~ Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

Annual Report 

January 1, 1990 to December 3 1, 199 1 

U. S. DEPARTnKEN'Ilr OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Mari:ne IGsheries Service 

Office of Protected liesources 
UNITED STATES DEPAF1TMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and At~noepheric: Administration 

NATIONAL MAnlNL- FlSHt RlC-'; SE RVlCE 

1335 East West tiighway 

S~lver Spr~rig MD 2091 0 

THE DIRECTOR 

DEC 8 (92: 

The Holiorable Ernest Hollings 

Chairrn;~~, Commit tee on Clommerce , 

Science, and Transportation 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510-2602 

The Honorable Gerry E. Studds 

Chairman, Committee on Merchant 

Marine and Fisheries 

House of Representative 

Washington, D.C. 20515-2110 

Dear Sirs: 

I am pleased to submit the Annual Report of the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the admin~i.strat:iori of 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) from January7 1, X99C), 

through December 31, 1991, as; required by section 1013 (f) of the 

MMPA. The report includes ac:tivit:ies about the marine mammals 

that are the responsibility of NMFS. These include whales, 

d01p:hin.s~ and porpoises of the order Cetacea and sea.1~ and sea 

lions of the suborder Pinnipedia. 

Sincerely, / 

Enclosure 

THE ASSII31 AN~r A[-lMINISTF4ATC31'3 

IzC1R FISHEIRIES 

Table of Contents 

I . Introduction ......... ., .......................... 1 

I1 . Marine Mammal 1nte:ractions With Fisheries and Other 

Commercial Alctivitices ............................. 5 

Interim Exemption .................................. 5 

List of Fisheries ................................. 6 

Registration and Reporting ........................ 6 

Observer P'rogram ............................... 8 

California Sea IAon/Steelhead Conflict .................. 11 

Proposed Regime to Govern Interactions Between Marine 

Mammals and Commercial Fisheries ................ 11 

Kokechik and the 1988 MMPA Amendments .......... 12 

NMFS' Initial Proposal ............................ 13 

Public Comment ;and th.e Revised Draft Interim Proposal . 14 

Tuna-Dolphin Issues ................................ 15 

Fishing Operations .............................. 15 

Tuna-Dolphin Interactions ......................... 16 

111 . Subsistence Take of :Marinme Mammals .................. 19 

Bowhead Whales .................................. 19 

Northern Fur Seals ................................. 20 

Scientific Research. Public Elisplay and 

Enhancement Permits ............................ 21 

Permit Program Review ........................... 21 

Notable Permit Requests .......................... 22 

Incidental/Unir~tentioinal Take Authorizations ............ '23 
Table of Contents 

V . Status Reviews. C:onservation and Recovery Plians . and 

Other Species Mznagement Actions .................. 25 

Steller Sea Lion .................................... 26 

Humpback Whale Recovery Plan ....................... 27 

Right Whale Recovery Plan ........................... 28 

Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Plan .................... 29 

Eastern Spinner Dolphin and Northern Offshore 

Spotted Dolphin ............................... 29 

Gulf of Maine Population of Harbor Porpoise .............. 30 

Coastal Botl;lenose Dolphin .......................... 31 

Gray Whales ..................................... 31 

VI . Stock Assessmen~ts ................................ 33 

Assec;sments of F'I'P Dolphin Stocks .................... 33 

Dolphin Stock Assessment Program ................... 34 

School Size EJstirnates ........................... 36 

Coastal Marine Mammal Program ....................... 37 

Harbor Porpoise (U.S. West Coast and Alas~Lra) ......... 37 

Harbor Seal (U.S. West Coast and Alaska) ............. 37 

California Sea Lion (California) .................... 38 

Northern Elephant Seal (California) ................. 38 

Delphinids. Beaked Whales. Dall's Porpoise: and 

Other Srnall Cetaceans (California) .............. 39 

Atlantic Botlllenose Dolphin ........................ 39 

North AtlanlJc Harbor Porpoise .................... 40 

Other North Atlantic Delphinids .................... 40 

Gulf of Mexico Cetaceans .......................... 41 

Depleted Marine Mamrnals ........................... 41 

Hawaiian Monk Seal ............................ 41 

Bowhead Whale ................................ 42 

Steller Sea ................................. ILdon 42 

Northern Fur Seals ............................... 42 

Blue and Humpback Whales ....................... 43 

North Atlantic Flight Whale Program ..................... 43 

North Atlantic Humpback Whale Program ................. 44 

Other Research Programs and Studies .................. 45 

Marine Mamma1 Sightings Surveys .................. 45 
Tablle 01 Contents 

VII . Stranding Networks and National Marine 

Mammal Tissue Bank ................................ 47 

Program Review ................................... 47 

TissueBank ..................................... 48 

Rulemakii~g .................................. 49 

Preliminaiy Studies ............................. 49 

Quality Assurance Procedures ..................... 49 

Task Group on Unusual Marine Mammal Mortalities ....... 50 

Regional Stranding Networlts ......................... 51 

Northeast ..................................... 52 

Southeast ..................................... 52 

Southwest. ..................................... 53 

Northwest ..................................... 53 

Alaska .......................................... 53 

VIII . International Programs and Activities ................. 55 

Commission for the Conserj.ation of 

Antarctic Marine Living Resources .................. 55 

Marine Ma.mmal Populations ...................... 55 

Working Group on the CCAMLR Ecosystem 

Monitoring Prograrrl (WG-CEMP) ................ 56 

Assessment and Avoidance of' Mortality 

Incidental to Fishery Operations ................ 57 

High Seas Driftnet Fishing ............................ 57 

U.S. Response .................................. 57 

Multilateral1 Controls ............................ 60 

International Whaling Comrrlissiorl ..................... 60 

Commercial Whaling Mloratorium .................. 61 

Special Permits ................................ 61 

Aboriginal Subsistence 7iVhali1lg .................... 62 

Comprehensive Assessrrient ....................... 62 

Humane Killing ................................. 63 

Socio-Econ~omic 1mplica.ltions and Small-Type Wlialing ... 63 

Small Cetacean R.esolutions ....................... 64 

U.S..U.S.S.R. Marine Mammal Project ................... 64 
Table of Contents 

IX . Enforcement .................................... 67 

Regional Issues ................................... 67 

Marine Mammal Interim I3xemption Program Enforcement ... 68 

Other Noteworthy Enforcement Cases ................... 69 

Ongoing Legal Actic~~ns .............................. 73 

New Legal Actions .................................. 77 

Southwest Region ................................. 79 

Southeast Fishery Science Center ...................... 90 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory ................... 91 

Northeast Fislieries Science Center ..................... 101 

Appendix A: 1991 . List of Category I and Category I1 Fisheries 

Appendix B: Fishery Registration and Logbook 

Interactioxr Information 

Appendix C: Swnx~ary of Permit Applications 

Appendix D: Marine Mmnlonmal Strandings in 1990 and l!39 1 
I. Introduction 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA or Act) is the principal 

Federal legislation that guides marine mammal species protectiol~ and 

conservation po1ic;y. The MMPA vests responsibility for most ]marine 

mammals in the Dlepartnlent of' Commerce, the parent agency of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOW). Species of 

the order Cetacea (whales and dolphins) and species, other than walrus, 

of the order Carnivora, suborder Pinnipedia (seals and sea lioris), are the 

responsibility of NOAA's Nationail Marine Fisheries Service (NNIFS; or the 

Service). The Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service is 

responsible for the dugong, manatee, polar bear, sea ottler, and walrus. 

With few exceptions, the Act, as originally enacted in 19'72, pliziced a 

moratorium on taking or imporl~ing into the United States of nilarine 

mammals or their products. The Act defines the term "take" to mean "to 

harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill 

any marine mammal". The Department of Commerce could authorize 

the take of marine mamm~als for- scientific research, for public display. 

and incidental to commercial fishing. The 1981 Amendments added two 

"small take" categories to the malratorium exception: one for commercial 

fishing and the other for activitie:~ such as oil and gas explorat-ion. 

Partially in response to litigation that made it virtually irnpossj ble for 

NMFS to issue incidental take permits to commercial fisheries, the 1988 

Amendments to the MMPA were enacted. These Amendments 

established a five-year Interim Ekemption to the take moratoril~rm for 

commercial fisheries. The primary objective of the Interim Exemption 

was to provide a mechanism for c2ollecting data about interacticms 

between marine mammal and coirnmercial fisheries while allowing 

commercial fishing operations to continue. During the Interim 

Exemption, the Amendments required NMFS to develop a new regime to 

govern the incidental take of marine mammals by commercial fisheries 

whch would become effective following the expiration of Ithe Interim 

Exemption. The 1988 Arnendme:ints also provided for permits to be 

granted for take of marine mammals to enhance the survival or recovery 

of a species or popu~lation. 

Page 1 
I. Introduction 

NMFS implernents MMPA activities through its Regional offices and 

Fishery Science Centers in cooperation with the States, conservatioln 

groups, the public, [other Federal agencies, the Marine Mammal 

Commission, and cc)nstitu~ents, including scientific researchers, the 

fishing industry, and the public display community. The Service's 

programs are coordinated by the Office of Protected Resourc;es. 

I 

The 1990/ 199 1 Annual Report addresses impleme~ntatioxl of the 19238 

amendments to the MMPA. and other major activities uncllertaken by 

NMFS under ithe Act's autli~ority. 

CI Chapter I1 describes NMFS activities related to iintt-ractions 

between marine mammals and commercial fisheries, including 

implementation of the Interim Exemption, development of a 

draft proposed regime for governing marine maxnrnals/ 

commercial fishexy interactions, and the 1-una-dolphin 

interaction issues. 

O Chajpter I11 prese:rits subsistence take quotas for bowhead 

whales andl northern fur seals. 

O Chapter IV discusses the permit program and notable permit 

requests. 

O Chapter V summim.zes species management actions including 

status revielws, cc~inservation plans and recovery plans. 

O Chapter VI presents the findings of stock assessxne.nt efforts. 

O Chapter VII discu:s;ses stranding network activity and the 

marine mammal tissue bank. 

O Chapter VIII[ desc~i~bes international programs and activities. 

O Chapter IX presents highlights of NMFS enforcezneriit activities. 

O Chapter X s.umrnarizes major legal actions involving NMFS. 

Chapter XI presents a list of publications produced by NMFS 

staff. 

The report concludes with four appendices that contain &-libits on 

classification of 199 1 Category I and I1 fisheries, fishery registration and 

logbook interaction informati.on, permit activity, and stranding data. 

Page 2 
I. Introduction 

This Annual Report to Congress is prepared pursuant to sectioins 103(f), 

104(h)(3) (C), and 1 15(b)(3) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Copies 

are available from t;he Office of Protected Resources, Nati~onal Mantne 

Fisheries Service, 1335 East-Werst Highway, Silver Spri~q;, Maryland 

20910. 

Stenella coerukotllba (Striped dolphin) 

Phloto by: Scott Benson. NMFS 

Page 3 
Marinte Mammal lnteractiions 

With Fisheries and Other 

Commercial Activities 

A central foctis of marine nnammd protection program activities is the 

rrianagemenl. of marine mammal interactions with commercial f'ishleries. 

The importance of this issue can be measured in terms of both public 

concern and the allocation of NMFS resources. The Marine Maimm~al 

Protection Acit has attemptled to address these interactions by 

establishing a zero nnortalily rate goal and creating a permit progra,m to 

limit the incidental taking of marin~e mammals by commercial fisheries 

and other pa~ties. 

This chapter discusses NMFS activities to manage and reduce the 

incidental take of marine nlammals by fisheries and other comrnerlcial 

activities. Issues covered include a general description of the Interim 

Exemption Program, implementation of the observer program, and 

development of the proposed regime to govern marine mammal 

interactions with cornmercjal fisheries. Of particular concern to NEvlFS is 

the incidental take of dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific yellowfin 

tuna purse seine fishery. The chapter, therefore, examines recent 

efforts to reduce dolphin mortality, discusses tuna importation issues, 

and summarizes interaction data. 

Interim Exemption 

A major component of the 1988 Amend~nents to the MMPA was the: 

establishment. of a five-year exemption program to allow the incidental 

talking of marjne mairnmals by comrnercial fisherman until Octolber 1, 

1 !393. The pfimary objective of the interim exemption program is to 

PI-avide a mechanism for obtaining data on interactions while allowing 

commercial fishing to continue. MMFS will use the information collected 

in the exemption system along with other data on marine mammal 

populations to develop a long-tern1 program to govern the taking of 

marine mamin~als by commercial fisheries. 

Page 5 
II. Marine Mammal Interactions W~ith 

Fiisheries a~nd Other C~mmerciirl Activities 

List of Fisheries 

The 1988 Amendments required the Secretary of Com~merce to compile a 

list of fisheries that. interacted with marine mammals and the number of 

vessels or persons operatiing in each fishery. Fisheries were then to be 

divided into three categories: 

O Catego~y I fisheries, in which there is frequent incidental 

taking of marine mammals; 

O Category I1 fisheries, in which there is occasional incidental 

taking of marine mammals; and 

O Category I11 fishleries, in which there is a remote likelihood or 

no knovvn incidental taking of marine mammals. 

The fishery category determines the requirements that vessel 

owners/operators rr~ust rn'eet under the interim exemptiorl program. The 

Ame~ndments require the Secretary to review the list annually. Changes 

may be made to the list after providing opportunity for public comment. 

In Decembe:r of 1990, NMFS published the first list of 13sheries operating 

in U.S. waters and on February 7, 199 1, NMFS published the first 

annual review of fi.sheries (56 FR 5 138). The 199 1 list ide:ntifies 1 1 

Category I fisheries, 32 Category I1 fisheries, and 129 C:ate:gory I11 

fisheries, an increase of 5 Category I1 fisheries from the original 1989 

list. Fisheries that alre not classified are included in category I11 by 

default. Exhibit A,- 1 in Appendix A presents the 199 1 list of Category I 

and Category I1 fisheries. 

Registration and Faelporting 

Under the Interim Exemption, vessel owners must register with NMFS, 

obtan an Exemption Certificate, and fulfd specified reporting 

requirements to legally fish in any Category I or Categoly I,[ fishery. 

Owners of vessels engaged lonly in Category I11 fisheries are! not required 

to register, but must report marine mammals killed inc~identally. 

Vessel owners registered inntially by submitting a regisb-ati~on form and a 

$30 fee to NIVIFS. In return, the owner. received a decal, an annual 

sticker, a fishing log, and exemption compliance instructions. The 

Exemption Certificate must be renewed each year by submitting an 

updated registration form, required fee, and required rel~onts coveriiig all 

Category I and I1 fisheries in which the vessel was registered. 

Page 6 
II. Marine Mammal Interactions With 

Fisheries and Other Comrnerciial Activities 

All registration dala are entered 

into the Marine Mammal 

E;xemption Program data base 

(MMEP), which allows NR/IF'S to 

analyze the number and sine of 

fishing vessels on (a nationwide 

basis. In 1990, NUIFS registered 

1 5,756 vess8els. The number of 

registered vessels declined to 

12,156 in 1'991. Exhibits I 

through 3 graphically summarize 

the distribution of registered 

vessels in 199 1 by Region, fishery. 

category, and gear type. 

Exhibit 1 

Registered Fishing Vessels by Region 

SER N,9' 3% 

Exemption Certificate holders must maintain accurate daily lags of 

fishing effort and incidenlal takes of marine mammals. For each fishing 

day, the log should include info~niation on: the fishery, fishing effort, 

and gear type; the marine nnamrnal species or a description of the: marine 

mammals in~volved if the species is not known; number, date, ancl 

location of marine imammal incidental takes; type of interaction and any 

injury to the marine mammal; a description of efforts to deter animals by 

any non-lethal or lethal means; and any loss of fish or gear caused by 

marine mammals. A report, consisting of a copy of daily logs covering 

Category I and I1 fisheries, nu st be submitted annually to NMIFS lby 

December 3 1. Fish~ermen, howeve:r, are encouraged to submit log sheets 

al. the conclusion of each fishing season or on a regular basis lhroughout 

the year. 

NMFS received 1 1,588 log books in 

1990 from vessel owners. In 199 1, 

the number of log books received 

declined to 9,034. .Appendix B 

contains tables that sumniarize 

the data submitted in the log 

11 ooks . 

Exhibit 2 

Registered Fishing Vessels ---I by Category 

Page 7 
II. Marine Mammal Interactions With 

Fisheries and Other Commerc:ial Activities 

----- 

Exhibit 3 r Registered Fishing Vessels by Gear Type 1 

L 

self-reporting by fi.sherman; (3) identi 

Observer Progriam 

Section 1 14(e) of the MMPA 

requires the Secretary to place 

observers on Category I ves,sels to 

monitor between 20 and 35 

percent of the fishing operations in 

each fishery. The purpose of the 

observer prograrn is to: (1.) obtain 

statistically reliable infonnation on 

the species and number of marine 

mammals incidentally taken in a 

fishery; (2) verify the accuracy of 

fy possible means for reducing such - 

takes: and (4) collect other biological information on marine mammals 

and the marine e~os~ystern. 

If NMFS is unable to meet the required observer covera.ge level in any 

particular year, observer:; must be allocated among Category I fisheries 

according to the folllowing priorities: 

0 Those fishieries that incidentally take marine mammals from 

st'ocks d~esignat.ed as depleted; 

C1 Those fisheries that incidentally take marine mammals form 

stocks tk1a.t are declining; 

CI Those fisheries, other than those described abov~e, in which the 

greatest incidental take of marine mammals occur; and 

LI Any other Category I fishery. 

If observers (cannot be placed on Category I vessels at the required level, 

NMFS shoul~d establish observation and verification programs to 

supplement or replace the mandated on-board observer program. 

Altern~ative observer programs may include direct observation of fishing 

activities from vessels, airplanes, or points on shore. I[f sufficient 

resources are available, alternative programs or voluntary obsenrer 

programs may also be established in Category I1 and Category 111 

fisheries for which irelliable information is not otherwise available. 

NMFS designed its 8observc?r program to obtain statistica.lly reliable 

information on the species and number of marine mammais incidentally 

Page 8 
11. Marine Mammal Interactions; Witih 

Fisheries and Other Commercial Activities 

taken in as many Category I fisheries as possible. The specific design of 

the observer program was based on the size and nature of each 

Category I fishery, the desired precision for mortality estimates, and the 

resources available. Exhibit 4 surrlmarizes observer coverage in 10 

category I fisheries (luring 1990 alnd 199 1. This exhibit is supplemented 

bly descriptions of R~eg~onall prognacns presented below. Detailed analysis 

of 1990 and 1991 observer data is presented in separate reports. 

The NMFS Southwest Regonal Ofice (SWR) implemented an observer 

program for the California set and drift gillnet fisheries with assistance 

from the California 1)eparbnt:nt of Fish and Game (CDFG). The Region 

reported that setnet fishennen shifted from single day runs to rnulti-day 

trips to avoid observer placement. Setnet boats are small vessels vvith 

- ----- ---- 

Exhibit 4 

Observer Coverage in 1990 and 1991 

Fishery 1990 1991 

Gulf of Maine Sink Gillnet Fishery 

Prince William Sound Drift Gillnet Fishery 

Prince William Sound Set Gillnet Fishery 

Alaska Peninsula Drii Gillnet Fishery 

Makah (Washington Area 4, 4a, 4b) Set Gillnet Fishery 

Columbia River, Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor Drift 

Gillnet Fishery 

California Drii Gillnet Fishery 

California Set Gillnet Fishery 

Bering SealGulf of Alaska Groundfish Trawl Fishery 

Atlantic Swordfish Drift Gillnet Fishery 

Atlantic ForeigdJoint Ver~ture Mackerel Trawl Fishery 

Page 9 
II. Marine Mammal Inlteriaction$; With 

Fisheries and Other Commercial Activities 

little work: room and no observer sleeping space. In response, NMFS 

chartered two vessels i:n 1990 as alternate platforms to observe the 

operations of setnet fis'hing vessels. NMFS established a joint. venture in 

1991 with. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to use their research vessel 

as a high seas platformi to observe setnet fishing operations. 

NMFS issued an einergerlcy regulation that required, as of November 27, 

1990, all bottomfish vessels operating in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands 

protected species zone to notifl NMFS prior to departure, enabling SWR 

to place an observer on the vessel. A final rule was published on 

May 30, 1!391 implemerlting this emergency regulation on a permanent 

basis. Currently, there are two observers to monitor the 28 permitted 

vessels in the fishery. SVVR is seeking one additional observer to 

investigate the distribution of Hawaiian monk seals and other protected 

species in the zone. 

The NMFS Alaska Regional Office (AkZR) observer program has yielded 

important mortality data, resulting i11 changes in the categorization of 

some Alaskan fisheries. In 1990, observers reported no rnortalities in 

the Prince William Sound salmon set gillnet fisheries and only one 

mortality in the South Unimalc salmon drift gillnet fishery. Based on 

these findings, NMFS reclassified these fisheries from Category I to 

Category 11. Classification of the Prince William Sound salmon drift gll 

net fishery will be reviewed in the future because only seven marine 

mammal mortalities were observed in 199 1. The Berirlg Sea and Gulf of 

Alaska groundfish trawl fisheries were placed in Category I11 as a result 

of data that showed that the level of incidental take was very low. 

The NMFS IVorthwest Regional Office (NWR) observer program monitors 

two Category I fisheries. NMFS, in cooperation with the Pacific States 

Marine Fish~eries Commission, the Washington Department of Wildlife, 

and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, documented marine 

mammal interactions in The Washington, Oregon Lowei- Columbia River 

Region, Willapa Bay and Grays Harbors salmon drift gillnet fishery. 

Observers in these fisheries documented (1) the mortality of harbor 

seals and California sea lions and (2) damage to salmorl stocks and 

fishing gear. Observation of the Maka h set gillnet fishery tlocunleinted 

entanglement of harbor porpoise and harbor seals. 

Page 10 
11. Marine Mammal Interactions With 

Fisheries and Other Commerciai Activities 

California Sea 1.ionlSteelhtead Conflict 

The sea lion/steelhead salmon conflict in the Lake Washington ship 

channel, known as the "Herschel Problem," continues to be a wdlpublicized marine mammal issue. A sirnple statistic illustrates the 

severity of this conflict: duriing the 1988/89 winter run, 65 percent of 

returning steelhead were consumedl by sea lions. 

Under a cooperative program involving NMFS, the Washington 

Department of Wildlife, the Army Carp of Engineers, and the 

Muckleshoot and Suquami:;h Indian Tribes, researchers have attempted 

numerous non-lethal control methods. These efforts continued during 

the 1990 and 199 1 steelhead runs. 

During the 1990, a capture-rdocation program was undertaken. 

Researchers, using a meshed cage secured to a mooring float, captured 

six adult male sea lions ant1 transported them to the breeding colony 

located on San Miguel Island, approximately 1200 miles from Seattle. 

Monitored with radio transmitters, four of the six animals returned to 

Washington State wa~ters, tlie first within 30 days of release. 

Efforts during the 199 1 run focused on potential enhancement.^ for 

steelhead passage through 'the fishway. Based on the recommeridations 

of an interagency task group, NMF'S initiated two pilot studies. 'The: 

objective of the first study ura:s to assess the effects of fishway lighting on 

fish passage at night, when sea lion predation is at a minimum. Th~e 

second study attempted to collect information on the salinity gradient 

between fishway attraction water an.d the water below the dam. Neither 

study produced conc:lusive results, and the study designs are being 

modified for future use. 

Proposed Regime to Govern lnteractions Between 

Marine Mammals and (>om~mercial Fisheries 

The MMPA, recognizing that a total prohibition on taking of marine 

mammals could seriously af'fect ceirtain fisheries, authorized the 

Secretaries of Commerce and the 1mt.erior to allow the taking of marine 

mammals incidental lto comimerciall fishing operations when such taking 

would not disadvantage the affected marine mammal species or :stocks. 

The 1981 Amendments permitted the Secretaries to use streamlined 

procedures for granting exemptions for takes of small numbers of non- 
II. Marine Marnmal 1nterar:tions Wiith 

Fisheries and Other Commerlcial Activities 

depleted marine :m;smma%s incidental to commercial fishing operations if, 

after notice and opportunity fbr public comment, the Secretary finds that 

such taking would have a1 negligible impact on the affiected species or 

stock. In response to litigation and recognition that tlhe existing system 

was unworkable, the 1988 MMPA amendments required NMFS tlo 

develop a regime to manage marine mammal interactions with 

commercial fisheries. This section discusses the legal challenges to the 

original permit system, ithe 1988 amendment requirements, and NMFS' 

proposed regime. 

Kokechik and the 1988 MMPA Amendments 

In 1987, Alaska Native fishing groups and environmental orgariizations 

challenged a general permit that authorized the Federation of Japan 

Salmon Fisheries Coopeirative Association to take Dall's porpoise 

incidental to its fishung operations. The suit (Kokechik Fishermen's 

Associalion v. the Secretary of Commerce, 839 F.2d 79!5) claimed that the 

general permit shou~ld not be issued because other marine mammals for 

which penriits could not be issued (e.g., northern fur seal) would 

inevitably be takein. A District Court, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, 

invalidated the pernlit, a decision that was upheld on appeal. NMFS, 

therefore, could not issue an incidental take permit for any species of 

marine mammal in ~circurnstarlces where unpermittetl taking of other 

species of marine mammals would occur. 

To address the situation created by Kokechik, Congress a.mended the 

MMPA in 1988 to ex.empt no st. commercial fisheries fiom the Act's 

general pennit and small take provisions for five years. Section 114 of 

the 1988 amendments to the MMPA required NMFS to develop a new 

regime to govern marine m.ammal/cornrnercial fishery interactions (other 

than takings that occur in the UP yellowfin tuna fishery) after the 

interim exemption acpire:~ on Clctober 1, 1993. 

Section 114 states that the: regime should include: 

O "(A) the scientific guidelines to be used in determining 

pe:rmissibl~z levels of incidental taking; 

O (B) a descriptio~n of the arrangements for consultation and 

cooperabion with other Federal agencies, the appropriate 

Regional Fiishery Managemeint Coilncils and Sates, the 

Page 12 
II. Marine Mammal Interactions With 

Fisheries and Other Commt!rcial Activities 

commercjal fishling industry, and conservation organizallions; 

and 

Q (C) a summary of such regulations and legislation as would be 

necessary to implement the suggested regime." 

According to the amendments, the Secretary should develop this regime 

in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission, Regioria,l Fishery 

Councils, and other interested governmental and non-governmental 

organizations. 

NMFS' Initial Proposal 

NMFS published its proposeld reginne om May 24, 199 1. The proposal, 

which was based on1 the Marine IIAamrnal Corn~mission's reconlrnended 

guidelines, would: 

O Authorize incidental talcing of depleted as well as non-depleted 

species; 

O Reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of maline 

mammals to insignificant levels with minimum hardship to 

fisheries involvecl; 

O Establish allowable biol.ogica1 removal (ABR) quotas for each 

marine mammal population affected by commercial fishery 

interactions, taking into iaccount the: status of the affected 

populations; 

Q Require ac:tions to be tak~en (e.g., stopping fishing operations) 

to prevent ABR quotas from being exceeded; 

O Provide a fiamework for alllocating AIBR quotas among user 

groups and fisheries, and, create Regional Quota Boards to 

establish cluotas fo:r each fishery; and 

CII Require monitoriing; of incidental takes and ABR quotas, and 

charge fisl-lermen an administrative fee (and, perhaps., fisheryspecific user fees) to recover monitoring costs. 

Page 13 
II. Marine Marnmal Intera~ctions With 

Fisheries and Other Commercial Activities 

Public Comment and the Revised Draft interim Proplosal 

NMFS received conimertts from 84 entities during the public comment 

period. In their comments, conservation groups expressed concern that 

there were (1) no provisions for judicial review, (2) no optimal sustainable 

population (OSP) or deplletion determinations, (3) no final adjustment of 

ABR, and 1[4) no movement towards the Zero Mortality Rate Goal. 

Industry groups stated at the proposed regime was (1) not focused on 

problems areas, (2) too conservative on recovery factors amd minimum 

abundance estimates, and (3) did not include subsistence takes in ABR 

allocations. Industry andl conservation interests both rejected the 

Regional Quota 13c1ard proposal. 

After reviewing the comments and consulting with the Regional Fishery 

Management Councils, the environmental community, and the fishing 

industry, NMFS revised its proposal and distributed the Revised Draft 

Interim Proposal for lim~ted review on November 20, 199 1. The revised 

proposal ifi~cludecl the following significant changes: 

O PBR wals repla~ced with potential biological removal (PBR) to 

clarlfy that this level represented a maximum possible take 

level, and not necessarily the removal level that would be 

authorkzed: 

O P'BR allocation,^ would be made based on recommendations 

made by liegional Fishery Management Councils and State 

fishery agencies with opportunity for public comment. This 

process would replace the Iiegional Quota Board concept; 

O A.dditioria1 criteria for determining when the fishing industry 

must finance special. obsenrer programs; 

O OlSP caleu~lations would be based on current carrying capacity; 

O The two-year implementation period was retained but removal 

1i:mitations coulcl be phased-in for some fisheries; and 

O Safety facitors for estimating maximum removals from various 

population levels were reduced, unless a higher factor is 

specifiecl in a recoveIy or conservation plan. 

Under the Ftevised Draft Interim Proposal, each marine: mammal 

population would 'be categorized as Class A, B, or C based on its 

Page 14 
11. Marine Mammal Interactions With 

Fisheries and Other Commercial Activities 

abundance and the total nuimber of projected removals compared to the 

PBR. Class A popullations xre those that are listed as endangered or 

threatened under the ESA, clesignated as depleted under the MMPA, or 

whose total annual estimated rennoval is great.er than or equal to the 

calculated PBR. Class B populations are defined as population~s that 

are in no immediate danger, but are "likely" to become Class A within 

five years. Class C populations are not. "likely" to become Class A within 

five years. The revised proposal classified fisheries that interact with 

marine mammals accordin~g to the class of malmmals with which they 

interact. 

The deadline for submitting comments on the revised proposal was 

December 20, 199 1 . NMFS was ireviewing and analyzing these 

comments at the end of 199 1. 

Tuna-Dolphin Issues 

The best known interactioll betwt:en marine mammals and commercial 

fisheries is the incidental take of dolphins by yellowfin tuna purse 

seiners in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP). For reasons not fully 

understood, schools of yellowfin tuna associate with dolphin stocks. In 

the late 1950's fishe:rmen began exploiting this association by deploying 

large purse seine nets around the more readily observed dolplhin schools 

to catch the tuna svrimmirig below. Despite the fishermen's efforts to 

release the dolphins, many becanne trapped in the nets and drowned. 

Efforts to reduce dolphin mortality in the ETP has been a central focus 

of the MMPA since it was enacted in 1972. Recent activities halve 

focused on domestic fishing operations, increased monitoring of foreign 

fishing fleets, actions to encourage foreign fishing fleets to reduce 

dolphin mortality, and international meetings and workshops. This 

section of the Annual Report discusses these activities and presents the 

most recent data on dolphin take by the U.S. purse seine tuna fleet. 

Fishing Operations 

During 1990- 199 1, a number of significant events occurred concelmirlg 

changes to purse seine yellowfin tuna fishing. These events involve the 

use of explosives, the develo~pmerit of alternative fishing methotis, and 

the development of operator perfonmance standards. 

Page 15 
11. Marine Mammal Interactions Wlith 

Fisheries and Other Commercial Activities 

Since the early 1980's, the U.S tuna fleet had used a variety of explosive 

devices to herd dolphins during fishng operations. The 1988 

amendments to the MMP.A prohibited the use of all t%~losive devices in 

the yellowfin tuna purse seine fishery. The amendments exempted 

Class C explosive dlevices, pending a determination that use of these 

explosives would plhysicallly impair or increase the mortality of marine 

mammals. Based on the finding of research sponsored by SWR, NMFS 

published an interim final rule on Mach 29, 1990 prohibiting the use of 

all explosives during sets on dolphins. 

NMFS's alternative fishing method research has begun to focus on 

techniques that dlo not involve encirclement of dolphins. Areas under 

investigation incll~de: 

O Increasing the: efficiency of searches to locate tuna not 

a.ssociated with dolphins; 

O F're-set separation of tuna and dolphins; aind 

O The aggregation of tuna using fish aggregating devices (FADs). 

Implementation of the third project (FADS) has been bampered by the 

lack of participation of purse seine fishing vessels. For various reasons, 

fishing vessels have not participated in the program to the degree 

expected. Several riesearclh cruises to evaluate FADs and to assess other 

measures (e.g., tuna-dolphin separation and tuna location devices), 

however, wlere planned for 1992. 

In 1990, NMFS placed observers on 58 trips aboard 1J.S. fishing vessels 

and 49 trips aboard foreign flag vessels, a shared effont with the IA'ITC. 

NMFS placed obse:nrers on 29 trips aboard U.S. vessels and 18 trips 

aboard foreign flag vessels in 1991. Incidental mortality of dolphins in 

the U.S. ETP yellowfin tuna purse seine fishery has co~ntinued to 

decline. In fact, rnoirtality in 1!39 1 was the lowest since the fishery 

began. Exhibit 5 compares the take quota against 1 990 and 1 99 1 

mortality data for U.S. vessels. 

These reductions art: the result of changes in fishing methods, including 

a combination of strict operator performance standards, a ban on 

sundown sets, prohibition of CLass C pest control devices, and a 

noticeable concern. by fislhery operators to reduce mortrxlity. A second 

factor contnibutinp; to mortality decline is the decision by the major U.S. 

tuna canners to no longer <acceptuna caught by setting on dolphins. 

Page 16 
11. Marine Mammal Interactions With 

Fisheries and Other Commercial Activities 

There were also less U.S fishermen operating in the ETP, as imany either 

re-flagged to foreign flags or. moved fishing operations to the western 

Pacific. 

Kill-per-set changed little from 1990 to 199 1 based on calendar year 

data. When shifting to fishjng year data, kill-per-set declined 'by more 

than 25 percent between 1990 and 1991. The shift from calendar year 

to fishing year measurement was required to complete the data 

verification and analysis process for making foreign country 

comparability evalu~ations. 

----- - Exhibit 5 

Aninual Quota and Catch of Dolphins in the U.S. 

Yellawfin Tunla Purse Seine Fishery in 1990 and 1991 

----- SpeciesIStock Quota 1990 1991 

Spotted dolphin 

nortt~ern offshore 20,500 3,169 636 

southern offshore 5,697 26 0 

coastal 250 0 0 

Spinner dolphin 

northern whitebelly 5,321 1,204 189 

southern whitebelty 2,506 57 1 

eastern 2,750 31 5 81 

Common dolphin 

northern trop~ical 1,890 0 0 

central tropical 8',112 23 1 93 

southern tropical 4.,045 0 0 

Striped dolphin 

nortlhern tropical 429 0 0 

central tropicad 1,822 0 0 

soutliern tropical1 4,095 0 0 

Otherlnon-quota species ----- n/a 81 4 

TOTAL (not to exc~eed 20,500) 5,083 1,004 

Page 17 
Ill. Subsistence Take of 

Marine Mammals 

MMPA Section 101 (b) provides am exemption to the moratorium against. 

taking marine mammals fix- Alaskan Indians, Aleuts, or Eskiimos if the 

taking is for subsisitence pu.rposes or for purposes of creating and selling 

authentic native articles of handicrafts and clothing. The ESA also 

allows subsistence takes of threatened or endangered species. Takes of 

endangered, threatened, or depleted species, however, may be limited by 

quota and, in some cases, other regulation. Two subsistence takes, 

bowhead whales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and the northern fur 

seals on the Pribilof Islands, are subject to such limitations. 

Bowhead Whales 

Catch limits for subsistence take of bowhead whales are set by the 

International Whalkng Comnnission (IWC). NMFS works cooperatively 

with the State of Alaska, the: Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commiss:ion, the 

North Slope Borough, and the Minerals Management Service to manage 

bowhead issues. Exhibit 6 presents the landed and strike quo.tas and 

actual take for bowlnead whales in 1990 and 199 1. 

Subsistence Take for Bowhead 

Whales in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas 

Quota Actual Take 

Year Landedl St~ri kes Landed Lost Strikes ---- 

1990 41 47 30 14 44 

Page 19 
Ill. Subsistence Take of Marine Mammals 

Northern Fur Seals 

Subsistence: take of northern f~~r seals on the Pribilof Islands is governed 

by NMFS regulatioln:: issued in 1986. These regulations establish dates 

for an annual harvest and limit the take by age and sec both to protect 

the herd anld to meet the needs of the Island residents. In 1990, 1,077 

animals were harvested on St. Paul and 164 on St. George. The 199 1 

Page 20 
IV. Permit Programs 

The MMPA auth0riz.e~ NMFS to issue permits for taking or irnportnng 

marine mammals for public display, scientific research, and species 

enhancement. The Act also allovirs NMFS to authorize incidentd/ 

unintentional takes related to activities other than commercial fishing. 

This chapter discusses NMFS pei-mit and authorization prograims and 

describes notable permit and authorization requests. 

Scientific Research, Public Display and 

Enhancement Permits 

Under this permit program, NMFS reviews applications and decides 

whether to issue requested perm~its, monitoring the animals as long as 

they are maintained under tlhe permit's authority. Currently, MMFS 

monitors 273 permits for scientific research and public display. 

During the period from Janu~ary I, 1990 through December 3 1, 199 1, 

NMFS reviewed 95 permit applications. Of these, 44 were issued for 

scientific research and 17 were issued for public display. One 

application for a permit was denied, 28 applications were retunied or 

withdrawn, and 5 were awigljng final action at. the end of 1991. 

NMFS also processe:s permit modiifications or authorizations of actjivities 

under permits. During 1990 and 199 1, 19 1 permit modificatio~ns and 

authorizations were processe:d. Exhibits C- 1 through C-5 in Aplperldix C 

provide an overview of major permit-related activities during the 

reporting period. 

Permit Program Review 

During the 1988 reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protectiorl Act, 

NMFS began a comprehensive review of the pennit program. Follo~wing 

the enactment of the 1988 amendments to the Act, the scope of this 

review was broadened to include implementation of the amendments. 

The review included severd solicitations of public comments and 

conduct of workshopis dealing witli major issues including the definition 

Page 21 
IV. Permit Programs 

of public display; what constitutes an acceptable education or 

conservation( program; how to determine if proposed research is bona 

fide and non.-duplicative; how to implement new enhancement authority 

enacted in 1988; care and maintenance standards for captive marine 

mammals; and application of the National Environmental I?olicy Act. As 

a result of the permit: program review, and 1988 amendments to the 

MMPA, NMFS is planning to revise the: permit regulatio~ns. 

A number of actions have already been undertaken. For instance, NMFS 

re-examined its policy regarding the applicability of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) to marine mammals born in capltivit,y, and on 

September 5, 1991, published notice of its interpretation of its 

regulations. This rloltice clarified that the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act's pre-Act. exemption applies only to marine mammals "taken" before 

the effective date of the Act. Thus, existing regulations apply to all 

captive-born marine mam.mals, except for those in captivity as of 

December 2 :L, 1972. 

Notable Perrnit Requests 

Bottlenose Dolphin Quotas: Based on Southeast Fisheries Center reviews of 

population status and reproductive rates for bottlenose dolphin 

management areas from Texas to Florida, NMFS had expected to publish 

interim quotas for the capture of dolphins from the wildl for public 

display purposes in early 1990. However, from January to March 1990 

an unusually high mortality of bottlenose dolphins occurred in the Gulf 

of Mexico (Gulf). Given the possibility that the high mortality rate could 

have been th~e result of a contagious dxsease, NMFS asked that all permit 

holders voluintarily agree lto suspend capture of bottlenose dolphins in 

the Gulf for !30 days in order to evaluate the die-off. 

On May 3 1, 1990, IWFS published a notice of proposed ru.lemaking to 

establish reg;ulatioris and revise quotas for removal of b~ottlenose 

dolphins for purposes of public display, scientific research and 

enhancement. Furth.er, NMFS announced that due to the high dol.phin 

mortality in ithe Gulf, it had adopted conservative interim quotas; 

reducing the quota from 91 animals in 1989 to 35 animials in 1990 (of 

which no mare than 17 could be female). 

When definitive coric1lusio:ns could not be reached regar~ding the 1011gterm impacts of the clie-off, NMFS wrote to permit holders on August 20, 

1990, requesting they not collect bottlenose dolphins until 199 1 or 1992 

except in emergency situations where collection would be ,a.bsolutely 

Page 22 
IV. Permit Programs 

necessary to maintain a public display. Permit holders agreed and no 

dolphins were remclved frorr~ the Gulf of Mexico under the interim quotas 

for 1990 and 1991. 

Dolphin Feeding: In February 1989, NMFS received a request for a public 

display permit to feed wild dolphins from a tour boat. Following 

consideration of these activities, the NMFS Southeast Regional Office 

(SER) concluded that feeding marine mammals in the wild coulld alter 

their normal behavior and place them at greater risk of injury or death. 

After receiving additional comments from the Marine Mammal 

Commission and the public, NMFS denied the request for a pulblic 

display permit. NMFS subsequently amended its regulations to clarify 

that feeding marine mammals in the wild is a form of "take" prohibited 

under the MMPA on March 20, 1991 (56 FR 11693). A tour boat 

operator from CO~~LIS Christi, TX, however, filed suit against NlMFS to 

reverse the decision. The case is pending. (See Chapter X for further 

discussion.) 

Swim-with-theDolphins (SWTD) Program!;: In 1988, NMFS began an 

environmental review of SWD programs. Four public display facilities 

were authorized to use Atlantic bottlenose dolphins on an experimental 

basis through December 3 1, 1989, while NMFS decided whether the use 

of these mammals slnould continue and whether the taking of additional 

animals for such programs should be authorized. 

On November 11, 1989, NMF'S published a Draft Environmental Irrlpact 

Statement (DEIS) examining this ilssue and several policy alternatives. 

In July 1990, NMFS extended the four experimental programs to alllow 

further evaluation of the programs. Dolphin behavioral studies to assess 

the impact of SWTD programs were designed on the basis of a workshop 

held by the Marine Mammatl Commission in 1991, and will be conducted 

in 1992. 

Incidental/Unintlentioinal Take Authorizations 

Section 101 (a)(5) of the MMPti allows the incidental, but not intentional, 

take of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens in specified 

areas if NMFS finds that (1) the irr~pact on the species will be "negligible" 

and (2) there is not an "unniitigablle adverse impact" on the availability of 

species for subsisten~ce uses. This section applies to activities oilhel- than 

commercial fishing. The 1986 Amendments to the MMPA expanded 

Section 101 (a)(5) to include depleted species. Before NMFS can issue an 

authorization, it must make the findings stated above and issue 

Page 23 
IV. Permit Progcams 

regulations that include requirements for monitoring jmlpacts of the 

activity on the specie:^. 

Currently, three specific activities are authorized for the taking of marine 

mammals under Section 1 0 1 (a) (5) of the Act. They are the taking of 

ringed seals incidental to seismic activities on the ice in the Beaufort 

Sea; the taking of six: species of marine mammals incident31 to energy 

exploration jn the Beaufort and Chuckchi Seas; and the taking of seals 

and sea lions incidental t~o launches of Titan IV space r~ockets from 

Vandenburg Air Force Base, California. 

I 

Page 24 
V. Stat~us Reviews, Conservation 

and Recovery Plans, and Other 

Species Management Actions 

Section 115 of the IMMPA, added by the 1988 amendments, establishes 

procedures for reviewing the status of marine mammal species or stocks 

to determine whether they are depleted, and directs NMFS to prepare 

conservation plans for depleted species or stocks as soon as possible. 

NMFS is not required to prepare a conservation plan if the plan would 

not promote conservation of the species or stock. Section 1 15 also 

provides specific deadline; fbr co~mpleting plans for north Pacilic fur 

seals and Steller sea lions. 

In addition to MMRA requirements for conservation plans, the ESA 

requires NMFS to prepare recovery plans for endangered and threatened 

species. NMFS is in the process of developing guidelines for recovery 

programs which will ensure that recovery plans also meet the 

conservation plan requirements of the MMPA. Of the 14 marine 

mammal species listed as endangered or threatened, recovery lplai~s are 

needed for !3 of these species. NMFS recently developed plans for 

humpback whales and right whales and is developing a plan for the 

Steller sea lion. A recovery plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal was 

completed in 1983. 

This chapter summarizes species management activities undertaken by 

NMFS during 1990 and 199 1. It discusses the Steller sea lion recovery 

plan, the humpbaclr and ~ight wlhale recovery plans, and an H;swzuian 

monk seal recovery plan update. The chapter also describes a~ctivities 

related to species dlesignalrioln decisions for the eastern spinner dolphin, 

the northern offshore spot.ted dollphin, the Gulf of Maine population of 

the harbor porpoise:, Atlantic bottlenose dolphins, and the Pacific gray 

whale. The draft recovery plan guidelines and the draft northern fur seal 

conservation plan were still under review at the end of 199 1 arid, 

therefore, are not discussed in this report. 

Page 25 
V. Status Reviews, Conscetvation and Recovery 

Plans, and Other Species Management Actions 

Steller Sea Lion 

On November 2 1, 1989, the Environmental Defense Fund and 17 other 

environme:ntal groups petitioned NMFS to list the Steller sea lion as an 

endangered specie:;. Via an emergency rule, NMFS listed the Steller sea 

lion as threatened speci~es on April 5, 1990. This rule prohibited 

shooting at or near the animals, established three-nautical mile buffer 

zones around the major sea hon rookeries in the Bering !Sea, Aleutian 

Islands and Gulf olf Alaska, and limited to the number of animals that 

could be taken inci~dental to fishing in Alaska to 675 anirnals. On 

July 20, 1990, NMFS issued a proposed rule to make the listing 

permanent. Following a public comment period, the final rule was 

published on Noveimber 26, 1990. 

In order to protect the Steller sea lion from potential localized depletion 

of food resources, NMFS has also restricted fishing activities in Alaska 

waters. On June: 13, 199 1, NMFS published an emergency rule 

establishing 10 nautical mile "no trawl" zones around sea lion rookeries 

in the Gulf of Alaska. T'his rule also divided the Gulf of Alaska into three 

longitudin(a1 areas and allocat.ed the catch within these areas to limit 

spatial depletion of food resources. This rule further limiited the total 

amount of fish that could be taken each quarter. On November 18, 

199 1, NMFS issued a pi-oposed rule to prohibit groundfish trawling 

within 10 :nautical miles of all sea lion rookeries from the central! Gulf of 

Alaska through the: Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea. 

Following ithe listing of the Steller sea lion as threatened, NMFS 

appointed a Steller sea llion recovery team during April 1990. The 

recovery team submitted a draft recovery plan to NMF'S an February 15, 

1991, which NMFS released for public review and comment (March 15, 

1991 ; 56 F'R 1 12104). The recovery team submitted a final draft plan to 

NMFS on Octobeir 3, 1991, for NMFS review and apprc~val. The final 

draft incorporated, to the maximum extent possible, the comments that 

were subrr~itted to NMFS during the technical review process. The plan 

discusses the rial-ural h~story and current status of the species, as well 

as the known and potential human impacts on the specxs. The plan 

also recomlmends nnanagemerit and research actions to aid the species' 

recovery. Final adoption of the recovery plan is anticipated in 1992. 

Page 26 
V. Status Reviews, Conservation and Recovery 

Plans, and Other Species Manag~emerit Actions 

Megaptera r~ovaeangliae (Humpback whale) 

Photo by: Yjcott Benson, NMFS 

Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 

Severely affected by commercial vvhaling, the population of the 

Humpback whale declined from a. pre-exploitation estimate of 125,000 

animals to between 10,000 and 12,000 animals. The species was listed 

as endangered on June 2, 1970. 

In July 1987, NMFS appoiinted a recovery team to develop a p1a.n to help 

the species increase in abundance. The team developed a draft recovery 

plan which NMFS submitted for public comment in October 1989. The 

final plan, which was published in November 199 1, delineates actions 

required to support recoveiry of thie species. 

Summarizing current information on humpback whales, the plan 

identifies problems that may interfere with recovery and recornlnerlds 

research or manageiment actions to restore and maintain the hurnlpback 

whale as a viable member of the ecosystem. The Plan's long-teirm god is 

Page 27 
V. Status Reviews, Cons~ervation and Recovery 

Plans, and Other Species Management Actions 

to increase the species' population to at least 60 percent of the number 

that existed prior to commercial exploitation. The interim goal is to 

double current population within 20 years. To achieve these goals, the 

plan establlishes the following objectives: maintain and enhance habitat; 

identifjr sources of and reduce human-related mortality; measure and 

monitor key population parameters.; and promote coordinated 

administration of the plan. 

Right Whale Recovery Plan 

1 The northern right whalle is considered to be the worl~i's most 

endangered large whale. The best estimate of its Norlh Atlantic 

population is 300-350 individuals. Threats to viability and recovery 

include human impacts (e.g., ship strikes, net entanglerrient), habitat 

degradation, and inbreeding. 

To meet th.e requirements of the ESA, NMFS appointed a recovery team 

in July 1987. The draft recovery plan became available for public 

comment in February 1990. NMFS adopted a final plan in December 

1991. 

Recognizing that some measures designed to assist the northern right 

whale are iin place, the plan presents an action plan tlhat includes: 

O tin aggi-essive education and enforcement progiram to reduce 

the risk of ship collisions and entanglement in fishing gear; 

0 Possible designation of three areas of "critic;al habitat" in U.S. 

waters; and 

0 Restriction of recreational whale watching activities directed at 

northern right. whales. 

The plan also ca1l.s for additional research on northerr right whale 

ecology and vulnerability. 

The plan rt:commerids priority be given to the westeni North Atlantic 

population of northern right whales. As more information is obtained on 

the North Pacific population, the plan recommends that a separate 

recovery effort be irutiated for those animals. The plan also recommends 

that NMFS take steps to coordinate and, as appropriate, combine efforts 

benefitting the northern right whale with other species, especiall~r the 

huinpback whale. 

Page 28 
V. Status Reviews, Conservation and Recovery 

Plans, and Other Species Management Actions 

Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery Plan 

The Hawaiian monk seal came close to extinction during the 19th 

Century as a result of harassment and over-exploitation. After a niodest 

comeback during the first half of this century, the population declined 

again. The species is, curreintly listed as endangered. A recoveqr plan 

was adopted by NMFS in 1983, but the plan quickly became outdated. 

The team held additional meetings; in 1989, 1990 and 1991. At these 

meetings the team reviewed ils work plan for updating the recovery plan 

and discussed and reviewed criticid work on population status, the 

"mobbing" problem (when multiple males attempt to mate 

simultaneously with a single female), and the Head Start project 

(designed to enhance the survival of young seals). In a related 

management action, NMFS published final rules establishing a 

moratorium on pelagic longline fishing within a Protected Species Zone 

extending 50 nauticall miles a1oun.d the northwest Hawaiian 1slalnd:s and 

in the comdors between the islands. 

Eastern Spinner Dolphin and Northern 

Offshore Spotted Dollphin 

In August 199 1, NMITS received petitions requesting that the easte~n 

spinner dolphin be listed as threatened under the ESA and depleted 

under the MMPA. NIMFS determiried that the petition requesting the 

threatened listing presented subslantial information and that listing may 

be warranted. To ensure a comprehensive review of the petition, the 

Service solicited informatioin <and public comments. Action on both 

petitions was pending at the end of 199 1. 

NMFS received petitions on Clctober 29, 199 1 to list the northern 

offshore spotted dolphin as threatened and depleted. Following review of 

the petitions, the Selvice determined that the request for depleted listing 

may be warranted and requested information and comments. Ps of the 

end of 1991, no determination was made regarding the request to list 

the species as threat.ened. 

The final determination for each of these petitions will be based, in part, 

on estimates of species' abundance provided b,y research vessel suiveys 

and other studies of offshore dolphin stocks in the ETP. Data presented 

in these studies suggest possible changes in the structure of off'shore 

Page 29 
V. Status Rwiews, Conservation and Recovery 

Plans, anld Other Species Management Actions 

spotted dolphin stocks. Therefore, re-analyses of the abundance 

estimates and mortality estimates for spotted dolphiin stocks is 

warranted before a final determination can be made. 

Stenella brlgirostris (Eastern spinner) 

Photo by: Scott Benson, NMFS 

Gulf of Maine Population of Harbor Porpoise 

The greatest concentration of the southern Nova Scotia - North Carolina 

harbor porpoise population occurs during the summer in the Baly of 

Fundy and the nor-theni Gulf of Maine. This population, known as the 

Gulf of Maline population, is adversely affected by mortalities incidental 

to commel-cial gillnet fishery operations. 

The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund submitted a petition to NMFS on 

September 18, 1!39 1 requesting that this population of harbor porpoise 

be listed as threatened under the ESA On December 13, 199 1, the 

Service determinedl thal. listing may be warranted ancl solicited 

information and comments regarding the status of the Gulf of Maine 

harbor polpoise ]population. 

Page 30 
V. Status Reviews, Conservation and Recovery 

Plans, and Other Species Mana!jernent Actions 

The Harbor Porpoise Working Group was established in December 1990 

to investigate harbor porp~oise interactions with commercial fisheries. It 

is composed of researchers, environmentalists, industry repre:jeritatives 

and state and Federal managers. 

Coastal Bottlenose Dolphin 

In 1987- 1988, more than 7.10 Atlantic bottlenose dolphins were found 

dead, stranded along the U.S. east coast from New Jersey to Florida. As 

a result of this die-off, NNIFS concluded that the mid-Atlantic coastalmigratory stock maLy have declined by more than 50 percent and that 

stock abundance is therefore below OSP. In response to these finldirlgs 

and a petition from the Center for Marine Conservation, NMFS; proposed 

that the coastal migratory. stock of bottlenose dolphins be designated as 

depleted under the MMPA, on August 15, 199 1. At the end of 1991 1, 

NMFS had not yet imade a1 final determination. 

Gray Whales 

On March 7, 199 1, NMFS received a petition from the Northwest [ndian 

Fisheries Commission and others to remove the eastern North Pacific 

stock of gray whales from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(the List). On November :!2, 19911, NMFS published a determi~nah~on that 

the eastern North Pacific (California) stock of gray whales should be 

removed from the List. No change to the status of the western( st.ock was 

proposed. 

NMFS made this PI-oposal based on evidence that stock's population, at 

2 1,113 (+ 688) in a 1987f88 survey, exceeded the pre-exploita tion 

estimate of 15,000 to 20,000 indlividuals. Furthermore, the data indicate 

that the gray whale: population, while below estimated historic cai-rying 

capacity of =24,00C), is within OSP and increasing at an annual rate of 

3.2 percent (2 0.5 percent). NMFS also determined that the stock is not 

in danger of extinction th-oughout all or a significant portion of its 

range, nor us it likely to become endangered again. At the end of 1991, 

the proposed de-listing was pending. 

Page 311 
VI. Stock Assessments 

Management decisions regarding marine mammals require the best 

possible data on the abulidance, population trends, distribution, and 

structure of species and :stocks. NMFS, therefore, actively engages in 

stock assessment 1researc:h. To improve the techniques used ito evaluate 

population parameters (e.g., abundance, trends, distribution), NMFS also 

undertakes projects to improve these methods. Stock assessment 

activities are implemented lby staff in the Regional Offices and Fishery 

Science Centers and through contracts and grants. 

Several methods are used to provide data for stock assessme;nts,, 

including aerial surveys, ship surveys, physical taggmg, radio and 

satellite tagging, photo-identification, and tissue and blood sampling. 

Aerial and ship suiweys are useti to develop abundance estimates;. When 

counts at haul-outs are taken, aerial surveys are sometimes conibin.ed 

with radio tagging to correct for the proportion of the populati~on that 

remains in the water. Tagging a.nd photo-identification metho'ds focus 

on migration, feeding, and other behavioral characteristics. Researchers 

use tissue and blood samples 1.0 analyze migration, feeding behavior, 

and anthropogenic contaminants that could adversely affect tlne species. 

This chapter summarizes stock assessment activities and findings 

during 1990 and 1991 for E=TP dolphins, coastal stocks, depleted stocks, 

north Atlantic righit whales, and humpback whales. 

Assessments of ETP Dollphin Stocks 

Since the enactment of thie MMF'A in 1972, approximately 1.25 million 

dolphins have beer1 killed incidentally to yellowfin tuna purse seme 

fishing operations for in the ETIP. Three species of pelagic do1.phi.n~ are 

primarily involved in this fishery interaction: spotted dolphins, spinner 

dolphins, and comimon dolphins. Striped dolphins are also taken but in 

much smaller numbers. [n response to the level of dolphin ta:ke, NMFS 

has launched several assessmen~t programs. 

Page 33 
VI. Stock A~s~essrnents 

llelphinus delphis (Common Dolphin) 

Photo by: Scott Benson, NMFS 

Dolphin Stock Assessnnent Program 

In 1986, N'OAA cornmericed a series of research vessel surveys to 

monitor changes in the relative abundance of spotted, spinner, and 

common dolphin stocks affected by the yellowfin tuna purse seine 

fishery in tthe J3TP. The NOAA research vessels David Stm Jordan and 

McArthur conducted the fifth survey in 1990. The program was designed 

to detect a 40 percent change over 6 years (or 5 percent ;per year) in the 

abundance of these species. Because the coefficient of variation has 

been higher than expected, these data are not relevant for trend 

analysis. 'The data, however, can be used to determine absolute 

estimates of abundance, which, in turn, can be used to gauge the impact 

of mortality on the population. Exhibit 7 presents estimates of dolphin 

abundance for 1986 to 1990. 

Page 34 
VI. Stock Assessments 

Exhibit 7 

IRelative Abundance Estimates of ETP Dolphins 

(N is estimate in thousands, SE is standard error, 

CV is coefficient of variation) 

N. Offshore Spotted N 1134.2 1582.6 2205.5 1993.6 658.3 

S E 346.5 402.8 575.1 720.7 195.2 

CV .305 .255 .261 .362 297 

S. Offshore Spotted N 236.0 475.8 85.8 451.9 13'7.7 

SE 175.4 230.0 58.2 346.0 75.6 

CV .743 .483 .678 .766 .863 

Eastern Spinner N 603.7 444.7 754.2 748.8 391.2 

SE 286.1 146.0 327.9 318.8 163.6 

CV .47'4 .328 .435 .426 .418 

Whitebelly Spinner N 706.1 1220.7 1398.4 1280.0 363.3 

S E 371.1 786.7 777.6 486.1 201.0 

CV .526 .644 .556 .380 .553 

--- 

N. Common N 390.0 23.5 1272.4 473.6 '1 77.7 

C. Common N 306.2 348.1 1487.6 261.0 568.0 

SE 216.1 152.6 775.2 218.4 383.5 

CV .706 .438 .521 .837 .675 

S. Common N 2217.3 152.0 2896.5 3664.0 1657.5 

SE 1525.3 85.1 1712.0 2601.5 1147.9 

CV .688 560 .591 .710 .693 

N. Striped N 201 .,I 40.7 323.4 185.2 11 1.6 

SE 108..6 15.2 180.5 76.5 69.2 

CV .540 .373 .558 .413 A20 

S. Striped N 61 2..0 1300.8 1927.9 161 1.4 1 1 15.6 

S E 174.2 454.2 685.3 485.4 309.7 

CV .285 .349 .355 .301 . ;2 78 

Page 3'5 
VI. Stock Assessments 

Current research methods cannot detect changes in population trends 

with a hi;@ level of prr:cision. Changes on the order of 5 to 10 percent 

per year would take a minimum of 10 years to detect. J'resent methods 

would be unablle to detect the current population growth rate (estimated 

at one to three percent growth accounting for fishery related mortality), 

even over a 10-year stiudy period. Given this level of un~certainlty, NMFS 

believes that management of the stock requires (1) long time series of 

sighting data obtained from tuna vessels and (2) limits on mortality 

based on an international, stock-specific quota system. The quotas 

would be based on the best estimates of abundance derived from 

research vessel surveys. One approach which has been proposed for 

managng fishe~y-marjne mammal interactions in U.S. waters (i.e., 

NMFS's proposed management regme) could also be: applied to the ETP 

dolphin populations. 

School Size Estimates; 

Abundance estiimates are based on estimates of school size. Experience 

has indicated, hiowever, that observer data was often buased and could 

generate inaccurate estimates of school size. In response to these survey 

problems, SWFSC launched an aerial photography program that enabled 

researchers to nnake accurate counts of school size. The data yielded by 

the aerial photographs were than used to calibrate observer dala. For 10 

out of 23 observers, the calibration improved the observer estimates. 

Before calibration, most of the estimates tended to be low. 

Fishery Dependent Assessnrent Program 

A compu1.er model was used to evaluate two types of dolphin sampling 

and analysis methods for detecting population trends. [t was designed 

to detect a popu~lation decreasing by a constant rate of 'LO% per year. 

Although the tuna vessel sa~npling method overestimated the 

abundance, andl the research vessel method underestimated the 

abundance, botlh methods could be used to recognize a 10% annual rate 

of decrease. 

Additional analyses coincerning the statistical power of estimating trends 

in abundance of E;TP dolphins were completed. The results of these 

analyses concluded that despite the apparent great density of sightings 

data in tuna vessel observer data, trend estimates derived from these 

data are generally not precise. The only way to improve the power of the 

tuna vess,el observer data estimates and the detectability of trends in 

abundance would be to reduce the variability in annual abundzmce, both 

Page 36 
VI. Stock Assessments 

within years and lbetween years. It is possible to reduce variability in 

estimates derived only from tuna vessel observer data by controllling the 

effort of the tuna fleet, which is not feasible, or by some sort of improved 

stratification of th.e data. 'The precision and accuracy of these ainalyses 

using tuna vessel observer dab was not appreciably worse than the 

results to date from the MOPS research vessel data. The MOPS 

estimates are also characterized by large variance within years and large 

changes in abundance estimates between years. In this sense, it was 

found that tuna vessel observer data and research vessel data may be 

roughly equivalent in terms of usefulness for management, except that 

the tuna vessel obiserver data time series is much larger than the 

research vessel data time series, and is therefore, currently more useful 

for trend analyses. 

Coastal Marine Mammal Program 

Harbor Porpoise (U.S. Wrest Coast and Alaska) 

The National Mariine Marnrnal Laboratory (NMML) was involved ill a 

number of research efforts to develop minimum population estimates for 

the harbor porpoise along the Washington and Oregon coasts and in 

Alaska in 1990 and 1991. Initial estimates suggest that harbor porpoise 

population size is 3,000 to 11,000 along the Oregon coast anti 5,000 to 

18,000 along the Washington Coast. In Alaska, initial results from 

surveys indicate high densities in southeastern Alaska with low number:; 

in Bristol Bay and Cook Inlet. 

Harbor Seal (U.S. 'West Coast and Alaska) 

NMML conducted a census of harbor seals in 1990 and 199 1 along the 

Washington and Oregon coasts using aerial surveys of haul-outs 

combined with radio tagging. In Washington, the preliminary count was 

23,199. Applying a correction factor, which ranges from 1 -5 to 1.8, 

NMML estimates that the Washington population of harbor seals exceeds 

30,000. Furthermore, the coefficient of variation was less than 0.2 

(lower than the target of 03, indicating that the estimate has a high 

level of precision. For Oregon, the highest counts were obtained during 

molt season (6,958 indiviiduals). The correction factor, required to 

estimate the size of the Oregon population, will not be available until 

1992. 

Page 37 
VI. Stock Assessmenlts 

1 Aerial surveys were also conducted in Alaska to obtain rninirnurn 

popu1atio:n estimates for Bristol Bay, Prince William Sound, and the 

Copper R~ver Delta. The north side of the Alaska perlinsula was also 

surveyed to obtalin corriparative counts and assess trends. Using a sum 

of mean counts from all areas, the surveys yielded a total count of 

13,708 animals in the southern areas and 8,962 aniima1.s along the north 

side of the peninsula. 

Under a coopera.tive agreement between NMFS and the California Dept. 

of Fish and Game (CDFG), CDFG biologists conducted annual aerial, 

radio tagging, and feeding surveys in 1990 and 199 1 to assess status of 

the harbor seal in California. The 1990 and 199 1 surveys yielded counts 

of 11,673 and 23,089 respectively. Analyses indicate that the California 

population may be near or at OSP levels. Furthermore, the radio tagging 

surveys showed movement between the mainland and offshore channel 

islands and movement riorth to San Francisco Bay. 

California Sea Lion (California) 

The California sea lion inhabits west coast waters from southern Canada 

to the southern coast of Mexico. For assessment pu;rpo,ses, researchers 

divide the: population into three stocks: one in the U. S. and two in 

Mexico. Quantitative rnethods for estimating the U.S. population are 

currently unavailable, but increasing births at U.S. rookeries suggest 

that status of the stock has improved since the last survey was 

conducted in 19186. 

In 1990, surveys counted approximately 26,700 pups in U.S. vvaters. 

Researchlers believe that this pup count represents over 30,000 births, 

corresponding to a totrtl population of the U.S. stock of 107,362!. The 

current growth rate is assumed to be over 11 percent but immigration 

from the Mexico stocks may account for some of this growth. Data are 

currently unavailable t.o substantiate this hypothesis. Cooperative 

tagging studies and surveys to address several stock assessment issues 

are planned by the U.S. and Mexico. 

Northern Elephant Seal (California) 

The northern elephant seal, which inhabits the Pacific coast of the U.S., 

was harvested for oil in the late 19th century. As a :result of exploitation, 

the popu:lation declined to fewer than 100 individuals by the tu.m of the 

century. Since then, the population has recovered significantly. 

Population gro.u&ki is d.ocumented by the growth of txis,ting rookeries 

Page 38 
VI. Stock Assessments 

and the colonization of new rookeries. Data from 1991 show {that 20,900 

pups were born at U.S. rookeries corresponding to a total population of 

74.000 animals. 

Foraging behavior of the ]northern elephant seal has been stucliedl at San 

Miguel Island, California to understand the limiting factors associated 

with rapidly expanding pinniped populations. In 1990, research efforts 

focused on feeding location and strategy between the breeding season 

(late winter) and the molt (summer). Females migrated 2000 ltm out 

from San Miguel Island and males migrated to several areas including 

the Aleutian Islanals, the eastern Gulf of Alaska, and the deeper waters 

off Queen Charlotte Island, Canada. The study also suggested th~athe 

adults undertake two long migrations each year. 

Delphinids, Beaked Whales, Dail17s Porpoise and 

Other Small Cetaceans (California) 

Currently, abundance estimates are available only for some of' the more 

common cetacean species in Callifornia. Most of these estimates, 

however, are more than 10 years old and lack statistical confidence 

limits. In response, NMFS has initiated aerial and ship surveJrs to obtain 

minimum population estimates for cetacean species in California waters. 

A workshop is tentatively scheduled at the Southwest Fishery Science 

Center (SWFSC) in Septe~nber 1992 to review information provide:d on (1) 

population and stock structure, biological basis, and managernent 

recommendations; (2) populatioli estimates; (3) population growth rates 

and trends; (4) sta1:us relative to OSP and carrying capacity; and (5) 

mortality caused Qy commercial fishery incidental take, subsistence 

take, entanglement, and other causes. This information will serve as the 

scientific basis for species management and NMFS' proposed 

management regime. 

Atlantic Bottlenose Dolpliin 

The Southeast Fishery Science Center (SEFSC) sponsored andl conductecl 

numerous research projects in 1 990 and 199 1 to obtain better data and 

an improved understanding of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins. The SEFSC 

is conducing coope:rative aerial surveys with the Northeast Fishery 

Science Center (NE:FSC) from Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine to 

Cape Hatteras to determine stock abundance and distribution. In 

addition, the two clenters are pelforming an interplatform calibration 

experiment between two aircraft: one accommodating two obsc?rvers in a 

clear nose cone anid one having viewing ports on the aircraft sides. 

Page 3!3 
VI. Stock Assessmen~ts 

/ In 1990-9 1, Mote Marine Laboratory and Dolphin Biology Research 

Associates, Inc. (1)BlW) continued their research efforts begun in the late 

1980s. The Mote Marine Lab is conducting aerial s~lrveys of the IndianBanana Eiiver complex designed to detect, at a mininnum, halving or 

doubling of inter-annual population abundance. The surveys will be 

compared with aerial surveys conducted in 1979, and will be used to 

develop an enhanced data base for future monitoring of' population 

dynamics;. DBFA is continuing its small boat and plioto-identification 

surveys to monitor population in Sarasota and Tampa Bays. 

Other surveys are being conducted in Biscayne Bay, Mississippi Sound 

and the 7:exas a.nd Florida Gulf Coasts. The purpose of' these studies 

include investigation of dolphin behavior in areas of high human 

population density, examination of population changes and trends, and 

development of data bases. One notable finding from research following 

the Megaborg oil spill off the Texas coast suggested that dolphiins 

avoided mousse: oil but not slick oil. Bottlenose dolphins, therefore, may 

be at higln risk 1:o hazardous dosages of freshly spil1e:d petroleum 

hydrocarlbons. 

North Atlantic Harbor Porpoise 

In 199 1, the NE:FSC continued studies to assess the population size, 

annual b.ycatch, and growth rates of the north Atlantic harbor porpoise. 

Two ship surveys and one aerial survey were conducted to esti~nate 

population size. Preliminary analysis suggests that 45,1000 to 60,000 

animals reside in the northern Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy area in 

the summer. Final analyses should be available in early 1992. 

Other Nolrth Atlantic Delphinids 

NEFSC c~onduct.ed ship surveys to assess the popula.tion size of delphinid 

stocks along the continental shelf edge from Cape Hiatteras to Georges 

Bank. In addition, some transects were conducted through Gulf Stream 

warm core rings and across the Gulf Stream north uralll. Covering 4032 

km of trackline, the survey sighted 56 marine mammals and eight sea 

turtles. Analysis of the data is currently underway. 

Page 40 
VI. Stock Assessments 

Gulf of Mexico Cetaceans 

In 1990, the SEFSC: conducted monthly aerial surveys from January to 

June in the offshore waters of the northem-central Gulf of Mexico. The 

surveys sighted 145 cetacean herds consisting of 4,199 animals from 15 

species. Pantropicall spotted dolphin and striped dolphins were the most 

abundant species. 

In May 1990, the NlOAA research vessel Oregon II conducted si<ght;~ng 

surveys to assess the feasi~bility of using ship surveys to examine marine 

mammal distributic~n and abundance and determine population trends 

in offshore waters. Pantropical and bottlenose dolphins were the most 

common of 36 species identified from 96 marine mammal sighlings. 

When the survey was replicated during May 199 1, the pantropical 

spotted dolphin was the mlost frequently sighted odontocete and the 

Bryde's whale was the most frequently sighted mysticete. 

Depleted Marine Mammals 

Hawaiian Monk Sea11 

During 1990 and 199 1, all five major breeding populations were 

monitored sufficiently to obtain good estimates of the number of births 

and representative beach counts. 

In 1990, births were much lower than expected based on trends in the 

late 1980s. Births were down 401 percent and were depressed at each 

major breeding island. By 1991, births were back in the normal range 

except at Lisianski Island and at French Frigate Shoals (FFS). The 

overall beach counts of the monk: seal has declined to less than 1,500 

individuals. 

The continued reduction hl births at Lisianski and FFS was att.ributable 

to lower birth rates rather than fewer adult females. A lower si~ni~val. 

rate of immature seals was also detected in 199 1. These findings 

combined with evidence of lower recruitment in other species suggests 

that the population may be food stressed. 

NMFS is engaged in two efforts designed to support recovery of the 

species. First, implementation of the Head Start project and 

reintroduction of re'habilitated females at Kure Atoll have resulted in an 

increase in both the: number of births and the total seal count. Second, 

Page 41 
VI. Stock Assessments 

NMFS is engaged in mobbing research and use of the experimental drug 

Decapeptyl to suppress aggressive socio-sexual behavior. 

1 Bowhead Whale 

NMML conducted field research on bowhead whales during the spring of 

199 1 using photographic techniques to measure body lengths of whales 

and to i~denwr individual animals for life history sl.udi~es. As of the end 

of 199 1, the photo-identification collection included 2,500 images that 

could be used for re-identification purposes. Preliminary analysis of the 

data shows an age sl-ructure dominated by immature animals, a finding 

that suggests that thie population is increasing. 

I Steller !Sea Lion 

NMFS conducted aerial and ship-based surveys in Alaska during June 

and Jully 1990. Aerial surveys were conducted in 1991 1. The data from 

these silrveys showed that the count had decreased from 38,860 in 1989 

to 37,6126 in 1990 and 36,459 in 1991. Data from the 1990 surveys 

showed that increases in the central and eastern Pdeutian Islands was 

offset b.y decreases in the eastern and central Gulf of Alaska. Given the 

statistical power of current survey methods, the changes detected in 

1990 and 199 1 are considered statistically insignificaint. 

Research was also conducted on foraging behavior arid pup physiology. 

To analyze foraging behavior, researchers attached satellite transmitters 

to adull. seals. Data showed that duration and distance of winter 

foraging trips were greater than summer trips. To study the 

physiological condition of pups, researchers took bdood samp1.e~ and 

other plhysical measurements. Results are pending. 

Northern Fur Seals 

NMFS studied northern fur seals at their breeding roolkeries on the 

Pribilof Islands, Alaska in the southeastern Bering Sm, on Bogoslof 

Island in the Central Aleutians, and on San Miguel Island in the 

Califorrlia Chcmnel Islands. In addition to conventiorlal population 

counts, researchers also used radio tag surveys to stutdy the migration 

pattern>s of adult females. 

The results of surveys of adult males on the Pribilof Is,lands were mixed. 

Pup production continued to decline at an annual rate of 6.0 to 6.5 

percent on St. George Island, but no significant trend was detected on 

Page 42 
VI. Stock. A~s~essments 

St. Paul Island. En'tanglernent rates with fishing gear (0.36 percent) 

have not changed significantly from 1985. The small herds on Bogoslof 

and San Miguel Islands continue to grow slowly. 

In the summer of 1990, researchers examined dead pups on St.. F'aul 

Island. A quarter of the dead pupls had a new pathological conduction 

(called White Muscle Disease) that causes severe muscle lesions. 

Analysis of dead pu:ps in die fall of 1990 showed that the disease had 

abated. The source and innpact of the disease are unknown. 

Radio and satellite tagging surveys were conducted to study migration 

patterns. In 1990, scientists from the Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography attached radio transmitters to adult females and pups. 

Preliminary results :suggest that migration is well dispersed across the 

southern Bering Sea and througl-1 most passes of the eastern and (central 

Aleutian Islands. Satellite tagging in autumn 1990 showed migration of 

females from St. Paul Island through Gulf of Alaska to 54'~ before the 

transmitter batteries lost power. Satellite tagging in 199 1 showred 

females migrating out of the Bering Sea into the North Pacific urhile 

males remained in the Bering Sea. 

Blue and Humpback Whales 

Populations of both blue whales and humpback whales in California are 

depleted due to earlier whaling activity. Both species are endangered 

and vulnerable to entanglement in drift gillnets off California. C:ur~ently, 

mortality incidental to corrlmercial fishing is estimated to be less than 

one animal per year. 

Abundance and populatiori structure of both species are poorly. 

understood. To imp~rove estimates of minimum population size, MMFS 

has used photographic siglht/resight methods. Researchers are 

analyzing the photographic data and will present their findings at ,a 

Status of Cetacean Stocks Workshop at SWFSC, tentatively sch~eduled 

for September 1992. 

North Atlantic Right Whale Program 

NEFSC has administered a vigorous research program targeting the 

north Atlantic right whale since the mid 1980s. Methods include 

radio/satellite tagging, genetic an.alysis, and photo-identification. The 

best data available indicate that the population of the species i:j 300-350 

individuals, recoverjng at a rate o~f three to four percent annually. The 

Page 43 
VI. Stoclk Assess~ments 

population, howeveir, is threatened by human impact.^ inclucling ship 

strikes and fj.shing gear entanglements. Nearly 60 percent of the 

population is affected by human activities, accounting for a third of the 

total mortality. Yotvng animals are at greatest rislk with 20 to 30 percent 

of mortality resulting from ship strikes. In light of the small population 

size, inbreeding is a.nother factor that could adversely affect the viability 

of the north ~\tlantic right. whale. NMFS is also concerned that a 

precip:itous event (e.g., die-off) could threaten the species with extinction. 

The NEFSC-administered research program has also yielded notable 

findings with respect to stock structure and behavioral characteristics. 

Researchers have ialentified five major habitats or congregation areas: 

southeast U.S. coastal waters, Great South Channel, Cape Cod Bay, Bay 

of Fundy, and the S~cotian Shelf. Genetic analysis suggests that the 

population is based on three "matrilines", or distinct lineages based on 

mitochondria1 DNA similarities and differences as traced through 

females. There is uncertainty, however, with respect to the 

nursery/feeding gra~unds for one of these lines an~d the wintering 

grounds for 70 percent of the population. Based on tagging analyses, 

researchers have determined that individuals undlertake lengthy and 

somewhat distant excursions. Although this obse:rvation casts new light 

on movement and h.abitat use, the purpose of therse excursions is not 

understood. 

North Atlantic Humpback Whale Program 

In conjunction with academic institutions and other ~organizations, 

NEFSC has administered an active research program targetting north 

Atlantic humpback whales since the mid- 1970s. Containing 

photographs of more than 4,000 individuals, a photo-identification data 

base is the cornerstone of the research program. This data base is 

located and maintained at the College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, 

Maine. 

The poipulation estimate for the north Atlantic population is 

approximately 5,100 individuals, increasing at an annual rate of nine 

percent. The precision of these estimates, however, is low. The 

population in^ the spring from Cape Hatteras to Nova Scotia was 

estimated at over 650 individuals. Researchers have identified five 

distinct summer feeding areas: Gulf of Maine, Gulf of St. I~wrence, 

Newfoundland and Labrador, western Greenland, and the IcelandDenmark Strait. Humpback whales migrate to the Caribbean during the 

winter for courtship, breeding, and calving. The majority of i~ndividuals 

Page 44 
VI. Stock Assessments 

can be found off the: Domilxican Republic with the remainder distributed 

along the coast of Puerto FZico, through the Virgin Islands, along the 

eastern Antilles, and south t.o Venezuela. 

Other Research Programs and Studies 

Marine Mammal Sightings Surveys 

In 1990, the SWFSC completed a four month survey counting dolphins 

and assessing their habitak in the eastern tropical Pacific. The primary 

objective of the sunrey was to collect information to estimate the density, 

size, and species composition of dolphin schools in the ETP in order to 

assess trends in population sizes. Other objectives included the 

collection of information with which to investigate the physical and 

biological environment of dolphins, and to collect data to contribute t.o 

ongoing studies of U.S. anid foreign flag fishing vessel interactions with 

dolphins in the ETF'. 

In 199 1, the SWFSC completed the first California Marine Mammal 

Survey (CAMMS). The survey was conducted north of Mexican waters 

and south of the Oregon border and out to approfimately 200 nautical 

miles. The overall objectives of the project were to estimate abunclanlce 

and to understand distribution of dolphins and whales which are 

commonly found in California waters and incidentally killed in U.S. 

commercial gillnetting operations. The survey was designed to1 collect 

data for estimating the density, size, and species composition of dolphin 

and whale aggregations ir~ order to make mean and minimum esb~mates 

of their population sizes. Results are pending. 

Page 45 
VII. Stranding Networks and National 

Marine Mammal Tissue Bank 

During 1990 and 1!39 1, NMFS completed its review of the stranding 

network program, iimplem~ented changes to improve the program, 

established the ma~ine mammal tissue bank, and created a Task Force 

on Unusual Mortality. This chapter describes these activities and the 

highlights of Regonal pro$, *rams. 

Program Review 

During 1990, NMFS completed its review of stranding network 

capabilities and actions required to improve data collection. The remew 

found differences between the Regional programs. The review also 

identified basic data that should be collected at stranding events. In 

response to these findings, NMFS recommended the standardization of 

certain elements and developed a common set of program goals. 'These 

goals are: 

1. To achieve maximum feasible reporting of and response to 

stranding events; 

2. To achieve accurate documentation of data on stranding report 

forms; 

3. To provide for the protlection, welfare, and humane treaitment 

(including, when appropriate, euthanasia) of live stranded 

animals; 

4. To provide, when appr~opriate, for the rehabilitation of sick or 

injured marine mammals and the care of abandoned or 

orphaned1 immature animals. Once rehabilitated, it will be: a 

primary goal that such animals be returned to the wad. As a 

secondary goal, such animals may serve as a substitute for 

capturing animals from the wild under public display plernlits; 

Page 47 
VII. Stranding Networks and National 

Marine Marnn~al Tissue Bank 

51. To gain the maximum amount of scientific information from 

dead stranded marine mammals and, where consistent with 

other goals, from live stranded marine rnanimals; 

6. To generate information that will assist in rnaking 

managemlent decisions on both marine !mammals and 

fisheries; 

7. To the extent feasible, tissues from stranded marine mammals 

should be collected, curated in accordarlce with professional 

standards, and provided to legitimate researchers and to 

insltitutions that maintain marine mammal colle<:tions meeting 

curatorial and archival standards; 

8. To ccollect and preserve tissues in accorclarl~ce with standard 

protocols lwhich can be used to monitor nat.ura1 mortality and 

the types and levels of environmental conta.minants; and 

9. To disseminate accurate information from rna~ine mammal 

strandings for scientific and public education .purposes. 

Recent mortality events revealed a lack of baseline! data and lthe need for 

high quality tissue samples from freshly dead animals. NMFS has 

responded to these deficiencies by preparing a fiel~d guide that provides 

protocols for information collection and tissue sampling. In addition, the 

Service has al.so prepared and pre-positioned tissue sampling; kits 

througlhout the Southeast Region. To facilitate research efforts 

associaled with stranded animals, the Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries dete:rminetl that a research permit was not irequirecl for tagging 

stranded animals that have been rehabilitated and released. Tagging or 

marking allours for identification of animals that re-strand. Madio 

tagging, facilit,ates m~onitoring the movements of rehabilitated animals. 

Tissue Bank 

Following the 1987- 1988 unusual mortality event ~nvolvPng bottlenose 

dolphir~s on the eastern U.S. coastline, NMFS determined that 

researchers lacked adequate baseline data on antliuopogenic 

contaminants to determine the significance of levels found in animals 

associated with this event. This deficiency was particularly acute with 

respect to the impacts of anthropogenic contaminants. In response, 

NMFS initiated steps to establish a National Marine Mammal Tissue 

Page 48 
VII. Stranding Netwoirks and National 

Marine Mammal Tissue Bank 

Bank. A number of activities have been undertaken associated with the 

tissue bank, including a rulemaking regarding the disposition of tissues, 

preliminary studie:~, and the development of quality assurance (QA) 

procedures. 

Rulemaking 

On August 20, 199 1, NMFS published regulations that clarified 

authority to salvage, retain or transfer tissues from stranded marine 

mammals. The regulations allow salvage of tissues from stranded 

animals by authorized individuals and requires that tissues be properly 

curated and registered with the appropriate NMFS Regional office. In 

addition, the regulation established procedures for transfer of tissues. 

Transfer of tissues to authorized individuals is allowed without the need 

for further authorization. Agency authorization is required, however, 

when tissues are transferred to individuals not already holding 

authorization. 

Preliminary Studies 

NWFSC has been conducting analyses to establish baseline 

concentrations of selected cheniical contaminants and biotoxins in 

marine mammals. Specific contaminants of concern include chlo~atetl 

hydrocarbons (e.g. PCBs), chlorinated pesticides, and heavy metals. The 

studies have used tissues obtained from pilot whales stranded along the 

Atlantic Coast, bottlenose dolpllins stranded in the Gulf of Mexico, and 

gray whales stranded along the Pacific and Alaska coasts. Res~llts have 

showed elevated lrzvels of PCBs and several heavy metals in pilot whales. 

Several mother-fetus pairs were analyzed and results, to date:, show 

maternal transfer of selected metals (e.g., cadmium) to the fetus 

Concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons and some trace irnetals in 

certain bottlenose dolph~n tissue samples prompted researchers to 

expand sampling efforts in September 199 1. In contrast, concentrations 

of anthropogenic contarninants in gray whales were generally less than 

the levels in pilot whales and bottlenose dolphins, and are considered to 

be below levels of toxicological concern. 

Quality Assurance Procedures 

The National Institute of' Standards and Technology (NISI') is developing 

a Quality Assurarlce (QA) program to ensure accuracy, precision, level oif 

detection, and intercomparability of chemical analyses of tissue samples. 

Page 49 
VII. Strantling Networks and National 

Marine Mammal Tissue Bank 

NIST is implementing this program through (1) interlaboratory 

comparison exercises; and the development of Standard Reference 

Materials (SRMs). Interlaboratory comparisons involve the preparation 

of tissue control materials using tissues collected from stranded pilot 

whales. NIST distributed the samples to NWFSC and several other 

laboratories for trace element and organic contami:nant analyses. The 

results from this exel-cise will soon be compiled and distributed. 

NIST has initiated development of a whale blubber SRM for use in 

measuring PCBs and chlorinated pesticides in marine mammal tissue. 

Tissue control material will be distributed to NWSC and other 

interested laboratories as a second comparison exercise. Several 

different approaches will be used to identrfy a methodology that yields 

"certifield" concentrations. The whale blubber SRM should be available 

by October 1992. De:velopment of a whale liver SRM for trace element 

analysis is planned. 

Task Group on Unusual Marine Mammal Mortalities 

NMFS is concerned about unusual marine mammal mortality events. In 

response, the Service: has established a Task Groulp with representatives 

from several scientific specialties. Members of the tas'k group are 

consulted when an unusual mortality event is suspect.ed. At ;a meeting 

on April. 10, 199 1, the Task Group identified criteria for initiating 

consu1t;~tions. These: criteria are: 

A marked increase in the magnitude of strandings vvhen 

compared with prior records. Magnitude by itself may not be 

an indication of an unusual mortality event and should be 

weighed against other knowledge; 

O Animals are stranding at a time of the year when strandings 

are unusual; 

O An increase in strandings is occurring in a very localized area 

(pos:sibly suggesting a localized problem) ,, is occurring 

throughoul. the geographic range of a species/ population, or 

spreads geographically with time; 

O The age or sex composition of the strandled animals is different 

than that of animals that normally stranid in the area at a 

specific time of the year; 

Page 50 
VII. Stranding Networks and National 

Marine Mammal lrissu~e Bank 

O Stranded animals exhibit a similar or unusual pathology or the 

general physical condition (e.g., blubber thickness) of stranded1 

animals is different from what is normally seen; and 

Q Unusual or severely endangered species are stranding. 

Stranding of three or four right whales, for example, may be 

cause foir concern whereas stranding of a similar number of 

gray whales would not. 

Using these criteria, NMF'S staff and researchers contacted the Task 

Group three times in 1991. In the first case, 38 harbor seals stranded in 

the Long Island ar~ea from mid-February to mid-May. The ratle was abovle 

normal and many of the animals had a similar pathology: small, dark, 

raised rhomboidal lesions on the skin. Analyses of some samples 

tentatively attributed the stranding to an Erysipelothrix bacillus which 

was cultured from some of the seals. These strandings occurred along 

the Long Island coast, anid similiar mortalities were not observed in 

adjacent states. "Ice" seals continue to strand as far south as New 

Jersey. 

The second incident involved a lhigher than normal stranding rate of 

California sea lions along; the central California coast from late July to 

the end of October 199 1. Nearly 150 animals were diagnosed as having 

leptospirosis, a disease that is endemic in the population. Based on this 

finding, the Task Group's; recommendation was to monitor the number of 

animals affected. 

From September to December 1991, 35 bottlenose dolphins stranded in 

the counties surrounding Sarasota, FL, more than three times the 

historical rate. The majority of the animals were juvenile males. 

Analyses are being conducted but results are not yet available. 

Regional Stranding Networks 

The following descriptions of Regional stranding activity presents 

significant accomplishments an.d summarizes stranding repoi:*. All 

strandings are reported in exhibit D-1 in Appendix D. 

Page !i1 
VII. Stranding Networks andl National 

Marine Mammal Tissue Bank 

Northeast 

In 199C), the state of Maryland, with the assistance of the National 

Aquarium in Baltimore, began to take a more active role in the Regional 

Networlc. The state of Delaware's involvement also increased. 

The Region reported the following stranding data and significant events. 

In 199C1, there: were :I74 pinniped and 164 cetacean strandings. 

Reported strandings increased in 1991 to 276 pinnipeds and 225 

cetaceans. 

The cetacean totals include a number of mass stranded pilot whales. In 

September 1990, fifby-five pilot whales stranded in Hyannis, 

Massachusetts. Two juveniles were rehabilitated alt the New England 

Aquarium and released in the spring of 199 1. Four separate stranding 

events ~~nvolving 96 pilot whales were reported during the fall and winter 

of 199 1. Efforts to return the whales to the wild resulted in only 37 

successful releases. Six of 23 whales tagged and released were observed 

one month later swimming normally near a group of ti0 untagged 

whales. 

A Cape Cod strandin.g response group was formed in December 1991 for 

the purpose of getting to stranded pilot whales quickly, with experienced 

personnel, to effect a. quick release of the animals. 

The Southeast Stranding Network is comprised of over 100 participants 

who are issueid Letters of Authorization (LOA) by the Kegon. The 

Southeast Region maintains a directory of participants which includes 

LOA holders a.nd authorized government workers. Following a response 

to a stranding event, participants complete and submit a standard form. 

A volunteer compiles data from these forms and produces a qluarterly 

report that is sent to the network participants and to NMFS. 

A major initiative in the Region is a cooperative efiort between the 

SEFSC's Mianni Laboratory and the Stranding Netwofk to improve both 

the quantity and quality of data obtained from stranding events. As a 

result of this effort, SEFSC has developed a multidisciplinary approach 

that encompasses seven themes. Of these seven Cherries, four relate to 

population biology and the remainder are associatied with the extent and 

causes of mortality. 

Page 52 
VII. Stranding Networks and National 

Marine Mammal Tiss~ue Bank 

111 1990, there were 729 documented strandings of cetaceans in the 

So~ltheast Region. Bottlenose clolphins accounted for nearly 80 per ce~ lt 

of the strandings, while the remainder included at least 16 other species. 

During 199 1, there were 632 documented strandings of cetaceans. Once 

again, bottlenose dolphins accounted for the majority of strar dings 

(nearly 70 percent), and 21 adciitional species acco~lnted for Lht. 

remainder of the strandings. 

Southwest 

The Region reported 1,233 pinniped strandings in 1990 and 1,507 in 

1991. Reported cetacean strandings decreased frorri 88 in 1990 to 67 in 

1991. 

Northwest 

In 1990, the Northwest Marine IMamnial Stranding Network responded to 

221 reported strandings or unusual events in Oregon and Washiington. 

Pinniped strandings accounted for the nlajority (86 percent) ol these 

investigations. Network participants investigated 120 reported standings 

or ~lnusual events in 199 1 ; 8 1 percent of these involved pinnilpeds. 

Alaska 

The Alaska Region Stranding Network investigated 87 cetacean s traridings in 1990. Of these, the most comnlon species were gray whales (27 

strandings), harbor porpoiise (1 7), and killer whales (10). In 1!)9 1, the 

network reported 39 cetacean strandings. The most common species 

again were gray wh~ales (17), harbor porpoise (9), and killer wh~ales (8). 

Due to limited resources, and the large coastline, the network foc~lses its 

efforts prirrlarily on cetacean strandings. 

With a few notable exceptions, most stranding reports involve dead 

animals. In 1990, a humpback whale live-stranded on a sand bar in the 

Copper River Delta. The whale rnanaged to back off with its flippers and 

was gone at high tilde. Six killer whales live-stranded temporarily in 

Chignik lagoon in 1990. One of the arlirrlals re-stranded a day later and 

died, and four days later, a second whale was found tiead within the 

area. A pathological investigation was unable to identify a calise of this 

stranding event. During 1991, six killer whales live stranded in 

Tllrnagin Arm. NMFS biologists applied wet blankets to sorrle of thca 

ariirnals until high tide occurred., fi-eeirig the animals with no obst:rvable 

sigriificant damage. 

Page 53 
VIII. International Programs 

and Activities 

The Department of Commerce furthers the protection and con~servation 

of marine mammals through participation in existing internatiorlal 

agreements, and, when necessary, negotiation of new agreements. This 

chapter describes NMFS involvement in international prograrrls and 

activities during 1990 an~d 199 1. 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

The Commission for the Consenration of Antarctic Marine Living 

Resources (CCAML,R) and its Scientific Committee were established in 

1982. The group nneets annually to consider issues related to Antarctic 

living resources. The Scientific Committee regularly reviews the status of 

marine mammal populatilons, arid, as necessary, makes recornmendations to the Commjssion. The Commission also reviews annual reports 

by member nations concerning population assessments and steps taken 

to avoid the incidental mortality of Antarctic marine living resources. 

Marine Mammal Populations 

During 1 990 and 199 1 the Comimission sponsored populationrs surveys 

of several marine mammals species. The Commission convened a 

workshop held in hlonterey, California, May 22-23, 1991 to assess the 

current status of southern elephant seals. A review of southern elephant 

seal stock abundance anal trends indicates that populations are 

declining in the Indlian and Pacific Ocean sectors of the Antarctic. In 

addition, simulatioi~s suggest that the South Georgian stock may also be 

declining, but no direct evidence is available. The workshop concluded 

that it was not possible to identie factor(s) that are causing the 

population decline. The workshop did, however, identify sever(a1 aIeas of 

priority research. 

Page 55 
VIII. International Program!; and Activities 

In light of evidence Ihat crabeater seal abundance may have declined 

dramatically (during the 1970s. the Scientific Committee arid the 

Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAF!) urged that additional 

surveys of pack ice seals be conducted. The Com~mission, in 1990, 

recom~nendetl that ~nembers conduct censuses of seals in pack ice areas 

whenever possible during icebreaker operations. ,At the 199 11 meeting, 

several members indicated their intent to initiate surveys of crabeater 

and otlher pack ice seals. 

Working Group on the CCAMLR Ecosystem 

Monitoring P~rogram (WG-CEMP) 

The primary focus of this Working Group has been the study' of krill and 

predator/prey relationships. Krill is the primary prey species for large 

numbers of marine mammals in the Convention area. In response to 

concerns expressed by WG-CEMP about the impact of krill fishing on 

f0ragin.g by la.nd-based predators, the Commissiori and the Scientific 

Commiittee requested that the Working Group calcula~te prey 

require:ments of krilll predators in certain priority areas. 

The Working Group has made good progress in synthesizing data and it 

is anticipated that these efforts will culminate in a1 1993 worlishop. The 

Subgroup on survey design has made substantial progress oin prey 

monitoring research methods. Survey designs for assessing the 

abundance and distribution of krill are available tlo members and 

members are encouraged to implement such studies. 

At its 1990 meeting, the Commission adopted a conservation measure 

that specified a procedure for providing CCAMLR protection 1.0 CEMP 

sites. [n 1991, the United States prepared a draft management plan for 

protection of the Seal Islands CEMP site. Following review of the plan by 

the Working Group and the Scientific Committee, the Commjssion 

adopted a resolution asking members to voluntarily comply with the 

management plan p~ending conclusion of consulta tiorls with SCAR, the 

Antarctic Treaty Corlsultative Parties, and Contracting Parties to other 

compo~nents of the PLntarctic Treaty System. The C:onimissiom also 

agreed to advertise the plan to States that are not pairties to lthe CCAMLR 

but whose nationals are present in the Conventiorr area. 

Page 56 
VIII. International Programs ,and .Activities 

Assessment and Avoidance of Mortality 

Incidental to Fishery Operations 

Members' reports on obse~~ation of lost or discarded fishing gear were 

submitted at the Commission's 1990 and 199 1 meetings. Duri:ng ithe 

1990 meeting, the Commission noted that the United Kingdom intended 

to continue with bea.ch surveys at. South Georgia. The Commissiall 

encouraged members to use methods applied at South Georgia. 

The United States ta.bled a proposal at the 1990 meeting calling foir a 

ban on drift.net fishing in tlhe Convention area. The proposal wias 

adopted as a Commission reso1ut:ion that noted member agreement not 

to expand large-scale pelagic driftnet fishing in the Convention area and 

endorsing the goals of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 

44/225. 

High Seas Driftnet Fishing 

Large-scale pelagic tlrift.net. fisheries rapidly expanded in the Northi arid 

South Pacific Oceans during the 1980s. Vessels from Taiwan, Japan 

and the Republic of Korea set 20-50km long driftnets to catch flying 

squid. The vessels from Taiwan and Japan also fish for albacore and 

billfish. In addition, Japan operates a high-seas driftnet fishery for 

salmonids. 

U.S. Response 

The United States is concerned about the impacts of these fishlc:ries on 

marine life and their ecosystems. Substantial evidence exists 

documenting the incidental take of marine mammals, seabirds, marine 

turtles, and other n~on-target species. Of particular concern is the 

impact of large-scal~e driftnet fisheries on the threatened northern fur 

seal population. The U.S. also believes that high seas drift.net fishing for 

immature salmonids is inefficient and indiscriminate. Concerri about 

the status of high seas salmonid stocks has heightened because some 

flying squid vessels have targeted these stocks in violation of 

international law. 

In response to concern over the high-seas salmon fishery, the i-llegal take 

of salmon on the hi,gh seas, and incidental mortality of marine 

mammals, the Congress enacted the Driftnet Impact Monitorinlg, 

Assessment, and Control Act. This legislation requires the Sec:retary of 

Page 57 
VIII. International Proglrarns ancl Activities 

Commerce through the Secretary of State, and in cooperation with the 

Secretary of the [nterior, to negotiate cooperative agreements with 

countries whose nationals operate in the North Pacific high-seas driftnet 

fisheries. The ageemeints should provide for monito~ing and assessment 

programs involving on-board scientific observers and enforcement 

programs focusing on squid fishing in seasons and areas where salmon 

might be taken. 

As of 1990, the U.S. had successfully negotiated agreements with Japan, 

South Korea, and Taiwan. In 199 1, results were release~d from observer 

I programs in each of the five driftnet fisheries operating during the period 

between NIay 1990 and May 1991 covered by these agreements. 

Lagenorf~yncbs oblrquidens (Pacific white-sidled dol.phin) 

Photo by: Scott Benson. NMFS 

The observer programs monitored 5,300 operations oil 143 vessels. The 

observed bycatch of marine mammals totaled 3,541 cetaceans and 581 

pinnipeds. These totals are broken down by fishery and species in 

Exhibit 8. Northern riglht whale dolphin, Pacific white-sided dolphin, 

Dall's porploise and northern fur seal were the most common incidentally 

caught marine mammal species in the squid fisheries. 111 the albacore 

Page 58 
VIII. International Programs and Activities 

I TOTAL cetaceans I 1757 1 116 1 l9 1 1318 1 331 1 

Exhibit 8 

Incidental Tlake of Marine Mammals in the North Pacific Ocean 

High Seas Driftnel Fisheries, 1990 (Includes Lethal Takes, 

Animals Released Alive, arld Takes where Condition of Animal is Unknown) 

I # of operations monitored I 28753 1 911 1 356 1 826 1 358 1 

Page 59 

---- 

Large-Mesh 

Pinnipeds 

~ p~ I Amount of net monitored(tans2) 1 2281895 1 669662 

~a~an' 

152 

6 

479 

500 

37 

Squid 

Species 

N. fur seal 

Elephant seal 

Unidentified 

Total pinnipeds 

Unidentified 

N. right whale 

Pacific white-sided 

Common 

Striped 

Spotted 

---- 

Taiwan 

12 

---- 

12 

20 1 

-- 

4 1 -- 6 ---- 47 -- 2 1 ---A 

---- 

Japan 

545 

1 

19 

I 

565 I 

840 

459 

69 

6 

Dolphins 

Porpoise 

Whales 

' Excludes bycatch in Japanese coastal water:;. 

Tan is standardized to 50 m of net. 

170415 

Bottlenose 

Rough-toothed 

Risso's 

Pygmy killer whale 

False killer whale 

Short-finned pilot 

Unid. black whale 

Unid. small 

Dall's 

Cwiefs beaked 

Pygmy sperm 

Dwarf sperm 

Sperm 

Minke 

Unidentified Whales 

2 

1 

---- 

-- 

-- 3 -- 

-- 1 -- 

-- 3 

51 1589 194sg --7 

Korea 

4 

4 

2 

54 

29 

6 

1 

12 

Taiwan 

4 

7 

5 

1 1 

4 

1 

26 

1 -- 

--7- 

--...-- 

4 
VIII. International Programs and Activities 

fisheries, stripecl dolph~in, common dolphin and nortlhern right whale 

dolphin were the most common marine mammal bycatch species. 1 Multilateral Controls 

In 1989, lhe U.M. General Assembly adopted a drift.net resolution cosponsored by the United States. The resolution prohibited expansion of 

high-seas driftnet fishing, and called for review of all drifl.net da.ta by 

June 30, 1991, a cessation of South Pacific driftnet fiskling by July 1, 

199 1, anct a worldwide cessation of driftnet fishing by July 1, 1992, 

unless effective conservation and management measures are talken. 

Following actions taken by the United Nations, member nations, and 

international fishing organizations to support the 1989 resolution, the 

General Assembly reconsidered the matter in its 1991 session. On 

December 20, 199 1, the General Assembly, by consensuls adopted a 

resolutionl co-sponsored by the United States, Japan., antd 28 other 

nations. 'l?hs resolution calls on members of the international 

communily to: 

Q Reducle large-scale high-seas driftnet fishing effort by 50 

percent by June 1992; 

Q Continue to ensure that driftnet fisheries do not expmd into 

new areas; and 

O Implement fully a global moratorium on all large-scale drift.net 

fishing on the high seas in all areas by December 3 1, 1992. 

Although the Re:;olutioin does not address large-scale driftnet fishing in 

the EEZ of individual nations or the use of small driftnets on thle high 

seas, sponsors believe that the moratorium will substantially eliminate 

the risks to target and non-target species and to pelagic ecosystems. 

lnternational Whaling Commission 

In 199 1, a.t the 4.3rd Artnual Meeting of the International. Whaling 

Commission (IWC), the parties agreed to: 

O Continue to s'upport implementation of the IWC's 198:2 

rnoratc)rium clecision; 

CI Continue to monitor research proposed and conductetl under 

,special permits; 

Page 60 
VIII. International Programs and Activities 

CI Broaden cliscussion of the conservation needs of small 

cetaceans: and 

0 Secure an aboriginal quota of bowhead whales for U.S. 

Eskimos. 

The Commission also discilssed issues related to humane killing, the 

comprehensive assessment, and :small-type whaling proposals. The 

following sections summarize the activities of the 199 1 meeting. 

Commercial Whaling Mor;~torium 

Currently, all IWC anembeirs are observing the moratorium on 

commercial whaling,. The Commi~ssion took three major actions wtth 

respect to the moraltorium at the 1991 Annual Meeting. First, it took 

steps to initiate a thorough review of the Schedule to the Convention. 

Terms of reference fbr a working group were adopted and memlber 

governments were asked to submit papers by October 31, 1991 foir 

consideration by the working group. Second, the Commission deniecl 

Iceland's request to allow catch limits of 170 minke whales and 92! fin 

whales off Iceland. Third, the Commission denied Norway's request to 

take minke whales from the nortlheastern Atlantic stock. 

The IWC also made significant progress towards development of a revised 

management proceclure (RMP) for baleen whales. Eventually, the RMP 

will replace the New Management Procedure which is seriously flzwed 

and led to the over-harvesting of some stocks. It is the U.S. polsition that 

changes in the moriztoriurn should not be considered until a sc:ientifically 

acceptable, hlly developed RMP, with adequate surveillance and 

enforcement provisions, is adopted. 

Special Permits 

At the IWC's 199 1 meeting, the C:ommission rejected research proposals 

submitted by Japan and the Soviet Union. The Japanese proposa.1, 

which called for the: take of, at most, 330 minke whales from the 

southern hemisphere stock to study age-specific natural mortality, was 

rejected because the research program did not fully satisfy the TWC's 

criteria. A resolution inviting Jalpan to reconsider its program was 

passed by consensus for the second consecutive year. 

The Soviet proposal., which involved the take of 90 minke whales fiorn 

the Sea of Okhotsk stock, was designed to support research or]( the 

Page 61 
VIII. International Programs arid Activities 

niorphological and physiological characteristics of the populations and to 

obtain samples for determining age, sexual and physical maturity, and 

reproductive conditions. Accepting the Scientific Committee's conclusion 

that the proposal was seriously flawed, the Commission adopted a 

resolution stating that the research program did not contribute 

information essential for management or support other important 

research needs. The proposal further requested the Soviet Union to 

refrain from proceeding until the program is revised. 

Aboriginal Subsistenc:e Whaling 

The Commission made no changes to existing aboriginal subsistence 

catch limits for central Atlantic minkc: whales and north Atlantic 

humpback whales. For the years 1990 througlh 199:2!, the limit for 

central Atlantic minke whales taken by East Greenlamders is 12 per year. 

The limit for north Atlantic humpbaclr whales laken by Bequiar~s of St. 

Vincent and the: Grenatdines is 3 whales each for the 1990/9 1, 11 99 1 /92 

and 1992193 winter seasons. 

The IWC established the following aboriginal subsistence catch limits: 

Q Bering-Chuk;cM-Beaufort Seas bowhead w1:lales taken by 

Alaskan Eskimos -- 141 strikes for the years 1992-94 with up 

to 13 carryover strikes. This limit is subject to the constraints 

that no more than 54 whales may be struck to land 41 whales 

in a single yea]- and that the limit will be reviewed anr~lually in 

light of advice given by the Scientific Cornrrdttee; 

CI Eastel-n north Pacific gray whales, taken on behalf of Soviet 

Eskirn~os -- 169 for each year 1992-94; 

West (';reenland fin whales taken by 7Nest Greenlanders -- 2 1 

for each year 1990-9 1; and 

Q West (>reenlalnd minke whales taken by 'West Greenlariders -- 

a maximum od 1 15 whales struck in any one year 1992-94 and 

maximum total of 315 whales struck for the: three year period 

1992-94. 

Comprehensive Asses!snient 

After four years of reviewing proposals, the Scientific Committee 

recommended, in the fc).rrn of a resolution, a revised nilanagemenit 

procedure (RMP) to be used when a single stock. of a species resides on a 

Page 62 
VIII. Inl:ernational Programs and Activities 

whaling ground. The Commission accepted this recommendation and 

provided additional instructions to the Scientific; Committee for 

completing development of an Rh4P for multi-stc:)ck species of whales. 

The resolution accorded highest priority to the c~bjective that the risk of 

extinction should not be increased by exploitati~on. At an inter,-sessional 

meeting scheduled for March 1992, the Scientific Committee will focus 

on its current agenda of work. 

Humane Killing 

The Commission considered a number of issues; related to the humane 

killing of whales. The United States, Denmark, and New Zealand 

delivered presentations or submitted documents on weapons and 

methods. The United States delivered a presentation on the bowh~ead 

whale weapons improvement program. The program includes the use of 

an improved projectile, a new emphasis on edulcation and trainin$;, and 

continued monitoring of the need to develop a penthrite projectile for the 

shoulder gun. On behalf of Greenland, Denmark submitted 

documentation concerning the detonating gren;ade harpoon recluil-ed for 

hunting fin and minke whales and information on the rifle hunt of minke 

whales. New Zealand presented a document that discussed th~e use of 

firearms to dispatch stranded whales. 

In other actions, Brazil stated that it is withdra,wing its objection to the 

ban of the cold harpoon. Japan refused to preaent its laws regulating 

the killing of Dall's porpoise, stating that the matter is outside the 

competence of the Commission. Japan did agree, however, to discuss 

the issue on a bilateral basis. The United King,dom, supporteci by the 

United States and other member nations, proposed that a workshop of 

experts be convened to evaluate the penthrite grenade harpoon. 'The 

Commission agreed to hold the workshop prior. to next year's 1:neeting. 

Socio-Economic Implications and Small-Type Whaling 

The Technical Committee's working group met to consider the social and 

economic impacts of the commercial whaling nlioratorium and to 

examine small-type whaling issues. Presenting a report on the 

moratorium's impact on two whaling communnties, Japan arguedl that 

small-type coastal whaling is similar to aborigjnal subsistence whaling. 

Japan also contended that the moratorium had serious cultural and 

socio-economic impacts on som~e small Japanese minke whaling 

communities. Focusing on these arguments, the working group 

Page 613 
VIII. International Programs and Activities 

concluded its deliberations with the aiame recommendations as the 

preceding year: 

0 Continue the working grou],; 

O Request abstracts of docun~ents by Decem'ber 1, 199 1. ; 

O Convene a meeting if abstrz~~cts are submitted; and 

C1 Request that completed documents be sub;mitted by April 15, 

1992. 

Japan requested an interim quota of !SO minke whale:; for its srr~all-type 

coastal whalers. Japan argued that this take level would not hann the 

stock and the whale meat and by-protlucts would be consumed primarily 

by the local communities. Noting thaii. the Scientific Committee could 

not determine the effect. that this level of take would I-lave on the stock 

and that any quota would violate the ~noratorium, the Commission did 

not approve the Japanese proposal. 

Small Cetacean Resolutions 

The IWC adopted a resolution, proposci:d by New Zealand, requesting the 

Scientific Committee to continue its data collection and reporting efforts 

on the take of small cetaceans. The re,solution also requested that the 

IWC Secretariat forward the Commitl:ele report to appropriate govemments, intergovernmental. organization.^, the Secretariat of the Uinited 

Nations Conference on Erwironment and Developmenit., and other 

entities. 

The United States introcluced a second resolution that recounted the 

Scientific Committee's fkve major recommendations on small cetaceans. 

This resolution was wilkdrawn after Commission members raised 

questions about the IWCl's legal competence to debate the! issue of small 

cetaceans. The objective of the U.S. re:solution, f0rwardin.g the Scientrfic 

Committee's recommendations to concerned governme:nts, however, was 

accomplished by the New Zealand reso:llution. 

U.S.-U.S.S.R. Marine Mammal Project 

The primary goal of this cooperative research program is (1) to study the 

biology, ecology, and population dynam~ics of marine mammal species of 

interest to both nations and to (2) fostelr effective mana~gernerlt of these 

Page 64 
VIII. International Programs and Activities 

animals. During 1990 and 1991, U.S. and U.S.S.R. scientists; 

participated in two joint research efforts: a study of Steller seal lions in 

the Kuril Islands, U.S.S.R. and a study of adull t female northern .fur seals 

in the Commander Islands, U.S.. St. R. 

The purpose of the Steller sea lion research was to assess population 

levels and movement patterns in the U.S. and U.S.S.R. In the summer 

of 199 1, scientists from the two countries returned to the Kur-il Islands 

to follow-up on Steller sea lion research conducted in 1989. Fvlethotls 

included satellite tagging, counts, and flipper lagging. Although not. all 

sites surveyed in 1989 were revllsited, the study indicated that the 

number of animals did not change significantly. 

The purpose of the northern fur seal study was to examine foraging 

behavior and to explain the difference observed in rates of decline 

between the U.S. and the U.S.S R. population:;. Foraging trips were 

shorter for Commander Island seals as compared to Pribilof Islantd seals. 

Diet also differed: Commander Island seals eat predominately squid 

while Pribilof Island seals eat a mix of squid and fish. Other 

physiological data is currently bie~~ng analyzed to compare the two herds. 

In addition, scientists are analyzing blood sam~ples to identify the island 

of origin for fur seals incidentally taken in the foreign high-seas squid 

drift.net fishery. Results of this analysis will h112lp researchers determine 

if the fishery-related mortality is affecting one herd more than the other. 

Page 6'5 
I. Enforcement 

NMFS Special Agents and Enforcement Officers (EOs) enforce the 

provisions of the MMPA. NMFS employs abou.1. 1 13 Special Pyifents and 

18 uniformed Eos. Assisting these officials art: enforcement olfficc~rs from 

several states who act under agireements authorized by the MMP14. 

During 1990, NMFS and state enforcement peil-sonnel investig,ated 1,0 16 

alleged violations of the MMPA. Of these alleged violations, 737 involved 

infractions by commercial fishermen regarding Certificate of E;xernpt-ion 

and/or marine mammal observer requirements. There were 128 

investigations of unlawful taking (including harassment), 92 cases of 

illegal importation (primarily of imarine mammal parts and products), 28 

involving improper fishing practices in the yellr~swfin tuna purse seine 

fishery, and 3 1 miscellaneous violations. In 1!39 1, the total number of 

investigations was 509. These included 3 1 1 cases dealing witlh 

commercial fishing Certificates of Exemption, 122 illegal takings, 60 

illegal importations, and 16 miscellaneous violations. 

Regional Issues 

A major focus of Regional enforlcement efforts has been interactions 

between commercial fisheries and, marine manimals. Potentia.1 

interactions between commercial fishermen and Steller sea lions 

continued to be the most contentious marine rnammal problem in the 

Alaska Regon. Ten-mile buffer zones were established around some sea 

lion rookeries in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands d11rir1.g 199 1 in 

an attempt to control such interactions. 

In the Northwest Region, interactions between humans and rn~ariine 

mammals are increasing as the populations of marine man1m;;ds 

continue to grow primarily due 1.0 their protection under the N[MI3A. The 

taking by harassment of marine mammals such as gray and humpback 

whales remained the main focus of marine mammal enforcement 

activities in the Southwest Region. Other continuing problems include 

random shootings of marine mam~mals by fisht:rmen. 

Page 6'ir 
IX. Enforcement 

Enforcement actions in the Southeast Region addressed letlllal takes of 

marine mammals and non-lethal forms of taking such as the feeding of 

dolphins in the wild. 113 contrast, the majority of enfoircement actions in 

the Northeast Region fctc~used on the illegal importation of marine 

mammal parts or produclts. Most of tliese cases involved the casual 

importation of items by tourists. Nortl11east Region en-forcemient 

personnel conducted additional invesb~gations relating to unlawfi~l takes 

by harassment. 

Marine Mammal Interim Exem~ption Program 

Enforcement 

A major enforcement issue of concern involves compliance with 

exemption certificate and observer requirements under the Marine 

Mammal Exemption Program. While Ulese requirements affect 

thousands of fisherman, IVMFS has lac>ked adequate resources to enforce 

these provisions. 

The Regions have responded to this pr113blem by imp1ei:nenting a range of 

innovative and low cost approaches to enforcement. I:n the Northwest 

Region, enforcement officers compared state fish landing records against 

a list of certificate ho1de:rs to identify filshing vessels that had not 

obtained a Certificate of Exemption. Tlhis effort yielded the names of 656 

violators. The Office of E~lforcement continues to worlLr with the NOAA 

Office of General Counst2l to process these cases. As tlhe 1990 backlog is 

eliminated, NMFS will attempt to iden.lfy and prosecute those who 

fished in viola tion of the MMPA during 199 1. 

In July 199 1, nine Yakutat, Alaska set~iet operators were cited for failure 

to obtain or possess maline mammal Clertificates of E~r:emption. NMFS 

decided to focus enforcement resource; on this problem vvhen it was 

determined that the exemption progrann compliance rate for this fishery 

was less than 50 percent. NMFS issued a press anno1.1ncement to notify 

fisherman of impending enforcement actions. Althougih compliance 

improved somewhat after the press release, noncompliance uras still 

widespread. 

The Southwest Region identified several vessels in Categories I arxd I1 

fisheries that did not register/renew their Certificates of E;xemption for 

199 1. In response, enforcement perso~mel conducted (an extensive 

investigation to ascertain the status af the fishing vesslels and ve~ify their 

1991 commercial sales. Violators received penalties rangjig from1 written 

Page 68 
warnings to summary settlements up to $750. These investigations 

continue as enforcement officers have identifie~~j several other vessel 

owners that did not renew their certificates of exemption. 

NMFS enforcement officials have ;also addressed non-compliari~ce wi~h 

observer requirements. Three cases initiated t~y the Southwest Region in 

199 1 involved direct refusals by vessel owner/ operators to carry 

observers, resulting in penalties of $1,000 to $2,000 each. In one of 

these cases, the vessel owner/olperator declined to take an obsenrer on 

board solely because the observer was female. In addition to the fine, 

the vessel owner/operator also had to take a ft:male observer on board 

when requested by NMFS. 

In the Alaska Region, a salmon gillnet vessel operator was cited for 

failure to embark a marine marnnnal observer in July 1990. The 

operator was issued a Notice of Violation that i2ssessed a $5,000 penalty, 

a fine that is currently being appealed. 

Other Noteworthy Enforcement Casiies 

In Alaska, a factory trawl vessel was seized for fishing within one mile of 

a Steller sea lion rookery buffer zone. The vessel was seized and released 

on a $550,000 bond. 

In November 1990, the owner/cuperator of a salmon gillnet vessel was 

arraigned in U.S. District Cou~lt in Anchorage, Alaska for the iunlawful 

taking of a Steller sea lion in June 1990. A ju ry convicted him of 

intentionally shooting at a sea !lion and discharging a firearm within 100 

yards of a sea lion. A crew member aboard th11~ vessel was also found 

gtdlty of dischargmg a firearm within 100 yarc1.s of a sea lion. The vessel 

ovvner was sentenced to serve 30 days in a halfivay house, placed on 

probation for one year, and fined $1,000. The crew member was 

sentenced to serve 15 days in a1 h~alfivay house, placed on probation for 

six months, and fined $500. 

The owner/operator of an Alaska salmon purse seine vessel and one of 

his crew members were arraign~ed in U.S. District Court in Anchorage on 

charges of unlawfully taking a humpback whale by rifle fire irl~ July 

1988. Both defendants were fc)umd guilty in a March 199 1 jury frial and 

sentenced to two months in jail and supervised probation for one year. 

Witnesses testified that the crew member, acting under the d~rectiorl of 

the captain, shot a humpback whale four to five times at close range. 

Page 69 
IX. Enforcement 

In November 1990, the operator of a Seattle-based lon glirle vessel was 

arraigned in U.S. District Court in Anchorage on a charge of unlawfully 

taking killer whales by gunfire during 1987 and 1988. Tlhe individual 

pled guilty to one count-of shooting at a killer whale and was sentenced 

to 60 days in jail, one year of supervise:d probation, ariid 1120 hours of 

community senice. The defendant als~ received a $3,500 fine. 

Acting on a tip that a crewman had sh13t a California sea lion froim a 

fishing vessel docked in Astoria, Oregon, a NMFS special agent and an 

Oregon state police offic:er contacted the vessel owner~'operat.or, The 

officials informed the owner that he w,as subject to a !$25,000 fine 

because the vessel was used in the taking of a marine mammal. The 

owner identified the crewman, and, aft12r a brief discussion between the 

owner and the crewman, ithe crewman admitted his guilt. The Agent 

obtained the crewman's statement and seized his shotgun. This case is 

currently pending. 

NMFS enforcement agents in the Southeast Region investigated the 

killing of an Atlantic bottlenose dolphin in Titusville, Florida in 1!391. 

The dolphin, which was discovered near a major highway by a passing 

tourist, was killed by an arrow that pu~ctured its lung!,. Investigative 

efforts to find the guilty party continue. 

In November 1990, a shipment of 37,3139 pounds of seal meat originating 

in Africa, Chile and bound for Taiwan arrived at the port lof San 

Francisco aboard the M/V Sun Juan 1J.S. Customs agents seized the 

shipment upon anval, assessed a $2,~;00 fine against the shipper, and 

destroyed the seal meat. 'This case inv111lved the largest known arinount of 

seal product ever seized in the United States. 

In 1991, a man shot a recovering elephant seal at the IHumboldt Wildlife 

Care Center in California. Despite the man's claim that he shot the 

animal as an act of merlcy, the NOAA Olffice of General Counsel assessed 

a $1,500 penalty. 

At Cypress Point Beach, California, a designated Monterqy County 

Harbor Seal Sanctuary, reports claimecl that a Germarii shepherd dog 

mauled and killed a newborn seal pup in May 199 1. llthough the dog 

was alone during the incident, witnessts saw it return to a nearby beach 

home. Working with local officials, NMFS agents located the dog and its 

owner who was charged with violating ;i county ordina:nce and the 

MMPA. The NOAA Office of General Cc~unsel assessed a $2,000 fine 

against the owner. 

Page 70 
I):. Enforcement 

In .August 199 1, NMFS enforcement agents responded to an incident in 

which a yacht harassed a pod of feeding humpback whales off the coast 

of Monterey, California. After determining the illame of the vessel and its 

projected course, agents queried harbor masters along the coast and 

located the yacht. The case was presented to the NOAA Office of General 

Counsel which issued a Notice of Violation asstssing a $10,00(3 penalty. 

An individual was cited in December 1990 for running a swim-wilh-the 

dolphins program at Kealakekua Bay, Hawaii. Litigation in thie case is 

pending. The same individual uras cited again Ln October 199 I for 

violating the same provision of the MMPA. 

In July 199 1, an individual was convicted in th~e U.S. District (Court in 

Hawaii of unlawfirlly taking a marine mammal by rifle fire. Thie 

defendant, who had to forfeit the rifle, was sentenced to one year of 

probation and fined $1,000. The U.S. District Court upheld tl-]is 

collviction on appeal. An appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is 

expected. 

During the reporting period, NM[FS Special Agents conducted several 

investigations of gray whale harassment in Calfornia. The Aglent:s 

coi~ducted undercover investigations from comi~nercial whale watching 

vessels. To date, the investigation. has yielded one case for refierrd to the 

NCIAA General Counsel. 

Page 711 
X. Litigation .I 

At the end of 199 1, NMFS was inlvolved in eight MMPA-related :legal 

actions. Five of these cases were ongoing from the 1989 report and 

three were new. This chapter presents summaries of these acti.ons, 

deslcribing motions, rulings and other important; events. 

Ongoing Legal Actions 

O Federation of Japan SQlmorz kBheries Cooperative Associc~twn et al. 

v. BQIdndge (D.C. Cir. 1988): As reported in the 1989 Marine 

Mammal Protection Act Anxlu~al Report, thie plaintiffs in this case 

(commonly known as the "Kokechik" case) filed a motion fbr 

attorneys' fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act in the 

amount of $8 1,600.12 (the amount of $8 1,240.12 reported in the 

1989 Annual Report was rc:vised upward in a second amended 

motion filed by the plaintiffs on August 15, 1989). As of the end of 

1991, this motion for attonneys' fees was still pending before the 

court. 

O Earth Island Institute v. VeiriQj (N.D. Cal. 1988): This case, as 

reported in earlier Marine Ma~mmal Protection Act Annud Reports, 

challenged NOAA's implementation of the MMPA provisioirls that 

relate to tuna-dolphin intel-actions. In 1990 and 1991, the 

plaintiffs' efforts focused mainly on NOAA's procedures for making 

affirmative findings that foreign nations irllvolved in the yt:llowfin 

tuna purse seine fishery in the ETP meet U.S. dolphin mortality, 

observer coverage and reg~lla tory requirements. The plaintiffs also 

challenged NOAA's implementation of the MMPA's primary and 

secondary embargo provision~s. Exhibit 9 presents a chronoliogy of 

case-related events that oc:curred during 1990 and 199 1 . The 

case was still active at the end of 199 1. 

Page 73 
X. Litigation 

Exhibit 9 

Earth Island lns~titute v. Verity 

Chronology of 1990-1991 Decisions and Actions 

August 28, 1990: 

September 7, 1990: 

September 11, 1990: 

October 4, 1990: 

October 19, 1990: 

November 14, 1990: 

November 16, 1990: 

November 23, 1990: 

February 19, 1991: 

The U.S. District Court for the Northern Districit of {California clrdered the 

Secretaries of Commerce and Treasury to embargo yellowfin tuna and 

tun(a products from all countries fishing in the ETP until affirmative finding:: had been made that the countries met tho standards of lhe MMPA. 

Pursuant to the Court's order, tuna from Mexico, Venezuela, Vanuatu, 

Ecuador and Panama w,as embargoed. Affirmative findings were made 

for Mexico, Venezuela and Vanuatu, allowing 1he embargoes to be 

removed from those countries on the same day. 

The ernbargo against Ecuador was lifted after a finding was niade that 

Ecuador met the comparability standards of the MIblPA. 

The Court issued a temporary restraining order reinstating the ernbargo 

agednst Mexico because its kill rate for eastern spinner dolphiins had 

not been calculated with a full year's data as required by the MMPA. 

The temporary restraining order was converted to a preliminary 

injunction when the court narrowed the scope of the embargo to 

proihibit only yellowfin tuna caught with purse seine nets in the ETP. 

In response to the government's appeal of the August 28, 1990 

decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the Districlt Court's 

ordjer pending the outcome of the appeal, resulting in a lifting of the 

embargo from Mexico. 

NMFS published a regulation that allowed NOW to make affirmative 

findings for countries that make sets of purse seines on dolph~ins illegal 

andl require 100 percent observer coverage on theiir vessels. 

NO,M lifted the embargo against Panama after the Administration 

made an affirmative finding pursuant to the November 16, 1990, 

regulaltion. 

The! Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated its November 14, 1990 stay 

of the District Court order thereby imposing the embargo on Mexican 

tuna. 

Page 74 
X. Litigation 

Exhibit 9 (cont'd) 

Earth Island hstitute v. Verity 

Chronology of 1990nm1991 Decisions and Actions 

March 16, 1991: Pursuant to the November 16, 1990 regulation, NOAA made an 

affirmative finding for Ecuador that allowed the importation of 

Ecuadorian tuna into the United States during 1991. 

March 26, 1991: The District Court ordered another embargo to be imposed against 

Venezuela and Vanuatu because their 1990 fishing data showed that 

they did not meet the MMPA's requirement that their mortality rate be 

no more than 1.25 greater than the 1990 U.S. fleet rate. The Court's 

order was implemenled on April 7, 1991. This order did not affect 

Mexico because it was already ernbargoed. 

April 11, 1991: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's August 

28, 1990, and October 19, 1990, orders. As a result, the embargoes of 

Mexican, Venezuelan and Vanuatuan tuna remained in place. 

May 24, 1991 : The secondary ernbargoes required by §101(a)(2)(C) of the MMFIA to 

be imposed against i~nterrnediary nations were imposed against nations 

that import tuna from Mexico, including Japan, Panama, France, ltaly 

and Costa Rica. The products ernbargoed from these nations were the 

same as those ernbargoed from Mexico (i.e., yellowfin tuna or tuna 

products caught vvith purse seines in the ETP). 

June 25, 1991: Secondary embargoies were imposed against nations that import. tuna 

from Venezuela and Vanuatu, affecting France, ltaly and Colsta Rica. 

August 23, 199 1 : Mexico was autorna1,ically certified under the Pelly Amendment (for 

having been embargoed for six months) pursuant to §101(a)(2)(D) of 

the MMPA. No sanctions were imposed against Mexico due to iiJelly 

Amendment certification. 

September 26, 11991: Venezuela and Vanuatu were certified under the Pelly Amendmt?nt. No 

sanctions were imposed against any of these nations due tc~ Pellly 

Amendment certiiiicaSion. 

Nolvember 25, 1991 : The Mexican intermediary nations were certified under the Faelly 

Amendment. No sanctions were imposed against these intermediary 

nations due to Pt?lly Amendment certification. 

December 25, 1991: The Venezuelan and Vanuatuan interrnediary nations were certified 

under the Pelly P,mendment. No sanctions were imposed against these 

- intermediary nations due to Pelly Amendment certification. - --- 

Page 75 
X. Litigation 

0 Progressive Animal Weljibre Society, et aL v. Navy ('W.D. Wash. 

1989): This action challenged tlvee permits and a "concurrence 

letter" issued to the Navy by the Secretary of Com1:nerce pur,, want 

to 10 U.S.C. 87524 to authorize the deployment of bottlenose 

dolphins at Naval Submarine Base Bangor, Wa:;hington. 

After the court denied the governmenrt's motion to dismiss the complaint, 

the parties filed a joint stipulation with the court on IMajy 3, 1990. The 

Navy agreed not to take, collect, or deploy dolphins irx western 

Washington until an Environmental Impact Statemer~~t (EIS) or 

Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed, reviewed, and finalized. 

The Navy also agreed nol. to appeal the court's Novembei- 3, 1989 order 

denying the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiff's agreeti to move 

to dismiss all defendants' except the Navy and to not bring any other 

actions against the original defendants concerning the issues of this 

case. The parties also asked the court to stay the proceedings until the 

Navy completed its EIS; or EA. 

The court dismissed the Department of Commerce de:fendants and 

stayed the proceedings o.n June 11, 1!390. The Navy held a public 

meeting in Silverdale, Washington, on September 5, 1.990, to discuss the 

scope of the environme:nt.al documentation to be prepared as required by 

the joint stipulation. Iin ,January 199:1, the Navy announced that it was 

canceling its program 1.0 deploy dolphins at Naval Sul3marine Base 

Bangor due to budget I-eductions and reallocations of' funds withun the 

Nary. The Navy, however, pledged to (complete the en~vironmental 

doc:umentation as agreed. to in the joint stipulation. 

0 Animal Protection Institute v. Mosbacher and Shedd Aquari1.m. 

(D.D.C. 1989): This action, discilssed in detail j.n the 1989 Marine 

Mammal Protection Act Annual Report, was brought to challenge a 

permit issued to the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago to import two 

false killer whales firom Japan. 

Animal Protection Institute (API), Shecld, federal deferldaints and 

defendant American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums 

(AAZPA) filed cross motions for summary judgment 011 January 17, 

1990. On February 7, 1990, API filed a memorandun1 in opposition to 

the defendants' motions for summary f udgrnent, and the defendants Eed 

memoranda in opposition to API's motion for summary judgment the 

same day. On February :28, 1990, the federal defendants and Shedd 

filed memoranda in reply to API's opposition to defendants' motion:^ for 

summary judgment. On the same day, API filed a reply rnemorandum in 

Page 76 
X. Litigation 

sup.port of its motion for summary judgment. As of the end of 1991, 

these cross motions were still pending and no oral argument hald been 

scheduled by the Court. 

Progressive Animal Werme Society (PAWS) v. Department of 

Cornel-ce, et tzl. (W.D. Wash. 1989): As summarized in tlie 1989 

Marine Mammal Protection Act Annual Report, this action 

challenged a permit issued by NOAA to the Shedd Aquarium to 

import three beluga whales from Canada. The suit sought to 

invalidate the permit, force the return of two beluga whales that 

had already been imported, and block the importation of the third 

whale on the grounds that the issuance of the permit was a rnajor 

federal action for which no Environmental Assessment had been 

prepared. 

On January 4, 1990, the Court entered a pre-trial order setting filing 

deadlines and schetluling the trial for September 17, 1990. Federal 

defendants and Shedd both filed answers to PAWS'S complaint on 

February 2, 1990. On August 3 :L, 1990, the Court dismissed tlhe action 

with prejudice in light of an anticipated settlement being negotiated by 

the parties. On 0cl.ober 29, 1990, the parties entered into a se:ttle:ment 

agrieement wherein Shedd agreed not to capture or import the third 

beluga whale: autho'rized by its permit, but received the two whales 

already imported. The Court did1 n.ot address the merits of the legal 

issues. 

New Legal Actions 

O Cease, Inc. and RAUVBOW, a dolphin v. New England Aqumi~m 

et al. (I). Mass. 1990): In this action brought on September 10, 

1990, an aninnal rights group sought a temporary restraining order 

to prohibit the New England Aquarium (NEA) from transfeming a 

dolphin named "Rainbow" to the Navy. The transfer had been 

authornzed by NOAA at the request of NEA because Rainbow was 

socially inconipatible with other dolphins at NEA. Plaintiffs 

opposed the transfer because the parties lhad not obtained a formal 

MMPA permit for the transfer and because "Rainbow" would be 

transferred from a public display facility to a Naval research 

facility. On November 6, 1990, the case vvas settled with the 

parties agreeing that the dolphin would not be transferred to the 

Navy. The merits of the legal issues were not addressed by the 

Court. 

Page 7i' 
0 Kana et cd v. Neu) England Aquarium et aL (D. Mass 199 1): This 

action, which was brought in June 199 1 by the plaintiffs from the 

"Rainbow" case, challenged the 1987 transfer of a (captive-born 

male dolphin named "Kama" from the New Englland Aquari~u~n to 

the Navy. The plaintiffs raised MMPA, Administrative Procedures 

Act, and National Ehvironmental Policy Act challenges to (1) the 

use of letters of agreement to effect transfers of marine mammals 

between permit k~olders, (2) the use of letters of agreement to 

implement the beached and stranded marine mammal rescue and 

rehabilitation program, and (3) extending the valid time period of 

permits, compensating permit holders that voluntarily postponed 

the capture of dolphins from the Gulf of Mexico after a mass dieoff. A status confei-ence was held in December, 199 1, where the 

parties agreed to file cross motions for summary judgment by early 

Jani-~ary 1992. 

O Strong d/b/a The Llolphin Connextion v. Mosbacher (S. D. TI%. 

199 1): The plaintiffs filed a complaint on April 18, 199 1, 

challenging NOAA's regulation that defined feeding marine 

manlmals in the .wild as a prohibited take under the MMPfi. The 

plaixltiffs based tlieir challenge on the grounds That there was no 

concrete evidence that such activities harm maiine mammals and 

that NOAA's action was arbitrary and capricious. On April 1'9, 

199 1, the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining 

NOAA from enforeirlg the new rule against the plaintiffs' 

commercial feeding cruises. The Court, however, did not enjoin 

NOAA from enforcing the rule against other persons. The parties 

agreed that the issues could be disposed of by cross motioitls for 

summary judgment, and oral argument on the cross motialns was 

heard by the Court on December 19, 199 1. As (of the end of 199 1, 

the Court had not issued a ruling on the cross notions for 

summary judgment. 

Page 78 
XI. Publications 

Southwest Region 

Akin, P. A., R. B. Miller and Peltier. 1992. Techniques for the preparation 

and exalminatjon of reproducltive material collected from dolphin 

species in the eastern tropical Pacific. In Prep. 

Anonymous. 199 1. The First Annual Report on the Status of U.S. Living 

Marine Resources - Our Living Oceans. NOAA TM NMFS lF/SPO 1. 

Ballance, L. T. 1990. Residence patterns, group organization, and 

surfacil~g associations of bottlenose dolphins in Kino Bay, Gulf of 

California, Mexico. pp. 267-283 In: S. Leatherwood & R.R.. Reeves 

(Eds.) . 'The Bottlenose Dolphin. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Baslow, J. 1'39 1. A birth-interval model for estimating cetacean 

reproductive rates from re-sighting data. In- P. S. Hammond, S. A. 

Mizroch and (>. P. Donovan. (Eds.). Individual ecognition of 

Cetaceans: Use of Photo-Identification and Other Techniclues To 

Estimate Popillation Paramel~ers. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn Special 

Issue 12: 155- 160. 

Barlow, J. 1!39 1. Non-linear density dependence in experimental gcuppy 

populations. [In Press) Eco10,gy. 

Barlow, J. 1!39 1. The utility of demographic models in marine :mammal 

management. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 41 

Barlow, J., R. Bairtl, J. Heyning, K. Wynne, A. M. Manville, L. Lowry, D. 

Hanan, and <I[. Sease. 199 1. A review of cetacean mortality in 

coastal fisheries along the west coast of the U. S. and Canada and 

the east coast of the USSR. (In Press) Rep. Int. Whal. Comnn, 

Special Issue 14. 

Barlow, J. and P. Boveng. 199 1. Rdodelling age-specific mortality for 

marine mammal populations. Marine Mammal Science 7'(1):.84- 1 19. 

Page 7!9 
XI. Publications 

Barlow, J. and D. Hanan. 1990. An assessment of the status of harbor 

porpoise populatiolls in California. Document SC/42/SM 15 

presented to the Int. Whal. Commn. Scientific Committee, June 

1990. 

Bright, A. M. and S. J. Chivers. 1991. Post-natal growth rates: a! 

comparison of narthem and southern stocks of the offshore :spotted 

dolp~hin. NMFS SWFSC Administrative Report LJ-9 1-30. 

Cal.ambok:idis, J. and J. :Barlow. 199 1. Chlorinated hydrocarbon.s in 

harbor porpoise from Washington, Oregon, and California (and their 

use for describing population discreetness. NOAA Tech. Rept. 

98: 101-1 10. 

Calambokidis. J., G. H. Steiger, J. C. Cubbage, C. Euralcl, K. C. Iiruse, 

and R. Wells. 1990. Sightings and movements of blue whales off 

central California 1986- 1988 from photo-identification of 

individuals. In: P. S. Hammond, S. A. Mizroch and G. P. Donovan 

(Eds.). Individual recognition of cetaceans: use of photoidentification and other techniques to estimate population 

parameters. Int. Whale. Commn, Special Issue :12:343-348. 

Casisano, E. R., A. C. N[yick, Jr., C. B. Glick, R. C. Holland and C. E. 

Lennert. 1990. Tkie use of seal bombs on dolphin in the yellowfin 

tuna purse-seine fishery. SWFSC Admin. Rept. :LJ-90-09. CI 1 p. 

Chivers, S. J. and D. P.. DeMaster. 1991. Potential biological indices 

evaluated for four slpecies of eastern tropical Pacific dolphin. NMFS 

SWFSC Administrative Report W-9 1-29. 

Chivers, S. J., A. A Hohl and A C. Myrick. 1990. Population regulation 

in exploited eastern tropical Pacific pelagic dolphins: a rese:arch 

plan to study trends in population condition sirnult.aneous1.y with 

trencls in population abundance and carrying capacity. SWFSC 

Adrm~n. Rept. No. LJ-90-03 also submitted as a working document 

to th11~ IWC SC/42/SM 44. 

Chi~rers, S J., R. B. Millei-, and A. A. Hohn. 1990. Composition o~f the 

1988 incidental kill of six cetaceans in the US purse-seine lishing 

for tuna in the easte:m tropical Pacific. Rep. Int. Whal. Co~amn: 

401455-458. 

Page 80 
XI. Publication!j 

Chivers, S. J. and A C. Myrick, Jr. 199 1. Comparison of age at sexual 

maturity for two stocks of offshore spotted dolphins sub-jected to 

different rates of exploitation. NMFS SWFSC Administrative Report 

LJ-91-31. 

Coe, J. M. and C. W. Oliver. 199 1. An assessment of a federal regulation 

to curtail "sundown" sets involving marine mammals by the U.S. 

tuna purse-s'eine fleet. NMFS SWFSC Admin. Rept. No. LJ-9 1-20. 

DeMaster, I). P. 1990. Workshop to assess the effects of using sealcontroll devices to herd schools of dolphins in the eastenn tropical 

Pacific:. Held at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center con 29 

November 1989. SWFSC Admin Rept. No. LJ-90-0 1. 

DeMaster, I). P. arid S. B. Reilly. 1990. Monitoring the status of IETP 

dolphins. Rej~p. Int. Whal. Commn. 40: 127. 

Dizon, A.E., C. Lockyer, D.P. DeNIaster, W.F. Pemn, and J.E. Sisson. 

199 1. Rethinking the stoek concept: A phylogeographic approach. 

Conservation Biology 6:24-36. 

Dizon, A. E., W. F. Penin and F). Akin. 1991. Stocks of dolphiins in the 

(Stenella spp. and Delphir~us delphis) eastern tropical Pacific: a 

phylogeographic classification. NMFS SWFSC Adminsitrative 

Repont W-91-33. 

Dizon, A, E., P. E. Rosel, and J, E;. Heyning. 199 1. Molecular phylogeny 

of two forms of common dolphin. NMFS SWFSC Administrative 

Repont W-9 1 -32. 

Djzon, A, E., S. 0. Southern, W. I;. Perrin. 1991. Molecular analysis of 

mtDN,A types in exploited populations of spinner dolphins. In- A. R. 

Hoelzel and (2. P. Donovan (Eds.). Rep. Int. Whal. Comrrin Special 

Issue 13: 1831-202. 

Djzon, A. E., and <J. E. Rosenberg,. 1990. We don't care, professorEinste:in, the instructions to the authors specifically said d3ubl.espaced. In: Writing for fishery journals: pet peeves of editors and 

how to avoid them. J. R. Hunter (ed.), American Fisheries Society 

Symposium Proceedings. 65-74. 

Edwards, E. F. and D. P. DeMaster. 199 1. Workshop report: Survey 

design review panel: ETP Dolphin Monitoring Program. SWFSC 

Admirl Rept. No. W-9 1- 15. 

Page 81 
XI. Publicatio~ns 

Edwards, IE. F. and P. Kle:iber. 1990. Effects of non-randomness on line 

transect estimates of dolphin school abundance.. Fish. Bull.. 

87(4):859-876. 

Edwards, IE. F., P. M. Kleiber, and C. Glick. 1990. MOlPS in TOPS: 

Effects of trackline length, environment, and nom-random sch~ool 

distnibutions on line transect estimates of dolphin school 

abundance derived from research surveys. SWSC .Admin. :Rept W90- 14. 

Edwards, 13. F. and P. K. Kleiber. 199 1. CHARTOPS: simulating shortterm use of the tuna purse-seine fleet to survey dolphin schools in 

the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWC- 163. 

Edwards, 13. F. and P. F'erkins. 1991. Power to detect trends in dolphin 

abundance: estimates from tuna-vessel observer data 1 975- 1989. 

NMFS SWFSC Administrative Report W-9 1-34. 

Eliason, J. J., T. C. Joharios, and M. A. Webber. 1990. Parturition 

in the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schatrinslandi). Mar. 

Mamm. Sci. 6(2): 146- 151. 

Fiedler, P. C. 1990. Seasonal variability of eastern tropical Pacific: surface 

waters. EOS, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union 7 l(43): 140 1 (ahistract). 

Fiedler, P.C. and R. M. Laurs. 1990. Variability of the Columbia River 

plume observed in invisible and infrared satellite imagery. Int. 

Jounlal Remote Sensing, 1 1 (6):999- 10 10. 

Fiedler, P. C., L. J. Lierheiimer, S. H. Reilly, S. N. Sexton, R. S. Holt and 

D. P. DeMaster. 1990. Atlas of eastern tropical Pacific 

oceariographic varialbility and cetacean sightings, 1986- 1989. 

NONi Tech. Memo. INMFS-SWFC- 144. 142pp. 

Fiedler, P. C,, V. Philbrick, and F. P. Chavez. 199 1. Oceanic upwlelling 

and productivity in the eastern tropical Pacific. lmnology and 

Oceanography 36 (8) : 1834- 1850. 

Fiedler, P. C. and S. B. Re:illy. 1991. Interannual variability in dolphin 

habitats and abundances estimated from tuna vessel sightiings in 

the eastern tropical pacific, 1975- 1989. SWFSC Adrnin. Rep. No. 

W-9 1 -35. 

Page 82 
XI. Publications 

Forney, K., 13. A. Hanan, and J. Barlow. 1991. Detecting trendis in 

harbor porpoise abundance from aerial surveys using an,alysis of 

covariance. Fish. Bull. 89(3):367-377. 

Fomey, K., 14. J. Leete, and D. I,. ILindburg. 1991. A bar code scoring 

system for behavioral research. American Journal of Prirnatology, 

23: 127'-135. 

Gerrodette, 'T. 199 1. Models for power of detecting trends -- a rel:~ly to 

Link and Hatfield. Ecology. 72: 1889- 1892. 

Gerrodette, 'T. 199 1. Calibration of shipboard estimates of dolphin school 

size from aer~ial photographs;. NMFS SWFSC Administrative Report 

LJ-91-36. 

Gerrodette, 'T., B. I(. Choy, and L. M. Hiruki. 199 1. An experinnen~tal 

study of derelict gill-net fragments in the central Pacific Ocean. In: 

Proceedings of Second Interi~ational Conference on Marine ]Debris. 

NOAA Tech. IIMemo. NMFS-SWFSC- 1543 p. 600-6 14. 

Gerrodette, T., and D. P. DeMaster. 1990. Quantitative determination 

of optimum sustainable population level. Marine Mammal Science 

6:l-16. 

Gen-odette, T., P. C. Fiedler and 2;. B. Reilly. 199 1. Including habitat 

variability in line transect estimation of abundance and trends. 

NMFS SWFSllC Administrative Report LJ-9 1 -37. 

Gerrodette, T. and W. G. Gilmartin. 1990. Demographic conse:quc;nces of' 

changed pupping and hauling sites of the Hawaiian monk seal. 

Conservation Biology 4(4): 4213-430. 

Gilpatrick, .J. W. Jr., M. S. Lynn stnd R. L. Westlake. 199 1. Image 

interpretation and reader variability in dolphin school size 

estimates made from aerial photographs. Background document 

SOPS BD5 submitted to the 1991 Status of Porpoise Stolcks 

Workshop, NMFS SWFSC, L,a Jolla, CA 

Gilpatrick, J. W. Jr., M. S. Lynn, A. E. Dizon, R. L. Westlake and W. L. 

Perryrnan. 1990. Ship based aerial photography: A tool for 

assessing the population biology of dolphins in the eastern tropical 

Pacific: Ocean. Abstracts of the Fourth Biennial Conference of the 

American Cetacean Society. 9- 11 November 1990. Monterey, CA. 

Page 83 
XI. Publicatiorns 

Gilnnartin, W. G. 1990. Hawaiian monk seal work plan, fiscal years 

1991 -93. Southwest Fish. Cent. Honolulu Lab., NMFS, 

NOAl4, Honolulu, HI. Adrnin. Rept. H-90-14, 43 lpp. 

Hendersor~~, J. R. 1990. ]Recent entanglements of Hawaiian monk 

seals in marine deblis. In: R. S. Shomura and h1. LC. G0dfre.y 

(eds.:U, Proceedings od the Second International Conference on 

Marine Debris, April 2-7, 1989, Honolulu, HI. NOAA Tech. 

Memo. SWFSC- 154. 

Henderson~., J. R., and M. R. Fimegan. 1990. Population 

monitoring of the Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus 

scha~xinslandi, and captive maintenance project at Kure Atoll, 

1988. NOAA Tech. IVIemo. SWRSC- 150. 

Heyning, J. E. and W. F. Perrin. 1991. Re-examination of' two forms of 

comninon dolphins (genus Delphinus) from the eastern North Pacific; 

evidence for two species. NMFS SWFSC Administrative Repc~rt 

W-9 :I[-28. 

Hill, P. S., A. Jackson, and T. Gerrodette. 1990. Report of a mariirle 

mammal survey of the eastern tropical Pacific aboard the research 

vessel DAVID STARIi! JORDAN July 29-December 7, 1989. NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFC- 142. 

Hill, P. S., A Jackson, and T. Gerrodette. 1990. Report of a marine 

mam~mal survey of tlie eastern tropical Pacific aboard the research 

vessel McARTHUR July 29-December 7, 1989. NOMI Tech. 1:vlemo. 

NMFS-SWFC- 143. 

Hill, P. S., .A. Jackson, and T. Gerrodette. 1991. Report of a marine 

mamimal survey of the eastern tropical Pacific aboard the research 

vessel McARTHUR July 28-December 6, 1990. NOM Tech. ]!demo. 

NMFS-SWFSC- 159. 

Hill, P. S., :lR. C. Rasmusst:n, and T. Gerrodette. 1991. Report of ai marine 

mami:nal survey of the eastern tropical Pacific aboard the research 

vessel DAVlD STARR JORDAN July 28-December 6, 1990. NIOAATech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC- 158. 

Hob, A. A. 1990. Reading between the lines: an analysis of age 

estimation in dolphins. In: S. Leatherwood and R.eeves, R., (Eds.) . The Bottlenose Dolplnin. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 57'5-586. 

Page 84 
XI. Publications 

Hohn, A. A. ,and S. R. Benson. 1990. Bioacoustics of odontoce1;es in the 

ETP: Project tiescrip tion, preliminary results, and 

recomrnendations for future work. SWFSC Admin. Rep. LJ-90-23. 

Hohn, A. A., R. B. ]Miller, K.M. Pelltier and S.J. Chivers. 199 1. 

Composition (of the incidental kill of small cetaceans in the U.S. 

purse-seine fishery for tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific:: during 

1989. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 42. 

Holland R. C!. 199 1. A personal computer based system for 

analog-to-digital and serial communication data acquisitiion. NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC- 152. 

Holt, R. S. aid S. PI. Sexton. 1990. Monitoring trends in dolphin 

abundance in the eastern tropical Pacific using research vessels 

over a long sampling period: analyses of 1988 data. Rep. Int. Whal. 

Commn 40. 

Johanos, T. (C., B. I,. Becker, M. A. Brown, B. K. Choy, L. M. 

Hiruki, R. E. Brainard, R. L. Westlake. 1990. The Hawaiian 

monk seal on Laysan Island, 1988. NOAA Tech. Memo. 

sWFsc:- 15 1. 

Knlse, S. 19'9 1. Theodolite studies of killer whale/boat interacltiorls in 

Johnstlone Strait, British C!olumbia. In: K. Pryor and K. S. Norris 

(Eds.). School Structure and Social Behavior of Wild Delphinids: A 

Methodologi~tl Survey of Cuirrent Studies. UC Press. 

Knlse, S., S. Leatht:rwood, W. P. Prematunga, C. Mendes, and A. 

Gamage. 199 1. Records of Risso's dolphins Grampus grise~; in the 

Indian Ocean,, 189 1 - 1986. In: S. H. Ridgway (Ed.). Handbook of 

Marine Mammals, Volume 5: The Delphinids. Academic F'resis, 

London, San Il3iego. 

Lavigne, D., :S. Inni;s, G. Worthy, and E. F. Edwards. 1990. Lower critical 

temperiatures of blue whales, Balaenoptera musculus. J. Theor. 

Biology. 144:249-257. 

Lermert, C., S. Kruse, and M. Beeson. 1991. Preliminary report or1 

incidental marine mammal bycatch in California gillriet fisheries. 

Document SC/43/03 Rept. Iint. Whal. Commn. 

Page 85 
XI. P~ublicatiorrs 

Lierlheimer, L. J., P. C. Fiedler, S. B. Reilly, R. L. Pitman, L. T. Ballance, 

S. C. Beavers, and D. W. Behringer. 1990. Report of ecosystern 

studies conducted during the 1989 eastern tropical Pacific dolphin 

surve:y on the research vessel McARTHUR. NOAA TM-NMFS--SWC140: 11 23pp. 

Lierlneimer, L. J., P. C. Fiedler, S. B. Reilly, R. L. Pitman, L. T. Ballance, 

S. C. Beavers, G. G. Thomas and D. W. Behringer. 1.990. Report of 

ecosystem studies conducted during the 1989 eastern tropica:l 

Pacific dolphin survey on the research vessel DAVID STARR 

JORL)AN. NOAA TM-NMFS-SWC- 139: 1 18pp. 

Lowry, M. !3. and R. L. Folk. 1990. Sex determination of the California 

sea lilon (ZQlophus ccdijomianus calijomianus) from canine teeth. 

Maririe Mammal Science 6(1)::25-3 1. 

Lowy, M. !3., C. W. Oliver, C. Macky, and J. B. Wexler. 1990. Food 

habits of California sea lions Zalophus calijomianus at San 

Clemente Island, Cal.ifomia, 1981- 1986. Fish. Bull. 88(3):509-52 1. 

Lomy, M. S., B. S. Stewart, C. B. Heath, P. K. Yochem, and J. M. 

Francis. 1991. Seasonal and annual variability in the diet of 

Califcllrnia sea lions, Zalophus caliyomianus, at Szm Nicolas Island, 

Califcnmia, from 198 1 through 1986. Fish. Bull. 89(%):33 1-336. 

Majors, A. YIP., and A. C. Myrick, Jr. 1990. Effects of noise on animals: 

imp1ic:ations for do1p:hins exposed to seal bombs :in the eastern 

tropical Pacific purse:-seine fishery, an annotated bibliograplny. 

SWSC Admin. Rept. No. W-90-06. 

Myrick. A. (6. Jr. 1991. Soime new and potential uses of dental layers in 

studying delphinid populations. In: K. Pryor and K. Norris (Eds.). 

Dolpt~un Societies. U(3 Press, Berkeley. 

Myrick, A. (2. Jr., E. R. Ca:ssano, and C. W. Oliver. 19910. :Potentia.l for 

physical injury, otlleir than hearing damage, to dolphins frorn seal 

bombis used in the yellowfin tuna purse-seine fishery: results from 

open-water tests. SWTFSC Adrnin. Rept. No. LJ-90-07. 

Myricck, A. (3. Jr,. and L. H. Cornell. 1990. Calibrating dental layers in 

captive bottlenose dolphins from serial tetracycline labels arnd tooth 

extractions. In: S. Lei3thenvood and R. R. Reeves (Eds.), The 

Bottlenose Dolphin. Academic Press Inc., San Diego. 

Page 86 
XI. Publications 

Myick, A. C. Jr., M. Fink, and C. 13. Glick. 1990. Identification, 

chemislry, and behavior of seal bombs used to control dolphins in 

the yelllowfin tuna purse-seine fishery in the eastern tropj.ca1 

Pacific: potential hazards. SMTFSC Admin. Rept. No. LJ-90-08. 

Myick, A. C. Jr., J. Taylor, C. W. Oliver, E. R. Cassano, L. L. Robertson 

and A. P. Majors. 1990. Results of underwater tests of double-base 

smokeless-powder pipebornbs on targets to determine physical 

hazards to dolphins. NOAA NMFS SWFSC Admin. Rep. LJ-90-26. 

Oliver. C. W. 199 1. 1988- 199 1 field studies on pinnipeds at San 

Clemente Island. SWFSC Adrnin. Rept. No. LJ-91-27. 

Oliver, C. W. 1991. 1986- 1987 field studies on pinnipeds at San 

Clemen.te Island. SWFSC Adrnin. Rep. No. W-9 1-25. 

Oliver, C. W. 1991. Trip report for a marine mammal Aerial Survey ober 

the sou them California Bight. (April 13- 15, 1982). SWFSC: Admin. 

Rep. No. LJ-91-23. 

Oliver, C. W. 199 1. Documentatiori of the 1959- 1988 editing criteria for 

porpoise life-history data: porpoise data management system. 

SWFSC: Admin. Rept. No. LJ-9 1-07. 

Oliver, C. W. 1991. Tuna/porpoise data editing criteria for range, 

blanknless, an~d logical error statements: porpoise dala 

management system. SWFSC: Admin. Rept. No. W-9 1-06. 

Oliver, C. W. 199 1. Documentatiorl of the 1975- 1984 marine nlanlmal 

bridge llog record data: porpoise data management system. SWFSC 

Admin. Rept. No. LJ-91-04.. 

Oliver, C. W. and R. L. Butler. 1991. Documentation of the 19t30 data 

verification programs and common subroutines for fixed-format 

data: porpoise data management system. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS 

sWFsc: 157. 

Oliver, C. W. and E. F. Edwards. 1990. Effects of including in inor-tality 

estimates, dolphins categorized as either injured or of 

undetermined status. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC- 138. 5 1 p. 

Oliver, C. W. and J. B. Wexler. 199 1. 1985 field studies on pinnipeds at 

San Clemente Island. SWFSC Admin. Rep. No. W-9 1-24. 

Page 87 
XI. Publications 

Palka, D. 199 1. Accounting for school size using a bivariate haza~rd rate 

detection function in line transect surveys of dolphins from the 

eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. NMFS SWFSC Administrative Report 

LJ-9 I -38. 

Perrin, W. F., P. A. Akin and J. V. Kashiwada. 199 1. Cieographic 

variaikon in external morphology of the spinner dolphin, Stenella 

longu-ostris, in the eastern Pacific and implicatioi~s for 

consm-vation. Fishery Bulletin, USA, 89(3) : 4 1 1-428. 

Perrin, W. F. and J. W. Gilpatrick, Jr. 1991. Spinner dolphin, Stenella 

longu.ostris, In: R. Hi3nison and S. Ridgway (Eds.). Handbook of 

Maririe Mammals. (Iin Press). 

Perrin, W. F., G. D. Schnell, D. J. Hough, J. W. Gilpatrick and J. V. 

Kashmwada. 199 1. Re-examiniation of geographical cranial variation 

in thr: pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata, in the 

eastelm Pacific. NMFS SWFSC W-91-39. 

Perqyman, W. L. and M. S. Lynn. 1991. Length distribiutions of 

striped dolphins from aerial photographs: are stocks 

identifiable? NMFS SWFSC Administrative Report LJ-9 1-4 1. 

Per~yman, W. L., A. E. Di2:on and M. S. Lynn. 199 1. IdentSicatiorr. of 

comnion dolphin (Iklphinus delphis) stocks from aerial 

photc~lgraphs. NMFS SWFSC Administrative Repolrt IJ-9 1-40. 

Philbrick, T7. A., P. C. Fiedler, S. B. Reilly, R. L. Pitman, L. T. Ballarice, 

G. G. Thomas, and 1). W. Behringer. 199 1. Report of ecosys tern 

studies conducted diuring the 1990 eastern tropilcal Pacific ciolphin 

survey on the research vessel DAVID STARR JORDAN. NOAX Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-SWF'SC- 160. 

Philbrick, V. A., P. C. Fiedler, S. B. Reilly, R. L. Pitmart, L. T. Ballance, 

and 1). W. Behringer. 1991. Report of ecosystem studies corlducted 

during the 1990 eastern tropical Pacific dolphin survey on t.he 

resea~rch vessel McAIPTHUR. NOAA Tech. Memo. INMFS-SWF'SC161. 

Pitman, R. L. 199 1. Distribution and biology of sea tu~-tlaj in the eastern 

tropical Pacific. Pages 143- 148 in Proceedings of the 10th Annual 

Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservatio~n. NOAA TIM 

NMFS SEFC 278. 

Page 88 
XI. Publications 

Pitrnan, R. L. and L. T. Ballance. 1990. Daytime feeding by Leach's storm 

petrel osn a midwater fish in the eastern tropical Pacific. C:ontlor 

92:524--527. 

Reilly, S. B. l990. Seasonal changes in distribution and habitat 

differences aniong dolphins an the eastern tropical Pacific. Mar. 

Ecol. P1:og. Ser. 66(1-2): 1- 1 1. 

Reilly, S. B. 1991. We've got the blues in the eastern tropical P,acific. 

Whalewatcher 25(1):7-8. 

Reilly, S. B. and P. C. Fiedler. 1991. Interannual variability in dolphin 

habitats in the eastern tropical Pacific. 1986-1990. NMFS SWFSC 

Administrativle Report LJ-9 1-42. 

Reilly, S. B. and P. C. Fiedler. 1990. Interannual variability in ldolphin 

habitats in the eastern tropical Pacific, 1986- 1989. SWFSC Admin. 

Rep. No. W-90-29. 

Reilly, S. B. and V. G. Thayer. 19910. Blue whale (Bdaenoptera m~sculus) 

distribution in the eastern tropical Pacific. Marine Mammal Science 

6(4):265-277. 

Salivado, C. A. M., ID. Kleiber, and ,A. E. Dizon. 1991. Optimal course by 

dolphins for detection avoidance. (Submitted to Fish. Bul.l., USA). 

Sexton, S. N., R. S. Holt, and D. P. DeMaster. 1991. Investigating 

parameters alffecting relative estimates in dolphin abundance in the 

eastern tropical Pacific from research vessel surveys in 1986, 1987, 

and 1988. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 41. 

Scott M. S. and W. L. Perryrnan. 199 1. Using aerial 

photog7ammt:try to study dolphin school structure. In: 

Dolphin Societies: Disc0uerie.s and Puzzles. (eds .) Pryor, I<. 

and Norris, K.S. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 

226-24 1. 

Staff SWFSC. 1991. Status of Pacific Oceanic Living Marine Resources of' 

Interest to the USA for 199 1. NOAA TM NMFS SWFSC 165. 

Voimend, I. 199 1. Report of a census of California sea lions, Zcxlophus 

califonnianus, on Guadalupe Island and adjacent islets. SWIFSC 

Admin. Rept. No. W-9 1-1 7. 

Page 89 
XI. Publicatilons 

Wade, P. R. 199 1. Estimation of historical population size of eastern 

spirmer dolphins. NMFS SWFSC Admin. Rep. LJ-9 1 - 12. 

Wade, P. R. and T. Gerrodette. 199 1. Monitoring trertds in dolphin 

abundance in the eastern tropical Pacific: analysis of five years of 

data. Reports of the International Whaling Comlmission 

SC/43/SM 13. 

Westlake, R. L. and W. C;. Gilmartin. 1990. Hawaiian rlnonk seal 

pupping locations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Pacific 

Science 44(4) : 366-383. 

Wiinchell, J. M. 1990. Field manual for phocid necropslies 

(specifically Montxclzus schauinslandi). NOAA Tech. Memo. 

SWE'C- 146. 

Sout heiast Fishery Science Center 

Anlon. 1919 1. U.S. Western North Atlantic cetacean aerial surve:y design, 

August - October 1199 1. SEFSC Contribution MIA-.90/9 1-'76. 

24 pp. 

Anon. 199 1. Southeast cetacean aerial survey design. SEFSC 

Contribution MIA-911 /92-23. 22 pp. 

Blaylock, R. A. 1 99 1. Relationship between bottlenose dolphin,, Iltuswps 

truncatus, strandin,g and environment in Texas coastal wa.l:ers. 

SEFSC ~ontributio:~ MIA-90/91-36. 14 pp. 

Hansen, I,. H. 1990. California coastal bottlenose dolphins. In: S. 

Leatherwood and R. R. Reeves (eds.), The bottlenose dolphiin, p. 

403-420. 

Hansen, 1,. J. and R. H. Defran. 1990. A comparison of photoidentification studies of California coastal bott1e:nose dolphins. 

Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. (Special Issue 12): 101 - 104. 

Mullin, K., W. Hoggard, C. Roden, R. Lohoefener, C. Rogers, ancl B. 

Taggart. 1991. Ceitaceans on the upper continental slope in the 

north-central Gulf of Mexico. OCS Study/MMS 9 1-0027. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Mgmt. Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Regional Office, New Orleans, La. 108 pp. 

Page 90 
XI. Publications 

MuU.in, K. D., R. R. Iahoefener, W. Hoggard, C. L. Roden, and C. M. 

Rogers. 1990. Abundance of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops 

truncatus, in coastal Gulf of h4exico. Northeast Gulf Science 1 l(2): 

113-122,. 

Sc0t.t. G. P. 1990. Management-oriented research on bottlenose 

dolphins by the Southeast Fisheries Center. In: S. Leatheirwood 

and R. R. Reeves (eds.), The b~ottlenose dolphin, p. 623-6410. 

Scol.t, G. P. 199 1. led.) Proximity of marine mammals and turtles to 

spilled oil. SEFSC Contribution MIA-90/91-73. 36 pp. 

Wells, R. S., L. J. Hzmsen, A. Baldriidge, T. P. DON, D. L. Kelly, imd R. H. 

Defran. 1990. Northward extension of the range of bottlenose 

 dolphin:^ along the California coast. In: S. Leatherwood and 13. R. 

Reeves (reds.), The bottlenose dolphin., p. 42 1-434. 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory 

Antonelis, G. A, C. W. Fowler, E. Sinclair, and A. E. York. 1990. 

Population ass,essment, Pribilof Islands, Alaska, p. 8-2 1. In: 

Kajimura, H. ((editor), Fur Seal Investigations, 1989. NOAA 

Technical Menlorandum, NMFS F/NWC- 190. 

Au, W.. W. L. and L. Jones. 1991 .. Acoustic reflectivity of nets: 

implications concerning incidental take of dolphins. Marine 

Mammal Science 7(3):258-2 73. 

Baba, N., M. Kiyota K. Yoshida, T. R. Loughlin, and G. A. Antonelis. 

199 1. Satellite tracking of northern fur seal, Callorhinus ursinus, 

p. 103.- 108. Ii-r: Uchida, A and C. J. Arnlaner (editors), 

BIOTELEMETRY XI, Proceedings of the Eleventh Internati on; il 

Symposium on Biotelemetry. 

Baker, J. D. ,and C. W. Fowler. 19!90. Tooth weights ofjuvenile male 

northern fur seals, CaLlorhintls ursinus. Marine Mammal Science 

6(1):32--47. 

Balrer, J. 1 9 9 1. 'Trends in northern fur seal, Callorhinus ursinus, 

feeding cycles indicated by nursing lines in juvenile male teeth. 

Master of Science Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 

Page 91 
XI. Publications 

Barlow, J. and P. Boveng. 199 1. Modeling age-specific morta1il.y for 

marine mammal populations. Marine Mammal Science 7(1): 50-65. 

Bengtson, J. L. 1990. Seal Island logistics and operations durjng 

19&9/90, p. 55-57. In: AMLR 1989/90 field season reporlt: 

objc:ctives, acconlplishments and tentative conc~lusions. NIOtLA 

NMlFS SWFC Administrative Report LJ-90- 1 1. 

Bengtson, J. L. and P. Boveng. 1990. Crabeater seal research inpack 

ice iueas near the Antarctic Peninsula, p. 80-82. 1r-c AMLlti 

1989/90 field season report: objectives, accomplishments and 

tentative conclusions. NOAA NMFS SWC Adniinistrative Report 

W-90- 1 1. 

Bengtson, J. L., Boveng, P. and Hewitt, R. 1990. Fur seal and penguin 

foraging areas near Seal Island. US Department of Comm~erce, 

NOtlA, Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report 

LJ-$30- 1 1 : 75-79. 

Bengtson, J. L., Ferm, L. M., Hark~nen, T. J. and Stewart, B. S. 1990. 

Abundance of Antarctic fur seals in the South Shetland Islands, 

Anti~rctica, during the 1986/87 austral summer, GD. 265-2'70. In 

Keny, K. and Hempel, G. (editors), Antarctic ecosystems, 

Wiirzburg, Germany, Springer-Verlag. 

Beingtson, J. L. 1991. Seal Island logistics and operations duriing 

1990/9 1, p. 4-6. PMLR 1990/9 1 Field Season Report. NCIAA 

NMIB SWFC Administrative Report LJ-9 1 - 18. 

Beilgtson, J. L., P. Bover~g, T. Ichii, A. Mujica, J. K. Jansen, and J. 

Alvarado, 199 1. Fur seal and penguin foraging areas near Seal 

Island during 1990/9 1, p. 20-23. AMLR 1990/9 1 Field Season 

Report. NOAA NM17S SWFC Administrative Report LJ-9 1 - 18. 

Bei~gtson.,, J.L., P. Boveng, U. Franzen, P. Have, M. P. Heide-J61:'gensen 

and T. J. Harkonen. 199 1. Antibodies to canine distemper virus 

in antarctic seals. Marine Mammal Science 7(1):85-87. 

Boekelheide, R. J., D. G. Ainley, H. R. Huber and T. J. Lewis. 1!390. 

Pelagic cormorant. and double-crested corrnorarit, p. 195-2: 18. In: 

Ainley, D. G. and R. J. Boekelheide (editors), Seabirds of the 

Faraillon Islands. Palo Alto, CA, Stanford University Press. 

Page 92 
XI. Pub~lications 

Boe'kelheide, R. J., I). G. AinIey, S. H. Morrell, H. R. Huber and T. J. 

Lewis. 1990. Common murre, p. 245-275. In: Ainley, D. G. and 

R. J. Boekelheide (editors), Seabirds of the Farallon Islands. Palo 

Alto, CA,, Stanford University Press. 

Boveng, P., N. Goebel and J. L. Berigtson. 1990. Pinniped research at 

Seal Island, p. 58-62. In: AMLR 1989/90 field season report: 

objecti~nes, accomplishments and tentative conclusions. NOAA 

NMFS SIWFC Pdministrative Report W-90- 1 1. 

Boveng, P., M. E. Goebel, and J. L. Bengtson. 1991. Pinniped research 

at Seal Island during 1990/91, p. 7- 10. AMLR 1990/91 Field 

Season Report. NOAA NMFS SWFC Administrative Report 

LJ-91-18. 

Braham, H. FV. 1990. Scientific inlvestigations of the National ]Max-ine 

Mammal Laboratory, 1988. Polar Record 26(157): 1 19- 12 1. 

Braham, H. W. 1990. Scientific investigations of the National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory, 1989. Polar Record 26(159): 3 19-322. 

Braham, H. IN. 199 1. Marine mammal resources off Alaska. In: Status 

of Living Marine Resources off Alaska, as assessed in 199 1, p. 77- 

95. NOIAA Technical Memoraindum NMFS-F/NWC-2 1 1. 

Bra.ham, H. TN. and J. Barlow. 1 99 1. Marine mammal resources (off 

Washin.gton, Oregon, and California. In. Status of Living Marine 

~esourcces off the Pacific Coast of the United States as assessed in 

199 1, p. 54-60. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/lNWC-2 10. 

Breiwick, J. and H. Braham. 1990. Historical population esti1nat.e~ of 

bowhead whales: sensitivity to current population size. Report of 

the International Whaling Commission 40:423-426. 

Briggs, L. 1990. D~istribution of adult territorial males and pups born 

on St. liaul arid St. George Islands, p. 66-84. In: H. Kajirnura 

(editor), Fur seal investigations, 1987 and 1988. NOAA Technical 

Memorandurr~ NMFS F/NWC:- 180. 

Burke, R. A., D. Withrow, J. Alcala-Henera and J. M. Brooks. 1990. 

Carbon isotope ratio variations in bowhead whale baleen plates. 

EOS 7 1(2):92. 

Page 93 
XI. Publications 

Costa, D., G. Antonelis and R. DeLong. 199 1. Effects of El Niiio on 

foraging energetics of California sea lion, p. 156- 165. In- 'killmich, 

F. and K. on; (editors), Pinnipeds and the 1982-83 El Niijlo in the 

North Pacific. Berkeley, CA, University of Ca1ifom:ia Press. 

Croll, D. .A. 1990. Physical and biological determina~nk; of the 

abundance, distribution, and diet of the common imurre il-1 

Monterey Bay, California. In- Spencer G. Sealy (editor), Studies in 

avian biology No. 4, p. 139- 148. Allen Press, Lawrence, KS. 

CI-011, D. A, S. Osmek and J. L. Bengtson. 1990. Seabird research at 

Seal Island, p. 62-71. In AMLR 1989/90 field season repc~lrt: 

obje:ctives, accompllishments and tentative conclusions. NOW 

NMFS SWFC Administrative Report W-90- 1 1. 

CI-011, D. 14., S. D. Osmek, and J. L. Bengtson. 1990. Seabird research 

at Seal Island. US Department of Commerce, MOAA, Soutlhwest 

Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report LJ -90- 1 1 :62- 7 1. 

Croll, D. A., J. K. Jansern, and J. L. Bengtson. 1991. Seabird research 

at Seal Island, Antarctica, during 1990/9 1, p. 1 1 - :L9. AMI.,R 

1990/9 1 Field Season Report. NOAA NMFS SW7FC: Administrative 

Report W-9 1 - 18. 

Croll, D. A., S. D. Osmek:, and J. L. Bengtson. 1991. Awl effect c)f 

instrument attachment on foragmg trip duration irk chinstrap 

penguins. The Condor 93:777-779. 

Ddxlheim, M. E. 1990. North Atlantic Killer Whales. By J. 

Sigu jonsson and S. Leatherwood (editors), Rit 1"iskideildar. 

Joul-nal of the Marine Research Institute, Reykjavik. Volurrle XI, 

3 16 pp. 1988. [book review] Marine Mammal Science 6(2]1: 161- 

163. 

Dalllheim, M. E. and J. Heyning. 199 1. The killer wlhale. In: Ridgway, 

S. and R. Hamson (editors), Handbook of marine mammalrs. New 

York., NY, Academic Press. (in press) 

Dahlheim., M. E. and D. I<. Ljungblad. 1991. Preliminary hearing study 

on gray whales Escirvichtius robustus in the field. In- Jeanette A. 

Tho~nas and Ronald A. Kastelein (editors), Sensory abilities of 

cetaceans, p. 335-346. Plenum Press. New York. 710 p. 

Page 94 
XI. Publications 

DeLong, R. L,. 1990. Population and behavioral studies, San Miguel 

Island, California, 1987 and 11988 (Adams Cove and Castle Rock), 

p. 64-65. In: Kajimura, H. (editor), Fur seal investigations, 1'987 

and 1 988. NOAA Technical Rdemorandum NMFS F/NWC.- 1 80. 

DeL~ng, R. I,, and C;. Antonelis. 1991. Impacts of the 1982-83 El Nino 

on the northern fur seal population on San Miguel Island, p. 75-83. 

In: Trillrnich, F. and K. Ono (editors), Pinnipeds and the 1982-83 El 

Nifio iri the North Pacific. Berkeley, CA, University of California 

Press. 

DeI~ng, R. L. and E3. S. Stewart. 1.99 1. Diving patterns of northern 

elephant bulls. Marine Mammal Science 7(4):369-384. 

Del~ng, R. L., G. Antonelis, C. Oliver, B. Stewart, M. Lowry and P. 

Yochern. 199 1. Effects of the 1982-83 El Niiio on several 

population parameters and d,iet of California sea lions on thc: 

California Channel Islands, p. 166- 172. In: Trillmich, F. and K. 

Ono (editors), Pinnipeds and the 1982-83 El Niiio in the North 

Pacific. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press. 

Fay, F. H., J. L. Sease and R. L. Menick. 1990. Predation on a finged 

seal, P1kca hispida, and a black guillemot, Cepphus grylle, 1:)y a 

Pacific walrus, Odobenus r-0s;rnaru.s. Marine Mammal Science 

6(4):348-350. 

Feldkamp, Sl., G. Antonelis, and R. DeLong. 1991. Effect of El Nifio 

1983 on the fbraging patterns of California sea lion (Zalophuls 

califor-rlianus) at San Miguel Island, California, p. 146- 155. In: 

Trillmich, F. and K. Ono (editors), Pinnipeds and the 1982-83 El 

Niiio in the North Pacific. Berkeley, CA, University of California 

Press. 

Fowler, C. V7. 19910. Density dependence in northern fur seals 

(Callorhinus lusinus]. Marine Mammal Science 6(3): 1 7 1 -. 1 95. 

Fowler, C. V?. and 'T. Ragen. 1990. Entanglement Studies, juvenile male: 

roundiups, St.. Paul Island, Alaska, p. 43-54. In: Kajimura, H. 

(editor), Fur Seal Investigations, 1989. NOAA Technical 

Memorandurn, NMFS F/NWC- 190. 

Page 915 
XI. Publications 

Fovvler, C. W., R. Menick and N. Baba. 1990. Entanglement studies, 

St. Paul Island, 1988 juvenile male roundups, p. 8.5-89. In: 

Kajimura, H. (editoir), Fur seal investigations, 1987 and 19188. 

NOW Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC- 180., 

Fovvler, C. W., R. Merrick: and J. D. Baker. 1990. Studies of the 

population level effects of entanglement on northern fur se:als. In: 

R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godkey (editors), Proc.eedlings of the 

Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, 

p. 453-474. NOAA Technical Memorandum NM:FS SWFSC: 154. 

Fowler, C. W. and Baba, N. 1991. Entanglement studies, St. Paul 

Island, 1990 juvenile male northern f'ur seals. l>rooessed Report 

91-011, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, NOAA, 7600 Sand 

Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98 1 15. 63 p. 

Fowler, C. W. and J. D. Baker. 1991. A review of anima.1 population 

dynamics at extremely reduced population levels, 1:'. 545-5!54. 

Report of the International Whaling Commission 4 11. 

Fowler, C. W. and D. DeMaster (editors). 1991. Priorities for assessing 

marine mammals iricidentally taken in commercial fisheries of the 

United States. Proc:essed Report 9 1 - 19. Northv~resl: and Aliaska 

Fisheries Science Centers, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

NOAA, Seattle, WA. 62 p. 

Fowler, C. W. and T. Ragen. 1991. Entanglement studies, St. Paul 

Island, 1989 juverli1.e male roundups. Processed re:port 90-06, 

Nortlhwest and Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, NCMA, 

7600 Seattle, WA 981 15, 39 p. 

Gentry, R. L. and C. A. G'oebel-Diaz. 1990. Behavior and biollogy of 

northern fur seals, IPribilof Islands, Alaska, 1987 and 19881, p. 56- 

63. In: Kajimura, H. (editor), Fur seal investigations, 1987 and 

1 988. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/r\TWC- 180. 

Gentry, R. L., E. C. Gentry and J. F. Gilman. 1990. :Responses of 

northern fur seals to quarrying operations. Marine Mammal 

Science 6(2): 15 1 - 155. 

Gentry, R. L. 1991. El Nllrio effects on adult northern fur seals at the 

Pribilof Islands, p. 84-93. In: Trillmich, F. and K. Ono (edilt:ors), 

Pinmipeds and the 1982-83 El Niiio in the North Pacific. Berkeley, 

CA, Univ. California Press. 

Page 96 
XI. P~~blications 

Goebel, M. E;., J. L. Bengtson, R. I,. DeLong, R. L. Gentry and 'I?. F1. 

Lough.lin. 19!9 1. Diving patl-ems and foraging locationsof fe:male 

northem fur seals. Fish. Bull. 89(92): 171 - 179. 

Hammond, P. S., S. A. Mizroch and G. P. Donovan (editors). 1990. 

Individual rec:ognition of ceeiceans: Use of photo- identiffica.tion 

and otlher tec'hniques to estimate population parameters.. 

Cambridge, International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 12). 

Hammond, P. S., S. A. Mizroch an.d G. P. Donovan (editors). 1990. Use 

of natural marks to assess cetacean populations. Ca.mbridge, U.K., 

International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 12), 600 p. 

Hempel, G., J. L. Bengtson, R. Homer, G. Hubold, and D. W. 1-1. Walton. 

1990. Antarctic ecosystems: change and conservation. P. 407- 

4 14. In: Antarctic Ecosysterns, Ecological Change and 

Conservation, K. Kerry and (3. Hempel (eds.). Springer-VerLag: 

Berlin. 

H~tber, H. R. 1991. Changes in the distribution of California sea lions 

north of the breeding rookeries during the 1982-83 El Nliiio, p. 129- 

137. In: Trillrnich, F. and K. Ono (editors), Pinnipeds and the 

1982-83 El NiAo in the Nortlh Pacific. Berkeley. CA, University of 

California Press. 

Huber, H. R., C. Beckam and J. S. Nisbet. 1991. Effects of the 1982-83 

El Nirilo on elephant seals at the South Farallon Islands, Ca'lifornia, 

p. 219-233. In: Trillmich, F.. and K. Ono (editors), Pinnipeds and 

the 1982-83 El Nino in the North Pacific. Berkeley, CA, University 

of California Press. 

Huber, H. R., A. C. Rovetta, L. A. Fay and S. Johnston. 199 1. Agespecific natality of northern elephant seals at the South Fardlon 

Islandrs, Califbmia. J. Mamimal. 72(3):525-534. 

Katjirnura, 13. (editor). 1990. Fur seal investigations, 1987 and 1'988. U. 

S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/lWC180, 148 p. 

Kajirnura, H. (editor). 1990. Fur seal investigations, 1989. U. S. Dep. 

Comrn~er., NClAA Technical Ivlemorandum NMFSF/NWC- 190, 99 p . 

Page 97 
XI. P'ublicatio~ns 

Kajj.mura, H., A. E. York, G. A. Antonelis and C. W. Fowler. 1990. 

Population assessment, Pribilof Islands, Alaska, p. '9- 15. 1r-c 

Kajinnura, H. (editor), Fur seal investigations, 19187 and 19138. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC- 180. 

Loughlin, 'I'. R. 1990. Growth of the Bogoslof Island northern fur seal 

colony, p. 53-55. In: Kajimura, H. (editor), Fur seal investiir;ations, 

1987 and 1988. N0.A.A Technical Memorandum NMFS F/WC- 180. 

Loughlin, 'I'. R., A. S. Perlov and V. A. Vladimirov. 19!30. Survey of 

northern sea lions (iEurnetopias jubatus) in the Gulf of Alaslca and 

Aleutian Islands during June 1989. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS F/NWC- 176, 26 p. 

Lowry, L. 1'. and T. R. Loughlin. 1990. New conservation efforts begin 

for Alaska's Steller sea lions. Alaska's Wildl. 221:4):63-9, 45. 

Merrick, R. L., M. K. Maminov, J. D. Baker and A. G. Malkhnyr. 1990. 

Results of U.S.-U.S.S.R. joint marine mammal rt:sexch cruise in 

the Kuril and Aleuti,an Islands 6 June-24 July 1989. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC- 177, 63 p. 

Merrick, R. L., Ferm, L. M[., Everitt, R. D., Ream, R. R, arl,d Lessard, L. A 

199 1. Aerial and shup-based surveys of northern sea lions 

(Eumetopias jubatus) in the Gulf of Alaska and AJeutian Isla~nds 

during June and July 1990. U.S. Department of Commera:, NOAA 

Technical Memorandum, NMFS F/NWC 196, 34 p. 

Miller, E. Jr. 1990. Photo-identification techniques applied to Dall's 

porpoise (Phocoenouks dallg in Puget Sound, Washington, p. 429- 

437. In: P. Hammond, S. Mizroch and G. Donovan (editors), Use of 

natural marks to assess cetacean populations. Cambridge, U.K., 

International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 12). 

Miller, R. hr. 1990. The Bering Sea connection: The TJS/USSR Marine 

Mammal Project. Alaska's Wildlife 22(5): 7- 10. 

Mizroch, S. A and M. A Bigg. 1990. Shooting whales (photographically) 

from small boats: An introductory guide. In: Philip S. Ham:mond, 

Sally A. Mizroch, and Gregory 0. Donovan (editors), Individ~lal 

recognition of cetace:ans: Use of photo-identification and other 

techniques to estimate population parameters. Special Issue 12, 

International Whaling Commission Annex K, p. 39-40. Cannbridge, 

United Kingdom. 441.0 p. 

Page 98 
>(I. Publications 

Mjzroch, S. A, J. A. Beard and M. Lynde. 1990. Computer assisted 

photo-.identification of humpback whales, p. 63-70. In: I?. 

Hamrnond, S. Mizroch and (3. Donovan (editors), Use of natural 

marks to assess cetacean populations. Cambridge, U. K., 

International Whaling Cornnnission (Special Issue 12). 

Perez, M. A. 1990. Review of marine mammal population and prey 

inforrrlation for Bering Sea e:cosystem studies. NOAA Technical 

Memorandurn NMFS F/NW(3- 186, 81 p. 

Pe:rez, M. A, W. B. McAlister and E. E. Mooney. 1990. Estimatecl feeding 

rate relationship for marine mammals based on captive anirrnal 

data. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC- 184, 30 p. 

Perez, M. A. and T. R. Loughlin. 1991. Incidental catch of marine 

mamnnals by foreign and joint venture trawl vessels in the 

U.S. E;EZ of the North Pacific, 1973-88. NOAA Technical Report 

104, 57 p. 

Ponganis, P. J., Panganis, E. P., F'onganis, K. V., Kooyman, G.. L., 

Gentq, R. L. and Trillmich, F. 1990. Swimming velocities in 

otariicls. Can. J. 2001. 68:2:105-2 1 12. 

Rice, D. W. 1990. The scientific name of the pilot whale--a rejoinder to 

Schevill. Mar. Mammal Sci. 6(4):359-360. 

Rice, D. and A. Wolman. 1990, The stomach of Kogia breviceps. 

Joumal of Mammalogy 71 (2):237-242. 

Rugh, D. J. 1990. Bowhead whales reidentified through aerial 

photography near Point Barrow, Alaska, p. 289-294. In: 

Hamrnond, 1'. S., Mizroch, S. A and Donovan, G. P. (editors). 

1990. Individual recognition of cetaceans: use of photoidenti.ficatior1 and other techniques to estimate population 

parameters. Cambridge, Initernational Whaling Cornmissioi~ 

(Special Issue 12). 

Rilgh, D. J., R. Ferrero and M. Dahlheim. 1990. Interobserver count 

discrepancies in a shore-based census of gray whales. lMarine 

Mamnml Science 6(2): 109- 120. 

Stewart. B. S. and R. L. DeLong. 1991. Diving patterns of nortliern 

elephant seal bulls. Marine Mammal Science 7(4): 369-384. 

Page !)9 
XI. P~ublication~s 

Testa, J. W., G. Oehlert, 1). G. Ainley, J. L. Bengtson, D. 1B. Siniff, K. Ma 

Laws and D. Rounsevell. 199 1. Temporal variability in Anitarctic 

marine ecosystems: periodic fluctuations in the Phocid seaks. Can. 

J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48(4):631-639. 

Trillmich, I?., K. A Ono Dl. P. Costa, R. L. DeLong, S. D. I;eldkam~p, J. M. 

Francis, R. L. Gentry, C. B. Heath, B. J. LeBoeuf: P. Majluf and A. 

E. York. 1991. The effect of El Nhio on pinniped populatio~is in 

the eastern Pacific, p. 247-270. In: Trillmich, F. ant1 L. Ono 

(editors), Pinnipeds and the 1982-83 El Niiio in the North Pacific. 

Berkeley, CA, University of California Press. 

Williams, 7'. M., G. L. Koo-man and D. A. Croll. 1991. The effecl: of 

submergence on heart rate and oxygen consumptio~l of swii:nming 

seals and sea lions. J. Comp. Physiol. B 169(6):637-644. 

York:, A E. 1990. Trends in numbers of pups born on St.. Paul and St. 

George Islands 1973-88, p. 31-37. In: Kajimura, H. (editor),, Fur 

seal imnvestigations, 1987 and 1988. NOAA Technical Memolrandum 

NMFS F/NWC- 180. 

York:, A. E. and G. A. Antonelis. 1990. Northern fur seal pups born on 

St. Pa~ul Island 1987-88, p. 16-30. Irx Kajimura, H.. editor)^, Fur 

seal imnvestigations, 1 987 and 1988. NOAA Technicad Memoirandum 

NMFS F/NWC- 180. 

York:, A. E. and G. A Antonelis. 1990. Pup weights and sex-ratios, 

1987-88, p. 38-52. In: Kajimura, H. (editor), Fur seal 

investigations, 1987 and 1988. NOAA Technical Memorand.um 

NMFS F/NWC- 180.. 

York., A. E. 199 1. Sea surface temperature and su~~ral of juvenile male 

fur seals from the Yribilof Islands, p. 94-108. In: Triilmich, F. and 

K. 0m.o (editors), Pixulipeds and the 1982-83 El Nifio in the North 

Pacificc. Berkeley,CA, University of California Press. 

Zeh, J. E., A E. Radftery, Q. Yang, D. E. Withrow, J. M. Ekeiwick, H. W. 

Braham, T. F. Albert, J. C. George, L. M. Philo and C. W. Clark. 

1991. Assessment of bowhead whales: A progress report, albstract 

only, p. 590. Report of the International Whaling Commission 41. 

Page 1100 
XI. P~~blications~ 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Carlson, C.AL., C.A. Mayo. 1990. Changes in the ventral fluke pattern of 

the humpback whale (Megaptra novaeangliae) and its effect on 

matching; evaluation of its significance to photo-ideritificati(:)n 

research. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. Special Issue 12: 105- 1 1 1. 

Clapham, P.J., C.A.. Mayo. 1990. lieproduction of humpback whales 

(Megaptera ncsvaeangliae) observed in the Gulf of Maine. Rep. Int. 

Whal. Commli. Special Issue: 12: 17 1 - 175. 

Clapham, P. J., I.E. Seipt. 199 1. Resightings of independent fin whales 

(Balaenopterc:~ physalus), on maternal summer ranges. J.. Miamm. 

72:788-790. 

Ha.milton, P..K., C.ft Mayo. 1990. Population characteristics of rigpt 

whales (Euba.laena glacialis) observed in Cape Cod and 

Massa~chusetts Bays, 1978-11986. Rep. Int. Wahl. Commn Special 

Issue :12:203.-298. 

Ha.mmond, 1P.S. 1990. Heterogeneity in the Gulf of Maine? Estimating 

humpback whale population sue when capture probabilities are 

not equal. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. Special Issue 12: 135- 139. 

Katona, S.K., J.A. :Beard. 1990. Population size, migrations and fteding 

aggregations of the humpback whale (Megaptera n0vaeangli.w) in 

the Western North Atlantic Ocean. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. Special 

Issue 12:295-304. 

Kraus, S.D. 1990. Rates and potential causes of mortality in north 

Atlantic righl whales Eubcrlclena glacialis). Marine Mammal Science. 

6:278-29 1. 

Mayo, C.A., M.K. Narx. 1990. Surface and foraging behavior of the North 

Atlantic right. whale (Eubalaena glacialis) and associated 

zooplankton characteristics. Can. J. 2001. 68:2214-22201. 

Ne:lson, G, PI4.R. Ross. 1991. Biology and population changes of northern. 

sand lance (I'\mmodytes dublius) from the Gulf of Maine to tlie 

Midd1.e Atlantic Bight. J. Noirthw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 11: 11-27. 

Page 10'1 
Overholtz, W.S., G.T. Waring. 199 1. Diet and compositiori of pilot whales 

(Globicephala ssp.) and common dolphin (Delphinus: delphis) in the 

mid-Atlantic Bight dluring Spring 1989. Fish. Bull. 1J.S. 89:'723- 

~ 728. 

I Overholtz, W.J., S.A. Murawski, K.L. Foster. 199 1. Impact of preciatroy 

~ fish, marine mammals, and seabirds on the pelagic ecosystem of 

the Northeastern USA. In: Daan, N., and M. Sissenvvine (eds.), 

Symposium on multispecies modals relevant to management of 

living resources, The Hague, Netherlands, October 11989. ICES Mar. 

Sci. Symp., 193: 198-208. 

Payne, P.M., D.W. Heinemann, T.D. Smith. 1990. Seasonal distribution 

of minke whales in the shelf and shelf-edge waters of the 

northeastern U.S. Rlep. Int. Whal. Commn. SC/4.2/NHMi32 (2). 

Smi.th, T.Dl., P.M. Payne, 13. Heinemann, G.T. Waring, A. :Lange. l990. 

Simultaneous fishery resource and seabird and cetacean sipgting 

surve:ys: advantages and disadvantages. ICES N. Atl. Studits 2 ( 1 - 

2):90- 10 1. 

Waring, G.T., P. Gerrior, P.M. Payne, B.L. Parry, J.R. Nicolas. 19!t30. 

Incidlental take of marine mammals in foreign fishery activities off 

the northeast United States, 1977-1988. Fish. Bull. 88(2): 347-360. 

Page '1 02 
Appendix A 
Appendix A 

Exhibit A-1 

1991 List of Category I and Category I1 Fisheries 

Page A-1 

P. - 

-, 

FISHERY 

AK Prince William Sound - drift gillnet -, 

WA marine set gillnet in Areas 4, 4A, and 48 -, 

WA, OR Lowel: Columbia River Region, Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor (includes 

rivers, estuaries, etc.) drift gillnet 

WfA, OR, CA thresher shark and swordfish drift gillnet -, 

CA California halibut - set gillnet -, 

CA angel shark - set gillnet - 

SNE, MDA Foreign mackerel -. - 

Atlantic Ocearr, CB, GhAX swordfish, tuna, !;hark -. 

GME groundfish/mackerel -. - 

A,K Prince William Sound - set gillnet -. - 

P,K South Unimak (False Pass and Unimak Pass) drift gillnet -. - 

PIK Peninsula -, (other than South Unimak) drift - gillnet - 

f\K Southeast -. Alaska ., drift gillnet - 

-. 

CATEGORY 

-. 

I 

- 

I 

- 

I 

-. 

I ~--. 

I --. 

I 

I .- 

I 

I .- 

I I ,- 

I I .- 

I I 

- 

I I 

AK Yakutat - set gillnet -, - 

AK Cook Inlet - drii gillnet - -, 

AK Cook Inlet - set gillnet -. - -. 

19K Kodiak - !;et gillnel -. -. 

14K Peninsula - set gillnet -, -.. 

,AK Bristol Bi~y - drift (;]illnet - 

,AK Bristol Bay - set gillnet -. - 

'WA Puget Sound Region, including Hood Canal, Strait of Juan de Fuca 

(estuaries and lower river areas subject to tidal action) set and drift gillnet - 

WA coastal river 

P. 

- gillnet 

CA Klamath River - gillnet -. - 

I I 

. I I 

I I 

1 I 

. I I 

II 

I I 

I I 

I I 

II 
Appendix A 

Exhibit A-1 (cont'd) 

1991 List of Category I and Category II Fisheries 

FISHERY I CA'I'EGORY 

-- 

AK - gillnets (except salmon and herring) - 

--, 

I I 

CA - gillnets flor white sea bass, yellow tail, soupfin shark, white croaker, I I 

bonitofflying fish - 

AK South Unirnak (False Pass anld Unimak Pass) I I 

WA, OR, CA salmon I 11 

CA herring - purse seine 

-- 

CA anchovy, mackerel, tuna - purse seine 

-- 

CA sardine - purse seine A 

-- 

CA squid - purse seine -- -- 

AK Prince William Sound I I 

AK Southern Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska (Unimak Pass 

and westward) 

AK Nletlakatla fish trap 

-- 

CA slquid - 

WA, OR salmon - net pens 

-- 

OR salmon - ranch - 

FL east coast shark 

SNE, MDA squid 

SNE, MDA Atlantic mackerel - 

Atlantic Ocean, CB, GMX, tuna, shark, swordfish 

Page A-2 
li Appendix B == 1 
Exhibit B-1 

National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Mammal Exemption Program 

Archive Year 1990 Fishery Registration and Logbook Interaction Information 

Data cu::ex! as ef January 225, I993 

Table I Atlantic Ocean Fisheries: 

! Category i I 

1: Gaily lake i~te is calculated acsrding !o the !n!!o~ing equa!ion: N(Gear Interaction Kills) t N(De1errence Action Kills) X Mean EIlorl (Iday) 

Total Hours Fished 

Category II 

r 7 

Take 

Fiaie' 

(/day) 

iake Rate 

(I20 days) 

Total 

Hours 

Fished 

I E.nfianrlli ,,,,,~,,,shl Mackerel i I I I I 

Sink Giiinei Fishery (02) 1 I 

1,282 

363.953 

Mean Wori 

(/day) 

Deterrence Actions 

0 

0 

0 

1 

N.A. 

.00091 

,0035 

11.8 

8.0 

15.2 

Fishery (Number) Harassed 

Gear Interactions 

6.0 

23.4 

0 

7 

N.A. 

0.018 

0.070 

Vessels 

Registered 

Estimated 

Number of 

Vessels 

0 

4 

41 

280 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

28 

Vessels 

Reporting Involved Killed Injured 

0.187 

0.016 

40 

247 

12 

24 1 

0 

2 

50 

Injured Killed 

3.74 

0.33 

19 

314 

Mid-Atlantic Foreign 

Mackerel Trawl Fishery 

(01) 

Gulf of Maine 

0 

0 

0 

15 

140 

67,404 

17,613 

218,430 

1 

2 

305 

161 

124 

335 

Mid-Atlantic Squid Trawl 

Fishery (03) 

Mid-Atlantic Mackerel 

Trawl Fishery (04) 

Atlantic, Caribbean, and 

Gull of Mexico Tuna, 

Shark, and Swordfish 

Longiine Fishery (05j 

0 

0 

26 

20 

200 

820 

300 

317 

595 
Exhibit B-1 (cont'd) 

National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Mammal Exemption Program 

Archive Year 1990 Fishery Registration and Logbook Interaction Information 

Data current as of January 25,1993 

Table II - Pacific Ocean Fisheries: 

Flshery (Number) 

. E&!-ated 

Number of 

Vessels 

vessels 

Registered 

Category I 

Alaska Prince William 

Sound Drifl Gillnet 

Fishery (06) 

Alaska Prince William 

Sound Set Gillnet Fishery 

(07) 

Alaska Peninsula Drifl 

Gillnet Fishery (08) 

Washington Marine 

(Areas 4, 4A, and 48) 

Se! Gil!net Fishery (09) 

WA, OR Lower Columbia 

River Salmon Drift Gillnet 

Fishery (10) 

WA, OR, CA Thresher 

Shark and Swordlish Drill 

Gillnet Fishery (1 1) 

Calilornia Halibut Set 

Gillnet Fishery ji2j 

Calilornia Angel Shark 

Sel Gillnet Fishery (13) 

Vessels 

Reporting 

525 

I 

17 

164 

66 

I 9141 

309 

788 ' 

788 

Gear lnieraciions 

618 

Involved 

550 

fake 

 ate' 

(Iday) Injured 

Deterrence Actions Tame 

Rate 

(120 days: 

ioiai 

Hours 

Killed Fished 

19,869 

I 

I I 

Mean Effort 

Harassed Killed (Iday) 

36 

150 

16 

Injured 

26 

I I I 

1 I I 

29 

134 

6 

838 6531 53,990 751 70 15,473 24 21 1 8.4 00069 0 3€ 

19 

I 1 

180 

1,458 

0 

0.36r 

3.8t 

3.7t 

0 

6 

0 

0 

11 

4 

857 

3,849 

9 

0.018 

0.193 

0.189 

7,512 

N.A 

0.07f 

0.77C 

I 

0 

5 

0 

12.7 

26.6 

17.8 

20.2 

18.1 

21.5 

0 

7 

0 

9 

N.A. 

,0039 

0.038 

22,605 

83,865 

2,234 

12. 

78 

12 

7. 

24 

0 

48,850 

138,592 

7.439 

224 

274 

179 

11 

58 

925 

67 

134 

131 

25 

100 

829 

90 

317,881 

342 

2,700 

83 

18.6 

11 

45 

5 

,0018 0.035 
Exhibit B-1 (cont'd) 

National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Mammal Exemption Program 

Archive Year 1990 Fishery Registration and Logbook Interaction Information 

Data current as oi January 25, i993 

Take 

~aie' 

(Iday) 

0.001 1. 

Mean Effort 

(Iday) 

10.9. 

Take 

Raie 

(I20 days) 

0.022. 

Total 

Hours 

Fished 

276.611 

'0 

rn 

(P 

(D 

m 

Fishery (Number) 

Deterrence Actlons 

Category II 

~essels 

Registered 

Ee!!mtad 

Number of 

Vessels Harassed 

Alaska Bering Sea/ Gull 

of Alaska Groundfish 

Trawl Fishery (14) 

18.0 0.0014 0.028 

255 

Vessels 

Reporting Injured 

4 3 215,561 

Kllled 

IU 

14 1,589 

Gear lnteractlons 

483 

Southeas! Alaska I 460 496 I I 1 I I i 

0. 

Involved Killed 

L,Y,Y Q "71. 

402 3 

Salmon Drill Gillnel 1 I 1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

28 

1 

Injured 

". 1 -, 

37. 

10,789 

Fishery (1 5) 

Alaska Yakutal Salmon 

Set Gillne! Fishery (16) 

Alaska Cook Inlet 

Salmon Set and Drifl 

Gillnet Fishery (17) 

Alaska Kodiak Salmon 

Set Gillnet Fishery (18) 

Alaska Peninsula Set 

Giiinei Fishery (19) 

Alaska Bristol Bay 

Salmon Set and Drifl 

Gillnel Fisheiy ((20) 

Washington Puget Sound 

Region and Inland 

9 'hla!ers S, o! the 

Canadian Border Salmon 

Sel and Drift Gilinel 

Fisheiy (21) 

0 

3 

10 

0 

25 

2.5 

i 

0 

4 

0 

0 

30 

28 

692 

103 

75 

1,936 

20 

30 1 

374 

884 

9,139 

0 

0 

0 

0 

28 

i 

354 

924 

1,029 

1,773 

35.085 

1 

154 

1,213 

174 

100 

2,692 

3.900 

! 

0.130 

I 

! 3 i 3 

-. a 

X 

m 

I 111 ! !( /I 

i 

38 

790 

115 

99 

2,349 

---- 

2,536 

! 

14,139 

136,582 

86,100 

33,801 

493,820 

1.128 

! 

17.2 

12.7 

23.6 

19.7 

16.0 

17,296 

! 

N.A. 

0.0003 

0.0027 

N.A. 

0.0017 

66 

! 

N.A. 

,0056 

0.055 

N.A. 

0.034 

26 

! 

7.627 

! 

43 

! 

12.7 0.0065 

! 

66 

! 

179.950 

! ! 
Exhibit 8-1 (cont'd) 

National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Mammal Exemption Program 

Archive Year 1990 Fishery Registration and Logbook Interaction Information 

Data current as Q! Januav 25, 1993 

- 

Flshery (Number) 

Washinglon Coastal 

River Salmon Set Gillnet 

Fishery r22) 

Callkmia Klamah River 

Salmon Gillnel Fishery 

(23) 

Alaska Gillnet Fishery 

(except salmon and 

herring) (24) 

California White Sea 

Bass, Yellow Tail, 

Estimated 

Number of 

Vessels 

255 

--- 

600 

6 

144 

Vessels 

Reglrtered 

322 

7 

234 

276 

Vessels 

Reporting 

13 

Souplin Shark, White 

Croaks;, BonitdFlying 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 

Fish Gillnel Fishery (25) 

Alaska South Unimak 102 0 14,3i 14,169 

11 11 

(False Pass ax! Unimak 

I I I 1 I I 

Take 

 ate' 

(Iday) 

0.0048 

115 N.A.~ N.A. 

Take 

Rate 

(120 days) 

0.098 

N.A. 

N.A. 

0.023 

8.3 

14.9 

15.2 

- -~ 

Total 

Hours 

Fished 

2,091 

Gear lnteractlons 

N.A. 

I 

N.A. 

0.469 

- - 

Mean Effort 

(/day) 

10.2 

- 

Involved 

504 

Deterrence Actions 

8 1 

0 

0 

33 

Harassed 

73 

0 

39 

823 

I I ! 

pass salmon purr 1 

Injured 

0 

8 

73 

83 

36 1 

I I I I! I I! I I! 

Seine fishery (26) 

Alaska Salmon Troll 

Fishery (27) 

WA, OR, CA Salmon 

Troll Fishery (28) 

Calilornia Herring Purse 

Seine Fishery (29) 

Killed 

1 

Injured 

0 

0 

0 

8 

1,607 

I 11, 

4,727 

43 

Killed 

0 

33 

939 

1,813 

0 

,0036 

0.10 

N.A. 

I 

0 

5 

6 

0.0002 

0.0050 

N.A. 

0 

0 

8 

0 

12.9 

9.9 

7.0 

764 

8.203 

26,585 

431,425 

647,843 

3.806 

15 

5 

! 

182 

0 

0 

9 

! 

275 

0 

449 

! 

14,894 

9.978 

1 

! 

146 

0 

102 

I 

502 

5 

10,004 

! 

77.796 

10,884 

1,410 

I_ 

4,526 

97 

962 

! 

3,354 

30 
Exhibit B-1 (cont'd) 

National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Mammal Exemption Program 

Archive Year 1990 Fishery Registration and Logbook Interaction Information 

Data current as of January 25,1993 

3 

N(Gear lnleraction Kills) t N(Deterrence Aclion Kills1 X Mean Effort (Iday) n 

Tolal Hours Fished w 

w nl 

(P 

m 1: Daily take rate is calculated according lo the following equation: 

K 

T-1-1 I "La, 

Hours 

Fished 

12,943. 

282 

4,835 

6,435 

36,852 

i.3i3 

California Squid Dip Net 

Fisiieii (36) 

WA and OR Salmon Net 

Pen Fishery (37) 

OR Salmon Ranch 

Fishery (38) 

Flshery (Number) 

California Anchovy, 

Mackerel, and Tuna 

Purse Seine Fishery (30) 

California Sardine Purse 

Seine Fishery (31) 

Ca!i!orcia Squid Purse 

Seine Fishery (32) 

Alaska Prince William 

Sound (Area 649) 

Sablefish Longline/ 

Setline Fishery (33) 

Alaska Soulhern Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands 

(Areas 610 W of 165 W) 

Sablelish Longlind 

Setline Fishery (34) 

Alaska Metlaitatla Fish 

P 

Trap Fishery (35) 

TaL- 

,anv 

 ate' 

(Iday) 

0,0035- 

N.A. 

0.0033 

N.A. 

0.0005 

N.A. 

Mean Effort 

(Iday) 

5.7. 

4.0 

8.0 

13.4 

19.1 

19.i 

Vessels 

Registered 

160- 

113 

! 45 

27 1 

226 

54 

c-*l.....4-.4 LaLIIII(IIvU 

Number of 

Vessels 

330- 

345 

40 

25 

66 

4 

T8 ks 

Rate 

(120 days) 

0.070. 

N.A. 

0.066 

N.A. 

0.010 

N.A. 

Vessels 

Reporting 

59 - 

15 

-------- 36 

76 

76 

7 

- 

Killed 

3- 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

A... , -...- ~.,.- 

lo/ I 1~1 1~1 01 O/ 01 01 01 ill 23.71 NA.~ N.A,~ 

Killed 

5. 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

,.,...-----. . .*,--. war 

Involved 

2,546- 

17 

6,077 I 

120 

3,012 

0 

Harassed 

543. 

6 

3,577 

30 

80 

0 

~n~wrac~~ons 

Injured 

4 - 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 1 

5' 

vuterrenvw RC~IU~S 

Injured 

10. 

0 

1 7 

0 

0 

0 

14 

8' 

97 

35' 

19,512 

788' 

9 

7' 

0 

0' 

4 

0' 

15.6 

13.3' 

120 

48' 

0.0080 

N.A.' 

1 

0' 

0.160 

N.A.1 

I 

6 

0' 
Exhibit E-2 

National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Mammal Exemption Program 

Archive Year 1991 Fishery Registration and Logbook lnteraction Information 

Data current as of January 25, 1993 

iabie i - Aiianiic Ocean Fisheries: 

Estlrnated 

Number of 

Mid-Atlantic Foreign 

Mackerel Trawl Fishery 

(01) 

Gull of Maine Groundlishl 

Ma-k-.-l wul Sink Giliiiet 

Fishery (02) 

Atlantic, Caribbean. Gulf 

of Mexico Swordfish, 

Tuna, and Shark Gillnet 

Fishery (39) - 

Mid-Atlantic Squid Trawl 

Fishery (03) 

Mid-Atlantic Mackerel 

Trawl Fishery (04) 

Atlantic, Caribbean, and 

Vessels 

Category II 

19 

347 

75 

I 820~ 358 I I 1591 0,00011 

23s1 316 

; 

51 209 oi 01 155,763i 

Gul! o! Mexico Tuca, 

Shark, and Swordfish 1 

Longllne Fishery (05) 

I I I I 

Florida East Coast Shark 40 1 0 

Gillnet Fishery (40) 

1: Daily take rate is calculated according to the following equation: N(Gear Interaction Kills) + N(Deterrence Action Kills1 X Mean Effort (Iday) 

Total Hours Fished 

370 

340 

Flshery (Number) 

Vessais 

20 

35 

Category I 

Reporting 

23 1 

226 

Vessels 

Gear Interactions - 

3 

Registered 

122 

113 

- 

Deterrence Actlons 

0 

Involved Killed 

39 

15 

Total 

Hours 

Injured Harassed 

0 

2031 1951 

Injured Killed Flshed 

1 

30 0 

0 

0 

Mean ~ff~i 

0 

80 

(/day) 

191 

77 

1 

11 

(/day) 

~~k~ 

flate' 

0 

Take Rate 

(a8 days) 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

13 

0 

0 

0 

181 

353,435 

1,879 

55,910 

7,788 

6.7 

27.4 

10.7 

13.2 

9.6 

N.A. N A. 

0.016 

0.438 

0.0002 

0.014 

0.316 

8.76 

0.005 

0.27 
Exhibit B-2 (cont'd) 

National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Mammal Exemption Program 

Archive Year 1991 Fishery Registration and Logbook Interaction Information 

Data current as of January 25, 1993 

Table II - Pacific Ocean Fisheries: 

Fishery (Number) 

Vessels 

Reporting 

Mean Effort 

(Iday) 

Total 

Hours 

Flshed 

Estimated 

Number of 

Vessels 

Deterrence Actions 

Vessels 

Registered 

Gear Interactions Take 

 ate' 

Harassed Kllled (/day) 

Take Rate 

Involved Injured Killed Injured (120day) 
Exhibit 8-2 (cont'd) 

National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Mammal Exemption Program 

Archive Year 1992 Fishery Registration and Logbook Interaction Information 

Data current as of January 25, 1993 

Flshery (Number) 

Estimated 

Number of 

Vessels 

I 

Category II 

i 

,Alaska Peninsula DriH 

('1 1431 3.4681 21 I 1,5591 01 21 73,1131 17.61 0.~07l 8.0141 

Vessels 

Registered 

0.014 

0.016 

,0032 

O,mSi 

0.01 1 

0,047. 

Vessels 

Reporting 

Salmon Set and Drlfl 

Gillnet Fishery (1990:20 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I / I 1 1 

199 1 :47/48) 

0.0007 

0.0008 

0.0002 

14.5 

15.0 

12.9 

224,608 

56,578 

81,432 

Gear lnleractlons 

3 

0 

1 

Involved 

1 01 

0 

35, 

9 

6 

0 

!Q~RA~I ....,21.01 0.1121 

Deterrence Actlons 

1,450 

1,048 

349 

31,497 

396.101. 

Total 

Hours 

Injured Harassed Fished 

1 61 

1 

25 

8 

3 

0 

0 256i 

Killed 

3 

0 

59 

7 

12 

1 

973 

5,983. 

17.0 

15.6, 

Mean Effort 

(Iday) Injured 

1 1,1151 

1,504 

26,633 

5.503 

3,270 

1,308 

Alaska Kodiak Salmon ( 1871 1171 96 

0 

58. 

0.0005 

0.0024, 

Killed 

362 

115 

639 

Take 

Rate' 

(/day) 

43 1 

158 

768 

Gillnet Fishery ji990:OQ 

1991 :41/42) 

Southeast Alaska 

Salmon Drift Gillnet 

Fishery (1 5) 

Alaska Yakutat Salmon 

Set Gillnet Fishery (16) 

Alaska Cook Inlet 

Salmon Set and Drift 

Gillnet Fishery (1990:17, 

199 1 :45/46) 

---- 

66 

1,645 

Take Rate 

(120day) 

468 

164 

1,303 

90 

2,051 

Set Giiinet Fishery (18) 

Alaska Peninsula Set 

Gillnet Fishery (19) 

Alaska Bristol Bay 

113 

2,689 
Exhibit 8-2 (cont'd) 

National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Mammal Exemption Program 

Archive Year 1991 Fishery Registration and Logbook Interaction Information 

Data current as of January 25, 1993 

Total 

Hours 

Fished 

110,365 

82 

I I 

12 

3,596 

36,124 

Alaska south Unimak 

(Fake Pass and Unimak 

Pass) Salmon Purse 

Seine Fishery (26) 

I !!asks Sa!mor! Tro!! 

Rshery (27) 

Fishery (Number) 

Washington Pugel Sound 

Degicn an< !?lend 

Waters S. of the 

Canadian Border Salmon 

Set and Drift Gillnet 

Fishery (21) 

Washington Coastal 

Vessels 

Registered 

1,690 

12 

Estlrnated 

Number of 

Vessels 

3.900 

325 

- 

Killed 

43 

0 

0 

0 

9 

Deterrence Actions 

Take Rate 

(120-day) 

0.167 

N.A. 

I I 

N.A. 

0.082 

0.453 

Mean Effort 

(/day) 

11.4 

9.1 

I 

Harassed 

6,554 

0 

I 

0 

23 

272 

Take 

~ate' 

(Iday) 

0.0084 

N.A. 

Vessels 

Reporting 

957 

4 

River Salmon Set Gillnet 

Fishery (223 I 

California Klamath River 

Salmon Gillnet Fishery 

(23) 

Alaska Gillnet Fishery 

(except salmon and 

herring) (24) 

California While Sea 

Bass, Yellow Tail, 

Soupfin Shark, White 

Ctoaker, BonitdFtying 

Fish Gillnel Fishery (25) 

Injured 

103 

0 

I I 

0 

0 

2 

1151 1021 85i 201 1 01 01 201 o 

I 

2 

40 

134 

Gear lnteracllons 

I 

I I 

01 8,4291 12.0 

! ! .60?! 

(Ca1,ln) 

I 

0 

46 

1,612 

504 

235 

275 

12.0 

14.7 

16.7 

O! 0! 

N.A.~ N,A / 

Killed 

38 

0 

Involved 

14,775 

0 

2 

9 1 

149 

N.A. 

0.0041 

0.023 

95 0! NA! 

Injured 

59 

0 

I I 

181 

NA/ 

0 

0 

6 

I 21 180! 

0 

1 

40 

?! 0! 01 
Exhibit 8-2 (cont'd) 

National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Mammal Exemption Program 

Archive Year 1992 Fishery Registration and Logbook Interaction Information 

Data eiiiiefit as of J~iiti~iy 25,1993 

Fishery (Number) 

VA, OR, CA Salmon 

'roll Fishery (28) 

Estimated 

Number of 

Vessels 

4,727 

Vessels 

Registered 

3.829 

>aiiiornia iierring Purse I 1001 44 

NA and OR Salmon Net 1 21 101 10 1,918/ 01 6 1898 0 0 60,544 24.01 0.00241 0,04l 

Pen Fishery (37) 

37 1 

83 

58 

65 

106 

131 

3 

39 

Vessels 

Reporting 

2,911 

101 

72 

82 

220 

!94 

9 

53 

kine Fishery (29) 

:alilornia Anchovy, 

Aackerei, and Tuna 

'urse Seine Fishery (30) 

:alilornia Sardine Purse 

jeine Fishery (31) 

>alifornia Squid Purse 

Seine Fishery (32) 

ilaska Prince William 

Sound (Area 649) 

Sablefish Longiinef 

3elline Fishery (33) 

!Iaska Sou!hern Bering 

;ea and Aleutian Islands 

Areas 610 W ol 165 W) 

Sablefish Longlinef 

Mine Fishery. (34) 

4laska Mellakatla Fish 

rrap Fishery (35) 

2alifornia Squid Dip Net 

Fishery (36) 

160 

120 

145 

270 

226 

. 

4 

115 

N.A 

0.0081 

N.A 

N. A 

N. A 

Take Rate 

(120day) 

0.04F 

6.6 

4.8 

5.9 

6.1 

15.7 

1,830 

1 1,398 

1,440 

6,769 

6,345 

N.A. 

0.0004 

N.A. 

N.A. 

N.A. 

Mean Effort 

(/day) 

9.1 

Total 

Hours 

Fished 

456,991 

2,245 

33,025 

577 

4,851 

154 

I 111 11 

Take 

Rate' 

(/day) 

0.0024 

Gear interactions 

842 

62 1 

312 

3,922 

2 

Involved 

35.576 

Deterrence Actions 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 N.A 

0 

0 

Harassed 

9.034 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 0 

0 

51 

4,680 

0 

5 1 

injured 

45 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

I Ill 

36,598 18.3 

Killed 

39 

Injured 

73 

0 N.A. 

0 

0 

Killed 

83 

N.A 

N.A 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

24.0 

11.1 

720 

177 

N.A. 

N.A. 
Exhibit 8-2 (esnt'd) 

National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Mammal Exemption Program 

Archive Year 1991 Fishery Registration and Logbook Interaction Information 

Data current as of January 25, 1993 

I I 

! I Es!!nu!ed / ! ! Gear lnteractlons ! Deterrence Actions 1 Total I Take I I 

Fishery (Number) 

1: Daily take rate is calculated according lo the following equation: 

OR Salmon Ranch 

Fishery (38) 

N(Gear lnteraction Kills) + N(Deterrence Action Kills) X Mean Effort (Iday) 

Total Hours Fished 

Number of 

Vessels 

8 4' 1 

Vessels 

Registered 

0 ' 0 ' 0! 0! _I 

u- I 3- L!1l .!I! 

Vessels 

Reporting 

1Y.M. 1Y.M. ,v.fl, .! . I 

Involved 

Hours 

Injured 

Mean Effott 

Killed Harassed Kllled Fished (Iday) (Iday) Injured 

Take Rate 

(120day) 
L -, 

Appendix C 1 
Appendix C 

Exhibit C.1 

Summary oil Permit Applications 

January 1,1990 to December 31,1991 

-, 

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS 

SUBMITTIED -. -- 

No. of Ani~nals Requested (Total) 952,041 121 50 952,212 

I OF THESE: I 

Page C-1 

-, 

Taken by Killing -, 

Taken and Kept Alive P, 

Killed in Captivity -, 

Taken and Released 

Found Dead -, 

Strancled/Exchanged -, 

l mporls -, 

-, 

ACTION TAKEN ON APPLICATIONS: 

0 

9 

0 

0 

0 

101 

11 

0 

- 

241 

2 

- 0 

13,665 

- 

- 13 

- 

25 

- 0 

938,095 

-, 

No. Forwarded to Marine Ma~rnmal 

Comrrtission -. 

No. Reviewed by Marine Marnmal 

Commission -. 

No. Wthdrawn -. 

No. Rleferred to Fish and Wildlife 

Service - -, 

No. Referred to States -. 

No. Referred to Reclions -. 

No. Resolved through Agreement -, 

No. Retumed Due to Insufficirimt or -. 

No. Denied 

No. Approved -, 

No. Pending 

-- 

0 

0 

0 

-- 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-- 

50 

-- 

5 1 

7 

47 

- 

-- 7 

0 

-- 

-- 

0 

-- 0 

0 -- 17 -- 1 -- 44 

-- 3 

17 

17 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

17 

2 

-- 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

-- 

0 

-- 0 

68 

64 

9 

0 

0 

0 

0 

19 

1 

61 

5 
Appendix C 

Exhibit C-1 (cont'd) 

Summary of Permit Applications 

January 1,1990 to December 31,1991 

-. 

Taken by Killing T 21 1 q--. 0 

t Taken and Kept Alive -. 

Killed in Captivity 

t Taken and Released 23 1.1 12,37:1 

Found Dead 

l mports 

Harass 1,168,740 1,168,740 

Page C-2 
Appendix C 

Exhibit C-2 

Numter of Cetaceans in Scientific ResearchPublic Display Permit Requ~ests 

January 1, 1990 to December 31,1991 

7- - 

Alive Released Stranded Requested 

Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin -- -, I 9 1,050 2 1 1.061 1 

Atlantic Hump-Backed IDolphin -- 0 

Atlantic $potted Dolphin -- 

Baird's Beaked Whale -- -. 

Black Riclht Whale, No~thern Right Whale -- 20 

Blue Whales -- 0 20 

Bofflenosie Dolphins -- -, 0 160 I -- 

Common Dolphin -- 

Dall's Potpoise -- -, -. 

Pacific Mhite-Sided Dophin - 0 1 80 1 -- 1/81

Dwarf S~en Whale -, 

Fin Whale, Finback - -. 

Gray Whale -, 

Harbor Porpoise - -, 

Humpback Whale -, 

Killer Wh,ale -, 

Melon-Headed Whale, Electra - -, - 

Minke Whale - P. 

Northern Right Whale Dolphin - - 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

0 

----- 0 

0 

Pygmy Sperm Whale - 

Risso's [hlphin, Grampus - 

Short-Finned Pilot Whale -- - 

Sperm Whale - 

250 

20 

20 

80 

20 

0 

250 

70 

80 

(re 

0 

0 

0 

250 250 

80 80 

20 --- 20 

-- 0 

0 

-- 0 

1 -. 

-- 0 

-- 0 

-- 0 

-- 0 

-- 1 

10 10 

0 -- 4 

2,790 11 2,821 

Unspecified Cetaceans, -- 

White Whale, Beluga -- 

TOTAL 

250 

20 

20 

81 

20 

7 

250 

70 

81 

0 

4 

20 
Appendix C 

Exhibit C-3 

Number of Pinnipeds in Scientific ResearchIPublic Display Permiit Request!; 

January 1,1990 to December 31,1991 

- P. 

Released Stranded .- 

Bearded Seal 

California Sea Lion 

Crabeater Seal 

Total 

Requested 

200 

-. - 

0 0 200 10 210 

-. 1 2 776 0 779 

-, - 

0 0 4500 0 4500 

-. - 

0 0 100 0 100 

-. - 

0 0 1010 0 1010 

Lorthem Fur Seal 0 0 0 'I 1 

Page C4 
Appendix C 

Exhibit C-4 

Nlumbt!r of Cetaceans Authorized in Scientific ResearchPublic Display Permits 

January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1991 

Whisk, Beluga 0 ----, 4 

1,800 1,810 

Page C-5 
Appendix C 

Exhibit C-5 

Number of Pinnipeds Authorized in Scientific ResearchIPublic Display Permits 

January 1,1990 to December 31,1991 

Page C-6 

-. 

-, 

Bearded Seal -, 

California Sea Lion -, 

Crabeater Seal 

Harbor Seal -, 

Hawaiian Monk Seal -, 

Kelrguelen Fur Seal 

-, 

Largha Seal, Spotted Seal1 -. 

Leopard Seal -, 

Rolss Seal -, 

Southern Elephant Seal -, 

Weddell Seal -, 

TOlTAL -, 

- 

Taken By 

- 

Killing 

200 

0 

0 

- 

0 

- 

I 

0 

- 

0 

0 

- 

0 

0 

10 

- 

21 1 

Taken 1 

Imported 

and Kept 

Alive 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

Found Deatll 

Stranded 

I:) 

I:) 

C) 

4 

o 

0 

(1 

O 

0 

0 

0 

4 

Tagged or 

Taken and 

Released 

0 

2,676 

1,000 

200 

776 

4,500 

100 

1,010 

500 

1,000 

1,030 

12,792 

Total 

Requested 

200 

2,676 

1 ,OoO 

204 

ng 

4,500 

100 

1,010 

500 

1,000 

1,040 

13,009 
I===: Appendix D - =! 
Appendix D 

Exhibit D-1 

Marine Mammal Strandings in 1990 and 1991 

Page D-1 
Exhibit D-1 (cont'd) 

Marine Mammal Strandings in 1990 and 1991 

Page D-2