration, 

which may possibly be a response to the increase 

status of gray whales relative to their carrying 

capacity. Shelden et al. further noted that since the 

mid-1980s and the mid-1990s, the median date of the 

southward migration past the counting site in central 

California has been delayed 5 and 9 days, respectively. 

Perryman et al. (SC/47/AS1) reported on the results 

from the 1994 northward migration to enumerate the 

number of gray whale calves in the population. This 

survey was conducted from Piedras Blancas, CA. 

Total calf production was estimated at 1,001 calves 

(SE 92), which represents 4.3% of the best estimate of 

abundance. This survey was done in response to 

concerns raised over a possible reduction in calf 

production and indicates that calf production is 

currently at a reasonable level. 

It was also noted during the 1995 SC meeting that 44 

gray whales from the eastern North Pacific stock were 

���� ��

Chapter VII. Conservation and Recovery Programs 

harvested by Russian subsistence hunters in 1994. The 

SC noted that this level of take was extremely unlikely 

to adversely affect this population. Catch limits for 

the eastern stock of gray whales in the North Pacific 

for 1995, 1996, and 1997 have been set by the IWC at 

140 animals per year, but only when the meat and 

products of such whales are to be used exclusively for 

local consumption by the aborigines. 

���� ��

Chapter VIII. Alaska Native Take of Marine

Mammals

MMPA Section 101(b) provides an exemption to the 

moratorium against taking marine mammals for 

Alaskan Indians, Aleuts, or Eskimos if the taking is 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, in some cases, other regulations. Two of 

the five subsistence takes listed below, bowhead 

whales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and the 

northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands, are subject to 

such limitations. The remainder are undergoing 

harvest level assessments. 

Bowhead Whales 

Subsistence Program Management 

NMFS works cooperatively with the Alaska Eskimo 

Whaling Commission to manage bowhead issues. 

Catch limits for the subsistence take of bowhead 

whales are established by the International Whaling 

Commission (IWC). At the 1994 IWC Annual 

Meeting, a 4-year subsistence take quota was 

established. For the years 1995 - 1998, the number of 

bowhead whales landed shall not exceed 204, and the 

number of bowhead whales struck shall not exceed 68 

in 1995, 67 in 1996, 66 in 1997, and 65 in 1998, with 

the exception that any unused portion of the yearly 

quota may be carried over and added to the subsequent 

year’s strike quota, provided that no more than 10 

strikes is added to the strike quota for any one year. 

Steller Sea Lions and Harbor 

Seals 

Subsistence Harvests 

Under section 10(e) of the ESA, 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. To date, 

no action has been taken to regulate, or otherwise 

manage, the subsistence harvest of Steller sea lions by 

Alaska Native groups. If subsistence takings 

materially and negatively affect the species, 

regulations or restrictions may be imposed following 

a hearing. 

Section 119 of the MMPA allows the Secretary of 

Commerce to enter into cooperative agreements with 

Alaska Native organizations to conserve marine 

mammals and provide co-management of subsistence 

uses. In 1994, an interim Alaska Native Steller Sea 

Lion Commission consisting of representatives from 

Alaska communities that take Steller sea lions for 

subsistence needs was formed to improve 

communication among indigenous communities that 

use sea lions, 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 co-management agreements 

with NMFS. Through co-management agreements 

between NMFS and the Alaska Native Sea Lion 

Commission or tribal entities, self-management and 

regulation of the subsistence harvest by Alaska Native 

tribes, communities, or the Commission will be 

achieved. NMFS is not considering regulation of the 

subsistence harvest at this time but hopes to work with 

Alaska Native communities and representatives to 

ensure that subsistence harvest does not adversely 

affect the Steller sea lion population. 

Alaska Native subsistence hunters have been 

estimated to take approximately 500 Steller sea lions 

annually in recent years; virtually all of the 

subsistence harvest in Alaska occurs within the range 

of the western population segment. These removals 

may have an impact on the population although the 

magnitude of estimates in comparison to the reported 

declines indicate that subsistence harvest has not been 

a significant factor in the decline. 

Alaska Native Subsistence Harvest 

of Steller Sea Lions 

Although Steller sea lions and harbor seals have been 

a traditional subsistence resource for Alaska Natives 

in many areas of the State, information on harvest 

���� ��

Chapter VIII. Alaska Native Take of Marine Mammals 

levels prior to the 1990s is limited. Therefore, 

beginning in 1992, NMFS provided funds to the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game to gather 

information on the subsistence use of harbor seals (and 

Steller sea lions) in Alaska. From surveys with hunters 

and Native households in coastal villages throughout 

the State, details of the subsistence take, including an 

estimate of total take (i.e., landings plus animals 

struck but lost), have been developed for the years 

1992 to 1996. 

The estimated total Native subsistence take of Steller 

sea lions in Alaska for those years was 549 in 1992 

(370 killed, 179 struck and lost), 487 in 1993 (348 

killed, 139 struck and lost), and 416 in 1994 (336 

killed, 80 struck and lost). During 1995, the estimated 

take of sea lions by Alaska natives was 339 sea lions, 

with a 95 percent confidence range of between 258 to 

465 sea lions. Of the take, 9.5 percent (32 sea lions) 

were struck and lost and 90.5 percent (307) were 

harvested. The 1995 take of sea lions was the lowest 

recorded of the 4-year survey. The 1996 estimate of 

take will be available in 1997. 

Almost the entire subsistence take of Steller sea lions 

has been in the range of the western U.S. stock, and 

more than three-fourths of that take occurred on the 

Pribilof and Aleutian Islands. The highest annual take 

from the eastern U.S. stock between 1992 and 1994 

was estimated at six animals in 1992. 

In light of concern about the decline of Steller sea 

lions and their importance as a subsistence resource, 

Native residents in the Pribilof and Aleutian Islands 

established an Alaska Native Steller Sea Lion 

Commission (ANSSLC) to develop a system of 

self-regulation and to explore co-management 

arrangements with Federal and State resource 

managers. 

Steller Sea Lion Subsistence 

Sampling 

In September 1995, NMFS Alaska Region began, 

under contract, a Steller sea lion tissue sampling and 

education project in 3 Alaska Native communities that 

have a high subsistence harvest (St. Paul Island, St. 

George Island, and Unalaska). Sampling focuses on 

obtaining tissue to determine the age, sex, and genetic 

makeup of harvested animals, as well as their physical 

condition, reproductive history, and exposure to 

anthropogenic contaminants. 

A second major emphasis of the contract was to 

increase awareness of the plight of the Steller sea lion 

and to encourage local management of the subsistence 

harvest. The contractor, in association with NMFS 

Alaska Region, will hold community workshops to 

discuss Steller sea lion recovery efforts and to inform 

hunters of the tissue collection project. In future 

years, NMFS hopes to expand this program to include 

other Alaska Native communities that harvest Steller 

sea lions, and to increase its emphasis on conservation 

through improved hunting practices and local 

management of harvest. The project continued in 

1996, and a first year project report is available. 

Alaska Native Subsistence Harvest 

of Harbor Seals 

NMFS contracted ADFG, Division of Subsistence, to 

estimate the annual take of harbor seals (and Steller 

sea lions) by Alaska Natives. The information is 

derived by systematic interviews with hunters and 

users of marine mammals. The most recent technical 

report regarding this contract includes data collected 

in 1994. 

The estimated total Native subsistence take of harbor 

seals in Alaska was 2,888 in 1992 (2,535 retrieved, 

353 struck and lost), 2,736 in 1993 (2,365 retrieved, 

371 struck and lost), 2,621 in 1994 (2,313 retrieved, 

308 struck and lost) and 2,742 in 1995. In 1995, 8.9 

percent of the take was struck and lost, the lowest rate 

reported for any survey year. The 1996 estimate of 

take will be available in 1997. 

Northern Fur Seal Subsistence 

Harvest 

The subsistence harvest of northern fur seals 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 of the fur seal harvest for the 

���� ��

Chapter VIII. Alaska Native Take of Marine Mammals 

previous 3-year period and a projection of the number 

of seals expected to be taken in the subsequent 3-year 

period to meet the subsistence needs of the Aleut 

residents on the Pribilof Islands. In 1994 NMFS 

estimated that the subsistence needs for 1994, 1995, 

and 1996 could be met by annual harvests of between 

281 and 500 fur seals on St. George Island and 

between 1,645 and 2,000 fur seals on St. Paul Island. 

In 1995, the subsistence harvest take total was 1,525 

fur seals, including 260 animals on St. George Island 

and 1,265 animals on St. Paul Island. Subsistence 

harvesting of fur seals was conducted on St. Paul 

Island for 22 days between July 1, 1995 and August 8, 

1995, and on St. George Island on 13 days between 

June 30, 1995, and August 7, 1995. A total of 1,591 

sub-adult male seals were killed in the subsistence 

harvest by St. Paul Island residents in 1996. Three 

female fur seals were harvested accidentally on St. 

Paul Island. On St. George Island, 232 subadult male 

seals were taken in the subsistence harvest in 1996. 

The harvesting of fur seals was conducted on St. Paul 

Island for 24 days between June 26, 1996 and August 

8, 1996, and on St. George Island for 11 days between 

July 2 and August 6, 1996. 

Beginning with the 1995 harvest, as a step toward 

maximum utilization of harvested seals 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. During 1995 and 1996, only 44 

butterfly cuts (1.3 percent of the combined Pribilof 

total take for these years), were taken from the field 

under these exceptions. 

As a result of the elimination of the butterfly cut as a 

standard field dressing method, and since the removal 

of whole carcasses constitutes full utilization of the 

edible portions of harvested seals, NMFS determined 

that it was no longer necessary to continue the 

percent-use calculations previously applied to the 

harvest. The butterfly cut was never a standard field 

dressing method on St. George Island; therefore, 

removal of only whole carcasses from the harvesting 

field is now a uniform practice in the Pribilofs. 

Also during the 1995 and 1996 harvests, NMFS and 

the tribal governments of both islands agreed to 

conduct an investigation into the entanglement of fur 

seals in marine debris, such as discarded fishing net, 

rope, and packaging bands that will be discussed later 

in this discussion. 

NMFS will continue to monitor the entire harvest on 

St. Paul Island and a portion of the harvest on St. 

George Island during 1997-1999 

to ensure that the harvest of fur seals is non-wasteful 

and in full compliance with the MMPA. 

Beluga Whales 

Subsistence Program 

The Alaska Beluga Committee (ABC) was formed in 

1988. Since that date, the ABC has met annually to 

provide harvest information on takes by Alaska 

Natives. Hunters from approximately 50 villages take 

beluga whales in Alaska. Animals are harvested from 

5 stocks that are defined by summering areas. 

A beluga whale in the lead. (Photo credit: Gregory 

Silber, NMFS) 

���� ��

Chapter VIII. Alaska Native Take of Marine Mammals 

In 1995, 135 animals were taken in the beluga harvest 

by areas as follows: Cook Inlet-42, Bristol Bay-6, 

Norton Sound-50, Chukchi Sea-34 and the Beaufort 

Sea-1. The 1996 estimate of take will be available in 

1997. 

Research on Beluga Whales in 1996 

A series of aerial surveys of the Cook Inlet belugas 

began in June, 1996, and is tentatively planned for 

even numbered years thereafter to monitor trends in 

the population. The tagging studies and aerial surveys 

are conducted with the cooperation of the Alaska 

Region Office in 

Anchorage, the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council 

and the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee. Survey 

and research results will be available in 1997. 

���� ��

Chapter IX. Permit Programs

Display, Scientific Research, 

Enhancement and Photography 

Permits 

NMFS administers provisions within the permit 

program, pursuant to the MMPA, the ESA, and the Fur 

Seal Act of 1966 (FSA), as they apply to species under 

the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce. Under 

these statutes, permits may be issued for certain 

purposes (e.g., public display, scientific research, 

enhancement, and photography), to take, import, 

export, or conduct an otherwise prohibited activity 

involving such protected species. 

Between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 1996, 

NMFS issued 22 permits. Of these, 20 were issued for 

scientific research and two were issued for 

photography. # applications were returned or 

withdrawn, and # applications were awaiting final 

action at the end of December 1996 

NMFS also processes permit amendments if the 

proposed modifications meet the appropriate statutory 

and regulatory standards, and other permit-related 

authorizations. An amendment of an existing permit, 

including a request for extension of a permit by more 

than 12 months beyond its original term, or a request 

for authorization to continue activities under a permit, 

is usually subject to the same notice, review and 

comment procedures as a permit application. During 

the reporting period, over 50 permit 

amendments/authorizations were processed. [Tables 

D-1 through D-5 in Appendix D provide an overview 

of major permit-related activities during the reporting 

period.] 

Revised 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. This 

rule was based on portions of a proposed rule (58 FR 

53320) published in October 1993. The final 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 (for 

captures and initial imports) under the MMPA; 

provides additional permit criteria specific to scientific 

research and enhancement only; and determines the 

status and establishes clarified administrative 

procedures for determining the releasability or nonreleasability of rehabilitated stranded marine 

mammals and their disposition. 

While the proposed rule was undergoing final 

modification prior to publication as a final rule, the 

1994 amendments to the MMPA were signed into law. 

The 1994 Amendments made substantial changes to 

sections 102 and 104 of the MMPA governing permits 

for public display, scientific research, and 

enhancement activities and consequently eliminated 

the basis for many of the provisions that had been 

included in the proposed rule. However, other 

portions of the proposed rule were either unaffected by 

the 1994 Amendments or only to a minor extent; 

therefore, NMFS proceeded with final regulations that 

incorporated comments on the proposed rule and 

included some of the elements of the 1993 proposals. 

In addition, the major statutory changes to the MMPA 

addressed by the final rule include: Statutorily 

defining the term harassment; providing a General 

Authorization for bona fide research involving only 

Level B harassment; waiving the public comment 

process for research permits to be issued under 

emergency situations; eliminating the statutory 

restriction against duplication of scientific research 

projects; statutorily providing for the issuance of 

permits for purposes of educational and commercial 

photography; and substantial changes to the public 

display provisions of the Act. 

The following highlights the major issues addressed in 

the final rule: 

General Permit Conditions and Restrictions. The 

regulatory text establishes permit-specific conditions 

and restrictions. By contrast, non-statutory general 

permit conditions and reporting requirements have 

been eliminated from the regulatory text. As a general 

rule, these general conditions and reporting 

���� ��

Chapter IX. Permit Programs 

requirements tend to vary given the nature of the 

permitted activity. Appropriate general conditions and 

reporting requirements will be incorporated into the 

permit itself, and must be adhered to along with all 

other terms and conditions. 

In addition to conditions and reporting applicable to 

all permit holders; the regulations also outline the 

conditions and reports that apply specifically to 

scientific research and enhancement permits. For 

example, research and enhancement permits are 

subject to a final reporting requirement as well as an 

annual reporting requirement. If captive marine 

mammals are the subject of research or enhancement 

activities, special reports must be submitted for 

purposes of the Marine Mammal Inventory including 

animal-specific data when animals are initially 

obtained, and subsequent updates to be submitted for 

any changes in the captive holding status. 

Permit Amendments. Major and minor amendment 

categories were established. Major amendments 

change elements of a permit which are statutorily 

highlighted as fundamental permit terms and 

conditions, i.e., changes in the number and species of 

marine mammals affected; the manner in which they 

are taken; the location; and an extension of the 

duration of the permit more than 12 months. Major 

amendments would require public review. Other 

changes would be "minor" and would be addressed on 

a case by case basis without additional opportunity for 

public comment. 

Import and Export of Marine Mammal Parts. Outlines 

the required notifications to NMFS on the initial 

importation of marine mammal parts, and the 

subsequent transfer, export or re-importation of marine 

mammal parts. 

Beached and Stranded Marine Mammals. Beached or 

stranded marine mammals taken under the authority of 

section 109(h) of the MMPA may be held only for the 

purpose of rehabilitation until: (1) The animal is 

returned to its natural habitat; (2) NMFS concurs with 

a determination by the attending veterinarian that it is 

not feasible to return the animal to its natural habitat 

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

although the attending veterinarian determines that the 

animal is releasable, NMFS authorizes the permanent 

retention of the animal as a substitute for the capture 

of one of the same species from the wild. 

The permanent retention of a beached or stranded 

marine mammal previously taken for the purpose of 

rehabilitation must be authorized by NMFS before an 

unreleasable animal may be retained by the 

rehabilitating facility, or transported or exported to 

another facility for public display purposes, in 

accordance with applicable MMPA requirements. 

Additionally, the recipient or retaining facility must 

meet the three public display criteria specified in the 

1994 Amendments (and cited below on page 78). 

During 1996, seven rehabilitated beached and stranded 

marine mammals were determined nonreleasable and 

were retained and/or transferred 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 mammals for purposes of 

public display in lieu of a capture. All of the these 

provisions were implemented in the May 10 final rule. 

The final rule does not include the additional 

requirements specific to photography or public display 

established by the 1994 Amendments. NMFS will 

publish separate proposed rules in 1997 for public 

comment for these areas. 

Photography Permits 

The 1994 Amendments established a new category of 

permits to allow marine mammals in the wild to be 

photographed for educational and commercial 

purposes. These permits are limited to Level B 

harassment 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 for 

photographic activities to one year and requires a 

report on the activity and its effect on the marine 

mammals within 60 days of completing the 

photographic work. During 1996, two permits were 

issued for commercial photography. 

���� ��

Chapter IX. Permit Programs 

General Authorization 

The 1994 Amendments 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. 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). Based on comments received on the 

interim final rule, a final rule will be published in 

1997. 

From January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996, 

NMFS received 20 letters of intent to conduct Level B 

harassment on marine mammal species or stocks for 

scientific research purposes; 15 proposals were 

approved and five were returned either for insufficient 

information or because they included listed species, 

involved level A harassment, or did not meet the bona 

fide research requirements. 

Permit Program Information 

Management System (PPIMS) 

NMFS has automated many aspects of its permit 

program and, during 1996, converted to the newly 

developed PPIMS, a PC-based relational database 

software configured to support administration of the 

permit database and permit processing. PPIMS 

replaces less sophisticated software and was developed 

to improve permit processing, and to facilitate and 

simplify both permit applicant and permit holder 

interaction with NMFS including maintenance of the 

Marine Mammal Inventory mandated by the MMPA. 

NMFS anticipates PPIMS will become fully 

operational when final regulations for photography 

and public display permits have been implemented. 

Marine Mammal Inventory 

Information on marine mammals held captive must be 

submitted for purposes of the Marine Mammal 

Inventory. Such information includes animal-specific 

data when animals are initially obtained, and 

subsequent updates to be submitted for any changes in 

the captive holding status (i.e., animal identification, 

sex, estimated or actual birth date, date of acquisition 

or disposition by the permit 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, date and cause of death, and prior 

notification of any sale, purchase, export, or 

transport). 

Exports of Marine Mammals 

Marine Mammals may be exported from U.S. facilities 

as long as the foreign recipient meets requirements 

comparable to those of a U.S. recipient. To obtain 

marine mammals from the United States for public 

Common Dolphin, Northern Gulf of California, Mexico. 

(Photo credit: Gregory Silber, NMFS) 

���� ��

Chapter IX. Permit Programs 

display, the recipient must: (a) offer a program for 

education or conservation purposes that is based on 

professionally recognized standards of the public 

display community; (b) meet comparable standards to 

someone who is registered or holds a license issued 

under 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq., i.e., from the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS); and (c) 

maintain facilities for the public display of marine 

mammals that are open to the public on a regularly 

scheduled basis and to which access is not limited or 

restricted other than by charging of an admission fee. 

Because foreign facilities are not subject to licensing 

or registration requirements under the Animal Welfare 

Act (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. 

During 1996 the following live marine mammals were 

exported: 

C Six (6) Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) to Dolphin Quest - Bermuda; 

C Four (4) Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) to Dolphin Quest - French Polynesia; 

C Five (5) California sea lions (Zalophus 

californianus) and 1 harbor seal to Canada's 

Wonderland for a seasonal exhibit; and 

C One (1) California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus) to Toba Aquarium, Japan. 

Acoustic Activities 

Statutory requirements dictate that NMFS identify 

and, if necessary, authorize the harassment of marine 

mammals, including harassment by sound. However, 

the legal meaning of "harassment" is vague, the intent 

of Congress on this subject is unclear, and scientific 

data demonstrating that certain sounds harass are 

lacking. Lacking clear statutory guidance and 

complete scientific information, NMFS needs to 

develop new policies and procedures which are 

consistent with the MMPA and cognizant of the needs 

of the affected communities. 

As a first step toward this goal, NMFS established an 

Acoustic Team responsible for ensuring in-house 

coordination on acoustic issues. Among other things, 

the Team is preparing a discussion paper, for ultimate 

distribution to the public, that fully describes the 

problems that noise in the marine environment creates, 

and that explores various policy options. The paper is 

limited in scope to marine mammal species under the 

MMPA and the ESA. Although some of the issues 

discussed have relevance for other species, such as 

endangered and threatened sea turtles and fish, the 

issues concerning those species are divergent enough 

to require a separate review. It is envisioned that the 

paper will be distributed to the public in 1997. 

On December 17, 1996, an Interagency Coordinating 

Group (ICG) on Acoustics was established to explore 

both individual and common avenues for addressing 

acoustic issues. The Group is comprised of 

representatives from NMFS, MMC, ONR, MMS, the 

U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Release of Captive Dolphins to 

the Wild 

As previously reported, there has been increasing 

public and media interest in releasing captive marine 

mammals to the wild. NMFS has consistently stated 

that such releases may result in a "take" as defined in 

the MMPA, and, therefore, can only occur after a 

scientific research permit has been issued. Established 

protocols do not currently exist for rehabilitating and 

releasing captive marine mammals back into the wild. 

Therefore, NMFS intends for scientifically sound 

protocols to be developed through the permit process 

which affords the opportunity for both scientific and 

public review. NMFS is concerned that both the 

released animals and populations of wild marine 

mammals could be vulnerable to a take. 

Specific issues of concern include: disease 

transmission between released animals and wild 

marine mammals; unwanted genetic exchanges 

���� ��

Chapter IX. Permit Programs 

between introduced and endemic stocks/populations; 

the ability of the released dolphins to adequately 

forage and defend themselves from predators; and any 

behavioral patterns developed in captivity which could 

prove detrimental to the social structure of local 

populations as well as the social assimilation of the 

released animal. These concerns were acknowledged 

by Congress in the Conference report accompanying 

H.R. 4650, enacted as Public Law 103-335, which 

included provisions for the transfer of dolphins from 

Navy facilities. 

However, despite these concerns, two unauthorized 

releases of captive bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) occurred in May 1996. The first involved 

two female dolphins (named "Bogie" and "Bacall") 

who were maintained at a public display facility in the 

Indian River, Florida, and who were released from 

their ocean pen allegedly by vandals. Although the 

intent of this facility was to seek a scientific research 

permit to prepare the dolphins for eventual release, 

neither dolphin had been prepared for return to the 

wild. To date, there have been no confirmed sightings 

demonstrating that either dolphin survived the release. 

NMFS staff visited the area to search for the dolphins, 

but they were not found. 

The second release involved two male dolphins 

(named "Buck" and "Luther") who had been illegally 

transported and released to the wild off Key West on 

May 23, 1996. These two dolphins had been 

maintained at the Sugarloaf Dolphin Sanctuary (SDS, 

located at the Sugarloaf Motel) since 1993. NMFS 

conducted a successful rescue operation that recovered 

both dolphins. In a related action, NMFS, in 

cooperation with the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS), seized a third dolphin 

"Jake" from the SDS facility on June 7, 1996. All 

three dolphins were formally in the U.S. Navy's 

marine mammal research program, but were 

transferred to the SDS facility upon the petition of 

several animal welfare groups who stated their 

intention to seek a scientific research permit to release 

the dolphins. However, NMFS never received a 

permit application. 

NMFS and APHIS had been in the process of 

obtaining a warrant for the seizure of all three 

dolphins when the unauthorized release of "Buck" and 

"Luther" occurred. Both efforts were conducted under 

the authority of the MMPA and at the direction of 

NMFS personnel from the Office of Protected 

Resources and the Office of Enforcement who were 

on-site. NMFS organized a rescue team to assist the 

dolphins which was comprised of personnel from the 

public display, research and stranding-response 

communities. Additional assistance was provided by 

the National Marine Sanctuary program, U.S. Navy, 

Florida Marine Patrol and U.S. Coast Guard. 

Both "Buck" and "Luther" were found in poor body 

condition, having suffered extreme weight loss and 

injuries. Immediately after the release, the dolphins 

separated: "Luther" appeared in Key West, and "Buck" 

appeared north in the Islamorada/Marathon areas. 

They both approached boaters in marinas and local 

waterways, and were observed performing trained 

behaviors, begging for food, and being fed fish-bait 

and unidentified objects by the public. Their behavior 

demonstrated that they were still highly conditioned 

and dependent upon human care, and thus were not 

prepared for life in the wild. In addition, their injuries 

required prompt medical attention. Since both 

dolphins were still trained to respond to human 

commands, the NMFS rescue team was able to engage 

them in trained boat-follows and lead them voluntarily 

to safety. 

On June 7, NMFS seized "Jake," the remaining former 

Navy dolphin at the SDS facility. Seizure occurred 

after APHIS suspended Sugarloaf's exhibitor's license 

for multiple violations of the Animal Welfare Act 

(AWA), including the failure to utilize a qualified 

veterinarian, provide necessary physical examinations 

and blood testing, and maintain the dolphins within 

the facility. The seizure was conducted pursuant to 

the MMPA, which authorizes NMFS to seize animals 

that are held by a public display facility which does 

not have a valid AWA exhibitor's license. Although 

"Jake" was not in the same critical condition as 

"Buck" and "Luther," the veterinarians who examined 

him determined that he was underweight and in need 

of medical attention. 

Since then, "Jake" and "Luther" were returned to the 

Navy's marine mammal facility in San Diego, 

California, where they are receiving the appropriate 

care and treatment they were denied at SDS. Given 

���� ��

Chapter IX. Permit Programs 

his poor medical condition, "Buck" did not return to 

San Diego, and he continues to recover at an APHISapproved public display facility in the Florida Keys. 

NMFS sincerely appreciates the hard work of 

everyone who assisted with the rescue and seizure 

operations. Many individuals and organizations 

dedicated their time, expertise, and equipment to 

ensure that "Buck," "Luther" and "Jake" were brought 

into safety and given the proper medical attention they 

needed. As of December 31, 1996, the SDS case was 

still under investigation and an enforcement decision 

is expected in 1997. 

Public Interaction with Marine 

Mammals in the Wild 

In 1996, NMFS continued to receive reports about the 

public seeking close encounters with marine mammals 

in the wild. Specific activities of concern include: 

illegal feeding of dolphins in the southeast and sea 

lions on the west coast; "swim-with-dolphin" 

encounters; jet-ski operation around whales and 

dolphins; and encroachment on pinniped haul-out 

sites. Under the MMPA, feeding or harassing marine 

mammals is illegal. 

The negative effects of feeding wild marine mammals 

has already been established. An in depth review 

conducted by NMFS, outside marine mammal experts, 

and the Marine Mammal Commission, determined that 

feeding marine mammals in the wild is contrary to the 

mandates of the MMPA to protect individuals, species 

and stocks of marine mammals. This review was 

published by NMFS and entitled Report to Congress 

on Results of Feeding Wild Dolphins: 1989-1994. 

Feeding dolphins and other marine mammals in the 

wild alters their behavior in ways that places them at 

increased risk of injury and death. Repeated exposure 

to humans and human activities has been correlated 

with placing these animals at greater risk of incidental 

interactions with vessels and fishing activities, 

directed vandalism, and ingestion of inappropriate and 

contaminated food items. In addition, feeding may 

impact their ability or willingness to forage for food, 

which is of particular concern for young animals who 

need to learn foraging skills. Feeding is ongoing and 

growing with bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) 

throughout the southeast in coastal Florida, Texas, and 

South Carolina, and also occurs with California sea 

lions (Zalophus californianus) on the west coast. 

Other types of commercial and recreational activities 

with marine mammals in the wild are of concern. In 

particular, "Swim-With-Dolphin" (SWD) interactions, 

boating and jet-ski activities, and encroaching on 

pinniped rookeries disturb the animals' natural 

behavioral patterns, and also have the potential to 

injure the animals. In the southeast, SWD activities 

are facilitated by illegal dolphin feeding. In Hawaii, 

SWD activities with spinner dolphins occurs when the 

public encroaches upon the dolphins' coastal resting 

areas. The MMPA does not provide an exception for 

such recreational activities. Although there may be 

certain instances where marine mammals approach 

humans and initiate an interaction, activities that 

target marine mammals are, by their nature, acts of 

pursuit or annoyance which might have the potential 

to disturb or injure the animals. 

An additional concern with feeding and recreational 

activities is that individual marine mammals may 

become identified as "nuisance animals." This 

problem has a long history on the west coast with 

pinnipeds and in the Southeast with dolphins. In April 

1996, a male Steller sea lion who had been 

provisioned by people was put down by Alaska state 

wildlife officials because he was considered a threat to 

public safety due to aggressive behavior which was 

caused by human provisioning. In the Southeast, the 

problem of "nuisance animals" is growing as 

increasing commercial enterprises are turning dolphins 

into aggressive panhandlers. NMFS has received 

reports of people being bitten by aggressive 

provisioned wild dolphins, and complaints from 

sport fishermen who have lost their catch to dolphins 

that have been "trained" to take fish from boaters. 

Since the general public may not be aware of the 

MMPA provisions, and that interactions with wild 

marine mammals maybe harmful and dangerous, 

NMFS continued its education efforts throughout 

1996. Staff from NMFS' Office of Protected 

Resources and Office of Public Affairs gave 

interviews to several media publications and public 

presentations about protecting marine mammals. 

Additional education efforts have been planned for 

1997, and will include close coordination with NMFS' 

Regional Offices and the Office of Enforcement. 

���� ��

Captive Care Standards for 

Marine Mammals 

During 1995-1996, NMFS was included as a nonvoting observer to the USDA-APHIS Negotiated 

making for marine mammal captive care standards 

under the AWA. This Federal advisory committee 

consists of several voting and non-voting ("observer") 

members. NMFS suggested that the advisory 

committee address certain practices authorized under 

the AWA that have the potential of impacting marine 

mammals in the wild which are under the jurisdiction 

of the MMPA. Specifically, open-water pens and 

releases of captive marine mammals to the wild for 

various purposes (i.e., filming, scientific research, 

swim-with programs) have the potential of facilitating 

disease transmission and unwanted genetic exchange 

between captive animals and those in the wild. 

NMFS recommended that facilities with open-water 

pens be required to have closed-water system 

quarantine pools. In addition, NMFS recommended 

that the proposed rule include an explicit reference to 

the MMPA requirement that captive marine mammals 

may only be released to the wild under a scientific 

research permit issued by NMFS. Also, NMFS 

suggested that the regulations which allow the public 

to feed captive marine mammals (i.e., feeding or 

petting pools) be amended to require that the public be 

informed that feeding and interacting with marine 

mammals in the wild could be harmful to the animals; 

why it could be harmful, and that feeding is prohibited 

under Federal law. The recommendations from this 

negotiated rulemaking are under consideration by 

APHIS/USDA for possible publication of a proposed 

rulemaking on the AWA care and maintenance 

standards. 

Chapter IX. Permit Programs 

���� �� 
Chapter X. Marine Mammal Health

and Stranding Response Act

Background 

In 1992, the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding 

Response Act (MMHSRA) (Public Law 102-587) was 

enacted into law. The Act became Title IV of the 

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; response to unusual mortality 

events; monitoring; the National Marine Mammal 

Tissue Bank; quality assurance; and information 

management. A discussion of activities in each of 

these areas follows. 

Marine Mammal Stranding Network members are 

generally volunteers who respond to both live and 

dead strandings of pinnipeds and cetaceans. 

(Photo credit: Gregory Silber, NMFS) 

Stranding Networks 

Marine Mammal Stranding Networks have been 

established in each of NMFS' regions. Most members 

of the Marine Mammal Stranding networks are 

volunteers who respond to both live and dead 

strandings of pinnipeds and cetaceans. They must 

satisfy minimum requirements in terms of marine 

mammal experience in order to be issued letters of 

authorization by the appropriate Regional Office 

giving them authority to respond to strandings. 

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. Network 

members are required to collect certain basic 

biological data including species name, sex, length, 

location, and any evidence of human interaction. In 

addition, they are encouraged to collect other data and 

tissues for use in scientific research and for 

educational purposes. 

In 1996, Network members reported 1,202 cetacean 

strandings and 2,050 pinniped strandings. Table E-1 

in Appendix E provides detailed information on 

strandings by species and Region. 

Regional Stranding Networks 

Northeast Region Stranding 

Network 

A total of 558 marine mammal strandings were 

reported in the Northeast Region in 1996. Of these, 

381 were pinnipeds and 177 were cetaceans. 

Continuing a trend noted in the 1995 Annual Report, 

the number of arctic seals has continued to increase. 

The number of stranded harp seals increased from 78 

in 1995 to 153, and hooded seals increased from 14 to 

46. 

Bottlenose dolphins with 74 strandings and harbor 

porpoise with 68 strandings were the most common 

species of cetaceans. Four large whale strandings 

were attributed to vessel strikes--two fin, one 

humpback, and one right whale. The right whale also 

had been entangled in lobster gear from Canada. 

Southeast Region Stranding 

Network 

In 1996, 795 marine mammal strandings were reported 

in the Southeast Region. Nine pinniped strandings 

were reported--eight harbor seals and a hooded seal 

���� ��

Chapter X. Marine Mammal Health 

and Stranding Response Act 

which stranded in Puerto Rico. The balance were 

cetacean strandings. Of the cetacean strandings, 

bottlenose dolphins were the most numerous with 676 

strandings. 

On January 6, 1996 a mass stranding of 12 Atlantic 

spotted dolphins occurred in the Florida Keys. Seven 

dolphins beached themselves on a sandbar. The U.S. 

Coast Guard transported the animals to a nearby 

lagoon. Despite efforts to treat them, they all died 

within a few days. The five other dolphins were 

trapped in a deep water basin near a marina. They 

were led back to sea by a NMFS area representative. 

Two mortality events occurred--one affecting right 

whales off of Florida and Georgia and one affecting 

bottlenose dolphins in Mississippi. These events are 

discussed below in the section on Unusual Mortality 

Events. 

A major improvement in Stranding Network coverage 

occurred in Louisiana where an active network was set 

up for the first time. This has resulted in a marked 

increase in the number of strandings reported from 

that state. In 1996, 98 strandings were reported in 

Louisiana. Of these, 87 were bottlenose dolphins. 

Southwest Region Stranding 

Network 

A total of 1,554 marine mammal strandings were 

reported to the Southwest Region in 1996--1,449 

pinnipeds and 105 cetaceans. Pinniped strandings of 

interest included ten Steller sea lions, 12 northern fur 

seals, and two Guadalupe fur seals. Cetacean 

strandings of interest included six humpback whales in 

Hawaii, three pygmy sperm whales and two Cuvier's 

beaked whales. 

A common dolphin which had stranded alive on 

August 21, 1995, and was being prepared for release 

back to the wild tested positive for antibodies to 

morbillivirus. This was the first known case of a 

cetacean with a positive titer to morbillivirus stranding 

on the Pacific coast. Between October 6, 1995, and 

December 31, 1996, nine additional common dolphins 

stranded alive in California. Because of the positive 

result in the earlier dolphin, it was decided that tests 

should be conducted on all live stranded dolphins. 

Five of the nine had positive titers to the disease. 

None of the animals, however, exhibited clinical 

symptoms associated with morbillivirus. All but one 

of the animals died shortly after being taken to a 

rehabilitation facility. The surviving dolphin was a 

newborn calf being rehabilitated at Sea World at the 

end of the year which was negative for exposure to 

morbillivirus. 

Alaska Region Stranding Network 

A total of 118 cetacean strandings and 23 pinniped 

strandings were reported to the Alaska Region. The 

cetacean figures are inflated because of three mass 

strandings involving beluga whales in the Cook Inlet 

area. These strandings seem to occur in association 

with late runs of Coho salmon in Turnagain Arm. The 

whales apparently came in on incoming tides in 

pursuit of the salmon and were left stranded by rapidly 

retreating, very low tides. The three incidents 

occurred on August 28, September 6, and October 2. 

The first incident involved 60 whales--four of which 

died. On the other two occasions 20-30 individuals 

were involved, none of which died. Personnel from 

the Alaska Region responded to each of the events 

placing wet blankets on the animals until they were 

refloated on the incoming tide. 

Unusual Mortality Events 

Section 304 of the MMHSRA establishes a Working 

Group on Unusual Marine Mammal Mortality Events. 

It includes individuals from a range of scientific 

disciplines, including veterinary medicine, pathology, 

epidemiology, toxicology, and marine mammal 

science. The Working Group is consulted when an 

unusual mortality event is suspected, determines 

whether such an event is actually occurring, and 

provides advice on specific actions that should be 

taken to respond to an event. 

In 1996, the Working Group was consulted three times 

on mortality events. In February, the Working Group 

���� ��

Chapter X. Marine Mammal Health 

and Stranding Response Act 

was consulted because of six right whale mortalities 

off the Georgia coast. Details of these mortalities and 

subsequent actions are contained in Chapter VII. In 

March, the Working Group was consulted on a 

mortality event involving manatees. Over 150 

manatees died along the west coast of Florida. 

Although manatees are under the jurisdiction of the 

USFWS, the Working Group was actively involved in 

providing advice and guidance. Ultimately, it was 

determined that a biotoxin produced by the red tide 

organism, Gymnodinium breve, was the cause. In 

November and December, 27 bottlenose dolphins 

stranded in Mississippi. A cause of the mortality 

event had not been determined by the end of the year. 

MMHSRP Monitoring Program 

The MMHSRP monitoring program consists of: (1) 

real time evaluation of specimens for contaminants 

and health, (2) method development and validation, 

and (3) research on problem characterization and 

correlation of contaminants and health. One main 

goal of the monitoring component is to provide 

baseline information on contaminant loads and 

diseases in populations of marine mammals. The 

effort is focused on two main areas: contaminant 

monitoring and health monitoring. 

Marine Mammal Pathology 

The calendar year 1996 was the second year of a three 

year contract with the Department of Veterinary 

Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology to 

examine tissues from marine mammals. Tissues were 

received from aquaria, researchers, stranding network 

personnel and federal or state employees. The 

Department of Veterinary Pathology issued diagnostic 

histopathology reports on 165 marine mammals, of 

which 103 were cetaceans, 29 seals or sea lions, 27 

walruses and 9 sea otters. The species and numbers 

represented include 41 Tursiops truncatus, 9 Stenella 

clymene, 8 Stenella frontalis, 7 Delphinus delphis, 5 

Physeter macrocephalus, 4 Delphinapterus leucas, 3 

Phocoena phocoena, 3 Ziphius cavirostris, 3 

Lissodelphis borealis, 2 Kogia simus, 2 Phocoenoides 

dalli, 2 Delphinus apensis, 2 Orcinus orca, 2 Grampus 

griseus, 1 Kogia breviceps, 1 Mesoplodon europaeus, 

1 Lagenodelphis hosei, 1 Peponocephala electra, 1 

Globicephala macrorhynchus, 1 Stenella attenuata, 1 

Eschrichtius robustus, 9 Phoca vitulina, 6 Phoca 

groenlandica, 4 Zalophus californianus, 3 Cystophora 

cristata, 2 Erignathus barbatus, 1 Mirounga 

angustirostris, 1 Callorhinus ursinus, 27 Odobenus 

rosmarus divergens, and 9 Enhydra lutris. In 

addition, 73 marine mammals were tested for 

morbillivirus by reverse transcriptase polymerase 

chain reaction. No new cases of morbillivirus were 

identified. The comprehensive pathologic study of 

the 1987-88 U.S. Atlantic coast bottlenose dolphin 

epizootic was completed, and the AFIP helped 

organize and participated in an expert panel 

assessment of pathological findings in the right whale 

mortality event (January-February 1996). The AFIP 

also consulted with the on-site coordinators of the 

manatee mortality event and the Mississippi bottlenose 

dolphin mortality event. 

Brucella 

After the discovery in 1995 of brucella in harbor seals 

in Puget Sound, the NMFS in conjunction with 

Washington State, the National Veterinary Services 

Lab, and the stranding networks continued efforts to 

determine the incidence and pathogenicity of brucella 

in pinnipeds. In addition, efforts were made to 

validate the various tests for brucella in marine 

mammals. Using samples provided by the 

Washington State Department of Fish and Game, four 

isolates of brucella were obtained from harbor seals. 

These isolates are different from other brucella 

organisms isolated from terrestrial animals in the 

United States and are similar to marine mammal 

isolates from Europe. A pilot survey of samples 

obtained from stranded pinnipeds in the northeastern 

United States revealed that these animals had also 

been exposed to brucella. Efforts will continue to 

address the issues of prevalence, pathogenicity, and 

assay validation. 

Contaminants 

The contaminants component of the MMHSRP 

includes biomonitoring, archiving and quality 

���� ��

Chapter X. Marine Mammal Health 

and Stranding Response Act 

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 

1996, the ECD continued the work to determine the 

concentrations of chemical contaminant in marine 

mammals and to develop techniques to improve 

capabilities for determining the health risk to marine 

mammals from highly toxic substances. These 

activities create a national database on toxic 

substances in marine mammals that is linked to 

biological data, improve the quality of chemical 

measurement in marine mammals nation-wide through 

the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 

program and provide timely information in response to 

stranding events. The studies in 1996 targeted those 

species at risk of stranding, those showing evidence of 

population decline, and those that serve as sentinels of 

habitat quality. 

In 1996, over 360 tissue samples from a number of 

matrices (blubber, liver, kidney, brain, heart, lung, 

muscle, melon, mandibular fat, blood, milk, and 

stomach contents) from 16 cetacean species and 10 

pinniped species were either acquired or analyzed for 

chlorinated hydrocarbons and essential and nonessential elements. These samples were collected 

from a variety of projects: 1) ongoing monitoring of 

contaminant in animals obtained from subsistence 

hunts (e.g. Steller sea lion), 2) collection of tissues for 

the Specimen Bank project (e.g. beluga whale, 

bowhead whale and ring seal), 3) analyses of tissues 

from stranded animals (e.g., pygmy sperm whale, harp 

seal), 4) continued investigations of relationships 

between contaminant exposure and disease (e.g., 

California sea lions with metastatic carcinomas), and 

5) as part of a study on the health effects of 

contaminants in northern fur seal pups. 

In 1996, the ECD also initiated projects to improve 

our current analytical methods of measuring dioxinlike PCB congeners and methylsulfone metabolites in 

marine mammal tissues and of testing the 

susceptibility of marine mammals to biotoxins. In 

addition two studies on the effects of tissue 

degradation on analytical results were begun in 1996. 

Changes in tissue condition on the recovery and 

quality of the DNA used in an assay for polycyclic 

aromatic compound-like DNA adducts were 

completed to show the effects of sample quality on 

analytical results. The second study on the effects of 

tissue degradation on chemical analytical results was 

continued in cooperation with Texas A&M University. 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) continues to cooperate with NMFS in the 

maintenance of the National Marine Mammal 

Specimen Bank (NMMSB) and the Quality Assurance 

Program as part of the interagency National Marine 

Analytical Quality Assurance Program. In 1996, 

tissue banking efforts included the collection of 208 

new specimens from 78 animals representing 10 

species. Of these species, 4 were cetaceans, 6 

pinnipeds and 1 polar bear. This brings the total 

number of specimens in the NMMSB to 669 

representing 252 animals of 16 species. In 1996, a 

total of 24 tissue bank samples from beluga whale, 

elephant seal, ringed seal and harbor porpoise were 

transferred to ECD for analyses. Detailed analyses for 

CHs were completed in 12 samples of blubber and 

liver. Fourteen essential and non-essential elements 

were analyzed in 12 liver and kidney samples. 

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. In 1996, NIST and 

NWFSC collaborated in an interlaboratory comparison 

exercise involving the analyses of liver tissue of 2 

beluga whales, a ringed seal and a pilot whale control 

material for 13 essential and non-essential elements. 

The results show good comparability between the two 

labs and the utility of performance based QA programs 

in assessing comparability of data. Other milestones 

for the QA program include the publication of 

interlaboratory comparison results on PCBs and 

chlorinated pesticides, the preparation and distribution 

of a manatee blubber analytical control material (as 

part of the mortality investigation QA), and the 

collection and analysis of a beluga whale liver control 

material (Homogenate II). 

���� ��

1 

Appendix A 
Appendix A 

Table A-1 -- List of Fisheries 

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean 

Page A-I 

> 

Fishery Description 

Categorv I: 

Gillnet fisheries: 

CA angel sharkthalibut and 

other species large mesh 

(>3.5in) set gillnet fishery 

CNOR thresher 

sharklswordfish drift gillnet 

fishery 

Cateaory 11: 

Gillnet fisheries 

AK Peninsula1 Aleutian 

Island salmon set gillnet 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

80 

150 

120 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

Harbor porpoise, central CA 

Common dolphin, short-beaked, CNORNVA 

Common dolphin, long-beaked CA 

California sea lion, U.S. 

Harbor seal, CA 

Northern elephant seal, CA breeding 

Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S.*+ 

Sperm whale, CA to WA*+ 

Dall's porpoise, CAIORNVA 

Pacific white sided dolphin, CNOWA 

Risso's dolphin, CNOWA 

Bottlenose dolphin, CNORNVA offshore 

Common dolphin, short-beaked, CNORNVA 

Common dolphin, long-beaked, CA 

Northern right whale dolphin, CNORNVA 

Short-finned pilot whale, CNORNVA* 

Baird's beaked whale, CNORNVA 

Mesoplodont beaked whales, CA to WA* 

Cuvier's beaked whale, CNOWA 

Pygmy sperm whale, CNORNVA* 

California sea lion, U.S. 

Harbor seal, CA 

Northern elephant seal, CA breeding 

Harbor porpoise, ORNVA coastal 

Humpback whale, CAIORNVA-Mexico 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+ 

Harbor porpoise, AK 
Table A-I-- List of Fisheries 

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (cont.) 

Page A-2 

Fishery Description 

Southeast Alaska salmon 

drift gillnet fishery 

AK Cook Inlet drift gillnet 

AK Cook Inlet salmon set 

gillnet 

AK Yakutat salmon set 

gillnet 

AK Kodiak salmon set 

gillnet 

AK Bristol Bay drift gillnet 

AK Bristol Bay set gillnet 

AK Metlakatlal Annette 

Island salmon drift gillnet 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

443 

554 

633 

152 

162 

1,741 

888 

60 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S.*+ 

Harbor seal, Southeast AK 

Pacific white-sided dolphin, central North Pacific 

Harbor porpoise, AK 

Dall's porpoise, AK 

Humpback whale, central North Pacific*+ 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+ 

Harbor seal, GOA 

Harbor porpoise, AK 

Dall's porpoise, AK 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+ 

Harbor seal, GOA 

Harbor porpoise, AK 

Beluga, Cook lnlet 

Harbor seal, Southeast AK 

Harbor seal, GOA 

Harbor porpoise, AK 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+ 

Northern fur seal, North Pacific* 

Harbor seal, Bering Sea 

Beluga, Bristol Bay 

Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific 

Harbor seal, Bering Sea 

Beluga, Bristol Bay 

Gray whale, Eastern North Pacific 

None documented 
Table A-I -- List of Fisheries 

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (cont.) 

Page A-3 

Fishery Description 

WA Puget Sound Region 

salmon drift gillnet fishery 

(includes all inland waters 

south of US-Canada border 

and eastward of the 

Bonilla-Tatoosh line-- 

Treaty Indian fishing is 

excluded) 

Purse seine fisheries 

CA anchovy, mackerel, 

tuna purse seine 

CA squid purse seine 

AK Southeast salmon 

purse seine 

Trawl fisheries 

AK pair trawl 

Lonaline fisheries 

OR swordfish floating 

longline fishery 

OR blue shark floating 

longline fishery 

Cateaorv Ill 

Gillnet fisheries 

AK Prince William Sound 

set gillnet 

AK Kuskokwim, Yukon, 

Norton Sound, Kotzebue 

salmon gillnet 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

1,044 

150 

65 

443 

2 

20 

10 

29 

1,651 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

Harbor porpoise, inland WA 

Dall's porpoise, CNORNVA 

Harbor seal, WA inland 

Bottlenose dolphin, CNORNVA offshore 

California sea lion, U.S. 

Harbor seal, CA 

Pilot whales, short-finned, CNORNVA 

Humpback whale, central North Pacific*+ 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+ 

Harbor seal, GOA 

None documented 
Appendix A 

Table A-I-- List of Fisheries 

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (cont.) 

Page A-4 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

None documented 

None documented 

Harbor seal, ORNVA coast 

Northern elephant seal, CA breeding 

Harbor seal, ORNVA coast 

California sea lion, U.S. 

Harbor seal, ORNVA coast 

None documented 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+ 

Bottlenose dolphin, Hawaiian 

Spinner dolphin, Hawaiian 

Harbor seal, GOA 

None documented 

None documented 

Fishery Description 

AK roe herring and 

foodlbait herring gillnet 

WA, OR herring, smelt, 

shad, sturgeon, bottom 

fish, mullet, perch, rockfish 

gillnet 

WA Willapa Bay drift gillnet 

WA Grays Harbor salmon 

drift gillnet (excluding treaty 

Tribal fishing) 

WA, OR lower Columbia 

River (includes tributaries) 

drift gillnet 

CA set and drift gillnet 

fisheries that use a 

stretched mesh size of 3.5 

in or less 

AK miscellaneous finfish 

set gillnet 

Hawaii gillnet 

Purse seine. beach seine, 

round haul and throw net 

fisherie 

AK salmon purse seine 

(except Southeast Alaska, 

which is in Category II) 

AK salmon beach seine 

AK roe herring and 

foodlbait herring purse 

seine 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

162 

91 3 

82 

24 

40 

34 1 

9 

115 

1,053 

34 

866 
Table A-I -- List of Fisheries 

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (cont.) 

Page A-5 

Fishery Description 

AK roe herring and 

foodlbait herring beach 

seine 

AK Metlakatla purse seine 

AK octopuslsquid purse 

seine 

CA herring purse seine 

CA sardine purse seine 

CA squid purse seine 

AK miscellaneous finfish 

purse seine 

AK miscellaneous finfish 

beach seine 

WA salmon purse seine 

WA salmon reef net 

WA, OR herring, smelt, 

squid purse seine or 

lampara 

WA (all species) beach 

seine or drag seine 

HI purse seine 

HI opelulakule net 

HI throw net, cast net 

DID net fisheries 

WA, OR smelt, herring dip 

net 

CA squid dip net 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

14 

3 

3 

100 

120 

145 

6 

4 

440 

53 

130 

235 

18 

16 

47 

1 19 

115 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

Bottlenose dolphin, CA coastal 

California sea lion, U.S. 

Harbor seal, CA 

None documented 

California sea lion, U.S. 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 
Appendix A 

Table A-1 -- List of Fisheries 

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (cont.) 

Fishery Description 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

persons injuredlkilled 

Marine aauaculture 

fisheries 

WA, OR salmon net pens 1 21 I California sea lion, U.S. 

CA salmon enhancement 

rearing pen 

>I I None documented 

OR salmon ranch I I I None documented 

Troll fisherie 

CAIORNVA salmon troll 4,300 

Steller sea lion, Eastern U.S.*+ 

None documented 

AK north Pacific halibut, AK 

bottom fish, WA, OR, CA 

albacore, groundfish, 

bottom fish, CA halibut 

non-salmonid troll fisheries 

None documented 

HI trolling, rod and reel 1,795 

Guam tuna troll 50 

Commonwealth of the 50 

Northern Mariana Islands 

tuna troll 

American Samoa tuna troll ~50 

HI net unclassified 1 06 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

Lonalinelset line fisheries 1 

AK state waters sablefish 240 None documented 

long linelset line 

Miscellaneous 838 Harbor seal, GOA 

finfishlgroundfish Harbor seal, Bering Sea 

longlinelset line Northern elephant seal, CA breeding 

Page A-6 
Table A-I -- List of Fisheries 

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (cont.) 

Page A-7 

Fishery Description 

HI swordfish, tuna, billfish, 

mahi mahi, wahoo, oceanic 

sharks longlinelset line 

WA, OR North Pacific 

halibut longlinelset line 

AK southern Bering Sea, 

Aleutian Islands, and 

Western Gulf of Alaska 

sablefish longlinelset line 

(federally regulated waters) 

AK halibut longlinelset line 

(state and Federal waters) 

WA, OR, CA groundfish, 

bottomfish longlinelset line 

AK octopuslsquid longline 

CA sharklbonito 

Ionglinelset line 

Trawl fisheries 

WA, OR, CA shrimp trawl 

AK shrimp otter trawl and 

beam trawl (statewide and 

Cook Inlet) 

AK Gulf of Alaska 

groundfish trawl 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

140 

350 

226 

213 

367 

1 

10 

300 

48 

490 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

Hawaiian monk seal, HI*+ 

Humpback whale, Central North Pacific*+ 

Risso's dolphin, Hawaiian 

Bottlenose dolphin, Hawaiian 

None documented 

Northern elephant seal, CA breeding 

Killer whale, resident 

Killer whale, transient 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+ 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+ 

Northern fur seal, North Pacific* 

Harbor seal, GOA 

Dall's porpoise, AK 

Northern elephant seal, CA breeding 
Appendix A 

Table A-I -- List of Fisheries 

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (cont) 

1 Page A-8 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+ 

Northern fur seal, North Pacific* 

Killer whale, resident 

Killer whale, transient 

Pacific white-sided dolphin, central North Pacific 

Harbor porpoise, AK 

Harbor seal, Bering Sea 

Harbor seal, GOA 

Bearded seal, AK 

Ringed seal, AK 

Dall's porpoise, AK 

Spotted seal, AK 

Ribbon seal, AK 

Northern elephant seal, CA breeding 

Northern (Alaska) sea otter, Pacific 

Walrus, Pacific 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

Steller sea lion, Western U.S.*+ 

Northern fur seal, North Pacific* 

Pacific white-sided dolphin, central North Pacific 

Dall's porpoise, CNORNVA 

California sea lion, U.S. 

Harbor seal, ORNVA coast 

None documented 

Harbor seal, GOA 

Northern (AK) sea otter, Pacific 

Fishery Description 

AK Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands groundfish 

trawl 

AK state-managed waters 

of Cook Inlet, Kachemak 

Bay, Prince William Sound, 

Southeast AK groundfish 

trawl 

AK miscellaneous finfish 

otter or beam trawl 

AK foodlbait herring trawl 

WA, OR, CA groundfish 

trawl 

Pot, rina net. and trap 

fisheries 

AK crustacean pot 

AK Bering Sea, GOA finfish 

Pot 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

490 

8 

324 

2 

585 

1,951 

226 
Table A-I-- List of Fisheries 

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (cont.) 

Page A8 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

Hawaiian monk seal, HI*+ 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

Bottlenose dolphin, HI 

Hawaiian monk seal, HI*+ 

Rough-toothed dolphin, HI 

Bottlenose dolphin, HI 

Hawaiian monk seal, HI*+ 

None documented 

Fishery Description 

WA, OR, CA sablefish pot 

WA, OR, CA crab pot 

WA, OR shrimp pot &trap 

CA lobster, prawn, shrimp, 

rock crab, fish pot 

OR, CA hagfish pot or trap 

HI lobster trap 

HI crab trap 

HI fish trap 

HI shrimp trap 

Handline and iia fisheries 

AK North Pacific halibut 

handline and mechanical 

jig 

AK other finfish handline 

and mechanical jig 

AK octopus/squid handline 

WA groundfish, bottomfish 

jig 

HI aku boat, pole and line 

HI inshore handline 

HI deep sea bottomfish 

HI tuna 

Guam bottomfish 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

176 

1,478 

254 

608 

25 

15 

22 

19 

5 

84 

474 

2 

679 

54 

650 , 

434 

144 
Appendix A 

Table A-I -- List of Fisheries 

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (cont.) 

Page A-10 

Fishery Description 

Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands 

bottomfish 

American Samoa 

bottomfish 

Har~oon fisheries 

CA swordfish harpoon 

Pound netlweir fisheries 

AK Southeast Alaska 

herring foodlbait pound net 

WA herring brush weir 

Bait Dens 

WAIORICA bait pens 

Dredae fisheries 

Coastwide scallop dredge 

Dive. handlmechanical 

collection fisheries 

AK abalone 

AK dungeness crab 

AK herring spawn-on-kelp 

AK urchin and other 

fishlshellfish 

AK clam hand shovel 

AK clam 

mechanicallhydraulic 

fishery 

WA herring spawn-on-kelp 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

<50 

<50 

228 

7 

1 

13 

106 

177 

1 

306 

127 

125 

3 

4 

Marine mammal specieshtocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented --- -- 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 
Table A-I -- List of Fisheries 

Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (cont.) 

Page A-I I 

Fishery Description 

WAIOR sea urchin, other 

clam, octopus, oyster, sea 

cucumber, scallop, ghost 

shrimp hand, dive, or 

mechanical collection 

CA abalone 

CA sea urchin 

HI squiding, spear 

HI lobster diving 

HI coral diving 

HI handpick 

WA shellfish aquaculture 

WA, CA kelp 

HI fish pond 

Commercial passenaer 

fishina vessel (charter 

boat) fisheries 

AK, WA, OR, CA 

commercial passenger 

fishing vessel 

AK octopuslsquid "other" 

HI "other" 

Live finfishlshellfish 

fisheries 

CA finfish and shellfish live 

traplhook-and-line 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

637 

111 

583 

267 

6 

2 

135 

684 

4 

10 

1,243 

19 

114 

93 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 
Appendix A 

In me nrlanac ucean, uu~r or nlexlco, ana banmean 

Page A-12 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

North Atlantic right whale, WNA*+ 

Humpback whale, WNA*+ 

Sperm whale, WNA*+ 

Dwarf sperm whale, WNA* 

Pygmy sperm whale, WNA* 

Cuvier's beaked whale, WNA* 

True's beaked whale, WNA* 

Gervais' beaked whale, WNA* 

Blainville's beaked whale, WNA* 

Risso's dolphin, WNA 

Long-finned pilot whale, WNA* 

Short-finned pilot whale, WNA* 

White-sided dolphin, WNA* 

Common dolphin, WNA* 

Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA* 

Pantropical spotted dolphin, WNA* 

Striped dolphin, WNA 

Spinner dolphin, WNA 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore* 

Harbor porpoise, GMEIBF* 

North Atlantic right whale, WNA*+ 

Humpback whale, WNA*+ 

Minke whale, Canadian east coast 

Killer whale, WNA 

White-sided dolphin, WNA* 

Striped dolphin, WNA 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore 

Harbor porpoise, GMEIBF* 

Harbor seal, WNA 

Gray seal, Northwest North Atlantic 

Common dolphin 

Fin whale 

Spotted dolphin 

False killer whale 

Harp seal 

Description of Fishery 

Cateaorv I 

Gillnet fisheries 

- 

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, 

Gulf of Mexico large 

pelagics drift gillnet 

New England multispecies 

sink gillnet (including 

species as defined in the 

Multispecies Fisheries 

Management Plan and 

spiny dogfish and monkfish) 

Lonaline fisheries 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

75 

341 
TableA- 2--List of Fisheries Commercial Fisheries 

in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean (cont.) 

Page A-1 3 

Description of Fishery 

Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, 

Gulf of Mexico large 

pelagics longline 

Tra~l~ot fisheries - lobster 

Gulf of Maine, U.S. midAtlantic lobster traplpot 

GakaaYu 

Gillnet fisheries 

U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal 

gillnet fishery 

Gulf of Maine small 

pelagics surface gillnet 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic 

shark gillnet fishery 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

pehons 

361 

13,000 

>655 

133 

10 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

Humpback whale, WNA*+ 

Minke whale, Canadian east coast 

Risso's dolphin, WNA 

Long-finned pilot whale, WNA* 

Short-finned pilot whale, WNA* 

Common dolphin, WNA* 

Atlantic spotted dolphin, WNA* 

Pantropical spotted dolphin, WNA 

Striped dolphin, WNA 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore* 

Bottlenose dolphin, GMX Outer Continental Shelf 

Bottlenose dolphin, GMX Continental Shelf Edge 

and Slope 

Atlantic spotted dolphin, Northern GMX 

Pantropical spotted dolphin, Northern GMX 

Risso's dolphin, Northern GMX 

Harbor porpoise, GMEIBF * 

North Atlantic right whale, MA*+ 

Humpback whale, WNA*+ 

Fin whale, WNA* 

Minke whale, Canadian east coast 

White-sided dolphin, WNA 

Harbor seal, WNA 

Humpback whale, WNA*+ 

Minke whale, Canadian east coast 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore* 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal*+ 

Harbor porpoise, GMEIBF* 

Humpback whale, WNA*+ 

White-sided dolphin, WNA 

Harbor seal, WNA 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal* 

North Atlantic right whale, WNA*+ 
Appendix A 

TableA- 2--List of Fisheries Commercial Fisheries 

in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean (cont.) 

Page A-14 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

Common dolphin, WNA* 

Risso's dolphin, WNA* 

Long-finned pilot whale, WNA* 

Short-finned pilot whale, WNA* 

White-sided dolphin, WNA* 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal* 

Harbor porpoise, GMEIBF* 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal* 

Humpback whale, WNA*+ 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal*+ 

Harbor porpoise, GMEIBF* 

Humpback whale, WNA*+ 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal*+ 

Harbor porpoise, GMEIBF* 

Humpback whale, WNA*+ 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal*+ 

Harbor porpoise, GMEIBF* 

None documented 

None documented 

Description of Fishery 

Jrawl fisheries 

Atlantic squid, mackerel, 

butterfish trawl 

Haul seine fisheries 

North Carolina haul seine 

Stop net fisheries 

North Carolina roe mullet 

stop net 

Cateaory Ill 

Gillnet fisheries 

Rhode Island, southern 

Massachusetts (to 

Monomoy Island), and New 

York Bight (Raritan and 

Lower New York Bays) 

inshore gillnet 

Long Island Sound inshore 

gillnet 

Delaware Bay inshore 

gillnet 

Chesapeake Bay inshore 

gillnet 

North Carolina inshore 

gillnet 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

620 

unknown 

13 

32 

20 

60 

45 

94 
TableA- 2--List of Fisheries Commercial Fisheries 

in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean (cont.) 

Page A-1 5 

Description of Fishery 

Gulf of Mexico inshore 

gillnet (black drum, 

sheepshead, weakfish, 

mullet, spot, croaker) 

Gulf of Maine, Southeast 

U.S. Atlantic coastal shad, 

sturgeon gillnet (includes 

waters of North Carolina) 

Gulf of Mexico coastal 

gillnet (includes mullet 

gillnet fishery in LA and MS) 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic 

coastal gillnet 

Florida east coast, Gulf of 

Mexico pelagics king and 

Spanish mackerel gillnet 

Trawl fisheries 

North Atlantic bottom trawl 

Mid-Atlantic, Southeastern 

U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico 

shrimp trawl 

Gulf of Maine northern 

shrimp trawl 

Gulf of Maine, Mid-Atlantic 

sea scallop trawl 

Estimated # 

of vesselsl 

persons 

unknown 

1,285 

0.00 

271 

1,052 

>18,000 

320 

215 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

None documented 

Minke whale, Canadian east coast 

Harbor porpoise, GMEIBF* 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal*+ 

Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, GMX Bay, Sound, & 

Estuarine* 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal*+ 

Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, GMX Bay, Sound, & 

Estuarine* 

Long-finned pilot whale, WNA* 

Short-finned pilot whale, WNA* 

White-sided dolphin, WNA* 

Striped dolphin, WNA 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore* 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal*+ 

None documented 

None documented 
Appendix A 

TableA- 2--List of Fisheries Commercial Fisheries 

in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean (cont.) 

Page A-16 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

None documented 

None documented 

Atlantic spotted dolphin, Northern GMX 

Pantropical spotted dolphin, Northern GMX 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

Harbor seals, WNA 

None documented 

Harbor porpoise, GMEIBF* 

Harbor seal, WNA 

Gray seal, Northwest North Atlantic 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal** 

None documented 

Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal 

Description of Fishery 

Gulf of Maine, Southern 

North Atlantic, Gulf of 

Mexico coastal herring trawl 

Mid-Atlantic mixed species 

trawl 

Gulf of Mexico butterfish 

trawl 

Georgia, South Carolina, 

Maryland whelk trawl 

Calico scallops trawl 

Bluefish, croaker, flounder 

trawl 

Crab trawl 

U.S. Atlantic monkfish trawl 

Marine aauaculture 

fisheries 

Finfish aquaculture 

Shellfish aquaculture 

Purse seine fisheries 

Gulf of Maine Atlantic 

herring purse seine 

Mid-Atlantic menhaden 

purse seine 

Gulf of Maine menhaden 

purse seine 

Gulf of Mexico menhaden 

purse seine 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

5 

>I ,000 

2 

25 

200 

550 

400 

unknown 

48 

unknown 

30 

22 

10 

50 
TableA- 2--List of Fisheries Commercial Fisheries 

in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean (cont.) 

Page A-1 7 

Description of Fishery 

Florida west coast sardine 

purse seine 

U.S. Atlantic tuna purse 

seine 

U.S. mid-Atlantic hand 

seine 

Lonalinelhook-and-line 

fisheries 

Gulf of Maine tub trawl 

groundfish bottom longlinel 

hook-and-line 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, 

Gulf of Mexico snappergrouper and other reef fish 

bottom longlinelhook-andline 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, 

Gulf of Mexico shark bottom 

longlinelhook-and-line 

Gulf of Maine, U.S. midAtlantic tuna, shark 

swordfish hook-andlinelharpoon 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, 

Gulf of Mexico & U.S. midAtlantic pelagic hook-andlinelharpoon 

Trad~ot fisheries - lobster 

zwb2!2 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

10 

unknown 

> 250 

46 

3,800 

124 

26,223 

1,446 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal 

None documented 

None documented 

Harbor seal, WNA 

Gray seal, Northwest North Atlantic 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 
Appendix A 

Ta bleA- 2--List of Fisheries Commercial Fisheries 

in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean (cont.) 

Page A-18 

Description of Fishery 

Gulf of Maine, U.S. midAtlantic mixed species 

traplpot 

U.S. mid-Atlantic and 

Southeast U.S. Atlantic 

black sea bass traplpot 

U.S. mid-Atlantic eel 

traplpot 

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of 

Mexico blue crab traplpot 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, 

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean 

spiny lobster traplpot 

Stop seinelweirl~ound 

fisheries 

Gulf of Maine herring and 

Atlantic mackerel stop 

seinelweir 

U.S. mid-Atlantic mixed 

species stoplseinelweir 

(except the North Carolina 

roe mullet stop net) 

U.S. mid-Atlantic crab stop 

seinelweir 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

100 

30 

>700 

20,500 

750 

50 

500 

2,600 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

North Atlantic right whale, WNA*+, 

Humpback whale, WNA*+ 

Minke whale, Canadian east coast 

Harbor porpoise, GMEIBF* 

Harbor seal, WNA 

Gray seal, Northwest North Atlantic 

None documented 

None documented 

Bottlenose dolphin, WNA coastal* 

Bottlenose dolphin, Western GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, Northern GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, Eastern GMX coastal 

Bottlenose dolphin, GMX Bay, Sound, & 

Estuarine* 

Florida manatee, FL*+ 

Florida manatee, FL*+ 

North Atlantic right whale, WNA* 

Humpback whale, WNA*+ 

Minke whale, Canadian east coast 

Harbor porpoise, GMEIBF* 

Harbor seal, WNA 

Gray seal, Northwest North Atlantic 

None documented 

None documented 
TableA- 2--List of Fisheries Commercial Fisheries 

in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean (cont.) 

Page A19 

Description of Fishery 

Dredae fisheries 

Gulf of Maine, U.S. midAtlantic sea scallop dredge 

U.S. mid-Atlantic offshore 

surfclam and quahog 

dredge 

Gulf of Maine mussel 

U.S. mid-AtlanticlGulf of 

Mexico oyster 

Haul seine fisheries 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, 

Caribbean haul seine 

Beach seine fisheries 

Caribbean beach seine 

Dive. handlmechanical 

collection fisheries 

Gulf of Maine urchin dive, 

handlmechanical collection 

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean shellfish 

dive, handlrnechanical 

collection 

Commercial Passenaa 

fishina vessel (charter boa0 

fisheries 

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean 

commercial passenger 

fishing vessel 

Estimated # 

of vessels1 

persons 

233 

100 

> 50 

7,000 

150 

15 

> 50 

20,000 

4,000 

Marine mammal specieslstocks incidentally 

injuredlkilled 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 

Florida manatee, FL+ 

None documented 

None documented 

None documented 
Appendix B 
Appendix B 

Marine Mammal Authorization Program 

Mortalityllnjury Reports (received as of 12/31/96) 

Page 6-1 

Species 

Minke whale 

Humpback whale 

Sperm whale 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 

Pacific white-sided dolphin 

Common dolphin 

Risso's dolphin 

Northern right whale dolphin 

Harbor por2po1se 

Dall's porpoise 

Pilot whale 

Unid. small cetacean 

California sea lion 

Harbor seal 

Grey seal 

Northern elephant seal 

Unid, sea lion 

Unid. seal 

Fishery 

CNOR thresher sharklswordfish pelagic driftnet 

AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet 

Atlantic lobster pot 

CNOR thresher sharklswordfish pelagic driftnet 

New England multi-species sink gillnet 

CNOR thresher sharklswordfish pelagic driftnet 

CNOR thresher sharklswordfish pelagic driftnet 

CA coastal set gillnet 

Atlantic swordfish pelagic driftnet 

New England multi-species sink gillnet 

Atlantic swordfishltunalshark pelagic longline 

CNOR thresher sharklswordfish pelagic driftnet 

New England multi-species sink gillnet 

CNOR thresher sharklswordfish pelagic driftnet 

Atlantic swordfishltunalshark pelagic longline 

Atlantic swordfish pelagic driftnet 

Atlantic squidlmackerellbutterfish trawl 

CNOR thresher sharklswordfish pelagic driftnet 

AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet 

Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet 

CAIOR thresher sharklswordfish pelagic driftnet 

CA coastal set gillnet 

WA aquaculture 

AK Prince Wm. Sound dift gillnet 

CA coastal set gillnet 

New England multi-species sink gillnet 

New England multi-species sink gillnet 

CNOR thresher sharklswordfish pelagic driftnet 

AK Bering SealAleutian Islands groundfish trawl 

New England multi-species sink gillnet 

Injured 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

2 

6 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0, 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Killed 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

19 

1 

22 

1 

0 

1 

15 

1 

0 

4 

1 

4 

1 

1 

6 

10 

5 

0 

2 

16 

4 

5 

1 

3 
Appendix C 
Appendix C. Summary of draft marine mammal stock assessment reports for stocks of marine 

mammals that occupy waters under U.S. jurisdiction and are under NMFS jurisdiction. 

Page C-I 

Nmin 

42,536 

23,533 

969,595 

35,226 

22,427 

12,648 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

39,039 

3,710 

6,439 

1,526 

981 

601 

187 

486,719 

8,156 

7,085 

8,549 

76,874 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NMFS 

Center 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

Region 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

Species 

Steller sea lion 

Steller sea lion 

Northern fur seal 

Harbor seal 

Harbor seal 

Harbor seal 

Spotted seal 

Bearded seal 

Ringed seal 

Ribbon seal 

Beluga 

Beluga 

Beluga 

Beluga 

Beluga 

Killer whale 

Killer whale 

Pacific whits 

sided dolphin 

Harbor porpoise 

Harbor porpoise 

Harbor porpoise 

Dall's porpoise 

Sperm whale 

Baird's beaked 

whale 

Cuviets beaked 

whale 

Rmax 

0.12 

0.12 

0.086 

0.12 

0.12 

0.12 

0.12 

0.12 

0.12 

0.12 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

Stock Area 

Western U.S. 

Eastern 

North Pacific 

Southeast Alaska 

Gulf of Alaska 

Bering Sea 

Alaska 

Alaska 

Alaska 

Alaska 

Beaufort Sea 

Eastern Chukchi 

Sea 

Nortonsound 

Bristol Bay 

Cook Inlet 

Eastern North 

Pacific, Northern 

Resident 

Eastern North 

Pacific, Transient 

North Pacific 

Southeast Alaska 

Gulf of Alaska 

Bering Sea 

Alaska 

Alaska 

Alaska 

Alaska 

Fr 

0.3 

0.75 

0.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

1.0 

0.1 

0.5 

0.5 

PER 

766 

1,059 

20,846 

2,114 

673 

379 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

781 

74 

129 

31 

20 

6.0 

1.9 

4,867 

82 

71 

86 

1,537 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

Total 

Annua 

I Mort. 

518 

8 

1,731 

1,630 

966 

242 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

168 

63 

109 

21 

40 

1.2 

1.2 

2 

3 

27 

2 

41 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Annual 

Fish. Mort. 

38 

4 

18 

34 

35 

30 

2 

2 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1.2 

1.2 

2 

3 

27 

2 

41 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Strategic 

Status 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 
Appendix C 

Page C-2 

Species 

Stejnerger's 

beaked whale 

Gray whale 

Humpback whale 

Humpback whale 

Fin whale 

Minke whale 

Northern right 

whale 

Bowhead whale 

Harbor seal 

Gray seal 

Harp seal 

Hooded seal 

Harbor porpoise 

Risso's dolphin 

Atlantic whitesided dolphin 

White-beaked 

dolphin 

Common dolphin 

Atlantic spotted 

dolphin 

Pantropical 

spotted dolphin 

Striped dolphin 

Stock Area 

Alaska 

Eastern North 

Pacific 

Western North 

Pacific 

Central North 

Pacific 

N. Pacific 

Alaska 

North Pacific 

Western Arctic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Northwest North 

Atlantic 

Northwest North 

Atlantic 

Northwest North 

Atlantic 

Gulf of MainelBay 

of Fundy 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Rmax 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.12 

0.12 

NIA 

NIA 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

Region 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

AKA 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

NMFS 

Center 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

AKC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

Strategic 

Status 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Fr 

0.5 

1.0 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.5 

0.1 

0.5 

1.0 

1.0 

NIA 

NIA 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

NIA 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.45 

Nmin 

NIA 

21,597 

NIA 

1,407 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

7,738 

28,810 

2,035 

NIA 

NIA 

48,289 

11,140 

19,196 

NIA 

3,996 

1,617' 

1,6172 

18,220 

PBR 

NIA 

432 

NIA 

2.8 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

77' 

1,729 

122 

NIA 

NIA 

483 

11 I 

192 

NIA 

40 

16 

16 

164 

Total 

Annua 

I Mort. 

0.0 

47 

0.0 

1.6 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

51 

476 

4.5 

0.0 

0.0 

1,834 

68 

181 

0.0 

234 

222 

222 

47 

Annual 

Fish. Mort. 

0.0 

4.0 

0.0 

1.6 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

476 

4.5 

0.0 

0.0 

1,834 

68 

181 

0.0 

234 

222 

222 

47 
Appendix C 

Page C-3 

Species 

Spinner dolphin 

Bottlenose 

dolphin 

Bottlenose 

dolphin 

Dwarf sperm 

whale 

Pygmy sperm 

whale 

Killer whale 

Pygmy killer 

whale 

Northern 

bottlenose whale 

Cuvier's beaked 

whale 

Mesoplodont 

beaked whale 

Pilot whale, longfinned 

(Globice~halq 

SPP.1 

Pilot whale, 

short-finned 

Sperm whale 

North Atlantic 

right whale 

Humpback whale 

Fin whale 

Sei whale 

Minke whale 

Stock Area 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic, offshore 

Western North 

Atlantic, coastal 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Canadian east 

coast 

Region 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

NMFS 

Center 

NEC 

NEC 

SEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

SEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

NEC 

Nmin 

NIA 

8,7943 

2,482 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

6 

NIA 

8954 

8954 

4,968' 

457 

1,617 

295 

4,848 

1,704 

NIA 

2,053 

Rmax 

NIA 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.025 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

Fr 

NIA 

0.5 

0.5 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

0.5 

NIA 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.5 

PBR 

NIA 

88 

25 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

0.1 

NIA 

8.9 

8.9 

50 

3.7 

3.2 

0.4 

9.7 

3.4 

NIA 

21 

Total 

Annua 

I Mort. 

1 .O 

82 

29 

0.2 

NIA 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

9.7 

9.7 

42 

42 

0.2 

2.7 

0.7 

0.0 

0.0 

2.5 

Annual 

Fish. Mort. 

1 .O 

82 

29 

0.2 

NIA 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

9.7= 

9.7$ 

427 

427 

0.2 

0.4 

0.7 

0.0 

0.0 

2.5 

Strategic 

Status 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N8 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 
Appendix C 

Species 

Blue whale 

Bottlenose 

dolphin 

Bottlenose 

dolphin 

Bottlenose 

dolphin 

Bottlenose 

dolphin 

Bottlenose 

dolphin 

Bottlenose 

dolphin 

Atlantic spotted 

dolphin 

Pantropicai 

spotted dolphin 

Striped dolphin 

Spinner dolphin 

Rough-toothed 

dolphin 

Clymene dolphin 

Fraser's dolphin 

Killer whale 

False killer whale 

Pygmy killer 

whale 

Dwarf sperm 

whale 

Page C-4 

I 

Stock Area 

Western North 

Atlantic 

Gulf of Mexico, 

outer continental 

shelf 

Gulf of Mexico, 

continental shelf 

edge and slope 

Western Gulf of 

Mexico coastal 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico coastal 

Eastern Gulf of 

Mexico coastal 

Gulf of Mexico bay, 

sound, and 

estuarine12 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Region 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

NMFS 

Center 

NEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

NEC 

SEC 

Nmin 

NIA 

43,233 

4,530 

2,938 

3,518 

8,963 

3,934 

2,255 

26,510 

3,409 

4,465 

660 

4,120 

66 

197 

236 

285 

NIA 

Rmax 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

Fr 

0.1 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.05 

NIA 

PBR 

NIA 

432 

45 

29 

35 

90 

39.7 

23 

265 

34 

45 

6.6 

41 

0.7 

2.0 

2.4 

2.8 

NIA 

Total 

Annua 

I Mort. 

0.0 

2.8 

2.8 

13 

10 

8 

30 

1 .5' 

1.5' 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Annual 

Fish. Mort. 

0.0 

2.8' 

2.8' 

1310.11 

1 0' 

8' 

30g 

1 .5' 

1.5' 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Strategic 

Status 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 
Appendix C 

Page C-5 

P 

Species 

Pygmy sperm 

whale 

Melon-headed 

whale 

Risso's dolphin 

Cuvier's beaked 

whale 

Blainville's 

beaked whale 

Gervais' beaked 

whale 

Pilot whale, 

short-finned 

Sperm whale 

Bryde's whale 

California sea 

lion 

Guadalupe fur 

seal 

Northern fur seal 

Harbor seal 

Harbor seal 

Harbor seal 

Northern 

elephant seal 

Hawaiian monk 

seal 

Harbor porpoise 

Harbor porpoise 

Harbor porpoise 

Harbor porpoise 

Stock Area 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico 

U.S. 

Mexico to 

California 

San Miguel Island 

California 

Oregon1 

Washington coast 

Washington inland 

waters 

California breeding 

Hawaii 

Central California 

Northern California 

Oregon1 

Washington coast 

Inland Washington 

Region 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

ATL 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

NMFS 

Center 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SEC 

SWC 

SWC 

AKC 

SWC 

AKC 

AKC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

AKC 

AKC 

Nmin 

NIA 

2,888 

2,199 

20 

NIA 

NIA 

186 

411 

17 

106,825 

3,028 

5,018 

27,962 

25,665 

15,349 

48,000 

1,441 

3,431 

7,640 

22,049 

2,681 

Fr 

NIA 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

NIA 

NIA 

0.5 

0.1 

0.5 

1.0 

0.5 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

0.1 

0.48 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

Rmax 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

NIA 

NIA 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.12 

0.137 

0.086 

0.12 

0.12 

0.12 

0.083 

0.07 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

PBR 

NIA 

29 

22 

0.2 

NIA 

NIA 

1.9 

0.8 

0.2 

6,410 

104 

216 

1,678 

1,540 

921 

1,992 

5.013 

33 

76 

220 

27 

Total 

Annua 

I Mort. 

0.0 

0.0 

19 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.3 

0.0 

0.0 

1,294 

0.0 

2.0 

325 

231 

57 

152 

NIA 

14 

0.0 

13 

15 

Annual 

Fish. Mort. 

0.0 

0.0 

19 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.3 

0.0 

0.0 

1,235 

0.0 

2.0 

31 0 

231 

57 

150 

NIA 

14 

0.0 

13 

15 

Strategic 

Status 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 
-- 

Appendix C 

Page C-6 

Strategic 

Status 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Species 

Dall's porpoise 

Pacific 

white-sided 

dolphin 

Risso'sdolphin 

Bottlenose 

dolphin 

Bottlenose 

dolphin 

Striped dolphin 

Common 

dolphin, shortbeaked 

Common 

dolphin, 

long-beaked 

Northernright 

whale dolphin 

Killer whale 

Killer whale 

Pilot whale, 

short-finned 

Baird'sbeaked 

whale 

Mesoplodont 

beaked whales 

Cuvier's beaked 

whale 

Pygmy sperm 

whale 

Dwarf sperm 

whale 

Rmax 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

Fr 

0.48 

0.48 

0.48 

0.5 

0.5 

0.4 

0.5 

0.48 

0.5 

1.0 

0.4 

0.48 

0.4 

0.48 

0.5 

0.4 

0.5 

Stock Area 

CalifornialOregonl 

Washington 

CaliforniaIOregonl 

Washington 

CaliforniaIOregonl 

Washington 

California coastal 

CaliforniaIOregonl 

Washington 

offshore 

CalifornialOregonl 

Washington 

CalifornialOregonl 

Washington 

California 

CaliforniaIOregonl 

Washington 

Southern Resident 

Stock 

CaliforniaIOregonl 

Washington 

CaliforniaIOregonl 

Washington 

CalifornialOregonl 

Washington 

CaliforniaIOregonl 

Washington 

CalifornialOregonl 

Washington 

CaliforniaIOregonl 

Washington 

CalifornialOregonl 

Washington 

NMFS 

Center 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

Region 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PBR 

330 

796 

215 

1.2 

19 

154 

3,097 

53 

151 

1.9 

3.5 

7.1 

2.02 

11 l5 

61 

16 

NIA 

Nmin 

34,393 

82,939 

22,388 

121 

1,904 

19,248 

309,717 

5,504 

15,080 

96 

436 

741 

252 

1 ,16gq4 

6,070 

2,059 

NIA 

Total 

Annua 

I Mort. 

28 

13 

32 

0.0 

0.0 

2.0 

183 

15 

50 

0.0 

2.0 

20 

2.00 

5.7-7.7 

29 

2.3 

0.0 

Annual 

Fish. Mort. 

28 

13 

32 

0.0 

0.0 

2.0 

183 

15 

50 

0.0 

2.0 

20 

2.00 

5.7-7.7 

29 

2.3 

0.0 
1 Appendix C 

I Page C-7 

Strategic 

Status 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Total 

Annua 

I Mort. 

5 

1.16 

NIA 

<1 

NIA 

NIA 

2.0 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

Species 

Sperm whale 

Humpbackwhale 

Blue whale 

Fin whale 

Bryde's whale 

Sei whale 

Minke whale 

Rough-Toothed 

dolphin 

Risso's dolphin 

Bottlenose 

dolphin 

Pantropical 

spotted dolphin 

Spinner dolphin 

Striped dolphin 

Melon-headed 

whale 

Pygmy killer 

whale 

False killer whale 

Killer whale 

Pilot whale, 

short-finned 

Blainville's 

beaked whale 

Cuvier's beaked 

whale 

Pygmy sperm 

whale 

Annual 

Fish. Mort. 

5 

0.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

2.0 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

Stock Area 

California to 

Washington 

California/Mexico 

California/Mexico 

California to 

Washington 

Eastern Tropical 

Pacific 

Eastern North 

Pacific 

CalifornialOregonl 

Washington 

Hawaii 

Hawaii 

Hawaii 

Hawaii 

Hawaii 

Hawaii 

Hawaii 

Hawaii 

Hawaii 

Hawaii 

Hawaii 

Hawaii 

Hawaii 

Hawaii 

Region 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

Fr 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.5 

0.1 

0.4 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

PBR 

1.8 

0.5 

1.5 

1.5 

0.2'" 

NIA 

1.0 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

6.8 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NMFS 

Center 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

Nmln 

896 

563 

1,463 

747 

11,163 

NIA 

122 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

677 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

Rmax 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 
Appendix C 

- The IWC subsistence quota Is not affected by the calculation of PBR using the formula specified in the MMPA. 

Species 

Dwarf sperm 

whale 

Sperm whale 

Blue whale 

Fin whale 

Bryde's whale 

- Thls value includes elther or both of Sfenella frontalis or anella attenuaa. 

- Estimates may include sightings of the coastal form. 

Stock Area 

Hawaii 

Hawaii 

Hawaii 

Hawaii 

Hawaii 

-This estimate includes Cuvieh beaked whales and mesoplodont beaked whales. 

- This is the average mortality of beaked whales &&&&&&! sp.) based on 5 years of observer data. This annual mortality rate includes an unknown 

number of Cuvier's beaked whales. 

Region 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

PAC 

- This estimate includes both long-finned and short-finned pilot whales. 

- Mortality data are not separated by specles; therefore, spedesapecific estimates are not available. The mortality estimate represents both short- and 

long-finned pilot whales. 

NMFS 

Center 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

SWC 

- Mortality estimates for the 1994-1995 pelagic longline fishery are not available; status may be revised when these are available. 

- This value may include either or both of the Gulf of Mexico, continental shelf edge and slope and the outer continental shelf stocks of bottlenose 

dolphins. 

Nmin 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

- Low kvels of bottlenose dolphin mortality (0-4 per year) lnddental to commercial fisheries have been reported. It is unknown to which stock this 

mortality can be attributed. 

- Estimates derived from stranded animals with signs of fishery interactions, and these could be either coastal or estuary stocks. 

Rmax 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

0.04 

- This entry encompasses 33 stocks of bottlenose dolphins. All stocks are considered strategic; see the full report for information on Individual stocks. 

The listed estimates for abundance. PBR and mortality are sums across all bays, sounds, and estuaries. 

- Although the calculated PER is 5.0, the allowable take is zero due to findings under the ESA. 

Fr 

0.5 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.5 

- This value includes a species-spedfic minimum abundance estimate of 249 Blainville's beaked whales, Meso~lodon densirost&. 

- This PBR includes 2.5 Blainville's beaked whales. 

- This PBR has been adjusted because only 0.2% of this stock is estimated to be in U.S. waters. 

PBR 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

Page C-8 

Total 

Annua 

I Mort. 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

Annual 

Fish. Mort. 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

Strategic 

Status 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

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

the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, 1971-1995 

U.S. Foreign Foreign 

&a m' U.S. Kill2 Vessels' m3 Total Kill4 

1971 124 246,213 48 15,715 261,928 

'Data from Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 

'Data from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

'Derived by subtracting U.S. data from lAllC total mortality estimates of sets made on dolphin during the period. 

'Data for 1971-78 from NMFS; data after 1978 from IATTC using MPS method. 
Appendix E 
Appendix E 

Table E-I 

Marine Mammal Strandings in 1996 

Page E-I 

Species 

Baleen Whales 

Blue Whale 

Bryde's Whale 

Fin Whale 

Gray Whale 

Humpback Whale 

Minke Whale 

Northern Right Whale 

Sei Whale 

Unidentified Whale 

Physeteridae 

Sperm Whale 

Dwarf Sperm Whale 

Pygmy Sperm Whale 

1996 

NE 

Pyg. or Dwf. Sperm Whale 2 

SE 

5 

2 

1 

Beaked Whales 

Baird's Beaked Whale 

Blainville's Beaked Whale 

Bottlenose Whale 

Cuvier's Beaked Whale 

Gervais' Beaked Whale 

Hubbs' Beaked Whale 

Stejneger's Beaked Whale 

Unidentified Beaked Whale 

SW 

2 

2 

5 

2 

1 

NW 

4 

1 

12 

AK 

1 

1 

13 

7 

1 

3 

1 

3 

1 

1 

2 

4 

2 

4 

1 

-----. 

2 

1 

5 

1 
Appendix E 

Table E-I (cont'd) 

Marine Mammal Strandings in 1996 

Species 

1 Monodontidae 

1 Beluaa 

Delphinidae 

I Killer Whale - -- 

False Killer Whale 

Pygmy Killer Whale 

Melon Headed Whale 

Long-finned Pilot Whale 

Delphinidae (cont.) 

Short-finned Pilot Whale 

Unidentified Pilot Whale 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

Common Dolphin 

Fraser's Dolphin 

Atlantic White-sided Dolph 

Pacific White-sided Dolph. 

Northern Right Whale Dolph. 

Risso's Dolphin 

Rough-Toothed Dolphin 

Long-snouted Spinner 

Short-snouted Spinner 

Spinner Dolphin 

Atlantic spotted Dolphin 

Pantropical spotted Dolphin 

Spotted Dolphin 

Striped Dolphin - 

Page E-2 
Appendix E 

Table E-I (cont'd) 

Marine Mammal Strandings in 1996 

Page E-3 

Species 

Unidentified Stenella sp. 

Unidentified Dolphin 

Phocoenidae 

Dall's Porpoise 

Harbor Porpoise 

Unidentified Cetacean 

TOTAL CETACEAN 

1996 

NE SE 

7 

18 

68 

4 

177 

SW 

9 

15 

786 

NW 

1 

AK 

2 

18 

2 

105 

8 

16 

1 

118 
Appendix E 

Table E-I (cont'd) 

Marine Mammal Strandings in 1996 

D Species 

Otariid (fur sealslsea lions) 

California Sea Lion 

Iteller Sea Lion 

Guadalupe Fur Seal 

Northern Fur Seal 

Unidentified otariid 

Phocids (true seals) 

Gray Seal 

Harbor Seal 

Harp Seal 

Hooded Seal 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 

I Northern Ele~hant Seal 

Ringed Seal 

Unidentified phocid 

Unidentified pinniped 

TOTAL PlNNlPED 

TOTAL MARINE MAMMALS 

Page E-4